J-15 carrier-borne fighter thread

[Jeff Head]

Cost is probably the main reason for the Russian Mig-29K decision. India's acquisition already took care of the development costs and India's order enabled Russia to gain some economy of scale & lower per aircraft cost as well.

And...in addition...it happens to be a heck of an improvment and good aircraft for carrier operations. Carries a lot of ordinance for its size. Had very decent range. and has great kinematics.

All of these add up to a significantly larger air wing that can put more aircraft on target, each of which which can do about as much damage (and more) than their SU-33s. The SU-33 is not good at ir to ground...it is almost purely an air superiority aircraft.

So a larger air wing of Mig-29Ks is going to project more power than the smaller SU-33 air wing.

Now the Chnese, they have designed the J-15s to do the air to ground role well, ith precision weapons, so the smaller size of the Mig-29K is not as big a factor...but still something t consider on their 65,000 tn carriers.

 

[delft]

I was looking at an article by Henri K.:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Which contains this table:

A titre de comparaison, le MTOW des principaux avions de chasse embarqués de nos jours est de –

• 21 400kg pour le Rafale M avec catapulte
• 29 937kg pour le F/A-18E avec catapulte
• 31 800kg pour le F-35C avec catapulte
• 30 000kg pour le Su-33 (le porte-avions à 7kn, longueur de piste 195m)
• 32 800kg pour le Su-33 (le porte-avions à 15kn, longueur de piste 195m)
• 33 724kg pour le F-14A avec catapulte

where 7 kn and 15 kn mean wind over deck. This shows that the maximum take off weight of Su-33 and by implication J-15 is not limited by the use of the ski ramp.
I wonder what the source is of this table.

 

[delft]

I have now read the whole article by Henri K.:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

and found it interesting. He may be right in thinking that J-20 is adaptable to use on aircraft carriers.

 

[Jeff Head]

I have now read the whole article by Henri K.:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

and found it interesting. He may be right in thinking that J-20 is adaptable to use on aircraft carriers.

The J-20 may very well be.

But they would have to do a lot of work on it structurally to ensure that it could handle slamming to the deck over and over again, grabbing the cable and being held up short, and holding back until the have full military thrust and then releasing it all at once for take off. These are three distinct and different dynamic force that will stress the airframe, and that will require the right equipment to be built into the aircraft (tail hook, strengthened landing gear, folding wings, etc.)

This will take a lot of modeling, calculations, virtual testing, prototype development and then actual testing, etc. before they will realize the goal of doing it.

We shall have to see...

1st - if they desire to do so.
2nd - The testing and ultimate prototypes to show that they are moving along with it.

 

[tphuang]

that's actually kind of interesting. Do they go with SAC's experience from J-15 or do they go with CAC's experience with J-20 in the next generation fighter jet.

 

[Blitzo]

that's actually kind of interesting. Do they go with SAC's experience from J-15 or do they go with CAC's experience with J-20 in the next generation fighter jet.

I wouldn't be surprised if SAC is given some consulting or even subcontrator work for a navalized J-20.

 

[Jeff Head]

that's actually kind of interesting. Do they go with SAC's experience from J-15 or do they go with CAC's experience with J-20 in the next generation fighter jet.

I think there would be some form of consortium...working together to benefit from both companies particular area of expertise.

This happens quite often in the US market.

 

[Blitzo]

I think there would be some form of consortium...working together to benefit from both companies particular area of expertise.

This happens quite often in the US market.

SAC is supposedly a subcontractor for the standard J-20... so if a naval J-20 (or if it's a new CAC design for a naval fighter) occurs, then I imagine SAC will still get a slice of the pie.

 

[Jeff Head]

SAC is supposedly a subcontractor for the standard J-20... so if a naval J-20 (or if it's a new CAC design for a naval fighter) occurs, then I imagine SAC will still get a slice of the pie.

Well, if SAC is already a subcontractor on the J-20, and with their J-15 experience, they would certainly be a subcontractor on a navalized J-20 too, maybe with even a little bigger piece of the pie.

 

[Deino]

Not sure if already posted ?? ... Cool video from the last operations.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!