J-15 Carrier Multirole Fighter thread


snake65

Junior Member
VIP Professional
Basic design has good AoA pointability and low speed handling characteristics. That's very essential for a carrier fighter and makes a lot of difference for carrier take offs and landings. Much better to take a large fighter with high AoA at low speeds over a medium fighter that does not perform as well on that envelope.
Everything is a compromise. If you can update smaller plane's FBW and aerodynamics, it will be preferable - see MiG-29K.
 

Air Force Brat

Brigadier
Super Moderator
Or simply J15 is total rubbish and PLAN is not happy and looking for alternative

even the carrier trainer never materialised

There could be a under lying problem
Naaah!, its a Flanker, remember, a Flanker, is a Flanker, is a Flanker, it's an amazing high lift, high performance platform.... it does suffer flying off the ramp? but it beats everything else available, and you can always top off once you are airborne...

I know the FCS is simple compared to the J-20, not saying it may not need a few tweaks, but the J-15 is a very high performance airframe, with tremendous potential for growth and upgrades...

As I stated early on, there wasn't going to be a small, two seat jet trainer operating off the Liaoning, it takes lots of thrust and lots of lift to throw yourself into the air off that ramp.....

It seems that it may actually boil down to "timing", they really don't need that many combat coded J-15's at this point to sustain carrier operations, on the second boat is built and commissioned, the Liaoning will likely swap her airwing for an extended refit/upgrade package.....
 

Biscuits

Junior Member
Registered Member
This. The flanker platform is a very very good one, one I’d say (assuming it’s upgraded) it is 2nd only to the J-20 and F-22. There’s a reason China chose it as it’s heavy fighter contract instead of developing another plane.

China is not going to be taking the carriers alone in fights against peer opponents, and against 3rd world air forces the J-15s are overkill, many of them use older flanker models as their elite planes, in lesser amounts than the 2 dozen on the 001 series.
 

Intrepid

Captain
J-15 isn't an aircraft to bring young pilots into the air. It is an aircraft to bring experienced pilots onto the carrier.

We are not yet experiencing the development of a carrier air force.

We see how the fundamentals are being created in order to be able to set up carrier air wings at a later date.
 

Tam

Major
Registered Member
The MiG-29 is a beast. The Su-33 was a tamer carrier aircraft.
A Flanker outperforms a Fulcrum in every metric, speed, climb, dive, turn, AoA, payload, radar performance. Its the pinnacle of the non stealth fighter jet generation. One should consider the Su-33 has even better low speed and high AoA performance than most Flankers, even the canard ones, at the expense of a higher top and cruising speed --- higher lift wings are more draggy for a trade off.
 

ougoah

Captain
Registered Member
Indeed the flanker is performance wise the best 4th gen fighter. Only advantages the Typhoon and Rafale have over it in this generation is their superior supersonic agility, supercruise, and perhaps climb rate. This is traded for Flanker's superior range and payload. The flanker is better than those almost everywhere else.

Of course what makes a fighter better is mostly performance of subsystems. I'd imagine the latest flankers from China and Russia totally dominate Eurocanards since many are close to a decade old now. Sensor fusion is the buzzword everyone bangs on about without having worked on them or really understanding how it is developed for a fighter.

I'd wager Chinese and Russian sensor fusion onboard their latest fighters (J-20, Su-57, Su-35, J-16) easily exceed Rafale and Typhoon which came into service a decade ago. It's all software! At least China has all the hardware and software resources necessary to rival even the Raptor and Lightning. Russia's only potential weakness here is chip fab. They could use commercial ones or Chinese ones or use up more room and power if they want to go with their own. No harm.
 

snake65

Junior Member
VIP Professional
A Flanker outperforms a Fulcrum in every metric, speed, climb, dive, turn, AoA, payload, radar performance. Its the pinnacle of the non stealth fighter jet generation. One should consider the Su-33 has even better low speed and high AoA performance than most Flankers, even the canard ones, at the expense of a higher top and cruising speed --- higher lift wings are more draggy for a trade off.
The fact that F-14 outperformed in many ways F-4 and F-18 did not lead to switching the carrier wings exclusively to F-14. One of the reasons being also the sheer size of the F-14.
 

Brumby

Major
This. The flanker platform is a very very good one, one I’d say (assuming it’s upgraded) it is 2nd only to the J-20 and F-22. There’s a reason China chose it as it’s heavy fighter contract instead of developing another plane.
There was only one navalized platform that was available that China could reverse engineer i.e the SU-33.

Of course what makes a fighter better is mostly performance of subsystems. I'd imagine the latest flankers from China and Russia totally dominate Eurocanards since many are close to a decade old now. Sensor fusion is the buzzword everyone bangs on about without having worked on them or really understanding how it is developed for a fighter.

I'd wager Chinese and Russian sensor fusion onboard their latest fighters (J-20, Su-57, Su-35, J-16) easily exceed Rafale and Typhoon which came into service a decade ago. It's all software!
Please educate us then on the advanced features of Chinese sensor fusion.

The fact that F-14 outperformed in many ways F-4 and F-18 did not lead to switching the carrier wings exclusively to F-14. One of the reasons being also the sheer size of the F-14.
The one constant negative about the F-14 is that it is maintenance heavy and with carrier aviation, trade offs are more sensitive driver of decisions.

I suspect that it would be a struggle to maintain 65 % service availability with the F-14 as opposed to the 80 % plus with the F-18. During the 1st Gulf War, it was reported that 60 hours of maintenance was needed on the F-14 for every flying hour. In contrast it was 15 and 20 hours for the F-18 E/F and F-18 C/D respectively.
 

Top