J-15 carrier fighter thread

[Air Force Brat]

Thank you..

rumored??.. Ok IMO that combat range is rumored. Is that combat range flying from the ski ramp or flying from ashore? If so that is amazing. That's more than 500km greater than the combat radius of a Super Hornet launching with the aid of a catapult. Amazing.

How do they do that? Must have some fairy dust.

All kidding aside. I just don't believe that launched from a ski-ramp that the J-15 has a combat radius as rumored.

Just my opinion.

You're right and you know you are, I would imagine the actual combat radius with an A2A load is about half that, possibly 800km, which is actually plenty if all your doing is flying top CAP on the CBG, since those J-15s are basically flying daytime VFR at present, that's not a problem, it is simply an operating limitation,,,,,,, lots of folks in the real world launch aircraft with a partial fuel load out. The Flanker holds a lot of fuel, if they depart a land-base to fly out to the carrier, its nice to have those long legs, but there is no point in flying around with twice the fuel you need to accomplish a particular mission, NONE! When you compromise performance or safety why would you, why do you think we see those F-86s blowing those drop tanks when they spot the migs or whatever, that extra gas can get you shot down, whether internal or external. When you jettison that fuel your thrust to weight ratio can go up 10%, and that is a kick in the pants, you can climb better and turn tighter because you have also decreased your wing loading. watch your six...... brat

 

[bd popeye]

You're right and you know you are, I would imagine the actual combat radius with an A2A load is about half that, possibly 800km, which is actually plenty if all your doing is flying top CAP on the CBG, since those J-15s are basically flying daytime VFR at present, that's not a problem, it is simply an operating limitation,,,,,,, lots of folks in the real world launch aircraft with a partial fuel load out. The Flanker holds a lot of fuel, if they depart a land-base to fly out to the carrier, its nice to have those long legs, but there is no point in flying around with twice the fuel you need to accomplish a particular mission, NONE! When you compromise performance or safety why would you, why do you think we see those F-86s blowing those drop tanks when they spot the migs or whatever, that extra gas can get you shot down, whether internal or external. When you jettison that fuel your thrust to weight ratio can go up 10%, and that is a kick in the pants, you can climb better and turn tighter because you have also decreased your wing loading. watch your six...... brat

Thanks AFB.. Your statement points to the need of tankers for certain missions. the question is will the PLAN actually have an J-15 Tanker? Or shall they build one from the deck up. Or like the USN does in the IO and Persian Gulf region at times use their Air Force.

This PLAN CV is like an long running Tv series that seems to have no end.

 

[perfume]

Thanks AFB.. Your statement points to the need of tankers for certain missions. the question is will the PLAN actually have an J-15 Tanker? Or shall they build one from the deck up. Or like the USN does in the IO and Persian Gulf region at times use their Air Force.

This PLAN CV is like an long running Tv series that seems to have no end.

Notice the multiple photos on the previous page showing J-15s with a buddy refueling pod, especially this one in Deino's post:

http://www.sinodefenceforum.com/navy/j-15-carrier-multirole-fighter-thread-14-6768.html#post271360

It shows their intention, and I think it is very likely that they will run air refueling dedicated J-15s off the Liaoning. But like AFB stated - even if there is a J15 tanker, in many cases if not most often, there will not be a need to fill them to the brim.

 

[Air Force Brat]

Thanks AFB.. Your statement points to the need of tankers for certain missions. the question is will the PLAN actually have an J-15 Tanker? Or shall they build one from the deck up. Or like the USN does in the IO and Persian Gulf region at times use their Air Force.

This PLAN CV is like an long running Tv series that seems to have no end.

I think it would definitely be wise to invest in some tankers, especially if they are going to be making some longer sea patrols, I think it depends on what the PLAN decides to do long term with their whole society. If they intend to assume a good neighbor approach like the USN, de-escalate some of the tensions in the real world, and become the team player I think we all hope they will, they have lots of options. Their circumstances are so much better than their previous good buddy to the North, if they follow their present path of free traders/helpful partners in peace they have so much potential to see their Nation become a world leader. I'm not certain how much tanking the PLAAF does, but its always helpful to have a buddy to "fill her up". It may well be that the J-15 tanker will be able to launch with enough fuel to make a big difference, depending on the threat at hand, a light A2A load will allow much more fuel!

 

[plawolf]

I don't think the PLAN will develop a dedicated tanker J15. It would be too much of a waste of both the fighter jet and hanger space, what more, there is simply no need for a dedicated tanker variant of the J15 when the baseline model already has such enormous internal fuel capacity. I'd say give the J15 2-4 wet pylons, if they don't have them already, and that's all the modification one needs to make.

Apply that across the fleet would mean any J15 can serve as a makeshift tanker while still being able to carry out the full range of its normal missions with no penalties.

In the medium to long run, I think the PLAN would develop a dedicated tanker for its carriers, possibly based on a common airframe as their carrier AWACS. But I would not expect to see those until the PLAN starts building super carriers with CATs.

 

[Jeff Head]

I don't think the PLAN will develop a dedicated tanker J15. It would be too much of a waste of both the fighter jet and hanger space, what more, there is simply no need for a dedicated tanker variant of the J15 when the baseline model already has such enormous internal fuel capacity. I'd say give the J15 2-4 wet pylons, if they don't have them already, and that's all the modification one needs to make.

Agreed 100%. They can use buddy stores as required to meet this need far more effectively that taking J-1 airframes that could otherwise serve the strike role and making them dedicated tankers.

In the medium to long run, I think the PLAN would develop a dedicated tanker for its carriers, possibly based on a common airframe as their carrier AWACS. But I would not expect to see those until the PLAN starts building super carriers with CATs.

This may well happen. Depending on the AWACS airframe. Such an airframe in US service has served for decades for both the AWACS (E-2 Hawkeye) role and the Carrier onboard Delivery COD role (C-2 Greyhound) which is a cargo plane in essence.

The US has used others, such as the A-6 intruder attack aircraft for refueling, S-3 Viking ASW aircraft for refueling, and now, of course, uses buddy stores as you described for the J-15 with F-18 aircraft.

So, whether the PLAN develops a dedicated tanker will yet to be seen...but if they could use a common airframe for AWACS, COD, and refueling, which would make a lot of sense...except of course those aircraft are generally fairly large and take up a lot of deck and hanger space.

As it is, you could expect having probably three AWACS aircraft in any case which would be dedicated. Usually a US carrier has two COD aircraft...but if you used three, and developed the COD to be multi-role in the tanker and the COD roles, you could probably optimize that solution with buddy stores and address all aerial refueling needs.

 

[asif iqbal]

It's my belief that US will and have developed fixed wing assets from thier carriers

And Europe will go down the rotary wing avenue since they have the absence of cats and taps

Down side of a ski jump is lack of UCAV capabilitys, so I guess Europe is going to develop rotary wing UCAV as is the case for AWACS and tanker based on V-22 Osprey

Question is which way is China going to go fixed wing or rotary wing for AWACS, tanker and UCAV

 

[plawolf]

The PLAN has hardly been coy about using the USN as a model and benchmark for the development of their carrier SOP, and I seriously doubt they would stop there, so I think there is no question that the PLAN will base their carrier SOP and future development and procurement goals closely on what the USN is currently doing and planned for the future.

I'm not quite sure I agree with you that Europe is going down the rotorywing route for carriers since both the British and French carriers will have fixed wing fastjet aviation as the primary reason for their existence.

Not going for CATs seems more like the typical short sighted and hopelessly clueless decisions British professional bean counters and their political masters seems apt at coming up with to maximise expenditure and waste while minimising results and benefits.

Someone setting out to deliberately hobble the British military would have been hard pressed to outdo the last couple of governments, so I seriously doubt anyone, least of all the Chinese, would emulate their spectacularly bad choices in terms of defense planning and expenditure.

 

[bd popeye]

Quote Originally Posted by plawolf View Post
In the medium to long run, I think the PLAN would develop a dedicated tanker for its carriers, possibly based on a common airframe as their carrier AWACS. But I would not expect to see those until the PLAN starts building super carriers with CATs.

Great post plawolf..

I really think that at this moment that the PLAN is conducting

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

with CV-16. As the PLAN has stated many times. And this is what we are seeing at this time.

So fellows just sit back relax and enjoy the ride.. someday it will all come into fruition.

 

[Air Force Brat]

The PLAN has hardly been coy about using the USN as a model and benchmark for the development of their carrier SOP, and I seriously doubt they would stop there, so I think there is no question that the PLAN will base their carrier SOP and future development and procurement goals closely on what the USN is currently doing and planned for the future.

I'm not quite sure I agree with you that Europe is going down the rotorywing route for carriers since both the British and French carriers will have fixed wing fastjet aviation as the primary reason for their existence.

Not going for CATs seems more like the typical short sighted and hopelessly clueless decisions British professional bean counters and their political masters seems apt at coming up with to maximise expenditure and waste while minimising results and benefits.

Someone setting out to deliberately hobble the British military would have been hard pressed to outdo the last couple of governments, so I seriously doubt anyone, least of all the Chinese, would emulate their spectacularly bad choices in terms of defense planning and expenditure.

When considering the Brits, its always helpful to remember how important "tradition", and doing things the "British" way are, the F-35B is a great follow-on to the Harrier, the USMC agrees as well, while you could say its a fashion statement, it goes much deeper than that.....