J-15 carrier-borne fighter thread

[Blitzo]

The nose pitot tube is missing too. If this is indeed a new variant (with AESA+PL10/15), it shouldn't have been developed for the 001/002 STOBAR where 3 batches of J-15s already produced, but for the 003 CATOBAR, which is expected to be launched within a year. The only logical explanation is to call it J-15T. Of course more photos from different angles are needed to confirm this.
View attachment 74280

Is that particular head on angle of the aircraft enough to determine that it definitively lacks a nosetip pitot though?


As for the CATOBAR J-15s (whether they're called J-15T or J-15B or whatever) -- as you said, they should also have enhanced avionics and weapons etc like J-16/J-10C generation.

But imo it's yet to be seen if they will only be used on the CATOBAR carriers (003 and so on).
One thing that would be significantly more useful is if the new J-15B/J-15T could also takeoff from ski jumps, so that they can cross deck between the CV-16/17 as well as 003 and future CATOBARs.

Because right now the J-15s for CV-16/17 are still vanilla J-15s which lack the enhanced avionics and weapons, and chances are the ones built for CV-16 originally have most of their airframe hours already used up.

 

[Deino]

Is that particular head on angle of the aircraft enough to determine that it definitively lacks a nosetip pitot though?


As for the CATOBAR J-15s (whether they're called J-15T or J-15B or whatever) -- as you said, they should also have enhanced avionics and weapons etc like J-16/J-10C generation.

But imo it's yet to be seen if they will only be used on the CATOBAR carriers (003 and so on).
One thing that would be significantly more useful is if the new J-15B/J-15T could also takeoff from ski jumps, so that they can cross deck between the CV-16/17 as well as 003 and future CATOBARs.

Because right now the J-15s for CV-16/17 are still vanilla J-15s which lack the enhanced avionics and weapons, and chances are the ones built for CV-16 originally have most of their airframe hours already used up.

I must admit I'm not convinced since the image is too blurry, but the eventually most obvious change are the different wing-tip pylons:

 

[Blitzo]

I must admit I'm not convinced since the image is too blurry, but the eventually most obvious change are the different wing-tip pylons:

View attachment 74307

I agree the pylons look convincing.
But I thought it was a bit much to claim that the nose probe was definitively gone from that headon picture.

 

[Deino]

I agree the pylons look convincing.
But I thought it was a bit much to claim that the nose probe was definitively gone from that headon picture.

Indeed, but that's anyway the old question ... will it have an AESA (IMO most likely, in fact it is the only logical answer) and will it have a pitot? I must admit I already expected a J-16-style-radome on the refurbished J-11BGs and still think we'll see something like this on the J-15B, but let's wait for clearer images.

 

[Blitzo]

Indeed, but that's anyway the old question ... will it have an AESA (IMO most likely, in fact it is the only logical answer) and will it have a pitot? I must admit I already expected a J-16-style-radome on the refurbished J-11BGs and still think we'll see something like this on the J-15B, but let's wait for clearer images.

Having a pitot is not a rule out test for having an AESA or not.

J-11BG is one example.
MLU'd F-16Vs are another example.

On the flip side, lacking a nosetip pitot does not guarantee an AESA either, e.g. jf-17.

The change in pitot tube arrangement -- e.g. between J-11B/BS and say, J-16 or J-11D, to me seems to reflect significant variant changes that involve structural changes, rather than just MLUs (where structural changes are minimal).

In the case of J-15B/J-15T, assuming it is indeed a major new variant that we expect, then it will likely also happen to have its pitot arrangement modified.
But whether it has an AESA or not should be independent of whether it has a nose pitot or not.

 

[Deino]

Now I'm confused by @huitong's latest update:






May I ask, on what rumours this is based?

 

[Blitzo]

Now I'm confused by @huitong's latest update:

View attachment 74473
View attachment 74474



May I ask, on what rumours this is based?

I think he might just be acknowledging a bunch of random rumours that sound slightly plausible...

 

[Deino]

I think he might just be acknowledging a bunch of random rumours that sound slightly plausible...

Agreed and so even if I surprises me it would be an explanation why the J-11D was still active during the last years even if the upgraded J-11BG did not use the same radar.

 

[The Observer]

Now I'm confused by @huitong's latest update:

View attachment 74473
View attachment 74474



May I ask, on what rumours this is based?

The CAD diagram still retains the J-11 front landing gear, but with a tow bar for catapult launch. Most likely just someone playing around with their imagination.

 

[huitong]

Now I'm confused by @huitong's latest update:

View attachment 74473
View attachment 74474



May I ask, on what rumours this is based?

The idea came from the CG drawing you posted underneath. The back edge of the radome is canted or slanted, like J-11D, not vertical, like J-16. Does it make sense?