J-15 carrier fighter thread

[Air Force Brat]

Why?
If hornet family managed to dominate carrier decks through (rather unlucky) sequence of events - by no means it sets Standart.
On the contrary, it works only if there is no opposition, and you just try to get as much strike productivity as you can as cheap as you can.

But Chinese carriers from the very beginning start in unfavorable geography and with strongest opposition possible.

China currently operates only one fixed wing aircraft off the Liaoning, that is the standard configuration J-15! to my knowledge, China has NOT attempted to launch a J-20 off the land based ramps that they used to prepare the J-15 for the carrier, which would be a first step in considering the J-20 for Naval service aboard CV-16 or CV-17....

The J-15 is a mid-wing aircraft, center of lift and center of gravity very conveniently, (and safely) located in the optimum configuration, so when the J-15 flies off the ramp, at a very high alpha,, it is very well balanced and still has plenty of "pitch authority", positive or negative...

When you attempt to fly the J-20 off that same ramp, the canards will be very highly loaded, and due to the extremely low airspeed, they will Not have the same pitch authority that they do coming off a longer runway, to pitch the nose of that aircraft high enough to compensate for the center of lift and gravity being so far "aft"

that will also be an issue bringing the J-20 back aboard any aircraft carrier, at the slow airspeeds required, about 145 knts max "over the fence", that aft CG will still require a heavy dose of positive pitch..

so add those basics to the approx. 10% to 15% weight gain that a carrier based aircraft will "pick up", landing gearing, tail hook and mounting, folding wings, dual tire nose gear, and you have just put your aircraft into a much lower thrust to weight category? not a good combination

 

[Hyperwarp]

***

I assume CAC would have to make some big modifications similar to what Northrop proposed? -

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Northrop proposal was rather unusual considering the US especially 4th gen onwards is not a big fan of delta canards barring a few experimental ones (X-31, X-36, etc).

 

[Gloire_bb]

I assume CAC would have to make some big modifications similar to what Northrop proposed? -

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Iirc, NATF was essentially an all new plane from airframe prospective, requirements were too far apart. Same can be true for j-20.

 

[Air Force Brat]

Iirc, NATF was essentially an all new plane from airframe prospective, requirements were too far apart. Same can be true for j-20.

Yes, it appears to be a much smaller lighter aircraft, with considerable forward sweep of the main wings trailing edge, and the engines a little farther forward,,, so CG and CL would be several feet farther forward than the J-20 IMHO..

 

[Gloire_bb]

Yes, it appears to be a much smaller lighter aircraft, with considerable forward sweep of the main wings trailing edge, and the engines a little farther forward,,, so CG and CL would be several feet farther forward than the J-20 IMHO..

NATF was required to be +/- F-14 in size.
So, probably, at least as large.

 

[Air Force Brat]

NATF was required to be +/- F-14 in size.
So, probably, at least as large.

If you will measure, you will find the Raptor approx one meter longer, which does make my point, and the NATF main wing is largere and the center of lift is probably a meter farther forward than the J-20, but that's just and "educated eyeball"..

The J-20 has its main wing considerably farther aft of the cockpit, you will also note the dramatic forward sweep of the trailing edge of the main wing on NATF..

so lets put a scale J-20 up for comparison, and see where the chips fall???

in any respect NATF has been designed from the first pencil mark to be a Naval Fighter!

 

[Gloire_bb]

in any respect NATF has been designed from the first pencil mark to be a Naval Fighter!

Well, my point is what Chinese can pull the same trick: use as much mission electronics as possible, at the same time making the whole airframe completely anew. It's especially relevant, since NATF actually did promise good savings without JSF compromises(say, they always planned to just have their separate production line), and to actually fill branches' needs.

IMHO, it sounds much more plausible than using questionable FC-31.

 

[Air Force Brat]

Well, my point is what Chinese can pull the same trick: use as much mission electronics as possible, at the same time making the whole airframe completely anew. It's especially relevant, since NATF actually did promise good savings without JSF compromises(say, they always planned to just have their separate production line), and to actually fill branches' needs.

IMHO, it sounds much more plausible than using questionable FC-31.

Yes, but FC-31 and JSF are flying aircraft, not "vapor-ware", and it does take a great deal of time and money to get them off the "Drawing Board",,, but we shall see!

 

[latenlazy]

Yes, but FC-31 and JSF are flying aircraft, not "vapor-ware", and it does take a great deal of time and money to get them off the "Drawing Board",,, but we shall see!

All things start off as vapor ware.

 

[Air Force Brat]

Well, my point is what Chinese can pull the same trick: use as much mission electronics as possible, at the same time making the whole airframe completely anew. It's especially relevant, since NATF actually did promise good savings without JSF compromises(say, they always planned to just have their separate production line), and to actually fill branches' needs.

IMHO, it sounds much more plausible than using questionable FC-31.

So, you're saying that the Communist Chinese Govt, has had NO inclination or indication?? even though they have rebuilt and are operating an aircraft carrier, and have a second floating, that they SHOULD have been building a Fourth Generation Naval Fighter Aircraft? (Chinese Classification)

and why pray tell?? when Shenyang has an aircraft, that a majority of aviation commentators/spectators in the world believe is very well positioned to fill that void, should the Chinese Communist Government decide to listen to a bunch of amateurs and throw it out???