J-15 carrier fighter thread

[Blitzo]

I want to go back and ask about something a few posts back.

A J-15 loaded for bear, strike package I'd guess, cannot take off with a full load of fuel and must tank soon or immediately after takeoff to achieve a decent/max range. They also said it would take 1 to 2 J-15s with buddy stores, belly tank and two wing tanks to fuel up one striker. That sounds like a little more than half the airwing is flying gas stations which cannot be recycled until all of the strike package is on its way. And just maybe they need some to be on standby for any of the strikers coming up on bingo fuel for the return trip. That doesn't sound very viable or practica to me. But who knows, I only spent 15 years on carriers, so I could easily be confused.

I'm thinking that CV-16 is really going to be a test/trials/evaluation platform just as the Chinese say. Slow pace of operations, now in the shipyard after only two years in service, and apparently no push to field more operational J-15 airframes. If the test/training/evaluation idea is true then there is no need to quickly produce operational airframes as would be required otherwise.

Maybe CV-16 has some limitations that preclude it from being a truly operational platform excluding national emergencies.

Curious as to what those issues might be?

Too much extrapolation based on multiple faulty premises IMHO.

For one, we don't know if J-15 is even limited by take off weight from ski jumps in the first place, and even if it was, we don't know how much it is. Even if it could only launch with half of its MTOW that is still a decent payload and fuel load it can haul.
Also, the fact that liaoning is back in dry dock isn't very strange either. She's been out and about for a year or so, it is about the right time for them to implement whatever small changes from lessons they may have garnered. Neither that or the slow pace of training is particularly indicative of anything, considering how early the PLAN are at carrier operations.

And I'm not sure whether we can call the J-15 production rate dependent on the result of no perceived need to produce more airframes quicker, or if it sis related to production challenges or maybe we simply don't have many pictures.


So all in all, to address your question, "Maybe CV-16 has some limitations that preclude it from being a truly operational platform excluding national emergencies."
The answer is that it is far too early to tell, but at this stage it would be unwise to draw conclusions, and at the moment I don't see any concrete evidence that CV16 is not intended to be able to be an operational platform.

 

[jacksprat]

Jeff/Blitzo

Well reasoned responses from both of you. I don't have a link about how many J-15's are required to top of a striker, but then Jeff doesn't have a link to prove the J-15 that went airborne with both ASM and AAMs had anything other than a minimal fuel load to get it back about after a couple of laps around the carrier. Perhaps they just wanted to make sure the missiles wouldn't have fallen off the rails. Yes I know then can test that at the shore station, but it still needs to be tested afloat.

One of my reasons for these questions is what Jeff recently pointed out, no pics of new aircraft, just recycled shots that we all have seen multiple times. By everyone's expectation there should be more. CV-16 sailed down to the SSF without any aircraft, just did some ops in the Bohai, without any evidence of aircraft involved. Why? Possible problems with the production line, engines, or with CV-16.

September 2012 CV-16 was commissioned, May 2014 in the dry dock, that's only not quite two years and of those two years not even half of that time was spent at sea. I suspect she has barnacles on her hull, they don't grow there when the ship is in motion.

As far as the self defense weapons, they could be nothing more than window dressing meant to scare the bogey man or the Philippinos. Or a proof of concepts demo for the next carrier, doesnt really prove anything either way. Show me a link with them firing a missile and then I'll believe other wise. Lots of Chinese combatants sail around half the time with empty missiles racks, why not CV-16 with showpieces, who is to know. Neither you nor I for sure.

Its a matter of perspective, gentlemen, some people see the glass half empty, some half full. I see a glass that is not living up to its expectations, which as I read so often on this site for the CV-16 are mostly very higher than what current evidence seems to show.

I don't necessarily disagree with either of you, but I am a bit more pragmatic about what I see and hear and somewhat enjoy playing the devils advocate when I think it might provoke a more forthright dialogue and raise some issues that seem to be glossed over.

Best regards

 

[Blitzo]

I think some people (myself included) a few years ago definitely thought the PLAN would be progressing a little faster than they seem to be doing, but over the last while I've began to realize just how vast a challenge actually lies in front of them, and that developing a carrier capability is not going to show immediate results.


As for ship refit, again, I don't consider it too soon since the ship entered service. I'm sure they aren't doing any major changes, but will involve a variety of smaller subsystem switches or additions from lessons they learned at sea.

They've definitely not been out at sea as often as we would like, but I suspect they were using that time at sea less to train and more to develop the specific theories, manuals, and ground work to develop an overall doctrine they want to train upon. The PLAN have definitely been preparing for carriers many years, but at the end of the day they only received their first ship of this type a year and a half ago. To train vigorously this soon would actually seem a little irresponsible to me

 

[SteelBird]

Did anybody post this before? It's the most beautiful J-15 photo I've ever seen.

 

[Air Force Brat]

Did anybody post this before? It's the most beautiful J-15 photo I've ever seen.

That is a great picture steel, and these girls look good even in primer, I think we should each order one, and maybe you and I could go to Cuba and take over for the Castro boys, course we would be "benevolent dictators, and send all the trouble makers to some South American Country, or a least Kalifornia.....

Actually, we should invite Mirage Driver to join us as he speaks the Lingo, Comprehende, or you know???? how bout it Mirage????

Yeah, we could raise lots of Sugar Cane!

 

[Solaris]

Well reasoned responses from both of you. I don't have a link about how many J-15's are required to top of a striker, but then Jeff doesn't have a link to prove the J-15 that went airborne with both ASM and AAMs had anything other than a minimal fuel load to get it back about after a couple of laps around the carrier. Perhaps they just wanted to make sure the missiles wouldn't have fallen off the rails. Yes I know then can test that at the shore station, but it still needs to be tested afloat.

One of my reasons for these questions is what Jeff recently pointed out, no pics of new aircraft, just recycled shots that we all have seen multiple times. By everyone's expectation there should be more. CV-16 sailed down to the SSF without any aircraft, just did some ops in the Bohai, without any evidence of aircraft involved. Why? Possible problems with the production line, engines, or with CV-16.

September 2012 CV-16 was commissioned, May 2014 in the dry dock, that's only not quite two years and of those two years not even half of that time was spent at sea. I suspect she has barnacles on her hull, they don't grow there when the ship is in motion.

As far as the self defense weapons, they could be nothing more than window dressing meant to scare the bogey man or the Philippinos. Or a proof of concepts demo for the next carrier, doesnt really prove anything either way. Show me a link with them firing a missile and then I'll believe other wise. Lots of Chinese combatants sail around half the time with empty missiles racks, why not CV-16 with showpieces, who is to know. Neither you nor I for sure.

Its a matter of perspective, gentlemen, some people see the glass half empty, some half full. I see a glass that is not living up to its expectations, which as I read so often on this site for the CV-16 are mostly very higher than what current evidence seems to show.

I don't necessarily disagree with either of you, but I am a bit more pragmatic about what I see and hear and somewhat enjoy playing the devils advocate when I think it might provoke a more forthright dialogue and raise some issues that seem to be glossed over.

There is a very fine line between playing devil's advocate and naysaying pessimism; one is often disguised as the other. What you seem to be discussing are a bunch of bizarre accusations that seem intended more for ridicule than for inquiry. Like these:

CV-16 sailed down to the SSF without any aircraft, just did some ops in the Bohai, without any evidence of aircraft involved. Why? Possible problems with the production line, engines, or with CV-16.

Why are these possibilities your first inclination?

September 2012 CV-16 was commissioned, May 2014 in the dry dock, that's only not quite two years and of those two years not even half of that time was spent at sea. I suspect she has barnacles on her hull, they don't grow there when the ship is in motion.

Go ahead and demonstrate the presence of barnacles on the Liaoning. Anyone can "suspect" anything they like, but actual correlation with reality is a bit trickier.

As far as the self defense weapons, they could be nothing more than window dressing meant to scare the bogey man or the Philippinos. Or a proof of concepts demo for the next carrier, doesnt really prove anything either way. Show me a link with them firing a missile and then I'll believe other wise.

Both the CIWS and the HQ-10 have equivalents installed on other active PLAN ships. I find it rather amusing that you feel important enough that the PLAN must prove these systems are more than just plastic decoys to you before you will believe they are real weapons, or that people here owe you some kind of proof of the nonfakeness of these systems.

 

[Jeff Head]

I see a glass that is not living up to its expectations..

Okay, that pretty much explains it.

Many people have expectations from afar...but it is the PLAN's expectations that count, and we are not privy to them.

As I have stated...the Liaoning, with 24 J-15s and its escorts (which we have seen the vessel exercise with) will be a force any other navy in the region, including the US Navy, will take very seriously.

I don't necessarily disagree with either of you, but I am a bit more pragmatic about what I see and hear and somewhat enjoy playing the devils advocate when I think it might provoke a more forthright dialogue and raise some issues that seem to be glossed over.

I do not believe any conversations here in SD are "glossed" over. Particularly speaking with almost ten years experience here on the forum.

Anyhow, it is clear that the PLAN has invested significant treasure into the Liaoning itself, its developing air wing and the huge infrastructure they have developed and built to support those things.

They are very very serious about it...but they are also moving according to their own timetable.

As to your assertion or thought that the weapons systems on the Liaoning are somehow, "nothing more than window dressing meant to scare the bogey man or the Philippinos". Seriously?

We are not talking about Iran here. And there have been pictures of some of those weapons being tested. So...they are clearly not, "window dressing."

Making such a statement like that and dragging the Philippines into it, is beyond seeing a glass "half full," or "half empty." It is throwing out a volatile, inciting comment, IMHO meant to illicit emotion, and one that you should be very careful to watch yourself over here on SD.

Read the forum rules of behavior. We do not tolerate that type of thing from either side.

 

[kwaigonegin]

Jeff/Blitzo



September 2012 CV-16 was commissioned, May 2014 in the dry dock, that's only not quite two years and of those two years not even half of that time was spent at sea. I suspect she has barnacles on her hull, they don't grow there when the ship is in motion.


Its a matter of perspective, gentlemen, some people see the glass half empty, some half full. I see a glass that is not living up to its expectations, which as I read so often on this site for the CV-16 are mostly very higher than what current evidence seems to show.


Best regards

I'm not going to bother to respond to the rest of your observations but the barnacle thing is at best intellectually dishonest. Yes barnacles do grow much faster on stationary objects however to imply that Liaoning has barnacles because she is a dock queen is obviously incorrect.
Even whales have a lot of barnacles growing on them and these are creatures who are constantly moving.

 

[joshuatree]

As far as the self defense weapons, they could be nothing more than window dressing meant to scare the bogey man or the Philippinos. Or a proof of concepts demo for the next carrier, doesnt really prove anything either way. Show me a link with them firing a missile and then I'll believe other wise. Lots of Chinese combatants sail around half the time with empty missiles racks, why not CV-16 with showpieces, who is to know. Neither you nor I for sure.

Not quite a missile but not window dressing either.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

 

[Jeff Head]

Not quite a missile but not window dressing either.

China Defense Blog: Photos of the day: pumping lead, Liaoning style[/url]

Yes...indeed.

To punctuate, let's get them here on the thread from

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

.

​

No...no "window dressing," there.