J-15 carrier fighter thread

[Blitzo]

Jeff, it basically becomes a question back to whether Su-33 can take off from a ski jump with a heavy load, correct?
I doubt it's a matter of the dimensions of YJ-12, which is why I mentioned moskit, but if if we're asking about whether Su-33 or J-15 can actually take off from a ski jump with moskit or YJ-12 respectively, with a respectable internal fuel load then that's another matter entirely, and it is a subject that's been debated quite extensively here... and while we obviously do not have photos or videos of Su-33s launching from kuznetsov or J-15s from liaoning with heavy loads, there is quite a bit of literature with claims that the Russians were able to launch Su-33s with near MTOW or even at MTOW, so I think it is prudent to keep an open mind to the possibility.
Keeping in mind that the world's only operational STOBAR carrier for the last few decades has been Admiral Kuznetsov, and since its launch it has basically just been a platform to allow the Russian Navy to retain their limited carrier and naval aviator experience means things like giving their fighters modern munitions let alone allowing them to practise taking off and firing them is a luxury, if not a fantasy even. So it makes sense that we haven't seen them hauling large loads off their flight decks. Hell, I can't even remember any footage post 2000 that shows Su-33s taking off with any meaningful A2A loadout let alone A2G.

After all, as long time PLA watchers I think we can appreciate that a lack of photos or video does not necessarily equal something as not existing or as lacking the capability, it just means we haven't seen it yet.
With the PLAN, Indian Navy, and Russian Navy all commissioning or increasing funding for their STOBAR carriers, we might soon have pictures of J-15s/Su-33s and/or Mig-29Ks taking off with heavier loads than before.

It's also worth keeping in mind whether the "ski jump cannot launch heavy fighters" mantra is one of principle or of one specific case -- for instance, is a ski jump unable to launch a heavy fighter only if it is equal in length to a catapult? What if the ski jump is longer? What if there is a 30 knot headwind? Is it specifically referencing Kuznetsov and Su-33, and not Kuznetsov and Mig-29K, or vice versa or both?
Oh, I don't doubt that a catapult is inherently more flexible than a ski jump, but I'd also like to know just how big a difference it is.
It is a shame that this saying has been circulated so much without any kind of studies done (to my knowledge).

 

[Jeff Head]

The biggest study in the world has been occurring for decades.

The Russians produced the Kuznetsov...and in all of that time, as I said, all we have ever seen is the A2A load outs.

We know what the CATOBARs have been doing for all of those years.

The proof is in the pudding.

BTW...I am sure that there have been studies, but they are not going to published in any open forum and are held closely.

But the fact is, if any Navy wants a strong war at sea and strike at sea capability...they are going to train and exercise for it. Again, and again, and again.

The US Navy has and does. The French Navy has and does. Heck, when they have the carrier running, event the Brazilians exercise with their A-4s.

CATOBAR carriers do.

STOBAR carriers would to...train for what they want a capability for.

We have seen what the Russian exercise and train with...and it has never been any strike at sea load outs of any kind, much less the Moskit.

All of the speculation and all of the scholastic desire to know does not trump what these Navies have actually been doing.

They are not going to pull such a capability out of their hat and ever be able to depend on it to make any large difference in their combat capability. They will train and train and train on what they can and will do, and get really good at it so that they can use it to make a difference.

Anyhow...time will tell if the Chinese ever do this. Once they get CATS, I have no doubt that we will see heavy strike at sea load outs. We will have to see what they do with the J-15 and the Liaoning with strike at sea/ASuW load outs until then.

And we will just go around and around until someone actually does so.

 

[Blitzo]

I hope there are studies, I really do, but I've never smelt even a sniff of it, and to be honest this doesn't seem like the kind of thing which would be classified. If ski jumps really are as incapable of launching heavily loaded fighters as constantly said, then I imagine it can't hurt to at least acknowledge that some such tests have been done to verify it.
You've worked in the US military industrial complex for naval and aerospace, have you ever heard of any kind of studies either by the USN or private institutes that actually tried to look at how a ski jump performs?

I absolutely agree that the proof should be in the pudding -- but the problem is that we have so much more pudding -- bowls and bowls of it -- for the CATOBAR carriers of the world of the USN and Marine Nationale and other navies, and the Russian Navy's single underfunded decrepit STOBAR carrier produces a measly grain, not even half a pudding, not even a spoonful.

Surely you must agree that the Russian Navy's aircraft carrier is hardly an operational flat top, and that its airwing is obsolete and underfunded -- at least since the cold war ended. Given that, is it not unreasonable for us to have little to no evidence of Su-33s taking off from Kuznetsov with large payloads, let alone something as unique and expensive as Moskit or an A2G loadout.
So imho it not unreasonable for us to keep an open mind to the possibility, because the proof (or lack of proof) that we have can hardly be considered plausible.
I've only seen Su-33's take off with a weapons load in this video (

), and no videos since then. I could conceivably argue on the basis that there is a lack of proof that since the testing of Su-33 prototypes aboard Kuznetsov, that production Su-33s are unable to launch off Kuznetsov with any weapons at all because we don't have any videos of it.

My position is not that ski jumps absolutely can launch heavily loaded fighters, but rather that the lack of evidence we have for it is far from sufficient to say that ski jumps cannot given the pathetic condition of the single lone STOBAR carrier and its airwing of past decades means we don't even have any videos of it launching Su-33s with even light warloads. Combined with the variety of fairly well respected russian aviation watchers writing in print that Su-33s were able to take off with heavy loads or even at MTOW, that sows enough doubt in me to say that based off the limited evidence as well as the special circumstances that results in our lack of evidence, the jury should still be out.

-----

Look, maybe the way I should be phrasing it is that we have evidence that the Russian Navy's Admiral Kuznetsov is/was unable to launch heavily armed Su-33s or even marginally armed Su-33s for much of its service life -- because the carrier and its airwing was criminally underfunded. I will agree with that.
However I think it is a fallacy to use that evidence to generalize that all ski jumps are thus unable to launch heavily armed fighters.

 

[Engineer]

It is perfectly understandable why we never see photos of Su-33 never took off from Kuznetsov with large payload, given the fact that Kuznetsov's boilers had once been flooded with sea water and could now only attain a top speed of some 25kts... on a good day. That and the fact that Kuznetsov is severely underfunded to the point where basic training is even an issue.

The Liaoning on the other hand could attain the designed top speed of the Kuznetsov class, no problem. Heck, the Liaoning is actually a bit faster. According to a big shrimp stationed on the Liaoning, J-15 can take off with 29 tons safely. Taking off with 31 tons have also been tested, but that could only be done in perfect conditions, so was deemed unsafe. Now, you do the math as to whether J-15 can take off with air-to-sea weaponries.

 

[Jeff Head]

As I said, gents...the proof is in the pudding.

Time will tell...because over time, if they do it, we will ultimately see evidence of it.

As I said, any Navy that wants that type of capability will test it (and that takes scores of take-offs and landings with the various loads), train it (having the training regiment of their aviators, in advanced stages, simulating or actually doing it), and then exercise it (meaning operations and exercises to keep their aviators very adept at performing it).

As I said, they will not pull this capability out of a hat.

So...as I say, in time, we will see it.

 

[Blitzo]

Okay, I think we need to differentiate between whether a particular navy is able to launch a heavily loaded fighter off a ski jump versus whether it is physically possible for a heavily loaded fighter to take off from a ski jump.

It's absolutely correct to say that we do not seem to have evidence for the Russian Navy being able to do so for the former, but also entirely incorrect to say that we have enough lack of evidence to say the latter is impossible.

It's like saying a particular all types of a particular car model is unable to reach a speed of 100km/h because the only car that is there to be assessed is a poorly maintained, rusting vehicle that hasn't had a check up in over twenty years.


At the very least I think the only reasonable conclusion for us to come to given the circumstances of our evidence and lack thereof is that the jury should still be out.

 

[Jeff Head]

I agree...my point is simply that the Russians certainly have shown no disposition to test, train, or exercise such a capability.

To date, the Chinese have not either. But their program is still young.

This does not mean it is not possible.

Whether it means:

1) That their doctrine does not call for it at all,
2) That although possible, it may not be advisable,
3) That although marginally possible, it cannot be made operational,
4) That it is not really possible.

Is something that is, indeed, out to jury.

My own thoughts are that such a capability is so intrinsically valuable, that if they could do it...they would.

That being said, I will agree that we do not know really which of the four it means.

 

[kwaigonegin]

there is a reason why CVN's are so freaking fast being as big as it is.. it's ain't for speeding but for launching. The goal is to increase delta between stall and airspeed over the airfoils aka max Vmax at the end of the cat shuttle.
Unfortunately Kutz class do not have that luxury since they are no cats! Ski ramp as we all know works on the principal of high AoA over the airfoils but it has a penalty in terms of forward omentum. Aircraft loses some energy as it goes on the ramp. The lack of cat, a deficit of almost 10 kts of airspeed form headwind etc tells me it is very very unlikely the flankers can launch at mtow.

Ski ramp IMHO is best serve launching stovl aircraft like the harriers and 35 bravos with additional help from vertical thrusters.

 

[Jeff Head]

there is a reason why CVN's are so freaking fast being as big as it is.. it's ain't for speeding but for launching. ]

Unfortunately Kutz class do not have that luxury since they are no cats!

Ski ramp as we all know works on the principal of high AoA over the airfoils but it has a penalty in terms of forward omentum. Aircraft loses some energy as it goes on the ramp. The lack of cat, a deficit of almost 10 kts of airspeed form headwind etc tells me it is very very unlikely the flankers can launch at mtow.

Ski ramp IMHO is best serve launching stovl aircraft like the harriers and 35 bravos with additional help from vertical thrusters.

Well said bro! And spoken by one who has been there and done that...onboard carriers...for many moons (years).

Everyone would do well to listen to and understand the experience level of these individuals like Kwaig and Popeye, who spent decades working on carriers...and know exactly what they are talking about, and understand the physics involved.

Thanks.

 

[Equation]

Couldn't a Kutz class type carrier could always wait till a slight storm or stronger gust of wind at sea is coming and take advantage of it to provide more lift for launching air crafts if head wind is the case?