vesicles
Colonel
What?! What are you talking about?
To the best of my knowledge, the J-15 has demonstrated successful takeoff in every possible way (land-based and carriers) that we can think of, seen in photos and videos for many years.
J-15 carrier fighter thread
- Thread starter Jeff Head
- Start date
What?! What are you talking about?
To the best of my knowledge, the J-15 has demonstrated successful takeoff in every possible way (land-based and carriers) that we can think of, seen in photos and videos for many years.
J15 is certainly not a failed project. It met the PLAN requirement for a 4 gen carrier based all purpose fighter for her first two ski ramp carriers. Can China do better ? Of course. But to call it a failure and white elephant project is pure sensationalism. China will enhance J15 or come up with a new plane for her future carriers, which will CATOBAR.
Given the timing and geopolitical environment, it is a better choice than PLAN's only other realistic alternatives - the MIG-29K.
Given the timing and geopolitical environment, it is a better choice than PLAN's only other realistic alternatives - the MIG-29K.
I don't like how this discussion has devolved into bickering over whether or not the J-15 is a successful project. It's been two pages and no one has brought up any concrete points, and in an unsuitable thread for it, no less.
The J-15 is objectively not a good aircraft, especially if operating from a STOBAR carrier. It was a successful project only to the extent that it gave Liaoning and Shandong something resembling an air wing. Other than that, it is plagued with problems - maximum takeoff weight, reliability, size, and so forth.
The J-15 can take off with full load only from the rearmost position. Anywhere else, and you might as well have a flock of ducks for an air wing. This is probably the most severe limitation, but it can be remedied with a catapult-launched version, taking off from CATOBAR carriers. Aside from that, with only ~20 aircraft operated in the last 6 years, there has been two crashes, highlighting unspecified issues with reliability. We don't know exactly what's wrong but it's safe to guess that there are problems.
It is also a very large aircraft, which takes up a lot of deck/hangar space. If the Chinese Navy operated F/A-18s instead of J-15s, they could probably squeeze 35-40 planes onto each carrier instead of only 24-30. Of course, there is a trade-off in terms of how much fuel/ordnance each aircraft can carry and how far it can fly, so whether or not the PLAN will use a smaller airframe for its next-generation carrier-based fighter is something we'll find out soon.
At this point, the J-15 era is over. It's a successful demonstrator but its value stops there. It's finished, and the fact that no more airframes are being produced says a lot. The question now is if they will rush development of the next-generation aircraft that do not have these issues and limitations, or if they will take it slow, and restart J-15 production in the interim. The popular concensus is the former, but it is difficult to say with any kind of confidence.
The J-15 is objectively not a good aircraft, especially if operating from a STOBAR carrier. It was a successful project only to the extent that it gave Liaoning and Shandong something resembling an air wing. Other than that, it is plagued with problems - maximum takeoff weight, reliability, size, and so forth.
The J-15 can take off with full load only from the rearmost position. Anywhere else, and you might as well have a flock of ducks for an air wing. This is probably the most severe limitation, but it can be remedied with a catapult-launched version, taking off from CATOBAR carriers. Aside from that, with only ~20 aircraft operated in the last 6 years, there has been two crashes, highlighting unspecified issues with reliability. We don't know exactly what's wrong but it's safe to guess that there are problems.
It is also a very large aircraft, which takes up a lot of deck/hangar space. If the Chinese Navy operated F/A-18s instead of J-15s, they could probably squeeze 35-40 planes onto each carrier instead of only 24-30. Of course, there is a trade-off in terms of how much fuel/ordnance each aircraft can carry and how far it can fly, so whether or not the PLAN will use a smaller airframe for its next-generation carrier-based fighter is something we'll find out soon.
At this point, the J-15 era is over. It's a successful demonstrator but its value stops there. It's finished, and the fact that no more airframes are being produced says a lot. The question now is if they will rush development of the next-generation aircraft that do not have these issues and limitations, or if they will take it slow, and restart J-15 production in the interim. The popular concensus is the former, but it is difficult to say with any kind of confidence.
D
Deleted member 13312
Guest
In other words, blah blah blah give the J-15 a CATOBAR carrier, you know the kind of carrier that such planes are intended to operated off from. And watch as they instantly give every current carrier fighter plane in service a run for their money.
Bashing the J-15 for it's performance off the CV-16 and 17 is like bashing the F-14 Tomcat if it was operated off the Kuznetsov. The moment I saw it off the deck of the CV-16 I knew that it is going to get a rather unfair evaluation.
A ski-jump ramp carrier is going to gimp the capabilities of any fighter jet that is based on it especially compared to a CATOBAR carrier.
The F-14 Tomcat and E-2 Hawkeye are even heavier. The aircraft is perfectly capable, it is based on the proven Su-27 after all. The inability to takeoff with full armaments without a catapult applies to all regular take off aircraft. Once the 003 is in service, the issue will be solved.
asif iqbal
Lieutenant General
I always said J15 is no good for CV-16 and CV-17
severe handicap
no Batch 3
Flanker is just not cut for carrier oops
Russians tried for decades and in the end went with Mig29 K paid by India
also no Chinese trainer made it to a carrier
which adds to the problem
Air wing for carrier strike group and amphibious ready groups still hangs in the balance for China
severe handicap
no Batch 3
Flanker is just not cut for carrier oops
Russians tried for decades and in the end went with Mig29 K paid by India
also no Chinese trainer made it to a carrier
which adds to the problem
Air wing for carrier strike group and amphibious ready groups still hangs in the balance for China
But..not so much with a MiG-29. So I've always wondered why China did not go with the MiG-29 from the outset of her CV programme? Was it an import issue? Just why did they opt for the J-15 which is hampered by the ski ramp?
Intrepid
Major
The J-15 is easier to handle. It does not put so much stress on the arresting wire system. Simply the better airplane for someone who wants to start from scratch and doesn't want to miss an important learning phase.
Let's look at the MIG-29K (carrier version of MIG-29) timeline. From
2004 Jan : India ordered 12 MIG-29K single seat fighter and 4 MIG-29KUB 2 seat fighter
2009 Dec : First MIG-29K delivered to India
2010 Feb : MIG-29K entered operational service in Indian Navy
2010 Dec : Total of 6 MIG-29K delivered to India
Now look at CV-16 Liaoning's time line (from Wikipedia) :
2011 Aug 10 : First sea trial
2012 Sept 23-25 : Handover and commissioned by PLAN
2012 Nov : J-15 landing on CV-16
Looking at both timelines, China would need her first carrier based fighter before 2010, and MIG, with the India order, would not be able to meet China's timing need.
Also, as Deino suggested, China preferred to have her own technology. In addition, due to the Chinese Flanker development, the Russians in the early 2000s probably were hesitant to sell another fighter plane to China.