J-15 carrier fighter thread

[Brumby]

This would be a sensible possibility. I also think it might be some kind of upgrade. Why did you then claim that it made no sense for them to have carriers without fighters?

Aircraft carriers by definition require aircraft or else as Brat says it is no more than a love boat. The utility of the aircraft carrier is solely dependent on such an asset. As such it is a oire feature and not an after thought.

Even if the J-15 became a complete failure (that would be huge IF), they would have no choice but to push ahead with the construction of the new carriers. The carrier project is going smoothly. They cannot change and potentially mess with a successful mega project. They will need to find other ways to sync their carrier fighters with their carriers later. But at this point, they cannot afford to compromise both high priority projects.

There has been no suggestion that the carrier building pace needs to be reconsidered. What I believe is happening is the following. Like all major programs s**t happens and the J-15 is facing some hiccups. There is really no realistic plan B option in the medium term and so the best option is still to sort out the problem and to re-start production thereafter. If the problem cannot be fixed then it is a MAJOR issue. However there is no suggestion of such a development and would be highly speculative. This hiccup unfortunately places the torch light on the nest generation replacement and the need to expedite it through development. Finally, carrier and carrier aviation development requires methodical long term planning and China has demonstrated such effort with its carrier building program. The part that seem lacking to me is the effort to develop a naval trainer as part of the overall development. It would carry some of the burden while the J-15 issue is being sorted out.

 

[vesicles]

I would agree if the conversation is about project management and the complexity to sync sub programs along planned critical paths. However the J-15 conversation is primarily production related rather than project management. As had been pointed out by others, it is already in production since 2013 with two known batches. The mystery is why production had supposedly stopped. Various speculations had been offered from prioritization to upgrade. I think it is associated with fundamental redesign of flight dynamics arising from the known crashes. Until that is sorted out further production is put on hold.

I don’t think the delay is caused by a redesign of the J-15’s flight dynamics. This would mean the J-15 is fundamentally flawed. No one would allow a fundamentally flawed plane to fly again until the issues have been solved. However, We know for a fact that they have been landing and taking off on the new CV-17 very recently. We know that because of the dark marks on the deck of the CV-17. I don’t think the PLAN would allow the J-15 to be flown again if they think the plane is fundamentally flawed. In addition to the expensive planes, the even more more more expensive brand spanking new CV, they also have the priceless PLAN pilots whom they have spent countless hours and money to train. I don’t think the PLAN would risk losing any of these with a fundamentally flawed plane landing on a new ship.

 

[vesicles]

Aircraft carriers by definition require aircraft or else as Brat says it is no more than a love boat. The utility of the aircraft carrier is solely dependent on such an asset. As such it is a oire feature and not an after thought.



There has been no suggestion that the carrier building pace needs to be reconsidered. What I believe is happening is the following. Like all major programs s**t happens and the J-15 is facing some hiccups. There is really no realistic plan B option in the medium term and so the best option is still to sort out the problem and to re-start production thereafter. If the problem cannot be fixed then it is a MAJOR issue. However there is no suggestion of such a development and would be highly speculative. This hiccup unfortunately places the torch light on the nest generation replacement and the need to expedite it through development. Finally, carrier and carrier aviation development requires methodical long term planning and China has demonstrated such effort with its carrier building program. The part that seem lacking to me is the effort to develop a naval trainer as part of the overall development. It would carry some of the burden while the J-15 issue is being sorted out.

How can you tell there is a lack of effort to develop a naval trainer? You can’t see any effort. That doesn’t mean they are not doing it as we speak. We all know by now that the PLA is not the most transparent organization. How many times have we been surprised by their seemingly out of nowhere systems?

 

[vesicles]

Aircraft carriers by definition require aircraft or else as Brat says it is no more than a love boat. The utility of the aircraft carrier is solely dependent on such an asset. As such it is a oire feature and not an after thought.

Well, before the CV is properly assembled, it’s no more than a whole bunch of scrap metal. Look at the CV-18! It’s a whole bunch of useless scrap metal now. The only people it can possibly hurt would be the workers who are building it..

A ferocious tiger would be no more than a cute little kitten when it is born. And Rome is not built in one day. The sayings would go on and on...

You gotta let it go through the process. Yes, the CV-17 may be a love boat for a little bit, but its teeth and claws will come out.

 

[Brumby]

How can you tell there is a lack of effort to develop a naval trainer? You can’t see any effort. That doesn’t mean they are not doing it as we speak. We all know by now that the PLA is not the most transparent organization. How many times have we been surprised by their seemingly out of nowhere systems?

We are seeing the effort with the carrier building. That is tangible. There is no news or rumors about a naval trainer I draw my conclusion based on what is known and not what may be happening in secret

Well, before the CV is properly assembled, it’s no more than a whole bunch of scrap metal. Look at the CV-18! It’s a whole bunch of useless scrap metal now. The only people it can possibly hurt would be the workers who are building it..

A ferocious tiger would be no more than a cute little kitten when it is born. And Rome is not built in one day. The sayings would go on and on...

You gotta let it go through the process. Yes, the CV-17 may be a love boat for a little bit, but its teeth and claws will come out.

I don't disagree with what you are saying. You asked me a question as to why the need for fighters and not what a fully matured carrier aviation can accomplish.

 

[vesicles]

You asked me a question as to why the need for fighters and not what a fully matured carrier aviation can accomplish.

Uh?! I don’t think I asked a question. I was simply making a suggestion that we should be more patient and give them some benefit of the doubt.

 

[KFX]

Is it possible that the production delay stems from a need for future J-15s to be able to operate from both STOBAR and CATOBAR carriers? Adding CATOBAR capability would require changes in the forward landing gear, in addition to sorting any design flaws.

 

[Brumby]

Uh?! I don’t think I asked a question. I was simply making a suggestion that we should be more patient and give them some benefit of the doubt.

I was replying to the following.

This would be a sensible possibility. I also think it might be some kind of upgrade. Why did you then claim that it made no sense for them to
have carriers without fighters?

 

[Brumby]

I don’t think the delay is caused by a redesign of the J-15’s flight dynamics. This would mean the J-15 is fundamentally flawed. No one would allow a fundamentally flawed plane to fly again until the issues have been solved. However, We know for a fact that they have been landing and taking off on the new CV-17 very recently. We know that because of the dark marks on the deck of the CV-17. I don’t think the PLAN would allow the J-15 to be flown again if they think the plane is fundamentally flawed. In addition to the expensive planes, the even more more more expensive brand spanking new CV, they also have the priceless PLAN pilots whom they have spent countless hours and money to train. I don’t think the PLAN would risk losing any of these with a fundamentally flawed plane landing on a new ship.

I am basing my assessment on two principal factors. Firstly from memory of what I have read about carrier landing, there is only about 4 degrees of maneuvering available during control descent at defined speed which effectively means a "controlled crash" The degree of maneuvering available can narrow down to 1 degree under certain sea conditions. If a plane has certain inadequate response to flight controls under difficult landing conditions than the possibility of crash increases. One of the reason reported associated with a J-15 crash was instability. This would be consistent with the inability to maintain the descent parameters. With an experienced pilot and under ideal weather and sea conditions the risk might be manageable but could be a different risk level for inexperienced pilots and or difficult sea conditions. I suspect the issue of flight stability is the problem and further production is put on hold until the flight dynamics is resolved.

 

[Deino]

Aircraft carriers by definition require aircraft or else as Brat says it is no more than a love boat. The utility of the aircraft carrier is solely dependent on such an asset. As such it is a oire feature and not an after thought.
....

How can you tell there is a lack of effort to develop a naval trainer? You can’t see any effort. That doesn’t mean they are not doing it as we speak. We all know by now that the PLA is not the most transparent organization. How many times have we been surprised by their seemingly out of nowhere systems?

To admit I find this discussion a bit strange since it seems to veer into a direction where some might suggest the PLAN is stupid since they don't have enough airplanes, not enough trainers and so on.

My point is that by our standard the PLAF has a lack of this and that but I'm sure there must be a reason for this, at least right now and as such our efforts should be to find out this or these reasons/s instead of discussion in circles.

Just my two Cents.