J-15 carrier fighter thread

[Tomboy]

AL-31FN again, I guess

Though question is, despite all the terrible things we are hearing about it, why not replace it with WS-10H2? I don't think logistics is a sole valid reason given that the USN was fine juggling 4 or more different types of engines on a single carrier and the fact that J-15Ts are all newly built and designed so I doubt there'll be any compatibility issues that comes with reengining existing aircraft.

Every year we hear rumors on how terrible, unreliable etc the AL-31FNs are and how WS-10H is just around the corner if not already ready to replace them yet we see nothing. Maybe this Zhuhai we'll see actual in service J-15T with WS-10 but I'm not really hopeful given past precedence on this.

 

[Maikeru]

Heroic pilot aside, did the incident involve a carrier? What was the "emergency"?

The official news tends to paint such stories in a romantic light and lots aren't published in the first place. But one should expect the not-so-rosy things in the PLA

The only air forces that don't have crashes are ones that don't fly. And the practice of lionising the deceased pilots is standard as well.

 

[AndrewS]

Though question is, despite all the terrible things we are hearing about it, why not replace it with WS-10H2? I don't think logistics is a sole valid reason given that the USN was fine juggling 4 or more different types of engines on a single carrier and the fact that J-15Ts are all newly built and designed so I doubt there'll be any compatibility issues that comes with reengining existing aircraft.

Every year we hear rumors on how terrible, unreliable etc the AL-31FNs are and how WS-10H is just around the corner if not already ready to replace them yet we see nothing. Maybe this Zhuhai we'll see actual in service J-15T with WS-10 but I'm not really hopeful given past precedence on this.

Personally, I think they should replace all the J-15 on the carriers with J-35s.

There's only 3 carriers with about 100 slots for fighter aircraft, so in a high-intensity conflict towards the Second Island Chain, it's likely that China will be at a significant numerical disadvantage in terms of the number of air superiority fighter jets. So it would make sense to replace the existing J-15s as fast as possible with J-35s.

I expect J-35 production to be ramping to a minimum of 40 per year.
And if there are only 50-70? J-15s, then it would take less than 3 years to replace all the J-15s.

With that sort of timeframe, is it worth replacing AL-31FNs with WS-10 engines?

 

[antiterror13]

Personally, I think they should replace all the J-15 on the carriers with J-35s.

There's only 3 carriers with about 100 slots for fighter aircraft, so in a high-intensity conflict towards the Second Island Chain, it's likely that China will be at a significant numerical disadvantage in terms of the number of air superiority fighter jets. So it would make sense to replace the existing J-15s as fast as possible with J-35s.

I expect J-35 production to be ramping to a minimum of 40 per year.
And if there are only 50-70? J-15s, then it would take less than 3 years to replace all the J-15s.

With that sort of timeframe, is it worth replacing AL-31FNs with WS-10 engines?

Is there anything that J-15 can do that J-35 can't do ? the answers is Yes

* J-15 is a heavy-class fighter, while the J-35 is a medium-weight fighter
* J-15’s maximum takeoff weight is significantly higher. J-15 can act as a "bomb truck," carrying a much heavier total weight of munitions than the J-35
* Operate as a "Buddy" Refueler
* Specialized Electronic Warfare (J-15D), while the J-35 has excellent built-in electronic counter-measures (ECM), the J-15D is a dedicated twin-seat electronic warfare (EW) variant, similar to the American EA-18G Growler
* Longer Range and Endurance

So I think both will be operating on Chinese carrier, and the composition of these two is likely based on the mission

 

[Tomboy]

Is there anything that J-15 can do that J-35 can't do ? the answers is Yes

* J-15 is a heavy-class fighter, while the J-35 is a medium-weight fighter
* J-15’s maximum takeoff weight is significantly higher. J-15 can act as a "bomb truck," carrying a much heavier total weight of munitions than the J-35

AFAIK these two aren't really true, J-15T is estimated to have a MTOW of 33t which is really only marginally heavier than J-35 which is said to have a MTOW above 30t. While J-15T can carry more munitions on paper, once you factor in a realistic combat load with jammer pods and self defense/air combat package the actual effective strike payload that could be actually carried would be only slightly more than J-35 with all 6 external pylons.

Though otherwise I do agree with your other points and that J-15 is probably going to stick around for a good while longer due to tasks like EW and buddy IFR.

 

[AndrewS]

AFAIK these two aren't really true, J-15T is estimated to have a MTOW of 33t which is really only marginally heavier than J-35 which is said to have a MTOW above 30t. While J-15T can carry more munitions on paper, once you factor in a realistic combat load with jammer pods and self defense/air combat package the actual effective strike payload that could be actually carried would be only slightly more than J-35 with all 6 external pylons.

Though otherwise I do agree with your other points and that J-15 is probably going to stick around for a good while longer due to tasks like EW and buddy IFR.

For missions up to the Second Island Chain, I think carrier aircraft would be focusing on air superiority.

Strike can come from land-based aircraft (such as the H-6 or GJ-XX) and land-based missiles (such as the DF-26 or Shaheeds).
Refuelling would come from the Y-20, which should work out as more cost-efficient anyway. And if not, J-35s could also act as buddy tankers.
That just leaves the EW mission, which is a handful of J-15s.

 

[Iza Ngomso]

AFAIK these two aren't really true, J-15T is estimated to have a MTOW of 33t which is really only marginally heavier than J-35 which is said to have a MTOW above 30t. While J-15T can carry more munitions on paper, once you factor in a realistic combat load with jammer pods and self defense/air combat package the actual effective strike payload that could be actually carried would be only slightly more than J-35 with all 6 external pylons.

Though otherwise I do agree with your other points and that J-15 is probably going to stick around for a good while longer due to tasks like EW and buddy IFR.

The one special irreplaceable capability that the J-15 has is imo the potential to fit a purpose-designed anti-ship ALBM on the centerline pylon the way the VKS fits the Kinzhal on Mig-31. The J-35 simply doesn't have the physical dimensions to allow for that

 

[siegecrossbow]

J-15, especially the non-AESA variant, is better for cat and mouse games with hostile aircraft during peace time since there is not much to lose exposing radar data during lockon.

 

[Maikeru]

I wonder do they still ship OG J-15s for e.g. tanking duties, where full 4.5 gen capabilities are not needed? It would save airframe life on the T models.

 

[Blitzo]

I wonder do they still ship OG J-15s for e.g. tanking duties, where full 4.5 gen capabilities are not needed? It would save airframe life on the T models.

Maintaining an active production line for baseline J-15s would incur a cost versus fully transitioning to J-15T.

Especially as being a buddy tanker probably shouldn't be a "dedicate themselves specific fighter airframes to buddytank" way of operating but rather to "take any free airframe which is available to buddytank" in which case it is actually much more sensible to go for an all J-15T fleet.


That said even the idea of J-15/T doing buddy tanking feels like a niche role to me -- J-15/T cannot carry external fuel tanks so its fuel offload would be rather limited.