J-15 carrier-borne fighter thread

[bd popeye]

Excellent post Hendrick_2000. I clearly see the buddy store but I see no external tanks to store the fuel to re-fuel other J-15s..

Like this;..

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

MEDITERRANEAN SEA (Dec. 13, 2016) Aircraft assigned to Carrier Air Wing (CVW) 3 fly in formation above the flight deck of the aircraft carrier USS Dwight D. Eisenhower (CVN 69) during flight operations. Eisenhower, currently deployed as part of the Eisenhower Carrier Strike Group, is conducting naval operations in the U.S. 6th Fleet area of operations in support of U.S. national security interests in Europe. (U.S. Navy photo by Petty Officer 3rd Class Robert J. Baldock/Released)

I'm sure the PLAN CV-16 air wing has not shown we observers everything they can do...not yet. But it is coming.

 

[Intrepid]

Count the tankers on this picture:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

 

[Hendrik_2000]

Excellent post Hendrick_2000. I clearly see the buddy store but I see no external tanks to store the fuel to re-fuel other J-15s..

Ahh USN aircraft normally launch with the amount of fuel you mentioned...1 1/2 to 2 hours.

So assuming the speed of J 15 is 500mile/hr . The ferry range is 1200mile and The radius of operation of J 15 is 600 mile back and forth from Liaoning Or the protective umbrella Radius of Liaoning is 600mile?
Those range are based on weapon load of 5 ton. I know the ferry range of empty load is 2000 mile

 

[FORBIN]

5 tons enough good but a difference with a Super Hornet 8 tons... ( many pics with 4 big FTs ) and F-35C 9 tons, Hornet 6.3 t.

I have see sometimes a payload of only 2 t thinking about 4 t 2/3 of the max as the SU-33 6.5 t
To 5 t 75 % of the max weap load.

Quite sure Su-33 more limited carry max 4 tons.

 

[tphuang]

With 2 YJ-83Ks + 2 PL-8s, that's only about 2 ton in payload. For A2A missions, it takes off with 2 PL-12 + 2 PL-8, which is under 1 ton in payload. Even for J-11Bs, you rarely see it take off with more than 4 PL-12 and 2 PL-8. The question is on top of that, how many external FT will J-15 carry. I don't recall seeing any J-11 pictures with external fuel tanks. Remember, flankers have large internal fuel capacity. If J-15 can even take off with fully loaded internal fuel + 2 YJ-83 + 2 PL-8, that's all it needs. Why is it important whether it's max payload is 5 t or 6.5 t, when it will never come close to approaching that?

 

[delft]

With 2 YJ-83Ks + 2 PL-8s, that's only about 2 ton in payload. For A2A missions, it takes off with 2 PL-12 + 2 PL-8, which is under 1 ton in payload. Even for J-11Bs, you rarely see it take off with more than 4 PL-12 and 2 PL-8. The question is on top of that, how many external FT will J-15 carry. I don't recall seeing any J-11 pictures with external fuel tanks. Remember, flankers have large internal fuel capacity. If J-15 can even take off with fully loaded internal fuel + 2 YJ-83 + 2 PL-8, that's all it needs. Why is it important whether it's max payload is 5 t or 6.5 t, when it will never come close to approaching that?

There was a post some weeks or months ago ( by whom? ) saying it was a waste for Western fighter aircraft not to be able to carry a large bomb load after destroying the air force of a second rate country at the beginning of the conflict. As China and friends are not likely to get in such a war their need for a large bomb load for fighter aircraft doesn't exist.

 

[bd popeye]

Yesterday I read or saw online somewhere in plain English, not techno speak, that the PLAN J-15 can take off with a full load of fuel and about 2000 pounds of ordnance. However with this load it has to use the aft launching point.

Since I don't understand all these mathematical formulas that some members post is my above statement correct? Thank you.

 

[delft]

Yesterday I read or saw online somewhere in plain English, not techno speak, that the PLAN J-15 can take off with a full load of fuel and about 2000 pounds of ordnance. However with this load it has to use the aft launching point.

Since I don't understand all these mathematical formulas that some members post is my above statement correct? Thank you.

Very unlikely. If this were the case it would have been nonsense to base the fighter for the ship on the Flanker or on the other side to design the ship at all. Unless it said that this was necessary with zero wind over deck.

 

[bd popeye]

Thank Delft.. I wish I could find that video..that's what I get for watching videos without logging in.

 

[Intrepid]

I think, there is a difference betwenn normal operation (take off with safe speed -> less weight) and "special operation" (take off with minimum speed -> more weight).