J-15 carrier-borne fighter thread

[JayBird]

Pinkov, who isn't regarded as highly reliable by SDF posters, quoted Chinese and Russian military sources on continued problems with WS-10A engines to the point where PLA forces are removing them from their aircraft queues and inserting AL-31Fs. Take it for what it's worth, since we're talking about Kanwa, but they're not wrong 100% of the time, and there's enough bad history of Chinese jet engine development to believe a good part of it. WA-10x project has been mediocre at best, and may very well die an un-glorified death when the PLA finally pulls the plug.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Pinkov isn't regarded reliable not just by SDF posters, he is a also running joke in mainland Chinese military forums for many years now. One of the reasons you see all those huge watermark on "leaked" Chinese military photos was mainly to troll Pinkov by the mainland military enthusiasts. He does sounded like a PR guy and mouthpiece working for the Russian military industrial complex sometimes.

 

[asif iqbal]

Good to see no crash actually happened probably was a media spin story to begin with

 

[thunderchief]

Actually, I expect the production aircraft to us *marinized* WS-10A for increased tolerance to salt. I don't think Russian would sell the engine they used for Su-33 -- for they are rather angry about J-15 and reopening production facility would be rather expensive. Using regular AL-31F is fine for prototypes because they can afford higher maintenance, but not the production aircraft, which need to minimize the maintenance. Even if WS-10A is less reliable than AL-31F, the safety issue is already taken cared of by using two engines.

These are international relations we are talking about, not a schoolyard fight, so you should exclude anger and other emotions. Russians may not like what happened to Su-33/J-15 or Su-27/J-11 for that matter, but they still need to sell engines and more importantly to keep good relations with China. Btw, AL-31F3 used on Su-33 didn't have any special protection against salt. Instead, it had somewhat increased thrust at maximum afterburner compared to regular Al-31 F (125.5 kN vs 123 kN ) for the reasons I already mentioned . Supposedly, they were already replaced with M1 in Russian service during modernization of Su-33 in 2010 - take this with the grain of salt , these are rumors from Russian forums.

 

[ladioussupp]

In the perspective of landing signal officer, J-15 prototype No. 552 simulated to land without a lowered hook. Don't know whether new or not.

 

[nemo]

These are international relations we are talking about, not a schoolyard fight, so you should exclude anger and other emotions. Russians may not like what happened to Su-33/J-15 or Su-27/J-11 for that matter, but they still need to sell engines and more importantly to keep good relations with China. Btw, AL-31F3 used on Su-33 didn't have any special protection against salt. Instead, it had somewhat increased thrust at maximum afterburner compared to regular Al-31 F (125.5 kN vs 123 kN ) for the reasons I already mentioned . Supposedly, they were already replaced with M1 in Russian service during modernization of Su-33 in 2010 - take this with the grain of salt , these are rumors from Russian forums.

There was anger and there was business tactics -- Russian thought they could blackmail China into paying exorbitant price for Su-33, but they failed. From that point onward, of course they are going to sell at whatever price they can get, since they no longer have leverage. However, it's another question rather China is going to let them -- importing an engine with marginal performance gain at the expense of your own indigenous engine, and having the possibility of embargo in the future. If Russian really wants the sell, then they would have to provide something with significant performance gain, and they do not seem willing at this time, or at least not willing to sell without bundling with Su-35. Whether that will turn out the same is the open question.

 

[Jeff Head]

In the perspective of landing signal officer, J-15 prototype No. 552 simulated to land without a lowered hook. Don't know whether new or not.

The aircraft is far too high at that point over the deck for this to be a "landing". It is much more likely that it is simply a fly by, in which case the hook would not be lowered in any case.

 

[ladioussupp]

The aircraft is far too high at that point over the deck for this to be a "landing". It is much more likely that it is simply a fly by, in which case the hook would not be lowered in any case.

Yes. Or maybe an aborted landing.

 

[danielchin]

Four J-15 flying in formation was spotted near the land based training center at Xincheng of Huludao, Liaoning.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

 

[Deino]

Four J-15 flying in formation was spotted near the land based training center at Xincheng of Huludao, Liaoning.

View attachment 10437

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

To admit I have that strange feeling that after this long hiatus of news during the last months but these small tidbits of leaked things during the recent weeks that there will be some mayor surprised shown on the National Day (1. October) this year .... as such only 2 days left !

Deino

 

[Air Force Brat]

Yes. Or maybe an aborted landing.

Fly by or touch and go, they fly multiple approaches to the carrier in order to get a "feel" for the airplane. Flying onto the "boat", it is very different from flying to a touchdown at an airport on a runway that cannot move. That's simple math,,,,,,, this is algebra, you have two variables, X x Y=safe arrestment on carrier, you have to "get in the groove", you do that first by finding the carrier, configure the aircraft for an approach,,,, no hook needed or wanted??? Touch and go you roll them on, and are already throttled up for a go around before the wheels touch the deck, the deck arrests your high rate of sink, just as it would in a normal "trap"... no mystery, just a picture of an aircraft being where the pilot wants it to be, and of his intent, NOT to "trap"..... that's all.