J-15 'Flying Shark' LIAONING Carrier Arrest Ski Jump Fly Ops

Military aircraft - Post cold war aircraft, including for example B-2, Gripen, F-18E/F Super Hornet, Rafale, and Typhoon.
  • Author
  • Message
Offline

weasel1962

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 530
  • Joined: 07 Jun 2012, 02:41
  • Location: Singapore

Unread post04 Jan 2017, 10:59

The last sentence in str post may not be factually correct. The J-15 is 21.9m long with 7.4m folded wingspan. I think the Mig29k is 17.3m with 7.8m folded wingspan.

On deck, length may matter less than wingspan as aircraft may stick off the deck. Below, it will depend on hanger size. Even if hanger size is not a limitation, the area per J-15 is only 20% bigger, not enough to be 3-2.
Offline

Corsair1963

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3597
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

Unread post04 Jan 2017, 11:02

str wrote:
geforcerfx wrote:It's only designed to operate 24 J-15's, pretty amazing when you think about just how much more capability the Nimitz class has over the Russian (China) design. It can operate 3 times there fixed wing capacity, and we have 10 of the freakin things :shock:


Nimitz may only sail with 3x the aircraft, but they're built to handle 4x in contingencies. They did studies and found you could pack about 130 F-18 sized aircraft on a Nimitz, if you needed to use one as an aircraft ferry (jets loaded/unloaded by crane). Operationally, you can only use 80% of that max "density" and still have enough room to launch and recover, which nets a payload of a bit more than 100 combat aircraft. Having said that, it would still be crowded above and below the deck. The more space the easier things get. It's a tradeoff between capacity and individual efficiency. The more aircraft your have, the longer it takes to move them around and get them ready. So that, combined with the fact that no current mission requires that kind of air wing, is why we typically fly 4 dozen combat jets and another dozen support aircraft. That, and budgets...

But it should also be noted that J-15/Su-33 is a lot bigger than anything the USN flies today. It's only a couple feet shorter than the A-3 Skywarrior or A-5 Vigilante. They could probably fit 3 dozen MiG-29K in the space of those 2 dozen Flankers.


Also, let's not forget it's not just the number of aircraft that each type can carry. Yet, the number of sorties that they can generate and the weight of Fuel and Weapons. That each aircraft can launch and recover with. This is where the USN Nimitz and Ford Classes with four catapults vastly out strip Chinese, Indian, and Russian STOBAR Type Aircraft Carriers. (besides total numbers)
Offline

weasel1962

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 530
  • Joined: 07 Jun 2012, 02:41
  • Location: Singapore

Unread post04 Jan 2017, 11:10

Different doctrine, different roles and hence different requirements. The kutznetzov CV were designed for the cold war when all the Russkis were looking for were fleet defence fighters to defend boomers on their way to the high seas. Not the "Do it all" requirements of the super carriers.
There are some well written papers by Ex-soviet naval officers explaining this on dtic.mil, search "soviet carrier doctrine".

The US looks back to WW2 for CV battles but that was not what the russkis were intending to do with their CVs.
Offline

arian

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 903
  • Joined: 23 Dec 2014, 09:25

Unread post05 Jan 2017, 00:15

weasel1962 wrote:Different doctrine, different roles and hence different requirements. The kutznetzov CV were designed for the cold war when all the Russkis were looking for were fleet defence fighters to defend boomers on their way to the high seas. Not the "Do it all" requirements of the super carriers.
There are some well written papers by Ex-soviet naval officers explaining this on dtic.mil, search "soviet carrier doctrine".

The US looks back to WW2 for CV battles but that was not what the russkis were intending to do with their CVs.


Useless is still useless, regardless of what they wanted to do. What the Soviets decided to do had as much to do with their requirements as with what they could actually do.
Offline

vilters

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 605
  • Joined: 28 Sep 2009, 00:16

Unread post05 Jan 2017, 00:23

Mission generation and sustainability.

Only the USA has aircraft carriers that can generate and sustain an offensive or defensive capability.
On a smaller scale, only the UK could.
Offline

weasel1962

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 530
  • Joined: 07 Jun 2012, 02:41
  • Location: Singapore

Unread post05 Jan 2017, 02:28

vilters wrote:Mission generation and sustainability.

Only the USA has aircraft carriers that can generate and sustain an offensive or defensive capability.
On a smaller scale, only the UK could.


Sortie rates are generally a function of fuel, munitions and runway capacity. Fuel and munitions are limited to what is carried in the CV’s fuel tanks and storage areas, before a RAS is required. Same goes with the US CVN, which despite its much larger size, would also eventually require continuous RAS to sustain sortie rates.

The UK did the same with the much smaller Invincible class operating 28 Harriers, performing a RAS every night to maintain sortie rates throughout the entire Falklands campaign.

Early Chinese replenishment vessels could only do liquid transfers so an ammo vessel was required. Also the replenishment ships were too slow to keep up with a fast carrier fleet. Hence the PLAN has built the new Type 901 RAS vessels (1st was commissioned Jan 2016) which are almost the same size as the ones the USN uses plus the max speed is significantly higher to keep up with the CVBG.

Might be more useful to understand specific details why the PLAN CVBG can’t sustain sortie rates.

Regarding aircraft capability, a lot of BS has also been made on the limitations of the ski-jump take off, but the reality would be different. Examples of discussions per below.
https://www.sinodefenceforum.com/stobar ... -15.t8043/

With new long range hypersonic AAM and ASM missiles, plus a larger sized fighter that can thus carry a larger AESA + low band to detect stealthy fighters, the USN is definitely closely monitoring developments. Unlike the F-35 which is limited by the weapons bay size, the J-15 is not. Hence new AAMs developed by the Chinese are not constraint by size. The larger the missile, the more fuel carried, the further the range.
Offline

arian

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 903
  • Joined: 23 Dec 2014, 09:25

Unread post05 Jan 2017, 05:04

weasel1962 wrote:Regarding aircraft capability, a lot of BS has also been made on the limitations of the ski-jump take off, but the reality would be different. Examples of discussions per below.
https://www.sinodefenceforum.com/stobar ... -15.t8043/


If that's the case, then why are Russian Su-33s never operating anywhere near those loads?

Sortie rates are generally a function of fuel, munitions and runway capacity. Fuel and munitions are limited to what is carried in the CV’s fuel tanks and storage areas, before a RAS is required. Same goes with the US CVN, which despite its much larger size, would also eventually require continuous RAS to sustain sortie rates.

The UK did the same with the much smaller Invincible class operating 28 Harriers, performing a RAS every night to maintain sortie rates throughout the entire Falklands campaign.

Early Chinese replenishment vessels could only do liquid transfers so an ammo vessel was required. Also the replenishment ships were too slow to keep up with a fast carrier fleet. Hence the PLAN has built the new Type 901 RAS vessels (1st was commissioned Jan 2016) which are almost the same size as the ones the USN uses plus the max speed is significantly higher to keep up with the CVBG.

Might be more useful to understand specific details why the PLAN CVBG can’t sustain sortie rates.


Because obviously the Kuznetsov design is much more limited in space and optimization of turn-around than a USN carrier. These two are not nearly the same.

If you have to replenish the carrier with fuel and ammo on a frequent basis that alone is going to slow down sortie rate substantially compared to a carrier that has substantially more space and better optimized space for carrying fuel and weapons. In fact, saying that it needs frequent replenishment is exactly why it can't maintain a similar sustained rate of sorties.

Not to talk about ground crew availability, training etc. A million factors.

But ultimately what you're talking about is sustained rate. No reason why these things should limit you maximum or instantaneous rate, and yet we again see in practice Russians barely able to even put up 4 planes at a time from their carrier.

[img]With%20new%20long%20range%20hypersonic%20AAM%20and%20ASM%20missiles,%20plus%20a%20larger%20sized%20fighter%20that%20can%20thus%20carry%20a%20larger%20AESA%20+%20low%20band%20to%20detect%20stealthy%20fighters,%20the%20USN%20is%20definitely%20closely%20monitoring%20developments.%20Unlike%20the%20F-35%20which%20is%20limited%20by%20the%20weapons%20bay%20size,%20the%20J-15%20is%20not.%20Hence%20new%20AAMs%20developed%20by%20the%20Chinese%20are%20not%20constraint%20by%20size.%20The%20larger%20the%20missile,%20the%20more%20fuel%20carried,%20the%20further%20the%20range.[/img]

Hypersonic missiles and AESA? Well, I guess F-35 is toast then.
Offline

weasel1962

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 530
  • Joined: 07 Jun 2012, 02:41
  • Location: Singapore

Unread post05 Jan 2017, 05:40

arian wrote:If that's the case, then why are Russian Su-33s never operating anywhere near those loads?


That is a good question. Rarely do aircraft operate at MTOW nor do they need to.

arian wrote:Because obviously the Kuznetsov design is much more limited in space and optimization of turn-around than a USN carrier. These two are not nearly the same.


No one has said the 2 different types are the same.

arian wrote:If you have to replenish the carrier with fuel and ammo on a frequent basis that alone is going to slow down sortie rate substantially compared to a carrier that has substantially more space and better optimized space for carrying fuel and weapons. In fact, saying that it needs frequent replenishment is exactly why it can't maintain a similar sustained rate of sorties.


If a CV is 3 times the number of aircraft with a fuel and storage capacity twice the size. Assuming fuel and munition consumption of each aircraft is the same, the larger CV will actually spend more time replenishing than the smaller. Never been an issue for the USN.

Again, rather than making general statements, consider the actual amount of aviation fuel and munitions carried on both carriers then your point might actually carry some weight.....

arian wrote:Not to talk about ground crew availability, training etc. A million factors.

But ultimately what you're talking about is sustained rate. No reason why these things should limit you maximum or instantaneous rate, and yet we again see in practice Russians barely able to even put up 4 planes at a time from their carrier.


I think the Chinese are probably doing better than the Russkis in those aspects already :) It helps when you have 5 times the budget.

arian wrote:Hypersonic missiles and AESA? Well, I guess F-35 is toast then.


Are there any F-35s currently operating on board the USN CVBGs? Planes get shot down when one becomes complacent and assume the other party doesn't know what they're doing. Remember F-117 & SA-2?
Offline

skyward

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 35
  • Joined: 01 Jun 2006, 13:33

Unread post05 Jan 2017, 19:04

The problem with ski-jump take off is the runway use on the carrier. To operate a su-33 at MTOW, it can only launch aircraft one at a time without carrier landing. This will greatly reduce your sortie rate. For a CV, this limited your fleet offense. CATOBAR don't have is problem.

With new long range hypersonic AAM and ASM missiles, plus a larger sized fighter that can thus carry a larger AESA + low band to detect stealthy fighters, the USN is definitely closely monitoring developments. Unlike the F-35 which is limited by the weapons bay size, the J-15 is not. Hence new AAMs developed by the Chinese are not constraint by size. The larger the missile, the more fuel carried, the further the range.


A larger aesa yes but low band to detect stealthy fighter that is only a dream for a CV fighter. Missile size is only true if they are only developing for non-stealthy fighter but weight will always be a problem for ski-jump take off.

There are F-35 on US navy ship.
Offline
User avatar

popcorn

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 6536
  • Joined: 24 Sep 2008, 08:55

Unread post05 Jan 2017, 23:56

"When a fifth-generation fighter meets a fourth-generation fighter—the [latter] dies,”
CSAF Gen. Mark Welsh
Offline

arian

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 903
  • Joined: 23 Dec 2014, 09:25

Unread post06 Jan 2017, 02:27

weasel1962 wrote:
arian wrote:If that's the case, then why are Russian Su-33s never operating anywhere near those loads?


That is a good question. Rarely do aircraft operate at MTOW nor do they need to.


Of course they don't need to. An actual demonstration, however, would be required to believe these claims.

If a CV is 3 times the number of aircraft with a fuel and storage capacity twice the size. Assuming fuel and munition consumption of each aircraft is the same, the larger CV will actually spend more time replenishing than the smaller. Never been an issue for the USN.

Again, rather than making general statements, consider the actual amount of aviation fuel and munitions carried on both carriers then your point might actually carry some weight.....


Several things here:

1) You're assuming the limiting factor here is stores. That may be one factor, but it may not be the bottleneck.

2) The bottlenecks here can be many. Where is all this stuff stored and how easy is it to get to multiple planes at the same time? How easy and quick is it to refuel multiple planes at the same time? How easy and quick is it to rearm them? To reposition and move them around? Where are the maintenance activities done? How many planes can be in maintenance at the same time? How many people do you have available to service each plane simultaneously? Equipment? There's 4 times more aircrew on a Numitz class than on a Kuznetsov (advertised figure, but probably only theoretical and probably never actually done)

Holy cow! There's about 6,000 things that can be bottlenecks or which can reduce your operational tempo on a carrier, all limited by space, manpower, movement, access to critical activities etc.

There is absolutely not even the slightest indication that a Kuznetsov design could approach a USN carrier. So, when they demonstrate it...we can talk.

3) You brought up the refueling issue and said it's not an issue because you can always refuel. Of course all this assumes that a Chinese refueling ship and carrier can refuel or rearm at the same speed and rate as a USN carrier, and the stuff can get into use as fast as on a USN carrier. All very very generous assumptions

You're assuming these numbers. How do you know a USN carrier only has 2 times the fuel and weapons capacity of a Kuznetsov design? A Nimitz class can carry 12,000 tons of aviation fuel. I don't know how much a Kuznetsov can carry. I wouldn't venture to guess it's half of the fuel or weapons.

But as I said, I didn't assume that fuel availability was a bottleneck here. You did. It probably isn't, because fuel availability would matter in the long run. It wouldn't affect instantaneous rate: say how many sorties can you maintain in a 24 hour period, for only a 24 hour period?

Kuzentsov in combat has demonstrated about...4

4) Again, USN carriers have demonstrated all these things day on and day out for decades upon decades. Kuznetsov design has demonstrated nothing but utter abysmal and laughable performance for all of 3 times it's sailed out of port. And you call these things "BS that has been said" Ok. The burden of proof rests on you, not on me to say why Kuznetsov design is deficient. That's self evident.

Are there any F-35s currently operating on board the USN CVBGs? Planes get shot down when one becomes complacent and assume the other party doesn't know what they're doing. Remember F-117 & SA-2?


Why, are these brochure Chinese weapons in service too? Or do they just exist on internet forums?
Offline

weasel1962

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 530
  • Joined: 07 Jun 2012, 02:41
  • Location: Singapore

Unread post06 Jan 2017, 02:31

skyward wrote:The problem with ski-jump take off is the runway use on the carrier. To operate a su-33 at MTOW, it can only launch aircraft one at a time without carrier landing. This will greatly reduce your sortie rate. For a CV, this limited your fleet offense. CATOBAR don't have is problem.


1. What applies to a Su-33 may not apply to a J-15. The J-15 employs higher powered engines. That means greater thrust on take-off = higher loads at lower wind speeds.

2. There are 3 take-off stations on board the Liaoning. Any of the 3 can handle a J-15 takeoff at MTOW. A take off from any station would not limit the take off from another station. That said, a J-15 standard CAP weapons load does not need a MTOW takeoff.

That's why CV-17 is still STOBAR and not CATOBAR.

skyward wrote:A larger aesa yes but low band to detect stealthy fighter that is only a dream for a CV fighter.


Datalinks. The Chinese observes what the US is doing and copies because that’s what they do best. That applies equally to CEC. High powered S/L-band radars on DDG escorts with datalink transfer to carrier fighters. Not new.

The new Type 052D DDGs have taken this to a new level within the PLAN with joint data networks. Not surprising considering the general computing capabilities of the Chinese. China has deployed link-16 equivalent datalinks.

Same thing what USN is doing to counter the J-20 with low-band E-2Ds and S-band SPY-1s.

skyward wrote:Missile size is only true if they are only developing for non-stealthy fighter but weight will always be a problem for ski-jump take off.


An Amraam weighs ~350lbs. Even a missile weighing 6 times the weight of an Amraam is not a major constraint for the J-15 when the max weapon load is in 1x tons. imho, not a big issue.

skyward wrote:There are F-35 on US navy ship.


The F-35C is no where near IOC. The F-35Bs may have IOC-ed but the CVN integration has not happened yet. They are still operating off LHDs.

There is a difference between testing and installing. Though likely, I would prefer to wait for CV-18 to appear without a ski-jump before confirming the Chinese will actually deploy a CATOBAR carrier. Even the Indians finally gave up and asked US to assist in EMALs for the Vishal.
Offline

arian

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 903
  • Joined: 23 Dec 2014, 09:25

Unread post06 Jan 2017, 02:35

weasel1962 wrote:The F-35C is no where near IOC.


China makes paper weapons that a guy on the internet says is super-duper equivalent and better than USN system. Confirmed and verified and fact-checked.

F-35C though, that's just a distant fantasy.
Offline

weasel1962

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 530
  • Joined: 07 Jun 2012, 02:41
  • Location: Singapore

Unread post06 Jan 2017, 03:36

arian wrote:Kuzentsov in combat has demonstrated about...4...etc


And your assumption seems to be that is the limit of the combat capability of the Liaoning. Not bothering to try to change your perception.

What I do note are the 6000 things you have raised that influences sortie rates are either mere ratios reflecting the difference in aircraft numbers on both CV types or a function of training. All of which lends no justification to the above assumption of a sortie rate of 4.

What is factual is that the PLAN started deploying its CVBG in 2013 with AORs and only started deploying an airwing onboard its CV in 2015/16. The PLAN called its sole CV "combat ready" in 2016 and have been conducting CVBG exercises in training.

Nice pics of 4 J-15s flying over the Liaoning. Must be the full quota for the entire cruise.... :doh:
http://www.china-defense.com/smf/index. ... 290449#new

arian wrote:Why, are these brochure Chinese weapons in service too? Or do they just exist on internet forums?


http://www.popsci.com/china-new-long-ra ... ir-missile
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2 ... ooked.html

Its funny how ships like the Hanit, can feel the weight of those paper missiles. The chief of USAF really has too many unneeded concerns esp when Twitter can solve all problems.
Offline

arian

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 903
  • Joined: 23 Dec 2014, 09:25

Unread post06 Jan 2017, 04:23

weasel1962 wrote:
arian wrote:Kuzentsov in combat has demonstrated about...4...etc


And your assumption seems to be that is the limit of the combat capability of the Liaoning. Not bothering to try to change your perception.

What I do note are the 6000 things you have raised that influences sortie rates are either mere ratios reflecting the difference in aircraft numbers on both CV types or a function of training. All of which lends no justification to the above assumption of a sortie rate of 4.

What is factual is that the PLAN started deploying its CVBG in 2013 with AORs and only started deploying an airwing onboard its CV in 2015/16. The PLAN called its sole CV "combat ready" in 2016 and have been conducting CVBG exercises in training.

Nice pics of 4 J-15s flying over the Liaoning. Must be the full quota for the entire cruise.... :doh:
http://www.china-defense.com/smf/index. ... 290449#new


So in other words, you have no evidence, or argument, as to whether or not these carrier designs are even remotely comparable in capabilities and you stick to your "it's all BS because I read it on sinodefense".

You just assume they are because you have no evidence to the contrary.

BTW, none of the things I mentioned there is dependent on the number of aircraft carried.

http://www.popsci.com/china-new-long-ra ... ir-missile
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2 ... ooked.html


I must have missed where Chinese R-77 knock-offs and captive tests and photoshop images are "in service" weapons and are all capable of the performances claimed in Chinese brochures.

Or how exactly these things negate F-35C. But nevermind that. Just curious how you have such amazingly high standards as to dismiss F-35C because its not IOC, but a Chinese purchase of R-77 seekers and putting it in their missile airframe substantially changes anything.

If you want to have a serious discussion, bring serious evidence and facts. Not "J-15 will carry big missile with AESA and Chinese chips have J-band radars, so F-35C is kaput" Those are not serious facts for this forum.
PreviousNext

Return to Modern Military Aircraft

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: zhangmdev and 5 guests