J-15 carrier fighter thread

delft

Brigadier
Yes, but still, it's dumb to have aircraft carrier full of aircrafts that can't attack land targets with precision-guided weapons...
Attacking land targets will be the task of destroyers using cruise missiles and of UCAV's launched perhaps from fleet aircraft carriers or smaller aircraft carriers. Or from land bases with manned or unmanned bombers or missiles.
Chinese aircraft carriers will be fully employed without also having to be concerned with attacking land targets. This will also influence the size of the carriers. Will there be only fleet carriers or also escort/anti submarine/amphibious/whatever carriers?
 
Last edited:

AndrewS

Brigadier
Registered Member
Yes, but still, it's dumb to have aircraft carrier full of aircrafts that can't attack land targets with precision-guided weapons...

No

China has a limited number of fighter jets carried on aircraft carriers.

In a high-intensity conflict, there will be too busy to undertake air to ground operations.
In a low-intensity conflict, China now has long-range UAVs which can be launched from numerous land bases. UAVs are better as they have more persistence and are cheaper.

Then there are also land attack cruise missiles and also land-based bombers, for both scenarios.

So there's no point in using J-15s in air-to-ground operations.
 

Jeff Head

General
Registered Member
I found, a bit late, this article from February this year:
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

It says that using carriers for strikes against ground targets only happened during WWII on any scale during the last months - after the Japanese air force and navy air force were defeated. Otherwise the main purposes of carriers are fleet air defence, defence against submarines and attacks on an enemy fleet. Because USN has mostly been acting against countries with limited air defence strikes against ground targets has become a major occupation and during the last quarter of a century the original purposes have nearly been forgotten. USN will need to relearn these old purposes.

Clearly these old purposes will be the main, perhaps the only, ones to be trained for by the PLAN carriers and J-15 will need to be able to carry the relevant weapons.
Not true at all.

From the very first days of the war, the US Navy conducted strikes against ground targets...even when they only had two carriers to cover the Pacific, and even for a short time when they were down to one.

The USS Enterprise, within weeks of Pearl Harbor took strike campaigns against Japanese held Islands, trying to avoid the Imperial Fleet, and yet inflict damage on Japanese held islands.

I would suggest getting and reading the book, "The Bog E," which documents the entire war effort bu the USS Enterprise, from the days before the war, to Pearl Harbor when she was one her way to port the morning the Japanese attacked...and some of her aircraft were flying into Pearl to take up what was going to be training and relaxation time at shore bases, only to have those same bases shoot down some of our own aircraft as they came in right during and between the Japanese waves.

It then tracks every single action the Enterprise took.

Of course they were used for strikes at sea...but they conducted as many missions, throughout the war, and as I say from the first weeks after Pearl Harbor, attacking Japanese islands and ground installations.

Of course one of the best known was the launch of the B-25s by the USS Hornet against Tokyo...but that was largely symbolic, letting the Japanese leadership know that the US could still reach their capitol.

The first major attacks against Japanese islands occurred well before that attack by Doolittle in April of 1942. The Enterprise and the Yorktown went into the Solomon and Gilbert Islands and attacked on February 1st, 1942, about seven weeks after Pearl Harbor, the Enterprise attacked Roi and Kwajalein islands that day.

They did this throughout the war in between sea actions. Sometimes to soften up targets before Marine landings, but most often to hit Japanese installations precisely where the Imperial fleet was not to inflict as much damage as possible.

Any idea that the US carrier aircraft did not attack ground targets until late in the war after the Japanese had suffered attrition is just plain wrong.

I can give you a dozen books about world war II that focus on the US Navy aircraft operations during the war and they tell a completely different story.

As I say, "The Big E," is probably one of the best books to make this point clear.
 
Last edited:

latenlazy

Brigadier
Not necessarily.

The wiring depends on what types of information, how much information, the power requirements, etc., etc....and the software and data requirements and speed.

Some weapons require completely different wiring harnesses and bundles depending on their needs.

I am sure the PLAN put as much into it as they thought they might need so that they could do what you propose.

But did they think at the time to wire it for all of the various possibilities? Who knows?

One thing is certain...if they do need to add more, they will find a way to do so by either adding more, or taking out what is there if they have to and making what they put their more robust if necessary,
This was more true when software was more integrated into hardware. I suspect these days that's no longer the case.
 

Air Force Brat

Brigadier
Super Moderator
This was more true when software was more integrated into hardware. I suspect these days that's no longer the case.

Actually with multi-role fighters with 30+ year life spans, SLEPs and Rewiring will be going on for a long time,,, the old B-52 has been dragged into the 21st century, and she's been made smarter and tougher along the way, even though she has her old turbo-jets,, she's still a real screamer!
 

Quickie

Colonel
This was more true when software was more integrated into hardware. I suspect these days that's no longer the case.

Actually with multi-role fighters with 30+ year life spans, SLEPs and Rewiring will be going on for a long time,,, the old B-52 has been dragged into the 21st century, and she's been made smarter and tougher along the way, even though she has her old turbo-jets,, she's still a real screamer!

I think what latenlazy meant is that, the wiring and cabling in modern electronic-related hardware are much more simpler than those of legacy systems.

Basically, from the old systems to the more modern ones, the wirings and cabling became a lot more simpler, which nowadays could just consist of one set of cables for power and another set for data communication (between the hardware devices and the software processing system).
 

antiterror13

Brigadier
Actually with multi-role fighters with 30+ year life spans, SLEPs and Rewiring will be going on for a long time,,, the old B-52 has been dragged into the 21st century, and she's been made smarter and tougher along the way, even though she has her old turbo-jets,, she's still a real screamer!

Imagine if somehow the US managed to fit modern turbofan engines on the good old B-52s .. that would be super awesome (I know it is a very tricky ... just saying :) )
 

latenlazy

Brigadier
I think what latenlazy meant is that, the wiring and cabling in modern electronic-related hardware are much more simpler than those of legacy systems.

Basically, from the old systems to the more modern ones, the wirings and cabling became a lot more simpler, which nowadays could just consist of one set of cables for power and another set for data communication (between the hardware devices and the software processing system).
That's part of what I meant, but also computer architecture invloved in these systems probably aren't as integrated through lower levels of code and are more open, flexible, and modular.
 
Top