J-15 carrier fighter thread

[Air Force Brat]

See photo;



I believe those rectangle box objects on the wing pylons are for external fuel tanks. Why the wing stations? So the J-15 tanker may re-fuel multiple aircraft.

Just my opinion.

I'd say you're right on here BD, when the buddy pack is plumbed up, it makes little sense to plumb up with only a single tank, and as the USN has found out a single fighter with drop tanks, and refueling pack, makes life a lot safer for Naval Aviators, who sometimes are just topping up their reserves before beginning the tedious, and sometimes time consuming task of recovering aboard the carrier. There are legal minimums before beginning an IFR approach, I have no need to remind posters that the weather at sea can be perilous, so that bird gives you options.....all that's missing is the Dinosaur for Sinclair gasoline, "fill er up"!

 

[bd popeye]

I'd say you're right on here BD, when the buddy pack is plumbed up, it makes little sense to plumb up with only a single tank, and as the USN has found out a single fighter with drop tanks, and refueling pack, makes life a lot safer for Naval Aviators, who sometimes are just topping up their reserves before beginning the tedious, and sometimes time consuming task of recovering aboard the carrier.

aaarrrvvv.. I've spent many a long night waiting for "nugget pilots" to make that final trap..I have to wonder if the PLAN pilots have made any night traps or launches? It would not at all surprise me if they have...The PLA in general is great at surprises.

 

[Jeff Head]

As to the J-15 air wing for the Liaoning, my feelings are that we will know that the PLAN is really starting to put together that air wing when the production versions of the J-15s start appearing and qualifying on the deck of the carrier.

Not one of them has done that yet...only various prototype aircraft.

At this point, with the maintenance overhaul going on, I do not expect to see that until late this year at the earliest.

And since the weather will be a consideration in the North China Sea then, unless she moves well down South, we may not see it until next Spring.

Only then can we seriously entertain the notion that the actual carrier wing is being put together. So maybe we will see up to six J-15s on deck next year. I do not believe they will get all 24 on deck next year at all. Probably at least 2016 before that happens now, maybe longer.

One thing is for sure...the PLAN has its own schedule and they are very methodically progressing towards it...but they are in no rush...nor necessarily should they be.

 

[FORBIN]

2015 seems short for have 24 J-15 combat ready on the Liaoning, 2016 best for me and again at the beginning it was expected that the Chinese would be longer.

 

[Jeff Head]

2015 seems short for have 24 J-15 combat ready on the Liaoning, 2016 best for me and again at the beginning it was expected that the Chinese would be longer.

Yes, as I said, " Probably at least 2016 before that happens now, maybe longer."

 

[Inst]

Mid-flight refueling is a useful way to get around weight limitations on the Liaoning ski-jump carrier, however. Instead of limiting your aircraft to A2A missiles only and a fuel tank of gas, you put up full ordinance to the aircraft with a reduced fuel load, then have the tank get topped to maximum while in the air. Not the most efficient solution, of course, especially if you're using J-15s to do the tanking, but it'll let you load up a few aircraft with strike packages.

 

[Blitzo]

Eurgh.

Okay, first of all, the idea that fighters can't take off from ski jump carriers with full loads is still disputed.

Second of all, even if J-15 can only take off with a fraction of its payload and fuel (let's take a pessimistic view and say J-15 can only carry half), that is still 3.25 tons of external payload to work with, more than enough to carry 4 stand off missiles like KD-88 and a pair of SRAAMs or anything else hat fits the mark.
J-15 has such a great internal fuel load anyway that even only topping up half full will still give it a respectable combat radius.


So even if it were the case that a fighters payload is limited on a ski jump, that doesn't mean it isn't able to carry any A2G weapons for a decent range mission.

Take home message: buddy refuelling is going to be useful for PLAN regardless of whether J-15 can take off from liaoning at full load or not, but even if they cannot, J-15 can still perform decently in its roles without buddy refuelling

 

[Inst]

These aren't exact figures, but I'm just using these for an example; you can look up MTOW and max fuel capacity for the correct numbers, but I think it'll suffice for an example.

What we know right now is that the J-15 can take-off with a full fuel load + 2/4 A2A missiles, which is what the J-15 and ex-Varyag is designed to do. Unlike American carriers, the ski-jump Varyag is intended to provide fleet air protection, instead of as a strike platform against enemy ships.

This is roughly 8 tons of fuel + 1-2 tons of munitions, and is unlike the American Super Hornet launching off CATOBARs, allowing the planes to load up drop tanks + A2A weapons + A2G munitions. The only disadvantage is the reduced kinematics in mid-air, which can be solved by jettisoning the extra load.

Now, with in-flight refueling, the J-15 can now carry a comparable load to the Super Hornets. Instead of taking off with 8 tons of fuel, you take off with 1-2 tons of fuel + 8 tons of munitions, and maybe some drop tanks. You deploy the J-15 up in the air first, then deploy 1-2 J-15s with drop tanks and a full fuel load. You now task the buddy refuelers to fill up the J-15 with an A2G load + drop tanks, and presto, you have a J-15 up in the air with a load comparable to that of a CATOBAR-ed Super Hornet, and some serious strike capability for your carrier aircraft wing.

====

As I've said before, this isn't as good as with actually having CATOBAR capability or even having a specialized tanker aircraft for the job. You need to launch 1-2 J-15s to do the refueling work, and that takes up time and carrier launch capability. However, it extends your capabilities and now permits you to have J-15s equipped entirely for strike to launch against opposing ships.

 

[Blitzo]

These aren't exact figures, but I'm just using these for an example; you can look up MTOW and max fuel capacity for the correct numbers, but I think it'll suffice for an example.

What we know right now is that the J-15 can take-off with a full fuel load + 2/4 A2A missiles, which is what the J-15 and ex-Varyag is designed to do. Unlike American carriers, the ski-jump Varyag is intended to provide fleet air protection, instead of as a strike platform against enemy ships.

Actually, Russian military aviation historians have printed books that have said otherwise (regarding MTOW)
I believe at the beginning of this thread (or it may be the flanker thread) there is reference to the Su-33 book by Andrei Fomin. Totoro in this thread posted a translation of a section of the book done by paralay:

"Su-27K with incomplete filling of fuel tanks, depending on the amount of suspended missiles " air" , ranged from 25 to 28 tons while he was starting thrust 0.9-1.0 and could take off from the 1st or 2nd starting position on the deck of the ship ( the takeoff distance of 105 m ) . With full fuel tanks and maximum ammunition missiles " air" take-off weight increased to 32 tons, and thrust was reduced to 0.8. In this case vzleet aircraft had to be made with the third starting position ( takeoff distance of 195 m ) . Hence , the aircraft could start and the maximum load it with bombs and rockets ."

And the above we do not know is whether it is with 25 knots of headwind or not. I've posted and reposted the chinese scans which make the claim that Su-33 can take off from positions 1 and 2 at MTOW with 25 knots of headwind. If they're not in this thread they're in the flanker thread.

The only place I've consistently heard the idea that Su-33 couldn't take off from the kuznetsov class with full loads is from western sources, and even some official USN sources, who do not exactly show evidence proving that fighters cannot take off from ski jumps with full loads while a ship is underway, and seems more informed by bias and stereotype than anything.

Or, you can head to key forums and ask some of the Russian posters who are more knowledgeable about the military aviation of their own nation whether Su-33 could take off from Kuznetsov with full load. I did a few years ago, the answer is quite a resounding yes.

IMO the major advantage a CATOBAR carrier has isn't in its ability to launch fully loaded fighters (because ski jumps should also allow that with normal operational headwind), but rather it can possibly do so more reliably (engine failure during catapult launch won't be catastrophic during a cat launch but will be during ski jump take off). More importantly, a catapult can also reliably launch fixed wing AEWC, which is arguably one of the most important capabilities a carrier can offer. Current fixed wind AEWC designs simply are not aerodynamically designed to take off from ski jumps, and I don't see that changing, a CATOBAR carrier also has more places to spot aircraft due to no inclination.

The rest of your post I'm not going to address because of our differences to this fundamental point.

 

[Inst]

The only place I've consistently heard the idea that Su-33 couldn't take off from the kuznetsov class with full loads is from western sources, and even some official USN sources, who do not exactly show evidence proving that fighters cannot take off from ski jumps with full loads while a ship is underway, and seems more informed by bias and stereotype than anything.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

This Sina report is well-known, but it roughly suggests the same limitations of the Su-33. You also have to note that the Russians switched from the Su-33 as their carrier fighter to the naval version of the MiG-29, which helps to support my claim that the J-15 currently can't take off with both full fuel and a full strike package.