J-15 carrier-borne fighter thread

[plawolf]

The Russians moved the air group ashore after attempting strikes from Kuznetsov


This IHS Janes report states:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

“We don’t think the Russians are flying as many sorties off their carrier as they would want the world to think,” a senior UK military officer knowledgeable about Russian operations in Syria told IHS Jane’s. "We have seen a load of Su-33s and MiG-29s flying out of Humaymim Air Base, doing strikes all over northwest Syria."

It could be that they had logistical problems with launching from Kuznetsov. It could be there were problems with traps aboard the ship before the accidents. Or it could be aircraft performance launching from the ship with a useful bomb load.

There really isn't any evidence the Russians even tried to launch consistent strikes from the ship with useful bomb loads. There is evidence they abandoned trying to launch strikes from the ship and moved the air group ashore and launched strikes from there.

I believe in evidence and not getting into ego driven arguments that are evidence free. I'll attempt to find whatever evidence there is regarding the "why" and post it- whether that supports my initial assertion or not.

Either way- it is interesting.

It's all opinions with little in the way of actual proof.

The only facts that are undisputed are that we have seen Su33s with bombs taking off from the Kutz on strike missions. Which puts paid to all the conjecture about its supposed inability to launch fighters with a meaningful load.

Moving them to the land base is probably more a logistical issue rather than operational.

The carrier need to sprint at max speed when launching fighters, especially with heavy loads, to maximise airspeed over the wings at the point of launch.

Since the Kutz is conventionally powered, those sprints will cost a fair amount of fuel.

The west had expended a great deal of effort and political capital to pressure nations in the region to try to stop them allowing the Russian fleet to dock and refuel, with was largely successful. As such, the Russians were probably forced to cut back on their carrier ops because they just don't have the logistics in place to be able to support that sort of operation and high fuel consumption when denied docking and refuelling at nearby ports.

 

[cirvine11]

Was the video posted on this forum? I remember hearing about Su-33's launching from Kuznetsov with bombs but I don't recall seeing the video. I'm looking online but can't seem to find it.

 

[dingyibvs]

Moving them to land may also have something to do with their inability to land them reliably at sea.

 

[Air Force Brat]

It's all opinions with little in the way of actual proof.

The only facts that are undisputed are that we have seen Su33s with bombs taking off from the Kutz on strike missions. Which puts paid to all the conjecture about its supposed inability to launch fighters with a meaningful load.

Moving them to the land base is probably more a logistical issue rather than operational.

The carrier need to sprint at max speed when launching fighters, especially with heavy loads, to maximise airspeed over the wings at the point of launch.

Since the Kutz is conventionally powered, those sprints will cost a fair amount of fuel.

The west had expended a great deal of effort and political capital to pressure nations in the region to try to stop them allowing the Russian fleet to dock and refuel, with was largely successful. As such, the Russians were probably forced to cut back on their carrier ops because they just don't have the logistics in place to be able to support that sort of operation and high fuel consumption when denied docking and refuelling at nearby ports.

Nice straw man Wolfie, or are you just going for deflection???

Seeing those SU/33s launch from the Kuz with a "few" bombs does not make you the victor her Bub, it just makes my point! Meaningful load means a full load of weapons, and fuel,,, those SU-33s won't do it, nor in my very honest, considered opinion, with the evidence, and some honest statements from the Russians to that effect.

The Liaoning and those lovely J-15s are in the same boat, so to speak, HEH? but you believe what you want,,,,I'm done here for now, have a great day Brother!

 

[Air Force Brat]

Nice straw man Wolfie, or are you just going for deflection???

Seeing those SU/33s launch from the Kuz with a "few" bombs does not make you the victor her Bub, it just makes my point! Meaningful load means a full load of weapons, and fuel,,, those SU-33s won't do it, nor in my very honest, considered opinion, with the evidence, and some honest statements from the Russians to that effect.

The Liaoning and those lovely J-15s are in the same boat, so to speak, HEH? but you believe what you want,,,,I'm done here for now, have a great day Brother!

Cirvine's rather astute observation that the Russians moved their air-ops ashore is further evidence, to that effect, inevitable arguments aside, you don't take your aircraft, personnel off the boat and move them to land, when you are logistically capable of conducting those same ops off of "home base" so to speak..

 

[Intrepid]

From a pilots point of view: sometimes you did it once ... and will do it never again.

 

[Blitzo]

This is a debate that can never really be settled.

As I wrote before, one day even if we get a video of a J-15 taking off from Liaoning or 001A with what appears to be a heavy external weapons load, there will still be people who will probably claim that it must be because the plane has light internal fuel therefore its MTOW is technically still low or something.


If there was any common sense in this debate, then the only logical conclusion both sides should agree to is that there is insufficient evidence for or against what particular MTOW a J-15 or SU-33 can take off from a ski jump from. That, frankly, should be the default position.

However, the low-payload-from-ski-jump side appears to think that the lack of photo and videos of take offs of Su-33 or J-15 taking off with a heavy load and examples in the recent past like the Russian Navy's deployment pattern of their carrierborne fighters in Syria are sufficient evidence to argue that the default position is somehow that therefore all fighters launched from STOBAR carriers are simply incapable of launching with "heavy" payloads and only "light" payloads (without specifying what that means), and without considering the variation of launch conditions that would enable different payloads.

 

[snake65]

Official data provided by "OKB Sukhoi" for the book "Su-33. Shipborne Epic"

 

[delft]

Official data provided by "OKB Sukhoi" for the book "Su-33. Shipborne Epic"

That seems clear enough.

 

[FORBIN]

As J-15 he have a max weapons load to 6.5 t, same for Su-27SK, SM 1/2 the first P/S only used as pure interceptor only 4 t ( possible some free fall bombs but for the fun ) all others Su-30/35 with Su-27SM3 capable for 8 tons enough few in comparison with rivals especialy F-15E 10.8 t for same max mass.
Rafale do 24 tons can up to 9.5 tons