PLAN Aircraft Carrier programme...(Closed)

bd popeye · Dec 5, 2013

Man.. that Flying shark is one big airplane..nearly as big as the vaunted R/A-5C Vigilante..compare..

J-15 Flying Shark

General characteristics

Crew: 1-2
Length: 21.9 m (72 ft)
Wingspan: 14.7 m (48.25 ft)
Height: 5.9 m (19.5 ft)
Wing area: 62.04 m2 (667.80 ft2)
Empty weight: 17500 kg (38600 lb)
Loaded weight: 27000 kg (60000 lb)
Max. takeoff weight: 33000 kg (72752 lb)
Powerplant: 2 × WS-10A[31] afterburning turbofans[31]
Dry thrust: 89.17 kN (20,050 lbf) each
Thrust with afterburner: 135 kN[31] (33,000 lbf[31]) each
Wingspan, wings folded: 7.4 m (24.25 ft)

R/A-5C Vigilante

General characteristics

Crew: 2
Length: 76 ft 6 in (23.32 m)
Wingspan: 53 ft 0 in (16.16 m)
Height: 19 ft 4¾ in (5.91 m)
Wing area: 700 ft² (65.1 m²)
Empty weight: 32,714 lb (14,870 kg)
Loaded weight: 47,530 lb (21,605 kg)
Max. takeoff weight: 62,953 lb (28,615 kg)
Powerplant: 2 × General Electric J79-GE-8 afterburning turbojets
Dry thrust: 10,900 lbf[33] (48 kN) each
Thrust with afterburner: 17,000 lbf[33] (76 kN) each

That's J-15 is a big airplane..that's the first thing I stated the first time I saw a Tomcat up-close and personal.

Personally I feel the Chinese should have opted for an off the shelf aircraft such as the MiG-29. Much smaller and easier to handle aboard ships. And by now they would have had many more aircraft in service. And we wold be seeing a lot more action aboard CV-16.. Oh well....But I understand the PLAN wanted their own aircraft. And now they have it.

Jeff Head · Dec 5, 2013

bd popeye said:
Man.. that Flying shark is one big airplane..nearly as big as the vaunted R/A-5C Vigilante..compare..

J-15 Flying Shark

General characteristics

R/A-5C Vigilante

General characteristics

That J-15 is a big airplane..that's the first thing I stated the first time I saw a Tomcat up-close and personal. I understand the PLAN wanted their own aircraft. And now they have it.

Here's the numbers compared to the F-14 Tomcat and the F/A-18F Superhornet:

PLAN J-15 Strike Fighter

Crew: 1-2
Length: 21.9 m (72 ft)
Wingspan: 14.7 m (48.25 ft)
Wingspan, wings folded: 7.4 m (24.25 ft)
Height: 5.9 m (19.5 ft)
Wing area: 62.04 m2 (667.80 ft2)
Empty weight: 17,500 kg (38,600 lb)
Loaded weight: 27,000 kg (60,000 lb)
Max. takeoff weight: 33,000 kg (72,752 lb)
Powerplant: 2 × WS-10A[31] afterburning turbofans[31]
Dry thrust: 89.17 kN (20,050 lbf) each
Thrust with afterburner: 135 kN (33,000 lbf) each
Wingspan, wings folded: 7.4 m (24.25 ft)

F-14D Tomcat Fighter

Crew: 2
Length: 62 ft 9 in (19.1 m)
Wingspan: 64 ft (19.55 m)
Wingspan, wings swept: 38 ft (11.58 m)
Height: 16 ft (4.88 m)
Wing area: 565 ft² (55.4 m²)
Empty weight: 43,735 lb (19,838 kg)
Loaded weight: 61,000 lb (27,700 kg)
Max. takeoff weight: 74,350 lb (33,720 kg)
Powerplant: 2 × General Electric F11-GE-400 afterburning turbojets
Dry thrust: 13,810 lbf (71.4 kN) each
Thrust with afterburner: 27,800 lbf (123.7 kN) each

F/A-18F Superhornet Strike Fighter:

Crew: 2
Length: 61 ft 1 in (18.31 m)
Wingspan: 44 ft 8 in (13.62 m)
Height: 16 ft (4.88 m)
Wing area: 500 ft² (46.5 m²)
Empty weight: 32,081 lb (14,552 kg)
Loaded weight: 47,000 lb (21,320 kg) (In fighter config)
Max. takeoff weight: 66,000 lb (29,937 kg)
Powerplant: 2 × General Electric F414-GE-400 afterburning turbojets
Dry thrust: 13,000 lbf (62.3 kN) each
Thrust with afterburner: 22,000 lbf (97.9 kN) each

The J-15 is ten feet longer, 3 ft higher, has a 4 ft wider wingspan and 168 sq ft more wing area, and weighs 6,000 lbs more empty than the F/A-18 Superhornet.

Yes...a big aircraft.

plawolf · Dec 6, 2013

bd popeye said:
That's J-15 is a big airplane..that's the first thing I stated the first time I saw a Tomcat up-close and personal.

Personally I feel the Chinese should have opted for an off the shelf aircraft such as the MiG-29. Much smaller and easier to handle aboard ships. And by now they would have had many more aircraft in service. And we wold be seeing a lot more action aboard CV-16.. Oh well....But I understand the PLAN wanted their own aircraft. And now they have it.

I'm not entirely sure about that Popeye.

How much did the J15 slow the Liaoning's progress? A few months maybe? Certainly less than a year in terms of actually getting aircraft on deck in good numbers. But using a Flanker variant also saved a great deal of time, most significantly in pilot training.

With the Mig29K, China would have had to train the carrier pilots up from scratch to first fly the planes before they can even dream of doing carrier conversion. OTOH, with the J15, they could pull experienced J11 pilots with years of operational experience on Flankers and put them in a J15 with extremely similar handling, performance and maybe even the same cockpit layout as the latest J11Bs, and have them go straight into carrier conversion training with only minimal training needed to get used to flying the new J15s.

That could have saved them 1-2 years in terms of pilot training.

There are also all the other savings of cost, logistics, freedom to modify and customise as well as the fact that the J15 is simply a different class to the Mig29K.

I think the Chinese carrier programme could use a second, medium sized fighter to supplement the J15. Now, a carrier J10B would be amazing and can share the same engine as the J15 to ease logistics, but I'm not sure about the single engined nature of the J10 for carrier ops, as well as the timeframe for when such a carrier J10 might be available especially in light of the other option they have - the J31 with its twin engines and 5th gen credentials, it is certainly a better choice than the J10 for carrier ops. The fly in that ointment is the fact that SAC also makes it, and I'm not sure the PLANAF is keen to put all their carrier fighter eggs in that one basket.

andyhugfan · Dec 6, 2013

Jeff Head said:
Here's the numbers compared to the F-14 Tomcat and the F/A-18F Superhornet:

PLAN J-15 Strike Fighter

Crew: 1-2
Length: 21.9 m (72 ft)
Wingspan: 14.7 m (48.25 ft)
Wingspan, wings folded: 7.4 m (24.25 ft)
Height: 5.9 m (19.5 ft)
Wing area: 62.04 m2 (667.80 ft2)
Empty weight: 17,500 kg (38,600 lb)
Loaded weight: 27,000 kg (60,000 lb)
Max. takeoff weight: 33,000 kg (72,752 lb)
Powerplant: 2 × WS-10A[31] afterburning turbofans[31]
Dry thrust: 89.17 kN (20,050 lbf) each
Thrust with afterburner: 135 kN (33,000 lbf) each
Wingspan, wings folded: 7.4 m (24.25 ft)

F-14D Tomcat Fighter

Crew: 2
Length: 62 ft 9 in (19.1 m)
Wingspan: 64 ft (19.55 m)
Wingspan, wings swept: 38 ft (11.58 m)
Height: 16 ft (4.88 m)
Wing area: 565 ft² (55.4 m²)
Empty weight: 43,735 lb (19,838 kg)
Loaded weight: 61,000 lb (27,700 kg)
Max. takeoff weight: 74,350 lb (33,720 kg)
Powerplant: 2 × General Electric F11-GE-400 afterburning turbojets
Dry thrust: 13,810 lbf (71.4 kN) each
Thrust with afterburner: 27,800 lbf (123.7 kN) each

F/A-18F Superhornet Strike Fighter:

Crew: 2
Length: 61 ft 1 in (18.31 m)
Wingspan: 44 ft 8 in (13.62 m)
Height: 16 ft (4.88 m)
Wing area: 500 ft² (46.5 m²)
Empty weight: 32,081 lb (14,552 kg)
Loaded weight: 47,000 lb (21,320 kg) (In fighter config)
Max. takeoff weight: 66,000 lb (29,937 kg)
Powerplant: 2 × General Electric F414-GE-400 afterburning turbojets
Dry thrust: 13,000 lbf (62.3 kN) each
Thrust with afterburner: 22,000 lbf (97.9 kN) each

The J-15 is ten feet longer, 3 ft higher, has a 4 ft wider wingspan and 168 sq ft more wing area, and weighs 6,000 lbs more empty than the F/A-18 Superhornet.

Yes...a big aircraft.

The WS-10A will never put out 33000 pounds of thrust. At max 30000. Do you have a source for that figure Jeff?

delft · Dec 6, 2013

stibyssip said:
i don't know if this has already been posted but cctv just announced that the j-15 has entered serial production. this has some exciting implications for the carrier project i think.

Flankers, just as J-10, are produced in batches. It is not series production. A Flanker batch comprises 24 aircraft. That goes for J-11 and J-15 and probably soon also for j-16.

asif iqbal · Dec 6, 2013

On this recent voyage the Liaoning sailed away from shallow water and in to deeper water for the first time, and because of that it had four escorts, 2 DDG and 2 FFG, the FFG would be doing the underwater screening in tight formation while DDG would also be using sonar to detect any submarines, in addition maybe it could be possible that a PLAN SSN was also head of the carrier on hunter killer duties for part or all of the voyage

But one thing is for sure, USN probably and most likely has picked up the acoustic signature of the Liaoning, either on this voyage or on any of the ones before this, this data has likely been passed to USN naval intelligence which in turn has been shared with USN SSN fleet and every time the Liaoning is sailing a USN SSN hunter killer is likely tracking its movements and course

As a matter of fact I am pretty sure USN has the acoustic signature of all major PLAN vessels

Question really is, did the Chinese know about it and if they did what they did!?

Franklin · Dec 6, 2013

China is in the awkward position of operating one of the largest deck based fighters the J-15 (Flanker) (21,9m long) combined with a carrier that has one of the smallest hangar decks (3978m²). When i look at the size of the Flankers sometimes i think that China should just swallow its pride and dump its dignity and craw on its belly to beg the Russians to sell them MiG-29K-Fulcrum-D's. But we have to weigh in the positives and the negatives of having the Flanker or the Fulcrum.

The upside of having the Fulcrum is of course that the Liaoning would have a larger air wing. Instead of a air wing with 20 to 24 planes the Liaoning would have a air wing of 28 to 30 planes. That's quite significant as that means an air wing that's 25% to 50% bigger. And the MiG-29K Fulcrum-D is a good plane.

The downside of having the Fulcrum is that with a Russian plane comes Russian systems, Russian weapons and Russian support. That's going to take away a lot of your independence. On top of that you have to train a whole new batch of pilots with Russian support as China has never used the Fulcrum before.

The Fulcrum's will come with a Russian datalink system that's unable to communicate with the Liaoning and the rest of the fleet. Able to exchange data is of paramount importance for modern warfare. China will have to spend time and money to develop a new datalink system to fit the Fulcrum's. There is nothing off the shelf for China as it doesn't have any experience with Fulcrum's. It will most likely come in the form of a pod swan under the plane. That will take away precious space and weight that otherwise can be used for armament or fuel.

And we also have to look towards the future as China will operate more than one carrier. Is China going to buy another 35 to 40 Fulcrum's everytime China gets a new carrier ? The logical step for China will be to get a licence to produce the Fulcrum's domestically. But considering what happened the last time with the Flankers i don't think the Russians are willing to sell a licence to China.

We also need to look at it from a monetary point of view. Buying the Fulcrum with all the training, support and weapons will cost billions of dollars. And billions more will follow in the years to come as China expand its carrier fleet. While building the navalized Flanker has helped pushed China's aviation industry into new territories.

To me a potential 6 months or a years delay for China to set up an carrier air wing is not important. As building carrier ops is a long term game.

The Flankers have merrits of their own as they can fly much further and longer than the Fulcrum and has a lower stall speed making its easier to land. Those are the reasons why the Russians choose the Flanker over the Fulcrum all those years ago themselves.

The downside of the Flankers is that the Liaoning will have a much smaller air wing.

delft · Dec 6, 2013

Franklin said:
China is in the awkward position of operating one of the largest deck based fighters the J-15 (Flanker) (21,9m long) combined with a carrier that has one of the smallest hangar decks (3978m²). When i look at the size of the Flankers sometimes i think that China should just swallow its pride and dump its dignity and craw on its belly to beg the Russians to sell them MiG-29K-Fulcrum-D's. But we have to weigh in the positives and the negatives of having the Flanker or the Fulcrum.

The upside of having the Fulcrum is of course that the Liaoning would have a larger air wing. Instead of a air wing with 20 to 24 planes the Liaoning would have a air wing of 28 to 30 planes. That's quite significant as that means an air wing that's 25% to 50% bigger. And the MiG-29K Fulcrum-D is a good plane.

The downside of having the Fulcrum is that with a Russian plane comes Russian systems, Russian weapons and Russian support. That's going to take away a lot of your independence. On top of that you have to train a whole new batch of pilots with Russian support as China has never used the Fulcrum before.

The Fulcrum's will come with a Russian datalink system that's unable to communicate with the Liaoning and the rest of the fleet. Able to exchange data is of paramount importance for modern warfare. China will have to spend time and money to develop a new datalink system to fit the Fulcrum's. There is nothing off the shelf for China as it doesn't have any experience with Fulcrum's. It will most likely come in the form of a pod swan under the plane. That will take away precious space and weight that otherwise can be used for armament or fuel.

And we also have to look towards the future as China will operate more than one carrier. Is China going to buy another 35 to 40 Fulcrum's everytime China gets a new carrier ? The logical step for China will be to get a licence to produce the Fulcrum's domestically. But considering what happened the last time with the Flankers i don't think the Russians are willing to sell a licence to China.

We also need to look at it from a monetary point of view. Buying the Fulcrum with all the training, support and weapons will cost billions of dollars. And billions more will follow in the years to come as China expand its carrier fleet. While building the navalized Flanker has helped pushed China's aviation industry into new territories.

To me a potential 6 months or a years delay for China to set up an carrier air wing is not important. As building carrier ops is a long term game.

The Flankers have merrits of their own as they can fly much further and longer than the Fulcrum and has a lower stall speed making its easier to land. Those are the reasons why the Russians choose the Flanker over the Fulcrum all those years ago themselves.

The downside of the Flankers is that the Liaoning will have a much smaller air wing.

Designing J-15 has a value of its own as it prepares SAC and no doubt to some extent its colleagues to design the next carrier fighter. J-15 will have only a limited period as the only Chinese carrier fighter aircraft.

peterAustralia · Dec 6, 2013

My guess is Lianong is more a training platform, with a lesser degree of utility than might be optimimum. I am sure future carriers will be bigger and better. I do wonder that in future drones will become more common, now drones are generally smaller than manned aircraft, so they might work better on smaller carriers.

So maybe in 20 or 30 years, Lianong might take on drones, whilst latter and bigger carriers use larger manned aircraft.

Can I ask a question. Fast jets can use the ski jump, but apparently AEW craft like the Hawkeye cant use a ski jump. What is the reason they cant? Do they not have the strong enough undercarriage, are they not designed for such high accelerations that a ski jump entails,,, is the propellers that cause issues?

Air Force Brat · Dec 6, 2013

plawolf said:
I'm not entirely sure about that Popeye.

How much did the J15 slow the Liaoning's progress? A few months maybe? Certainly less than a year in terms of actually getting aircraft on deck in good numbers. But using a Flanker variant also saved a great deal of time, most significantly in pilot training.

With the Mig29K, China would have had to train the carrier pilots up from scratch to first fly the planes before they can even dream of doing carrier conversion. OTOH, with the J15, they could pull experienced J11 pilots with years of operational experience on Flankers and put them in a J15 with extremely similar handling, performance and maybe even the same cockpit layout as the latest J11Bs, and have them go straight into carrier conversion training with only minimal training needed to get used to flying the new J15s.

That could have saved them 1-2 years in terms of pilot training.

There are also all the other savings of cost, logistics, freedom to modify and customise as well as the fact that the J15 is simply a different class to the Mig29K.

I think the Chinese carrier programme could use a second, medium sized fighter to supplement the J15. Now, a carrier J10B would be amazing and can share the same engine as the J15 to ease logistics, but I'm not sure about the single engined nature of the J10 for carrier ops, as well as the timeframe for when such a carrier J10 might be available especially in light of the other option they have - the J31 with its twin engines and 5th gen credentials, it is certainly a better choice than the J10 for carrier ops. The fly in that ointment is the fact that SAC also makes it, and I'm not sure the PLANAF is keen to put all their carrier fighter eggs in that one basket.

I concur, and the J-31 will make a nice compliment to the J-15, I wouldn't be surprised to see SAC handle most of the Naval aircraft, while Chengdu will focus on getting the J-20 into production and up and running for the PLAAF, as I've said many times a Flanker is a Flanker, and the Flanker offers the same type of overperforming airframe as the F-15, which also remains an outstanding airframe in all its iterations. brat

PLAN Aircraft Carrier programme...(Closed)

bd popeye

The Last Jedi

Jeff Head

General

plawolf

Lieutenant General

andyhugfan

Banned Idiot

delft

Brigadier

asif iqbal

Lieutenant General

Franklin

Captain

delft

Brigadier

peterAustralia

New Member

Air Force Brat

Brigadier