J-15 Carrier Multirole Fighter thread

Discussion in 'Navy' started by Jeff Head, May 30, 2011.

  1. ShariQ Ansari
    Offline

    ShariQ Ansari New Member
    Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2012
    Messages:
    36
    Likes Received:
    26
    Why are they still using PESA radar when they can easily install AESA radar.
     
    davidau likes this.
  2. Hyperwarp
    Online

    Hyperwarp Captain

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2007
    Messages:
    2,252
    Likes Received:
    4,030
  3. latenlazy
    Offline

    latenlazy Colonel

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2008
    Messages:
    4,090
    Likes Received:
    3,151
    This story was derived from reporting by SCMP’s Minnie Chan, someone who has shown repeatedly that she doesn’t really understand what she’s reporting on.
     
    Bltizo likes this.
  4. Klon
    Online

    Klon Junior Member
    Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2017
    Messages:
    492
    Likes Received:
    859
    It's better to post the original article that all the others are based on, from SCMP.

    There were at least two acknowledged crashes (described in the article), of which one was fatal. I don't know if there were any more.
     
    N00813 likes this.
  5. Bltizo
    Offline

    Bltizo Lieutenant General

    Joined:
    May 15, 2008
    Messages:
    11,632
    Likes Received:
    13,689
    Yeah... to crosspost what I wrote from CDF...

    ===

    First, I think we can confidently say that a 5th gen carrierborne fighter would've been on the cards well before the J-15's "accidents" -- we've known that a 5th generation carrierborne fighter was coming for years. But the SCMP article and the article from the warzone makes it sound like it is only because the J-15 has recently suffered "accidents" or is somehow flawed that means the Navy is now looking for a successor fighter. Such an idea ridiculous imo.

    Another problem is that both articles make it sound like J-15 will not have a role in the future carrier -- which is dubious at best. We know that the J-15D has been developed and catapult test variants of J-15 have been developed. Now, we don't know whether there will be a conventional J-15 catapult variant to operate from the future CATOBAR carriers, but the chances are very good that a catapult variant of J-15D will be developed for the EW role. The war zone article does acknowledge this by saying that the J-16 and J-15D could form the basis of future naval Flankers but I think it's bizarre why the author didn't think about simply using the J-15 airframe as the basis of future J-15 variants.

    The idea of PLAN buying Mig-29K is also eyebrow raising. Not even getting into how there are zero rumours that the PLAN are even considering such a purchase, the common sense reasons for why the PLAN wouldn't consider Mig-29K are too innumerable to count. These range from the likely length of the negotiations that would precede such a purchase making it more logical to simply develop newer improved variants of J-15, to the difficulties of introducing a whole new logistical tail for the Mig-29K that would be new not only to the PLAN but also the entire PLA, to the no. vs range/endurance argument for why the Su-33 airframe vs the Mig-29K airframe is a difficult debate where the PLAN had ended up choosing the Su-33 airframe that formed the basis of the J-15...

    Finally, the big kahuna is implying that there is something inherently limited or flawed about J-15 in the first place, which is dubious. Of course, we know that J-15 has had a number of accidents over the years, however there's never been any indication that flaws with the aircraft are something systemic and unfixable with the airframe or the flight control system or otherwise. If that were the case then the entire fleet would've been grounded permanently with no new airframes being developed or produced which obviously is not the case. Instead, what likely happened was that there was a flaw that ended up being rectified either through a fix or through new operating procedures or both. Calling the aircraft "increasingly accident prone" is also of course silly considering as flight operations frequency and complexity increase it means there will naturally be more accidents anyway.


    In other words, I think both articles (mostly the SCMP article) are piecing together pieces of information that we've seen and creating a narrative that doesn't make sense. Basically, they're saying:
    1. J-15s are having "trouble" in the PLAN fleet, they are problematic etc
    2. J-15s will not form the basis of the PLAN carrier airwing beyond what we see today
    3. because of 1. and 2., the Navy is having to develop a new carrierborne fighter

    Instead, I think what's more likely is:
    1. J-15s have experienced a number of accidents in recent years as a result of increase of flight op frequency and complexity, as well as some existing procedural flaws or flaws to the aircraft, that have since been corrected given by continuing production and development of new J-15s and J-15 variants
    2. PLAN have long been planning a 5th gen carrier fighter anyway
    3. PLAN is developing a new carrierborne fighter independent of 1. for the future airwing, with a good likelihood that some variant of J-15 will have a place in the future airwing beyond the number of J-15s we see today


    The end of the SCMP article is also a bit eye rolling -- if the PLA trained their pilots to save their aircraft despite great risks and to not eject unless absolutely necessary, then what about all of the accidents where pilots have ejected over the years?

    ==

    Basically, we are all reading the same signs but I think they're interpreting them wrongly, and way wrongly in some certain domains.
     
  6. timepass
    Offline

    timepass Brigadier

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2007
    Messages:
    6,082
    Likes Received:
    10,324
    No Retirement Any Time Soon; Why China’s Elite J-15 Flying Shark Carrier Based Fighter Will Remain Highly Viable for Decades to Come

    [​IMG]

    New variants will be using both Su-35's and J-11D's tech. World's foremost carrier based fighter coming soon (unless Russians finishes a carrier based Su-57 first) [​IMG][​IMG]

    http://militarywatchmagazine.com/article/70780
     
    kenvui likes this.
  7. Iron Man
    Offline

    Iron Man Captain
    Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2015
    Messages:
    2,840
    Likes Received:
    2,488
    I don't think there is anything controversial about envisioning a dual J-15/J-31 carrier air wing in the same vein as the USN's F-18/F-35 pairing. The J-15 has the advantage of being far more versatile than the F-18.
     
  8. SinoSoldier
    Offline

    SinoSoldier Major

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2009
    Messages:
    3,866
    Likes Received:
    6,294
    The upgraded J-15 family will be the mainstay of near-future PLAN CBG airwings mostly because of the platform's range and arguably lower cost compared to the FC-31 derivatives. I expect future blocks to include J-11D's and J-16's subsystems but I don't see how the Su-35 plays into this equation.
     
    N00813 likes this.
  9. Iron Man
    Offline

    Iron Man Captain
    Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2015
    Messages:
    2,840
    Likes Received:
    2,488
    The article says "Su-35 tech", not the Su-35 itself. I expect the J-31 (or whatever) to feature prominently in future PLAN CATOBAR carrier air wings given the US will maintain about half 5th gen fighters and half 4/4.5gen fighters in its own air wings. Something like 24 J-31, 24 J-15, 4-6 J-15D, 4-6 KJ-600, and the usual retinue of helicopters, with the J-31s used mostly in the anti superiority and reconnaissance roles and the J-15s as bomb trucks and missile carriers.
     
  10. SinoSoldier
    Offline

    SinoSoldier Major

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2009
    Messages:
    3,866
    Likes Received:
    6,294
    PLAN airwings probably won't have a 50/50 4th-5th gen. mix to begin with; I expect the J-15B to be the mainstay until well into the mid-2020s when the J-XY can actually enter serial production. Even then, due to cost concerns and potentially engine troubles, the PLAN's 5th-generation component will be numerically constrained (I would not be surprised if PLAN settles with 36 J-15s + 12 J-XYs for each CV).

    The J-XY might act as an information "vacuum" for the PLAN's other assets and potentially undertake light air superiority work, but the grunts will still be the J-15B for the forseeable future for both anti-surface and anti-air missions.

    RE: Su-35 tech; I still don't see how the Su-35's components would help the PLAN establish their future airwings aside from perhaps the TVC.
     
    N00813 likes this.
Loading...

Share This Page