J-15 carrier fighter thread

[ougoah]

The purpose and benefits of getting a prototype Su-33 (empty of many critical subsystems) is really just to figure out how the Soviets went about getting a flanker to land and take off from a carrier. Folding wings, landing gear, and probably many other details that are not quite as obvious. The J-15 will share far more in common with a J-11 than it does with a T-10K3. That much is almost definite. Internal structures will be heavily based off the Su-33 prototype and possibly modified for Chinese manufacturing lines but avionics, electronics, software, weapons, fire control, sensors, radar, materials, cockpit instruments + layout, it would all be more related to the J-11B than a prototype that probably came without all those things, not that one could easily reverse engineer them anyway.

No doubt PLAN wanted a close look at the Su-33 and SAC/PLAN purchased a prototype from Ukraine but this alone doesn't mean J-15 does not share plenty of things with the J-11B. Sometimes purchasing something or hacking and spying is just to learn and understand your competitor's technology rather than copying. Otherwise the US wouldn't have put effort into getting their hands on all sorts of Soviet and Russian equipment through various means. Although I don't agree the J-15 can be called a navalised J-11 or indeed a Chinese Su-33. Both statements are inaccurate. But of course the J-15 wouldn't exist without the Su-33 or T-10K3 that much is for certain.

 

[Xizor]

Yeah... Me thinks @ougoah has a point. That an aircraft can be called a copy only if it drew heavily from another both internal subsystems as well as external aerodynamic shape is common sense. In that regard, J-15 isn't a copy of Su-33.
Almost all its critical components including the nose landing gears, radars and engines are Indigenous Chinese products. But the high lift wing required for STOL properties as well as general specifications regarding the landing gear design, critical aerodynamic properties, weight distribution, Strengthening of airframe for reliable arrestor hook aided landing and provisions for remaining buoyant when ditched at sea etc could use some outside help. The Su-33 provided that crash course.

 

[Brumby]

Lol I'm sorry I see the flaw of my logic. I suppose I shouldn't have said Chinese and Russian fighters should have sensor fusion since Chinese and Russian sources don't give us any information.

This statement of yours is not of logic but is lacking in facts. In order words, you are making claims without having the facts.

Therefore we must logically assume sensor fusion onboard Russian and Chinese fighters do not exist. Thanks for the lesson.

On the contrary, when you don't have the facts it is illogical to draw any weighted opinion You are the one expressing all kinds of opinion in the absence of facts.

Further I should also accept that Eurocanards do have sensor fusion despite this belief being almost entirely claims as well with zero detailed technical literature either. Gosh what a valuable lesson in logic.

If it is not obvious to you by now, so far you are the one making all the claims and expressing the opinions.

I guess we must accept that F-22's stealth is still effective at all. We should also accept Typhoon has unparalleled sensor fusion because it's the Typhoon! We should have denied the existence of the Type 075 up to the point it was weeks away from launching. Pathetic double standards. So it's not okay to assume Chinese fighters can reach some pathetically simple sensor fusion ability ten years after NATO does it despite the fact that there is no evidence China lacks the software and semiconductor tech that is necessary for sensor fusion.

I guess you need some portion of the code and receive the exact chips used onboard the fighter for me to make a statement on a forum filled with speculation. It's a forum where plenty of big claims are made. Including your's from the JF-17 forum. You choose to take some issue with my opinion on sensor fusion but why aren't you as consistently demanding on evidence when opinions are even more unfounded but are of a more pro-western or anti-china bias?

e.g. Your post from Hong Kong Protests #2048 - "What about the million over Uighurs detained in internment camps?" Why don't you educate us how there are over a million Uighurs detained in "red-education" camps?

There are plenty of examples from yourself and other members. I guess you just cannot stand someone even saying that they think Chinese engineers are quite possibly as capable as the Europeans a decade ago.

A whole bunch of self directed narrative drawn from an expanding set of unrelated items using fallacious logic. You should seek professional help. .

 

[manqiangrexue]

This statement of yours is not of logic but is lacking in facts. In order words, you are making claims without having the facts.

On the contrary, when you don't have the facts it is illogical to draw any weighted opinion You are the one expressing all kinds of opinion in the absence of facts.

If it is not obvious to you by now, so far you are the one making all the claims and expressing the opinions.

A whole bunch of self directed narrative drawn from an expanding set of unrelated items using fallacious logic. You should seek professional help. .

You? Saying other people need "professional help"? LOL Very cheeky for someone whose "logic" is at your level. Look whose bum is itching again like it does every couple of weeks.

His argument, as I briefly glanced at, is that old Eurocanard avionics probably lack in comparison to modern Sino-Russian avionics. Now there's no direct evidence of anything in specs form but that's the general trend in electronics when you're talking about all modern countries.

You, on the other hand, have made some seriously comical claims, basically of the logic that "If you can't prove that it exists, then it doesn't," and then applying that logic to literally only the Chinese designs. I recall you saying that J-20 doesn't have AESA because we don't have proof it does; J-20 can't release weapons at supersonic speeds because we have no proof it can; we don't know the avionics packages on F-16V or J-10C so let's just assume that the F-16V is better, etc... These are all total nonsense claims compared to the mostly reasonable assumption that amongst modern peers, newer avionics are likely to be superior to decade older avionics. For someone like you to discredit that claim so arrogantly is more than the kettle calling the pot black; it's the kettle calling the silverware black.

Professional whoopin' for your bum itch has arrived. Please don't hesitate to call for further appointments anytime.

 

[ougoah]

Thank God I'm not alone in acknowledging this. @Brumby you gotta first understand that I am expressing an opinion which cannot be supported by evidence because no evidence for it is available to us. That however, does not mean it doesn't exist. Since claims of similar caliber to mine is apparent everywhere on military forums, why do you feel the need to be so arrogant with your "educate us with your knowledge" sarcastic response?

The F-16 forum is filled only with these sort of comments where members wank each other off about how great everything American is, must be, and will become. Whenever a Russophile comes in to offer alternatives to the group think they get totally shot down and abused by most members. Over here with the sensor fusion comment, almost everyone will agree with me even if they haven't said it themselves. Why? Because it's pretty freakin obvious that fighters from 2015 onwards will have sensor fusion - something that should not present too much technical challenge if any at all. This was something already implemented on western fighters since the late 90s. I was trying to introduce a new element to the group think going on here. Here at the SDF ecosystem there are also things most of us accept and reject and comments that fall outside of these are shot down with relative civility. I get that you don't accept this sensor fusion but what you accept or not can differ from reality.

The details of the sensor fusion of course matter but saying it exists isn't a crime worthy of your arrogance and dismissive attitude. Sorry you don't know much more than the rest of us here unless you work/worked within both the US and Chinese military aviation industries. Again I have criticised your logic in the same way poster above has pointed out while saying from the very start that I am expressing an opinion.

This is a military forum on a country renowned for secrecy. All we ever have are speculations. I guess to you nothing exists until photos come out or some other outside parties confirm an event? I would say in that case only sources with authority should be trusted so one of the only things we know for sure about China's military abilities is it's ability to shoot down satellites with kinetic kill warheads since the US government has confirmed this officially. I remember their experts thinking China was 20 years away from achieving such a feat while being about 20 years off reality hahaha. Nice one.

Can we use the ASAT confirmation as peripheral evidence that China has pretty capable radars offering range and resolution? Or is that also not acceptable without someone "educating you" with evidence you consider to be enough?

 

[ougoah]

You? Saying other people need "professional help"? LOL Very cheeky for someone whose "logic" is at your level. Look whose bum is itching again like it does every couple of weeks.

Lashing out and telling others they need professional help when he got embarrassed by proof showing he's standards aren't quite right, is the only way he can rescue some face here and distract from all that's already been said here. I mean I've shown plenty enough examples of his double standard. To correct things maybe he can start by asking all those F-16 forum members to "educate" him on their imaginative claims as well in the exact same condescending tone. He's one of the Australian members there anyway.

Then if he can kindly back up all his wild claims on this forum starting perhaps with how he's gone about counting all million plus Uighur detainees... then perhaps how western ECM that doesn't involve cross eyed jamming is superior to said jamming. These are just two recent examples of his opinions which somehow do not require comprehensive proof.

 

[Jono]

" This is a military forum on a country renowned for secrecy. All we ever have are speculations."

well said and enough said. Guys, just ignore the troll and move on. Time is precious.

 

[Brumby]

Thank God I'm not alone in acknowledging this. @Brumby you gotta first understand that I am expressing an opinion which cannot be supported by evidence because no evidence for it is available to us. That however, does not mean it doesn't exist. Since claims of similar caliber to mine is apparent everywhere on military forums, why do you feel the need to be so arrogant with your "educate us with your knowledge" sarcastic response?

Clearly you are entitled to your opinion just as I am entitled to call you out on your assertion. This forum is not an extension of the CCP where statements and opinion are insulated. In a society where expressions are free flowing you are clearly free to express your opinion but by the same token you will be called out to defend them. If you don't like it then don't make baseless claims.

The F-16 forum is filled only with these sort of comments where members wank each other off about how great everything American is, must be, and will become. Whenever a Russophile comes in to offer alternatives to the group think they get totally shot down and abused by most members.

If you have unresolved issues over at the F-16 forum I suggest you deal with it over there. Why you are attempting to inject it into into our conversation is rather puzzling. I don't care about other forum issues or should we.

Over here with the sensor fusion comment, almost everyone will agree with me even if they haven't said it themselves. Why? Because it's pretty freakin obvious that fighters from 2015 onwards will have sensor fusion - something that should not present too much technical challenge if any at all. This was something already implemented on western fighters since the late 90s. I was trying to introduce a new element to the group think going on here. Here at the SDF ecosystem there are also things most of us accept and reject and comments that fall outside of these are shot down with relative civility. I get that you don't accept this sensor fusion but what you accept or not can differ from reality.

The details of the sensor fusion of course matter but saying it exists isn't a crime worthy of your arrogance and dismissive attitude.

Mate,
You need to exercise a higher degree of self awareness of what you said and did not say on sensor fusion.
First you said the following :
"I'd wager Chinese and Russian sensor fusion onboard their latest fighters (J-20, Su-57, Su-35, J-16) easily exceed Rafale and Typhoon which came into service a decade ago."

In response I just said "educate us". I did not expressed any other opinion.

In response you went on a rant on a whole bunch of stuff that were not even part of the original scope and on top of that tried to paint a picture of what I might possibly say in respect of them.

You are now trying to sell a picture that I am being dismissive and you are the injured party. I think you have a bunch of personal issues that require attention.

Sorry you don't know much more than the rest of us here unless you work/worked within both the US and Chinese military aviation industries. Again I have criticised your logic in the same way poster above has pointed out while saying from the very start that I am expressing an opinion.

This is a military forum on a country renowned for secrecy. All we ever have are speculations. I guess to you nothing exists until photos come out or some other outside parties confirm an event? I would say in that case only sources with authority should be trusted so one of the only things we know for sure about China's military abilities is it's ability to shoot down satellites with kinetic kill warheads since the US government has confirmed this officially. I remember their experts thinking China was 20 years away from achieving such a feat while being about 20 years off reality hahaha. Nice one.

Can we use the ASAT confirmation as peripheral evidence that China has pretty capable radars offering range and resolution? Or is that also not acceptable without someone "educating you" with evidence you consider to be enough?

This is a perfect example of what I had earlier described. You create a a bunch of narratives and then suggest what I might possibly say as if that is reality. Sorry mate, that is your self imposed imagination.

To-date I have only asked you to explain and on the basis of your reply I concluded and said that your claim is without facts. Your whole rant and beef is basically being called out on a baseless claim.

 

[ougoah]

Mate,
You need to exercise a higher degree of self awareness of what you said and did not say on sensor fusion.
First you said the following :
"I'd wager Chinese and Russian sensor fusion onboard their latest fighters (J-20, Su-57, Su-35, J-16) easily exceed Rafale and Typhoon which came into service a decade ago."

In response I just said "educate us". I did not expressed any other opinion.

In response you went on a rant on a whole bunch of stuff that were not even part of the original scope and on top of that tried to paint a picture of what I might possibly say in respect of them.

Okay in the interest of potentially moving beyond this, let's just address the quoted part again and ignore the other stuff which I feel I've made my points about and others can judge and read as they see fit.

J-20, Su-57, Su-35, and J-16 are all the latest and greatest frontline fighters in RuAF and PLAAF. They were introduced into their respective airforces about a decade (in case of the J-20 and Su-57 more than a decade) after the introduction of Typhoon and Rafale. In the total absence of information regarding Russian and Chinese avionics, I think I would be comfortable with the assumption that the Russian and Chinese engineers have been able to combine data from multiple sensors and alleviate the pilot's workload in a way that I'm sure Typhoon and Rafale is able to do. The reason for my assumption here is because Russian and Chinese engineers have access to software developers and at least for Chinese domestic industry, they should also have access to any hardware that is required for this job. If I'm wrong here I would like to know exactly what about sensor fusion presents as an overwhelming challenge because to me it seems like it's simply a task of getting software to give outputs by combining information collected through different means.

We've read through a Chinese source reviewing and comparing the Su-35 with the J-16 and the source claiming that the Russian "Duel" optimisation system on the Su-35 is interesting and something absent from Chinese fighters (at least claimed to be) but relies heavily on collecting all sorts of emission and RCS data to feed the program. This at least alludes to the Su-35 having some rudimentary machine learning onboard. I'm sure the airforce would have prioritised sensor fusion and minimising pilot workload over offering narrow AI assistance. With respect to Chinese fighters. The source claimed that J-16 has better sensors and avionics overall but lacks a machine learning ability. To say nothing of Su-57 and J-20. Since Chinese domestic semiconductor, electronic, and software abilities are very unlikely to be worse off compared to French, German, and British equivalents from 10 years ago, I'd be comfortable betting that the latest Chinese frontline fighters feature at least similar sensor fusion.

If your rebuttal can offer more than simply saying; well there's no evidence for this, then I'd be happy to discuss with civility but the way you selectively choose this issue to make a big deal out of despite not offering anything to counter it while ignoring the admittedly shallow reasons I've offered, then what do you expect in return? Of course I'd point out your selective criticism and tell you this is pretty normal for a military forum. In fact it is the rule and not the exception. EVERYONE offers opinions and most make bigger claims here and in other forums. The worst offenders you can find in less reasonable echo chambers like Indian Defence Forum and F-16.net. The point of mentioning this is to make you and readers more aware of this fact. I'd like readers to realise that you selectively hold me more accountable to a relatively reasonable and acceptable claim in an environment that is littered with more outrageous stuff. But that material you're not against because it's all about Western Stronkist mentality which you support. It's truly like Man said - kettle (I think he means pot) calling the silverware black.

Again I'll emphasise this, I don't have evidence of Chinese or Russian sensor fusion to show you. If you want to call me out for that, it's fine but next time try not to be so obviously selective and rude while doing that. If you do, also expect to hear replies. No one is mentioning censorship or Chinese "way of doing things" that's you with your typical dodgy troll behaviour. Can't hack that others are talking back as well while you call out others despite your own tendency to do exactly the same if not worse.

 

[ougoah]

I should add.

Clearly you are entitled to your opinion just as I am entitled to call you out on your assertion. This forum is not an extension of the CCP where statements and opinion are insulated. In a society where expressions are free flowing you are clearly free to express your opinion but by the same token you will be called out to defend them. If you don't like it then don't make baseless claims.

This is pretty obvious provokateur stuff. Telling me I need professional help earlier and then bringing CCP and alleged expression standards into the discussion where it isn't relevant because I never said you can't say anything in response. I just addressed the point while pointing out your rudeness and unsurprisingly selective standards. Something I'm entitled to do according to what you said in this quote. If you are annoyed at us pointing these things out, it's you who would rather censor opinions, not us. Something like what those nasty CCP organisations Twitter, Facebook, and Youtube have done in the past and continue to do... oh wait NO!!! those are freedom organisations and don't belong to the CCP! oops... I guess censorship is as western as it is communist/authoritarian. Only one pretends to not be a criminal when they are often the worst offenders. Hmmm lol I guess I bit into this flame bait of your's