J-XY/J-35 carrier-borne fighter thread

Egg roll said:

Does the J35 have autocannon installed on it for close combat situations?

Click to expand...

Autocannons are still great for warning shots but with short range missiles with off-boresight capabilities, autocannons are beginning to be a desperate weapons. 4 small canister carried MPADS like AA missiles would take more or less the same place than a gun and ammunition...could be great against small target like UAV.

Getting in visual combat is not the purpose of a stealth fighter. J35 is probably made a lot more to lobe a couple of missiles while lurking the enemy.

Atomicfrog said:

Autocannons are still great for warning shots but with short range missiles with off-boresight capabilities, autocannons are beginning to be a desperate weapons. 4 small canister carried MPADS like AA missiles would take more or less the same place than a gun and ammunition...could be great against small target like UAV.

Getting in visual combat is not the purpose of a stealth fighter. J35 is probably made a lot more to lobe a couple of missiles while lurking the enemy.

Click to expand...

I agree that short range missiles are better than autocannon, but does the J35 have any spare room for PL-10 to install on it like the side bay of J20.
Indeed getting in visual combat is not the purpose of a stealth fighter. But the chance of a closed combat situations while may low but never zero. It is better to have autocannons or short range missiles just in case.

plawolf said:

Wouldn’t you say assuming that the J15 has the same range as the Su33 is exactly the kind of baseless pulling figures out of thin air assumption you are warning against?

Click to expand...

Sure, that's why I am asking for a source. What source mentions J-15 range at all? And once we establish a decent source, then we can talk about exact numbers. Until then, we can either A) not talk about J15 range. or B) sort of assume it's similar-ish to Su-33 but that doesn't help us much as the term "similar" may mean different stuff to different people. Plus there are always people who believe it's not even similar but somehow much different.

Would J-15T have more range and payload? Or are we assuming that J-15 can carry full payload full fuel tank already?
Su-35 has much longer range than su-30, is that true?
Su-33 is quite old, I would not be surprised if some work can be done to give it more range or payload. Whether those work has been done, I didn't know.

Click to expand...

It's not about being old, it's about 3 factors: Weight. Fuel carried. And fuel consumption.
Fuel consumption is, right now (i am not talking about years into the future with some different engines) rougly comparable to su33 because engines are comparable.

Fuel carried? Well, we know what Su-35 increased the fuel load of Su-27 from 9.4 tons to 11.2 tons. And did it increase range over su-27? No, it remained roughly the same. Because Su-35 is heavier (by 2.6 tons) and thus its engines, even though they're more modern, are in real world situation using up more fuel.

So, it's certainly possible that J15 (and any other modern Chinese flanker after) also carry more fuel. Maybe 10 tons. Maybe 11 tons. Who knows. But at the same time, modern construction methods offer fairly miniscule savings in weight, while expanded roles and requirements generally increase weight. That's why Su-33 weighs as much as a Su-35. Now, J-15 may indeed weigh a bit less. But there's no way to tell how much less.

One could guesstimate a range of figures for an expected ferry range of J-15 using all the above but it'd still be just a wild guess. What I'd prefer is a credible source.

Totoro said:

Sure, that's why I am asking for a source. What source mentions J-15 range at all? And once we establish a decent source, then we can talk about exact numbers. Until then, we can either A) not talk about J15 range. or B) sort of assume it's similar-ish to Su-33 but that doesn't help us much as the term "similar" may mean different stuff to different people. Plus there are always people who believe it's not even similar but somehow much different.

Click to expand...

That is like assuming a LCD TV made in 2020 consumes the same power as a LCD TV made in 2000 although they have the same screen size.

I agree that without decent source, we can not talk about exact numbers. But by taking option B you have to assume that J-15 is made using the same material inside and outside and the same fabrication procedure and machinery as Su-33 two decades ago. IMO, that assumption is even further away from being reasonable.

taxiya said:

That is like assuming a LCD TV made in 2020 consumes the same power as a LCD TV made in 2000 although they have the same screen size.

I agree that without decent source, we can not talk about exact numbers. But by taking option B you have to assume that J-15 is made using the same material inside and outside and the same fabrication procedure and machinery as Su-33 two decades ago. IMO, that assumption is even further away from being reasonable.

Click to expand...

Comparing aircraft to consumer electronics is nonsense.

A 2021 F-15EX or Su-35S are still made out of broadly the same materials as a 1980 F-15C or 1985 Su-27S. A few secondary parts (for example spine skin panels on the Flanker or the airbrake on the Eagle) might be optimized, but the primary structure especially is generally left well alone. Major changes to the internal load bearing elements would require structural testing to be completely redone, at which point you might as well design a clean-sheet aircraft in cost terms.

Option B is frankly a reasonably safe assumption. Not least because in terms of the rivet patterns indicating where the skin is fastened to internal structure, even the J-16 is closer to the basic Su-27 than the Su-35. There is no evidence to suggest SAC embarked on a re-design of the scale required to achieve drastic weight reductions (and, as mentioned, for good reasons).

More modern Flanker variants store fuel in their extended vertical tail sections.
Also you can't really compare the engines in F-15EX or Su-35S with their counters on F-15C or Su-27. Just by specifications alone the thrust-to-weight ratio and fuel consumption in those engines is actually close to 5th gen engines.

I am unsure of how much more modern the J-15 is compared with Su-33 in terms of the airframe and engines proper. It should definitively have better avionics and weapons systems. But it was designed before the J-16 with its higher use of composites or the import of the Su-35.

I suspect the J-15T will not have any advantage either in terms of payload or range against the J-XY. Especially once it gets the WS-19 engines.

gelgoog said:

I suspect the J-15T will not have any advantage either in terms of payload or range against the J-XY. Especially once it gets the WS-19 engines.

Click to expand...

IMHO - the opposite.

4th gens tend to be quite efficient, precisely due to non-stealth aerodynamics(1) and lack of volume dedicated to internal carriage(2). Optimization for heavy external payloads (low drag stations) counts for something, too.
Being freed from ramp takeoff, J-15T will probably serve quite well in:
(1)CAP. Loitering longer and further away. Probably more freedom at pressing afterburners, but this is a very premature guess. Furthermore, throwing J-15 will probably remain your WVR fighter of choice - J-XY clearly doesn't have side bays.
(2)Using oversized/standoff weapons and/or payloads. Su-27 family originally was an oversized a2a missile user, after all; having numerous heavy-duty weapon stations goes without saying.
(3)Buddy refueling fuel cow. Pretty straightforward, but we've to see if J-15T will bring in wet hardpoints.

This video explains the hump behind the cockpit and where the photos were found.

In my opinion, the hump is a good spot to put communication related electronics. If there is a tiny antenna on the hump itself its also used as a datalink. It can also be used for a conformal phase array for SATCOM use.

Or, maybe a compact Intelligence Victory console?