Have to disagree on that point, having a common interface standard simplifies installation and customization of equipment, so regardless of who supplies what equipment to whom support and upgrading is much easier in any event.
China Flanker Thread II
- Thread starter sumdud
- Start date
- Status
Have to disagree on that point, having a common interface standard simplifies installation and customization of equipment, so regardless of who supplies what equipment to whom support and upgrading is much easier in any event.
Why? china prefers to use its equipment and russia uses its own, never buys anything chinese. There is no need for china or russia to adopt common standards. Of course there is no intention of any party to do that.
It could simply mean both sides are willing to consider using communications which are interoperable...
To be honest that phrase is so vague, it's probably not worth scrutinizing it too much. China's obviously not going to be using Russian datalinks, but that isn't to say both sides may not consider the installation of some equipment that could facilitate greater communication between forces of both sides aboard the Su-35s.
Indeed, for the same reason why NATO has common standards despite the various members using differently sourced systems, the benefits of having common standards like the NATO STANAG including things like Link-16 enables superior interoperability of forces and systems, China and Russia would benefit the same even if they only used their own equipment.
SinoSoldier
Colonel
Perhaps a trivial question: why hasn't the PLAAF considered inducting the J-15S instead of the J-16? Or even a better question: will the J-15S serve as the PLANAF's "J-16"?
The J-15S should already include the avionics/electronics and airframe enhancements found aboard the J-16S, as well as the 14-ton WS-10, but with the added benefit of canards. The specialized landing gears could be removed to save weight.
The J-15S should already include the avionics/electronics and airframe enhancements found aboard the J-16S, as well as the 14-ton WS-10, but with the added benefit of canards. The specialized landing gears could be removed to save weight.
At this stage we do not know whether J-15S has the same capability of avionics as J-16... or if it is merely a two seater of the standard J-15 (whose avionics are less capable).
J-16 may also have more structural strengthening to carry more load compared to what can be accomplished on a carrierborne fighter which requires folding wings.
So the question is not "why hasn't the Air Force considered inducting the J-15S instead of J-16" but rather "why should the Air Force consider inducting the J-15S instead of the J-16"?
I expect a J-15S variant will definitely serve as the Naval Aviation's two seater strike fighter (and possibly with EW as well) aboard carriers, but whether the current J-15S will do so is another matter, as we do not know if J-15S has J-16 level avionics. If it only has J-15 level avionics then they will likely require a new J-15S variant.
I can envision a catapult compatible J-15B with fully new 4+ generation avionics (AESA, new datalinks, new cockpit, etc), with an associated J-15BS as well.
If you are not talking about Naval Aviation for carriers but rather for land based Naval Aviation, then if they do intend on operating a J-15S variant from land, I doubt it will have any modifications. I expect they will either standardize their land based Naval Aviation to be fully carrier capable, or operate a mix of carrier capable aircraft as well as dedicated land variants such as J-16s instead. I can't see the logic for removing the carrier compatible landing gear for a J-15S if one wants a land based variant. Simply operate it as standard from land without modification, or buy a standard land based only J-16.
- Status