Nice, but why the note "first J-15S with tail hook for arrested landings" ???
The J-15S had always this hook already since its maiden flight.Deino
J-15 carrier fighter thread
- Thread starter Jeff Head
- Start date
Nice, but why the note "first J-15S with tail hook for arrested landings" ???
The J-15S had always this hook already since its maiden flight.Deino
did anyone actually think J-15S would only be a "trainer"? I don't think PLAAF/PLANAF have ever developed a "trainer only" variant of a frontline combat aircraft since about JJ-6? All their twin seater variants of frontline fighters have been combat capable.
I wonder if J-16 and J-15S will share any similarities in terms of avionics. I imagine it would be wise to equip both with the same multirole AESA, given they'll both have air/air and air/ground roles.
It would also be great if PLAAF and PLANAF could cooperate on a tactical jammer "upgrade" for their J-16s and J-15Ss respectively. Leverage a common airframe, baseline avionics, cockpit, and develop jamming and ISR pods that can be upgraded to existing J-16s or J-15Ss (I think RAAF super hornets have the option to be modded into growlers), or new build aircraft of both types with minimal change of manufacturing line.
One thing PLAAF has done right is invest in standoff jammers on the Y-8/9 platform, and to give their JH-7/As a limited tactical jamming capability.
PLAAF and PLANAF should now both integrate high performance tacjammers within their strike regiments in an organic way as well. So a 24 plane J-16 or J-15 regiment may have 6 dedicated jammer variants each.
ultimately it will be the jamming pod which determines performance, and both aviation arms should be looking to cooperate in an AESA based jammer. The technology should be there; the various institutes have had many years to develop a formidable AESA industry. Eventually, it may even be worth developing a limited number of J-20 based jammers, by integrating small sized pods where the side weapon bays sit.
PLA really have a heap of options to develop dedicated tacjammers, they just need to exploit it and be imaginative.
I wonder if J-16 and J-15S will share any similarities in terms of avionics. I imagine it would be wise to equip both with the same multirole AESA, given they'll both have air/air and air/ground roles.
It would also be great if PLAAF and PLANAF could cooperate on a tactical jammer "upgrade" for their J-16s and J-15Ss respectively. Leverage a common airframe, baseline avionics, cockpit, and develop jamming and ISR pods that can be upgraded to existing J-16s or J-15Ss (I think RAAF super hornets have the option to be modded into growlers), or new build aircraft of both types with minimal change of manufacturing line.
One thing PLAAF has done right is invest in standoff jammers on the Y-8/9 platform, and to give their JH-7/As a limited tactical jamming capability.
PLAAF and PLANAF should now both integrate high performance tacjammers within their strike regiments in an organic way as well. So a 24 plane J-16 or J-15 regiment may have 6 dedicated jammer variants each.
ultimately it will be the jamming pod which determines performance, and both aviation arms should be looking to cooperate in an AESA based jammer. The technology should be there; the various institutes have had many years to develop a formidable AESA industry. Eventually, it may even be worth developing a limited number of J-20 based jammers, by integrating small sized pods where the side weapon bays sit.
PLA really have a heap of options to develop dedicated tacjammers, they just need to exploit it and be imaginative.
plawolf
Lieutenant General
Good post, but I don't think you need 25% of your fixed wing airwing to be jammers. 6 J15s per 24 aircraft carrier wing would be be more realistic.
It may well be that all 6 could be used as jammers if desired, but operationally, some or even most of them will be tasked with different duties.
I am also spectical of using a stealth fighter as a dedicated jammer.
Jamming, but its very nature requires active emissions of signals, that rather renders a stealth plane's prized stealth irrelevant.
Regarding the prevalence of jammers, I think it will depend on the mission of the carrier against whatever foe they're sent against. PLAN will have a limited number of carriers and those carriers won't have as large an airwing until they commission supercarriers, and I can imagine some situations where a higher sortie rate of jammer/SEAD type aircraft may be preferable. Also, more constant jammer support may make the rest of your airwing more survivable whether it is CAP or long range interdiction (not to mention greatly help in taskforce defence).
If it's against a high technology foe, then ISR, AEWC, and EW needs to be of a much higher quality and availability imo.
jammers would also have ISR and ESM roles given the type of avionics they'll be hauling, so like you said, not all 6 would have to be tasked to jamming duty all of the time. But I do believe that against high tech foes, PLAAF and PLANAF should look into integration of jammers organic to strike regiments for persistent tacjammer support.
Regarding stealth jammers; I agree on the one hand, that jamming/emitting seems to go against the notion of stealth. But that relies on your enemy having the ESM to actively track your stealthy jammer in a way that can provide a kill solution, which should definitely be harder than trying to kill a non stealthy jammer at similar parameters, I imagine.
That said, stealthy jammers are a very high end capability that is far into the future.
If it's against a high technology foe, then ISR, AEWC, and EW needs to be of a much higher quality and availability imo.
jammers would also have ISR and ESM roles given the type of avionics they'll be hauling, so like you said, not all 6 would have to be tasked to jamming duty all of the time. But I do believe that against high tech foes, PLAAF and PLANAF should look into integration of jammers organic to strike regiments for persistent tacjammer support.
Regarding stealth jammers; I agree on the one hand, that jamming/emitting seems to go against the notion of stealth. But that relies on your enemy having the ESM to actively track your stealthy jammer in a way that can provide a kill solution, which should definitely be harder than trying to kill a non stealthy jammer at similar parameters, I imagine.
That said, stealthy jammers are a very high end capability that is far into the future.
To pick up Chicks wit,,,,, DDDuuuuuuHhhhhh! might want to ask your old man about the "birds and the bees"????? oh HECK, just ask pop-eye, he'll prolly give you better advice~!!!!
Actually, I have NO DOUBT the F-22 could come for a visit, "burn you down electronically", and "blow", all without ever firing a shot,,, some of our "trash talkers" prolly just can't sleep at night, prolly only cost us 5 bucks or so on next months "electric bill", and no I'm not talking about bltizo,,, he seems to be able to add, and subtract, as well as multiply
asif iqbal
Lieutenant General
Exciting times
J-15, J-15S, J10B, J10C and J16 so much action going on!!
J-15, J-15S, J10B, J10C and J16 so much action going on!!
asif iqbal
Lieutenant General
Well let's just finish it off anyone have unit 106?
