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

Unread postPosted: 11 Oct 2015, 06:10
by spazsinbad

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

Unread postPosted: 12 Oct 2015, 14:41
by charlielima223
They still got a LONG way to go before they can call themselves proficient in carrier operations.

Also just a question. Using a ski-jump for the J-15/Su-33 for it to take off instead of a catapult; doesn't that mean that when compared to a catapult assisted launched aircraft, ski-jump assisted launch for carrier aircraft take off with a smaller payload and possibly less fuel?

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

Unread postPosted: 12 Oct 2015, 16:26
by mixelflick
charlielima223 wrote:They still got a LONG way to go before they can call themselves proficient in carrier operations.

Also just a question. Using a ski-jump for the J-15/Su-33 for it to take off instead of a catapult; doesn't that mean that when compared to a catapult assisted launched aircraft, ski-jump assisted launch for carrier aircraft take off with a smaller payload and possibly less fuel?


Right on both counts. And while you can tank up after getting airborne, you can't re-arm... :mrgreen:

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

Unread postPosted: 12 Oct 2015, 16:38
by popcorn
The jet got a rough reception from the Chinese public earning the "Flopping Fish" monicker.

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

Unread postPosted: 13 Oct 2015, 05:41
by lookieloo
popcorn wrote:The jet got a rough reception from the Chinese public earning the "Flopping Fish" monicker.
I still want to see them at work in Syria.

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

Unread postPosted: 17 Feb 2016, 20:24
by spazsinbad

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

Unread postPosted: 17 Feb 2016, 23:56
by sferrin
They certainly have the cleanest ships. All their gear looks like it came right from the show room. Like a mall ninja.

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

Unread postPosted: 18 Feb 2016, 10:00
by charlielima223
That has got to be the cleanest carrier deck I have ever seen on the interwebs.

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

Unread postPosted: 18 Feb 2016, 15:19
by flighthawk128
After watching videos and documentaries of American aircraft carriers where the decks look like a colourful anthill with a bajillion people scarpering all over the place, this looks... so empty and so wrong lol. And is it just me, or is this significantly smaller than what the Yanks currently use? The Chinese deck looks like it can't hold as many birds. The Sukhoi slowly going up the ski jump looks like it's going to fall out of the sky as soon as it hits the top of it too :P Guess China needs to clone the catshot system next.

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

Unread postPosted: 18 Feb 2016, 21:13
by krorvik
It's smaller, but not *significantly*.

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

Unread postPosted: 18 Feb 2016, 22:09
by spazsinbad
The LIAONING deck acreage is less than CVF by about 10-20%? LIAONING top - Kuznetsov - CVF. This is first graphic from:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c ... rt.svg.png

Second graphic:
http://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/624/media/ ... er_624.gif

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

Unread postPosted: 18 Feb 2016, 23:13
by vanshilar
charlielima223 wrote:That has got to be the cleanest carrier deck I have ever seen on the interwebs.


Perhaps China's research into visual stealth technology is finally paying off.

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

Unread postPosted: 19 Feb 2016, 09:34
by tincansailor
Comparing Chinese to American carriers involves a lot of metrics. Others have pointed out the lack of cats means lower take off weight. The smaller deck could also restrict take back weight. Hanger Deck space, and Work Shop facilities have a big impact on the size of the air group carried, and what level of repairs can be carried out aboard ship. How efficiently can aircraft be fueled, armed, and brought on deck? What is the load limit of the ships elevators? How much ordnance does the ship carry? What level of armored protection does it have? How developed is their damage control proficiency?

Being both smaller, and conventionally powered restricts the size of the air group, ordnance load, aviation fuel, and the ships range. These were the major reasons the USN made the decision to go with an all nuclear carrier force. They calculated CVNs could carry 20% more aviation fuel, and ordnance then comparable sized CVs. The increased cost of nuclear power was offset by fuel savings over the life of the ships. Additionally you only need tanker support for the ships escorts.

The USN been operating large carriers since the 1920s, China's just starting. The USN pioneered underway replenishment in the 1930s, has China refueled their carrier while underway yet? Do they have naval AWACs aircraft? EW aircraft? Do they have tankers? Even buddy pack refueling? With low take off weight I doubt it. (Glad to hear that with the V-22 Osprey getting a tanker variant the USN will have a dedicated tanker again.) It seems China has a very long way to go to catch up with the USN in the size, capacity, efficiency, and numbers of their carrier force.

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

Unread postPosted: 19 Feb 2016, 12:07
by spazsinbad
'tincansailor' said above: ...Additionally you only need tanker support for the ships escorts....
&
...Do they have tankers? Even buddy pack refueling? With low take off weight I doubt it. (Glad to hear that with the V-22 Osprey getting a tanker variant the USN will have a dedicated tanker again.)...

Aviation fuel never runs out? Wattle they think of next - aviation fuel from seawater? No..... :mrgreen: Didna ye not hear that UCLASS will be USN next buddy tanker? I guess Chinese have no cigar on that also. However they do have buddy AAR with ruskie gear. Chinese have said long and loud: LIAONING is a training carrier and everyone is learning....

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

Unread postPosted: 19 Feb 2016, 12:43
by LinkF16SimDude
The HUDs in those jets are reminiscent of the WAR HUDs in the Block 4X Vipers. :whistle:

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

Unread postPosted: 20 Feb 2016, 04:50
by geforcerfx
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:

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

Unread postPosted: 21 Feb 2016, 01:36
by tincansailor
spazsinbad wrote:
'tincansailor' said above: ...Additionally you only need tanker support for the ships escorts....
&
...Do they have tankers? Even buddy pack refueling? With low take off weight I doubt it. (Glad to hear that with the V-22 Osprey getting a tanker variant the USN will have a dedicated tanker again.)...

Aviation fuel never runs out? Wattle they think of next - aviation fuel from seawater? No..... :mrgreen: Didna ye not hear that UCLASS will be USN next buddy tanker? I guess Chinese have no cigar on that also. However they do have buddy AAR with ruskie gear. Chinese have said long and loud: LIAONING is a training carrier and everyone is learning....


Yes your right of course my friend, they do need tankers for aviation fuel. As a U.S. senator would say let me please extend my remarks. I was referring to fuel for ships power plants. The carrier you flew off was an ex RN Majestic Class Carrier. How much aviation fuel did she carry? How many sorties could she generate before needing to replenish? My point was that a nuclear carrier has more internal space for aviation fuel, and ordnance.

We hear reports that China is building a carrier of their own. We don't yet have any details about it. How big it is, what kind of power plant it will have, and so forth. How much will it be based on their Russian training carrier? CVNs are superior for Blue Water operations, smaller CVs may be adequate for operations within a few thousand miles of the Chinese coast. It's hard to imagine China trying to operate carrier battle groups in the mid Pacific during a war because they would have to pass between so many hostile bases. IMHO they won't try to do that, so their carriers won't be large CVNs.

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

Unread postPosted: 21 Feb 2016, 02:04
by vilters
I am sure China can build a carrier.

Not so sure if they can build the complete pack that goes with it, or even the C&C structure to operate it as a tool.

Building "the boat" is the least of their problems.

They also need to have full SA control of the 500 NM around the pack for 24/7/365 and that for the next 50 years or so.

They have the technology, they have the manpower and the economics, but certainly not the mentality nor the chain of command.

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

Unread postPosted: 21 Feb 2016, 02:27
by madrat
China is probably too fractured to get to that level for another decade. Internally they are breaking down divisions that were once a major obstacle to central control. They've mostly redrawn boundaries at the top and usurped regional heads amazingly well here lately. In fact this stock market crash has been just the crisis they needed to ax some heads figuratively speaking. Let's not forget that regional military leaders are also the regional business leaders. So when you hear about crack downs on corruption you know its all cant for reshuffling of power.

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

Unread postPosted: 21 Feb 2016, 12:39
by tincansailor
madrat wrote:China is probably too fractured to get to that level for another decade. Internally they are breaking down divisions that were once a major obstacle to central control. They've mostly redrawn boundaries at the top and usurped regional heads amazingly well here lately. In fact this stock market crash has been just the crisis they needed to ax some heads figuratively speaking. Let's not forget that regional military leaders are also the regional business leaders. So when you hear about crack downs on corruption you know its all cant for reshuffling of power.


I agree with you about internal Chinese politics. China has always had a problem with regionalism. If central authority weakens the provinces start to go their own way. The old USSR had a nationalism problem, China has a regional problem. China's internal political power struggles are even more opaque then the old Soviet ones so it's very hard for outsiders to know what's happening. In China the machinations can have an even greater effect because as you say regional leaders control the local economy.

An economic down turn can put any system under great stress. That stress can destabilize a country, internally or externally. China has not faced an economic down turn in the post Mao period. The world will have to wait and see how China reacts. They may become much more aggressive in foreign policy in order to rally their people. Oh and I disagree on one point. When Chinese leaders fall from power it can often lead to prison, or firing squads.

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

Unread postPosted: 03 Mar 2016, 16:20
by str
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.

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

Unread postPosted: 03 Mar 2016, 16:43
by sferrin
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.


Used to be the typical air wing size was ~90 aircraft.

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

Unread postPosted: 03 Mar 2016, 16:57
by str
And it used to be that every one of those jets were needed for an alpha strike on a bridge that *still* failed because no bomb would actually hit the target.

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

Unread postPosted: 03 Mar 2016, 18:42
by sferrin
str wrote:And it used to be that every one of those jets were needed for an alpha strike on a bridge that *still* failed because no bomb would actually hit the target.


Er, both A-6Es and A-7Es carried PGMs. Furthermore, both easily outranged anything on today's flight decks.

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

Unread postPosted: 03 Mar 2016, 22:27
by str
By the time PGMs were common, the fighter and attack compliment was already down to 5 squadrons of a dozen ships each. And those fighter squadrons didn't generally move a lot of mud. So you're looking at 3-4 attack squadrons, which is less than or equal to what we deploy now.

The big difference is that we've dropped the single purpose fleet defense squadrons. No Tomcats amd no Vikings. That's 2 dozen fewer aircraft than we had in post Vietnam to Cold War wind down era.

Then again, that's been the trend for the last 50 years: more multipurpose, less specialized. We've dropped interceptors, photo recon, separate day/night attack, nuclear strike (sorry, "heavy attack"), and fixed wing ASW. F-18 does all of the above except for ASW.

Before we had 2 fleet air defense squadrons, tops. Now each group has 4. Attack is now consistently 4 squadrons, instead of 3-4.
They're all all-weather, and can all do recon. Your air wing is dictated by what you've loaded into the magazine, not what jets you've got parked on deck.

Only thing we've dropped from 50 years ago is strategic bombing and ASW.

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

Unread postPosted: 03 Mar 2016, 23:59
by sferrin
str wrote:By the time PGMs were common, the fighter and attack compliment was already down to 5 squadrons of a dozen ships each.



While they didn't have JDAMs there were still plenty of PGMs around. Walleye, HOBOs, Skipper, Paveway, Harpoon, Maverick, etc.

My point is that 1. Today's carriers could support 90+ aircraft on a regular basis just fine. 2. The retirement of the A-7E and A-6E significantly reduced the reach of USN strike.

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

Unread postPosted: 04 Mar 2016, 07:45
by str
sferrin wrote:
str wrote:By the time PGMs were common, the fighter and attack compliment was already down to 5 squadrons of a dozen ships each.



While they didn't have JDAMs there were still plenty of PGMs around. Walleye, HOBOs, Skipper, Paveway, Harpoon, Maverick, etc.

My point is that 1. Today's carriers could support 90+ aircraft on a regular basis just fine. 2. The retirement of the A-7E and A-6E significantly reduced the reach of USN strike.


Sure, PGMs have existed since WW2. How commonly were they used though? Not very often. Experimentally in WW2 and Korea. They were something like 1% of munitions dropped in Vietnam. Gulf War was only 10% of bombs dropped, and that number was skewed by F-111 tank plinking and other anti armor missions by other platforms.

PGMs (in terms of how we use them today) are, really, a very recent phenomenon. Even if Paveway and Maverick have been around for nearly 50 years, the first 30 of those years they were used sparingly. A-6/7, while great aircraft, spent nearly all of their lifetimes dropping dumb bombs.

And yeah, on paper, retiring the subsonic attack jets cut down of carrier reach. I'm practice, there's been no threat were that mattered. Either tanking was plentiful, or the CVBG simply moved 200nm closer to shore. Or both. Same deal with the S-3. On paper, we lost a capability. In practice, it hasn't mattered, and is unlikely to matter in the near term.

Honestly, the biggest real loss was the KA-6 and the S-3 as tankers. Forcing Rhino to buddy fuel has been an expensive waste of flight hours.

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

Unread postPosted: 04 Mar 2016, 07:55
by geforcerfx
sferrin wrote: 2. The retirement of the A-7E and A-6E significantly reduced the reach of USN strike.


I see this said a lot, and while I agree with the statement in a sense there's a factor that has always thrown it off for me. We had the ability to have a A-6/7 go 800-900nmi off the deck, but how many tankers did the navy fly back then? While not nearly as efficient of a system any super hornet on board can become a tanker if the need is there. The supers can get 500-600nmi out give them some decent SH tanker support along the way and on the way back and you could prob push the extra 200-300nmi you lost, but again at a much larger fuel load used over all. The capability should be back though with the F-35C, taking it's 5,000lbs stealthy load out over 700nmi on internal fuel will bring much welcome strike capability back to the fleet.

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

Unread postPosted: 04 Mar 2016, 10:11
by element1loop
geforcerfx wrote:
sferrin wrote: 2. The retirement of the A-7E and A-6E significantly reduced the reach of USN strike.


I see this said a lot, and while I agree with the statement in a sense there's a factor that has always thrown it off for me. ...


The less emphasized potential that stands out for me is the effect of a missile like LRASM to both increase effective range, with a LO (reliable) and precise weapon, increasing survivability, reducing CSAR effort, plus RTB times are shorter to recover, rearm, refuel and do it again. The LRASM can cover much of the attack distance itself, meaning the fighter uses less fuel, spends less time in he air, the pilot less fatigued, not stressed so much by the attacker's threats. Potentially getting airborne shortly after the first LRASMs have struck, so each jet could hit gain in just a couple of hours later. So regaining and matching if not surpassing, both prior strike radius levels, and maybe increasing speed and attack tempo, with fewer jets going it, on a less congested carrier. Then similar with JSOW and tanker.

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

Unread postPosted: 04 Mar 2016, 14:30
by sferrin
str wrote:Sure, PGMs have existed since WW2. How commonly were they used though? Not very often. Experimentally in WW2 and Korea.


FFS can we stay relevant? I'm talking about A-7s and A-6s not TBM Avengers. :doh:


str wrote:PGMs (in terms of how we use them today) are, really, a very recent phenomenon. Even if Paveway and Maverick have been around for nearly 50 years, the first 30 of those years they were used sparingly.


Which doesn't change the fact that A-7s and A-6s were both PGM capable and both handily out ranged any flavor of Hornet.


str wrote:A-6/7, while great aircraft, spent nearly all of their lifetimes dropping dumb bombs.


And? Again, that doesn't change the fact that strike took a big hit when it went from A-7s and A-6s to F/A-18s.

str wrote:And yeah, on paper, retiring the subsonic attack jets cut down of carrier reach. I'm practice, there's been no threat were that mattered.


Therefore there never will be right? :doh:

str wrote:Either tanking was plentiful, or the CVBG simply moved 200nm closer to shore. Or both. Same deal with the S-3. On paper, we lost a capability. In practice, it hasn't mattered, and is unlikely to matter in the near term.


By that rational I should get rid of my health, home, and auto insurance. Because, you know, it hasn't mattered and is unlikely to matter in the near term.

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

Unread postPosted: 04 Mar 2016, 15:47
by str
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.

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

Unread postPosted: 04 Mar 2016, 16:04
by sferrin
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.)

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

Unread postPosted: 04 Mar 2016, 18:10
by element1loop
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!

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

Unread postPosted: 13 May 2016, 16:08
by mixelflick
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... :)

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

Unread postPosted: 23 Sep 2016, 03:43
by popcorn
CATOBAR tests ... hope to transform Flopping Fish into Flying Shark.


https://news.usni.org/2016/09/22/china- ... more-21740

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

Unread postPosted: 23 Sep 2016, 08:44
by hornetfinn
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:

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

Unread postPosted: 23 Sep 2016, 11:14
by tincansailor
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.

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

Unread postPosted: 14 Nov 2016, 11:43
by alx2
A supposedly recent (14/11) collection of pics, flight deck operations on the Liaoning carrier:

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

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

Unread postPosted: 14 Nov 2016, 11:48
by alx2
A supposedly recent (14/11) collection of pics, from flight deck operations aboard the Liaoning carrier:

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

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

Unread postPosted: 14 Nov 2016, 14:14
by hornetfinn
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.

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

Unread postPosted: 17 Nov 2016, 08:53
by charlielima223
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

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

Unread postPosted: 04 Jan 2017, 03:25
by spazsinbad
LIAONING J-15 'Flying Shark' Flight Ops SCS January 2017 [SCS=South China Sea]


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

Unread postPosted: 04 Jan 2017, 09:42
by arian
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.

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

Unread postPosted: 04 Jan 2017, 10:15
by weasel1962
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...

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

Unread postPosted: 04 Jan 2017, 10:36
by Corsair1963
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.

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

Unread postPosted: 04 Jan 2017, 10:59
by weasel1962
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.

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

Unread postPosted: 04 Jan 2017, 11:02
by Corsair1963
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)

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

Unread postPosted: 04 Jan 2017, 11:10
by weasel1962
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.

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

Unread postPosted: 05 Jan 2017, 00:15
by arian
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.

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

Unread postPosted: 05 Jan 2017, 00:23
by vilters
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.

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

Unread postPosted: 05 Jan 2017, 02:28
by weasel1962
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.

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

Unread postPosted: 05 Jan 2017, 05:04
by arian
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.

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

Unread postPosted: 05 Jan 2017, 05:40
by weasel1962
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?

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

Unread postPosted: 05 Jan 2017, 19:04
by skyward
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.

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

Unread postPosted: 05 Jan 2017, 23:56
by popcorn

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

Unread postPosted: 06 Jan 2017, 02:27
by arian
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?

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

Unread postPosted: 06 Jan 2017, 02:31
by weasel1962
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.

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

Unread postPosted: 06 Jan 2017, 02:35
by arian
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.

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

Unread postPosted: 06 Jan 2017, 03:36
by weasel1962
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.

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

Unread postPosted: 06 Jan 2017, 04:23
by arian
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.

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

Unread postPosted: 06 Jan 2017, 04:38
by arian
To reiterate weasel1962, I don't know what the Kuznetsov class is capable theoretically or in a pinch. I can only go by what we can observe, because "theoretical" means very little in something like carrier operations unless you've actually DONE it. What we have seen them do is, to put it mildly, negligible.

Second, there are many good reasons to assume it can not operate at the same tempo as a USN carrier because of the 6,000 +1 variables which may influence the operational tempo on a carrier. The Kuznetsov design, not knowing all the details, does not appear on face value to comparable at all.

But since I don't know the details, I suspect neither do you. I at least have actual combat experience to point to and say "these guys have done it and do it in their sleep, these other guys have never done it"

And of course the fact that the Kuznetsov design is a major failure should be self-evident and not even need to be discussed. The Chinese themselves realize this since they are trying to develop conventional carriers. So what is the point in trying to argue over or defend the capabilities of a design that everyone, including its users, agree is crap on a stick?

The Soviets also thought it was crap on a stick which is why they were trying to develop more conventional designs too. Kuznetsov was just a stop-gap and jumping off point from an even more crap design (the Kievs) to something less so.

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

Unread postPosted: 06 Jan 2017, 11:11
by weasel1962
Yup, I never had the luxury of actual combat experience since I only served in an airforce of a country that never has never fought in a war yet.

Just clarifying some of your comments regarding my post,

(a) I’m not comparing US CVNs to the Liaoning, nor do I intend to. On several posts, I have highlighted that it cannot be compared primarily because different function, different doctrine, different roles.
(b) I can understand the skepticism regarding non-US weaponry since I’m old enough to remember the hoo-ha over the Mig-25s after it entered service vs what the reality when the American finally got hold of one. Whether the posts by popular science and the pics are doctored is of course possible. So are the pics of the new CV being built in Dalian or the J-20 /J-31pics, or the comments made by 4 star generals, or any information about the PLA in general.

Anyone can dismiss anything under the guise of I know better because I served and I fought and that anything that everyone else uses is crap. I don’t claim to know everything even as I served. An argument over that and the above is ultimately fruitless. I don't think one can ever make a realistic assessment by assuming everything posted is fake.

I agree there are a lot of information about the PLAN that we don’t know or even the US intelligence services. What analysts try to do is to take what is known, and make judgment calls from whether items are possibly real vs what is not. Example, the J-15 is deployed whilst the F-35C is not. One can of course claim the J-15 footage and pics are all staged like the moon landings.

I don’t think the level of discussion in the F-16 forum deserves the “moon landing” level of discussion. From the prism of an American whose navy has 11 CVNs each operating up to 100 aircraft and thousands of fighters in the air force, an admiral kuznetsov class carrier whose complement of 20+ fighters may be crap. From the perspective of countries around the region, each barely mustering 100 fighters (at best) or less and whose operational tempo won’t be as high as the USAF or the USN, 2 carriers of 20+ J-15s may not be regarded as such. Even as a ratio of the ROCAF, the numbers will not be as easily dismissed as "crap". Also old enough to remember when 20+ harriers onboard 2 carriers were dismissed as crap.

Its easy to underestimate the Chinese. 20 years ago, still flying J-6s. 10 years ago, no CVs, 10 years from now 3-4 “crap” CVs, 20 years from now…?

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

Unread postPosted: 06 Jan 2017, 18:48
by mixelflick
Excellent point about not underestimating the Chinese, well said.

They seem to favor the big Sukhoi Flankers and why not? Lots of range, decent payload capability plus the raw kinematics to be competitive with most 4th gen designs. As a compliment to these, the J-10 seems formidable. It's an F-16 class bird which competently flown, be competitive to our Super Hornets.

And so much is riding on the SH in the air to air arena. If the sh!t hit the fan today in the South China sea, the Gulf or anywhere - it's the SH that'd likely be the tip of the spear - not our F-15's/16's/22's. Although its claimed to be IOC, I really can't imagine they'd commit any F-35's to the fight yet.

SH is no slouch, but it also doesn't have the air-to air record of the 15/16. And sure, I know the F-22 hasn't been tested yet in air to air, but I think we can all agree how that's going to turn out.

Anyway, the J-15 appears to be inferior to the Russian SU-33, so they have some ways to go in naval aviation..

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

Unread postPosted: 06 Jan 2017, 19:08
by skyward
The LHA with 20 F-35B is a mini carrier. The navy don't need F-35B to integration to the CVN to use it. Just a few F-35B on LHD can do fleet defense.

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

Unread postPosted: 07 Jan 2017, 00:33
by weasel1962
Soon. The first B sqn will deploy to Japan this year with 6 onboard the wasp. America is homeported in San Diego but agreed there should be enough Bs to fit 20 onboard today. That's assuming Trump maintains the Obama asia pivot.

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

Unread postPosted: 07 Jan 2017, 05:28
by PhillyGuy
Guys some of you are missing the point. The Chinese are not focused right now on attacking the US and or going head to head with our Armed Forces. Their whole focus is securing the near space adjacent to their mainland/coastline, and CHIEF among these is the reclaiming of Taiwan.

Initially the Chinese just want to be able to project enough power in their regional turf to either 1. totally expel or exclude regional forces or the US from operating/projecting power there, or 2. at least make it very very difficult and costly for us and our allies to intervene and engage China when they make a power move/territorial grab.

They just need to delay us for a little while and incur enough cost that we are either unwilling to escalate and engage them or uncertain how to do so while they claim their objective, which number one is Taiwan. Because without Taiwan they cannot have a doorway to the Pacific and are forever stuck inside the first island chain or brooding in the South China Sea.

Their carrier, therefore, is not designed or intended to steam off the coast of California and start conducting air operations against San Diego, it is designed to encircle Taiwan and offer China the ability of multiple fronts and multiple axis of attack and a limited ability to have a mobile base to project some firepower toward possible intervening forces.

And in this it can be successful when you couple it with the fact that the Chinese mainland and all of their other forces is literally RIGHT THERE, so they have the advantage in surprise, initiation and ease of employment/volume of attack. If they build one or two more additional carriers and assemble decent battle groups, they can more easily attack Taiwan and threaten other regional countries over islands and territory to expand their geography and inch it closer to the Pacific basin.

Sure the US and Japan etc... can still stop the Chinese if we wanted to but at what cost and under what circumstance and with which speed? All they need is a delay or hesitation or recoil and we lose. And once they have Taiwan, China will become exponentially more powerful because then they would have a HUGE land base and path/ability to deploy their forces directly into the open Pacific. THEN you start to worry about their follow on carriers and submarines and bombers and fighters because they can be deployed with ease against our bases in the Pacific, and at that point China will seek to build comparable if not superior systems to ours. Right now, they know they have to take Taiwan first because they cannot pass unnoticed or unchallenged from the mainland to project forces or power.

When I heard that their carrier and its surface escorts and air group circumnavigated Taiwan, it was a clear signal as soon as they feel ready and capable, they will use them to attack Taiwan and try to defeat/invade it, removing decades of comfort/certainty Taiwan has had in only preparing for and facing one front. And in their eyes, the Chinese will finally be able to claim and have unimpeded access to the Pacific and they will at that point start to pour their forces even more aggressively forward toward their master plan, which is to have us retreat to Hawaii while they dominate and control the Rim, which they see and rightfully their domain and sphere of influence.

I still remember an eyeopening statement from former CNO Admiral Gary Roughead. At one of his meetings between him and his Chinese counterparts they pulled out in front of him a large map of the Pacific and drew a line right through Hawaii. They very matter of fact and somewhat jovially offered to let America have everything to the right, while they have everything to the left. Of course he politely declined but the Chinese were not amused and that gall and obvious desire that they have is not going away anytime soon.

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

Unread postPosted: 07 Jan 2017, 05:30
by KamenRiderBlade
As a Taiwanese guy, I want China's carrier to be sunk ASAP.

They are a threat to a free and independent Taiwan, Hong Kong, Macau, Tibet, Xinjiang.

We need FREEDOM & INDEPENDENCE, YESTERDAY.

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

Unread postPosted: 07 Jan 2017, 05:39
by arian
weasel1962 wrote:Yup, I never had the luxury of actual combat experience since I only served in an airforce of a country that never has never fought in a war yet.

Just clarifying some of your comments regarding my post,

(a) I’m not comparing US CVNs to the Liaoning, nor do I intend to. On several posts, I have highlighted that it cannot be compared primarily because different function, different doctrine, different roles.
(b) I can understand the skepticism regarding non-US weaponry since I’m old enough to remember the hoo-ha over the Mig-25s after it entered service vs what the reality when the American finally got hold of one. Whether the posts by popular science and the pics are doctored is of course possible. So are the pics of the new CV being built in Dalian or the J-20 /J-31pics, or the comments made by 4 star generals, or any information about the PLA in general.

Anyone can dismiss anything under the guise of I know better because I served and I fought and that anything that everyone else uses is crap. I don’t claim to know everything even as I served. An argument over that and the above is ultimately fruitless. I don't think one can ever make a realistic assessment by assuming everything posted is fake.

I agree there are a lot of information about the PLAN that we don’t know or even the US intelligence services. What analysts try to do is to take what is known, and make judgment calls from whether items are possibly real vs what is not. Example, the J-15 is deployed whilst the F-35C is not. One can of course claim the J-15 footage and pics are all staged like the moon landings.

I don’t think the level of discussion in the F-16 forum deserves the “moon landing” level of discussion. From the prism of an American whose navy has 11 CVNs each operating up to 100 aircraft and thousands of fighters in the air force, an admiral kuznetsov class carrier whose complement of 20+ fighters may be crap. From the perspective of countries around the region, each barely mustering 100 fighters (at best) or less and whose operational tempo won’t be as high as the USAF or the USN, 2 carriers of 20+ J-15s may not be regarded as such. Even as a ratio of the ROCAF, the numbers will not be as easily dismissed as "crap". Also old enough to remember when 20+ harriers onboard 2 carriers were dismissed as crap.

Its easy to underestimate the Chinese. 20 years ago, still flying J-6s. 10 years ago, no CVs, 10 years from now 3-4 “crap” CVs, 20 years from now…?


1) You misunderstood me. I didn't say I had any combat experience. I said I can point to actual combat experience for evidence: i.e. the actual combat experience of the US carriers and the Kuzentsov. The Kuzentsov was in an actual combat mission, which ended yesterday I believe as it retreated back to Russia after what was a disappointing performance, to say the least. Probably it never managed to get more than 2-3 missions per day while it was in theater.

2) You're changing your arguments too many times. Your critique was that F-35C is not IOC whereas the Chinese had these amazing super-large AAMs and AESA radars and the like. Which of course, aren't in service either but only exist in brochures.

Now its..."J-15 is in service".'

And? J-15 is a knock-off of an Su-27. How is that in interesting?

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

Unread postPosted: 07 Jan 2017, 05:52
by arian
weasel1962 wrote:Its easy to underestimate the Chinese. 20 years ago, still flying J-6s. 10 years ago, no CVs, 10 years from now 3-4 “crap” CVs, 20 years from now…?


Lots of countries went from MiG-19s to Su-27s in the span of 20 years.

China is surrounded by a string of very advanced, very heavily armed, and technologically more sophisticated neighbors (and dare I say numerically better equipped than China)...which on top of that own pretty much most of what's worth owning on mainland China. This is without involving the USN in it yet.

I don't think anyone is under-estimating China, but I do think too many people over-estimate China to the point of freaking out over every brochure weapon they advertise.

What will happen in 20 years, the most likely answer is that China's neighbors will also acquire carriers and carrier-borne fixed wing aircraft and will likely have more and better of those than China. India and Japan certainly, but maybe even S.Korea and who knows what Australia does. And they will also acquire a lot more subs and Aegis equipped ships and F-35s and the like, and in the end China will still be behind technologically and operationally compared to its neighbors.

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

Unread postPosted: 07 Jan 2017, 06:22
by PhillyGuy
Yes but not all of those countries have their own nuclear deterrent, and our umbrella is just that. Against a large, ruthless, nuclear one party state like China that has more resources and power and ability to produce, small and peaceful democracies are always at a disadvantage. So be weary of China. Not just because of the hardware and platforms, but their craft in using them to achieve their objectives. They have demonstrated a pattern of willingness to engage in risky and provocative/hostile actions and if necessary, conflict and violence.

They have and have had inferior equipment and a less powerful military than the regional countries/alliances and yet that did not stop them in Korea, or in taking nearly the whole South China Sea, occupying Scarborough Shoal of the Philippines and basically refusing to recognize Japanese ownership/administration of the Senkaku Islands as sovereign territory of Japan. I mean that is unprecedented. Japan is a powerful country and under a nuclear umbrella that covers those islands and the Chinese are still being belligerent, even with the weaker hand, because they can press and bluff harder.

Mentioning the US Navy glider just seems petty but I take note, ever since the EP-3 intercept/downing and the physical harassment of the USNS Impeccable. Their actions toward our ships and aircraft are very very dangerous, and we are the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. Not even Russia is this brash and reckless with our Armed Forces, but the Chinese are. Let's not forget the Chinese went to war with the US in Korea only a few years after we had nuked Japan!

And do not forget they annexed and occupied/are repressing Tibet, and Hong Kong, tried to steal land from India, took land from Tajikistan by forcing them to sign it over after they already seized it, and have either went to war/fought battles or had/has disagreements with virtually every neighbor including Russia, North Korea, India, Burma, Mongolia, Taiwan, Japan and Vietnam. Not bad for a country that still has 900 million peasants, relatively limited conventional military and only got into the industrial-capital game a few decades ago.

You think once they get better military hardware and build up their forces and their ability to fight and project power they will have a more peaceful future than their violent pasts suggests? Just because other countries have the same stuff too? Hardly.

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

Unread postPosted: 10 Jan 2017, 01:38
by arian
PhillyGuy wrote:Yes but not all of those countries have their own nuclear deterrent, and our umbrella is just that. Against a large, ruthless, nuclear one party state like China that has more resources and power and ability to produce, small and peaceful democracies are always at a disadvantage. So be weary of China. Not just because of the hardware and platforms, but their craft in using them to achieve their objectives. They have demonstrated a pattern of willingness to engage in risky and provocative/hostile actions and if necessary, conflict and violence.

They have and have had inferior equipment and a less powerful military than the regional countries/alliances and yet that did not stop them in Korea, or in taking nearly the whole South China Sea, occupying Scarborough Shoal of the Philippines and basically refusing to recognize Japanese ownership/administration of the Senkaku Islands as sovereign territory of Japan. I mean that is unprecedented. Japan is a powerful country and under a nuclear umbrella that covers those islands and the Chinese are still being belligerent, even with the weaker hand, because they can press and bluff harder.

Mentioning the US Navy glider just seems petty but I take note, ever since the EP-3 intercept/downing and the physical harassment of the USNS Impeccable. Their actions toward our ships and aircraft are very very dangerous, and we are the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. Not even Russia is this brash and reckless with our Armed Forces, but the Chinese are. Let's not forget the Chinese went to war with the US in Korea only a few years after we had nuked Japan!

And do not forget they annexed and occupied/are repressing Tibet, and Hong Kong, tried to steal land from India, took land from Tajikistan by forcing them to sign it over after they already seized it, and have either went to war/fought battles or had/has disagreements with virtually every neighbor including Russia, North Korea, India, Burma, Mongolia, Taiwan, Japan and Vietnam. Not bad for a country that still has 900 million peasants, relatively limited conventional military and only got into the industrial-capital game a few decades ago.

You think once they get better military hardware and build up their forces and their ability to fight and project power they will have a more peaceful future than their violent pasts suggests? Just because other countries have the same stuff too? Hardly.


Well, I didn't say or imply anything of the sort, so no. I'm just saying, as you yourself have said, that this is just business as usual with China that has been going on for nearly 70 years now. But in the the same time other countries neighboring it have also radically altered their position of strength and procurement and expansion of military activities, just as China has.

That, and a lot of exaggerations like "occupying Scarborough Shoal of the Philippines" which has neither happened nor would it be of any interest if did (there is literally not even any physical dry land there). What China is doing in the South Sea is exactly what Vietnam, Taiwan, Philippines and others are doing in the South China Sea, and what those countries have been doing since the 1970s in fact. A regional dispute over coral reefs is hardly of concern to the US or of any interest other than as a sporting event.

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

Unread postPosted: 11 Jan 2017, 06:22
by spazsinbad
'arian' said above:
"...A regional dispute over coral reefs is hardly of concern to the US or of any interest other than as a sporting event."

China has attempted to exclude ships & aircraft with their self-imposed claims of territorial rights - those claims are not recognized under international law. That message was conveyed to China - which of course took umbrage. So YES these developments by China of 'exclusion zones' is very relevant to freedom of navigation by air and sea by others in SCS area.

GOOGLE Chinese South China Sea Exclusion Zones

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

Unread postPosted: 11 Jan 2017, 18:21
by mixelflick
Excellent point here about China just wanting these CVN's (initially) to encircle/get a leg up on beating Taiwan. This isn't a desired blue water force projection tool, at least not yet.

Having said that, it's incredible how much better/capable USN CVN's are vs. any other nation. The Chinese, Indian and Russian carriers as they exist today aren't even close. I suppose the Russian's experience in Syria was most telling:Abysmal. When you consider the years lost after adopting the infamous ski jump, it really puts things in perspective.

Speaking of which, how do you fall for something like that? I'm assuming they looked at what the British did with their Harriers and thought, "wow that's nifty". Then tried to turn around and apply it to heavy fixed wing aircraft. Were not aeronautical engineers consulted? LOL

Even beyond this, the future looks nebulous. By the time those larger, catapult equipped carriers are ready the USN will be flying F-35C's and stealthy, drone tankers, the Marines will have every Amphibious Assault Ship out fitted with F-35B's and a whole range of stealthy, stand off weapons for likely all 3 platforms. At which point the Russian/Chinese super-carriers will be flying... updated Flankers and Mig-29K aircraft?

I don't see the J-20 as carrier capable. Perhaps the J-31. Over in India, they've hitched their cart to the Mig-29K. Wouldn't surprise me if PAK FA were made carrier capable (they did it with the Flanker), but then again that'll be more time and $ necessary in a program already besieged by problems. Theoretically they could ask India to pay for such given they'll both need that airframe. But India is already balking given some noted PAK FA deficiencies.

In that context, forgoing the F-22 for the F-35 was the right move IMO..

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

Unread postPosted: 12 Jan 2017, 01:48
by noth
mixelflick wrote:Excellent point here about China just wanting these CVN's (initially) to encircle/get a leg up on beating Taiwan. This isn't a desired blue water force projection tool, at least not yet.

Having said that, it's incredible how much better/capable USN CVN's are vs. any other nation. The Chinese, Indian and Russian carriers as they exist today aren't even close. I suppose the Russian's experience in Syria was most telling:Abysmal. When you consider the years lost after adopting the infamous ski jump, it really puts things in perspective.

Speaking of which, how do you fall for something like that? I'm assuming they looked at what the British did with their Harriers and thought, "wow that's nifty". Then tried to turn around and apply it to heavy fixed wing aircraft. Were not aeronautical engineers consulted? LOL


Don't forget they were developing the Yak-141 for the carrier mission. Anything else was strictly Plan B.

mixelflick wrote:I don't see the J-20 as carrier capable. Perhaps the J-31. Over in India, they've hitched their cart to the Mig-29K. Wouldn't surprise me if PAK FA were made carrier capable (they did it with the Flanker), but then again that'll be more time and $ necessary in a program already besieged by problems. Theoretically they could ask India to pay for such given they'll both need that airframe. But India is already balking given some noted PAK FA deficiencies.


Also the Indians are trying to get a naval Tejas Mk.2 to work but that looks incredibly unlikely, seeing how their 30 years in on the development and it's still not even vaguely useful for their AF. Might be time to switch to Rafale M, if they can...

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

Unread postPosted: 29 May 2018, 23:51
by spazsinbad

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

Unread postPosted: 30 May 2018, 01:02
by weasel1962
Its the first "reported" night-time carrier sorties...

Remember this?
https://www.chinasmack.com/concrete-air ... ding-wuhan

The above facility which conducts carrier training recently removed the ski-jump so its pretty much confirm (picture on CDF), the 3rd PLAN CV will be a CATOBAR.

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

Unread postPosted: 09 Jan 2019, 01:27
by weasel1962
PLAN CV17 just came back from its 4th sea trial. The trial started with arrestor hooks installed and J-15/Z-18 onboard.

Image

The trial schedule has mirrored the CV16 ("Liaoning") timeline which took ~12 months to complete. J-15s were sighted in Mar 2012 onboard CV-16 after sea trials started in Aug 2011. CV-17 trials started in mid May 2018.