Note the J-15 "folds" very well. Its width folded is less than the MiG-29K and F/A-18E/F IIRC. Of course, its length doesn't change.
Last edited:
J-15 carrier fighter thread
- Thread starter Jeff Head
- Start date
To be fair, they stopped due to lower intensity of modern world; during CW, in anticipation of proper fleet warfare, they routinely operated 80-100 a/c per deck.
From what I understand a STOBAR aircraft does not need any strengthening for doing flights from a ski jump. What it will need strengthening for is so the airframe can withstand the stresses of the arrested recovery with the tail hook.
A CATOBAR aircraft will also need strengthening of the airframe so it can withstand the stresses of catapult launch. This includes strengthening of the landing gear. But this is supposedly much less of a problem with EMALS than with a steam catapult.
No, the problem we face is we do not know whether a STOBAR aircraft requires any additional strengthening for taking off from a ski jump (independent of the strengthening to do arrested landings, which a CATOBAR aircraft has to do as well).
I'll break it down to bullet points in terms of airframe strengthening relevant to carrier landings and takeoffs:
- Both STOBAR and CATOBAR compatible aircraft will need the same kind of fuselage reinforcement for doing arrested landings
- CATOBAR compatible aircraft require nose gear launch bar and hold back faculties, as well as fuselage reinforcement for the forward "pull"/shear force of a catapult launch
- We do not know if STOBAR compatible aircraft require fuselage strengthening independent of the reinforcement for doing arrested landings, to account for the ski jump launch in a sustainable and long term fashion (e.g.: does the ski jump launch impose a vertical/upwards stress on the aircraft's landing gear and fuselage which is different in nature from the arrested landing)
The potential significance of the answer being yes or no is quite significant for how we view future airwing procurement, so we can't get away with "we suspect" or "our understanding is". We would really need definitive knowledge that likely right now only SAC and the PLANAF has, so unless there is watertight evidence, right now the best answer and only answer that we should come up with is "we don't know".
Nowadays, there are only around 70-75 planes / heils in a Carrier Air Wing.
Two J-15s in flight. Posted by @intel1osint100 on Twitter.
No such requirement, it's quite gentle in fact.
Requirement is to somehow be able to fly at lower speed with as much weight as possible, thus the 1980s idea to give STOBAR aircraft FSW.
Yep, but that's a savings measure.
Landing is way more punishing than lifting up from STOBAR.
But the front landing gear modifications that have been done for the CATOBAR compatible J-15 could influence his capabilities to use the STOBAR and certainly need to be tested.
If they want to be able to switch between STOBAR and CATOBAR with these, I'm quite surprised that we did not see the J-15B in test on the Liaoning or Shandong if it's the case before test flights on the Fujian.
@Oneninety once again somewhat cryptically announces something!
This time an "Electric Shark", which can actually only be interpreted as news regarding the J-15D? Should the type finally be put into service after years without much information?
Or is there another explanation (other that they once again want to tease and test us only)?
(Image via @Oneninety from Weibo)
This time an "Electric Shark", which can actually only be interpreted as news regarding the J-15D? Should the type finally be put into service after years without much information?
Or is there another explanation (other that they once again want to tease and test us only)?
(Image via @Oneninety from Weibo)
Last edited:
