J-15 Carrier Multirole Fighter thread


boytoy

New Member
Registered Member
uhmmm, cockpit layout realistic? really? I can't believe J15 is still using a su-27 cockpit instead of a glass cockpit like j-11b which they started to build like 20 years ago... or even a J-16 cockpit...

anyway, this guy produces a lot of DCS videos on youtube for quite a while, some contents are pretty decent, but he is no doubt heavily "blue" biased (I vaguely remember that he mentioned before he's an ex-pilot from US or something), and not very much looked into "red" side beyond DCS, so I won't take exactly his words too seriously.
Yes, I'm pretty sure J15 cockpit is classified info so accurately replicating it would be impossible here. Your second point on how the content is decent is exactly why I wanted to share it here. Whatever bias he may have, I found the video and his commentary on the differences in tactical approach between the J15 and FA-18 extremely informative. I did not know he was also a US fighter pilot, but that certainly lends credibility to his commentary.

This argument would hold some water if DCS were used to train fighter pilots. It is not.

...
LOL. Well, excuse me, your Majesty. I sincerely apologize for not able to demo highly classified billion dollar video games on this forum.

Look, by78. I don't care to argue with you on how realistic DCS is, or wether my post is "worthy" of being posted here. Clearly, now two retired US fighter pilots endorse the game as realistic. So unless you're an actual fighter pilot, I'd rather take their word for it. Furthermore, I think we should all get off our high horses and recognize that we are all just "casual enthusiasts" here on this forum.

I mean, unless you have access to classified military secrets. Do you?
 

Bltizo

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Registered Member
Yes, I'm pretty sure J15 cockpit is classified info so accurately replicating it would be impossible here. Your second point on how the content is decent is exactly why I wanted to share it here. Whatever bias he may have, I found the video and his commentary on the differences in tactical approach between the J15 and FA-18 extremely informative. I did not know he was also a US fighter pilot, but that certainly lends credibility to his commentary.


LOL. Well, excuse me, your Majesty. I sincerely apologize for not able to demo highly classified billion dollar video games on this forum.

Look, by78. I don't care to argue with you on how realistic DCS is, or wether my post is "worthy" of being posted here. Clearly, now two retired US fighter pilots endorse the game as realistic. So unless you're an actual fighter pilot, I'd rather take their word for it. Furthermore, I think we should all get off our high horses and recognize that we are all just "casual enthusiasts" here on this forum.

I mean, unless you have access to classified military secrets. Do you?
DCS is a simulator video game and attempts to model real world military aircraft, some from the past, some from the present.

As a dedicated combat simulator video game, it is among one of the best in the world today that can be accessed by anyone with a decent computer and a credit card, sure.
But if you're asking whether their depiction of specific aircraft in service today, and whether the comparisons between aircraft in service today, is worth any discussion on this thread, then no, it is not.


You don't need to apologize for not being able to demo billion dollar simulators on this forum because no one expects that at all.
However we do expect people to please discriminate and consider whether the results of a simulator video game you can buy off steam is worth being a stepping stone for any kind of discussion on this forum at all.


If you come in and ask whether a DCS death match means we can make an assessments about each aircraft? Or to ask "which aircraft is better"??? Well no, we can't.
I assume you wanted an honest answer, so that is the honest answer.
If you found the video useful, that is fine. It may be useful as a starting point to do reading and discussion.
But don't feel offended if the video is considered less than useful here.

If you wanted to talk about notable differences between a J-15 and Su-33, or even to briefly compare certain characteristics between J-15 and Super Hornet, those would be slightly better questions to ask straight off the bat. But using a video from DCS to form the basis of your question is going to get you dismissed.

Not to mention massively broad questions like "which aircraft is better," is virtually always going to end up with the answer of "it's complicated" for aircraft of a similar or equivalent generation and weight class.



So, to answer your previous question as to why I think "it is not worth talking about at all" --

1. The results of a DCS death match is not a basis for us to make any extrapolations about the respective aircraft in the way you asked, because the relevance of DCS for extrapolating "performance" or "capability" of modern aircraft in modern air combat is limited at best, especially for aircraft still in service today.
2. If you wanted to ask about the differences between J-15 and Su-33 you could've done so without having to bring in DCS, which doesn't add anything productive to the discussion or as a basis of discussion.
3. Your comment about "J-15 seems to be the better plane in this match up" is very much the kind of general comment/conclusion drawn from a video game combat simulator that we would want to avoid because that is a significant statement to make in context of the thin, thin, thin, evidence from a death match DCS video, in context of all of the other knowledge that we know in which how modern air combat operates.


This massive long explanation is frankly the exact thing I wanted to avoid, which is why I wrote "it is not worth talking about at all".
It was my attempt to hint that this was not a productive line of discussion and just inevitably would lead to a discussion about DCS and its credibility and how "professional" or how "casual" this forum is -- rather than the aircraft itself.


Putting my moderator hat on -- if you or anyone else wants to talk about J-15 the aircraft and its details even in comparison with Su-33 or other aircraft in the world, that is fine. (But not as "which is better"? type comparisons)
However any further posts that mentions or argues about DCS will have either the post deleted or have the relevant part of the post deleted.
 

halflife3

Junior Member
Registered Member
There are already well known information in the public domain that tells us the J-15 has significant differences over the Su-33. The J-15 has a glass cockpit derived from the J-11B, based on this image revealing the upper half of the flight control panel.
1 J-15 cockpit.jpg

J-11B flight control panels for reference.
1 j-11b cockpit.jpg

Su-33 flight control panel for reference.
1 Su-33 cockpit.jpg

We can conclude that the onboard avionics suite of the J-15 is more up to date and more capable.
We know that the J-15 incorporates development from the J-11B, thus production of the J-15 should include greater usage of composites, making the airframe lighter. The ordnances carried by the J-15 are different in parameters (although China does use numerous Russian analogues with comparable characteristics) to the ones carried by the Su-33, this is where things are harder to compare. Production and further development of the Su-33 had long been stopped in 1998 with no known serious attempts to upgrade existing airframes. Whereas the J-15 is still being produced and is continuously undergoing further development and upgrades.


At 4:50-5:16 , "J-15 is the first aircraft that we developed completely [by Shenyang] with a digitized process. We were long used to developing [aircraft] on paper. Transitioning to a computerized process represented a change in our thinking that has its own difficulties."

At 7:22-14:55 , J-15 incorporates 3D printing technology in its production, this helps reduce weight.
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
 

stannislas

Junior Member
Registered Member
Considering the fact that the SD-10 (PL-12) is a super missile in DCS until recent patches I'd say that we take any simulation with a pinch of salt.
Well... sd-10 is still considerably a better missile than aim-120c even after the recent patch, but again... this opens up a huge question on how accurate everything are comparing to the real deal, my personal guess is not even close for most, especially on the East block, except for jf-17...
 

Tam

Colonel
Registered Member
Another big difference is that the J-15 uses a slotted planar array similar to this Zhuk-27 here, wile the Su-33 uses a modified version of the N001 Myech, which is an inverse cassegrain. The modification is for sea clutter. The slotted planar array has better gain and field of view over an inverse cassegrain. The Zhuk-27 was offered as a replacement successor to the N001 radar, however the PLAAF rejected it and went with its own, Type 1475, which is certainly the radar used on the J-15 with modifications for sea clutter. I would likely go that Type 1475 > Zhuk 27 > N001. In terms of missiles, I would go PL-12 > R-77 > R-72. The Su-33 only uses the R-72. However, on close range IR missiles, R-73 > PL-8. Type 1475 compared to the N001 on the Su-33 is also fully multirole; its capable of using YJ-83 antiship missiles and YJ-91 antiship and antiradar missiles.


unnamed (8).jpgunnamed (9).jpg
 

gelgoog

Senior Member
Registered Member
Besides what @halflife3 and @Tam talked about I would like to mention a couple more differences between the Su-33 and the J-15.

Because the avionics of the J-15 are a lot more modern it is a lot more likely the J-15 can track and engage more targets simultaneously.
Newer electronics have more computational power and can handle the increased load required to do this.

The engines used in the Su-33 have lower thrust levels than more modern engines in the same family. Having higher takeoff thrust means you will have more payload as a result. The same is true if they use the latest generation WS-10 family engines on the J-15. More thrust.

I think any PL-12 vs R-77 comparisons like that are simplistic. Russia did not buy the original R-77. AFAIK it was export only to India and other nations. The Russian Air Forces only recently acquired the R-77-1 missile. This variant has a bit more weight and slightly increased range. It also supposedly has an improved seeker and aerodynamics vs the original R-77. It might be the Su-33 cannot even support it without avionics upgrades as it is similar to an original Flanker.

There are proposals to upgrade the Su-33 fighters with technologies from either the Su-27SM3 or the Su-30SM2 packages. This would improve the avionics and radar. It would be compatible with more weapons. The engines would also supposedly be replaced with a higher power engine. Russian Naval Aviation already operates the Su-30SM and Su-30SM2 on coastal bases.

For reference this is a Su-27SM3 cockpit.
1603610215692.png
 

sheogorath

New Member
Registered Member
I mean, the Su-33's are quite old, with a protacted development cycle thanks to the fall of the USSR and haven't received any kind of extensive updates other than SVP-24's package and maybe new engines. It should be expected to compare unfavourably with its newer, more modern relatives.
 

tamsen_ikard

Junior Member
Registered Member
DCS is a simulator video game and attempts to model real world military aircraft, some from the past, some from the present.

As a dedicated combat simulator video game, it is among one of the best in the world today that can be accessed by anyone with a decent computer and a credit card, sure.
But if you're asking whether their depiction of specific aircraft in service today, and whether the comparisons between aircraft in service today, is worth any discussion on this thread, then no, it is not.


You don't need to apologize for not being able to demo billion dollar simulators on this forum because no one expects that at all.
However we do expect people to please discriminate and consider whether the results of a simulator video game you can buy off steam is worth being a stepping stone for any kind of discussion on this forum at all.


If you come in and ask whether a DCS death match means we can make an assessments about each aircraft? Or to ask "which aircraft is better"??? Well no, we can't.
I assume you wanted an honest answer, so that is the honest answer.
If you found the video useful, that is fine. It may be useful as a starting point to do reading and discussion.
But don't feel offended if the video is considered less than useful here.

If you wanted to talk about notable differences between a J-15 and Su-33, or even to briefly compare certain characteristics between J-15 and Super Hornet, those would be slightly better questions to ask straight off the bat. But using a video from DCS to form the basis of your question is going to get you dismissed.

Not to mention massively broad questions like "which aircraft is better," is virtually always going to end up with the answer of "it's complicated" for aircraft of a similar or equivalent generation and weight class.



So, to answer your previous question as to why I think "it is not worth talking about at all" --

1. The results of a DCS death match is not a basis for us to make any extrapolations about the respective aircraft in the way you asked, because the relevance of DCS for extrapolating "performance" or "capability" of modern aircraft in modern air combat is limited at best, especially for aircraft still in service today.
2. If you wanted to ask about the differences between J-15 and Su-33 you could've done so without having to bring in DCS, which doesn't add anything productive to the discussion or as a basis of discussion.
3. Your comment about "J-15 seems to be the better plane in this match up" is very much the kind of general comment/conclusion drawn from a video game combat simulator that we would want to avoid because that is a significant statement to make in context of the thin, thin, thin, evidence from a death match DCS video, in context of all of the other knowledge that we know in which how modern air combat operates.


This massive long explanation is frankly the exact thing I wanted to avoid, which is why I wrote "it is not worth talking about at all".
It was my attempt to hint that this was not a productive line of discussion and just inevitably would lead to a discussion about DCS and its credibility and how "professional" or how "casual" this forum is -- rather than the aircraft itself.


Putting my moderator hat on -- if you or anyone else wants to talk about J-15 the aircraft and its details even in comparison with Su-33 or other aircraft in the world, that is fine. (But not as "which is better"? type comparisons)
However any further posts that mentions or argues about DCS will have either the post deleted or have the relevant part of the post deleted.

I think dismissing simulators that can be bought online just cause they are not used by the military is not based on real dynamics of software development. Its like saying Linux or other open source software is free so it must be bad. But that is not true at all. Often this kind of publicly available software can be much better than dedicated billion dollar software just because they can rely on feedback from general public and enthusiasts who are also very dedicated and knowledgeable in these things. Moreover, such simulators can rely on years of tinkering to perfect their simulation compared to a dedicated military contract developed software which may remain static.

Another thing I must point out is what we are simulating here. We are simulating Air frames which are designs that are completely in the public view and we are simulating engine thrust numbers that are also public for most aircrafts. Simulating how a particular air frame will behave in the air in certain altitude and speed is not top secret material. Anyone with decent physics engine can simulate it. This is just pure aero-dynamics calculation. So, simulating a close dog fight even in a publicly available software should be very accurate since this not based on highly sophisticated electronics but pure physics simulation of air frames.

Same thing with simulating missiles. The dimensions and shape of missiles are public knowledge. So how they will behave when following a plane at certain speed and altitude is not top secret material. Anyone with a physics engine can do it.

So, I won't discount the results of dog fights in a simulator. It can tell a lot about how a air frame behaves in high-altitude/low-altitude vs how it can do in a turn fight. Your doubt about relying on simulators is more appropriate for a BVR fight with long range missile since those fights are much complex and reliant on top secret information about electronics, radar performance, missile tracking ability and so on.

But when it comes to close range dog fights, we can tell a lot about how good a plane is in turning, flying and out maneuvering.

Here is what I will claim based on what I have seen experts say and validated by watching videos of dog fights of simulators on youtube. Su-27 derived planes like J-15 is superior than F/A-18 in a close range dog fight because it has higher nose authority. That's what is required in a Fox-2 dog fight where you want to put our nose on opponent, lock your heat seeker and fire.

Anyone wants to refute me? Go ahead.
 

silentlurker

Junior Member
Registered Member
The newest IR missile modelled in DCS is the AIM-9M, first made in the early 80s. If you think WVR air battles of today (on the rare chance they ever happen) will be fought like that of DCS, you are greatly mistaken.
 

Top