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

str

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 141
  • Joined: 03 Sep 2015, 07:54

Unread post04 Mar 2016, 15:47

The historical references are entirely relevant. You're brining up seldom-to-practially-never-used PGMs from a long time ago. I'm saying they weren't a material factor. A-6 + Walleye is roughly equal to B-29s dropping radio controlled tall boys. It happened, but so seldom that equating it with today is MISLEADING.

That's important because it strikes at the heart if your second argument, that loss of combat radius is detrimental. A Cold War attack mission involved overflying the target and dropping iron bombs, even if you had a PGM, you were probably going to overfly too, because of their limited range.

Meanwhile, today, you can lob a glide bomb from 50nm away, or a standoff weapon from 100+nm. That's a distance your jet doesn't have to fly. It also means you're not having to carry the payload of the old jets. A-6, fully loaded with unguided bombs (which is what it actually carried), cannot *actually* hit a target as far away as a Ehino with a pair of standoff weapons. Both jets would have a 400-500nm radius, but the Rhino has the better reach.

Now if you're arguing for some hypothetical A-6X, still flying in 2016, armed with JASSM (side note: they really need better names for these new missiles), vs F-18E, my only response is "who gives a sh*t?". I don't deal in that kind of basement stuff.

As for your whole diatribe on insurance, you're forcing analogies. Navy doesn't have the luxury of buying everything it wants. It has to make priorities and trade off based on those priorities. Would the Navy want to go back and get a A-3/A-5 deep strike platform today? Sure, it would. That's "insurance" against a lot of hypotheticals. But so is buying greater numbers of smaller, more flexible if shorter ranged jets, as that's insurance against a different hypothetical. One that is far more likely to actually be relevant operationally.
Offline
User avatar

sferrin

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5401
  • Joined: 22 Jul 2005, 03:23

Unread post04 Mar 2016, 16:04

str wrote:The historical references are entirely relevant. You're brining up seldom-to-practially-never-used PGMs from a long time ago. I'm saying they weren't a material factor. A-6 + Walleye is roughly equal to B-29s dropping radio controlled tall boys. It happened, but so seldom that equating it with today is MISLEADING.

That's important because it strikes at the heart if your second argument, that loss of combat radius is detrimental. A Cold War attack mission involved overflying the target and dropping iron bombs, even if you had a PGM, you were probably going to overfly too, because of their limited range.

Meanwhile, today, you can lob a glide bomb from 50nm away, or a standoff weapon from 100+nm. That's a distance your jet doesn't have to fly. It also means you're not having to carry the payload of the old jets. A-6, fully loaded with unguided bombs (which is what it actually carried), cannot *actually* hit a target as far away as a Ehino with a pair of standoff weapons. Both jets would have a 400-500nm radius, but the Rhino has the better reach.

Now if you're arguing for some hypothetical A-6X, still flying in 2016, armed with JASSM (side note: they really need better names for these new missiles), vs F-18E, my only response is "who gives a sh*t?". I don't deal in that kind of basement stuff.

As for your whole diatribe on insurance, you're forcing analogies. Navy doesn't have the luxury of buying everything it wants. It has to make priorities and trade off based on those priorities. Would the Navy want to go back and get a A-3/A-5 deep strike platform today? Sure, it would. That's "insurance" against a lot of hypotheticals. But so is buying greater numbers of smaller, more flexible if shorter ranged jets, as that's insurance against a different hypothetical. One that is far more likely to actually be relevant operationally.


Fair enough. I'd add though that in the Pacific theater, particularly where China is going to try to keep CVBGs out as far as possible, that range is going to become more important. I'd argue that's the chief reason they're making the UCLASS a tanker. (That and they need to have Super Hornets being shooters instead of tankers.)
"There I was. . ."
Offline
User avatar

element1loop

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1350
  • Joined: 31 Dec 2015, 05:35
  • Location: Australia

Unread post04 Mar 2016, 18:10

Gotta love the Chinese and Russian engine 'specs' on Wikipedia.

Spot the inconsistency.

J-15
Powerplant: 2 × WS-10A afterburning turbofans
Dry thrust: 89.17 kN (20,050 lbf) each
Thrust with afterburner: 135 kN (33,000 lbf) each

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shenyang_J-15


J-11
Powerplant: 2 × Lyulka AL-31F or Woshan WS-10A "Taihang" turbofans
Dry thrust: 75.22 kN / 89.17 kN (16,910 lbf / 20,050 lbf) each
Thrust with afterburner: 123 kN / 132 kN (27,495 lbf / 29,700 lbf) each

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shenyang_J-11


i.e. Woshan WS-10A in J-11 has 3,300lb less chili sauce than same in J-15. :roll:

But somehow J-11 and J-15 still have same military thrust. :shock: :wtf:

I wonder if these 'specs' are trying to insinuate a J-15 has 6,600lb more payload than a J-11 with the same WS-10A but in a heavier carrier version of J-11?

Now compare WS-10A to AL-41F1S/117S in Su35:

Su35
Powerplant: 2 × Saturn 117S (AL-41F1S) afterburning turbofan with 3D thrust vectoring nozzle
Dry thrust: 8,800 kgf (86.3 kN, 19,400 lbf) each
Thrust with afterburner: 14,500 kgf (142 kN, 31,900 lbf) each

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sukhoi_Su-35


J-15
Powerplant: 2 × WS-10A afterburning turbofans
Dry thrust: 89.17 kN (20,050 lbf) each
Thrust with afterburner: 135 kN (33,000 lbf) each

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shenyang_J-15


Maybe RuAF can buy super WS-10A engines for PAK-FA? :lmao:

But wait!

Su-35 Saturn 117S (AL-41F1S) verses the PAK-FA NPO Saturn izdeliye 117 (AL-41F1) (Note the difference between a 117, and a 117S, is reported to be the installation alone, same engine core in a different airframe)

Su35
Powerplant: 2 × Saturn 117S (AL-41F1S) afterburning turbofan with 3D thrust vectoring nozzle
Dry thrust: 8,800 kgf (86.3 kN, 19,400 lbf) each
Thrust with afterburner: 14,500 kgf (142 kN, 31,900 lbf) each

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sukhoi_Su-35


T50 PAK-FA
Powerplant: 2 × NPO Saturn izdeliye 117 (AL-41F1) for initial production, izdeliye 30 for later production thrust vectoring turbofan
Dry thrust: 93.1 kN / 107 kN (21,000 lbf / 24,300 lbf) each
Thrust with afterburner: 147 kN / 167 kN (33,067 lbf / 37,500 lbf) each

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sukhoi_PAK_FA


T50 PAK-FA has 1,167lb more of the magic chili sauce. :mrgreen:

And even with the extra chili, it only just beats the J-15's WS-10A engine. :lmao:

Yeah - NOT!
Offline

mixelflick

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3440
  • Joined: 20 Mar 2010, 10:26
  • Location: Parts Unknown

Unread post13 May 2016, 16:08

Late to the game, but excellent engine detective work here.

It appears the Chinese have all but leapfrogged Russian engine tech. Must be the reason they want the SU-35 so badly... :)
Offline
User avatar

popcorn

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 7703
  • Joined: 24 Sep 2008, 08:55

Unread post23 Sep 2016, 03:43

CATOBAR tests ... hope to transform Flopping Fish into Flying Shark.


https://news.usni.org/2016/09/22/china- ... more-21740
"When a fifth-generation fighter meets a fourth-generation fighter—the [latter] dies,”
CSAF Gen. Mark Welsh
Offline

hornetfinn

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2813
  • Joined: 13 Mar 2013, 08:31
  • Location: Finland

Unread post23 Sep 2016, 08:44

I'd like to add that the stated AB thrust for Saturn 117S is the very maximum thrust and combat mode thrust is 500 kgf less:
http://www.npo-saturn.ru/index_b2.php?sat=64&slang=1

I think the Wikipedia specs for Chinese engines are rather laughable and totally unbelievable unless they are disposed after every flight. I notice that Wikipedia thrust ratings are totally different to stated source. For example WS10A is stated to have 120-140 kilonewtons of thrust whereas source says that it has abot 130 kn is the reported goal and it has achieved only 110 kn of thrust so far. Since the development started only about 30 years ago, that is not very great achievement. It's also one thing to test an engine to some thrust setting and another actually getting that in real world application. If F135 engine was Chinese, it would have AB thrust rated at over 50,000 lbf in Wikipedia as that has been tested by P&W... :wink:
Offline

tincansailor

Banned

  • Posts: 711
  • Joined: 05 Jul 2015, 20:06

Unread post23 Sep 2016, 11:14

hornetfinn wrote:I'd like to add that the stated AB thrust for Saturn 117S is the very maximum thrust and combat mode thrust is 500 kgf less:
http://www.npo-saturn.ru/index_b2.php?sat=64&slang=1

I think the Wikipedia specs for Chinese engines are rather laughable and totally unbelievable unless they are disposed after every flight. I notice that Wikipedia thrust ratings are totally different to stated source. For example WS10A is stated to have 120-140 kilonewtons of thrust whereas source says that it has abot 130 kn is the reported goal and it has achieved only 110 kn of thrust so far. Since the development started only about 30 years ago, that is not very great achievement. It's also one thing to test an engine to some thrust setting and another actually getting that in real world application. If F135 engine was Chinese, it would have AB thrust rated at over 50,000 lbf in Wikipedia as that has been tested by P&W... :wink:


So hornetfinn are you suggesting that Wikipedia ratings of Chinese jet engines should be reduced by 10-20%? Is it like the Soviet MIG-25 doing Mach-3.2, then having to replace the engine? It will be interesting to see if the F-135 can reach 45,000 lbs. in flight testing. That may finally shut up the critics who call the F-35 underpowered.
Offline

alx2

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 22
  • Joined: 24 Jul 2014, 07:06

Unread post14 Nov 2016, 11:43

A supposedly recent (14/11) collection of pics, flight deck operations on the Liaoning carrier:

http://bmpd.livejournal.com/2249941.html#cutid1
Offline

alx2

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 22
  • Joined: 24 Jul 2014, 07:06

Unread post14 Nov 2016, 11:48

A supposedly recent (14/11) collection of pics, from flight deck operations aboard the Liaoning carrier:

http://bmpd.livejournal.com/2249941.html#cutid1
Offline

hornetfinn

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2813
  • Joined: 13 Mar 2013, 08:31
  • Location: Finland

Unread post14 Nov 2016, 14:14

tincansailor wrote:
hornetfinn wrote:I'd like to add that the stated AB thrust for Saturn 117S is the very maximum thrust and combat mode thrust is 500 kgf less:
http://www.npo-saturn.ru/index_b2.php?sat=64&slang=1

I think the Wikipedia specs for Chinese engines are rather laughable and totally unbelievable unless they are disposed after every flight. I notice that Wikipedia thrust ratings are totally different to stated source. For example WS10A is stated to have 120-140 kilonewtons of thrust whereas source says that it has abot 130 kn is the reported goal and it has achieved only 110 kn of thrust so far. Since the development started only about 30 years ago, that is not very great achievement. It's also one thing to test an engine to some thrust setting and another actually getting that in real world application. If F135 engine was Chinese, it would have AB thrust rated at over 50,000 lbf in Wikipedia as that has been tested by P&W... :wink:


So hornetfinn are you suggesting that Wikipedia ratings of Chinese jet engines should be reduced by 10-20%? Is it like the Soviet MIG-25 doing Mach-3.2, then having to replace the engine? It will be interesting to see if the F-135 can reach 45,000 lbs. in flight testing. That may finally shut up the critics who call the F-35 underpowered.


I don't know about that, but it seems like a lot of these ratings are totally bogus. Chinese are getting better at engines, but they just got WS-10A operational couple of years ago and that engine is about equal to F100-PW-229 or F110-GE-129. That means they have just gotten to level where US engine makers were about 25 years ago. Even then it seems like their service life is much shorter (like 1/4th to 1/3rd) than in those US engines.
Offline

charlielima223

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1045
  • Joined: 12 Jan 2014, 19:26

Unread post17 Nov 2016, 08:53

According to the Chinese... than again they claim they can detect and shoot down the F-22 but with this one I am willing to give them the benefit of the doubt.

http://www.military.com/daily-news/2016 ... ombat.html
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 23290
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post04 Jan 2017, 03:25

LIAONING J-15 'Flying Shark' Flight Ops SCS January 2017 [SCS=South China Sea]

A4G Skyhawk: www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ & www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/videos?view_as=subscriber
Offline

arian

Banned

  • Posts: 1293
  • Joined: 23 Dec 2014, 09:25

Unread post04 Jan 2017, 09:42

charlielima223 wrote:According to the Chinese... than again they claim they can detect and shoot down the F-22 but with this one I am willing to give them the benefit of the doubt.

http://www.military.com/daily-news/2016 ... ombat.html


Poor Chinese managed to get themselves stuck with the worst carrier design in history and the worst aircraft for the job possible. An expensive paper weight.
Offline

weasel1962

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1723
  • Joined: 07 Jun 2012, 02:41
  • Location: Singapore

Unread post04 Jan 2017, 10:15

arian wrote:
charlielima223 wrote:According to the Chinese... than again they claim they can detect and shoot down the F-22 but with this one I am willing to give them the benefit of the doubt.

http://www.military.com/daily-news/2016 ... ombat.html


Poor Chinese managed to get themselves stuck with the worst carrier design in history and the worst aircraft for the job possible. An expensive paper weight.


Maybe 2nd worst if one reads the news and CAG's report regarding India's own carriers and the mig-29K. Don't think the chinese is "stuck" with this design though. In both China and India's cases, the current CVs are more likely stepping stones to bigger CVs. Has to start somewhere...
Offline

Corsair1963

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5710
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

Unread post04 Jan 2017, 10:36

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.


During the Cold War the USN easily operated 75+ Aircraft from it's Super Carriers. Which, included larger types like the Skywarrior, Vigilante, Phantom, Intruder, Hawkeye, and of course the Tomcat.
PreviousNext

Return to Modern Military Aircraft

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 11 guests