J-15 carrier-borne fighter thread

[lcloo]

The front landing gear of J15 and J16D are quite different. J16D's shock absorbing rod is pointed at a prominent angle to the ground and is not directly connected to the center of the wheel, while that of J15 is more vertical downwards and is directly connected to the wheel center.

The image of the blur landing gear in question looks more like J15.

 

[by78]

I saw this at this tweet:

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1596512663290449929

However, in fact I'm confused? I tried to improve the original image a bit and put the cut-out parts of this tweet beside them, but I see nothing that looks like a J-15D.

Yes, this antenna on the intake looks suspicious, but given that also J-16s are standing around in the same workshop it could also be a J-16D.

View attachment 102549 View attachment 102550

Agreed, those are likely J-16Ds parked next to that J-15.

However, the original video showed two different workshop buildings. A J-15 was seen in a a building with a flat roof, whereas J-16s were seen in one with arched roofs. Of course, that by itself means nothing.

 

[zszczhyx]

Agreed, those are likely J-16Ds parked next to that J-15.

However, the original video showed two different workshop buildings. A J-15 was seen in a a building with a flat roof, whereas J-16s were seen in one with arched roofs. Of course, that by itself means nothing.

The trailing edge flap of J-16D is different from that of J-15.....

View attachment 102558View attachment 102557

And the landing gear is also different

View attachment 102555

 

[LCR34]

On the recently released CCTV-7 episode on J-15, it was said the tailhook of J-15 equals weight of a person. (Healthy human being being 55-75kg). Previously i read somewhere that Tail hook assembly of F-14 weights around 40-50 kg. One hook shaft being square bar another being cylindrical. Both feature swappable hook held together by a single stripper bolt.

 

[by78]

Buddy refueling.

 

[Atomicfrog]

Buddy refueling.

Having a variant or another aircraft that carry more fuel would be interesting. I think it's maybe to late to thing about wet hardpoints for fuel tanks on a J-15 subvariant. Catobar will help to have more payload with full fuelload diminishing the need but it would still be usefull for carrier operation to have something with more fuel for inflight refueling from the carrier deck.

The US had the KA-3B but also a dedicated A6 the KA-6D used has buddy tanker.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

A tanker based on the KJ-600 could be interesting ?

 

[Schwerter_]

Having a variant or another aircraft that carry more fuel would be interesting. I think it's maybe to late to thing about wet hardpoints for fuel tanks on a J-15 subvariant. Catobar will help to have more payload with full fuelload diminishing the need but it would still be usefull for carrier operation to have something with more fuel for inflight refueling from the carrier deck.

The US had the KA-3B but also a dedicated A6 the KA-6D used has buddy tanker.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

A tanker based on the KJ-600 could be interesting ?

Actually if the J-15 can use a buddy refueling pod on its centerline pylon, that means the pylon in use is a “wet pylon” and in theory can be used to hang a drop tank. I’d actually like to see a large centerline fuel tank (possibly utilizing both of the centerline hard points to attach) for the J-15, if nothing else it’s probably look cool xd

 

[Atomicfrog]

Actually if the J-15 can use a buddy refueling pod on its centerline pylon, that means the pylon in use is a “wet pylon” and in theory can be used to hang a drop tank. I’d actually like to see a large centerline fuel tank (possibly utilizing both of the centerline hard points to attach) for the J-15, if nothing else it’s probably look cool xd

Yeah a bigger buddy tank would be nice ! With the present setup, it can probably refuel a couple of aircrafts waiting for landing but I don't think it's enough for full top-off of a couple of fighters to do long range mission with heavy payload. A land based tanker could be used near China but for power projection it's more difficult.

Imagining a J-15 with 4 auxiliary tanks is nice but probably is only wishfull thinking. It would require full reengineering of the wings... sure that China have the capacity to do it

 

[asif iqbal]

the continuous development of the J15 is a testament to what Chinese are planning

a fully robust Carrier programme all the while making progress on the J35 which will stand the test of time

surpassing many of the Worlds best navies

a long term sustainable credible Carrier programme

 

[by78]

Buddy refueling.