J-15 carrier fighter thread

[Blitzo]

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.

Dude, you've been around here a while now. You realize that mil sina isn't exactly a bastion of credibility, right? It is usually among the last chinese speaking sites to regurgitate credible PLA news and photos from the credible BBS. In fact, SDF and CDF often get new pics and info faster than sina.

In this case, I think any reader of the article knows that whoever wrote up that rant knows nothing about J-15, carriers, general military matters I presume, as well as lacking common sense and even simple arithmetic.

The fact that defense news.com reported it just shows how knowledgeable that site is. Defensenews even give it a freaking acronym name as if that provides any form of legitimacy, lol. "SMN"...

But sina mil does have decent photo galleries, but that is about all they are good for.

---

The fact that the Russians went for Mig-29K is overwhelmingly because the Indians had already funded development of a modernized version and that the production line was both already active and that it had already been produced in numbers for the IN (so lower unit cost). If china had funded development of a Modern Su-33 version and India hadn't funded a modern Mig-29K you can bet the Russians today would be buying modernized Su-33s instead of Mig-29K. Thinking they chose Mig-29K over Su-33 because of MTOW is a WTF thought process, because what makes one think the Mig-29K can somehow carry a greater weight from a ski jump than Su-33? Does mig-29K have a much more powerful engine thrust relative to its weight compared to Su-33? Does it have some advanced aerodynamic feature which provides many times more lift than Su-33? Does it defy the laws of physics?

Neither of your two sources suggest that Su-33 cannot take off from ski jumps with full loads. One source is simply terrible. I'd use a swear word to indicate how bad it is if it wouldn't be deleted. The other case of evidence is based on flawed logic and misinterpretation of causation as well as the common sense of physics.


(Sorry if I'm coming off as a hostile, it isn't directly at you per se. It's just that I've seen these same arguments posted before and I've repeatedly shot them down again and again with different people. )

 

[Inst]

Su-33 vs MiG-29K I suspect is more of an issue of cost and scale. The Su-33 is a really large carrier aircraft, and IMO, superior to the Super Hornet as an airframe, in part due to its larger radar aperture, ensuring better BVR performance. However, as long as it's only STOBAR capable, you are not going to be launching at the full load that the airframe can support (we can agree on that, right? If the J-15 had CATOBARs available and was retrofitted to support CATOBAR launches, it would be able to carry more weight in terms of munitions and fuel, essentially, either improved range due to more drop tanks or a better strike package due to more weapons).

The problem is that the Su-33 is both more expensive than the MiG-29K, being a larger and more capable air-to-air airframe, as well as a less space efficient airframe than the MiG, not having a significantly better payload. So for a carrier loading Su-33s vs a carrier loading MiG-29Ks, the MiG carrier will have more planes, as well as a higher effective payload; the MiGs are claimed to have a 5.5 ton fuel and weapons payload, while the Su-33 is claimed to have a 6.5 ton fuel and weapons payload, but the MiGs are cheaper and more compact, so the MiG carrier will outperform the Su-33 carrier by having more planes in the air with a larger total weapons payload.

===

I'll accept your point about the J-15 being launchable with some kind of strike package, from the longer runways on the Liaoning, but would you be willing to accept mine about using buddy refueling to enhance the total launched payload by launching with partial fuel? The Liaoning, as stated before, has multiple runways of varying lengths. Launching aircraft from positions 1 and 2, according to your quote, limits the aircraft to a 25-27 ton take-off weight. You can potentially use buddy stores launched from position 3 with a 33 ton take-off weight + drop tanks, to fuel up partial loads launched from positions 1 and 2 to enhance their total operational range.

I'd still consider that an important breakthrough, because even if you can launch J-15s with full loads from position 3, you can only do so from position 3, not from positions 1 and 2. This limits your total strike ability for runway use; out of three runways, you only get 1 aircraft with a strike package. With buddy stores, you get two aircraft with a strike package at the cost of having used one runway slot for mid-air refueling.

 

[Blitzo]

I accept all the benefits of buddy refuelling, including that of allowing a J-15 fully loaded with munitions but only fractionally loaded with fuel to have full range. However, that likely would rarely be used because J-15 should be able to takeoff with full MTOW (full fuel and payload) during operational steaming speeds anyway.

More likely I think, is that buddy refuelling will be used most after a mission on the return leg home to a carrier to increase overall range. I.e.: a strike package of J-15s fully loaded with fuel and payload takes off from the ship, completeghe mission at long range, and refuel from a buddy J-15 tanker some distance away from the carrier (by now their fuel would be getting a bit low), allowing them to get home and land.

--

I agree that Su-33 is a more costly plane than Mig-29K on the basis that it is larger. It is also more difficult to handle on a flight deck being a bigger plane.

However the key reason the Russians went for the Mig-29K was because the Indians funded the development of a modern Mig-29K and because they'd already bought a respectable number, lowering overall costs for the Russians as well. Like I said, if it had been the PLAN who'd funded and bought a modernized Su-33 and the IN hadn't funded a modernized Mig-29K the Russians would almost definitely have gone for the modernized Su-33s and not bothered with a modernized Mig-29K.

A carrier loaded with Mig-29Ks might have a total fly able payload greater than a carrier loaded with Su-33s, but each of those Mig-29Ks have shorter range (or have to give up some of their external payload weight to reach Su-33 levels), so on the whole I think it balances out.

 

[Franklin]

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.

That article lacks all credibility it doesn't even link back to the original source.

 

[delft]

Re launching a fixed wing AEWC over a ski ramp:
Last year ( ? ) Northrop Grumman said its E-2D could be launched from an Indian flattop with ski ramp. Whether true or not there can be no doubt that such aircraft can be designed to be launched that way. The main advantage of the use of cats is that you need much less deck real estate to launch aircraft so you have a larger deck area available for spotting aircraft.

 

[bd popeye]

Northrop Grumman said its E-2D could be launched from an Indian flattop with ski ramp.

Delft..could you post a link for the above statement. I'd like to read that article. I did a quick search but found only old infor about the IN acquiring the E-2D.

Thank you!

 

[delft]

Delft..could you post a link for the above statement. I'd like to read that article. I did a quick search but found only old infor about the IN acquiring the E-2D.

Thank you!

I'm sorry. I read it somewhere but I don't know when ( as I indicated ) nor where. IIRC it was a short remark in a not very long article or notice and without a reference except indeed to the possibility of IN acquiring E-2D's.

 

[Jeff Head]

...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.

Uh, no. I don't think so.

The Chinese have been gravitating towards using their carries very similarly to how the US uses its carriers, and away from the Soviet/Russian model.

I expect that the J-15 will end up being able to take off with a very decent fuel load and carrying 4 AAW and two decent sized ASMs and do so from the long position over the ski-jump.

If they want large strike packages with more weapons, say 2 AAW missiles, 4 ASMs, etc., then they will use a couple of J-15s with buddy stores and external fuel tanks to top them off going out, and to be there in case needed when coming back so everyone can get into the landing pattern.

But make no mistake, everything we have seen of the PLAN's evolving doctrine tells us that the PLAN intends to use its carriers (including the Liaoning and its immediate follow-on) as power projection vessels where the principle weapon is the airwing.

 

[asif iqbal]

Uh, no. I don't think so.

The Chinese have been gravitating towards using their carries very similarly to how the US uses its carriers, and away from the Soviet/Russian model.

I expect that the J-15 will end up being able to take off with a very decent fuel load and carrying 4 AAW and two decent sized ASMs and do so from the long position over the ski-jump.

If they want large strike packages with more weapons, say 2 AAW missiles, 4 ASMs, etc., then they will use a couple of J-15s with buddy stores and external fuel tanks to top them off going out, and to be there in case needed when coming back so everyone can get into the landing pattern.

But make no mistake, everything we have seen of the PLAN's evolving doctrine tells us that the PLAN intends to use its carriers (including the Liaoning and its immediate follow-on) as power projection vessels where the principle weapon is the airwing.

I agree no question about it

The Chinese are going about this in a incremental and methodical way we can see this by following the land based infrastructure and the handling of the Liaoning

They have a very robust carrier programme

 

[Jeff Head]

Well, I finished my Hasegawa 1/72 scale J-15 Flying Shark model. I built it as a production aircraft and made it aircraft nuumber "106" from the current production queue that started with aircraft number "100". Here's a link to the model thread here on SD with pictures from the completed model:

J-15 Flying Shark model in 1/72 Scale
​

Good looking bird.

I loaded it up for carrier, ski-jump take-off with the following:

2 x PL-8 IR Missiles
2 x PL-12 Radar missiles
2 x Kh-29TE Guided Munitions

The Chinese bought something on the order of 2,000 Kh-29 weapons from the Russians for their SU-30s, JH-7As and also to be used for J-11s. I have no doubt they would also be available fot the J-15s. And with a penetrating HE warhead of 320 kg, and able to be deliverd from a range of 30km, they would put a lot of hurt on anything they hit.

At some point, when I find a 1/72 scale model of the C-801 missile, I will replace these Kh-29TEs with those missiles...but you have to go with what you have.