J-15 Carrier Multirole Fighter thread


Tam

Major
Registered Member
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 F-4 was a huge fighter on its own. A number of things bothered the F-14. As mentioned, one was its huge maintenance cost. But there were others, including its huge procurement cost per unit, leading to the F-18 being the lo end of a hi-lo tier.
 

ougoah

Captain
Registered Member
There was only one navalized platform that was available that China could reverse engineer i.e the SU-33.



Please educate us then on the advanced features of Chinese sensor fusion.



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.
Lol why don't you educate us on the advanced features of American sensor fusion. Because there's no literature available for English speaking sources it means it doesn't exist right?

I never pretended to know more than I do. If you carefully read my post it says I'm fairly confident that Chinese and Russian sensor fusion in 2018/19 are up there with Eurocanard sensor fusion from 2010. The reasons for this is because sensor fusion is all software management. Hardware components China can manufacture. It's mostly based off commercial technologies. If you prove to me military electronics are somehow different to commercial electronic tech AND out of reach of Chinese abilities, then I will stand corrected. But you cannot because you do not know the full set of what China has and is capable of. So let's go back to sensor fusion. Since China's proven near equal abilities in hardware componentry at least in commercial electronic tech (which military is based off if not the same just with different standards) and China is no worse at developing software. Where is the challenge for sensor fusion to be competitive with something from 10 years ago? The hardware back then is worse. There would have been plenty of time to develop the software. The software going into space launches and naval fleet fire control management is far more complex than combining sensors data. There is no challenge here. Software for flight controls with integrated TVC like shown by J-10 demonstrator is complex as well.

It seems in the absence of information, it's foolish to say it doesn't exist particularly when it appears that all the ingredients have been there for decades. To question this is the same as questioning stealth capabilities of F-22. All we have to really convince ourselves F-22 is stealthy and is effectively stealthy is the peripheral evidence as well. If you wish to believe Russian and Chinese fighters today do not have equal levels of sensor fusion to what NATO fighters managed to achieve more than a decade ago, that's fine too. It's just as fine as me believing that they do. Neither of us can prove otherwise and I'm not the idiot calling someone out when I'm guilty of the same level of speculation. Only difference is I can offer the above peripheral evidence. Where is your proof that sensor fusion is difficult beyond Chinese abilities? Where is your proof we are missing some vital ingredient?
 

Brumby

Major
Lol why don't you educate us on the advanced features of American sensor fusion. Because there's no literature available for English speaking sources it means it doesn't exist right?

I never pretended to know more than I do. If you carefully read my post it says I'm fairly confident that Chinese and Russian sensor fusion in 2018/19 are up there with Eurocanard sensor fusion from 2010. The reasons for this is because sensor fusion is all software management. Hardware components China can manufacture. It's mostly based off commercial technologies. If you prove to me military electronics are somehow different to commercial electronic tech AND out of reach of Chinese abilities, then I will stand corrected. But you cannot because you do not know the full set of what China has and is capable of. So let's go back to sensor fusion. Since China's proven near equal abilities in hardware componentry at least in commercial electronic tech (which military is based off if not the same just with different standards) and China is no worse at developing software. Where is the challenge for sensor fusion to be competitive with something from 10 years ago? The hardware back then is worse. There would have been plenty of time to develop the software. The software going into space launches and naval fleet fire control management is far more complex than combining sensors data. There is no challenge here. Software for flight controls with integrated TVC like shown by J-10 demonstrator is complex as well.

It seems in the absence of information, it's foolish to say it doesn't exist particularly when it appears that all the ingredients have been there for decades. To question this is the same as questioning stealth capabilities of F-22. All we have to really convince ourselves F-22 is stealthy and is effectively stealthy is the peripheral evidence as well. If you wish to believe Russian and Chinese fighters today do not have equal levels of sensor fusion to what NATO fighters managed to achieve more than a decade ago, that's fine too. It's just as fine as me believing that they do. Neither of us can prove otherwise and I'm not the idiot calling someone out when I'm guilty of the same level of speculation. Only difference is I can offer the above peripheral evidence. Where is your proof that sensor fusion is difficult beyond Chinese abilities? Where is your proof we are missing some vital ingredient?
Mate,

You are the one making expansive claims regarding sensor fusion and you expect me to provide you with the education.

I can only sum up your attempt in one statement "lol" i.e. lacking overall logic.
 

Biscuits

Junior Member
Registered Member
It seems China got one Su-33 prototype in 2001
Which is just baseless speculation, where is proof there was a contract?

The J-15 is just a navalized J-11

@Brumby during this time China built multiple stealth fighters and other aircraft, they could easily have found time to make whatever carrier aircraft they want, naval J-11 turned out the best for a reason.
 

ougoah

Captain
Registered Member
Mate,

You are the one making expansive claims regarding sensor fusion and you expect me to provide you with the education.

I can only sum up your attempt in one statement "lol" i.e. lacking overall logic.
Lol I'm sorry I see the flaw of my logic. I suppose I shouldn't have said Chinese and Russian fighters should have sensor fusion since Chinese and Russian sources don't give us any information. Therefore we must logically assume sensor fusion onboard Russian and Chinese fighters do not exist. Thanks for the lesson.

Further I should also accept that Eurocanards do have sensor fusion despite this belief being almost entirely claims as well with zero detailed technical literature either. Gosh what a valuable lesson in logic.

:D:D:D

I guess we must accept that F-22's stealth is still effective at all. We should also accept Typhoon has unparalleled sensor fusion because it's the Typhoon! We should have denied the existence of the Type 075 up to the point it was weeks away from launching. Pathetic double standards. So it's not okay to assume Chinese fighters can reach some pathetically simple sensor fusion ability ten years after NATO does it despite the fact that there is no evidence China lacks the software and semiconductor tech that is necessary for sensor fusion.

I guess you need some portion of the code and receive the exact chips used onboard the fighter for me to make a statement on a forum filled with speculation. It's a forum where plenty of big claims are made. Including your's from the JF-17 forum. You choose to take some issue with my opinion on sensor fusion but why aren't you as consistently demanding on evidence when opinions are even more unfounded but are of a more pro-western or anti-china bias?

e.g. Your post from Hong Kong Protests #2048 - "What about the million over Uighurs detained in internment camps?" Why don't you educate us how there are over a million Uighurs detained in "red-education" camps?

There are plenty of examples from yourself and other members. I guess you just cannot stand someone even saying that they think Chinese engineers are quite possibly as capable as the Europeans a decade ago.
 
Last edited:

ougoah

Captain
Registered Member
continued from above.

@Brumby Why don't you carry your position further? Why don't you also doubt that PLAAF fighters even have working radars? I see no evidence the radars even work do you? Just like we don't see sensor fusion am I right? Let's not stop with the PLAAF. Lol where would you like to draw the line? At where Chinese can figure out the most difficult lunar landing procedure attempted on a side with no signals but doubt Chinese can perform a merging and automated analysis of radar and sensor data?
 

yuxiaochen

Junior Member
Which is just baseless speculation, where is proof there was a contract?

The J-15 is just a navalized J-11

@Brumby during this time China built multiple stealth fighters and other aircraft, they could easily have found time to make whatever carrier aircraft they want, naval J-11 turned out the best for a reason.
It's not a baseless speculation, China bought su-33's prototype T-10K3 from Ukraine in 2001, there are photos circling the internet that can prove this.
 

Deino

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Registered Member
Which is just baseless speculation, where is proof there was a contract?

The J-15 is just a navalized J-11

....

Plain wrong and I really don't know why you think it is an ingeniously navalized J-11. Even Russian sources confirm this, the Su-33K is known via several images including ones from China.

I think You are simply wrong.
 

Top