backwindow
New Member
Looks like an artwork for me, but they show it in their briefing room. Anyway, wow!
J-15 carrier fighter thread
- Thread starter Jeff Head
- Start date
by78
General
If this is correct - and I believe Huitong is correct - then the recently shown J-15B is numbered 1511, which is not really a prototype number corresponding to the prototype system: the T-models were '57x'.
In fact the no. 1511 is exactly the same pattern as used by the pre-production or Batch 01 production models of the J-16: J-16 no. 1612 was cn. 0102, so J-15B no. 1511 is maybe cn. 0101 and as such the very first serial aircraft?
(Image via Huitong's CMA-Blog)
In fact the no. 1511 is exactly the same pattern as used by the pre-production or Batch 01 production models of the J-16: J-16 no. 1612 was cn. 0102, so J-15B no. 1511 is maybe cn. 0101 and as such the very first serial aircraft?
(Image via Huitong's CMA-Blog)
Some reflections/thoughts into the air -
(1)
Slightly odd, that J-15S appears(?) to be a J-15A, not -B variation from a technical perspective; odd because it's 2023, not 2013, after all.
We don't really know the kind of radar fitted under the hood(I've already voiced my reservations in the PLAAF thread), but the fact the nose cone itself is of an old type (non-inclined, older-type vertical ESA/dish array cone. Likely, no RCS optimization yet, as this particular part is generally a good indicator of other adaptations). Also, the lack of numerous visible next-gen directional ESA datalinks, is characteristic of both 5th-gen and most recent non-LO airframes: to compare, while j-15b picturesucks is shaky, we can in fact see shapes that we can interpret as such.
On the other hand, J-15S can be considered the first major, entirely local carrier-borne fighter; J-15A is still very much a Sino Su-27k with updated/localized electronics; J-15B is still a prototype. Significant structural and internal changes in J-15S are undeniable (there was no matching Russian naval flanker).
Either way, it's a significant milestone nonetheless (and a successful rob of J-15B/D of the title).
(2)
Tactics&compositions.
Since those are combat planes, there is a lot of space for interpretations.
Will two-seaters form a significant part of units&deck deployments? That only makes sense, if we go by USN and MN examples.
Likely proportions - seem to be around 3:1 or 2:1 of the J-15A fleet, for now - or more? PLAN now goes from essentially one f/w type on the deck to 2 - and, in relatively short order, no less than 5 (manned) - J-15A/B/S/D, J-35. That's w/o combat and potential tanker drones.
Datalink part (only 'normal' ones) makes the LW aspect questionable (not impossible, but the most obvious corresponding optimizations aren't visible) - thus likely explanation are the more mundane ones: advanced training, better surface attack capability, in-flight command&control.
(3)
Coastal/(deck replenishment) units.
PLAN maintains a very sizeable coastal fighter force; for those (inherently multirole) formations, what does J-15S represent? Shall we expect J-11BS replacement(with a unit of arguably ~similar or even lesser - weight! - capability), or something else?
(1)
Slightly odd, that J-15S appears(?) to be a J-15A, not -B variation from a technical perspective; odd because it's 2023, not 2013, after all.
We don't really know the kind of radar fitted under the hood(I've already voiced my reservations in the PLAAF thread), but the fact the nose cone itself is of an old type (non-inclined, older-type vertical ESA/dish array cone. Likely, no RCS optimization yet, as this particular part is generally a good indicator of other adaptations). Also, the lack of numerous visible next-gen directional ESA datalinks, is characteristic of both 5th-gen and most recent non-LO airframes: to compare, while j-15b picture
On the other hand, J-15S can be considered the first major, entirely local carrier-borne fighter; J-15A is still very much a Sino Su-27k with updated/localized electronics; J-15B is still a prototype. Significant structural and internal changes in J-15S are undeniable (there was no matching Russian naval flanker).
Either way, it's a significant milestone nonetheless (and a successful rob of J-15B/D of the title).
(2)
Tactics&compositions.
Since those are combat planes, there is a lot of space for interpretations.
Will two-seaters form a significant part of units&deck deployments? That only makes sense, if we go by USN and MN examples.
Likely proportions - seem to be around 3:1 or 2:1 of the J-15A fleet, for now - or more? PLAN now goes from essentially one f/w type on the deck to 2 - and, in relatively short order, no less than 5 (manned) - J-15A/B/S/D, J-35. That's w/o combat and potential tanker drones.
Datalink part (only 'normal' ones) makes the LW aspect questionable (not impossible, but the most obvious corresponding optimizations aren't visible) - thus likely explanation are the more mundane ones: advanced training, better surface attack capability, in-flight command&control.
(3)
Coastal/(deck replenishment) units.
PLAN maintains a very sizeable coastal fighter force; for those (inherently multirole) formations, what does J-15S represent? Shall we expect J-11BS replacement(with a unit of arguably ~similar or even lesser - weight! - capability), or something else?
AFAIK China right now has no proper twin seater aircraft which can launch from a carrier and land there. There is a version of the JL-9 trainer which is supposed to be able to do this, but I have not heard of it being used in large numbers or having much success. Having a trainer with basically the same configuration as the actual combat aircraft the naval pilots use, the J-15S, will help the training process a lot. Having the extra crewman will also help with certain types of combat missions from electronic warfare, to reconnaissance, or even some kinds of combat missions in highly cluttered combat environments.
That JL-9H is only rated for the static carrier simulation IIRC so J-15S will definitely be better for carrier trainings.
Man this twin seat J-15 is going to be even heavier and still be required to takeoff from a STOBAR carrier, so unless they cut out some things to lighten it or there must be some serious innovations in materials or component lightening. Only the F-14 was heavier but it was launched from CATOBAR carriers anyway.
It's more likely than not they would upgrade J-15 and J-15S to J-15B standard just like what they are doing with J-11B. But for now they are still gaining experience on carrier operation which needs a lot of airframes and avionics is not as important compares to get them early and in numbers.