J-15 carrier-borne fighter thread
- Thread starter Jeff Head
- Start date
That's not going to happen.
The US Navy has more operational experience in operating carriers and attack and air superiority fighters off of them than all of the other navies of the world combined...probably by multiple times.
If they send aircraft armed for that role, they will be coming to maintain a presence according to their operational planning.
Count on plenty of fuel, plenty of waves of aircraft to replace those that have to RTB, and other supporting aircraft and equipment in terms of EW, AEW, etc., etc.
And if the target are is anywhere out to sea or very far at all from the mainland, which it very well could be depending on the situation, then the US Navy has many, many more aircraft, carriers, and the global presence to make that stick.
Anyhow, perhaps you were just joking...but I wanted to make sure that everyone knew that the ability for US Naval aircraft to carry and maintain such large war lods is not a jok, and it is not fantasy or some passing fad.
They have been practicing and preparing every conceivable scenario both alone and with many allied naval powers to make it happen if ever necessary.
The US Navy has more operational experience in operating carriers and attack and air superiority fighters off of them than all of the other navies of the world combined...probably by multiple times.
If they send aircraft armed for that role, they will be coming to maintain a presence according to their operational planning.
Count on plenty of fuel, plenty of waves of aircraft to replace those that have to RTB, and other supporting aircraft and equipment in terms of EW, AEW, etc., etc.
And if the target are is anywhere out to sea or very far at all from the mainland, which it very well could be depending on the situation, then the US Navy has many, many more aircraft, carriers, and the global presence to make that stick.
Anyhow, perhaps you were just joking...but I wanted to make sure that everyone knew that the ability for US Naval aircraft to carry and maintain such large war lods is not a jok, and it is not fantasy or some passing fad.
They have been practicing and preparing every conceivable scenario both alone and with many allied naval powers to make it happen if ever necessary.
MwRYum
Major
All thing considered, if the pilot knows he or she is going to bingo fuel soon, s/he will disengage and the CO in-charge of that kill-box should have replacement on-route if not already on-station to take over.
Now, BWR strike package this loaded would mostly happened in the case of World War 3, or only during the opening hours of invasion against target nations like N.Korea should the Korean War goes hot again - it seems that the majority of the public forgotten that the Korean War has not ended. If it's to be the latter, such air-to-air package won't be seen afterwards, when a-certain-fat-guy had lost all his outdated MiGs..
Now that I think about it, a Hornet with 12 missiles and one drop tank seems to me to more likely to have the longer range than a J-15 with 12 missiles and no drop tank.
out of interest I had a quick search of the numbers;
f-18c seems to have an internal fuel capacity of 4925 kg, and the f-18c seems to be able to accommodate a 330 gallon tank on its centreline as its largest type.
I'm not sure how many kg that is, but if this conversion table is accurate (), then it should be 990kg, for a total of roughly 6000 kg of internal + one centreline drop tank
Looking up an Su-33's internal fuel is a bit hard and I haven't found a good source for it, but 9400kg is the internal fuel of a vanilla Su-27SK ()...
The closest we have is this scan of a document talking about Su-33 take off profiles and payloads that lists its max internal fuel as 9300kg (https://www.sinodefenceforum.com/stobar-aircraft-ski-jump-performance-su-33-j-15.t8043/), but for the sake of discussion we'll consider the Su-33's internal fuel as under consideration.
If we work around that, we can think about how much less fuel an Su-33 will need to have compared to Su-27, to provide the hornet+one fuel tank to have a greater range, assuming both aircraft are able to get airborne with that load (max internal fuel, 12 aams, and an extra fuel tank for the hornet).
I'm not sure how the engines, aerodynamics and drag of both aircraft will work out in terms of fuel consumption, like Al-31s vs F404s, and the flanker's missile+hard point drag versus the hornet's hardpoint drag, as well as the hornet's centreline hardpoint as well....
IMO, with what we know about F-18C's internal fuel+fuel tank capacity in that loadout and given what an Su-33's internal fuel capacity either might be or could likely be, I wouldn't say it is more likely that an F-18C would have longer range than an Su-33 in that loadout, assuming both are able to take off with the full internal fuel loadouts that are described.
Now, for an F-18E it might be different, as it is not only a larger aircraft than the F-18C but its centre hardpoint can also carry a heavier 480 gallon fuel tank, not to mention the superbug has two extra hardpoints at its disposal as well.
Hmm. I didn't realize the F-18C has such a small fuel capacity. I guess that's why the F-18E is significantly larger. If you redo the calculation with a 480gal centerline tank for the F-18E you get 6,780 + 1,728 = 8,500kg, much closer to Su-33's 9,300kg.
Jura The idiot
General
some say the future of US Aviation is F-35, so would somebody please summarize its max. data (payload, fuel) too
MwRYum
Major
Just try to break any potential deadlock in the making, let's just agreed that J-15 at this time isn't at its definitive performance profile, as we all know ski-jump craft will unavoidably suffer inferior payload and endurance profile. That said, let's wait for a few more years, when catapult-launch version of J-15 entered into service packing their BVR package for real (I never trust model representation), then we can get conclusive comparison.
Without considering STOBAR limitations surely no Hornet CR in average 700 km all Su-27/30/33 1200 km...