J-15 carrier-borne fighter thread

[Jeff Head]

Not sure if some of these have been posted before in different forms, but here are the latest high-resolution magazine scans of J-15:

Yes...all of those have been posted...but not in such high resolution!

Thanks!

 

[davidau]

Surely equipment (aircraft, engine etc) that are used in a marine (salt-laden) environment must be corrosion resistant.

 

[Quickie]

2: there are certain characteristics about the non navalized Al-31F which make it more suitable for use aboard J-15s than non navalized WS-10s, such as possibly being more corrosive resistant by design or something of the sort.

Another important criteria would be the engine spool up time. Quite a while back, the early WS-10A was known to have a slower spool up than the AL-31. This is quite critical because carrier aircraft do need the required engine power in the shortest possible time whenever there's a need to do various kinds of maneuver during an aborted landing, example, a touch-and-go.

 

[kroko]

Plus, there is a J-15 with WS-10s. So I think it's likely the PLANAF is using AL-31s just to play safe.

Does anyone know if any WS-10 equiped J-15 has landed/take-off on liaoning?

 

[tidalwave]

Does anyone know if any WS-10 equiped J-15 has landed/take-off on liaoning?

 

[Blitzo]

As far as we know, that aircraft powered with WS-10 has not made landings or take offs from Liaoning.

 

[Blackstone]

As far as we know, that aircraft powered with WS-10 has not made landings or take offs from Liaoning.

If so, it means PLA Navy has no confidence in the WS-10.

 

[jobjed]

If so, it means PLA Navy has no confidence in the WS-10.

Exactly. The PLAN has no confidence in the WS-10 which is why they've decided to procure dozens of J-11BH, coincidentally all equipped with WS-10s. You're completely right, the PLAN takes delivery of J-11BHs because they're want to get good footage of their air wing crashing and burning.

 

[Blitzo]

If so, it means PLA Navy has no confidence in the WS-10.

Well it means they aren't confident of WS-10s on J-15s at present -- like jobjed said, they've quite happily taken deliver of land based J-11BHs and BSHs powered by WS-10s, and of course almost all of the Air Force's J-11Bs are WS-10 powered... and all the J-11BSs and J-16s are as well.

Over in the Flanker thread in the last few days there's already been some discussion as to why that may be.

 

[Air Force Brat]

He did give an answer, however I think my subsequent questions were also relevant to the thread -- I was interested in further details for the sake of healthy discussion, especially around the parameters for navalizing engines and whether that has existed or not for Al-31F. He and I have since discussed some of our differences and I'm willing to let whatever supposed issue there is slide.

--------------------

Back on topic: on the subject of navalized engines, the obvious situation with J-15s is that current production J-15s use Al-31F engines, and will be expected to use a WS-10 variant in due time. This isn't a matter of contention.

However, that consensus does raise a few questions, because the Al-31F is not a navalized engine, and we have no evidence that China imported navalized Al-31F3 variants (used on the Su-33) for use on their J-15s.
Thus, the question which I believe is worth asking, is that if the Navy is using standard non navalized Al-31Fs on their current J-15s, when what is it about standard non navalized WS-10s that prohibits them from powering current J-15s as well? That is, if J-15s are waiting for a navalized WS-10 variant, why could they not use non navalized WS-10s as a current stop gap instead of non navalized Al-31Fs?
For instance, are standard, non navalized Al-31Fs simply naturally more corrosion resistant than non navalized WS-10s, and/or are there some other characteristics at play which makes non navalized Al-31Fs more suitable for J-15s than non navalized WS-10s?

I'd be interested in any hypotheses which anyone could offer.
At present I'm sitting on three possible answers:
1: China did import Al-31F3s and are using them on J-15s, but we simply didn't hear about it. Probably unlikely, but still possible.
2: there are certain characteristics about the non navalized Al-31F which make it more suitable for use aboard J-15s than non navalized WS-10s, such as possibly being more corrosive resistant by design or something of the sort.
3: there is no appreciable difference between the non navalized Al-31F and non navalized WS-10 in actual performance, but the Al-31F has more far cumulative flight hours across hundreds of aircraft around in service around the world for decades, and are/were still demonstrably "lower risk" than WS-10s which had far less flight hours -- so the Navy chose Al-31Fs as the lower risk option as their stop gap.

I vote for #3 sir, I believe that the Al-31F is tried and true, even though they probably will be serviced more often after being exposed to salt water, they likely have a program for frequent servicing in order to reduce the effects of corrosion, after exposure to salt-spray etc. I would suggest that it is likely that spares and components are much more readily available to accommodate this more aggressive maintenance schedule. I am rather certain that more frequent engine exchanges are part of this program, and that engines that are pulled are tagged for a "heavy service" to address the added service concerns for the J-15s. IMHO

the WS-10s are being worked up to speed as hours are flown off on J-11Bs.