I just updated my reply post.
I did not argue that the J-35 won't make it onboard Liaoning and Shandong. You need to re-read my initial post again.
J-15 carrier fighter thread
- Thread starter Jeff Head
- Start date
antiterror13
Brigadier
If J-35 would go to 001 and 002, how many 001 and 002 can carry J-35?
You still don’t get it. There is no technical reason why J-15B and J-35 can’t be launched from STOBAR carriers without modifications.
You mean "how many J-35s can 001 and 002 carry".
To put it simply, same as the number of J-15s onboard Liaoning and Shandong respectively.
Sure.
Both of you are jumping the gun a little bit.
The question about whether CATOBAR fighters can take off from STOBAR carriers (ski jumps), in the case of J-15B and J-35/XY, is something that has already been discussed and debated in the past and the outcome was (and still remains): inconclusive.
Fundamentally, we don't know the specific extent of airframe strengthening that is needed for a ski jump takeoff, and whether that would be already present for an aircraft designed to have fuselage reinforcement for CATOBAR takeoff and recovery (J-15B and J-35/XY), or whether there are other airframe stresses for a sustained ski jump takeoff independent of fuselage reinforcement needed for CATOBAR takeoff and recovery.
If a CATOBAR compatible fighter doesn't need additional reinforcement for ski jump takeoff, then great it will naturally allow cross deck operations between the PLAN's STOBAR carriers (CV-16, 17) and future CATOBAR carriers.
On the other hand, if a CATOBAR compatible fighter does need additional reinforcement for ski jump takeoff, the question becomes one of whether it would be worthwhile to have developed J-15B and J-35/XY from the outset to have that ski jump specific reinforcement in addition to its obvious CATOBAR reinforcement. The obvious major benefits being that you can crossdeck, the drawbacks being a likely minor weight penalty (but where even minor weight additions are meaningful).
Both of you have used somewhat strong, confident language, as below:
"The J-15B is the CATOBAR variant, hence they will never serve onboard Liaoning and Shandong."
and
"There is no reason why not"
Instead, it is most correct to say "at this stage we cannot say if J-15B and J-XY/35 will be compatible with regular STOBAR operations in addition to their known CATOBAR compatibility".
F-18 was able to launch from a ski jump without modifications
And is the J-15B a carbon-copy of the F/A-18? Clearly not.
Last edited:
antiterror13
Brigadier
I thought will be more J-35 can be carried as it is significantly smaller than J-15, what would make you think 001/002 would carry the same number J-35 as J-15? what are the logics ?
The J-35 is smaller than the J-15, but certainly not significantly smaller. They pretty much have similar footprint sizes.
Besides, on aircraft carriers, with a fixed given space, you don't just cramp stuffs into it like sardines in a tin can, as you still need to move those carrier-based aircrafts around. That's why unless in emergency mode, you don't see the Nimitzs cramping 80-100 Super Hornets in them, despite theoretically being able to do so.
Indeed, as can Rafale M (which is what the Indian Navy bought for their STOBAR carriers).
But, we do not know if Rafale and Super Hornet are able to do sustained ski jump carrier operations without incurring greater strain on their airframes than what they were designed for.
When I talk about whether there is necessity of structural reinforcement for J-15B and J-35/XY doing ski jump operations, that is what I refer to.
The significance of whether it is capable of doing so or not has significant repercussions in potentially enabling routine, regular cross deck operations and overall greatly centralising the PLANAF tactical fighter fleet composition, so we cannot simply assume that it is a given.
We are obliged to treat the answer right now as "we don't know".
Assuming they are capable of doing so and assuming they are not capable of doing so, are both not very prudent positions to take.