J-15 carrier fighter thread

[Iron Man]

Why should you think anyone is obligated to explain everything to you especially with the manner of tone you've come across?

And I stand by my argument.

Why is it a problem designing a STOBAR aircraft in such a way as to it being easily up-gradable to a CATOBAR type?

As an example, they would share the same basic design of re enforcing structures and frames (other than the front landing gear and perhaps some structural re enforment specific to the type) with the flexibility of changing just the size of those re enforcing structures, but its overall shape and its position in the air frame would remain the same.

That's all I will add to this discussion

You keep saying that but clearly you don't really mean it.

In any case, obviously time, cost and weight are going to be the biggest reasons. The original T-10K and Su-33 were STOBAR designs. The PLAN had no experience designing STOBAR fighters, let alone CATOBAR fighters, so the cost and development time for the J-15 would have been stretched. And if you don't need the extra weight for front end reinforcement, you're not going to add the extra weight. The lifetime of all of those STOBAR J-15s is going to be less than the lifetime of either CV-16 or CV-17, so CATOBAR compatibility is unnecessary and irrelevant and really is only a discussion important to netizens with too much time on their hands.

 

[Deino]

Guys ... STOP this off-topic discussion which is now more a personnel issue than anything technically.

Deino

 

[jobjed]

Why is it a problem designing a STOBAR aircraft in such a way as to it being easily up-gradable to a CATOBAR type?

Nice edit. Unfortunately, you cannot edit a post past 20 minutes so your post back on page 218 remains unchanged. Here's what you said: "The design of the structural reenforcement caters to both STOBAR and CATOBAR from the very start. i.e. They're the same and one design."

And now you're trying to frame it as "being easily up-gradable to a CATOBAR type." Those two passages have different meanings and implications.

I also don't have a problem with the prospect of the PLAN's developing a J-15 variant capable of both STOBAR and CATOBAR. What I have a problem with is your proposition that the original J-15 is already built for both STOBAR and CATOBAR despite having no evidence for it besides conjecture on how similar you think the requirements are for CATOBAR and STOBAR. The last few pages of my posts have already outlined why those requirements are not similar so for the PLAN to risk designing an aircraft that would fit both requirements for their first ever attempt at carrier aircraft is implausible and completely unlike them.

As an example, they would share the same basic design of re enforcing structures and frames (other than the front landing gear and perhaps some structural re enforment specific to the type) with the flexibility of changing just the size of those re enforcing structures, but its overall shape and its position in the air frame would remain the same.

Orrrrrr they can do what they've always been doing, which is being methodical and deliberate. They refused to rush into production almost half a dozen classes of surface combatants including 052, 051B, 054, 052B, and 052C pre-2010, and refused to rush night-ops on the Liaoning even after five years. Their MO is caution. Why would you think they'd go against their own MO and gamble their luck on a CATOBAR/STOBAR fighter for their first attempt?

Sure, it's within the realms of possibility but outside the realms of probability. If you claim a divergence from the status quo, which is that the PLAN is cautious, the burden of proof is on you. So prove it.

 

[Jeff Head]

Jobjed and Quickie you are both being warned for your use of profanity.

Deino already warned you to cut the senseless arguing...I am not sure he saw the earlier posts with the profanity so I am warning you for that.

Profanity like this IS NOT ALLOWED on SD. Any more instances will lead to a suspension for either of you.

DO NOT RESPOND TO THIS MODERATION.

 

[abc123]

We have pictures of the plane armed with anti-ship missiles

I know that. But what about laser/EO/GPS guided bombs/missiles?

 

[Ali Qizilbash]

Guys ... STOP this off-topic discussion which is now more a personnel issue than anything technically.

Deino

waste of reading time and pages.

 

[Hyperwarp]

waste of reading time and pages.

sir, do not quote blue or red font moderator/administrator comments. They get pretty pissed when you do that.

 

[AndrewS]

No, it is fundamentally not applicable to the US and the EU. Russia is a declining has been, lacking capital and infrastructure to keep up with pace in development in virtually all technological field. All it has are a few narrow defense related expertise built up at exorbitant cost under the Soviet Union that it can sell for some cash to make the most of what it has before its static position is overtaken even by second tier technological powers like china and no longer has anything worthwhile to sell other than raw natural resources.

Both the US and the EU are still world leaders in cutting edge development. While china has advanced faster than the US and EU, that was largely because china was retreading steps already taken by the others. China has not demonstrated anything like the ability to,advance the state of the art as fast as the US and EU when the path has not been illuminated by others who had come before. So the US and EU are not just looking to maximize the value of what they already have. They have good reason to believe they can maintain some technological margin over china for a long time to come. If they freely give to,china, they will still be able to maintain a margin on a on going basis. But a razor thin one. If the embargo china, they will continue to main a margin, but a significantly thicker one. Obviously sustaining a thicker margin is better.

@Richard Santos

China at the technology cutting edge

China’s digital economy: A leading global force
McKinsey

China is already more digitized than many observers appreciate and has the potential to set the world’s digital frontier in coming decades.

China has one of the most active digital-investment and start-up ecosystems in the world, according to a new discussion paper from the McKinsey Global Institute (MGI), China’s digital economy: A leading global force. China is in the top three in the world for venture-capital investment in key types of digital technology, including virtual reality, autonomous vehicles, 3-D printing, robotics, drones, and artificial intelligence (AI).

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

, accounting for more than 40 percent of the value of worldwide e-commerce transactions, up from less than 1 percent about a decade ago. China has also become a major global force in mobile payments with 11 times the transaction value of the United States. One in three of the world’s 262 unicorns (

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

) is Chinese, commanding 43 percent of the global value of these companies (Exhibit).

Read more

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

How China is battling ever more intensely in world markets
Economist.com

...firms around the world face ever more intense competition from their Chinese rivals. China is not the first country to industrialise, but none has ever made the leap so rapidly and on such a monumental scale. Little more than a decade ago Chinese boom towns churned out zips, socks and cigarette lighters. Today the country is at the global frontier of new technology in everything from mobile payments to driverless cars.

Read more

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

 

[KIENCHIN]

A

@Richard Santos

China at the technology cutting edge

Are we in the wrong thread?

 

[jacksprat]

Silly question, but kind of curious ,is the current increase is digitlization of china's militarty revolution in equipment and tactics related to the amout of effort they spend in hacting US goverment and commercial systekms