J-15 carrier fighter thread

[Air Force Brat]

Operations in the 1st Island Chain are close to the Chinese mainland.

For Example
Taiwan - 300km
South Korea - 400km
Okinawa - 500km
Japanese Home Islands - 800km

There's no point in having short ranged fighters launched from an expensive and vulnerable carrier given these distances.
Because they can be covered with land-band fighters - plus tankers where necessary.

Then for the 2nd Island Chain, Guam is some 3000km away.
That is beyond the range of most land-based air support from the Chinese Mainland.
And you don't want to send a vulnerable Chinese carrier close to Guam all by itself.

So this pushes future Chinese Carrier Air Wings to prioritise range for fighters and recon aircraft.
Plus 3000km is still close enough for DF-26 ASBMs and Bombers to launch from mainland China.

I agree with your observations, but I can't concur with your conclusion, I really think in the near term, the Carrier will focus on the first island chain mission.

as Jeff Head says, we shall see?

 

[Tam]

All true, but with China's present carriers, the J-15 isn't able to launch with full fuel and weapons. I know that will change with the CATOBAR carrier, but??? I really see the PLANAF able to use the J-35 to advantage, they will likely confine most of their operations in the near term much closer to home than USN?

One has to define exactly what is "not with full fuel and weapons". The J-15 has already been filmed taking off with two YJ-83, plus two AAMs, and are able to conduct antiship strikes from the carrier. A YJ-83 is about 700kg each. A PL-12 AAM is about 180kg and a PL-10 is about 90kg.

You can further increase the range and the load by increasing the engine power, maybe with future and more powerful WS-10 or AL-31F from Russia; lightening the air frame further, with composite construction. Need more range, use tankers.

Su-33 design already has more low speed lift than Su-27 airframe design, by virtue of increased wing area, a higher wing aspect, and the use of canards. We need to be able to quantify what exactly is the maximum the J-15 can take off to be able to figure out range/payload combinations but that's China's OPSEC.

 

[Air Force Brat]

One has to define exactly what is "not with full fuel and weapons". The J-15 has already been filmed taking off with two YJ-83, plus two AAMs, and are able to conduct antiship strikes from the carrier. A YJ-83 is about 700kg each. A PL-12 AAM is about 180kg and a PL-10 is about 90kg.

You can further increase the range and the load by increasing the engine power, maybe with future and more powerful WS-10 or AL-31F from Russia; lightening the air frame further, with composite construction. Need more range, use tankers.

Su-33 design already has more low speed lift than Su-27 airframe design, by virtue of increased wing area, a higher wing aspect, and the use of canards. We need to be able to quantify what exactly is the maximum the J-15 can take off to be able to figure out range/payload combinations but that's China's OPSEC.

excellent observations Josh, but to put this in perspective? you should probably check the max load outs of the old TomKat's or even the Super Hornet off the USN CATOBAR carriers? In its present form, the J-15 would launch from a land base or CATOBAR carrier with a very similar load-out, but its NEVER gonna happen off a ramp, anybody's ramp, with anybody's bird, including the Su-33.

and unfortunately, we will never get accurate specific weights, but similar weapons, similar aircraft are absolutely useful for making an accurate meaningful assessments of capability, you always allow a 5 to 10% margin of error, but it puts you in the same ball park, on the same field....

Every military on the planet assesses every other military's capability's the same way, if you can hack their systems, and look at the numbers?? well everybody does that whenever they can? LOL but most often we are left to the outstanding data collected by the Mark I eyeball....

If you watch films of the other guys birds leaving the ramp, or leaving the CAT, you can get some very accurate numbers....

The J-15 performs its present mission very well, it would only be much better shot out ot the CAT......

 

[Tam]

excellent observations Josh, but to put this in perspective? you should probably check the max load outs of the old TomKat's or even the Super Hornet off the USN CATOBAR carriers? In its present form, the J-15 would launch from a land base or CATOBAR carrier with a very similar load-out, but its NEVER gonna happen off a ramp, anybody's ramp, with anybody's bird, including the Su-33.

and unfortunately, we will never get accurate specific weights, but similar weapons, similar aircraft are absolutely useful for making an accurate meaningful assessments of capability, you always allow a 5 to 10% margin of error, but it puts you in the same ball park, on the same field....

Every military on the planet assesses every other military's capability's the same way, if you can hack their systems, and look at the numbers?? well everybody does that whenever they can? LOL but most often we are left to the outstanding data collected by the Mark I eyeball....

If you watch films of the other guys birds leaving the ramp, or leaving the CAT, you can get some very accurate numbers....

The J-15 performs its present mission very well, it would only be much better shot out ot the CAT......

An F-35 will face similar problems taking off from the QE carrier, and on VTOL mode, it will carry even less lifting off from the Wasp. But it doesn't mean that its not useful.

I can still see STOBAR lifted J-15s doing CAP or doing EW support, and possibly YJ-83 anti ship missile strikes. They will be carrying two YJ-83s, not four. As far as weights go, I still think a STOBAR lifted J-15 can still carry six AAMs. The plane itself has an enormous lift surface and I am not sure comparing to F-18 and even the F-14 is correct. Of course, CATOBAR J-15s will always have more load potential, I am just staying that STOBAR J-15s won't be useless.

 

[Air Force Brat]

An F-35 will face similar problems taking off from the QE carrier, and on VTOL mode, it will carry even less lifting off from the Wasp. But it doesn't mean that its not useful.

I can still see STOBAR lifted J-15s doing CAP or doing EW support, and possibly YJ-83 anti ship missile strikes. They will be carrying two YJ-83s, not four. As far as weights go, I still think a STOBAR lifted J-15 can still carry six AAMs. The plane itself has an enormous lift surface and I am not sure comparing to F-18 and even the F-14 is correct. Of course, CATOBAR J-15s will always have more load potential, I am just staying that STOBAR J-15s won't be useless.

if you read the my line Tam I believe the J-15 performs its present mission very well, and to be very honest the F-14 is a very close twin to the Flanker, of course The F-14 performance would have suffered tremendously flying of the Liaoning's ramp.....

and that's my point the J-15 is and will remain a very capable airplane, a J-35 flying off the same ramp would also be a great idea, particularly if it were indeed as stealthy as the J-20? The J-15 will only get better once it is boarded on a CATOBAR carrier...

the F-35B on the other hand is designed from the first line to perform well off a very limited flight deck, since it has a lift fan and highly vectored main nozzle, it may very well fly off the ramp or the Wasp at full gross, no doubt it flies away with a much higher percentage of its gross weight than the J-15 operated off the ramp...

 

[AndrewS]

I agree with your observations, but I can't concur with your conclusion, I really think in the near term, the Carrier will focus on the first island chain mission.

as Jeff Head says, we shall see?

In the near term, I agree Chinese carriers won't venture too far past the 1st island chain.

But in the longer term, China should have more than enough land-based assets to deal with the 1st Island Chain.
So if there are 6+ carriers, they would be used for operations beyond the 1st Island Chain.

 

[AndrewS]

CSBA’s Clark on Future of Aircraft Carriers in Contested Environments

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Key points on future US carrier strategy from the CSBA

So the carrier air wing has to evolve in order for it to have the kind of reach so that if it does move out to this thousand-mile point where it’s able to defend itself adequately, can it do operations that reach into an area of conflict and actually drop enough weapons and then conduct enough operations to be able to be useful in a conflict with a great power. A lot of our discussion today centered around also the carrier air wing and its future configuration, the need for it to get longer range, the need for it to be better able to do specialized operations like anti-submarine warfare, and the need for it to be able to have a higher endurance or a greater persistence than it does today. So it can do offensive operations as well as protect itself.
...
There was another event today which was Applied Physics Lab — Bob Work, Jim Miller, Richard Danzig, Admiral [Haynes] put their report out sort of saying it’s time for the United States to challenge certain of its historic assumptions in terms of its power in this great power dynamic. Right? That in our mental model we’re still a leader in technology. We’re still the world’s economic super power. We were 50 percent of the world’s total GDP in 1945, now we’re 25 percent, and in a couple of years when China may have significantly bigger GDP, you know, Richard Danzig made a great point that said every adversary we’ve ever fought combined had a smaller GDP than we did. For example, Nazi Germany, 30-40 percent; Soviet Union, 30-40 percent; whereas China will be actually manifest, you know, multiple times or significantly larger in GDP in a few years.
...
So instead of having 44 manned strike fighters that have short range, we’re envisioning a future air wing that’s got 24 to 30 unmanned aircraft that have a range of 2000-3000 miles and are able to operate for a very long period of time and carry a useful payload that distance and for that kind of endurance. Then you’ve got a small manned component that might do some of the close air support or command and control operations.
...
Mr. Clark: I guess I’d say having a larger number of smaller carriers in our analysis did not yield as much of a benefit as the smaller number of large carriers. The reason being that a large carrier can carry a big enough air wing and generate enough sorties that you’re able to deliver combat power over a sustained period of time and you can defend it because it’s in a relatively small footprint.

It's useful to see what the US is thinking.

So let's say the US is going with unmanned carrier aircraft with a 2000-3000mile range, and that this is technologically feasible.
Note that 2000miles (3000km) is the distance from Guam to Mainland China.

So what is stopping China building similar unmanned aircraft?
Plus these aircraft could be launched from airbases located on mainland China, which means more range, lower cost, greater payload.

So on the Second Island Chain, it's basically:

Guam + US Carriers
versus
Much larger numbers of aircraft launched from airbases on mainland China.

---
It also means China can obtain air superiority over all of ASEAN, including Singapore and the Malacca Straits (2300km away).
---
But I don't really see China going the military route.
It's just too risky, particularly when the long-term economic trajectory is so favourable to China.
Just last week, China became the defacto economic leader of Asia with the conclusion of RCEP trade zone talks.

RCEP map below

 

[Deino]

Are we still in the J-15 thread or is this already a political, future Chinese Air Wing composition and so one discussion?

If Yes, there is a separate thread for this.

 

[Hyperwarp]

J-15 with YJ-91 (YJ-91A?)

 

[Tam]

If its the sharper nose version, it would be the YJ-91A with the A.

What does the plane in the foreground have?