J-15 Carrier Multirole Fighter thread

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

  1. Brumby
    Offline

    Brumby Major

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    3,529
    Likes Received:
    3,647
    Aircraft carriers by definition require aircraft or else as Brat says it is no more than a love boat. The utility of the aircraft carrier is solely dependent on such an asset. As such it is a oire feature and not an after thought.

    There has been no suggestion that the carrier building pace needs to be reconsidered. What I believe is happening is the following. Like all major programs s**t happens and the J-15 is facing some hiccups. There is really no realistic plan B option in the medium term and so the best option is still to sort out the problem and to re-start production thereafter. If the problem cannot be fixed then it is a MAJOR issue. However there is no suggestion of such a development and would be highly speculative. This hiccup unfortunately places the torch light on the nest generation replacement and the need to expedite it through development. Finally, carrier and carrier aviation development requires methodical long term planning and China has demonstrated such effort with its carrier building program. The part that seem lacking to me is the effort to develop a naval trainer as part of the overall development. It would carry some of the burden while the J-15 issue is being sorted out.
     
    Air Force Brat likes this.
  2. vesicles
    Offline

    vesicles Major

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2009
    Messages:
    3,868
    Likes Received:
    5,243
    I don’t think the delay is caused by a redesign of the J-15’s flight dynamics. This would mean the J-15 is fundamentally flawed. No one would allow a fundamentally flawed plane to fly again until the issues have been solved. However, We know for a fact that they have been landing and taking off on the new CV-17 very recently. We know that because of the dark marks on the deck of the CV-17. I don’t think the PLAN would allow the J-15 to be flown again if they think the plane is fundamentally flawed. In addition to the expensive planes, the even more more more expensive brand spanking new CV, they also have the priceless PLAN pilots whom they have spent countless hours and money to train. I don’t think the PLAN would risk losing any of these with a fundamentally flawed plane landing on a new ship.
     
    Yodello and Air Force Brat like this.
  3. vesicles
    Offline

    vesicles Major

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2009
    Messages:
    3,868
    Likes Received:
    5,243
    How can you tell there is a lack of effort to develop a naval trainer? You can’t see any effort. That doesn’t mean they are not doing it as we speak. We all know by now that the PLA is not the most transparent organization. How many times have we been surprised by their seemingly out of nowhere systems?
     
  4. vesicles
    Offline

    vesicles Major

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2009
    Messages:
    3,868
    Likes Received:
    5,243
    Well, before the CV is properly assembled, it’s no more than a whole bunch of scrap metal. Look at the CV-18! It’s a whole bunch of useless scrap metal now. The only people it can possibly hurt would be the workers who are building it..

    A ferocious tiger would be no more than a cute little kitten when it is born. And Rome is not built in one day. The sayings would go on and on...

    You gotta let it go through the process. Yes, the CV-17 may be a love boat for a little bit, but its teeth and claws will come out.
     
    Yodello likes this.
  5. Brumby
    Offline

    Brumby Major

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    3,529
    Likes Received:
    3,647
    We are seeing the effort with the carrier building. That is tangible. There is no news or rumors about a naval trainer I draw my conclusion based on what is known and not what may be happening in secret

    I don't disagree with what you are saying. You asked me a question as to why the need for fighters and not what a fully matured carrier aviation can accomplish.
     
    Air Force Brat likes this.
  6. vesicles
    Offline

    vesicles Major

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2009
    Messages:
    3,868
    Likes Received:
    5,243
    Uh?! I don’t think I asked a question. I was simply making a suggestion that we should be more patient and give them some benefit of the doubt.
     
  7. KFX
    Offline

    KFX New Member
    Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2019
    Messages:
    13
    Likes Received:
    21
    Is it possible that the production delay stems from a need for future J-15s to be able to operate from both STOBAR and CATOBAR carriers? Adding CATOBAR capability would require changes in the forward landing gear, in addition to sorting any design flaws.
     
    Air Force Brat and Deino like this.
  8. Brumby
    Offline

    Brumby Major

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    3,529
    Likes Received:
    3,647
    I was replying to the following.

     
    Air Force Brat likes this.
  9. Brumby
    Offline

    Brumby Major

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    3,529
    Likes Received:
    3,647
    I am basing my assessment on two principal factors. Firstly from memory of what I have read about carrier landing, there is only about 4 degrees of maneuvering available during control descent at defined speed which effectively means a "controlled crash" The degree of maneuvering available can narrow down to 1 degree under certain sea conditions. If a plane has certain inadequate response to flight controls under difficult landing conditions than the possibility of crash increases. One of the reason reported associated with a J-15 crash was instability. This would be consistent with the inability to maintain the descent parameters. With an experienced pilot and under ideal weather and sea conditions the risk might be manageable but could be a different risk level for inexperienced pilots and or difficult sea conditions. I suspect the issue of flight stability is the problem and further production is put on hold until the flight dynamics is resolved.
     
    Air Force Brat likes this.
  10. Deino
    Offline

    Deino Brigadier
    Staff Member Super Moderator

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2005
    Messages:
    9,742
    Likes Received:
    25,000

    To admit I find this discussion a bit strange since it seems to veer into a direction where some might suggest the PLAN is stupid since they don't have enough airplanes, not enough trainers and so on.

    My point is that by our standard the PLAF has a lack of this and that but I'm sure there must be a reason for this, at least right now and as such our efforts should be to find out this or these reasons/s instead of discussion in circles.

    Just my two Cents.
     
    getready, vesicles, P5678 and 8 others like this.
Loading...

Share This Page