Looks like I need to get my eyes checked again, because I seriously cannot see any similarity.
J-15 carrier fighter thread
- Thread starter Jeff Head
- Start date
Looks like I need to get my eyes checked again, because I seriously cannot see any similarity.
TerraN_EmpirE
Tyrant King
There are some common features a delta wing, canards, twin tails and on that CGI twin engines but Mig 1.44 and that CGI also have a ton of differences the engines on Mig1.44 were close together on the CGI they are apart. The intakes on the mig were of a totally different type, the canards were triangular where the CG has cliped types, the wings are more conventional on the CG where the mig was a pure delta. The claim of it looking like is like saying F16 looks like the Eurofighter, of F14 resembles Su27. They have a similar configuration sure but they are not identical. And another thing that CGI was total fiction. J10 is a single engine bird with one tail fin. To make a single engine fighter a twin engine requires a whole new airframe, it would not be a J10 it would be a totally new type.
Apparently there have been J-15 losses, including pilots, in the Liaoning J-15 test squadron.
This is pretty big news, and quite the revelation.
Many of us have talked about the inherent dangers associated with carrier deck flight operations. Clearly, a many of us predicted, the PLAN has now experienced it themselves. In such operations, tragically, it was really only a matter of time.
The wording of this makes me wonder.
Two test pilots died from the squadron who successfully conducted landings and take-offs fom the Liaoning.
Did they die at sea? Did they die while conducting take offs or landings? Were aircraft lost? Lots of questions now.
This is pretty big news, and quite the revelation.
Many of us have talked about the inherent dangers associated with carrier deck flight operations. Clearly, a many of us predicted, the PLAN has now experienced it themselves. In such operations, tragically, it was really only a matter of time.
The wording of this makes me wonder.
Two test pilots died from the squadron who successfully conducted landings and take-offs fom the Liaoning.
Did they die at sea? Did they die while conducting take offs or landings? Were aircraft lost? Lots of questions now.
Well...while I agree that lessons will, and must be learned. And that such accidents over time are actually inevitable...still, I cannot bring myself to characterize this particular news as, "good."
As I say, perhaps, "inevitable," and so far as "unavoidable."
Oh...they will. You can be sure of that...and the progress and advancement will serve to honor those sacrifices.
Otherwise, the sacrifice would be in vain, and they will make sure that is not the case.
plawolf
Lieutenant General
Anyone seen any recent pics of the J15S two seater?
While losses are inevitable in carrier training and operations, it seems odd that they might loose two pilots/planes in so short a time. If a two seater went down with two pilots, that would make the losses seem more reasonable.
One also cannot help but think back and wonder about the relative lack of publicity after the Liaoning's latest outing and it's subsequent trip straight back to Dalian shipyards.
In light of this revelation, I wonder if a serious design flaw was found and/ or if the carrier was damaged by a crash or some such which necessitated it to return to dry dock to rectify/repair.
Otoh, I could be reading too much into it, and the accident(s) could have also have happened at the land bases facility, in which case it will give you an indication of the intensity and realism involved.
But all of that is just speculation without further information and the lack of details in Chinese military reporting is maddening. However we should remember the progress made already, as just a few short years ago, such losses would likely have been kept under wraps until decades later.
While losses are inevitable in carrier training and operations, it seems odd that they might loose two pilots/planes in so short a time. If a two seater went down with two pilots, that would make the losses seem more reasonable.
One also cannot help but think back and wonder about the relative lack of publicity after the Liaoning's latest outing and it's subsequent trip straight back to Dalian shipyards.
In light of this revelation, I wonder if a serious design flaw was found and/ or if the carrier was damaged by a crash or some such which necessitated it to return to dry dock to rectify/repair.
Otoh, I could be reading too much into it, and the accident(s) could have also have happened at the land bases facility, in which case it will give you an indication of the intensity and realism involved.
But all of that is just speculation without further information and the lack of details in Chinese military reporting is maddening. However we should remember the progress made already, as just a few short years ago, such losses would likely have been kept under wraps until decades later.
antiterror13
Brigadier
I wouldn't say "good" ... a bit disrespectful to the pilots
Intrepid
Major
No reportet activity could mean:
1. there is no activity
2. we can't see the activity
But if there is no activity and they seize this opportunity to put the carrier into drydock, I would expect the aircraft grounded for some reason. Not necessarily because of an accident but as a result of major findings. That would be quite normal for new constructions.