# Shenyang J-15 aircraft carrier-based aircraft



## batmannow

*J-15 Flying Shark *

*J-15 is the first generation of Chinese shipborne fighter aircraft being developed by both 601 Institute and SAC for PLAN's first aircraft carrier. In the beginning there were rumors claiming that J-15 was a new semi-stealth design based on a similar but more advanced stealth design developed earlier by SAC/601 Institute to compete for the J-14 project (see below), but this design turned out to be a follow-on design. In order to save time and cut cost, the aircraft is now believed to be based on Russian Su-33 in terms of structural configuration and flight control system as well as domestic J-11B (see above) in terms of radar and weapon systems.* Similar to *Su-33, J-15 *features folding wings, a pair of small canard foreplanes to improve its low speed handling and shortened tailcone to avoid tail-scrape during high *AoA *landing. Some key shipborne aircraft technologies such as landing/navigational systems are believed to have been obtained from Russia and Ukraine. One Su-33 prototype (T-10K-3) was acquired from Ukraine around 2001 and has been studied extensively. J-15 is believed to share many common components with J-11B, such as a similar radar, the same glass cockpit as well as the improved WS-10 turbofan engine. It can also fire a variety of Chinese designed weapons, including PL-8, PL-12 AAMs and YJ-83K AShM.
* Overall J-15 is believed to be in the same class of American F/A-18C. The first prototype has been undergoing assembly at SAC since 2008. J-15 is expected first to be stationed onboard the Varyag aircraft carrier currently being fitted in Dalian. The latest news suggested that the first prototype made its maiden flight on August 31, 2009, powered initially by Russian AL-31F turbofan engines *

_*WWW.Chinese Military Aviation.COM *_
*Yahoo! *

_1616?????????????????_

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Myth_buster_1

Sorry bro no offense to you but what is the point of opening threads which is not even related to PAF in PAF section? Are we going to get these?


----------



## bigmoneymaker

Growler said:


> Sorry bro no offense to you but what is the point of opening threads which is not even related to PAF in PAF section? Are we going to get these?



dont upset this teasing thread!!! this kind of shark jet is only imaginations from fanboy before any official news released.. so lets have fun looking at their fantastic designs!!


----------



## batmannow

Growler said:


> Sorry bro no offense to you but what is the point of opening threads which is not even related to PAF in PAF section? Are we going to get these?



why, not sure , if they can offer, & the AC can reach, in the opreatitional condition!
its kinda funny, that on one hand we, are disscussing MRCA, on the other hand, we cant discuss this project, which alreay in manufacturing plants?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## batmannow

bigmoneymaker said:


> dont upset this teasing thread!!! this kind of shark jet is only imaginations from fanboy before any official news released.. so lets have fun looking at their fantastic designs!!



its not a teasing thread!
frist proto type already took its, flight!
where is MRCA is standing now!
its under evolution, it is the very reason why, CHINA declined to have SU-33 from RUSSIA!
its the nearst thing , to a USAF F-18A, so its not just a desgin on the paper, so plz think positive! if we can HAVE arguments on discussting , MRCA, it is far more better to have it on J-15, !


----------



## Kompromat

The link is Broken Bro!!


----------



## Kompromat

Growler said:


> Sorry bro no offense to you but what is the point of opening threads which is not even related to PAF in PAF section? Are we going to get these?





I am sorry but this Thread is in Military Aviation section not PAF ..so let it Run


----------



## abbasniazi

Its no Myth brother, it has already become a reality, here are some Pics, including the pic of the prototype.











It is based upon J10 Airframe i guess, but thats what it really is...J15-Flying Shark...First Specialized PLAAF Carrier Based Fighter...

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## blueoval79

^^^^^

What a lie....

The image from the article in the first post does not match..image in post no 8.......

Here are both links to the source of the thread starter....

Chinese Military Aviation

New J-15 "Flying Shark" fighter for the Varyag aircraft carrier


----------



## Arsalan

---------- Post added at 03:50 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:49 PM ----------




blueoval79 said:


> ^^^^^
> 
> What a lie....
> 
> The image from the article in the first post does not match..image in post no 9.......
> 
> Here are both links to the source of the thread starter....
> 
> Chinese Military Aviation
> 
> New J-15 "Flying Shark" fighter for the Varyag aircraft carrier



by the way post no. 9 is the one posted by you,,,   
do keep your eyes open before wrinting such posts,,  

regards!

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Myth_buster_1

Black blood said:


> I am sorry but this Thread is in Military Aviation section not PAF ..so let it Run





> Military Aviation
> Discuss about the *Pakistani Air Force* capability, induction of fighters, changes in air force, comparison with other air forces of the world.



Again. i dont understand what is the purpose of running a thread which is not even remotely related to PAF.


----------



## batmannow

Growler said:


> Again. i dont understand what is the purpose of running a thread which is not even remotely related to PAF.



sory , dear!
maybe its not in your list, i mean CHINA & CHINESE fighter aircrafts, the fact is that , there is nothing wrong , running this thread, because PAF , surly find that intersting scince , PAF is very much dependent on chinese fighter ACs.

2nd , best thing is that, its nearly a F-18A, after looking it closly , we had a better partner, to your FC-20 , NOW!
I GUSS, NOW WE DONT NEED TO EVEN THINK ABOUT, RAFEALE!


----------



## graphican

Its great News and it would be a true FC-20 partner if you are looking for one. Since the air-frame is excessively similar, the same degree of maneuverability would be possible and learning curve for the pilots will be considerably shorter. But I wonder how is it more stealthier than J-10 when same air-frame is in use? 

Congratulations China, every day I have a new reason to be happy for you. Great going.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## TexasJohn

I DON'T see a tailhook!!

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Student

TexasJohn said:


> I DON'T see a tailhook!!



Open your eyes breath some fresh air this might clear things for you.
China is now beyound the technological threashold. just google this term my friend.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Guest

batmannow said:


> sory , dear!
> maybe its not in your list, i mean CHINA & CHINESE fighter aircrafts, the fact is that , there is nothing wrong , running this thread, because PAF , surly find that intersting scince , PAF is very much dependent on chinese fighter ACs.
> 
> 2nd , best thing is that, its nearly a F-18A, after looking it closly , we had a better partner, to your FC-20 , NOW!
> I GUSS, NOW WE DONT NEED TO EVEN THINK ABOUT, RAFEALE!



sorry, bro. but i don't think this is going to be happened. because 

Price: Fighter(Air Superiority only)< Fighter(Multirole)< Attack Bomber < shipborne Fighter(AS/M) < shipborne Attack Bomber 

air-combat performences:Fighter(AS)> Fighter(M)> Attack Bomber > shipborne Fighter(AS/M) > shipborne Attack Bomber


----------



## batmannow

Guest said:


> sorry, bro. but i don't think this is going to be happened. because
> 
> Price: Fighter(Air Superiority only)< Fighter(Multirole)< Attack Bomber < shipborne Fighter(AS/M) < shipborne Attack Bomber
> 
> air-combat performences:Fighter(AS)> Fighter(M)> Attack Bomber > shipborne Fighter(AS/M) > shipborne Attack Bomber



writing in -- or ++ doesnt prove anything, son !
wht ever is in your mind, plz let it open , its oky but plz write it properly, its a open discussion! NO WORRIES!


----------



## Myth_buster_1

batmannow said:


> sory , dear!
> maybe its not in your list, i mean CHINA & CHINESE fighter aircrafts, the fact is that , there is nothing wrong , running this thread, because PAF , surly find that intersting scince , PAF is very much dependent on chinese fighter ACs.


oh boy here we go again. 


> 2nd , best thing is that, its nearly a F-18A, after looking it closly , we had a better partner, to your FC-20 , NOW!
> I GUSS, NOW WE DONT NEED TO EVEN THINK ABOUT, RAFEALE!


Now come on. FA-18 A? do you have any idea of what you are talking about? why undermine Chinese stealth plane and at the same time wish about it being inducted in PAF.


----------



## batmannow

Growler said:


> oh boy here we go again.
> 
> Now come on. FA-18 A? do you have any idea of what you are talking about? why undermine Chinese stealth plane and at the same time wish about it being inducted in PAF.



D, SON!
i gus, you cant see things beyond RAEFELE!
WELL, j10 was A secreat project, & it now can be countable in PAF inventory?
J-15s CAN take, its WAY IN PAF, same way as ! J-10s did, i dont see a probleum here?
F-18A ? plz read the title post! it intersting!


----------



## TexasJohn

Student said:


> Open your eyes breath some fresh air this might clear things for you.
> China is now beyound the technological threashold. just google this term my friend.



What DON'T you understand? If this is a carrier borne plane, how is it going to land on a flight deck WITHOUT a tailhook?

What "technological *threashold*"? at least learn to spell


----------



## bigmoneymaker

is this true?? 
i am sure they are trying to make carrier ac but wait for another1 or 2 years to get whole picture and authentic news...


----------



## Myth_buster_1

batmannow said:


> D, SON!
> i gus, you cant see things beyond RAEFELE!


kido, where did i bring rafale in this thread?


> WELL, j10 was A secreat project, & it now can be countable in PAF inventory?


Why cant you comprehend? 
J-10A is a domestic product.
J-10B is a export product meant to be exported world wide to friendly countries like Venezuela, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Middle east, Africa, and some south american countries. 
Mind you after the induction of J-10 in Chinese fleet it will take a decade to export a model to Pakistan. Now suppose if J-15 is selected it wont reach Pakistan before 2030! thats almost 15 years after IAF gets equipped with PAK-FA. 



> F-18A ? plz read the title post! it intersting!


now does that makes sense? you are comparing a 5th generation stealth with F-18A?


> 2nd , best thing is that, its nearly a F-18A,


----------



## Merilion

friends, the pics showed in this thread is not for J15 but J10B.
J15 sea shark 'rumor' has that it made maiden flight on Aug 31 this year. I believe it's not a rumor but a real event. The chief of AVIC Mr. Lin ZuoMing even wrote a poem published on newspaper to congrats the maiden flight. The nick name sea shark is actually from the poem. Though the poem didn't really tell anything J15 directly but the implication is very evident. It's a Su33 like plane btw.


----------



## Student

TexasJohn said:


> What DON'T you understand? If this is a carrier borne plane, how is it going to land on a flight deck WITHOUT a tailhook?
> 
> What "technological *threashold*"? at least learn to spell



Good for you.
You remind me of my old grammar nanny. But google the term anyways.


----------



## zagahaga

ummmmmmmmmm its not j 15 its a j 10b all of u r wrong its on sino defence


----------



## Guest

batmannow said:


> writing in -- or ++ doesnt prove anything, son !
> wht ever is in your mind, plz let it open , its oky but plz write it properly, its a open discussion! NO WORRIES!



all right, let me bring in some examples to illustrate.

Su-27 air superiority fighter :
unit cost about 30-40m.
Maximum speed: Mach 2.35 
Range: 3,530 km 
Service ceiling: 18,500 m 
Rate of climb: 325 m/s 
Wing loading: 371 kg/m&#178; 
Thrust/weight: 1.09 

Su-30 multirole fighter:
unit cost about 40-50m
Maximum speed: Mach 2.0 
Range: 3,000 km 
Service ceiling: 17,300 m 
Rate of climb: 230 m/s 
Wing loading: 401 kg/m&#178; 
Thrust/weight: 1.0 

Su-33 shipborne multirole fighter: 
unit cost 50-60m
Maximum speed: Mach 2.17 (debatable)
Range: 3,000 km (debatable)
Service ceiling: 17,000 m 
Rate of climb: 325 m/s (debatable)
Wing loading: 483 kg/m&#178;
Thrust/weight: 0.83

see, as the cost increased the performance reduced. and this phenomenon can be seen in US ACs too (F-15C/D, F-15E/F, F-18E/F). so what good would it be to buy a Su-33 to do a job that could be fulfilled by a Su-30 or a Su-27.


----------



## All-Green

abbasniazi said:


> Its no Myth brother, it has already become a reality, here are some Pics, including the pic of the prototype.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is based upon J10 Airframe i guess, but thats what it really is...J15-Flying Shark...First Specialized PLAAF Carrier Based Fighter...



The pictures are of FC-20 and not a carrier borne prototype...


----------



## gambit

> TexasJohn said:
> 
> 
> 
> I DON'T see a tailhook!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Student said:
> 
> 
> 
> Open your eyes breath some fresh air this might clear things for you.
> China is now beyound the technological threashold. just google this term my friend.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TexasJohn said:
> 
> 
> 
> What DON'T you understand? If this is a carrier borne plane, how is it going to land on a flight deck WITHOUT a tailhook?
> 
> What "technological *threashold*"? at least learn to spell
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Student said:
> 
> 
> 
> Good for you.
> You remind me of my old grammar nanny. But google the term anyways.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Why not answer the question...Where is the tailhook *IF* this is supposed to be aircraft carrier based?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## aimarraul




----------



## PakShaheen79

Actually it looks something like this....


----------



## applesauce

TexasJohn said:


> What DON'T you understand? If this is a carrier borne plane, how is it going to land on a flight deck WITHOUT a tailhook?
> 
> What "technological *threashold*"? at least learn to spell



the pics are not the j-15, infact there are no real comfirmed pic of the j-15 on the internet yet.there was a rumor that it took a test flight but nothing is confirmed



bigmoneymaker said:


> is this true??
> i am sure they are trying to make carrier ac but wait for another1 or 2 years to get whole picture and authentic news...



yea that all we can do for now, wait.... there'll be leak pics before the plane is officially acknowledged( given CCP's history they'll have squads of it flying before admitting they have it)


----------



## Myth_buster_1

Just to clear one wrong perception from alot of members who have been attacking me for being anti-chinese. 
J-15
A stealth Naval attack MRCA and perhaps a improved version of Su-33 is the best and most suitable platform for PAF for its dedicated Naval role. But unfortunately this air craft is not going to be available before 2020 and PAF wont get its hands on it before 2030 due to obvious reasons.


----------



## aimarraul

]

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Speeder 2

^^^ is that the AC naval version? Do you have a close-up? 

How reliable is your source?


----------



## chachag

when china start production of this???


----------



## zagahaga

thoes look gigantiv defenately PS


----------



## WAQAS119

self deleted...


----------



## Speeder 2

aimarraul said:


> different tail fin



that giant fin size looks as if it could smash a 2-story building!


----------



## garibnawaz

Fake news. Fake Photo.

Come with reliable source please.

GB


----------



## booo

good photochop


----------



## garibnawaz

Is China Stealing Russia's Su-33? - Defense News

This does not mean the above pic is true and not photo shopped.

GB


----------



## Sanchez

aimarraul said:


> you can choose not to believe it ,but i can ensure you that you will see more and more photos of J-15 in the next two years



Next two years? J-15 is to be certified for production before the end of the year. According to the guy working in the project (CD Naval forum) 5 prototype J-15s are made, of which three are undergoing flight test in Xian. We may expect a clear picture on Internet pretty soon.

I would just ignore those ********.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## no_name

Are we looking at the gray aircraft here? Pic too small to make any conclusion.

This is as close as people can get to take pics without getting caught? And even with zoom lenses


----------



## Sanchez

no_name said:


> Are we looking at the gray aircraft here? Pic too small to make any conclusion.
> 
> This is as close as people can get to take pics without getting caught? And even with zoom lenses



These are J-11B photos shot at SAC. There are more than 50 of them produced since 2008 and now being delivered after problems with TH engines were solved. J-15s are in yellow at the moment.


----------



## no_name

^^^ are you talking about the airplanes with white tails, or the grey ones behind them.

Because the grey ones don't look like J-11 shape


----------



## Machoman

I work on Photoshop daily it does not seems like any photoshop trick.


----------



## below_freezing

nicely done. we need enough heavy carrier based fighters.


----------



## new wave

Is this how its going to look like ?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## new wave

A folding wing aircraft spotted at a air-force base in China from google map, please ignore it if it have been posted.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## SinoIndusFriendship

new wave said:


> A folding wing aircraft spotted at a air-force base in China from google map, please ignore it if it have been posted.



You reveal too many secrets..... or perhaps ..... these secrets are meant to be revealed....

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## no_name

^^^ tail don't look like it, or maybe it's too small to tell.

The other two looks like JH-7


----------



## dingyibvs

no_name said:


> ^^^ tail don't look like it, or maybe it's too small to tell.
> 
> The other two looks like JH-7



I think the look like J-8's


----------



## no_name

J-8 have delta wings, whereas those in the pic seems to be kind of swept back.


----------



## faithfulguy

some people like to brag and whatever the person says, you need to deduct whatever the person says to a certain degree.
Others like to hide and you need to add to whatever the person says to a certain degree.
Guess who like to brag and who like to hide


----------



## Sanchez

The poem written to memmorize the maiden flight of J-15:
http://img.cjdby.com/attachments_cd/month_1005/10050619308e2847e027868dad.jpg.thumb.jpg

Ps. J-15 tested first ski jump take off earlier today according to a post in a Chinese forum.


----------



## dingyibvs

no_name said:


> J-8 have delta wings, whereas those in the pic seems to be kind of swept back.



umm you're right, they do look a bit swept back.


----------



## Lankan Ranger

*J-15 prototype spotted*

*A prototype of J-15 with arresting hook retracted beneath the redesigned tail cone has been spotted at Shanyang Aircraft Company. *

With all the attention paid to the Naval Aviation building up recently, it might not be a coincidence that the PLAN is not building any more destroyers. They just don't have a bottomless funding as others have suggested.











China Defense Blog: J-15 prototype spotted

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## aimarraul

*J-15 Flying Shark*




A J-15 prototype was seen parked at the SAC airfield in May 2010 revealing its arresting hook retracted beneath the redesigned tail cone. J-15 is the first generation of Chinese shipborne fighter aircraft being developed by both 601 Institute and SAC for PLAN's first aircraft carrier. Initially there were rumors claiming that J-15 was a new semi-stealth design based on a similar but more advanced stealth design developed earlier by SAC/601 Institute to compete for the J-20 project (see below), but this design (J-19?) turned out to be a follow-on design which is in the early development stage at SAC . In order to save time and cut cost, the aircraft is now believed to be based on Russian Su-33 in terms of structural configuration and flight control system as well as domestic J-11B (see above) in terms of radar and weapon systems. Similar to Su-33, J-15 features folding wings, strengthened landing gears, an arresting hook, a pair of small canard foreplanes to improve its low speed handling and shortened tailcone to avoid tail-strike during high AoA landing. Some key shipborne aircraft technologies such as landing/navigational systems are believed to have been obtained from Russia and Ukraine. One Su-33 prototype (T-10K-3) was acquired from Ukraine around 2001 and has been studied extensively. J-15 is believed to share many common components with J-11B, such as a similar radar, the same glass cockpit as well as the improved WS-10 turbofan engine. It can also fire a variety of Chinese designed weapons, including PL-8, PL-12 AAMs and YJ-83K AShM. Overall J-15 is believed to be in the same class of American F/A-18C. The first prototype has been undergoing assembly at SAC since 2008. J-15 is expected first to be stationed onboard the Varyag aircraft carrier currently being fitted in Dalian. The first prototype made its maiden flight on August 31, 2009, powered by the domestic WS-10 turbofan engines. The latest rumor claimed that the first takeoff from a land based simulated ski-jump occurred on May 6, 2010.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Kompromat

Is it based on J-11 Platform ?


----------



## Jazzbot

nice nice.


----------



## aimarraul



Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## zagahaga

thanks man but can i ask of one thing .... is j 11b going to be inducted in plaf?


----------



## MZUBAIR

J10B, JXX, J-11B, J15...........
Many projects on the way..............


----------



## ao333

aimarraul said:


>



Aimarrau, is the 2nd pic J-15 or PSed?


----------



## nightrider_saulat

ao333 said:


> Aimarrau, is the 2nd pic J-15 or PSed?



first j-15 flying shark
and second one is russian SU-33

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Areesh

China going perfect. Handling so many projects at the same time.

Great Chinese friends.


----------



## pakistantiger

Wel done at least some1 gona compete against US carrior groups and so many projects going on wel done china


----------



## 592257001

zagahaga said:


> thanks man but can i ask of one thing .... is j 11b going to be inducted in plaf?


J-11B was inducted into PLAAF a LONG time ago. It was even OFFCIALLY confirmed by the state TV station in 2007 (which means it was introduced to PLAAF way before 2007).


----------



## 592257001

For all those people who are confused about the differences between flying shark and J-11, here's a diagram for your help




This one is flying shark, notice the straight front landing gear, the shorter tail, forward canard (hard to tell in this pic), domestic engine and the unique tail fin.




This one is J-11

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## FreekiN

Why is it yellow??

Also, the tail wings are the only thing that looks different from the su-33.


----------



## 592257001

FreekiN said:


> Why is it yellow??
> 
> Also, the tail wings are the only thing that looks different from the su-33.



All PLA planes in development are painted in yellow. 
Just like how F-35 is green during its testing stage.




The differences is explained in #13


----------



## zagahaga

hmmm i was woundering why are the j 15 engines shorter than j 11 there ws 10A not the saturns... gud job china


----------



## oct605032048

zagahaga said:


> hmmm i was woundering why are the j 15 engines shorter than j 11 there ws 10A not the saturns... gud job china



the so-called j 15 is largely based on Su-33 which is to be deployed on the aircraft carrier. So the engines are cut short to get use to the deck of the carrier.


----------



## nightcrawler

China's J-15 carrier-based fighter will not be able to compete with Russia's Su-33 fighter on global markets because it is inferior to the Russian aircraft, a Russian military analyst said on Friday.

China since 2001 has been developing the J-15 naval fighter, which is believed to be a clone of Russia's Su-33 Falcon-D. China bought an Su-33 prototype earlier from Ukraine, and used it to develop the new aircraft.

The J-15 is expected to be stationed initially onboard the Chinese Varyag aircraft carrier currently being fitted in the port of Dalian. China bought the unfinished Admiral Kuznetsov class aircraft carrier from Ukraine in 1998.

"The Chinese J-15 clone is unlikely to achieve the same performance characteristics of the Russian Su-33 carrier-based fighter, and I do not rule out the possibility that China could return to negotiations with Russia on the purchase of a substantial batch of Su-33s," said Col. (Ret.) Igor Korotchenko, a member of the Defense Ministry's Public Council.

The Su-33 is a carrier-based multi-role fighter, which can perform a variety of air superiority, fleet defense, air support and reconnaissance missions. The aircraft entered service with the Russian Navy in 1995 and are currently deployed on board the Admiral Kuznetsov aircraft carrier.

Korotchenko said China was unlikely to solve technical problems related to the design of the folding wings and to develop a reliable engine for the aircraft, although the first J-15 prototype reportedly made its maiden flight on August 31, 2009, powered by Chinese WS-10 turbofan engines.

China and Russia had been in negotiations on the sale of the Su-33 Flanker-D fighters to be used on future Chinese aircraft carriers since 2006, but the talks collapsed over China's request for an initial delivery of two aircraft for a "trial."

Russian Defense Ministry sources confirmed that the refusal was due to findings that China had produced its own copycat version of the Su-27SK fighter jet in violation of intellectual property agreements.

In 1995, China secured a $2.5-billion production license from Russia to build 200 Su-27SKs, dubbed J-11A, at the Shenyang Aircraft Corp.

The deal required the aircraft to be outfitted with Russian avionics, radars and engines. Russia cancelled the arrangement in 2006 after it discovered that China was developing an indigenous version, J-11B, with Chinese avionics and systems. The decision came after China had already produced at least 95 aircraft.

Last year, Russia refused again to sell the Su-33 to China even after Beijing had offered to buy 14 of them, saying that at least 24 jets should be sold to recoup production costs.

MOSCOW, June 4 (RIA Novosti)

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## SomeGuy

So, a retired Russian Colonel doesn't think that the Chinese can improve on a plane that was designed in the early 1980's?

Lets look at the track record:

Su-27SK = J-11
Su-27SK < J-11A
Su-27SK <<<< J-11B

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Ahchai Eliminator

RAHUL INDIAN said:


> in ur dreams..??



Don't troll, if you disagree with his post regarding the development path of Su-27 to J-11b, show source to debunk his post not some idiotic trash please. And na, dreams are monopoly for Indians only to stay alive.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## alibaz

> I do not rule out the possibility that China could return to negotiations with Russia on the purchase of a substantial batch of Su-33s," said Col. (Ret.) Igor Korotchenko, a member of the Defense Ministry's Public Council.



This is what Russians actually desire

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## RAHUL INDIAN

good the Russians develop first decades before a plane then the Chinese copy it decased later.... so just imagine where the Russians will be by the time you copy the plane...
and also considering that it is easy to copy the looks but not the exact performance which can never be acheived in a copy...

China cant even copy(with same performance) the Cars or Bike what to speak of fighter planes....

or is the developer is lesss intelligent then the one who copied...!!


----------



## Ahchai Eliminator

RAHUL INDIAN said:


> good the Russians develop first decades before a plane then the Chinese copy it decased later.... so just imagine where the Russians will be by the time you copy the plane...
> and also considering that it is easy to copy the looks but not the exact performance which can never be acheived in a copy...
> 
> China cant even copy(with same performance) the Cars or Bike what to speak of fighter planes....
> 
> or is the developer is lesss intelligent then the one who copied...!!




See, you are trolling again, rant without a single source to back yourself up just for the purpose to troll and degrade Chinese fighter plane. Now open your eyes and learn something called "Facts" 







*The J-11B is not an exact clone of the Su-27SK, despite the commonly held view this is so. The airframe and engines can be considered to be 'cloned' but the systems are mostly unique to this variant.*

*Known differences include:*

* 1. A Chinese IRST set located in the centreline position as with the OLS-27 in early Su-27S.

2. A planar array multimode radar which resembles the Phazotron Zhuk-27 series. It includes an IFF interrogator array.

3. An Onboard Oxygen Generator System (OBOGS). Only the most recent Russian variants have an OBOGS.

4. A unique glass cockpit design, with an asymmetric layout quite different from the Su-30MKK/MK2 and Su-27SMK.

5. An optical MAWS system claimed to operate in the UV band.
6. Dielectric panels on the stabilators not seen on any Russian variant.*

*The differences between the J-11B, Su-27SK and Su-27SMK are sufficiently great that this must be considered a unique offshoot of the Flanker family of fighters, not a subtype of the baseline Su-27SK/J-11A.*
Shenyang J-11B Sino-Flanker

Reactions: Like Like:
9


----------



## RAHUL INDIAN

Ahchai Eliminator said:


> See, you are trolling again, rant without a single source to back yourself up just for the purpose to troll and degrade Chinese fighter plane. Now open your eyes and learn something called "Facts"
> 
> 
> 
> *The J-11B is not an exact clone of the Su-27SK, despite the commonly held view this is so. The airframe and engines can be considered to be 'cloned' but the systems are mostly unique to this variant.*
> 
> *Known differences include:*
> 
> * 1. A Chinese IRST set located in the centreline position as with the OLS-27 in early Su-27S.
> 
> 2. A planar array multimode radar which resembles the Phazotron Zhuk-27 series. It includes an IFF interrogator array.
> 
> 3. An Onboard Oxygen Generator System (OBOGS). Only the most recent Russian variants have an OBOGS.
> 
> 4. A unique glass cockpit design, with an asymmetric layout quite different from the Su-30MKK/MK2 and Su-27SMK.
> 
> 5. An optical MAWS system claimed to operate in the UV band.
> 6. Dielectric panels on the stabilators not seen on any Russian variant.*
> 
> *The differences between the J-11B, Su-27SK and Su-27SMK are sufficiently great that this must be considered a unique offshoot of the Flanker family of fighters, not a subtype of the baseline Su-27SK/J-11A.*
> Shenyang J-11B Sino-Flanker



it is not about J-11, though do u mean to say by above post that the Chinese have surpassed the Russians in the Fighter planes technology....!!... to copy is something else, to produce performance is smthng else....

and then havent the Russians upgraded their planes..??? if you can first copy their plane *after decades* and claim to improve it then Russians were already working for all those decades on more advanced things...

could u provide inputs for why is the copied J-15 is better then the Russian Su-33..????


----------



## alibaz

RAHUL INDIAN said:


> it is not about J-11, though do u mean to say by above post that the Chinese have surpassed the Russians in the Fighter planes technology....!!... to copy is something else, to produce performance is smthng else....
> 
> and then havent the Russians upgraded their planes..??? if you can first copy their plane *after decades* and claim to improve it then Russians were already working for all those decades on more advanced things...
> 
> could u provide inputs for why is the copied J-15 is better then the Russian Su-33..????



I dont see any one claiming superiority of J-15 over SU-33 or J-11 over SU-27 or vice versa.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Ahchai Eliminator

RAHUL INDIAN said:


> it is not about J-11, though do u mean to say by above post that the Chinese have surpassed the Russians in the Fighter planes technology....!!... to copy is something else, to produce performance is smthng else....
> 
> and then havent the Russians upgraded their planes..??? if you can first copy their plane *after decades* and claim to improve it then Russians were already working for all those decades on more advanced things...
> 
> could u provide inputs for why is the copied J-15 is better then the Russian Su-33..????



Yeah right, you are the one who accused Chinese so-called copy of Russian plane are inferior and i debunked you with "Facts' now you got your mouth shut and you going back to your old habit, bash for the sake of bashing without providing any source to back your bad breath from your big mouth, now either you provide any "Public" information, "Specifications" to prove J-15 is inferior to SU-33 or you are just shamelessly trolling period.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## RAHUL INDIAN

Ahchai Eliminator said:


> Yeah right, you are the one who accused Chinese so-called copy of Russian plane are inferior and i debunked you with "Facts' now you got your mouth shut and you going back to your old habit, bash for the sake of bashing without providing any source to back your bad breath from your big mouth, now either you provide any "Public" information, "Specifications" to prove J-15 is inferior to SU-33 or you are just shamelessly trolling period.



yeah only u upgraded ur J-11(copied decades later..), while all those decades what Russia would be doing is what u forget...

U claim it to be better so u prove how is it better, the onus is on u buddy..??


----------



## Ahchai Eliminator

RAHUL INDIAN said:


> yeah only u upgraded ur J-11(copied decades later..), while all those decades what Russia would be doing is what u forget...
> 
> U claim it to be better so u prove how is it better, the onus is on u buddy..??



*Post being reported for trolling "without providing one single source" to back up your rants despite you got warn and post being deleted by Mod*

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## RAHUL INDIAN

Ahchai Eliminator said:


> *Post being reported for trolling "without providing one single source" to back up your rants despite you got warn and post being deleted by Mod*



what i cant ask u why u keep saying J-15 is better then Su 33..???

n what post u have made to say that J-15 is better then su-33..
i would say it is u who is trolling without being logical....

i am all for debate....already the article claims that j-15 is much inferior to Su-33, so why dont u go and search and prove that J-15 is better rather then senselessly criticizing others..


----------



## RAHUL INDIAN

Ahchai Eliminator said:


> *Post being reported for trolling "without providing one single source" to back up your rants despite you got warn and post being deleted by Mod*


and mind it dont try to be extra clever...post being deleted is differnt from being warned...Mods know better then u...


----------



## SQ8

The Eurocopter representative at IDEAS 2008 had similar views about the Z-9.


----------



## ptldM3

Pull my hair and call me Sally but this is the third such thread in several days.....leave it and move on.


----------



## SomeGuy

RAHUL INDIAN said:


> it is not about J-11, though do u mean to say by above post that the Chinese have surpassed the Russians in the Fighter planes technology....!!... to copy is something else, to produce performance is smthng else....
> 
> and then havent the Russians upgraded their planes..??? if you can first copy their plane *after decades* and claim to improve it then Russians were already working for all those decades on more advanced things...



Nobody is saying that Chinese have surpassed Russians.

What I'm simply saying is that J-11B is superior to any flanker variant that Russia has supplied to China.

So basically, Chinese took Su-27SK and upgraded it to make it better than Su-30MKK2.

If J-11B is nothing but a simple copy, then China would still be relying on Russia to supply MKK2 for advanced planes.

And for your information, it did not take the Chinese decades to produce J-11B.
The original contract for the basic J-11 was signed in 1996. Production of the basic model stopped in 2004 to make way for J-11B (that's 8 years) - so it's not even 1 decade let alone the "decades" you keep mentioning.



RAHUL INDIAN said:


> could u provide inputs for why is the copied J-15 is better then the Russian Su-33..????



Nobody knows the capabilities of the J-15 and nobody is saying that J-15 is better.

However you can make a few reasonable assumptions and come to the conclusion that J-15, at the very least, will not be inferior to Su-33.

Su-33 was designed in the early 80's and entered service in the mid 90's i.e. when Russia was bankrupt. It is reasonable to assume that no upgrades/improvements were made during this period. Even now, as Russia is starting to become strong it is not looking to upgrade these but to replace them with MiG-29K as the primary carrier-based fighters or possibly even a Su-35 derivative.

Even the MKK2 is more advanced than Su-33, and China has already bettered that with J-11B.

China might have problems adapting a plane for carrier operations since it has little experience in this field, other than that there is no reason why J-15 should be inferior to Su-33.

Reactions: Like Like:
9


----------



## xuxu1457

Sukhoi CEO denied that China copied any Su Jet in 2008,he said that China purchased the Intellectual property rights of Su-27 from Russia in 1996,J-11A and J11B were updated upon the Intellectual property rights,were not any copy of any Jet~~China is also the only Asian country purchased the Intellectual property rights of AK-47,even 53 countries &#65288;include India ,USA~~&#65289;producted AK47,but only 2 countries(Venezuela and China) purchased the Intellectual property rights~
????????? --??--????--????

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## SXNJ

Why Russia was so scared for J15 and call it was not able to compete with Su-33 at once? it's just a prototype


----------



## Machoman

Moscow, Russia: China's J-15 carrier-based fighter will not be able to compete with Russia's Su-33 fighter on global markets because it is inferior to the Russian aircraft, a Russian military analyst said on Friday.

China since 2001 has been developing the J-15 naval fighter, which is believed to be a clone of Russia's Su-33 Falcon-D. China bought an Su-33 prototype earlier from Ukraine, and used it to develop the new aircraft.

The J-15 is expected to be stationed initially onboard the Chinese Varyag aircraft carrier currently being fitted in the port of Dalian. China bought the unfinished Admiral Kuznetsov class aircraft carrier from Ukraine in 1998.

"The Chinese J-15 clone is unlikely to achieve the same performance characteristics of the Russian Su-33 carrier-based fighter, and I do not rule out the possibility that China could return to negotiations with Russia on the purchase of a substantial batch of Su-33s," said Col. (Ret.) Igor Korotchenko, a member of the Defense Ministry's Public Council.

The Su-33 is a carrier-based multi-role fighter, which can perform a variety of air superiority, fleet defense, air support and reconnaissance missions. The aircraft entered service with the Russian Navy in 1995 and are currently deployed on board the Admiral Kuznetsov aircraft carrier.

Korotchenko said China was unlikely to solve technical problems related to the design of the folding wings and to develop a reliable engine for the aircraft, although the first J-15 prototype reportedly made its maiden flight on August 31, 2009, powered by Chinese WS-10 turbofan engines.

China and Russia had been in negotiations on the sale of the Su-33 Flanker-D fighters to be used on future Chinese aircraft carriers since 2006, but the talks collapsed over China's request for an initial delivery of two aircraft for a "trial."

Russian Defense Ministry sources confirmed that the refusal was due to findings that China had produced its own copycat version of the Su-27SK fighter jet in violation of intellectual property agreements.

In 1995, China secured a $2.5-billion production license from Russia to build 200 Su-27SKs, dubbed J-11A, at the Shenyang Aircraft Corp.

The deal required the aircraft to be outfitted with Russian avionics, radars and engines. Russia cancelled the arrangement in 2006 after it discovered that China was developing an indigenous version, J-11B, with Chinese avionics and systems. The decision came after China had already produced at least 95 aircraft.

Last year, Russia refused again to sell the Su-33 to China even after Beijing had offered to buy 14 of them, saying that at least 24 jets should be sold to recoup production costs


----------



## Machoman

If it's true thenits not a good news.


----------



## Ammyy

self delete


----------



## Ammyy

But if its true so ..... amazing part is that with only one prototype and with some old versions Chinese able to make same aircraft .........really amazing


----------



## prototype

very much true


----------



## Machoman

Chinese people are very wise people, in few years they will be ruling the defense industry.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## SomeGuy

Okay, this topic has been posted before many times.

Su-33 is nothing special. Little more than a Su-27SK with structural modifications for carrier use.

Even Russian Naval Aviation is looking to replace them with MiG29K.

If you look at Chinas track record - how they improved Su-27SK to J-11B, then there's no reason why J-15 can't be better than Su-33!



> "The Chinese J-15 clone is unlikely to achieve the same performance characteristics of the Russian Su-33 carrier-based fighter, and I do not rule out the possibility that China could return to negotiations with Russia on the purchase of a substantial batch of Su-33s," said Col. (Ret.) Igor Korotchenko, a member of the Defense Ministry's Public Council.





> Korotchenko said China was unlikely to solve technical problems related to the design of the folding wings and to develop a reliable engine for the aircraft, although the first J-15 prototype reportedly made its maiden flight on August 31, 2009, powered by Chinese WS-10 turbofan engines.



The colonel could only point out structural and engine problems as problems, but the report mentions that the J-15 prototype is already using WS-10 engines.

That only leaves structural problems like folding wings which China can certainly solve.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## prototype

SomeGuy said:


> If you look at Chinas track record - how they improved Su-27SK to J-11B, then there's no reason why J-15 can't be better than Su-33!



then why dont design ur own system,why require a proven tech for improving


----------



## SomeGuy

prototype said:


> then why dont design ur own system,why require a proven tech for improving



China still has license to produce over 100 aircraft based upon Su-27 airframe from contract signed in 1996. If they decide to make some of these aircraft for carrier use then that's their business.

And if it really comes down to it, I'm sure they could modify J-10B for carrier use.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## uday

Moscow, Russia: China's J-15 carrier-based fighter will not be able to compete with Russia's Su-33 fighter on global markets because it is inferior to the Russian aircraft, a Russian military analyst said on Friday.

China since 2001 has been developing the J-15 naval fighter, which is believed to be a clone of Russia's Su-33 Falcon-D. China bought an Su-33 prototype earlier from Ukraine, and used it to develop the new aircraft.

The J-15 is expected to be stationed initially onboard the Chinese Varyag aircraft carrier currently being fitted in the port of Dalian. China bought the unfinished Admiral Kuznetsov class aircraft carrier from Ukraine in 1998.

"The Chinese J-15 clone is unlikely to achieve the same performance characteristics of the Russian Su-33 carrier-based fighter, and I do not rule out the possibility that China could return to negotiations with Russia on the purchase of a substantial batch of Su-33s," said Col. (Ret.) Igor Korotchenko, a member of the Defense Ministry's Public Council.

The Su-33 is a carrier-based multi-role fighter, which can perform a variety of air superiority, fleet defense, air support and reconnaissance missions. The aircraft entered service with the Russian Navy in 1995 and are currently deployed on board the Admiral Kuznetsov aircraft carrier.

Korotchenko said China was unlikely to solve technical problems related to the design of the folding wings and to develop a reliable engine for the aircraft, although the first J-15 prototype reportedly made its maiden flight on August 31, 2009, powered by Chinese WS-10 turbofan engines.

China and Russia had been in negotiations on the sale of the Su-33 Flanker-D fighters to be used on future Chinese aircraft carriers since 2006, but the talks collapsed over China's request for an initial delivery of two aircraft for a "trial."

Russian Defense Ministry sources confirmed that the refusal was due to findings that China had produced its own copycat version of the Su-27SK fighter jet in violation of intellectual property agreements.

In 1995, China secured a $2.5-billion production license from Russia to build 200 Su-27SKs, dubbed J-11A, at the Shenyang Aircraft Corp.

The deal required the aircraft to be outfitted with Russian avionics, radars and engines. Russia cancelled the arrangement in 2006 after it discovered that China was developing an indigenous version, J-11B, with Chinese avionics and systems. The decision came after China had already produced at least 95 aircraft.

Last year, Russia refused again to sell the Su-33 to China even after Beijing had offered to buy 14 of them, saying that at least 24 jets should be sold to recoup production costs.

http://www.****************/russia-downplays-chinese-j-15-fighter-capabilities-26819/


----------



## SomeGuy

^^ Posted numerous times already.

Mods please delete.


----------



## qwerrty

russians are in desperate mode.


----------



## LCA Tejas

Obviously, Russians are 100&#37; true in this......A copied version never excels the original one...


----------



## qwerrty

the reason they started copying in the first place, because original built flankers sold to them are inferior. russians doesn't offer anything new...


----------



## LCA Tejas

qwerrty said:


> the reason they started copying in the first place, because original built flankers sold to them are inferior. russians doesn't offer anything new...



that dosent mean you start copying,Its not only Russia, every country has Export variant's for there products


----------



## qwerrty

russians are no sant either. everything they have today are results of many years copying german and american products.


----------



## LCA Tejas

qwerrty said:


> russians are no sant either. everything they have today are results of many years copying german and american products.



but dont have a Xerox Copy of it, do they?


----------



## qwerrty

guess you haven't seen many russian clones weapons during the cold war.


----------



## LCA Tejas

qwerrty said:


> guess you haven't seen many russian clones weapons during the cold war.



may I know which???


----------



## ptldM3

qwerrty said:


> russians are in desperate mode.



Oh yes the second largest arms dealer is in desperate mode, and so is Sukhoi, so desperate that India, Algeria, Indonesia, Malaysia, Uganda, Venezuela, and Vietnam have all recently placed orders for the SU-30, and Sukhoi in partnership with HAL will sell a minimum of 500 pak-fa aircraft between the RAF and the IAF not to mention a number of export countries.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## LCA Tejas

ptldM3 said:


> Oh yes the second largest arms dealer is in desperate mode, and so is Sukhoi, so desperate that India, Algeria, Indonesia, Malaysia, Uganda, Venezuela, and Vietnam have all recently placed orders for the SU-30, and Sukhoi in partnership with HAL will sell a minimum of 500 pak-fa aircraft between the RAF and the IAF not to mention a number of export countries.



I dont know how and when you come, but when ever you come, you come in Style , I like it


----------



## qwerrty

LCA Tejas said:


> may I know which???



something like b2-ski, tomahawk-ski many other ski weapons too long to list...


----------



## LCA Tejas

qwerrty said:


> something like b2-ski, tomahawk-ski many other ski weapons to long to list...



could u elaborate please???


----------



## xukxuk

it's a weapon 
we use it to kill each other
the initial intention of making weapon is immoral
who care about the copy right of it

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## qwerrty

ptldM3 said:


> Oh yes the second largest arms dealer is in desperate mode, and so is Sukhoi, so desperate that India, Algeria, Indonesia, Malaysia, Uganda, Venezuela, and Vietnam have all recently placed orders for the SU-30, and Sukhoi in partnership with HAL will sell a minimum of 500 pak-fa aircraft between the RAF and the IAF not to mention a number of export countries.



when you talk trash about others, usually a sign of weakness and desperation..just like india boasting about their ballistic missile better than chinese missile..crap..blbla..when the whole world know DRDO is laughing stock and china has been very actively heavily investing in missile tech for many decades long before they learn how to make screw for their missile..haha..lol

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## ptldM3

qwerrty said:


> when you talk trash about others, usually a sign of weakness and desperation..just like india boasting about their ballistic missile better than chinese missile..crap..blbla..when the whole world know DRDO is laughing stock and china has been very actively heavily investing in missile for many decades..haha..lol



You are the one that is talking trash, i simply responded to your ignorant post about Russia being "desperate". It just so happened that you got owned and, thus you called me a trash talker because you had no argument and or rebuttal. Further, if you read my post i provided hard evidence to debunk your claim, so if proving someone wrong consititutes as a "trash talker" than i'm a trash talker.


----------



## qwerrty

the trash talk in the article doesn't sound very confident..that's what i see.lol


- algeria not happy with their mig-29s quality and want their money back

- china started making their version of su-27 because it does not meet their standrad. russia only offer them oudated stuff on board.

- the transport planes china ordered still no where to bee seen..

- india are looking for amrican or european weapons


----------



## deesu

xukxuk said:


> it's a weapon
> we use it to kill each other
> the initial intention of making weapon is immoral
> who care about the copy right of it



I really liked your view....


----------



## LCA Tejas

qwerrty said:


> when you talk trash about others, usually a sign of weakness and desperation..just like india boasting about their ballistic missile better than chinese missile..crap..blbla..*when the whole world know DRDO is laughing stock* and china has been very actively heavily investing in missile tech for many decades long before they learn how to make screw for their missile..haha..lol



Thats Probably why it has been given ISO 9001:2008 Quality Management System standard


----------



## ptldM3

qwerrty said:


> - algeria not happy with their mig-29s quality and want their money back



They got the old Mig-29's replaced with SU-30's. 




qwerrty said:


> - the transport planes china ordered still no where to bee seen..



Sorry bud, but delays happen in every country including the US.



qwerrty said:


> - india are looking for amrican or european weapons



For the MRCA tender India is evaluating aircraft from a number of countries including Russia and the Mig-35; the reason for this is to eventually replace some of their outdated platforms. But the most important reason is to diversify their inventory. Moreover, India needs a light to media fighters and not more heavy fighters like the MKI which they continue to place more orders for anyways, oh and India is still purchasing 250 pak-fa fighters

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## xuxu1457

Sukhoi CEO denied that China copied any Su Jet in 2008,he said that China purchased the Intellectual property rights of Su-27 from Russia in 1996,even if J-11A and J11B were updated upon Su-27,this is still upon the Intellectual property rights,were not any copy of any Jet~~China is also the only Asian country purchased the Intellectual property rights of AK-47,53 countries &#65288;include India ,USA~~&#65289;producted AK47,but only 2 countries(Venezuela and China) purchased the Intellectual property rights~
????????? --??--????--????

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## qwerrty

250 pak-fa by 2060 and you'll charge them 2.5 x more the price..ha


----------



## KS

qwerrty said:


> the trash talk in the article doesn't sound very confident..that's what i see.lol



Allow me the honor of debunking ur claims...




qwerrty said:


> - algeria not happy with their mig-29s quality and want their money back



This is the latest news...

Link



qwerrty said:


> - china started making their version of su-27 because it does not meet their standrad. russia only offer them oudated stuff on board.



Of course....given China terrible record on maintaining copyrights and its penchant to Ctrl+c,Ctrl+v...no sane country would give China its latest equipment.



qwerrty said:


> - the transport planes china ordered still no where to bee seen..



Thats because the Ilyushin factory in Tashkent that produces the Il-76 is not functioning properly due to lack of maintenancce after the collapse of the Soviet Union...its not a china specific thing.

Mayb my Russian friend can help me on this.



qwerrty said:


> - india are looking for amrican or european weapons



If the reason we r looking for US/european weapons is not confidence in Russki weapons...do u think we would have invested close to 10 billion dollars in the PAKFA/FGFA project.

Instead we would have gone for the F-35 which was offered to India.

So first get ur facts right.


----------



## LCA Tejas

qwerrty said:


> 250 pak-fa by 2060 and you'll charge them 2.5 x more the price..ha



Where did You get that Info from??? India would start inducting Pak Fa from 2018.... FGFA from 20210-2023 Onwards....


----------



## below_freezing

Karthic Sri said:


> Allow me the honor of debunking ur claims...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is the latest news...
> 
> Link
> 
> 
> 
> Of course....given China terrible record on maintaining copyrights and its penchant to Ctrl+c,Ctrl+v...no sane country would give China its latest equipment.
> 
> 
> 
> Thats because the Ilyushin factory in Tashkent that produces the Il-76 is not functioning properly due to lack of maintenancce after the collapse of the Soviet Union...its not a china specific thing.
> 
> Mayb my Russian friend can help me on this.
> 
> 
> 
> If the reason we r looking for US/european weapons is not confidence in Russki weapons...do u think we would have invested close to 10 billion dollars in the PAKFA/FGFA project.
> 
> Instead we would have gone for the F-35 which was offered to India.
> 
> So first get ur facts right.



An indian has the audacity to talk about intellectual property.

Is what why you've been illegally copying the AK-47 without purchasing licensing rights the way we did?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## KS

below_freezing said:


> An indian has the audacity to talk about intellectual property.
> 
> Is what why you've been illegally copying the AK-47 without purchasing licensing rights the way we did?



For evry AK-47 example i can give hundreds of J-11,J-15 and J-watever.

Anyway providing a link is much appreciated rather than ur esteemd opinion
We dont want ur opinion...but rather facts


----------



## qwerrty

the indians still struggling making insas/ak clone. their army doesn't want it. 

they're able to make SA-6 clone called it, akash, whatever..


----------



## qwerrty

LCA Tejas said:


> Where did You get that Info from??? India would start inducting Pak Fa from 2018.... FGFA from 20210-2023 Onwards....



just like the aircraft carrier you buy from them that will deliver on time at same price.


----------



## ptldM3

qwerrty said:


> just like the aircraft carrier you buy from them that will deliver on time at same price.



The Vikram&#257;ditya carrier and everything that comes with it doesn't have anything to do with Sukhoi, also India gets SU-30's at a very cheap price and i don't see that changing any time soon. Moreover, the pak-fa/fg-fa will not just be manufactued in Russia but in India as well.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## LCA Tejas

qwerrty said:


> just like the aircraft carrier you buy from them that will deliver on time at same price.



So what, we have been Given a better package and More over it even Includes sea trials.... And its a worth for us to have that in a whole new package, several modifications have been done...


----------



## below_freezing

Karthic Sri said:


> For evry AK-47 example i can give hundreds of J-11,J-15 and J-watever.
> 
> Anyway providing a link is much appreciated rather than ur esteemd opinion
> We dont want ur opinion...but rather facts



we purchased the rights to the Su-27 in 1996 sorry.

Chinese Aircraft - J-11 [Su-27 FLANKER]

In February 1996 Moscow and Beijing reached a $2.2 billion agreement for Chinese co-production of the Sukhoi Su-27. Under the initial agreement China would produce up to 200 aircraft [without the right to reexport the jets to third countries] from Russian-made components over three to five years. The total cost of the contract is $1.5 billion, including $650 million for technical documents and $850 million for parts, instruments and equipment provided by Komsomolsk-on-Amur Aviation Enterprise imeni Yuriy Gagarin [KnAAPO], which is to deliver around 30 percent of all completing parts for 200 Chinese SU-27SK jets.

TripAtlas.com - About AK-47


----------



## qwerrty

the thing is pak-fa is still a prototype. how many more years till the final product? the plane might not even look like the current..people start talking about delivering time & 250 FGFA already..lol


----------



## aimarraul

qwerrty said:


> just like the aircraft carrier you buy from them that will deliver on time at same price.



"if you don't pay the price,we will sell it to chinese..."

russian humor

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## ptldM3

qwerrty said:


> the thing is pak-fa is still a prototype. how many more years till the final product? the plane might not even look like the current..people start talking about delivering time & 250 FGFA already..lol



Of course it's a prototype and changes will likely be made just like with any other prototypes. And why is it funny that people involved in the project set a due date? As of now the project is comming along very smoothly, there are 3 prototpes, and another being constructed, there has also been at least six test flights, and much of the avionics for the pak-fa such as AESA radar are in the deep stages of development. And the 250 quota is the requirments set by both the RAF and IAF, so i fail to see the humor in that.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Ammyy

aimarraul said:


> "if you don't pay the price,we will sell it to chinese..."
> 
> russian humor



According to Chinese humor ... when your own Jxx is ready with in one year so why you need T50 ?? that was still in development phase


----------



## xukxuk

DRDO said:


> According to Chinese humor ... when your own Jxx is ready with in one year so why you need T50 ?? that was still in development phase



it will be good to have one to study
and find a way to destroy it


----------



## topjumper

Guys, please give credit where credit is due, Russia's progress on T-50 is ahead of the J-xx (or at least given what we know in public knowledge domain because PLAAF is lip tight on this), we shouldn't dismiss other people's achievements.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## faithfulguy

Karthic Sri said:


> Allow me the honor of debunking ur claims...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is the latest news...
> 
> Link
> 
> 
> 
> Of course....given China terrible record on maintaining copyrights and its penchant to Ctrl+c,Ctrl+v...no sane country would give China its latest equipment.
> 
> 
> 
> Thats because the Ilyushin factory in Tashkent that produces the Il-76 is not functioning properly due to lack of maintenancce after the collapse of the Soviet Union...its not a china specific thing.
> 
> Mayb my Russian friend can help me on this.
> 
> 
> 
> If the reason we r looking for US/european weapons is not confidence in Russki weapons...do u think we would have invested close to 10 billion dollars in the PAKFA/FGFA project.
> 
> Instead we would have gone for the F-35 which was offered to India.
> 
> So first get ur facts right.



If India was really offered F-35. Why is India still involve with Pak-fa? The Indian beauracracy couldn't even make the obvious choice of going for a developed platform and opt for a pie in the sky. fools!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## lhuang

faithfulguy said:


> If India was really offered F-35. Why is India still involve with Pak-fa? The Indian beauracracy couldn't even make the obvious choice of going for a developed platform and opt for a pie in the sky. fools!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



Hah, I wonder why.


----------



## ptldM3

faithfulguy said:


> If India was really offered F-35. Why is India still involve with Pak-fa? The Indian beauracracy couldn't even make the obvious choice of going for a developed platform and opt for a pie in the sky. fools!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



The Indians can get the fg-fa built to their requirments and specifications. Moreover, the fg-fa will be a twin seat long range mult-role aircraft with an extreemly long range which is something they can't get with the F-35 and something that is in the IAF's doctrine. It should also be noted that India will operate both the single seat air superiority fighter (pak-fa) and the twin seat version (fg-fa), so, no the Indians arn't fools. Further, the F-35 may be a watered down version with restrictions, and lastely the Indians will be gaining valuble knowledge from the pak-fa program. BTW even if the Indians would opt for the F-35 it would only take about a million years before they would receive it.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## faithfulguy

ptldM3 said:


> The Indians can get the fg-fa built to their requirments and specifications. Moreover, the fg-fa will be a twin seat long range mult-role aircraft with an extreemly long range which is something they can't get with the F-35 and something that is in the IAF's doctrine. It should also be noted that India will operate both the single seat air superiority fighter (pak-fa) and the twin seat version (fg-fa), so, no the Indians arn't fools. Further, the F-35 may be a watered down version with restrictions, and lastely the Indians will be gaining valuble knowledge from the pak-fa program. BTW even if the Indians would opt for the F-35 it would only take about a million years before they would receive it.



If US would not supply India state of the art weapons, it is because Indian politicians are not good at picking the winning side. If India choose to side with the west and take steps to show that such as cut ties to Russia and join the western alliance, then US would trust India like how we trust England, Japan and Australia. India want to have one foot in Russia camp and another foot in the American camp and no one woud trust India.


----------



## indushek

Qwerty seems like u have eaten something bad so obviously ur not feeling good as seen from ur posts.

And here our Indian and Chinese heads are trying hard strengthen our bilateral relationship and take it to the next level and on the net we just fight on every issue without deep knowledge. Great, no thread is spared from fighting.


----------



## Ammyy

faithfulguy said:


> If US would not supply India state of the art weapons, it is because Indian politicians are not good at picking the winning side. If India choose to side with the west and take steps to show that such as cut ties to Russia and join the western alliance, then US would trust India like how we trust England, Japan and Australia. India want to have one foot in Russia camp and another foot in the American camp and no one woud trust India.



Yes you r right no one trust on India .... thts the reason every one offer us their best weapons but our most trusted partner is Russia .. 
USA interested in friendship with India because of China, every one know that.


----------



## ptldM3

faithfulguy said:


> If US would not supply India state of the art weapons, it is because Indian politicians are not good at picking the winning side.



And what constitutes the "winning side"? 



faithfulguy said:


> If India choose to side with the west and take steps to show that such as cut ties to Russia and join the western alliance, then US would trust India like how we trust England, Japan and Australia. India want to have one foot in Russia camp and another foot in the American camp and no one woud trust India.



Could it be that the single seat and limited range F-35 doesn't meat the IAF's requirments? And could it be that the pak-fa/fg-fa can be custom tailord to the IAF's requirments? This not only includes the desgn but also avionics and if the IAF wishes they can include a mix of Israeli, Russian and Indian avionics in the pak-fa/fg-fa while the F-35 will likely not allow any modifications.


----------



## Bhairava

@faithfulguy, even if we order F-35 now it would start deliver in 2022


----------



## below_freezing

there is no chance of india being able to even support the logistics for F-35. if india got the F-35 then it'll have to deal with the logistics of planes from 4 countries, all with different parts shooting different missiles and requiring different maintainance teams. it's better for india to stick with domestic and russian airframes since india already has the setup and expertise in that area.


----------



## gubbi

below_freezing said:


> there is no chance of india being able to even support the logistics for F-35. if india got the F-35 then it'll have to deal with the logistics of planes from 4 countries, all with different parts shooting different missiles and requiring different maintainance teams. it's better for india to stick with domestic and russian airframes since india already has the setup and expertise in that area.



Go on... enlighten us with more of your pearls of wisdom. 

Btw, FYI, IAF already flies aircraft from 4 different countries. Guess you happen to know more about IAF's logistical nightmares than IAF personnel.


----------



## uday

guys!!!!
it's not about india buying F-35...we are talking about china's junk j-15 is been down played by Russia due to j-15 quality standards...


----------



## dingyibvs

DRDO said:


> Yes you r right no one trust on India .... thts the reason every one offer us their best weapons but our most trusted partner is Russia ..
> USA interested in friendship with India because of China, every one know that.



Very true, both Russia and the west want to use India as a counter balance to China, so it's obvious who they view as the greater threat with the greater potential.


----------



## intelarpit

xukxuk said:


> it's a weapon
> we use it to kill each other
> the initial intention of making weapon is immoral
> who care about the copy right of it



Good or bad...but thats a very correct statement

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## uday

But the QUALITY of the weapon matters!!!


----------



## lhuang

uday said:


> But the QUALITY of the weapon matters!!!



Tell me, what makes you say a fighter that is still in development is doomed to inferiority?


----------



## uday

it's a reverse engineered piece! This itself says that!!! 
do you know the quality norms used by sukohi's to manufacture this fighter?


----------



## lhuang

uday said:


> it's a reverse engineered piece! This itself says that!!!
> do you know the quality norms used by sukohi's to manufacture this fighter?



On the lines of what an Indian member said before in the Arjun thread:

When a J-15 is launching strikes against Indian aircraft carriers, your pilots can radio in and tell J-15 pilot, NO YOU CAN'T LAUNCH MISSILES AT ME, YOUR PLANE IS REVERSE ENGINEERED.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## KS

lhuang said:


> On the lines of what an Indian member said before in the Arjun thread:
> 
> When a J-15 is launching strikes against Indian aircraft carriers, your pilots can radio in and tell J-15 pilot,* NO YOU CAN'T LAUNCH MISSILES AT ME, YOUR PLANE IS REVERSE ENGINEERED.*



OMG again a Chinese has reverse-engineered (copied ) my quote...

http://www.defence.pk/forums/india-defence/58608-indigenous-arjun-mbt-has-only-42-indigenous-content-2.html#post894598

And they say they do everything indigenously.....jus kidding


----------



## lhuang

Reverse engineered > imported 

=]


----------



## faithfulguy

tamilan007 said:


> @faithfulguy, even if we order F-35 now it would start deliver in 2022



That would be sooner than 2025-2030 at earliest. As this is the first plane develop in Russia, not USSR, it could have problems...


----------



## SomeGuy

uday said:


> guys!!!!
> it's not about india buying F-35...we are talking about china's junk j-15 is been down played by Russia due to j-15 quality standards...



What quality standards?

In the report itself, the retired (or should I say Retard) Colonel could only speculate on the folding wings and engine, but the author of the report rebutted that by pointing out the prototype was already flying with indigenous engines:



> Korotchenko said China was unlikely to solve technical problems related to the design of the folding wings and to develop a reliable engine for the aircraft, although the first J-15 prototype reportedly made its maiden flight on August 31, 2009, powered by Chinese WS-10 turbofan engines.



The fact is Russia's most advance fighter export to China is MKK2.
With J-11B, China has already gone one better than that, never mind an obsolete cold war relic like Su-33!

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## no_name

Its possible they might have flown one prototype without folding wings, but I don't see the point. They're not out to bluff people


----------



## SomeGuy

Karthic Sri said:


> obselete cold-war relic...? man ur knowledge of this is appalling.




In what way am I incorrect? - O.K. maybe saying that it's a obsolete cold war relic is a bit of an exaggeration but that doesn't change the fact that Su-33 is not cutting edge.

Su-33 designed in early 80's.
Entered service in mid 90's.
No major capability upgrades since.

Su-33 is not in the Su-30 family but it's actually a navalised/carrier capable version of the base Su-27 (It's original designation was Su-27K).

Sukhoi Su-33 (Flanker-D) - History, Specifications and Pictures - Military Aircraft



> The Su-33 Flanker is the naval version of the base Su-27 Flanker



The radar on the Su-33 is the outdated N001 radar, and I don't think Su-33 is even compatibile with R-77 missiles!!!

Even Russian Navy is looking to replace these with modernised MiG-29K.

Which brings me to another point - if these Su-33 are so good, why hasn't India ordered any?

So next time maybe you should check ur facts before calling anybody's knowledge appalling.



Karthic Sri said:


> BTW wat advanced 5 th generation carrier based fighters does RN use..?
> 
> this one....RAF_Harrier_II...dead meat for Su-33 anyday.



Don't worry about the royal navy, we're getting F-35 for our new Queen Elizabeth class carriers and what's more, since we're a level 1 partner in the JSF program we'll probably be getting them before anyone else.

Doesn't Indian Navy use Harriers?!

Anyway, this thread is about Su-33 and J-15.


----------



## Ruag

nightcrawler said:


> Last year, Russia refused again to sell the Su-33 to China even after Beijing had offered to buy 14 of them, saying that at least 24 jets should be sold to recoup production costs.
> 
> MOSCOW, June 4 (RIA Novosti)



Curious... China offered to buy only 14 Su-33s from Russia?

Definitely, China was not planning to use these meager 14 Su-33s in strike formation in the PLAAF. Its main intention is pretty obvious here.

And also, Russia did not primarily reject the offer because of production line related costs issues. They had other reasonable concerns there.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## dingyibvs



Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## zagahaga

loook out its a su 30!!!!! nawwwww it a su 33


----------



## Imran Khan

this one we need only 150 hehehehhehe wet dream . ok i sleep again.look like they again make copy of su-33 welldone great china keep it up waiting for pak-fa copy. i know you can do it for us.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Evil Flare

Imran Khan said:


> this one we need only 150 hehehehhehe wet dream . ok i sleep again.look like they again make copy of su-33 welldone great china keep it up waiting for pak-fa copy. i know you can do it for us.




Why not a Copy of a Raptor ?


----------



## Imran Khan

that will take time we need urgent copy


----------



## Hyde

Imran Khan said:


> this one we need only 150 hehehehhehe wet dream . ok i sleep again.look like they again make copy of su-33 welldone great china keep it up waiting for *pak-fa copy.* i know you can do it for us.



and that copy must be sold for 15 million dollars


----------



## Imran Khan

Zaki said:


> and that copy must be sold for 15 million dollars



no no atleast 35mn otherwise burma ugenda and ethopia will also got 5th gen pak-fa copy .


----------



## Hyde

Imran Khan said:


> no no atleast 35mn otherwise burma ugenda and ethopia will also got 5th gen pak-fa copy .


hehhehe

but think otherwise Imran, if that becomes reality..... we will be inducting 250 "PAK-FA copy" after 250 JF-17s 

Burma, Uganda, Ethiopia will buy a maximum squadron of one - no worries 

oh well you can just dream about anything... right?. There is no bar on your dreams


----------



## Imran Khan

no no no i like only cino-pak have this copy no one even allow to tuch it US will offer us 1 sqadron of f-35 for just check that copy but we refuse we say it penut for lion. and and and wait i sleep again for more dream hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmhhhhhhhmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmhmmmmmmmmmmmhhhhhhhhmmmmmmmmmmmmhmmmmmmmmmmmmhmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmh

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Hyde

Imran Khan said:


> no no no i like only cino-pak have this copy no one even allow to tuch it US will offer us 1 sqadron of f-35 for just check that copy but we refuse we say it penut for lion. and and and wait i sleep again for more dream hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmhhhhhhhmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmhmmmmmmmmmmmhhhhhhhhmmmmmmmmmmmmhmmmmmmmmmmmmhmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmh



then why not choice make 6th Generation aircraft instead 
why even PAK-FA?

i remember china introduced Televisions in mobile phones with dual sim cards many years ago which is still a new thing in european markets.

Lets go after 6th gen aircraft and we will not even give it to America 

my last post here for now


----------



## SomeGuy

Nice one.

I see they added canards. Makes sense if it's going to operate from Varyag - but original Su-33 could not take off at max take off weight using ski-jump so I hope they sorted this out.

I hope J-15 incorporates tech from J-10B - Composites/RAM, avionics, radar, IRST, ECM etc.


----------



## dingyibvs

SomeGuy said:


> Nice one.
> 
> I see they added canards. Makes sense if it's going to operate from Varyag - but original Su-33 could not take off at max take off weight using ski-jump so I hope they sorted this out.
> 
> I hope J-15 incorporates tech from J-10B - Composites/RAM, avionics, radar, IRST, ECM etc.



They'll probably add some if not all of that stuff, but right now we haven't seen any evidence of anything new except things the Su-33 already have, like canards, straight front wheel, shortened tail cone, and with this new set of pics, signs of folding wings.


----------



## Kompromat

Zaki said:


> and that copy must be sold for 15 million dollars



No more Copies.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Kompromat

Stealth said:


> @China
> 
> Forgod sake make something yourself...



Su-27 was given to China with License production & J-15 is another variant developed under that license-there is no copying involved.

If that would have been the case then we can call the Indian MKI a copy too.

China has successfully Inducted - JH-7 - J-10/A-B and developed JFT with Pakistan and all of them within 15 years time - not bad at all.


----------



## dingyibvs

Stealth said:


> @China
> 
> Forgod sake make something yourself...



i'm pretty sure that other than the engine, that plane is made entirely by themselves. or do you mean DESIGN something yourself? in that case how about the DF missiles, or say the 054A and the 052C?


----------



## yangtomous

As I know,the plane engine is on the way for a long time .it has mang difference
types Taihang Taishan WS15 Qinling .Russia now use 117s for T50 .
117s or 117a were all developed from AL 41 .The actually eagine is still in rasearch &#12290; So there is closer in the new generation engine with China and Russia which the thrust weight ratio above 10 &#12290;May be in 2015 it will the news about the fourth generation fighter with China heart WS15 &#12290;We has a long distance with USA .WS15 standard just like the Amercian type F119.
Therefore as someone put it we has a long way to go .

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## aimarraul

Stealth said:


> @China
> 
> Forgod sake make something yourself...



actually something are undergoing.601/611/603 all have their new projects,but we don't have 5 or 10 years to wait as china is facing seriously immediate maritime threat .and i said a thousands times that phototype of SU-33 was the soviet relic which we bought it from ukraine 10 years ago&#65292;there wouldn't be any copyright issues,so why not just reverse engineering the best 3th gen carrier-based jet and save the time and funds for 4th gen



SomeGuy said:


> Nice one.
> 
> I see they added canards. Makes sense if it's going to operate from Varyag - but original Su-33 could not take off at max take off weight using ski-jump so I hope they sorted this out.
> 
> I hope J-15 incorporates tech from J-10B - Composites/RAM, avionics, radar, IRST, ECM etc.



Varyag will be the training AC, ukraine exploded all the key parts and left only a shell

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Imran Khan

Black Blood said:


> No more Copies.



damn if this will come true we will must got it look at shape ehhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh i fall in love with this image.


----------



## dingyibvs

EDIT2: Put it on Youtube:

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## yjs14

1
2

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## subject17

I don't see any video.


----------



## Kompromat

Imran - Enjoy a few more JXX CGI.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## aimarraul



Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Imran Khan

Black Blood said:


> Imran - Enjoy a few more JXX CGI.






great yaar very nice.

ohhhhhhh bhai koi allah ka banda photo shoper in ko pakistani colors main to bana de i like to see them


----------



## dingyibvs

fmddl.site said:


> I don't see any video.



Check out yjs's links, mine went down.


----------



## oct605032048

what a big kite!


----------



## SomeGuy

All I get is a message saying the clip has been blocked in my region.

Any chance of posting the video on youtube?


----------



## dingyibvs

SomeGuy said:


> All I get is a message saying the clip has been blocked in my region.
> 
> Any chance of posting the video on youtube?



Ask and you shall receive 

Good idea btw!


----------



## SAUD-404

it sounds like boeing 747 but not like some turbo je????? and is there any other videos of this plan????????


----------



## Akasa

Why "Flying Shark"? It's such a lame name.


----------



## gypgypgyp

oct605032048 said:


> the so-called j 15 is largely based on Su-33 which is to be deployed on the aircraft carrier. So the engines are cut short to get use to the deck of the carrier.



The reality is J-15 is base on T-10K 

T-10K is Su-33 test aircraft which was left in Ukraine.

And Ukraine sell it to China in late 1990.

J-15 is more like a brother of Su-33 rather than a copy. Because Rassian one is based on T-10K-7 not T-10K.


----------



## Lankan Ranger

*Chinese J-15 Carrier jets Ready to Deploy *


----------



## Lankan Ranger




----------



## Lankan Ranger

*Research and development of the J-15 formally began in 2006, after Beijing revealed it was planning to develop an aircraft carrier battle group.*

*Earlier reports said China obtained an Su-33 prototype, from Ukraine for J-15 research.*


----------



## ptldM3

Looks like an SU-30 based off of the cockpit, i also can't see the arresting hook, how do you know this is a J-15?


----------



## Lankan Ranger

ptldM3 said:


> Looks like an SU-30 based off of the cockpit, i also can't see the arresting hook, how do you know this is a J-15?



*Its J-15 it will be different from Su-33, J-15 will have latest modifications it will have a possible involvement of China&#8217;s second largest defense partner.

I can not mention the name of the third country, Guess who is China&#8217;s second largest defense partner.*


----------



## ptldM3

Sri Lankan said:


> *Its J-15 it will be different from Su-33, J-15 will have latest modifications it will have a possible involvement of Chinas second largest defense partner.
> 
> I can not mention the name of the third country, Guess who is Chinas second largest defense partner.*



I'v seen pictures of the real J-15 and it's identical to the SU-33. A naval aircraft also has to have an arresting hook, what you posted does not have one, and trust me they are easy to spot. The aircraft you posted is also a dual seater, from what i recall the J-15 is a single seat aircraft.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Nomenclature

I think those are J-11BS. J-15 is single seat with canards AFAIK.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Comet

Ready to Deploy where? Where are the Air Craft Carriers?


----------



## Capt.Popeye

ptldM3 said:


> Looks like an SU-30 based off of the cockpit, i also can't see the arresting hook, how do you know this is a J-15?



Quite right, the arrester hook is missing; remaining to be fitted or it fell off.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Last Hope

umairp said:


> Ready to Deploy where? Where are the Air Craft Carriers?



No idea!

What is the unit cost of the jet?
and how many jets are to be made?
and how many to be supplied to the dear sister of china (Pakistan ) if any?

Cheers !!


----------



## prototype

Russian military experts have downplayed any significant competition from the J-15 in the global arms market, with Col. Igor Korotchenko of the Defense Ministry stating in early June 2010, "The Chinese J-15 clone is unlikely to achieve the same performance characteristics of the Russian Su-33 carrier-based fighter, and I do not rule out the possibility that China could return to negotiations with Russia on the purchase of a substantial batch of Su-33s."

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## cloneman

umairp said:


> Ready to Deploy where? Where are the Air Craft Carriers?



The AC is on building,but we need to prepare the fighter at the same time.


----------



## cloneman

proudpakistanistudent said:


> No idea!
> 
> What is the unit cost of the jet?
> and how many jets are to be made?
> and how many to be supplied to the dear sister of china (Pakistan ) if any?
> 
> Cheers !!



I dont think Pakistan will need a AC based fighter.Currentlly Pakistan needs to focuse on finishing the JF production,then induction of the FC20,then maybe the JXX.


----------



## peaceful

alex mercer said:


> Russian military experts have downplayed any significant competition from the J-15 in the global arms market, with Col. Igor Korotchenko of the Defense Ministry stating in early June 2010, "The Chinese J-15 clone is unlikely to achieve the same performance characteristics of the Russian Su-33 carrier-based fighter, and I do not rule out the possibility that China could return to negotiations with Russia on the purchase of a substantial batch of Su-33s."



"downplayed any significant competition from the J-15 in the global arms market"?

are you out of your mind? who said it will be exported in the first place? J-15 will be used by the PLAAF, not anyone else. 

indian air forces can paint their fighters with something like "we fly Russian made Su-30 fighters, we refuse to be shut down by a Chinese clone, please shut us down with a real Russian fighter".

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## siegecrossbow

Where are the canards?


----------



## SQ8

These seem to be similar to the MK2's.. is it possible that is just a stripped down Mk2?


----------



## aimarraul

*Russia keen to reopen talks on Su-33 fighter*
Minnie Chan
Nov 05, 2010 


Moscow is wooing Beijing to resume negotiations on the purchase of Su-33 fighters for future Chinese aircraft carriers after talks collapsed last year, a Macau-based military researcher with strong PLA connections says.

Russia is keen to reopen the Su-33 production line after a 10-year hiatus but realises time could be running out after China successfully tested an indigenous carrier-capable fighter, the J-15, which many say is a copy of the Su-33, Macau International Military Association president Antony Wong Dong said, citing a mainland military insider.

A Russian military website said on Wednesday that Beijing was returning to the negotiating table with JSC Sukhoi, Russia's major aircraft producer, about a deal for Su-33 fighters capable of operating from China's first aircraft carrier.

Earlier reports said Russia had planned to sell China up to 50 Su-33 Flanker-D fighters.

"However, my military connection told me that China's indigenous J-15 successfully completed its first test flight on August 31 last year, which means China doesn't need to rely on the Su-33," Wong said.

Research and development of the J-15 formally began in 2006, after Beijing revealed it was planning to develop an aircraft carrier battle group.

"However, so far we don't know whether it is using the Chinese-made FWS-10A engine, or Russian-made turbo engines," Wong said. "It is an open secret that China's technology in aircraft engine development still does not compete with Russia's, and Russia threatened not to sell its engines to China early this year."

Russia also claims that China's J-series fighters - from the J-10 to the J-15 - are just inferior copies of Russian originals.

In July, Colonel Igor Korotchenko, a member of the Russian Defence Ministry's Public Council, cast doubt on the J-15's capabilities.

"The Chinese J-15 clone is unlikely to achieve the same performance characteristics as the Russian Su-33 carrier-based fighter, and I do not rule out the possibility that China could return to negotiations with Russia on the purchase of a substantial batch of Su-33s," Russian media quoted Korotchenko as saying.

Earlier reports said the deal to supply Su-33s collapsed due to China's request for an initial delivery of two aircraft for a "trial". China instead obtained an Su-33 prototype, the T-10K, from Ukraine for J-15 research. Wong said this week's Russian report had just reiterated Korotchenko's prediction in July, and told Beijing that Moscow's negotiating door was still open.

A Shanghai-based retired People's Liberation Army senior colonel familiar with Beijing's aircraft carrier project confirmed that the engine of the J-15 was still inferior to the Russian-made turbo engine. *"The aircraft engine is the heart of a fighter jet, with Russia spending 20 years to develop its Su-33 engine," he said. "Buying Su-33s from Russia is possible, but not the first choice for Beijing because the timetable is quite tight."*

Ni Lexiong , another Shanghai-based military expert, also said that aircraft engine technology had been China's fatal weakness.

*"Our technology is still inferior and unstable just because our leadership spent only 600,000 yuan (HK$696,000) a year on engine research and development before 1990,"* he said. "But as aircraft play the key role on a carrier, and the engine is the heart of any plane, I think buying stable Su-33s is still another choice for us."

China plans to launch its first indigenous 48,000-tonne aircraft carrier, based on Russian models, in 2012, and to build up its first aircraft carrier battle group before 2015.


----------



## GodlessBastard

This is a 100&#37; Su-30....


----------



## houshanghai

This is a 100% J11BS....

THE Engines are WS-10A


----------



## maxx

...or Su-27UBK.


----------



## nForce

whatever it is,definitely not J-15....


----------



## satishkumarcsc

Is'nt Su 33 lines closed for production? Because it would be useless to reopen the lines as RuN navy has already selected the MiG 29k as a stop gap replacement on their Kuznetsova.


----------



## hellofriends

proudpakistanistudent said:


> No idea!
> 
> What is the unit cost of the jet?
> and how many jets are to be made?
> and how many to be supplied to the dear sister of china (Pakistan ) if any?
> 
> Cheers !!



are bhai pahale kisi se aircraft carrier to mang lo...tab carrier base jet ki mang karna.....


----------



## hellofriends

houshanghai said:


> This is a 100% J11BS....
> 
> THE Engines are WS-10A



yes you are right! it is 100% copy of J-11 and J-11 is 100% copy of Su-30(which is russian made).


----------



## siegecrossbow

aimarraul said:


> *Russia keen to reopen talks on Su-33 fighter*
> Russia also claims that China's J-series fighters - from the J-10 to the J-15 - are just inferior copies of Russian originals.



J-10 is the "inferior copy" of which Russian jet?


----------



## DESERT FIGHTER

siegecrossbow said:


> J-10 is the "inferior copy" of which Russian jet?



The mighty LCA.


----------



## Ammyy

...............


----------



## GodlessBastard

siegecrossbow said:


> J-10 is the "inferior copy" of which Russian jet?



J-10 was made using blueprints of the Israeli Lavi. This is a widely-known "open secret" in defense circles.


----------



## SBD-3

its very difficult to tell from a side view that SU-30 airframe has canards or not 
for example see these pictures..
1) SU-30 MKM (one with canards)








2) SU-30 MKK/MKK2









do you guys see any difference?.....well since J-11BS is thought to be a replacement for MKKs. I dont think so Chinese designers wouldnot have added something from over the original structural capabilities of current MKKs. I suspect this is a new version with possible *canards* for enhancing frame agility


----------



## Surrender2me

GodlessBastard said:


> J-10 was made using blueprints of the Israeli Lavi. This is a widely-known "open secret" in defense circles.


Dude,u don't need to post the pics,every one knows that...
If u continue posting the pics,u'll be banned,so avoid it,
But remember..J-15 is not equal to Su-33 in quality.
may be the shape of both of them are identical,the shape doesn't count much in air fights,But the radars,missiles,and Avionics...The russians are making these from a long time and have got great experience,But u just can't gain that experience by Cloning it..


----------



## SBD-3

GodlessBastard said:


> J-10 was made using blueprints of the Israeli Lavi. This is a widely-known "open secret" in defense circles.



Importantly, you should look at the designs rather than pics
1- Lavi.




2- J-10




now you see that there are some changes. like wing design, canard wing positioning, size and length and inlet. Which means that chinese have done something on their own as well.
look at the J-9 (the canceled project)




it shares a good amount of features with J-10 as well.
Now lets take another example
see this




and see this




what do you see???.....lets see something more 








They both look like same...Rafales, dont they? but the former was a Yugoslavian project named as Novi Avion designed by Vazduhoplovno Tehnicki Institute of Yugoslavia 


> The Novi Avion most closely resembled the French Rafale, although it was smaller and had only one engine. It was designed to fill many roles, including air superiority, interception, reconnaissance, ground attack, and anti-ship attack. Maximum speed was just under Mach 2. Super-maneuverability at both supersonic and subsonic speeds was a priority, and a major portion of the airframe was to be composed of composites.
> 
> The design was to incorporate a number of features to lower its radar cross section, although it would not have been a true stealth aircraft. The aircraft was to carry an advanced ECM/ECCM suite. *It was an all-Yugoslav design, not based on any foreign plane, although France was providing some assistance with the design of the most complex parts that Yugoslavia had no experience with, such as a multipurpose radar.
> *
> The engine was to be the French Snecma M88, the same engine used in the Rafale. Most of the weapons it would have carried would probably have been either French weapons, or built with French assistance.
> Novi Avion - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


 I hope that would have been of some help to you and other posters who still cant get out of "copy copy shout paradigm"

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## siegecrossbow

hasnain0099 said:


> Importantly, you should look at the designs rather than pics
> 1- Lavi.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2- J-10
> 
> 
> 
> 
> now you see that there are some changes. like wing design, canard wing positioning, size and length and inlet. Which means that chinese have done something on their own as well.
> look at the J-9 (the canceled project)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> it shares a good amount of features with J-10 as well.
> Now lets take another example
> see this
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and see this
> 
> 
> 
> 
> what do you see???.....lets see something more
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They both look like same...Rafales, dont they? but the former was a Yugoslavian project named as Novi Avion designed by Vazduhoplovno Tehnicki Institute of Yugoslavia
> 
> I hope that would have been of some help to you and other posters who still cant get out of "copy copy shout paradigm"



Thank you!!! You just saved me the trouble of posting those pictures my self.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## prototype

peaceful said:


> "downplayed any significant competition from the J-15 in the global arms market"?
> 
> are you out of your mind? who said it will be exported in the first place? J-15 will be used by the PLAAF, not anyone else.
> 
> *indian air forces can paint their fighters with something like "we fly Russian made Su-30 fighters, we refuse to be shut down by a Chinese clone, please shut us down with a real Russian fighter".*



well not completely out of my mind,i just posted here what russian military beleives

Yes i know J-15 is not for export preety much because there r no takers

About the bolded part u unnecessary brought India into this argument,so i also have an advice

*Paint ur fighters with-we stole Russian designs,we refuse to shut down this with the Russian allegation's,only we will shut it up when each and every designs are stoled*

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## ptldM3

hasnain0099 said:


> its very difficult to tell from a side view that SU-30 airframe has canards or not
> for example see these pictures..
> 1) SU-30 MKM (one with canards)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2) SU-30 MKK/MKK2
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> do you guys see any difference?.....well since J-11BS is thought to be a replacement for MKKs. I dont think so Chinese designers wouldnot have added something from over the original structural capabilities of current MKKs. I suspect this is a new version with possible *canards* for enhancing frame agility



Canards are difficult to spot, but not impossible, based on Sri lanken's pictures, i see no canards, nor do i see an arresting hook--which is a giva way. Lastly the aircraft he posted is a dual seater. 

This is a J-15:






Based on evidence it's my opinion that Sri lanken posted random pictures of SU-30's and SU-27's/J-11's

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## SQ8

alex mercer said:


> well not completely out of my mind,i just posted here what russian military beleives
> 
> Yes i know J-15 is not for export preety much because there r no takers
> 
> About the bolded part u unnecessary brought India into this argument,so i also have an advice
> 
> *Paint ur fighters with-we stole Russian designs,we refuse to shut down this with the Russian allegation's,only we will shut it up when each and every designs are stoled*




Im just thinking..
What difference does it make if its stolen?
Does the job doesnt it?
Tomorrow if somebody gets the Iphone OS.. and reverse engineers the Iphone from the inside out.. and does it for $200 less.. 
I would appreciate it rather than feel bad thinking "Its a stolen design.. Apple was there furst...".
Your beloved Russians did that a lot during the late 40's and early 50's..
The engine that powered the Mig-15.. was designed using the Nene.. and the metallurgical know how was gathered by a visit to the Rolls factory by Mikoyan techs wearing foam heeled shoes..so the metal fragments from the mill machines got stuck into them.. which were then analyzed for composition..yada yada.


----------



## prototype

santro said:


> Im just thinking..
> What difference does it make if its stolen?
> Does the job doesnt it?
> Tomorrow if somebody gets the Iphone OS.. and reverse engineers the Iphone from the inside out.. and does it for $200 less..
> I would appreciate it rather than feel bad thinking "Its a stolen design.. Apple was there furst...".
> Your beloved Russians did that a lot during the late 40's and early 50's..
> The engine that powered the Mig-15.. was designed using the Nene.. and the metallurgical know how was gathered by a visit to the Rolls factory by Mikoyan techs wearing foam heeled shoes..so the metal fragments from the mill machines got stuck into them.. which were then analyzed for composition..yada yada.



same applies if u purchase it with someone else,if it is capable of doing the job,then why some people suddenly start to cry over it

I have no problem if Chinese steal,purchase,create whatever,my answer was clearly in response to a Chinese who unnecessarily dragged India into the argument just because my flags r of India


----------



## Water Car Engineer

GodlessBastard said:


> J-10 was made using blueprints of the Israeli Lavi. This is a widely-known "open secret" in defense circles.



They do look similar..






I dont think its bad China is copying designs. If they can get these into their air force all the better for them..











India should do the same. Fair game right?


----------



## Frankenstein

^^ Lavi is a canceled project, that is enuff, no need to explain them again and again


----------



## SBD-3

Varghese said:


> They do look similar..







they look similar too but they aren't


> India should do the same. Fair game right?


well If India could........they are not still as matured in Defense manufacturing as China...still long way to go for them


----------



## siegecrossbow

The Chengdu J-10 project started at around the same time as the Israeli Lavi. China did receive technical assistance (particularly from the French) but since China hasn't officially established relations with Israel it is unlikely that high level military infos were exchanged.


----------



## SBD-3

siegecrossbow said:


> The Chengdu J-10 project started at around the same time as the Israeli Lavi. China did receive technical assistance (particularly from the French) but since China hasn't officially established relations with Israel it is unlikely that high level military infos were exchanged.


you know what.....you ll get another post saying..."yea i understand, but they look similar" these people are freaked out honestly


----------



## mnd

satishkumarcsc said:


> Is'nt Su 33 lines closed for production? Because it would be useless to reopen the lines as RuN navy has already selected the MiG 29k as a stop gap replacement on their Kuznetsova.



Sukhoi stated that it will modernize the Su-33 fleet. The russian navy plans to operate both the Su-33 and the Mig-29k, until new carriers arrive.


----------



## nightcrawler

Isn't this an SU-15 similar plane or even its variant??


----------



## Water Car Engineer

hasnain0099 said:


> you know what.....you ll get another post saying..."yea i understand, but they look similar" these people are freaked out honestly



Bro, I dont think copying is a bad thing at all. India, Brazil, South Africa, etc, etc, etc all should copy first. Nothing wrong with it.

And I cant tell you how many times Pakistanis say Arjun or Dhruv is copy or looks similar, etc, etc, etc

*Arjun*






*Leo 2a4*






*Dhruv*






*EC-145*






Even Russia used to copy from western designs in the early days right? Whats the big deal, fair game. China should copy globelmaster, Leopard 2, etc design, thats impressive to me.


----------



## siegecrossbow

nightcrawler said:


> Isn't this an SU-15 similar plane or even its variant??



No this is the J-9. Originally this was designed to be a counter to the Russian Mig-25s, I believe. The J-8 looks very similar to the Su-15 as well but it is entirely an independent effort (enlarged version of MIG-21 that underwent huge changes to the intakes and fuselage).

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## nightcrawler

@siegecrossbow
Thnx for your answer sir;
I noticed that because Su-15 was twin-engine thats why one has to drastically change the fuselage plus the addition of canards. Besides these two; I assume the ground design resembles with Su-15. I know that Su-15 most pics all show the delta wing configuration but I had read that it was going to be converted to double-delta as is shown in J-9....because of the tiny wing area the delta configuration (provided in SU-15) the landing speeds were dangerously high; thats why I think the addition of canards & double-delta configuration in J-9.


----------



## SomeGuy

Varghese said:


> They do look similar..





Varghese said:


> I dont think its bad China is copying designs. If they can get these into their air force all the better for them..





Varghese said:


> India should do the same. Fair game right?



HAL Tejas bears striking similarity to Mirage.


----------



## Water Car Engineer

SomeGuy said:


> HAL Tejas bears striking similarity to Mirage.



I know. That doesn't bother me.


----------



## SBD-3

Varghese said:


> Bro, I dont think copying is a bad thing at all. India, Brazil, South Africa, etc, etc, etc all should copy first. Nothing wrong with it.
> 
> And I cant tell you how many times Pakistanis say Arjun or Dhruv is copy or looks similar, etc, etc, etc
> 
> *Arjun*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Leo 2a4*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Dhruv*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *EC-145*



its been 2 Years since I am here....I have never come across any such post...please let me know if there is a single one


----------



## SBD-3

alex mercer said:


> well not completely out of my mind,i just posted here what russian military beleives
> 
> Yes i know J-15 is not for export preety much because there r no takers
> 
> About the bolded part u unnecessary brought India into this argument,so i also have an advice
> 
> *Paint ur fighters with-we stole Russian designs,we refuse to shut down this with the Russian allegation's,only we will shut it up when each and every designs are stoled*



Well I dont know why does it brings more pain to Indian members than even Russian ones....but anyways....Carrier based fighter market is very very select. How many countries operate ACCs? not many certainly and out of these how many have their own jets operating from their carriers. 
lets see
UK- has their own Harriers and JSFs
France- Rafales
US- I dont need to talk
Spain- Out of russian reach going JSF after harriers
Italy- JSF partner already
Thailand- Harrier operator...so likely customer
India- Already in Russian Pocket
China- J-15 project
Brazil: Operates Skylarks...likely customer.
so The way I see it, there is not a broad market available for SU-33...I dont know what Russian Millitary officials have in Mind when they see J-15 as threat to Su-33. while IMHO, different CBACs have different operating mathodologies from ACCs rather than a generic one, which makes this another difficult question as Thai carrier though may be a customer but may not have the structure to operate Su-33s


----------



## REHAN NIAZI FALCON

is there any thing new in it , i don,t find any from externel look..............


----------



## Akasa

ptldM3 said:


> I'v seen pictures of the real J-15 and it's identical to the SU-33. A naval aircraft also has to have an arresting hook, what you posted does not have one, and trust me they are easy to spot. The aircraft you posted is also a dual seater, from what i recall the J-15 is a single seat aircraft.



Just because it looks similar doesn't mean it's the same.

The airframe is only one small aspect of the aircraft.
It's mostly the internal systems that decide the performance (avionics, FBW, radars, etc).

J-15, J-11B, and follow-ons all have indigenous internal systems, as well as stealthy modifications to the airframe.

True, J-15 is not a dual-seater (maybe he posted the J-11BS instead), but the J-15 does have straight landing gear, which indicates the carrier-based role. Arresting hooks may not be captured clearly (photos are not of premium quality) or they'll be installed later.


----------



## Akasa

nightcrawler said:


> Isn't this an SU-15 similar plane or even its variant??



That would be the Chengdu J-9, a canceled project from which the J-10 was developed.


----------



## no_name

They should be ready by the time Varyag is.
It makes sense that the PLA would choose J-15 as carrier plane, if at least for training - They already have experience operating J-11, and when starting out on something new you want to removed whatever is not directly related to the problem - hence a derivative of a proven platform. This does not mean that they mark J-15 as their standard for carrier fighter.

Reactions: Like Like:
10


----------



## scuthan

i think its official name is J11BH...


----------



## acetophenol

is the color called navy grey or tippy grey?


----------



## DESERT FIGHTER

Wat engine will it use?


----------



## houshanghai

Pakistani Nationalist said:


> Wat engine will it use?


 
ws10&#65288;navy variant )


----------



## no_name

acetophenol said:


> is the color called navy grey or tippy grey?


 
Navy grey is not a colour(or maybe it is but not what I'm referring to in this context), I just called it that way because this kind of grey is used by the PLANAF but not the PLAAF.


----------



## Khalistan_Zindabad

good for china


----------



## Akasa

It would be wise to use the J-15 as a trainer, even though the L-15 and JL-9 are good candidates, simply because the similar airframe to the J-11B makes learning much richer and more accurate. It is probable that the bulk of the men will be from J-11B and heavy fighter regiments. It is pretty much a fighter and can do all the things a naval fighter can do. The addition of the canards may be for it to be similar to the Su-33, because the Chinese sent men to be trained in Russia.

Operating a heavy fighter on a ship is different from flying a light trainer.

As for the gray it would match the color of the Varyag's hull.


----------



## dingyibvs

SinoSoldier said:


> It would be wise to use the J-15 as a trainer, even though the L-15 and JL-9 are good candidates, simply because the similar airframe to the J-11B makes learning much richer and more accurate. It is probable that the bulk of the men will be from J-11B and heavy fighter regiments. It is pretty much a fighter and can do all the things a naval fighter can do. The addition of the canards may be for it to be similar to the Su-33, because the Chinese sent men to be trained in Russia.
> 
> Operating a heavy fighter on a ship is different from flying a light trainer.
> 
> As for the gray it would match the color of the Varyag's hull.


 
A single seat trainer? Seriously?


----------



## houshanghai

j15 new pic

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Lankan Ranger

*J-15 - Flying Shark - Ready *






*J-15, the new Chinese navy's "flying shark" features enlarged folding wings, twin nose wheels and an arresting hook for use on China's first aircraft carrier.*

Photos of a domestic-made shipborne J-15 heavy fighter were released on Sunday afternoon on Internet defense forums, prompting many military observers to coo about China's aircraft carrier capacity.

"Heavy shipborne fighters will boost the aircraft carrier fleet's air defense capability and enhance the fleet's strike ability," said Lan Yun, editor of the Modern Ships, a Beijing-based magazine following the latest developments in warships and defense equipment.

"They can carry many air-to-air missiles or air-to-surface missiles and other kinds of airborne munitions," Lan told the Global Times. "And they have the benefit of long combat radius."

The fighters are to be stationed onboard the Chinese Varyag aircraft carrier, which is under renovation in Dalian, according to defense media. The giant ship has had radars and electronic warfare equipment installed, the Canada-based Kanwa Daily News reported.

on Sunday's photos of the fighter were taken outside the airfield of the No. 112 Factory of Shenyang Aircraft Industry Corporation, a company of the Aviation Industry Corporation of China (AVIC), and were uploaded onto the cjdby.net and fyjs.cn military forums after 1:30 pm on Sunday.

Videos and smaller photos showing the fighter flying over Shenyang had been circulating on the Internet since June. This time the fighter was seen with a standard naval paint scheme, according to photos released on Sunday.

The fighter has distinctive features that enable it to operate on an aircraft carrier, such as folding wings and strengthened landing gear, according to the Chinese Military Aviation (CMA).

Missile launch rails and wide-angle holographic Head Up Display (HUD) clearly indicated that the fighter is equipped with domestic sensors, avionics and weapon systems, the website reported, just like later models of the Shenyang J-11 fighter. The fighter dubbed J-15 is based on a Russian Su-33 in terms of structural configuration, it also said.

The Russian Ria Novosti news quoted a Russian military analyst saying that China's J-15 is inferior to the Russian aircraft. 

Lan Yun refuted the claim.

"The sensors, avionics and missiles of the Su-33 are already obsolete," Lan said, adding that the Chinese airborne electronics could offer more advanced technologies.

The first prototype J-15 was believed to have made its maiden flight on August 31, 2009, a month before the 60th anniversary of the founding of the People's Republic of China, according to the Russian Ria Novosti news.

Lin Zuoming, AVIC general manager, published a poem in the China Aviation News newspaper one day later, celebrating the "breakthrough of scientific research."

on Sunday's photos came at about the same time as foreign media quoted a Chinese blogger claiming a Vertical/Short Take-Off and Landing (V/STOL) shipborne fighter for the Varyag is conducting flight tests in the Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region, the US-based Defense News. The foreign reports were dismissed by an AVIC spokesman as pure speculation on April 18.

New shipborne navy jet fighter makes waves among analysts - GlobalTimes

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Akasa

dingyibvs said:


> A single seat trainer? Seriously?


 
Please note that at this stage the pilots are pretty much independent of their instructor. The JL-9 and L-15 will be used for beginners while the graduating pilots will be beefing up in J-15s. Pilots that are not active on patrol can use the J-15 to do drills. The J-15 program is nothing compared to the other programs in terms of cost. The jets are very similar to the J-11B, so the switch will not be very big. In terms of capabilities and avionics the J-15 is pretty much the naval brother of the J-11B, thus enhancing the flexibility of the pilot training.

Stealthy carrier borne fighters don't grow on trees. The PLANAF have got to have secondary planes for a hi lo mix.


----------



## tkunk8



Reactions: Like Like:
11


----------



## tkunk8



Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## sino_pak

the j-15 fighter prototype is supposed to deploy on china's first aircraft carrier. the j-15 is reported to be fully different from su-27. such as body material and electronical equipments


----------



## Luftwaffe

Looks similar to SU-35BM


----------



## Ammyy

Luftwaffe said:


> Looks similar to SU-35BM


 
WTH ?? 

Whats similarity btw two planes ????


----------



## SpArK

*Nice design...*

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Last Hope

1) Seems like a Sukhoi.
2) May Chinese and Canards have a long married life


----------



## Luftwaffe

Look it up in google. I said look similar I did not point to the avionics and other systems.


----------



## Luftwaffe



Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Manticore

j15-su33
http://www.defence.pk/forums/military-photos-multimedia/75408-combat-aircraft-designs-36.html


----------



## Conqueror

Hain why the heck? Its actually good that what Russia has only developed now is in the hands of Chinese friends already..


----------



## kingkobra

nice paint job


----------



## rcrmj

kingkobra said:


> nice paint job


 
not as good as LCA, arjun and other indigenious indian bounch``

btw``to those flaming indian members, chinese dont think J-15 is original nor as J-11B, BUT we have to upgrade those old su-27s we bought from russia, as time is changing and technology is evolving, since we have the capability to do upgrade so we just do it for the defence sake!!

when india has the ability to upgrade their own mig-21s, mir-2000s, mig-29s, and su-30mkis then u guys can safely to flame here``otherwise troll somewhere else``peace


----------



## haywards

tkunk8 said:


>


 
It looks like copy of sukhoi except color painted on it..


----------



## aimarraul

be patient ,guys.J-15 is only provisional programme,SAC will roll out their 5th gen jet soon enough


----------



## aimarraul

haywards said:


> It looks like copy of sukhoi except color painted on it..



in fact,beside the aerodynamic shape,J11B/J15 share nothing with su-27 series ,you indian trolls are so pathetic,how can you possibly defeat your "biggest threat" if you know nothing about them...... 













Contract Killer said:


> Due to this only, many Countries are not even ready to sell you there simple Defence tech.



no necessary,china used to have very good relationship with western,one thing we've learn from our past experience is that you can never buy the core technology from them.how much indian have put into MKI project?still you can't even produce the tyres yourself

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## anonymous123

awww c'mon man.......people are just happy about being self sufficient, you can have your shopping spree why can't they have their own building spree???


----------



## haywards

aimarraul said:


> in fact,beside the aerodynamic shape,J11B/J15 share nothing with su-27 series ,you indian trolls are so pathetic,how can you possibly defeat your "biggest threat" if you know nothing about them......



chill man...there is no hidden fact that Chinese are good in reverse engineering...copy from here and there and little bit implement own ideas..
and in the end u'll get the prdct..no matter how and from where it comes...
Creativity is all about hiding ur source..


----------



## pluto

good to have J15. don't care the origin.
you know what, U.S and Russian missile came from Germany after WWII.
So, thanks to Russia, again. and thanks to the chinese engineers who make this happen, they're brilliant, aren't they? bring s.th more, like J20.


----------



## Obambam

haywards said:


> chill man...there is no hidden fact that Chinese are good in reverse engineering...copy from here and there and little bit implement own ideas..
> and in the end u'll get the prdct..*no matter how and from where it comes...
> Creativity is all about hiding ur source*..


 
I am with you bro. It is similar to essay writing in school. You get merits for doing intensive research and writing up a good essay, but you will get into trouble for not covering your track and get caught plagiarizing.


----------



## Akasa

We won't be expecting the J-15 to have a very long service life. They will probably serve mainly as a trainer or a backup. They will eventually be replaced by stealthy jets like the J-19.


----------



## Akasa

aimarraul said:


> be patient ,guys.J-15 is only provisional programme,SAC will roll out their 5th gen jet soon enough


 
Jets, not jet. There are at least two stealthy programs besides the J-16.


----------



## pluto

exciting thing is that when i was savoring flavor of J10, J20 comes out; then when i was savoring J20, J15 comes out. any more news?


----------



## Akasa

pluto said:


> exciting thing is that when i was savoring flavor of J10, J20 comes out; then when i was savoring J20, J15 comes out. any more news?


 
How about the following:
- J-16
- J-18
- J-19
- J-2X
- Stealthy JF-17

All of these are claimed to be in existence by Huitong, posts from CJDBY, as well as by US sources such as Mr. James Dunnigan and various articles.

And don't get me started on the UAVs.

This is going to be a very exciting year.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Malik Usman

rcrmj said:


> not as good as LCA, arjun and other indigenious indian bounch``
> 
> btw``to those flaming indian members, chinese dont think J-15 is original nor as J-11B, BUT we have to upgrade those old su-27s we bought from russia, as time is changing and technology is evolving, since we have the capability to do upgrade so we just do it for the defence sake!!
> 
> when india has the ability to upgrade their own mig-21s, mir-2000s, mig-29s, and su-30mkis then u guys can safely to flame here``otherwise troll somewhere else``peace


 


Good answer


----------



## Mr.Ryu

Finally now its Russia scare of china's toys 


SXNJ said:


> Why Russia was so scared for J15 and call it was not able to compete with Su-33 at once? it's just a prototype


----------



## cn_habs

RAHUL INDIAN said:


> good the Russians develop first decades before a plane then the Chinese copy it decased later.... so just imagine where the Russians will be by the time you copy the plane...
> and also considering that it is easy to copy the looks but not the exact performance which can never be acheived in a copy...
> 
> China cant even copy(with same performance) the Cars or Bike what to speak of fighter planes....
> 
> or is the developer is lesss intelligent then the one who copied...!!


 
The magnificent Arjun and LCA are perfect examples of India's prowess of its domestic manufacturing industries. They have to bow to their Western or Russian masters for any major repair or ugprades.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## cn_habs

ptldM3 said:


> Pull my hair and call me Sally but this is the third such thread in several days.....leave it and move on.


 
How much do you guys even pay our Indian comrades for all this non-stop China-bashing and trolling?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Akasa

It's funny how the source even thinks it's qualified to comment (rather illogically) on the J-15 when it doesn't even know what the J-15 is.

For people who have the ability to go online and do some basic research, they will learn that the J-15 uses completely different avionics, sensors, avionics, and FBW than the Su-33. It's pretty much a J-11B on a carrier. In fact, many people mistook the J-15 as the J-11BH. The airframe also supposedly has extensive modifications for RCS reductions.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## MilSpec

SXNJ said:


> Why Russia was so scared for J15 and call it was not able to compete with Su-33 at once? it's just a prototype


 
The question remains why did chinese have to Copy SU27, su 33, mig 21, in the first place. can you answer that.


----------



## Akasa

sandy_3126 said:


> The question remains why did chinese have to Copy SU27, su 33, mig 21, in the first place. can you answer that.


 
We improved the MiG-21 as the J-7. The new variants have been chosen by many air forces to replace their MiG-21 fleet. The J-11 and J-11A are also improvements of the Su-27SK. Both J-7 and J-11/A serve secondary roles only.

J-15 isn't a copy of the Su-33. It's a development of the J-11B, which itself is an indigenous fighter except for its Su-27SK airframe. Everything besides the airframe of the J-11B and J-15 is of indigenous technology and design.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## CHIN

it is great, we have our real advanced planes, but most people don't know .


----------



## Akasa

CHIN said:


> it is great, we have our real advanced planes, but most people don't know .



No one needs to know.


----------



## Aramsogo

Ruag said:


> Curious... China offered to buy only 14 Su-33s from Russia?
> 
> Definitely, China was not planning to use these meager 14 Su-33s in strike formation in the PLAAF. Its main intention is pretty obvious here.
> 
> And also, Russia did not primarily reject the offer because of production line related costs issues. They had other reasonable concerns there.


 
Yes, China is broke. It could only afford 14 Su-33 and couldn't come up with the money for 24 Su-33. We are not as rich as you guys.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## rcrmj

sandy_3126 said:


> The question remains why did chinese have to Copy SU27, su 33, mig 21, in the first place. can you answer that.


 
when you understand that why india needs to spend billions of money begging russians and isrealy to upgrade their antique fleet of mig-21, mirage-2000, mig-29, and su-30mkis and spending 10s of billions to buy ur future aircraft from Europ then you knwo why china keeps 'coying' out date Su27s

Its called the technological capability and know-how of doing certain savvy high techs which india is far way from that which demonstrated very well by your 'most' advanced LCA and other bunches``

China develops J-11B, J-15 or whatever old soviet planes are just for its air defence sake, now we are living in 21st century the technologies are ever changing with fast pace, so things happening in some countries are quite difficult for those backward countries like the shinning one to understand``got it>?

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Speeder 2

China&#8217;s aero defence industry is *about 2 decades ( or maybe more) ahead *of India, no doubt of that:


*India&#8217;s *best self-made aeroplane is LCA ( still far from into active service yet, if it ever will): 

Even though French helped designing LCA, with numerous key systems (engines, radar, weapon, electronics, etc) completely outsourced to the West and with decades of &#8220;learning curve&#8221;, India&#8217;s own Air chief admits that LCA still is a 3rd gen fighter, dubbed as &#8220;mig-21 plus&#8221;, a far cry from baseline 4th gen fighter like F-16 A/B. The manufacturing tech of LCA is so 60s that anyone can gauge how rough it is by just looking at LCA from the back side.

LCA is a perfect reflection India&#8217;s current technological knowhow (about 60s level if we rightfully strip its weapon, radar, engine, electronics of foreign origin) and manufacturing capabilities (the corresponding vintage: 1960s). 


Whereas *China&#8217;s *best self-made fighter is J-10B ( in service already).

J-10B is a no doubt 4+ gen by general measures, since J-10A is generally considered as mid level 4th gen beyond F-16 A/B.


*So a 3rd gen LCA VS. a 4+ gen J-10B: 2 decades gap, let alone putting J-20 into the picture.*


While I criticised J-11B and J-15&#8217;s design on the ground that SAC, or China, could have done a much better job than that, they are nonetheless a technological leap from their original Su-27 and Su-33 respectively, considering some of the key technologies inside J-11B and J-15 are about a decade and more ahead of their Su cousins. 

*Russia&#8217;s downplays Chinese J-15 fighter capabilities is disingenuous*, because compared to original Su 27 and/or Su33, China mastered, digested and copied the airframe concepts and push them forwards technologically from the inside, whereas India does not even have capabilities to comprehend the original concepts, let alone maintain, or upgrade them slightly, on its own.


*This happens not only in aero defence industry , but also in virtually all other industries.*


This is also why the West keeps boycotting China on millitary tech and all other civilian high tech, while let India purchase whatever it fancies . 

Like China, the West knows that even give India full TOT of F-18, EF, Rafale or whatever weapon or modern consumer products, Indians don&#8217;t have the brain and skills to fully understand them.

Look at a decade long India&#8217;s MMRCA &#8220;roadshow&#8221;. Can you imagine the West would let China even take a picture of a baseline F-18 or Rafale within 100 yards? 


btw, to fully understand India's sour grapes , other-worldly delusions , knee-jerking and retadred logic on the issue, I recommend this page:

http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/vi...id=0dbdd1118754b1338d0763a9fda65f83&start=760 (page 20)

 

.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## ChineseTiger1986

Speeder 2 said:


> China&#8217;s aero defence industry is *about 2 decades ( or maybe more) ahead *of India, no doubt of that:
> 
> 
> *India&#8217;s *best self-made aeroplane is LCA ( still far from into active service yet, if it ever will):
> 
> Even though French helped designing LCA, with numerous key systems (engines, radar, weapon, electronics, etc) completely outsourced to the West and with decades of &#8220;learning curve&#8221;, India&#8217;s own Air chief admits that LCA still is a 3rd gen fighter, dubbed as &#8220;mig-21 plus&#8221;, a far cry from baseline 4th gen fighter like F-16 A/B. The manufacturing tech of LCA is so 60s that anyone can gauge how rough it is by just looking at LCA from the back side.
> 
> LCA is a perfect reflection India&#8217;s current technological knowhow (about 60s level if we rightfully strip its weapon, radar, engine, electronics of foreign origin) and manufacturing capabilities (the corresponding vintage: 1960s).
> 
> 
> Whereas *China&#8217;s *best self-made fighter is J-10B ( in service already).
> 
> J-10B is a no doubt 4+ gen by general measures, since J-10A is generally considered as mid level 4th gen beyond F-16 A/B.
> 
> 
> *So a 3rd gen LCA VS. a 4+ gen J-10B: 2 decades gap, let alone putting J-20 into the picture.*
> 
> 
> While I criticised J-11B and J-15&#8217;s design on the ground that SAC, or China, could have done a much better job than that, they are nonetheless a technological leap from their original Su-27 and Su-33 respectively, considering some of the key technologies inside J-11B and J-15 are about a decade and more ahead of their Su cousins.
> 
> *Russia&#8217;s downplays Chinese J-15 fighter capabilities is disingenuous*, because compared to original Su 27 and/or Su33, China mastered, digested and copied the airframe concepts and push them forwards technologically from the inside, whereas India does not even have capabilities to comprehend the original concepts, let alone maintain, or upgrade them slightly, on its own.
> 
> 
> *This happens not only in aero defence industry , but also in virtually all other industries.*
> 
> 
> This is also why the West keeps boycotting China on millitary tech and all other civilian high tech, while let India purchase whatever it fancies .
> 
> Like China, the West knows that even give India full TOT of F-18, EF, Rafale or whatever weapon or modern consumer products, Indians don&#8217;t have the brain and skills to fully understand them.
> 
> Look at a decade long India&#8217;s MMRCA &#8220;roadshow&#8221;. Can you imagine the West would let China even take a picture of a baseline F-18 or Rafale within 100 yards?
> 
> 
> btw, to fully understand India's sour grapes , other-worldly delusions , knee-jerking and retadred logic on the issue, I recommend this page:
> 
> Bharat Rakshak &bull; View topic - China Military Watch - Jan 11, 2011 (page 20)
> 
> 
> 
> .


 
No need to take them seriously, a true capable person would never brag.


----------



## Speeder 2

ChineseTiger1986 said:


> No need to take them seriously, a true capable person would never brag.



I take them really seiously in all honesty, for the purpose of "OIS" (Off-the-chart IQ Samples). 

.


----------



## Aramsogo

Bharat Rakshak &bull; View topic - China Military Watch - Jan 11, 2011

I love this Bharat site Speeder 2. Very fun read.

My favorite quote is India is the brains, China is the brawn. Didn't realize their country achieved Luxembourg status and the LCA is super-duper and JF-17 was designed by Russians.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## MilSpec

rcrmj said:


> when you understand that why india needs to spend billions of money begging russians and isrealy to upgrade their antique fleet of mig-21, mirage-2000, mig-29, and su-30mkis and spending 10s of billions to buy ur future aircraft from Europ then you knwo why china keeps 'coying' out date Su27s
> 
> Its called the technological capability and know-how of doing certain savvy high techs which india is far way from that which demonstrated very well by your 'most' advanced LCA and other bunches``
> 
> China develops J-11B, J-15 or whatever old soviet planes are just for its air defence sake, now we are living in 21st century the technologies are ever changing with fast pace, so things happening in some countries are quite difficult for those backward countries like the shinning one to understand``got it>?



Watch you language, your lack of sense is very much evident in your post , you borrow your subsystems for russia, tinker around with it and call it indigenousness, live in that dream and your only customer will be PAF. China is ahead of India in field or aeronautics, agreed but we are trying to build on our own. Our ADA doesn't run to KNAAPO or Irbis for development. 

you can drag LCA into this as much as you like, but doesn't really change the fact that your frontline strikers are russian or russain clones


----------



## MilSpec

Aramsogo said:


> Bharat Rakshak &bull; View topic - China Military Watch - Jan 11, 2011
> 
> ...... and JF-17 was designed by Russians.


 
What about the project 33 (mig)??


----------



## applesauce

sandy_3126 said:


> Watch you language, your lack of sense is very much evident in your post , you borrow your subsystems for russia, tinker around with it and call it indigenousness, live in that dream and your only customer will be PAF. China is ahead of India in field or aeronautics, agreed but we are trying to build on our own. Our ADA doesn't run to KNAAPO or Irbis for development.
> 
> you can drag LCA into this as much as you like, but doesn't really change the fact that your frontline strikers are russian or russain clones


 
"your lack of sense is very much evident in your post "

first of all j-7's are sold all over the world as are many other things like k-8's and other arms which is far more than what i can say for your pathetic coutnry, 

secondly for all our copying we have far, far more to show for it than india has, we are superior in just about every single field and are becoming self sufficient in those field but of course with the basis that is Russian the new weapon will probably have a Russian feel to them its simply where we started from. Again much much more than what i could say for India, importing bullets anyone?

thirdly, no one is denying we had Russian help, but at least we are capable of tinkering with said system while others cant even build stuff correctly from kits let alone indigenous development, speaking of which "but we are trying to build on our own", you wanna talk about foreign component in your so call indigenous projects like simple wheels and treads?

fourthly yes strikers consist of SU-30 MKK and MK2's but also have JH-7A's and building j-20 which you couldnt do alone, not even in your wet dreams speaking of which, how many indigenous front line air unit DOES YOU COUNTRY HAVE?

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Martian2

I have finished my video on China's J-15 Flying Shark in high-definition (HD).

Like my first J-20 video with 64,573 views, I thanked all of you (my fellow military enthusiasts) at the end of the video. Also, I have once again included the address for this forum to recruit new members.

I hope you like my new video. Peace.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Transgress

sandy_3126 said:


> Watch you language, your lack of sense is very much evident in your post , you borrow your subsystems for russia, tinker around with it and call it indigenousness, live in that dream and your only customer will be PAF. China is ahead of India in field or aeronautics, agreed but we are trying to build on our own. Our ADA doesn't run to KNAAPO or Irbis for development.
> 
> you can drag LCA into this as much as you like, but doesn't really change the fact that your frontline strikers are russian or russain clones


 Your entire airforce is Russian, and most of your army's equipment is foreign. Stop making yourself look stupid and stop this pointless flame war. IT ALWAYS TURNS OUT LIKE THIS

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Martian2

"Except for airframe design, the J-15 Flying Shark uses 100% Chinese technologies." (Quote is from the description section for my video on China's J-15 Flying Shark.)

To learn more, please watch my new HD video. Thank you.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## misty

Why dont China make their own weapons instead of just copying other countries? Makes them look stupid.


----------



## Obambam

misty said:


> Why dont China make their own weapons instead of just copying other countries? Makes them look stupid.


 
It is more stupid not to be self reliant and depending heavily on imports. 
When the world shows so much concern and attention to China's military and economy. That is a sign that they are doing things correctly and is on the right path

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## darkhero

misty said:


> Why dont China make their own weapons instead of just copying other countries? Makes them look stupid.



how do you know it is just a copy? Your comment is pretty stupid indeed.

BTW, China's UN patent filings is ten times more than India's. Before you say china only copy no invention.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Obambam

darkhero said:


> how do you know it is just a copy? Your comment is pretty stupid indeed.
> 
> BTW, China's UN patent filings is ten times more than India's. Before you say china only copy no invention.


 
Don't bother brother. Can't stop people hitting the wall where the light don't shine. 
Just let them belief that they are exact or inferior copies. 
With China's present economy we cannot afford to buy better equipments therefore resort to making inferior copies makes perfect sense


----------



## localoca

aimarraul said:


> be patient ,guys.J-15 is only provisional programme,SAC will roll out their 5th gen jet soon enough



True that...

but even as a stop gap, the J-15 its a Chinese Made High tech marvel...

I am sure it will incorporate all of the 1-11B goodies like advansed Composite materials to reduce RCS and weight, AESA, High Tech avionics

I think a Mature J-15 its>>Rafale


----------



## Akasa

Martian2 said:


> "Except for airframe design, the J-15 Flying Shark uses 100% Chinese technologies." (Quote is from the description section for my video on China's J-15 Flying Shark.)
> 
> To learn more, please watch my new HD video. Thank you.


 
Nice pictures, but here are a few things:

By the time Chinese carrier battle groups are deployed, they will be most likely escorted by the much newer Type 052D or Type 051D destroyers, with supplements of the improved Type 054B frigates. Underwater escorts will most likely be the Type 039.

The Varyag won't be part of a carrier battle group since it is only a training carrier.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Akasa

localoca said:


> True that...
> 
> but even as a stop gap, the J-15 its a Chinese Made High tech marvel...
> 
> I am sure it will incorporate all of the 1-11B goodies like advansed Composite materials to reduce RCS and weight, AESA, High Tech avionics
> 
> I think a Mature J-15 its>>Rafale


 
A military commentator said in an interview that the J-15 at its moment is equivalent to the Super Hornet, Rafale-M, and Eurofighter Typhoon, like the J-11B. He also commented that the J-15 might be getting TVC engines in the future.


----------



## localoca

I say, Let the Russians downplay China all they want... J-20 and many other 5th Gen projects have already prove them wrong. 



misty said:


> Why dont China make their own weapons instead of just copying other countries?


 China doesnt, China take their(Russian) half attempt and make them even better...J-11B comes to mind...:

Now take a look at the below pics and tell me who wishes to copy who..


teddy said:


> another sweet look of J20....it is soooo evill!!!





houshanghai said:


> j20 have EODAS 360 degree spherical situational awareness system (F35)








The last pic its How a 5th Gen High Tech UFO looking Fighter Should NOT look like... you should thank Russian inferior craftmanship


----------



## peaceful

haywards said:


> chill man...there is no hidden fact that Chinese are good in reverse engineering...copy from here and there and little bit implement own ideas..
> and in the end u'll get the prdct..no matter how and from where it comes...
> Creativity is all about hiding ur source..


 
can I ask where did your nation get the "democratic system" that completely failed your nation? copied from UK? 
ah. I see the point. 

secondly, what india loser air force is going to do if we use such J-15 "copies" to attack your capital? crying hard that we should not use such clones to kill your men?


----------



## HROBOS

localoca said:


> I say, Let the Russians downplay China all they want... J-20 and many other 5th Gen projects have already prove them wrong.
> 
> China doesnt, China take their(Russian) half attempt and make them even better...J-11B comes to mind...:
> 
> Now take a look at the below pics and tell me who wishes to copy who..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The last pic its How a 5th Gen High Tech UFO looking Fighter Should NOT look like... you should thank Russian inferior craftmanship



You got me finished off the image. Not a single normal forum, it is no longer relevant. You're either behind the times, or trying to shove known dead number. If you want I'll give you address the forum.


----------



## tanlixiang28776

HROBOS said:


> You got me finished off the image. Not a single normal forum, it is no longer relevant. You're either behind the times, or trying to shove known dead number. If you want I'll give you address the forum.


 
Ignore it dude.


----------



## localoca

HROBOS said:


> You got me finished off the image.





aimarraul said:


>



DSI stealth intakes, when you Russians Boys learn how to do this(will takes decades) you can call that silent flanker a 5th gen...

go China Go...


----------



## HROBOS

localoca said:


> DSI stealth intakes, when you Russians Boys learn how to do this(will takes decades) you can call that silent flanker a 5th gen...
> 
> go China Go...


 
Not surprised.
Every normal man must be proud of their country. The main thing is not divorced from reality.
At the expense of Russia do not worry. You another ten years to create what we believe is now outdated.
China a few years will try to manufacture engines for the Russian technology. During this time, Russia will create Next generation engines. China not to see these engines as their ears.


----------



## tanlixiang28776

HROBOS said:


> Not surprised.
> Every normal man must be proud of their country. The main thing is not divorced from reality.
> At the expense of Russia do not worry. You another ten years to create what we believe is now outdated.
> China a few years will try to manufacture engines for the Russian technology. During this time, Russia will create Next generation engines. China not to see these engines as their ears.


 
Well its not even his country. 

As for engines the WS 15 is a 5th gen jet. Russia is also trying to build a fifth gen jet. 

So lets wait and see who gets there first.


----------



## below_freezing

HROBOS said:


> Not surprised.
> Every normal man must be proud of their country. The main thing is not divorced from reality.
> At the expense of Russia do not worry. You another ten years to create what we believe is now outdated.
> China a few years will try to manufacture engines for the Russian technology. During this time, Russia will create Next generation engines. China not to see these engines as their ears.


 
Typical white mentality. No one can surpass whites. If they do its because they copied whites. 

But there are some things you should understand.

Russia cannot even make its own shoes. It cannot even make its own name brand cars. Russia is one of the largest oil/gas producing nations yet its chemical industry is microscopic - this means you are not even refining your oil/gas, just selling crude. Russian civil aviation has been banned from several countries because of its appalling safety record, while Air China is one of the safest airlines in the world.

Yes, you're ahead in the engines. That's fine. We admit it. You won't be ahead forever, and you're behind in everything else.


----------



## HROBOS

below_freezing said:


> Typical white mentality. No one can surpass whites. If they do its because they copied whites.
> 
> But there are some things you should understand.
> 
> Russia cannot even make its own shoes. It cannot even make its own name brand cars. Russia is one of the largest oil/gas producing nations yet its chemical industry is microscopic - this means you are not even refining your oil/gas, just selling crude. Russian civil aviation has been banned from several countries because of its appalling safety record, while Air China is one of the safest airlines in the world.
> 
> Yes, you're ahead in the engines. That's fine. We admit it. You won't be ahead forever, and you're behind in everything else.



I'm from the European part of Russia. Shoes prefer to buy Russian-made car is better than the Russian-made Chinese, the Chinese plane, I just do not sit down. Two years ago the company where I worked received a large order. Since the AC had been engaged in the production of other products of the components was assigned to Chinese companies. Together with the drawings in details were sent messages fixtures and measurer. Production technology of data items has already been worked out and no one imagined nor any complications. Tokarnaya work for example, those who understand was at the third level. Imagine our surprise when we were not able to collect a single set. Do not get carried away by propaganda.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## tanlixiang28776

HROBOS said:


> I'm from the European part of Russia. Shoes prefer to buy Russian-made car is better than the Russian-made Chinese, the Chinese plane, I just do not sit down. Two years ago the company where I worked received a large order. Since the AC had been engaged in the production of other products of the components was assigned to Chinese companies. Together with the drawings in details were sent messages fixtures and measurer. Production technology of data items has already been worked out and no one imagined nor any complications. Tokarnaya work for example, those who understand was at the third level. Imagine our surprise when we were not able to collect a single set. Do not get carried away by propaganda.


 
Funny how you can not name any specific Chinese brand or company.

But here are some facts on car sales

http://oica.net/category/production-statistics/

As for airplane components we have final assembly lines. What civil planes does Russia sell anyways

http://www.airbus.com/company/worldwide-presence/airbus-in-china/

Propaganda? Even we hail Russians as the forerunner for that.

Try some sources. It might make you seem credible.....or not.


----------



## localoca

My work here is done... I will leave for now


----------



## S10

Problem with Russia is its lack of funds and its economic structure. The collapse of Soviet Union severely weakened its military, and research institutes within that military-industrial complex suffered. It was not until 2002 that the Russia economy slightly recovered. The problem with this recovery was that it was driven by exporting natural resources such as oil and natural gas. 

From a manufacturing perspective, Russian products cannot compete with the high-end stuff from Japan, Europe and North America. On the lower end, it doesn't have the competitive advantage of China. This caused Russian industries to be snuffed out and marginalized on the world market. Because of a shrinking industrial base, it has to depend more on natural resources to make up the income. The problem with that, is that prices are subject to speculation and these resources are finite. Putin talked big about how he planned to strengthen the Russian military when oil/natural gas was at an all time high before 2008 economic crisis. Sadly, the economic crisis hit oil/natural gas prices especially hard, and sent Russia back to the bottom.

Now not to knock on Putin, he did a good job taking the wealth back from the oligarches back to the state, but he did not/could not fundamentally change Russia's economic structure. Certainly Russia will remain a strong regional power, but that's about as high as it can go.


----------



## desimorty

> Problem with Russia is its lack of funds and its economic structure. The collapse of Soviet Union severely weakened its military, and research institutes within that military-industrial complex suffered. It was not until 2002 that the Russia economy slightly recovered. The problem with this recovery was that it was driven by exporting natural resources such as oil and natural gas.
> 
> From a manufacturing perspective, Russian products cannot compete with the high-end stuff from Japan, Europe and North America. On the lower end, it doesn't have the competitive advantage of China. This caused Russian industries to be snuffed out and marginalized on the world market. Because of a shrinking industrial base, it has to depend more on natural resources to make up the income. The problem with that, is that prices are subject to speculation and these resources are finite. Putin talked big about how he planned to strengthen the Russian military when oil/natural gas was at an all time high before 2008 economic crisis. Sadly, the economic crisis hit oil/natural gas prices especially hard, and sent Russia back to the bottom.
> 
> Now not to knock on Putin, he did a good job taking the wealth back from the oligarches back to the state, but he did not/could not fundamentally change Russia's economic structure. Certainly Russia will remain a strong regional power, but that's about as high as it can go.


i disagree.
the russians do have a large portion of the arms market.
the largest arms suppliers have purchased Russian, even China. Su-27, S-300, and so on for license production.
i think, they will have the arms market, certain areas for a while especially for industries the firms that have survived because they have an edge.
Twin engine fighter jets<---su-27/30
Tanks<----t-90 is 2 to 3 and has same dimension of t-72
missile systems<---s-300 which has made large sales and has become competitive in terms of price

know while the Su-27 airframe is old, it has massive potential to grow. with the new engines, it can super-cruise and bring it near or on par with the euro fighters.
the t-90, is of course a dead struggle, but a tanks a tank. and this one is competitive. its only competitor is the AK and T-84's from Ukraine. However, the Soviet, research has been applied and it keeps on seeing upgrades. Production is also cheap as well, not to mention maintenance. 

As far a civilian market is concerned, the Russians, have just recently started competing in it. I know a few firms, that have made a reputation for them selves in services to Europe. The Soviet skills training paid off. Especially in heavy manufacturing of steal etc..


----------



## below_freezing

HROBOS said:


> I'm from the European part of Russia. Shoes prefer to buy Russian-made car is better than the Russian-made Chinese, the Chinese plane, I just do not sit down. Two years ago the company where I worked received a large order. Since the AC had been engaged in the production of other products of the components was assigned to Chinese companies. Together with the drawings in details were sent messages fixtures and measurer. Production technology of data items has already been worked out and no one imagined nor any complications. Tokarnaya work for example, those who understand was at the third level. Imagine our surprise when we were not able to collect a single set. Do not get carried away by propaganda.


 
Get off any Airbus and Boeing plane then. We make critical structural components for both.

Russian made car has high tech optical stealth maybe, no one can see it. Russia doesn't make shoes. Even in the Soviet days Russia could barely make shoes, why do you think Russia can suddenly make shoes now? In heavy industry, your carrier shipyards are all in Ukraine, your civil shipping industry is microscopic, your semiconductor industry is microscopic, your steel/chemical/automotive industries are microscopic, your software industry is pretty much nonexistent. It's a joke that Russia has some of the most farmland in the world and lowest population density in the world but still imports food. Without finance, arms and oil, where would Russia be? Even armaments, China dropped to 13th largest importer for 4 years in a row, you can only sell to undeveloped countries now and you'll be competing with us in that market.

No more propaganda, let's just be glad to respect each other and have each other as neighbors.


----------



## scuthan

HROBOS said:


> I'm from the European part of Russia. Shoes prefer to buy Russian-made car is better than the Russian-made Chinese, the Chinese plane, I just do not sit down. Two years ago the company where I worked received a large order. Since the AC had been engaged in the production of other products of the components was assigned to Chinese companies. Together with the drawings in details were sent messages fixtures and measurer. Production technology of data items has already been worked out and no one imagined nor any complications. Tokarnaya work for example, those who understand was at the third level. Imagine our surprise when we were not able to collect a single set. Do not get carried away by propaganda.



are you using a online translator or something?


----------



## HROBOS

scuthan said:


> are you using a online translator or something?


 
I studied German. Yes I'm using online translator. Also use double-check other dictionaries. Errors can occur. Apologize in advance.


----------



## Anonymous user

HROBOS said:


> I studied German. Yes I'm using online translator. Also use double-check other dictionaries. Errors can occur. Apologize in advance.


 

Why the apologies mate, your explaining your position in a language thats foreign to yourself. Its commendable


----------



## S10

jatt said:


> i disagree.
> the russians do have a large portion of the arms market.
> the largest arms suppliers have purchased Russian, even China. Su-27, S-300, and so on for license production.
> i think, they will have the arms market, certain areas for a while especially for industries the firms that have survived because they have an edge.
> Twin engine fighter jets<---su-27/30
> Tanks<----t-90 is 2 to 3 and has same dimension of t-72
> missile systems<---s-300 which has made large sales and has become competitive in terms of price
> 
> know while the Su-27 airframe is old, it has massive potential to grow. with the new engines, it can super-cruise and bring it near or on par with the euro fighters.
> the t-90, is of course a dead struggle, but a tanks a tank. and this one is competitive. its only competitor is the AK and T-84's from Ukraine. However, the Soviet, research has been applied and it keeps on seeing upgrades. Production is also cheap as well, not to mention maintenance.
> 
> As far a civilian market is concerned, the Russians, have just recently started competing in it. I know a few firms, that have made a reputation for them selves in services to Europe. The Soviet skills training paid off. Especially in heavy manufacturing of steal etc..


You have absolutely no understanding of economy do you?

Military R&D requires significant resources, both human and financial. Arms sale to foreign buyers cannot recuperate all resources you've devoted back, since those demands are only a niche market compared to civilian goods. In another words, military hardware sales are tiny when you put things into perspective. Take the largest defence deal in Indian history, MMRCA for example. It is nothing compared to the volume of trade of say computer or software market. Citing a export of tanks and planes do not save Russia from the fundamental flaws in its economic structure. It's like saying you're fine because you have a nice sofa when your entire house is worn down.

You also make the same error when you are talking about Russian companies. Just because several of them might be successful inside/outside its borders, it does not elevate Russia out of the difficult situation it is in. Russian industrial capacity crumbled and has yet to find its footing. It seems that you are incapable of looking at the big picture. On the global scale, Russian econoy gets squeezed a little bit more each year.

The Soviet Union glorious days are gone and Russia is not even a shell of its former self. Accept it.


----------



## HROBOS

below_freezing said:


> Get off any Airbus and Boeing plane then. We make critical structural components for both.
> 
> Russian made car has high tech optical stealth maybe, no one can see it. Russia doesn't make shoes. Even in the Soviet days Russia could barely make shoes, why do you think Russia can suddenly make shoes now? In heavy industry, your carrier shipyards are all in Ukraine, your civil shipping industry is microscopic, your semiconductor industry is microscopic, your steel/chemical/automotive industries are microscopic, your software industry is pretty much nonexistent. It's a joke that Russia has some of the most farmland in the world and lowest population density in the world but still imports food. Without finance, arms and oil, where would Russia be? Even armaments, China dropped to 13th largest importer for 4 years in a row, you can only sell to undeveloped countries now and you'll be competing with us in that market.
> 
> No more propaganda, let's just be glad to respect each other and have each other as neighbors.


 


Russia produces a range of components for Airbus and Boeing. The Soviet Union could overwhelm footwear and textiles all of China. Problem of a shortage has been associated with planning. Companies exist today. Products produced mainly for domestic market. At the minimum of its power but it works. The main competitor for them are not Chinese goods, and an underground Russian production (using the cheap labor of the working people from Central Asia). For example, I can buy cheap Chinese shoes and carry them from 3 to 6 months (summer or winter season). Or I'll pay three times more expensive and buy Russian shoes and will wear them for five years. Shipyards are scattered throughout the country. Russia to sell grain for export. Science base as it was and remains. All the problems of the Russian economy is not that we have something we can not produce. The problem is that our government is not interested in production in Russia. Missing petrodollars, while imports officials can make good money. The backbone of Soviet science and industry has been saved. Muscle increase is not long. We live with you like on different planets. The more you write to me about Russia the more I am convinced of your ignorance on the subject.


----------



## below_freezing

HROBOS said:


> Russia produces a range of components for Airbus and Boeing. The Soviet Union could overwhelm footwear and textiles all of China. Problem of a shortage has been associated with planning. Companies exist today. Products produced mainly for domestic market. At the minimum of its power but it works. The main competitor for them are not Chinese goods, and an underground Russian production (using the cheap labor of the working people from Central Asia). For example, I can buy cheap Chinese shoes and carry them from 3 to 6 months (summer or winter season). Or I'll pay three times more expensive and buy Russian shoes and will wear them for five years. Shipyards are scattered throughout the country. Russia to sell grain for export. Science base as it was and remains. All the problems of the Russian economy is not that we have something we can not produce. The problem is that our government is not interested in production in Russia. Missing petrodollars, while imports officials can make good money. The backbone of Soviet science and industry has been saved. Muscle increase is not long. We live with you like on different planets. The more you write to me about Russia the more I am convinced of your ignorance on the subject.


 
Then point out 1 top 10 Russian chemical company - you can't. But I can point to 3 Chinese ones. Sinopec, Petrochina, Formosa Petrochemicals.

Then point out 1 top 8 Russian steel producer - you can't. But I can point to 3 Chinese ones.

Then point out 1 top 20 Russian integrated circuit foundry - you can't. But I can point to 7 Chinese ones.

Then point to the total number of patents in Russia - you can't, it's lower than China's.

Then point to the total number of scientific publications in Russia - you can't, it's still lower than China.

Then point to the citation rate per scientific article - you still can't, it's still lower than China's.

Russia just imported grain: UPDATE 1-Russia grain imports to soar in 2010/11-analysts | Reuters

Stop believing your nationalist propaganda. Wake up. Russian society cannot advance because of people like you. No matter how good China is doing, there are always people warning of crisis ahead. Russians would rather bury their head in the sand. This leads to individual high self esteem but national backwards.

I've worn Chinese shoes for 3 years btw.


----------



## rcrmj

below_freezing said:


> .
> 
> Then point to the total number of patents in Russia - you can't, it's lower than China's.
> 
> Then point to the total number of scientific publications in Russia - you can't, it's still lower than China.
> 
> Then point to the citation rate per scientific article - you still can't, it's still lower than China's.
> 
> I've worn Chinese shoes for 3 years btw.


 
Mate they dont check real statistics, in terms of patent Russia is in no where can compare to china`

In 2010 china recieved over 12,000 patents from international Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT), ranked 4th after U.S, Japan and Germany, Russia was not in top 15s, Spain ranked at 15th with 1,725 patents``so you can guess roughly how many russia got ``


----------



## rcrmj

HROBOS said:


> Russia produces a range of components for Airbus and Boeing. The Soviet Union could overwhelm footwear and textiles all of China. Problem of a shortage has been associated with planning. Companies exist today. Products produced mainly for domestic market. At the minimum of its power but it works. The main competitor for them are not Chinese goods, and an underground Russian production (using the cheap labor of the working people from Central Asia). For example, I can buy cheap Chinese shoes and carry them from 3 to 6 months (summer or winter season). Or I'll pay three times more expensive and buy Russian shoes and will wear them for five years. Shipyards are scattered throughout the country. Russia to sell grain for export. Science base as it was and remains. All the problems of the Russian economy is not that we have something we can not produce. The problem is that our government is not interested in production in Russia. Missing petrodollars, while imports officials can make good money. The backbone of Soviet science and industry has been saved. Muscle increase is not long. We live with you like on different planets. The more you write to me about Russia the more I am convinced of your ignorance on the subject.


 
mate``in your earlier posts you said never let propaganda to speak, but in this posts we can find a lot of stereotypes. I am in fashion industry for at least 6 years now`never come across a single reputable russian brand or manufacture, the only thing russia is good at is the raw material, but none of any major fashion house will outsource in russia because it is just not the place to make good quality and stylish clothes.

but i can name any of major fashion houses like Louis Vuitton, Dior, Chanel, D&G, Desquared2`````are all having contracted factories in china`the fact most people dont know is that those brands have their most things made in china and ship them to Italy and then put 'made in italy' lable on it so the customer will pay the premium price for that 'made in italy' but actually 'made in china' products`this is how fashion industry works nowadays my friend. But I believe that applies to almost very other industries.

we all know russia was the teacher to china in many areas, but nowadays we can see a lot of russian still have that mentality that china still needs russia's guide on 'everything', the perfect example was when J-20 first appeared some so-called russia 'epxperts' they down played it with no solid ground but sheer stereotypes which made they not even to use common aerodynamic and aviation knowledge to judge a plane,.

and also you argument that russia is not good in production is because the russia government is not interested in production is absolutely hideous. not one major country on planet would give up manufacturing sector, it is simpily an inseparable part of a nation's economy, its like saying I want a computer but without a screen`!! 

in terms of science of technology is not something that you can save, its called development of science and technology. Soviet science and technology edge was long gone, russia cant have that edge just by 'saving' old soviet science and technology. those top technologies 30 years ago were antiques by todays standards. 

so i really suggest you to use ignorance carefully when you are absent with the knowledge of economy and science and technology development`

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## HROBOS

below_freezing said:


> Then point out 1 top 10 Russian chemical company - you can't. But I can point to 3 Chinese ones. Sinopec, Petrochina, Formosa Petrochemicals.
> 
> Then point out 1 top 8 Russian steel producer - you can't. But I can point to 3 Chinese ones.
> 
> Then point out 1 top 20 Russian integrated circuit foundry - you can't. But I can point to 7 Chinese ones.
> 
> Then point to the total number of patents in Russia - you can't, it's lower than China's.
> 
> Then point to the total number of scientific publications in Russia - you can't, it's still lower than China.
> 
> Then point to the citation rate per scientific article - you still can't, it's still lower than China's.
> 
> Russia just imported grain: UPDATE 1-Russia grain imports to soar in 2010/11-analysts | Reuters
> 
> Stop believing your nationalist propaganda. Wake up. Russian society cannot advance because of people like you. No matter how good China is doing, there are always people warning of crisis ahead. Russians would rather bury their head in the sand. This leads to individual high self esteem but national backwards.
> 
> I've worn Chinese shoes for 3 years btw.



1. Able.
2. Do.
This is not the same thing.
For example, I have the opportunity to Naham. However, I will not do it. If you're trying to convince me that China can produce what can Russia do you have not convinced me.
If you're trying to convince me that China has made greater contributions to world science than Russia. Not persuaded.
If you think that I was not able to click a few keys on your keyboard to find me interesting document. You're wrong.
If you think that my only purpose in life is a dispute with the Chinese comrades. You're wrong.
Before you accuse someone of nationalism and analyze their text.
I do not mean that either against China. However, quite disgusting to watch how some Chinese comrades to throw mud at the country. Which owes its prosperity.
China has one but very important advantage over Russia. This is a sane government.
All other disputes are meaningless.
I wrote was just a response to not a few statements.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## below_freezing

Juice said:


> I have known plenty of smart Chinks, why do they always copy? I assume it is to leapfrog and save the R&D time and expense?



you don't know anything about RD or copying. but that's expected. most pales that talk sh@t don't know anything about science.


----------



## Kyusuibu Honbu

Juice said:


> I have known plenty of smart Chinks, why do they always copy? I assume it is to leapfrog and save the R&D time and expense?


 
If USA obtains some Nazi/Soviet technology and develops it,its called an intelligence and scientific triumph,but if some non-western nation does it,its called _copying_ ,eh?

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## below_freezing

Syama Ayas said:


> If USA obtains some Nazi/Soviet technology and develops it,its called an intelligence and scientific triumph,but if some non-western nation does it,its called _copying_ ,eh?


 
Yes. Didn't you know that? Another unwritten rule is whites can bang women of all colors and anyone complaining is a hardcore racist but when africans and latins bang whites, they organize lynch mobs.

Also, anything Chinese is 100% fake and copied, because whites have alien technology that puny non white brains cannot possibly comprehend 

That's why US "borrowing" Nazi/Soviet ideas is fine because they're all whites and whites understand white technology. Coloreds can never understand the white man's alien technology!


----------



## Juice

Not double-posting does seem to tax me though...


----------



## Juice

I certainly know the difference between reverse engineering and copying...NONE! We did copy German tech after the war...but some how managed to have an ocasional original thought and design! As far as my scientific knowledge..I will put it up against any of you 16 year old "experts." And what the heck is an IQ81 diapers nigger, something you guys eat in Thailand?


----------



## Juice

PS..I do understand the reason for reverse engineering, we would if we could also...saves time and money, the other guy pays the R&D!


----------



## rcrmj

Juice said:


> I certainly know the difference between reverse engineering and copying...NONE! We did copy German tech after the war...but some how managed to have an ocasional original thought and design! As far as my scientific knowledge..I will put it up against any of you 16 year old "experts." And what the heck is an IQ81 diapers nigger, something you guys eat in Thailand?


 
the scientific knowledge definitely is not something you can grasp based on your moronic posts, tell me what is the difference of copying and reverse engineering 'expert'?


----------



## Akasa

Juice said:


> *I certainly know the difference between reverse engineering and copying...NONE! *We did copy German tech after the war...but some how managed to have an ocasional original thought and design! As far as my scientific knowledge..I will put it up against any of you 16 year old "experts." And what the heck is an IQ81 diapers nigger, something you guys eat in Thailand?


 
Then we certainly know the difference between your "scientific knowledge" and ignorant bullsh!t... NONE!

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Juice

rcrmj said:


> the scientific knowledge definitely is not something you can grasp based on your moronic posts, tell me what is the difference of copying and reverse engineering 'expert'?


 
Lol, how many different ways are there to say none?


----------



## Juice

But I am always willing to learn....please explain the difference between reverse engineering and copying...


----------



## Juice

The Russians did not copy the B-29, they reversed engineered it. BIG difference


----------



## rcrmj

Juice said:


> The Russians did not copy the B-29, they reversed engineered it. BIG difference


 
still waiting for your 'expert' answer on the difference between reverse enginering and copy? an essay if you needed to spill out your ingenious knowledge``


----------



## teddy

Someone made a exactly same thing is reversed enginering, and chinese people made a J20 which had some indentical to general 5th generation fighter is copy, eventhought it had contain inovative.

I found a new word...."reverse engineering cat"


----------



## Juice

rcrmj said:


> still waiting for your 'expert' answer on the difference between reverse enginering and copy? an essay if you needed to spill out your ingenious knowledge``


 
One more time, here is my essay on the difference. Now say it with me slowly, have some one help you sound out the big words......NONE


----------



## TEXAS BATTLESTAR

Juice said:


> But I am always willing to learn....please explain the difference between reverse engineering and copying...


 
Copying is doing something that is already there to trace it, meanwhile reverse engineering (started by Compaq computers back in the '70s) is to produce something without the aid of the actual thing to trace or complete it, in other words replicate it by whatever sources available. A good analogy of this would be a skill artist can copy a Rembrandt painting because the tools to doing it are less complex (brush, knife, paint, and canvas), meanwhile a great engineer can't simply copy a high tech item because the various complex difficult computer codes, electronics, science and tons of testing that needs to be acquaint with the technology. I hope I basically answered everyone's questions about this subject, that's just IMO.


----------



## Juice

Something has to already be there to reverse engineer it also...so not buying it.

(PS where in Texas are you?)


----------



## ptldM3

localoca said:


> The last pic its How a 5th Gen High Tech UFO looking Fighter Should NOT look like... *you should thank Russian inferior craftmanship*



What Chinese craftsmanship are you referring to? If Russian craftsmanship is inferior than why does China still purchase and use Russian technology, too this very day?. China that still uses and imports Russian seekers, engines, helicopters and more. 



localoca said:


> DSI stealth intakes, when you Russians Boys learn how to do this(will takes decades) you can call that silent flanker a 5th gen...
> 
> go China Go...



 some one speculated on the J-20's DSI and you actually bought it. Firstly the animation doesnt make any sense from the stand point that a big blob is seen moving yet how it is supposed to operate is not shown; secondly if Russian can produce complex systems such as engines and TVC that are clearly better to anything China has that it can create a retractable DSI, which by-the-way it has had on the Mig-23, so youre only about 40 years too late.

But your biggest embarrassment is calling the DSI intake stealthy. It is not, if we assume the J-20 has such a system than we know it will have seems, and moving panels which contribute to RCS. If the J-20 does have a retractable DSI it is only there to increase the efficiency of airflow into the engine. There are several reasons for this which may include one or all of the following: restricted airflow do to the serpentine intake, inadequate trust, partially exposed compressors or a desire for better efficiency at a possible sacrifice of rcs.

I have explained the science behind stealth but you do not understand, so here is something simple for you do understand:

http://www.afa.org/Mitchell/Reports/MS_RadarGame_0910.pdf

As one Lockheed F&#8209;117
engineer put it, We couldnt allow even the tiniest imperfection
in the fit of the landing gear door, for example, that
could triple the airplanes RCS if it wasnt precisely flush
with the body.[/QUOTE]




below_freezing said:


> Typical white mentality. *No one can surpass whites*. If they do its because they copied whites.




Likewise no one surpasses Chinese because of their super high IQ.




below_freezing said:


> Russia cannot even make its own shoes. It cannot even make its own name brand cars.





Stop making a fool out of yourself, Russia has been making its own shoes and cars for decades. But wait, let me guess your next cheap shot tactic will be to have me prove if Russia has a top automobile or shoe company. 




below_freezing said:


> Russian civil aviation has been banned from several countries because of its appalling safety record, while Air China is one of the safest airlines in the world.





And you have a link for this? Most crashes that involved "Russian" aircraft were actually Ukrainian. And please do realize, Air China does not use any Chinese aircraft.  





below_freezing said:


> Yes, you're ahead in the engines. That's fine. We admit it. You won't be ahead forever, and you're behind in everything else.




This comment is so obsured, so vague and so childish that a response to such a comment is not worth my time.



tanlixiang28776 said:


> What civil planes does Russia sell anyways



The Sukhoi 100.



localoca said:


> My work here is done... I will leave for now





Dont let door hit your rear end on the way out. 







below_freezing said:


> Get off any Airbus and Boeing plane then. We make critical structural components for both.




You are used for cheap labor, it is Boeing that has a design office in Russia. 



below_freezing said:


> Russian made car has high tech optical stealth maybe, no one can see it. Russia doesn't make shoes. Even in the Soviet days Russia could barely make shoes, why do you think Russia can suddenly make shoes now? In heavy industry, your carrier shipyards are all in Ukraine, your civil shipping industry is microscopic, your semiconductor industry is microscopic, your steel/chemical/automotive industries are microscopic, your software industry is pretty much nonexistent. It's a joke that Russia has some of the most farmland in the world and lowest population density in the world but still imports food. Without finance, arms and oil, where would Russia be? Even armaments, China dropped to 13th largest importer for 4 years in a row, you can only sell to undeveloped countries now and you'll be competing with us in that market.




Russia does make shoes, there is nothing special or complex about a shoes, and as for Russia's semiconductor industry being 'nonexistent', that is funny considering China still imports military electronics and asks Russia to help in radar and seeker development. Either Chinese semiconductor industries arent as good as you think they are or Russia's are better than you think they are, and please do not confuse biggest civilian companies to the most cutting edge companies, that may or may not be know to the civil market.




below_freezing said:


> Then point out 1 top 10 Russian chemical company - you can't. But I can point to 3 Chinese ones. Sinopec, Petrochina, Formosa Petrochemicals.
> 
> Then point out 1 top 8 Russian steel producer - you can't. But I can point to 3 Chinese ones.
> 
> Then point out 1 top 20 Russian integrated circuit foundry - you can't. But I can point to 7 Chinese ones.
> 
> Then point to the total number of patents in Russia - you can't, it's lower than China's.
> 
> Then point to the total number of scientific publications in Russia - you can't, it's still lower than China.
> 
> Then point to the citation rate per scientific article - you still can't, it's still lower than China's.
> 
> Russia just imported grain: UPDATE 1-Russia grain imports to soar in 2010/11-analysts | Reuters
> 
> Stop believing your nationalist propaganda. Wake up. Russian society cannot advance because of people like you. No matter how good China is doing, there are always people warning of crisis ahead. Russians would rather bury their head in the sand. This leads to individual high self esteem but national backwards.
> 
> I've worn Chinese shoes for 3 years btw.



This is a pathetic argument, picking and choosing? I'm not surprised, you were the same one that claimed Russia can not produce ships because they are not a top steel producing country, this was just moronic considering the US is not the biggest steel producer yet has the largest navy. The Philippines also does not have a large steel industry yet they are known for their large civil shipbuilding capacity. As I explained before many scientific publications and patents are totally worthless, they can include everything from anxiety studies to a better condom. If we take Israel, for example, we can see that it is nowhere near the US or China in many aspects such as scientific publications, or semiconductor industry yet Israel's technology is, and Im sorry, light-years ahead of China, at least in many military fields. I also found it interesting that you felt that Russia importing grain was somehow a sign of weakness or a sign of a failing country. Because China has never imported grain? Or oil? Or coal? Or electronics? Or military hardware?

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## below_freezing

Lol give me 1 time in the past 3 years China has imported Russian electronics. How many times has Russia imported Chinese electronics?  Stop joking Stalin. No one believes your Russian propaganda anymore. No wonder the USSR fell to CIA propaganda, no one believes your sh*t besides yourself.

Arms industry - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In 2009, China has imported less military products than the US! Will this trend reverse? Hell no, it hasn't reversed since 2005, why would it reverse now?

There is no Russian electronics company that can compare to SMIC, Huawei or ZTE. Not in revenue and not in terms of patents.

Foundry model - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

18 CR Micro (1) People's Republic of ChinaChina - 143
Others 140

China's ZTE aims for top 3 in telecom gear | Reuters

Huawei becomes world's number two telecom company by revenue

Huawei Became Top International Patent Seeker in 2008

Huawei | VisitCHN

Also, what you said about scientific publications may be true, but the US is far more guilty of publishing psychology and medical articles for boosting numbers. For numbers in physical sciences and engineering:

SJR - International Science Ranking

China #1 in chemical engineering

SJR - International Science Ranking

#1 in Chemistry

SJR - International Science Ranking

13th in soft areas like Health Science!

SJR - International Science Ranking

2nd in soft areas like Biochemistry but only half that of the US!

You really expect us to believe Russia has alien technology when it can't publish scientific articles about it and can't get patents for it?


----------



## ptldM3

below_freezing said:


> QUOTE]
> 
> Lol give me 1 time in the past 3 years China has imported Russian electronics. Stop joking Stalin. No one believes your Russian propaganda anymore. No wonder the USSR fell to CIA propaganda, no one believes your sh*t besides yourself.
> 
> Arms industry - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> In 2009, China has imported less military products than the US! Will this trend reverse? Hell no, it hasn't reversed since 2005, why would it reverse now?
> 
> There is no Russian electronics company that can compare to SMIC, Huawei or ZTE. Not in revenue and not in terms of patents.
> 
> Foundry model - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 18 CR Micro (1) People's Republic of ChinaChina - 143
> Others 140
> 
> China's ZTE aims for top 3 in telecom gear | Reuters
> 
> Huawei becomes world's number two telecom company by revenue
> 
> Huawei Became Top International Patent Seeker in 2008
> 
> Huawei | VisitCHN
> 
> Also, what you said about scientific publications may be true, but the US is far more guilty of publishing psychology and medical articles for boosting numbers. For numbers in physical sciences and engineering:
> 
> SJR - International Science Ranking
> 
> China #1 in chemical engineering
> 
> SJR - International Science Ranking
> 
> #1 in Chemistry
> 
> SJR - International Science Ranking
> 
> 13th in soft areas like Health Science!
> 
> SJR - International Science Ranking
> 
> 2nd in soft areas like Biochemistry but only half that of the US!


 
Stop making a fool out of yourself with posting a bunch of vague crap. As stated before none of your junk is relevant. Your argument about steel production and shipbuilding was irrelevant and the above arguments are irrelevant. Semi conductor industries making top revenue does not equate into producing the most cutting edge technologies. Without China's massive population, China would not be on any list. China's influx of people spurt sales, sorry to break your hart. Again Revenue means nothing. Again if Chinese semiconductor industries were so great than China wouldn't use Russian electronic various military application, would it? So what is the excuse there? Seems like your precious Chinese semiconductor industry can't deliver.

As for China importing less arms than even the US it is not because Chinese arms are better or because China chooses not to import it is because no one is willing to sell China anything. The only country that is willing to offer China technology is Russia and there are even some Russian companies that refuse to sell China anything, at least on a small scale.

And please, do not come in here posting vague scientific ranking, 99% of that junk is just that junk! I have read and written about many scientific articles and most are irrelevant to the military. If scientific articles dictated progress Chinese aircraft engines would be world class and Russian engines would not be very good, but it is the other way around.

And, yes China imported Russian anti-submarine helicopter, equiped with radar, so the joke is on you.


----------



## below_freezing

Are you seriously implying that scientific publications have no correlation to scientific ability and scientific ability has no correlation to industrial production?



Wow, stay off the vodka OK?


----------



## teddy

If toyota made a plasma TV, is that mean copy? a copy from whatever brand. because they are using same logic to design.


----------



## HROBOS

I did not want to seem rude.
However, it is necessary.
It seems on the success of the Chinese economy have some problems with the external perception.
Cheap labor? Itself is not a shame? Or work for peanuts outside the Chinese Dream?
Tell us how valuable is better achieved an economic miracle? Share the successes of universal health insurance or compulsory pensions. All the economic achievements are due to the social obligations. The whole economy is like a pyramid. Beating the head of propaganda and attractive figures of the second economy in the world to the Chinese authorities can only delay the inevitable. As soon as the Chinese people want to eat well, dress, have a Social Security or have a decent salary pyramid collapses.

The difference between us is not in the mind or the physical size of the brain. The difference in the social environment.

At the expense of copies. A typical example is Bulava or Su 24. People sit and develop a new system. A whole new inherent risks and possible tragedies and setbacks. This work requires tremendous mental and physical costs. This is the Russian way.
The Chinese way is (no matter how much they themselves are not comforted by beautiful terms) a solid backup and attempt to improve. Moreover, attempts to reduce only the improvements to the capabilities of its industrial base.
Conclusion. Russia will always be ahead in scientific research. China will be able to create only that it will others.

On account of the statements about nationalism. I have the notion of Chinese nationalism and an inferiority complex. I eat a lot, what to say but so far I'm holding back. For a particularly zealous. All possible accusations and insults addressed to me for me indifferent. However, they may well show your intelligence. So you can not particularly shy. I'm curious.


----------



## tanlixiang28776

HROBOS said:


> At the expense of copies.* A typical example is Bulava or Su 2*4. People sit and develop a new system. A whole new inherent risks and possible tragedies and setbacks. This work requires tremendous mental and physical costs. This is the Russian way.
> The Chinese way is (no matter how much they themselves are not comforted by beautiful terms) a solid backup and attempt to improve. Moreover, attempts to reduce only the improvements to the capabilities of its industrial base.
> Conclusion. Russia will always be ahead in scientific research. China will be able to create only that it will others.



Bulava you say. You mean that POS that has failed half of its test firings while recently 6 JL 2s were launched successfully in a single test. Yes impressive indeed. 

The missile has been specifically designed for Russia's new Borey class nuclear submarines.
Yury Solomonov, the designer of the troubled Bulava ballistic missile, said that the poor state of the Russian defense industry was the main cause of the weapon's failed test launches.

*Solomonov resigned from his post as general director of the Moscow Institute of Thermal Technology (MITT) in July 2009 after a series of unsuccessful Bulava tests, but retained his post as general designer of the missile.*

"I can say in earnest that none of the design solutions have been changed as a result of the tests. The problems occur in the links of the design-technology-production chain," Solomonov said in an interview with the Izvestia newspaper published on Tuesday.

*"Sometimes [the problem] is poor-quality materials, sometimes it is the lack of necessary equipment to exclude the 'human' factor in production, sometimes it is inefficient quality control," he said.*

*The designer complained that the Russian industry is unable to provide Bulava manufacturers with at least 50 of the necessary components for production of the weapon.* This forces designers to search for alternative solutions, seriously complicating the testing process.

The Bulava (SS-NX-30) is a three-stage liquid and solid propellant submarine-launched ballistic missile (SLBM). It carries up to ten MIRV warheads and has a range of over 8,000 kilometers (5,000 miles).

The missile has been specifically designed for Russia's new Borey class nuclear submarines.
*
Only five of 12 Bulava test launches from the Dmitry Donskoy sub have been officially reported as successful.* The future development of Bulava has been questioned by some lawmakers and defense industry officials who suggest that the Russian Navy should keep using the more reliable Sineva SLBM.

The RSM-54 Sineva (SS-N-23 Skiff) is a liquid-propellant SLBM designed for Delta IV class submarines that can carry up to 16 missiles each.

Solomonov questioned the viability of these statements saying the two missiles were incomparable both in terms of technology and performance characteristics.

A special investigation commission is expected to announce on May 30 the official results of a probe into the Bulava failures.

The Russian military has insisted that there is no alternative to the Bulava and pledged to continue testing the missile until it is ready to be deployed with the Navy. At least four new test launches of the missile have been planned for the end of June.

Solomonov vowed in the interview to continue work on the Bulava until it shows stable performance and is ready to join Russia's nuclear triad.

News.Az - Bulava missile designer blames industry for test failures

Can't even manufacture all the parts of a ballistic missile anymore. Absolutely pathetic.

As for Russia always being ahead. You're behind in everything besides a few niche military fields. 



HROBOS said:


> On account of the statements about nationalism. I have the notion of Chinese nationalism and an inferiority complex. I eat a lot, what to say but so far I'm holding back. For a particularly zealous. All possible accusations and insults addressed to me for me indifferent. However, they may well show your intelligence. So you can not particularly shy. I'm curious.


 
If you can't write coherent English then don't bother coming to a English forum. Its just freaking embarrassing. All I can say is that Russians still think its the Soviet days when people still gave a crap on whatever notions you had.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## rcrmj

ptldM3 said:


> Stop making a fool out of yourself with posting a bunch of vague crap. As stated before none of your junk is relevant. Your argument about steel production and shipbuilding was irrelevant and the above arguments are irrelevant. Semi conductor industries making top revenue does not equate into producing the most cutting edge technologies. Without China's massive population, China would not be on any list. China's influx of people spurt sales, sorry to break your hart. Again Revenue means nothing. Again if Chinese semiconductor industries were so great than China wouldn't use Russian electronic various military application, would it? So what is the excuse there? Seems like your precious Chinese semiconductor industry can't deliver.
> 
> As for China importing less arms than even the US it is not because Chinese arms are better or because China chooses not to import it is because no one is willing to sell China anything. The only country that is willing to offer China technology is Russia and there are even some Russian companies that refuse to sell China anything, at least on a small scale.
> 
> And please, do not come in here posting vague scientific ranking, 99% of that junk is just that junk! I have read and written about many scientific articles and most are irrelevant to the military. If scientific articles dictated progress Chinese aircraft engines would be world class and Russian engines would not be very good, but it is the other way around.
> 
> And, yes China imported Russian anti-submarine helicopter, equiped with radar, so the joke is on you.


 
mate as far as i can see below_freezing did not list vague craps but solid facts about how modern society is built on.

let me ask you a very simple question, how do you judge a country's scientific level and technology readness? because you always denying that factor that like steel production, semi-condactor, chemistry, R&D and other social factors.

Do you even know the fine correlation between science & technology and production capability? My bet is you do not know it at all.

As it is widly recognized that science and knowledge is a factor of production, and it is the most important factor, given its role in labour quality and design of the goods. and also the needs to produce the 'most' competitve products are the demand, incentive driving force for R&D and innovation. You can not derail the relationship of production capability with science and technology. its like buying a computer without a screen!!

China did import quite a few Russian kits in late 80s to early 00s, however the trend is very obvious that the defence imports went down dramatically after 2004, and it is going to be irreversible. China imports Russian weapons cannot prove anything that china is lack in science and technology of Russia, because, U.S, U.K even France is importing military kits from other countries dont mean they are lag in that respective areas!

The main reasons of China developed J-11B and J-15s were the fact that Russia cannot deliver the level of avionics and electronics for the foreseeable future electronic warfares. and PLA assessed the level of domestic electronic and semi-conductor industries can meet their requirement so they decided to go domestic to upgrade chinese flanker families.

And you always shouting about reliable sources, so tell me what is your reliable sources? isnt World Bank statistics are the reliable sources? is the IMF is the reliable sources? is the International Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) the reliable sources? Because all of those sources pointing at China is out pacing Russia in Science, Technology, production with the margin that is like at least 10 times, if you doubt I can forward you those sources?

Russia used to be Chinese teacher in most feilds but it does not mean Russia is going to guiding China forever, and you cannot dennying this fact.


----------



## ptldM3

tanlixiang28776 said:


> Bulava you say. You mean that POS that has failed half of its test firings while recently 6 JL 2s were launched successfully in a single test. Yes impressive indeed.


 
As if China discloses its failures. The Baluva is being designed as new system from the ground up, a very complex system. It's a hypersonic MIRV platform that is capable of carying 150 kt warheads. Countermeasures, propulsuion and guidence is also new. This is not a 'POS' and certainly not some old platform that has been upgraded. It's also ironic that China purchases or purchased various guidence and seeker systems from Russia and still to this day uses Russian systems or comes to Russia for design help. Can the same be said for Russia? Do we purchase from China? Do we take short cuts? Everything Russia does it does on its own.


----------



## tanlixiang28776

ptldM3 said:


> As if China discloses its failures. The Baluva is being designed as new system from the ground up, a very complex system. It's a hypersonic MIRV platform that is capable of carying 150 kt warheads. Countermeasures, propulsuion and guidence is also new. This is not a 'POS' and certainly not some old platform that has been upgraded. It's also ironic that China purchases or purchased various guidence and seeker systems from Russia and still to this day uses Russian systems or comes to Russia for design help. Can the same be said for Russia? Do we purchase from China? Do we take short cuts? Everything Russia does it does on its own.


 
You realize we are talking about Intercontinental SLBM launches right? It has to exit the atmosphere and travel close to 10,000 kilometers. If there was any failures US, and especially Russians would have monitored the entire thing and gloated all over it. So please spare me the typical BS excuses. Ironically you say that everything Russia does is on its own, and does not take shortcuts. 

From the chief designer of the Baluva who subsequently quit. 

The designer complained that the Russian industry is unable to provide Bulava manufacturers with at least 50 of the necessary components for production of the weapon.

So I wonder where those 50 necessary components came from. Out of your wet dreams?

Sometimes [the problem] is poor-quality materials, sometimes it is the lack of necessary equipment to exclude the 'human' factor in production, sometimes it is inefficient quality control," he said.

Yeah no short cuts at all.

There is nothing that radical in the Baluva that would force this many failures and is the primary fault of shortcuts, and poor quality control.

Russia does everything on its own and buys nothing? What is the Mistral class then? A yacht?


----------



## cn_habs

Unofficial troll of these boards: ptldM3

When you are dead poor or quasi bankrupt for more than ten years, everything in your overall ability to research and produce will suffer greatly in every single field, civilian or military. If that's too hard to understand, then you shouldn't be surprised at the current state you are in.

Why doesn't F-22 resemble to the F-15 or F-16 physically? Lockheed's annual
R&D budget probably exceeds the entire Russian aviation industry's for the past years. Look at that most recent Su-27 "clone" that you are so proud of. 

*Get real or keep fouling yourself in your utopia imagining R&D can be done with very limited resources.*

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## TEXAS BATTLESTAR

Juice said:


> Something has to already be there to reverse engineer it also...so not buying it.
> 
> (PS where in Texas are you?)


 
Never the less it still takes pretty good talent and skills to replicate something with little or nothing to guide with. I live in the Houston area.


----------



## ChineseTiger1986

Do you guys know when Russia gonna broadcast a live footage of the test trial of Bulava?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## rcrmj

HROBOS said:


> This work requires tremendous mental and physical costs. This is the Russian way.
> The Chinese way is (no matter how much they themselves are not comforted by beautiful terms) a solid backup and attempt to improve. Moreover, attempts to reduce only the improvements to the capabilities of its industrial base.
> Conclusion. Russia will always be ahead in scientific research. China will be able to create only that it will others..


 
first of all, its hard to understand what you wrote, but english is not our first language so it takes courage to making posts in english.

secondly your vague assertion of how Russia is ahead of China in science and technology is goundless but full of past Soviet propaganda.

The Internationl Patent Cooperation Treaty Office (PCT) stated in terms of patent grands for innovation, China recieved over 12,000 grands from PCT in 2010, whereas Russia just recieved merely over 800 of them. And PCT is the only internationally recognized body to judge any new technologies and science theories are categorized as innovative.

So I strongly reckon you to dig some real figures before coming out your assertion`!

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## HROBOS

tanlixiang28776 said:


> Bulava you say. You mean that POS that has failed half of its test firings while recently 6 JL 2s were launched successfully in a single test. Yes impressive indeed.
> 
> The missile has been specifically designed for Russia's new Borey class nuclear submarines.
> Yury Solomonov, the designer of the troubled Bulava ballistic missile, said that the poor state of the Russian defense industry was the main cause of the weapon's failed test launches.
> 
> *Solomonov resigned from his post as general director of the Moscow Institute of Thermal Technology (MITT) in July 2009 after a series of unsuccessful Bulava tests, but retained his post as general designer of the missile.*
> 
> "I can say in earnest that none of the design solutions have been changed as a result of the tests. The problems occur in the links of the design-technology-production chain," Solomonov said in an interview with the Izvestia newspaper published on Tuesday.
> 
> *"Sometimes [the problem] is poor-quality materials, sometimes it is the lack of necessary equipment to exclude the 'human' factor in production, sometimes it is inefficient quality control," he said.*
> 
> *The designer complained that the Russian industry is unable to provide Bulava manufacturers with at least 50 of the necessary components for production of the weapon.* This forces designers to search for alternative solutions, seriously complicating the testing process.
> 
> The Bulava (SS-NX-30) is a three-stage liquid and solid propellant submarine-launched ballistic missile (SLBM). It carries up to ten MIRV warheads and has a range of over 8,000 kilometers (5,000 miles).
> 
> The missile has been specifically designed for Russia's new Borey class nuclear submarines.
> *
> Only five of 12 Bulava test launches from the Dmitry Donskoy sub have been officially reported as successful.* The future development of Bulava has been questioned by some lawmakers and defense industry officials who suggest that the Russian Navy should keep using the more reliable Sineva SLBM.
> 
> The RSM-54 Sineva (SS-N-23 Skiff) is a liquid-propellant SLBM designed for Delta IV class submarines that can carry up to 16 missiles each.
> 
> Solomonov questioned the viability of these statements saying the two missiles were incomparable both in terms of technology and performance characteristics.
> 
> A special investigation commission is expected to announce on May 30 the official results of a probe into the Bulava failures.
> 
> The Russian military has insisted that there is no alternative to the Bulava and pledged to continue testing the missile until it is ready to be deployed with the Navy. At least four new test launches of the missile have been planned for the end of June.
> 
> Solomonov vowed in the interview to continue work on the Bulava until it shows stable performance and is ready to join Russia's nuclear triad.
> 
> News.Az - Bulava missile designer blames industry for test failures
> 
> Can't even manufacture all the parts of a ballistic missile anymore. Absolutely pathetic.
> 
> As for Russia always being ahead. You're behind in everything besides a few niche military fields.
> 
> 
> 
> If you can't write coherent English then don't bother coming to a English forum. Its just freaking embarrassing. All I can say is that Russians still think its the Soviet days when people still gave a crap on whatever notions you had.



Now find the information on the design and operation of the first serial Su24.
Then use the brain, and understand why I have set, and Su24 Bullavu together.
All the evidence shows you just what I said earlier. Difficult to design a much easier to copy.
On account of errors in the text. I have said before that to learn another foreign language. I use translators errors are possible. Please accept my apologies. Thank you for reminding me. The Chinese are known polyglots. Trading on Moscow markets ignorance of the Russian language does not bother them particularly.
Clarified where living or working in the moment. In a happy China or abroad. Even in Stalin's attitude towards people in the USSR was better than now in China.
Before I provide documents on the Stalin era. Take the trouble to analyze his material with the amendment to the civil war, inter-party struggle. You can also look for specific regions.
If now Russian forced to live like the Chinese. Would not pass and three months as we have changed the government. If the Russian think that live is bad. It does not follow that (satisfied with their life) Chinese are in the best economic conditions. As I said earlier. The main difference in the social sphere. Different queries.
Of Chinese nationalism. You have answered this question. Complete lack of self-criticism + total disregard for other people's opinions. What reaction are you waiting for behaving this way?


----------



## tanlixiang28776

HROBOS said:


> Now find the information on the design and operation of the first serial Su24.
> Then use the brain, and understand why I have set, and Su24 Bullavu together.
> All the evidence shows you just what I said earlier. Difficult to design a much easier to copy.
> On account of errors in the text. I have said before that to learn another foreign language. I use translators errors are possible. Please accept my apologies. Thank you for reminding me. The Chinese are known polyglots. Trading on Moscow markets ignorance of the Russian language does not bother them particularly.
> Clarified where living or working in the moment. In a happy China or abroad. Even in Stalin's attitude towards people in the USSR was better than now in China.
> Before I provide documents on the Stalin era. Take the trouble to analyze his material with the amendment to the civil war, inter-party struggle. You can also look for specific regions.
> If now Russian forced to live like the Chinese. Would not pass and three months as we have changed the government. If the Russian think that live is bad. It does not follow that (satisfied with their life) Chinese are in the best economic conditions. As I said earlier. The main difference in the social sphere. Different queries.
> Of Chinese nationalism. You have answered this question. Complete lack of self-criticism + total disregard for other people's opinions. What reaction are you waiting for behaving this way?


 
Look pal. You are being ridiculous. 

Copy what? The JL 2 is a successful *2* stage SLBM that has a 4,000 Km range advantage in its latest mod over the Bulava. And guess what we don't need foreign components for it like you do. It also doesn't have the same problems the Bulava keeps on having.

You have got to be kidding me. Fine keep living in happy fantasy land where Stalin era Russia is in a better situation in China today. Who am I to judge.

Of Soviet Mindset Russians: Get with the F**king times.


----------



## ChineseTiger1986

tanlixiang28776 said:


> Look pal. You are being ridiculous.
> 
> Copy what? The JL 2 is a successful *2* stage SLBM that has a 4,000 Km range advantage in its latest mod over the Bulava. And guess what we don't need foreign components for it like you do. It also doesn't have the same problems the Bulava keeps on having.
> 
> You have got to be kidding me. Fine keep living in happy fantasy land where Stalin era Russia is in a better situation in China today. Who am I to judge.
> 
> Of Soviet Mindset Russians: Get with the F**king times.


 
It seems that losing Ukraine and Kazakhstan is a major loss for Russia.

Russia needs to quickly reunify with these two nations in order to recreate the glory of the Soviet era.


----------



## ptldM3

cn_habs said:


> Unofficial troll of these boards: ptldM3




Right, and how many times have I been banned and suspended? Zero, I can't say the same for many Chinese members in this threads, it's very embarrassing considering it's a Pakistani forum. I also do not think I would have as many thanks as I have for being a troll. 

And please do go back and read the entire thread, as usual it was Chinese members that started it. Guys like below_freezing and company go into every thread and start taking cheap shots at Russia, yet Im the troll.



cn_habs said:


> When you are dead poor or quasi bankrupt for more than ten years, everything in your overall ability to research and produce will suffer greatly in every single field, civilian or military. If that's too hard to understand, then you shouldn't be surprised at the current state you are in.
> 
> *Why doesn't F-22 resemble to the F-15 or F-16 physically? Lockheed's annual*R&D budget probably exceeds the entire Russian aviation industry's for the past years. Look at that most recent Su-27 "clone" that you are so proud of.




The F-22, F-15 and F-16 are built by three different companies you fool  only recently has there been mergers. It's also funny that you think that the SU-27 and pak-fa are a 'clone' the two aircraft share a radically different design and geometry, the only similarities the two aircraft share is the widely spaced engines, but in that cases than the F-22 is a copy of the F-15 because both aircraft have similarly situated engines. The only other similarity, very naive people see between the pak-fa and SU-27 is the intakes, and even than they are radically different. The SU-27's intakes were situated below the fuselage while the pak-fa's intakes are a hybrid mix, of a side a lower fuselage configuration; and the intakes geometry is completely different. 




tanlixiang28776 said:


> You realize we are talking about Intercontinental SLBM launches right? It has too exit the atmosphere and travel close to 10,000 kilometers. If there was any failures US, and especially Russians would have monitored the entire thing and gloated all over it. So please spare me the typical BS excuses. Ironically you say that everything Russia does is on its own, and does not take shortcuts.
> 
> From the chief designer of the Baluva who subsequently quit.
> 
> The designer complained that the Russian industry is unable to provide Bulava manufacturers with at least 50 of the necessary components for production of the weapon.
> 
> So I wonder where those 50 necessary components came from. Out of your wet dreams?
> 
> Sometimes [the problem] is poor-quality materials, sometimes it is the lack of necessary equipment to exclude the 'human' factor in production, sometimes it is inefficient quality control," he said.
> 
> Yeah no short cuts at all.
> 
> There is nothing that radical in the Baluva that would force this many failures and is the primary fault of shortcuts, and poor quality control.
> 
> Russia does everything on its own and buys nothing? What is the Mistral class then? A yacht.


 
Who said that a failed launch would ever reach 10,000 km? And are you sure that the US or Russian would gloat over a failed launch? In the real world things arent done that way, if and when Russia or the US monitor China or visa versa neither will be foolish enough to divulge information about a failed test. Most failures are known because they are either acknowledged by military officials or civilians with cameras, other times they are declassified. When submarines, reconnaissance aircraft, satellite, or informants obtain information about a failure or any information, for that matter they keep quiet so that they can keep obtaining valuable information. The last thing you want to do is let the other side know you are watching them. If this happens you jeopardize your submarines positions, informants and so on. Further, the longer you observe enemy ICBM's, submarines or whatever, the more likely you will gather valuable information on frequencies, unique eckos and so fourth. 

Do you know who John Anthony Walker is? He was a US Naval communications expert that spied for the Soviet Union, I know the man that was one of the main investigative agent in that case. I know a thing or two about what Im talking, so it is you that needs to stop the BS.

As for the Mistral, it's an over glorified cargo ship meant for quick troop and personnel movement, building something similar is not a problem, the problem is the years that it takes to design, set up logistics, ports, construct and commission such a vessel. And purchasing the mistral is certainly not the same as purchasing components for countless projects or asking for design assistance.


----------



## tanlixiang28776

ptldM3 said:


> Who said that a failed launch would ever reach 10,000 km? And are you sure that the US or Russian would gloat over a failed launch? In the real world things arent done that way, if and when Russia or the US monitor China or visa versa neither will be foolish enough to divulge information about a failed test. Most failures are known because they are either acknowledged by military officials or civilians with cameras, other times they are declassified. When submarines, reconnaissance aircraft, satellite, or informants obtain information about a failure or any information, for that matter they keep quiet so that they can keep obtaining valuable information. The last thing you want to do is let the other side know you are watching them. If this happens you jeopardize your submarines positions, informants and so on. Further, the longer you observe enemy ICBM's, submarines or whatever, the more likely you will gather valuable information on frequencies, unique eckos and so fourth.



The US can track the entire journey of an ballistic missile launch. I don't know if thats the same case for Russia. There is no hiding it, and their is no point in doing so. Only strategic analysis matters and if they know you have failures there is no point in saying it was a success. Have you any response to the quotes by the chief designer of the Bulava?



ptldM3 said:


> Do you know who John Anthony Walker is? He was a US Naval communications expert that spied for the Soviet Union, I know the man that was one of the main investigative agent in that case. I know a thing or two about what Im talking, so it is you that needs to stop the BS.



What do spies have to do with something completely capable of being tracked from satellites? 



ptldM3 said:


> As for the Mistral, it's an over glorified cargo ship meant for quick troop and personnel movement, building something similar is not a problem, the problem is the years that it takes to design, set up logistics, ports, construct and commission such a vessel. And purchasing the mistral is certainly not the same as purchasing components for countless projects or asking for design assistance.



LOL at the not so creative excuses. When we do it we are inferior and are decades behind, but when you do it its because you didn't feel like it.


----------



## Obambam

HROBOS said:


> I did not want to seem rude.
> However, it is necessary.
> It seems on the success of the Chinese economy have some problems with the external perception.
> Cheap labor? Itself is not a shame? Or work for peanuts outside the Chinese Dream?
> Tell us how valuable is better achieved an economic miracle? Share the successes of universal health insurance or compulsory pensions. All the economic achievements are due to the social obligations. The whole economy is like a pyramid. Beating the head of propaganda and attractive figures of the second economy in the world to the Chinese authorities can only delay the inevitable. As soon as the Chinese people want to eat well, dress, have a Social Security or have a decent salary pyramid collapses.
> 
> The difference between us is not in the mind or the physical size of the brain. The difference in the social environment.
> 
> At the expense of copies. A typical example is Bulava or Su 24. People sit and develop a new system. A whole new inherent risks and possible tragedies and setbacks. This work requires tremendous mental and physical costs. This is the Russian way.
> The Chinese way is (no matter how much they themselves are not comforted by beautiful terms) a solid backup and attempt to improve. Moreover, attempts to reduce only the improvements to the capabilities of its industrial base.
> *Conclusion. Russia will always be ahead in scientific research*. China will be able to create only that it will others.
> 
> On account of the statements about nationalism. I have the notion of Chinese nationalism and an inferiority complex. I eat a lot, what to say but so far I'm holding back. For a particularly zealous. All possible accusations and insults addressed to me for me indifferent. However, they may well show your intelligence. So you can not particularly shy. I'm curious.


 
I respect and love the technologies our Russian brothers have, but the sad fact is - Nothing in the world is certain. Take for example the Germans. They were ahead of everyone during WWII, but they are no longer the leader anymore. It is all about R&D and exposure to newly found materials and technologies. The fact of the matter is, money plays the most important role and China has plenty of that right now.

p.s. People shouldn't take trolls too seriously.


----------



## HROBOS

Everyone talks about Bulavu. Bulava and Su24 are present together is not just. Who will answer the question why? Lead out of context quotes and numbers are not difficult. More difficult to force yourself to think.


----------



## teddy

Somebody took a photo that a steam catapult is being installed on varyag. May be it is specially use for launching AWECS!


----------



## tanlixiang28776

HROBOS said:


> Everyone talks about Bulavu. Bulava and Su24 are present together is not just. Who will answer the question why? Lead out of context quotes and numbers are not difficult. More difficult to force yourself to think.


 
Talking about Bulava because you brought it up as a innovation of Russia, and that China needs to catch up. Unfortunately for you the reality is the other way around.


----------



## HROBOS

tanlixiang28776 said:


> Talking about Bulava because you brought it up as a innovation of Russia, and that China needs to catch up. Unfortunately for you the reality is the other way around.


 

You guessed wrong. Different sense of comparison. The answer is simple.


----------



## localoca

ptldM3 said:


> Right,.


is this troll still insisting the Pakfa T-50 its a 5th gen? 

you don´t have to be so dumb to understand the T-50 its inferior to the J-20

just let me say this to ptldM3: If it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, we have at least to consider the possibility that we have a small aquatic bird of the family anatidae on our hands

you can swap duck for 4th gen fighter when talking about T-50, or 5th gen when talking about the J-20


----------



## RayBan

localoca said:


> is this troll still insisting the Pakfa T-50 its a 5th gen?
> 
> you don´t have to be so dumb to understand the T-50 its inferior to the J-20
> 
> just let me say this to ptldM3: If it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, we have at least to consider the possibility that we have a small aquatic bird of the family anatidae on our hands
> 
> you can swap duck for 4th gen fighter when talking about T-50, or 5th gen when talking about the J-20


 
hmmm does your jxx20, or whatever that means, fly on battery power or you have to wind the key? and importantly will it wash my clothes? you know Chinese are good at cheap electronic stuff..
.
.
he he enough of jokes, on topic for the above person, how can you compare and rate two prototypes which are just at the initial stage? do you have any RCS comparison data of both the planes ? don't lose your feet on the ground while sweeping the skies


----------



## cn_habs

RayBan said:


> hmmm does your jxx20, or whatever that means, fly on battery power or you have to wind the key? and importantly will it wash my clothes? you know Chinese are good at cheap electronic stuff..
> .
> .
> he he enough of jokes, on topic for the above person, how can you compare and rate two prototypes which are just at the initial stage? do you have any RCS comparison data of both the planes ? don't lose your feet on the ground while sweeping the skies


 
None of us here has classified information IMHO but the T-50 finish is pathetic in the pics that have been released compared with the F-22 and J-20. Of course to our Indians comrades the intake blocker technology is just like a state-of-the-art tech given the best plane they could come up with in 30 years of R & D is the world-renowned LCA.


----------



## HROBOS

cn_habs said:


> None of us here has classified information IMHO but the T-50 finish is pathetic in the pics that have been released compared with the F-22 and J-20. And of course to our Indians comrades the intake blocker technology is just state of the art tech given the best plane you could come up with in 30 years of R & D is the world-renowned LCA.





I have the impression that the Chinese comrades know more than anyone else. Can you have your own people in the firm Sukhova.
The subject of this dispute?
T-50 prototype.
J - 20 flying laboratory (not generally known that this project will turn out). Let's wait a little.
Or will more modest in his statements.


----------



## cn_habs

HROBOS said:


> I have the impression that the Chinese comrades know more than anyone else. Can you have your own people in the firm Sukhova.
> The subject of this dispute?
> T-50 prototype.
> J - 20 flying laboratory (not generally known that this project will turn out). Let's wait a little.
> Or will more modest in his statements.


 
Historically, the PLAN has never screamed out that its new toy and waited for years before declassifying them. You don't know anything about the J-20 that can justify your empty claim that the J-20 is a flying laboratory. 

In fact, CAC probably has more resources than Sukhoi and we'll have to wait and see if Russia can actually pay for its T-50s. Talk is very cheap.


----------



## localoca

cn_habs said:


> our Indians comrades the intake blocker technology is just state of the art tech given the best plane you could come up with in 30 years of R & D is the world-renowned LCA.


..........


----------



## khanz4996

why are indian so jelous of china?russian thinks they are still soviets lol.chinese have every single weapon which u can imagine but china is stupid like russia to display it as soon as they make it it is classifed so tech is not copied.jelousy kills.long live china


----------



## ptldM3

localoca said:


> is this troll still insisting the Pakfa T-50 its a 5th gen?
> 
> you don´t have to be so dumb to understand the T-50 its inferior to the J-20
> 
> just let me say this to ptldM3: If it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, we have at least to consider the possibility that we have a small aquatic bird of the family anatidae on our hands
> 
> you can swap duck for 4th gen fighter when talking about T-50, or 5th gen when talking about the J-20



Who is the troll? Chinese members have called you the troll. You have no business making any kind of assertions as to what constitutes '5 generation' aircraft, if you disagree, prove me wrong with credible sources. But I doubt you can because not one J-20 fanboy has been able to rebut my findings, welcome to the club. 

The J-20 has two design flaw, the canards, which cause EM energy to radiate in a conical hemisphere in front and to the sides of the J-20 as apposed to a conventional wing aircraft where all the edge diffraction occurs behind the aircraft. Further, the J-20's wings lack intersecting points, this is a fundamental design feature that all other 'stealth' aircraft have, and for a good reason; it directs EM energy away from the receiver. And if the moving DSI mechanism is true than that too has a potential to increase rcs do the seems, gaps, moving parts. If the DSI is not perfectly plush, the aircraft's rcs can increase by a factor of 3 time--this according the F-117 designer.




cn_habs said:


> None of us here has classified information IMHO but the* T-50 finish is pathetic *in the pics that have been released compared with the F-22 and J-20. Of course to our Indians comrades the intake blocker technology is just like a state-of-the-art tech given the best plane they could come up with in 30 years of R & D is the world-renowned LCA.


 
The T-50 is not covered in and kind of primer or RAM, in fact its only an aerodynamics tested, but being a J-20 fanboy you are either too ignorant to know this or you do not want to beleive it. And who are you to judge finish? We have yet to see one high resolution close-up of the J-20, and even with the poor quality photographs of the J-20, one pictures appeared to show a large weld mark. There are photographs of the pak-fa taken from the same distances as the J-20 and it too appears to have a smooth finish. Dull black paint hides many imperfections, and despite what Chinese members think painting an aircraft black does not make it 'super stealth'.

As for radar blockers, the F-117 used them the SE and SH also use them and Japan is researching radar blockers for their 'stealth' project. We know they were quite effective do to the F-117 and in fact Boeing confirmed that even the SE has the same frontal RCS as the F-35.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## teddy

For gods sake! how can T50 is a 5th generation fighter?! Peoples who got an eye won't believe it.
Please face the reality. I rather say J20 is not 5th gen. fighter, but I won't say T50 is 5th gen.


----------



## cn_habs

ptldM3 said:


> Who is the troll? Chinese members have called you the troll. You have no business making any kind of assertions as to what constitutes '5 generation' aircraft, if you disagree, prove me wrong with credible sources. But I doubt you can because not one J-20 fanboy has been able to rebut my findings, welcome to the club.
> 
> The J-20 has two design flaw, the canards, which cause EM energy to radiate in a conical hemisphere in front and to the sides of the J-20 as apposed to a conventional wing aircraft where all the edge diffraction occurs behind the aircraft. Further, the J-20's wings lack intersecting points, this is a fundamental design feature that all other 'stealth' aircraft have, and for a good reason; it directs EM energy away from the receiver. And if the moving DSI mechanism is true than that too has a potential to increase rcs do the seems, gaps, moving parts. If the DSI is not perfectly plush, the aircraft's rcs can increase by a factor of 3 time--this according the F-117 designer.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The T-50 is not covered in and kind of primer or RAM, in fact its only an aerodynamics tested, but being a J-20 fanboy you are either too ignorant to know this or you do not want to beleive it. And who are you to judge finish? We have yet to see one high resolution close-up of the J-20, and even with the poor quality photographs of the J-20, one pictures appeared to show a large weld mark. There are photographs of the pak-fa taken from the same distances as the J-20 and it too appears to have a smooth finish. Dull black paint hides many imperfections, and despite what Chinese members think painting an aircraft black does not make it 'super stealth'.
> 
> As for radar blockers, the F-117 used them the SE and SH also use them and Japan is researching radar blockers for their 'stealth' project. We know they were quite effective do to the F-117 and in fact Boeing confirmed that even the SE has the same frontal RCS as the F-35.


 

When was F-117 developed again? Was the initial goal to make it a 4 or 5-th generation jet? I highly doubt they had the technologies that we have today which is why they opted for the use of the intake blocker. 

By the way, Boeing CLAIMED that the modified F-15SE WITH absorbent coating can match F-35's FRONTAL RCS. The Japanese's best accomplishment is the F-2 so far so I wouldn't consider their fighter a threat anytime soon.


----------



## MilSpec

Had a few questions on J20

which engines on j20 prototype??

What kind of FBW is planned ? is it tested?

Any thrust vectoring?

supercruise if available? supercruise speed?

any information on the sesor suite??


----------



## HROBOS

teddy said:


> For gods sake! how can T50 is a 5th generation fighter?! Peoples who got an eye won't believe it.
> Please face the reality. I rather say J20 is not 5th gen. fighter, but I won't say T50 is 5th gen.




Interesting. Have you read any information on the T-50? Or restrict viewing multiple photos? If you have not read, I will do for you great discoveries.
1. Have you seen the gliders for flight tests.
2. You saw only that which you are allowed to see ..
3. How he changed none of us knows.

About J-1920 you yourself said everything.


----------



## tanlixiang28776

HROBOS said:


> Interesting. Have you read any information on the T-50? Or restrict viewing multiple photos? If you have not read, I will do for you great discoveries.
> 1. Have you seen the gliders for flight tests.
> 2. You saw only that which you are allowed to see ..
> 3. How he changed none of us knows.



The T 50 program is pretty open. We know the exact measurements, radar, and even the fact that it has no RAM coating.



HROBOS said:


> About J-1920 you yourself said everything.


 
Don't embarrass yourself. If you think its a flying lab its fine. But the "flying lab" is far closer to production then your " prototype"


----------



## tanlixiang28776

ptldM3 said:


> Further, the J-20's wings lack intersecting points, this is a fundamental design feature that all other 'stealth' aircraft have, and for a good reason; it directs EM energy away from the receiver. And if the moving DSI mechanism is true than that too has a potential to increase rcs do the seems, gaps, moving parts. If the DSI is not perfectly plush, the aircraft's rcs can increase by a factor of 3 time--this according the F-117 designer.



Get me a picture and circle the lack of intersecting points in the J 20 and the intersecting points in all other stealth fighters. As for the intake if it is adjustable it will not be any worse than say the F 22 as it also has adjustable intakes. And if its not perfectly *flush* then the RCS increases. There is no evidence of this but once again you like to argue with lack of evidence don't you. Lets argue with observable arguments shall we.




ptldM3 said:


> The T-50 is not covered in and kind of primer or RAM, in fact its only an aerodynamics tested, but being a J-20 fanboy you are either too ignorant to know this or you do not want to beleive it. And who are you to judge finish? We have yet to see one high resolution close-up of the J-20, and even with the poor quality photographs of the J-20, one pictures appeared to show a large weld mark. There are photographs of the pak-fa taken from the same distances as the J-20 and it too appears to have a smooth finish. Dull black paint hides many imperfections, and despite what Chinese members think painting an aircraft black does not make it 'super stealth'.



So you admit that the J 20 is further along then the T 50 as it already has RAM applied. And don't start with the fanboy calling. I've seen enough of your posts to know that you're quite a fanboy yourself.

And yes we have seen many high resolution close ups of the the J 20. 







So find the picture with the weld mark or this is unsubstantiated BS. But thats not a surprise is it?

And its not paint. No Chinese aircraft besides the J 20 has black paint for the entire body. Prototypes never use them either.

But nice arguments that are completely unprovable either way. Pretty much all you've doing so far. 




ptldM3 said:


> As for radar blockers, the F-117 used them the SE and SH also use them and Japan is researching radar blockers for their 'stealth' project. We know they were quite effective do to the F-117 and in fact Boeing confirmed that even the SE has the same frontal RCS as the F-35.


 
Radar blockers are a interim solution. They are inferior to serpentine intakes which is why every current stealth fighter has them besides the T 50. As for Japan they have already cancelled the project. Oh and the F 35 has inferior stealth compared to the F 22, also admitted by the USAF. Do you really want to compare Russia's fifth gen fighters to a subsonic bomber with no radar, and a project no one wants despite being out for a year?


----------



## HROBOS

tanlixiang28776 said:


> Get me a picture and circle the lack of intersecting points in the J 20 and the intersecting points in all other stealth fighters. As for the intake if it is adjustable it will not be any worse than say the F 22 as it also has adjustable intakes. And if its not perfectly *flush* then the RCS increases. There is no evidence of this but once again you like to argue with lack of evidence don't you. Lets argue with observable arguments shall we.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you admit that the J 20 is further along then the T 50 as it already has RAM applied. And don't start with the fanboy calling. I've seen enough of your posts to know that you're quite a fanboy yourself.
> 
> And yes we have seen many high resolution close ups of the the J 20.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So find the picture with the weld mark or this is unsubstantiated BS. But thats not a surprise is it?
> 
> And its not paint. No Chinese aircraft besides the J 20 has black paint for the entire body. Prototypes never use them either.
> 
> But nice arguments that are completely unprovable either way. Pretty much all you've doing so far.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Radar blockers are a interim solution. They are inferior to serpentine intakes which is why every current stealth fighter has them besides the T 50. As for Japan they have already cancelled the project. Oh and the F 35 has inferior stealth compared to the F 22, also admitted by the USAF. Do you really want to compare Russia's fifth gen fighters to a subsonic bomber with no radar, and a project no one wants despite being out for a year?


 

1. Have you seen the T-50 radar blocker?
2. In serial T -50 is a completely different engine.

J-20 is covered with a thick layer of paint to hide the flaw and build stuff. Even if he create one of the aircraft plywood with nails we did not know.

Tell about the engine J-20. Very interesting to hear.


----------



## Ammyy

HROBOS said:


> 1. Have you seen the T-50 radar blocker?
> 2. In serial T -50 is a completely different engine.
> 
> J-20 is covered with a thick layer of paint to hide the flaw and build stuff. Even if he create one of the aircraft plywood with nails we did not know.
> 
> Tell about the engine J-20. Very interesting to hear.


 
Buddy even they dnt know that J20 is bomber or Fighter let forget about engine


----------



## rcrmj

DRDO said:


> Buddy even they dnt know that J20 is bomber or Fighter let forget about engine


 
and you sound very expert in knowing J-20, so please enlighten us about what kind of craft of J-20 is, and what engine it uses?


----------



## Ammyy

rcrmj said:


> and you sound very expert in knowing J-20, so please enlighten us about what kind of craft of J-20 is, and what engine it uses?


 
I am not expert of any thing but want to know about your J20 is superior claim

if you dnt even know which engine they are using in J20 (Russian or Chinese) then how can you say that its superior


----------



## rcrmj

HROBOS said:


> 1. Have you seen the T-50 radar blocker?
> 2. In serial T -50 is a completely different engine.
> 
> J-20 is covered with a thick layer of paint to hide the flaw and build stuff. Even if he create one of the aircraft plywood with nails we did not know.
> 
> Tell about the engine J-20. Very interesting to hear.


 
get real budy, just by look at T-50, those russian scientists did a lousy work, T-50 is just a furtuer development of flanker family, there is no break through design or technology applied on t-50, the so-called Plasma coating and the effect of fan blade blockers are just merely a speculation as same as those speculations on J-20``


----------



## rcrmj

DRDO said:


> I am not expert of any thing but want to know about your J20 is superior claim
> 
> if you dnt even know which engine they are using in J20 (Russian or Chinese) then how can you say that its superior


 
read all the posts carefully nobudy is saying J-20 uses superior engines than T-50, they are mainly arguing on the stealth factor, a noobi can tell which bird has better perspective in terms of stealth factor, and this is the only factor we can give it a closer estimation, 

in terms of engine, trust ratio, coating, radar, weapons, supersonic speed, agility, avionics and on board sensors are all unkown of both planes`


----------



## gambit

rcrmj said:


> read all the posts carefully nobudy is saying J-20 uses superior engines than T-50, they are mainly arguing on the stealth factor, *a noobi can tell which bird has better perspective in terms of stealth factor*, and this is the only factor we can give it a closer estimation,
> 
> in terms of engine, trust ratio, coating, radar, weapons, supersonic speed, agility, avionics and on board sensors are all unkown of both planes`


And I will not hesitate to call him a fraud in front of everybody unless he can give the readers a reasonably technical explanation why he believe that.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## localoca

ptldM3 said:


> Who is the troll?


 YOU...




ptldM3 said:


> As for radar blockers, the F-117 used them the SE and SH also use them and Japan is researching radar blockers


 Please don´t compare the out dated designs of 1979 F-117 and 4th generation fighters with the state of the art, ultra high tech J-20 

Go China,  Russia its just a sore loser...


----------



## localoca

gambit said:


> And I will not hesitate to call him a fraud


 I will not hesitate on calling you a Sore loser, a sad troll, but Hey I just did it...

you have no credibility in this forum gambit boy...


----------



## tanlixiang28776

HROBOS said:


> 1. Have you seen the T-50 radar blocker?
> 2. In serial T -50 is a completely different engine.
> 
> J-20 is covered with a thick layer of paint to hide the flaw and build stuff. Even if he create one of the aircraft plywood with nails we did not know.
> 
> Tell about the engine J-20. Very interesting to hear.


 
1. Nope. All I see is this







Argue with facts supported by photographs, videos, and official sources. Not anecdotal crap, and hypotheticals.

2. what do different engines have to do with the intakes?

And the next comment is just childish. All you can do is rebuke trolls because it makes you feel better, but when someone actually challenges you to provide some evidence for your equally false statements you falter. 

We can see the poor finishing on the PAK FA. You can't with the J 20. We have seen many closeups already and what you imply does not exist in reality. If you do find the gaps we can clearly see on the PAK FA on the J 20 feel free to post a picture and point it out.

Talk about being pathetic. Answer the the questions or don't bother responding.

And answer this as well. You sure like to avoid things when people call you on your statements don't you?



ptldM3 said:


> Further, the J-20's wings lack intersecting points, this is a fundamental design feature that all other 'stealth' aircraft have, and for a good reason; it directs EM energy away from the receiver. And if the moving DSI mechanism is true than that too has a potential to increase rcs do the seems, gaps, moving parts. If the DSI is not perfectly plush, the aircraft's rcs can increase by a factor of 3 time--this according the F-117 designer.



Get me a picture and circle the lack of intersecting points in the J 20 and the intersecting points in all other stealth fighters. As for the intake if it is adjustable it will not be any worse than say the F 22 as it also has adjustable intakes. And if its not perfectly *flush* then the RCS increases. There is no evidence of this but once again you like to argue with lack of evidence don't you. Lets argue with observable arguments shall we.




ptldM3 said:


> The T-50 is not covered in and kind of primer or RAM, in fact its only an aerodynamics tested, but being a J-20 fanboy you are either too ignorant to know this or you do not want to beleive it. And who are you to judge finish? We have yet to see one high resolution close-up of the J-20, and even with the poor quality photographs of the J-20, one pictures appeared to show a large weld mark. There are photographs of the pak-fa taken from the same distances as the J-20 and it too appears to have a smooth finish. Dull black paint hides many imperfections, and despite what Chinese members think painting an aircraft black does not make it 'super stealth'.



So you admit that the J 20 is further along then the T 50 as it already has RAM applied. And don't start with the fanboy calling. I've seen enough of your posts to know that you're quite a fanboy yourself.

And yes we have seen many high resolution close ups of the the J 20. 






So find the picture with the weld mark or this is unsubstantiated BS. But thats not a surprise is it?

And its not paint. No Chinese aircraft besides the J 20 has black paint for the entire body. Prototypes never use them either.

But nice arguments that are completely unprovable either way. Pretty much all you've been doing so far. 




ptldM3 said:


> As for radar blockers, the F-117 used them the SE and SH also use them and Japan is researching radar blockers for their 'stealth' project. We know they were quite effective do to the F-117 and in fact Boeing confirmed that even the SE has the same frontal RCS as the F-35.


 
Radar blockers are a interim solution. They are inferior to serpentine intakes which is why every current stealth fighter has them besides the T 50. As for Japan they have already cancelled the project. Oh and the F 35 has inferior stealth compared to the F 22, also admitted by the USAF. Do you really want to compare Russia's fifth gen fighters to a subsonic bomber with no radar, and a project no one wants despite being out for a year?

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## HROBOS

Let's look at the reasons for the lack of snake-like air intakes at the T-50.
1. Engineers have dry poorly studied in the universities. So they can not develop a snake-like air intake.
2. Sukhoi engineers do not know what in the world there are serpentine intake.
3. Sukhoi engineers do not allow to develop a snake-like air intake moral ethics (religion, party affiliation, not the love of curved planes, etc.).
4. Sukhoi engineers decided to make to achieve stealth other features (different blades of the engine cover, new designs blockers radar, etc.) or a snake-like air intakes with new engines for production aircraft.

Each according to his mental capabilities can select your own version.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## tanlixiang28776

HROBOS said:


> Let's look at the reasons for the lack of snake-like air intakes at the T-50.
> 1. Engineers have dry poorly studied in the universities. So they can not develop a snake-like air intake.
> 2. Sukhoi engineers do not know what in the world there are serpentine intake.
> 3. Sukhoi engineers do not allow to develop a snake-like air intake moral ethics (religion, party affiliation, not the love of curved planes, etc.).
> 4. Sukhoi engineers decided to make to achieve stealth other features (different blades of the engine cover, new designs blockers radar, etc.) or a snake-like air intakes with new engines for production aircraft.
> 
> Each according to his mental capabilities can select your own version.


 
You forgot the most likely reason. Sukhoi engineers do not have money to design a new airframe after finalizing the designs.

But don't worry Russians can do anything even without massive budgets. But once you get out of your little delusions maybe we can have a real conversation yeah?

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## cn_habs

tanlixiang28776 said:


> You forgot the most likely reason. Sukhoi engineers do not have money to design a new airframe after finalizing the designs.


 
That is exactly my point the whole time. It wasn't about people at Sukhoi being incompetent.

Lack of funding = poor product

It applies to everything in R&D.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## ChineseTiger1986

Lol, all those Russian Internet trolls are just hilarious, look how they edited the engine specification of J-20 on Wikipedia.

I just smell insecurity here.

_General characteristics
Crew: 1
Length: 62 ft (19 m)
Wingspan: 41 ft (12.5 m)
Height: ()
Wing area: 630 ft^2 ()
Max takeoff weight: 66,00080,000 lb (34,000 - 37,000 kg[2])
Powerplant: 2 × *117S turbofans*[6][74] Dry thrust: Unknown () each
Thrust with afterburner: 31,900 lb (142 kN) each


Performance

Armament

Guns: None on prototype.
Expected to have internal and external hardpoints for missiles, bombs and fuel tanks._


Chengdu J-20 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## tanlixiang28776

No wikipedia please. They change what the engines are every week.


----------



## ChineseTiger1986

tanlixiang28776 said:


> No wikipedia please.


 
I know, but funny that Russian trolls edit a unreliable Internet source just to make themselves feel better.


----------



## HROBOS

tanlixiang28776 said:


> 1. Nope. All I see is this
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Argue with facts supported by photographs, videos, and official sources. Not anecdotal crap, and hypotheticals.
> 
> 2. what do different engines have to do with the intakes?
> 
> And the next comment is just childish. All you can do is rebuke trolls because it makes you feel better, but when someone actually challenges you to provide some evidence for your equally false statements you falter.
> 
> We can see the poor finishing on the PAK FA. You can't with the J 20. We have seen many closeups already and what you imply does not exist in reality. If you do find the gaps we can clearly see on the PAK FA on the J 20 feel free to post a picture and point it out.
> 
> Talk about being pathetic. Answer the the questions or don't bother responding.
> 
> And answer this as well. You sure like to avoid things when people call you on your statements don't you?
> 
> 
> 
> Get me a picture and circle the lack of intersecting points in the J 20 and the intersecting points in all other stealth fighters. As for the intake if it is adjustable it will not be any worse than say the F 22 as it also has adjustable intakes. And if its not perfectly *flush* then the RCS increases. There is no evidence of this but once again you like to argue with lack of evidence don't you. Lets argue with observable arguments shall we.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you admit that the J 20 is further along then the T 50 as it already has RAM applied. And don't start with the fanboy calling. I've seen enough of your posts to know that you're quite a fanboy yourself.
> 
> And yes we have seen many high resolution close ups of the the J 20.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So find the picture with the weld mark or this is unsubstantiated BS. But thats not a surprise is it?
> 
> And its not paint. No Chinese aircraft besides the J 20 has black paint for the entire body. Prototypes never use them either.
> 
> But nice arguments that are completely unprovable either way. Pretty much all you've been doing so far.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Radar blockers are a interim solution. They are inferior to serpentine intakes which is why every current stealth fighter has them besides the T 50. As for Japan they have already cancelled the project. Oh and the F 35 has inferior stealth compared to the F 22, also admitted by the USAF. Do you really want to compare Russia's fifth gen fighters to a subsonic bomber with no radar, and a project no one wants despite being out for a year?


 

I see in the photo prototype T-50.
1. The glider is no thick layer of radar protection (prototype it is not necessary)
2. See the devices for test measurements (mounted on the nose glider)
3. See the engines (they also do not hide)
Who have not yet figured in the picture for a glider flight test.
J-20 smeared with a thick layer of paint (which hides all the irregularities of the airframe). Perhaps ashamed to show some elements. I sincerely doubt that either Russia or the U.S. will want to steal the secrets of the Chinese plane fifth party and special.
We hesitate to nothing. Therefore, we show the T-50 naked.

You forgot Tell me about the back of the T-50 airframe. There also is a lot to criticize. Apparently it is prepared for next time.

Do not be shy. Tell about the engines, J-20, you are very good at fantasy. 

At the same time learn which of us is greater Troll.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## tanlixiang28776

HROBOS said:


> I see in the photo prototype T-50.
> 1. The glider is no thick layer of radar protection (prototype it is not necessary)
> 2. See the devices for test measurements (mounted on the nose glider)
> 3. See the engines (they also do not hide)



1. It is a prototype but on the next prototype a year later little has changed besides changes to sensors. The basic airframe has not changed.
2. Yes whats your point. 
3. Okayyyy. 




HROBOS said:


> Who have not yet figured in the picture for a glider flight test.
> J-20 smeared with a thick layer of paint (which hides all the irregularities of the airframe). Perhaps ashamed to show some elements. I sincerely doubt that either Russia or the U.S. will want to steal the secrets of the Chinese plane fifth party and special.
> We hesitate to nothing. Therefore, we show the T-50 naked.



Are you literally that pathetic in your excuses? 






This is also a Chinese plane, but it does not have black RAM all over it. It was first spotted in 2008. Guess what its still has far better finish on it then the PAK FA. So? Whats your excuse now? All I see here is a bunch of idiots who can't use any observable evidence, and tries to use libel. America certainly doesn't need to steal secrets from China but they do spend an exorbitant amount of resources to discover China's capabilities. As for Russia they could learn a few things in production quality of prototypes.

You don't have RAM ready for application on the PAK FA, therefore its naked even on its second prototype. Poor excuse, but go ahead and tell me your excuse for the poor build quality. 



HROBOS said:


> You forgot Tell me about the back of the T-50 airframe. There also is a lot to criticize. Apparently it is prepared for next time.
> 
> Do not be shy. Tell about the engines, J-20, you are very good at fantasy.
> 
> At the same time learn which of us is greater Troll.


 
Prototype two has come out and the structural features have not changed dramatically. Only a few more sensors added or removed to the frontal fuselage. So tell me when they will change the airframe?






LOL you think because some Russian fanboys changed wikipedia that it changes reality? Yes I suppose you are very good at fantasy

You are a troll. Maybe on your Russian forums you are considered acceptable because you agree with the crap others say? Sorry but more than a single neuron is needed for any actual intellectual discussion. You have brought nothing but false accusations easily proven wrong.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## HROBOS

I admit my mistake. Sincerely apologize. You convinced me by their arguments. Each test sample, including for ground testing of the destruction should be
1. Contain all the electronic equipment.
2. Must have a full load of weaponry.
3. Have a pilot. 

I repeat once more for particularly clever.
This is a prototype for flight testing.

Finish a blow to the groin J-20. Tell about the engine J-20.


----------



## HROBOS

tanlixiang28776 said:


> 1. It is a prototype but on the next prototype a year later little has changed besides changes to sensors. The basic airframe has not changed.
> 2. Yes whats your point.
> 3. Okayyyy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you literally that pathetic in your excuses?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is also a Chinese plane, but it does not have black RAM all over it. It was first spotted in 2008. Guess what its still has far better finish on it then the PAK FA. So? Whats your excuse now? All I see here is a bunch of idiots who can't use any observable evidence, and tries to use libel. America certainly doesn't need to steal secrets from China but they do spend an exorbitant amount of resources to discover China's capabilities. As for Russia they could learn a few things in production quality of prototypes.
> 
> You don't have RAM ready for application on the PAK FA, therefore its naked even on its second prototype. Poor excuse, but go ahead and tell me your excuse for the poor build quality.
> 
> 
> 
> Prototype two has come out and the structural features have not changed dramatically. Only a few more sensors added or removed to the frontal fuselage. So tell me when they will change the airframe?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOL you think because some Russian fanboys changed wikipedia that it changes reality? Yes I suppose you are very good at fantasy
> 
> You are a troll. Maybe on your Russian forums you are considered acceptable because you agree with the crap others say? Sorry but more than a single neuron is needed for any actual intellectual discussion. You have brought nothing but false accusations easily proven wrong.


 
Who told you that the second prototype that change anything? Evil laugh at you.


What about pictures all pictures of T-50 is rather "old".
I have these pictures except for the lowest. 

However, do not see the point of their show. They have already discussed many times on different specialized forums. If I have new and interesting pictures I'll post. If there are you out with it too. At the moment, the dispute entertainment, rather than search for truth.


----------



## tanlixiang28776

HROBOS said:


> Who told you that the second prototype that change anything? Evil laugh at you.
> 
> 
> What about pictures all pictures of T-50 is rather "old".
> I have these pictures except for the lowest.
> 
> However, do not see the point of their show. They have already discussed many times on different specialized forums. If I have new and interesting pictures I'll post. If there are you out with it too. At the moment, the dispute entertainment, rather than search for truth.


 
In layman terms it means you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about and try to use others excuses without fully understanding the amount of fallacies they have.

And the pictures are of the 2 prototypes. Do you have pictures of the third?

This is not so much a dispute so much as you getting curb stomped. Yet you keep coming back for more.


----------



## tanlixiang28776

HROBOS said:


> I admit my mistake. Sincerely apologize. You convinced me by their arguments. Each test sample, including for ground testing of the destruction should be
> 1. Contain all the electronic equipment.
> 2. Must have a full load of weaponry.
> 3. Have a pilot.
> 
> I repeat once more for particularly clever.
> This is a prototype for flight testing.



What can I say? We have money to burn and we don't expect planes to crash when they have perfectly fine engines.



HROBOS said:


> Finish a blow to the groin J-20. Tell about the engine J-20.


 
LOL. Are they telling you on Russian sites that the J 20 has 117S? 






Sorry but only the ground testing was done with the AL 31F prototype.

All three flying tests were done with WS 10 derivatives with the LOAN esque petals.






Any other BS I need to correct for you?


----------



## gubbi

can anyone upload a picture of J-20 without is final black coat of paint, in all its 'naked' glory? We would like to see the aerodynamics testbed in its primer or just unpainted frame. The Chinese definitely had a test flight with a testbed, right? I mean no one in their right minds will go directly to a production prototype without throughly testing the aircraft. So, without much ado, please pics of J-20 without the thick coat of paint.

And as for the discussion about engines, far more knowledgeable people on many forums have effectively debunked the fiction of J-20 being powered by WS10 'derivative'. The engines are definitely AL-31 derivatives. Yup they are Russian. Rest assured, fanboi bots will believe what they want to, they know shyte!


----------



## tanlixiang28776

gubbi said:


> can anyone upload a picture of J-20 without is final black coat of paint, in all its 'naked' glory? We would like to see the aerodynamics testbed in its primer or just unpainted frame. The Chinese definitely had a test flight with a testbed, right? I mean no one in their right minds will go directly to a production prototype without throughly testing the aircraft. So, without much ado, please pics of J-20 without the thick coat of paint.


 

Oh so you've also jumped on the idiot wagon that because the J 20 is actually a more complete prototype it is somehow inferior. Thats troll logic for you. 








gubbi said:


> And as for the discussion about engines, far more knowledgeable people on many forums have effectively debunked the fiction of J-20 being powered by WS10 'derivative'. The engines are definitely AL-31 derivatives. Yup they are Russian. Rest assured, fanboi bots will believe what they want to, they know shyte!


 
Yes I'm sure Bharat Rakshak is a far more knowledgeable forum for Indians like yourself. Try to bring some evidence, like I don't know photographs? Rest assured troll bots like you will continue to know shyte.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## gubbi

tanlixiang28776 said:


> Oh so you've also jumped on the idiot wagon that because the J 20 is actually a more complete prototype it is somehow inferior. Thats troll logic for you.


No where did I use or imply 'inferior' product. I just wanted to see a picture of unpainted J-20. How is that trolling? Do you or anyone of the bots has it? Then please post. A high res image would be highly appreciated. 


> Yes I'm sure Bharat Rakshak is a far more knowledgeable forum for Indians like yourself. Try to bring some evidence, like I don't know photographs? Rest assured troll bots like you will continue to know shyte.


 Dude, cut the crap. BR does have many professionals there who KNOW what they are saying. And its NOT the only forum out there. So there you have it. 

Again, if you know so much that you and your ilk can call out inconsistencies or lack of sound design just by looking at a few pictures of T50, yu guys da man!! Now please post pics of unpainted J-20, we would like to see it in its b'day suit!

We will then talk. Meanwhile any posts from you and your ilk will be deemed trolling until you or your compatriot bots can come up with a pic of unpainted J-20. Be a man! Show us the pics.


----------



## ptldM3

tanlixiang28776 said:


> *We can see the poor finishing on the PAK FA. You can't with the J 20. We have seen many closeups already *and what you imply does not exist in reality. If you do find the gaps we can clearly see on the PAK FA on the J 20 feel free to post a picture and point it out.




And what constitutes a poor finish? No RAM, no primer? So when the F-22 and F-35 made their test slights with no RAM or primer was that also a poor finish? I think not; and there is no close ups of the J-20 only distant shots from a zoom lens. And why is that so? Clearly some photographs were taken from the airfield but none show any true close-up's. On the other hand we have photograph of the pak-fa from just feet away. And do realize the J-20 has black paint/RAM, clearly much of the details are obscured.

And what gaps do you speak of? the only 'gaps' the pak-fa has is the weapons bays, landing gear bays, retractable fuel probe....if you consider that gaps that the J-20 also has gaps. And if you are referring to the intake/fuselage space than you should refrain for the following reasons:

1. The F-22 has the same feature.
2. You are way out of your league and understanding on the subject.
3. Geometrically there is zero indication that rcs would increase since the 'gap' recedes in a slop manner, where it exits to the lower fuselage.






tanlixiang28776 said:


> Get me a picture and circle the lack of intersecting points in the J 20 and the intersecting points in all other stealth fighters.





Those intersecting points or sawtooth-like patterns are seen on all 'stealth' aircraft. The most prominent being the B-2 and the least prominent being the J-20 with the F-35 not far behind but still better.

Here is an illustration of those points:





The pak-fa:





As you can see there are many edges or sawtooth-like areas all over the wings, the biggest and most difficult to spot is where the horizontal stabilizer meets the main wing. If you are having trouble seeing it ignore the horizontal stabilizer and focus on the main wing. As you can see the wings are very irregular compared to average aircraft. The B-2, F-22, pak-fa, YF-23...ect do not have all of those unusual sawtooth like patterns because it looks cool, they are there for a purpose.




tanlixiang28776 said:


> As for the intake if it is adjustable it will not be any worse than say the F 22 as it also has adjustable intakes.





Where do the F-22's intakes adjust? If we assume this to be true the J-20's intakes are DSI, the F-22's are not. And based of recent talk and animation the DSI will move, there will be much more difficulty for J-20 designers to achieve the same rcs for a adjustable DSI as apposed to a fixed one because of gaps, moving parts ect.




tanlixiang28776 said:


> And if its not perfectly *flush* then the RCS increases. *There is no evidence of this but once again you like to argue with lack of evidence don't you. Lets argue with observable arguments shall we.*





Your are calling me a liar? I always try to provide sources.

Here is your evidence:

http://www.afa.org/Mitchell/Reports/MS_RadarGame_0910.pdf



> *As one Lockheed F&#8209;117 engineer put it, We couldnt allow even the tiniest imperfection in the fit of the landing gear door, for example, that could triple the airplanes RCS if it wasnt precisely flush with the body.*





A landing gear door, a weapons bay, or an adjustable DSI are all in the same category--they are all moving/retractable parts. Weapons bays and landing gear doors are fairly simple, an adjustable DSI is not, so as the engineer puts it the tiniest imperfection or a panel that was not flush can cause an aircraft's RCS to triple.




tanlixiang28776 said:


> So you admit that the J 20 is further along then the T 50 as it already has RAM applied. And don't start with the fanboy calling. I've seen enough of your posts to know that you're quite a fanboy yourself.





You have a strange logic, since when does having RAM constitute as being further along? There are two flying prototypes of the pak-fa as well as some static models and a number of other prototypes on under construction. The flying prototypes are only for aerodynamics, later prototypes will integrate weapons and avionics, they will also be 'LO' platforms.

All the different pak-fa prototypes accelerate the testing process. If you want to believe the J-20 is 'further along' that is totally fine with me. You can think whatever you wish, but you must understand the pak-fa has made dozens of test flight and it flew a year before the J-20, and shortly there will be a third flying prototype.




tanlixiang28776 said:


> And yes we have seen many high resolution close ups of the J 20.






No we have not, all are from far away using a zoom lens. There are two or three decent photograph but none are as close as pak-fa pictures, nor do they have the same resolution. And there is probably good reason for it.




tanlixiang28776 said:


> So find the picture with the weld mark or this is unsubstantiated BS. But thats not a surprise is it?






Here it is, there appears to be a weld mark or some sort of obvious imperfection behind the test probe which is located on the tip of the nose.



http://i.imgur.com/76n4M.jpg

You may need to click on the actual picture to *enlarge* it.


Some other things that stand out:

The airbrake is not plush.

Rivets/bolts are seen on the vertical stabilizer.

And antennas are visible.

How ironic, same things that the J-20 fanboys criticized and crucified the pak-fa for are now also seen on the J-20. Minus the weld marks and large air-brake gap. Talk about two faced and bias. I bet some people feel like slashing their wrists....

I've seen this photograph long ago but i never said anything about it because i'm not like the J-20 fanboys that rudely shout out the top of their longs when they see something that they think is poor 'quality' in the pak-fa. Manners, sensibility, and fairness, these things lack in the J-20 fanboys.





tanlixiang28776 said:


> 1. It is a prototype but on the next prototype a year later little has changed besides changes to sensors. The basic airframe has not changed.




Thank you, but you are not as clever as you think. It was well know that the second prototypes would be identical to the first, even I mentioned this before.





tanlixiang28776 said:


> You don't have RAM ready for application on the PAK FA, therefore its naked even on its second prototype. Poor excuse, but go ahead and tell me your excuse for the poor build quality.




Know what you are talking about, the second prototype is an aerodynamics model. It will likely not receive any RAM. And please do realize RAM has been around for decades, the SU-35 and TU-160 have certain parts that are covered in it. Sukhoi can shoot the pak-fa with a coat of RAM if it wishes but it would not make sense since the aircraft is fitted with test probes that would make any RAM counter productive.


----------



## rcrmj

gubbi said:


> And as for the discussion about engines, far more knowledgeable people on many forums have effectively debunked the fiction of J-20 being powered by WS10 'derivative'. The engines are definitely AL-31 derivatives. Yup they are Russian. Rest assured, fanboi bots will believe what they want to, they know shyte!


 
and also on many other forums they have effectively proved f-20 used WS10 derivatives not AL-31``can you prove them wrong? what is their basic 'fact' that j-20 uses AL-31?


----------



## rcrmj

> As you can see the wings are very irregular compared to average aircraft. The B-2, F-22, pak-fa, YF-23...ect do not have all of those unusual sawtooth like patterns because it looks cool, they are there for a purpose.



OMG the best idiotic line ever 

for god sake, scientists are designing a 5th gen fighter, not designing next Hollywood Transformer movie kits``! please cut of these noncensical craps so to make your posts are a bit more creditable`thx


----------



## below_freezing

ignore the trolls. arguing with them is useless. it is pure jealousy of chinas achievements that they do this.


----------



## cn_habs

1. So ptldM3 thinks that J-20 flew for the first time this January in front of the whole crowd? What if the test conducted in front of everyone wasn't fully successful?
2. The reason it was painted is because it flew all naked already well before its public fight this January. 

Based on 2 observations above, ptldM3 who doesn't know squat about the way the PLA conducts things is badmouthing to make his bankrupt country look better. Nice try.


----------



## 臺灣省委書記蔡英文

In this world, only to use all the strength to speak.Time will reveal all


----------



## IND151

jatt said:


> i disagree.
> the russians do have a large portion of the arms market.
> the largest arms suppliers have purchased Russian, even China. Su-27, S-300, and so on for license production.
> i think, they will have the arms market, certain areas for a while especially for industries the firms that have survived because they have an edge.
> Twin engine fighter jets<---su-27/30
> Tanks<----t-90 is 2 to 3 and has same dimension of t-72
> missile systems<---s-300 which has made large sales and has become competitive in terms of price
> 
> know while the Su-27 airframe is old, it has massive potential to grow. with the new engines, it can super-cruise and bring it near or on par with the euro fighters.
> the t-90, is of course a dead struggle, but a tanks a tank. and this one is competitive. its only competitor is the AK and T-84's from Ukraine. However, the Soviet, research has been applied and it keeps on seeing upgrades. Production is also cheap as well, not to mention maintenance.
> 
> As far a civilian market is concerned, the Russians, have just recently started competing in it. I know a few firms, that have made a reputation for them selves in services to Europe. The Soviet skills training paid off. Especially in heavy manufacturing of steal etc..


 
i agree.

us and European weapons are very high quality but very high price.
Chinese weapons are very cheap and reasonably good quality.

Russian weapons are much costly than Chinese weapons but cheaper than us and European weapons.

quality of Russian weapons is inferior to us or European weapons but superior to Chinese weapons. this situation will continue till china catches up. 

plus buying Russian weapons mean no cisoma or hidden jammers.


----------



## IND151

S10 said:


> You have absolutely no understanding of economy do you?
> 
> Military R&D requires significant resources, both human and financial. Arms sale to foreign buyers cannot recuperate all resources you've devoted back, since those demands are only a niche market compared to civilian goods.* In another words, military hardware sales are tiny when you put things into perspectiv*e. Take the largest defence deal in Indian history, MMRCA for example. It is nothing compared to the volume of trade of say computer or software market. Citing a export of tanks and planes do not save Russia from the fundamental flaws in its economic structure. It's like saying you're fine because you have a nice sofa when your entire house is worn down.
> 
> You also make the same error when you are talking about Russian companies. Just because several of them might be successful inside/outside its borders, it does not elevate Russia out of the difficult situation it is in. Russian industrial capacity crumbled and has yet to find its footing. It seems that you are incapable of looking at the big picture. On the global scale, Russian econoy gets squeezed a little bit more each year.
> 
> The Soviet Union glorious days are gone and Russia is not even a shell of its former self. Accept it.


 
you are right. but military hardware sales keep Russian arms industry alive.


----------



## Speeder 2

the ruskies here are no trolls, just being patriotically biased...

oke, to be fair, much biased.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## teddy

Speeder 2 said:


> the ruskies here are no trolls, just being patriotically biased...
> 
> oke, to be fair, much biased.


 
Of course, coz you guys keep comparing T50 and J20, say keep saying bad things on it.


----------



## Speeder 2

^^ am i right that your new avatar is a group of ethnic Chinese in the Germen WWII army? 

Ruskies here will be jumping to the top of roof when they realise that.


----------



## rcrmj

IND151 said:


> you are right. but military hardware sales keep Russian arms industry alive.


 
precisely speaking, it only kept Sukhoi alive and even making profit...the rest russian defence industries didnt have that luck Sukhoi had```India is Sukhoi's last strong hold, but since the booming of India's economy it gives its financial capability to purchase more capable yet expensive Western military kits``` personally I do not have optimistic views on russia's defence industry, but I can be wrong`!


----------



## rcrmj

teddy said:


> Of course, coz you guys keep comparing T50 and J20, say keep saying bad things on it.


 
i know some guys came out a bit harsh, but sometimes biasd and stereotyped posts do make people after it bit strong


----------



## teddy

Speeder 2 said:


> ^^ am i right that your new avatar is a group of ethnic Chinese in the Germen WWII army?
> 
> Ruskies here will be jumping to the top of roof when they realise that.


 
Actually, i don't know why there is chinese in german army, it is wwII uniform. I just think this is quite a unique photo. no offence.


----------



## Speeder 2

teddy:

Off topic, China and Germany have been allies in most of the 20th century history. 

Some of the most elite nationslist army divisions of China were trained by Germans in earlier 20th century.

Many senior Chinese Nationalist army officiers were trained in Germany (in both German millitary academies and the German army) prior to ww2, including Chiang's adopted son Chiang Wei Guo ( &#33931;&#32428;&#22269;/ &#34083;&#32239;&#22283 , who was the commanding Lieutenant of a German Panzer unit directly involved in Hitler's annex of Austria and the preparation for Poland Invasion at the start of WWII, here :



 ( with Germany army )



 (with German army)



 

( with his colleagues of Gebirgsjäger - elite Wehrmacht unit)



 

(years later as Lieutenant General of Republic of China / Taiwan)

.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## ChineseTiger1986

KMT had definitely a good relationship with the Nazi Germany, but later Hitler gave up the support for KMT since he didn't want to offend his Japanese ally in the first place.

Heck even USSR was an ally of the Nazi Germany when they together backstabbed Poland.


----------



## Speeder 2

ChineseTiger1986 said:


> KMT had definitely a good relationship with the Nazi Germany, but later Hitler gave up the support for KMT since he didn't want to offend his Japanese ally in the first place.
> 
> ..


 
wrong. 

On the record, both Hitler and Göring trusted Chiang much more than Japan, which Göring thought as "Italy of the East and can not be trusted".


Acutally Germany was only *forced *to formally ally with Japan (and Italy for that matter) when America joined the Ally after Pearl Harbour.

.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## teddy

Wow, good to know that.


----------



## teddy

And who is this?






This boy looks like POW


----------



## HROBOS

below_freezing said:


> ignore the trolls. arguing with them is useless. it is pure jealousy of chinas achievements that they do this.


 

I can not sleep. I can not eat. I always envy the Chinese. No free minutes. To envy the U.S., Germany and France.
You're joking. I laughed. no:


----------



## tanlixiang28776

HROBOS said:


> I can not sleep. I can not eat. I always envy the Chinese. No free minutes. To envy the U.S., Germany and France.
> You're joking. I laughed. no:


 
Yes you probably are laughing at the absurdity of your statement as you troll on.


----------



## no_name

teddy said:


> Actually, i don't know why there is chinese in german army, it is wwII uniform. I just think this is quite a unique photo. no offence.


 
Chiang's best division was almost completely german trained and equipped, they fought in shanghai to convince west that japan cannot take over china in three months as they claimed.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## S10

IND151 said:


> you are right. but military hardware sales keep Russian arms industry alive.


It kept it alive yes, but only barely. You need a strong economy, strong market demand and a manufacturing base to keep arms industry strong. Unfortunately, Russia is letting these things slip.


----------



## ptldM3

rcrmj said:


> OMG the best idiotic line ever
> 
> for god sake, scientists are designing a 5th gen fighter, not designing next Hollywood Transformer movie kits``! please cut of these noncensical craps so to make your posts are a bit more creditable`thx


 
The joke is on you, and what is up with 'OMG' you sound like a 13 year old girl gossiping over a boyfriend. The sawthooth edges, serrated edges, lines of intersection ect are all know and used terms. I stand by my earlier comment because it is true and verifiable. A wing geometry is very important in designing an aircraft that can achieve low oberervability; serrated edges or whatever other term you prefer is there for a reason.

If my earlier post was too simplistic it is because none of you fanboys understand what Im talking about or even respect the laws of physics. But upon request I will make my post more credible.

Firstly, all wing designs give off edge diffraction, this usually occurs off of wing tips. The designers of 'stealth' aircraft such as B-2, pak-fa, F-22, ect incorporate those unusual serrated edges in order to minimize specular reflection or direct the diffraction away from the receivers.

Take a look:


http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sour...uY21Cw&usg=AFQjCNEI_27uXbLru926maszAirftSRaeQ



> Diffraction takes place when waves encounteran edgelike a wingtipand are diffractedin all directions around a cone.





And here is proof that sawthooth or serrated edges work for 'mitigating' or reducing edge diffraction:


http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sour...3qjCCw&usg=AFQjCNFYejyZQ4Z2UM1GFZ0cOTZ4veN1uQ




> Serrated edge treatment has been employed as a means of mitigating the effects of edge diffraction associated with compact range reflectors





It has been long know that wing sweep plays an important role in 'stealth' design. The wings themselves as well as the sweep of edges or tip of wings also reduce returns.

Again take a look:

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sour...uY21Cw&usg=AFQjCNEI_27uXbLru926maszAirftSRaeQ




> swept edges on a trailing wing edge can direct the transmitted energy away from the direction of the threat.






This is another example as to why serrated edges are incorporated. It also is why the F-22 and pak-fa have those unusual wing-tips that are angled towards the rear of the aircraft. Most people fail to recognize the importance or relevance of a well designed wing, the goal is to transmit energy away from the receivers, this is achieved by many factors, but the most important and most widely used technique is serrated edges. Further, all stealth aircraft have smooth flat surfaces which is necessary because any protrusions can cause EM energy to diffract. But a smooth flat surface can actually cause EM energy to collect, something referred to as a 'traveling wave'. This is a delicate balancing act because although you want a smooth flat surface in order to have the smallest radar signature as possible, you also want to eliminate any imperfections as to not cause edge diffraction. Likewise, when a 'traveling wave' reaches its final destination (a wing or wing tip) it is absolutely essential that the wing is designed to re-direct or minimize EM energy, otherwise all that energy scatters of a poorly designed wing and makes it back to the receivers.




below_freezing said:


> ignore the trolls. arguing with them is useless. it is pure jealousy of chinas achievements that they do this.




Let not play this game, it is the J-20 fanboys that are the aggressors. It is you and others like you that bring the pak-fa into every conversation, so why is it that whenever Chinese members start attacking the pak-fa they are innocent but when someone raises a good point about the J-20 or criticizes it they are trolls? The pattern is this, J-20 fanboy randomly spout nonsense about how the J-20 is 'more advanced' than the pak-fa and F-22 then when someone challenges that they are considered trolls. Another pattern is the utter nonsense that comes from J-20 fanboys, everything from single piece canopies to canards has been a humiliating disaster on their part, further none of the crap J-20 fanboys preach can be verified or proven. Even funnier is that the J-20 miraculously somehow defies physics. It is amusing how the pak-fa was 'not stealthy' because it had antennas and rivets but when some clearer photographs of the J-20 revealed the same those same J-20 fanboys never mentioned it again. Funny how some of the same things that the pak-fa was crucified for does not apply to the J-20. The definition of troll can be interpreted any different ways.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## tanlixiang28776

Seriously PTLD3 if you don't want to see people disparage anything Russian go to a Russian or Indian forum.


----------



## ptldM3

tanlixiang28776 said:


> Seriously PTLD3 if you don't want to see people disparage anything Russian go to a Russian or Indian forum.


 

I do not care if people 'disparage' anything Russian as long as they can back up their claims. It is mildly annoying yet necessary when I have to constantly correct and educate people, but why do I even try? Every time I go out of my way to educate people by actually spending the time by providing credible sources and taking the time to explain why something does or does not work the way they claim, my efforts often get ignored and the J-20 fanboys continue to make up factitious claims that seem to defy physics. If I were Chinese I would be embarrassed and ashamed of such members, not only do they get public spankings but most of their claims end up backfiring on them; ex: the pak-fa's antennas are no good for 'stealth' but apparently the same rules do not apply to the J-20.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## CardSharp

tanlixiang28776 said:


> Seriously PTLD3 if you don't want to see people disparage anything Russian go to a Russian or Indian forum.


 
What I think he is actually trying to do is make stuff he's gleaned from defence forums/google seem academically respectable.


----------



## tanlixiang28776

ptldM3 said:


> I do not care if people 'disparage' anything Russian as long as they can back up their claims. It is mildly annoying yet necessary when I have to constantly correct and educate people, but why do I even try? Every time I go out of my way to educate people by actually spending the time by providing credible sources and taking the time to explain why something does or does not work the way they claim, my efforts often get ignored and the J-20 fanboys continue to make up factitious claims that seem to defy physics. If I were Chinese I would be embarrassed and ashamed of such members, not only do they get public spankings but most of their claims end up backfiring on them; ex: the pak-fa's antennas are no good for 'stealth' but apparently the same rules do not apply to the J-20.


 
Why the F**k should I care? Its their arguments not mine. I don't have the time to monitor idiots like that. Why don't you argue with some idiots who think the Su 35 is a match for the F 35. No you have to bother insult the rest of the Chinese here by arguing with LocaLoca all the time who isn't even Chinese.

---------- Post added at 08:12 AM ---------- Previous post was at 08:11 AM ----------




CardSharp said:


> What I think he is actually trying to do is make stuff he's gleaned from defence forums/google seem academically respectable.


 
Thats what 99.99 percent of the people here do. Some are just better at it then others.


----------



## CardSharp

tanlixiang28776 said:


> Thats what 99.99 percent of the people here do. Some are just better at it then others.


 
The lengths people will go to, to win an argument. =P


----------



## gambit

> CardSharp said:
> 
> 
> 
> What I think he is actually trying to do is make stuff he's gleaned from defence forums/google seem academically respectable.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> tanlixiang28776 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thats what 99.99 percent of the people here do. Some are just better at it then others.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Beats Photochopped crap, ya think?


----------



## ptldM3

CardSharp said:


> What I think he is actually trying to do is make stuff he's gleaned from defence forums/google seem academically respectable.


 
Don't insult my intelligence. All my sources are from my own searching and my own words. And i seriously hope you do not think that google is a source, it is a short cut that leads you to the source, try clicking it and see where it leads you.


----------



## CardSharp

ptldM3 said:


> Don't insult my intelligence.


 
Google meaning open source or do I need to use smaller words next time?


----------



## cn_habs

Can we stop arguing with no-lives wannabe experts in our own forum? They don't have any of CAC's data and evaluation all they can do to make them feel better is to speculate and convince themselves of their so-called intelligence.


----------



## CardSharp

cn_habs said:


> Can we stop arguing with no-lives wannabe experts in our own forum? They don't have any of CAC's data and evaluation all they can do to make them feel better is to speculate and convince themselves of their so-called intelligence.


 
Don't be cruel. For all we know this shaky sense of superior know how is all that ptlmd has going for him. The least we can do is see that it doesn't go hungry.


----------



## ChineseTiger1986

gambit said:


> Beats *Photochopped* crap, ya think?


 
Here we go, Mr.Military Expert.


----------



## tanlixiang28776

gambit said:


> Beats Photochopped crap, ya think?


----------



## ptldM3

tanlixiang28776 said:


> Why the F**k should I care?




I would care, they are an embracement especially when they boast of high IQ's but fail to live up to it.




tanlixiang28776 said:


> Its their arguments not mine. I don't have the time to monitor idiots like that. *Why don't you argue with some idiots who think the Su 35 is a match for the F 35.*





But I have, and on many occasions, I came prove it if you like. You see I try to look at things in a technical manner and not from a fanboy manner. I have stated that the F-35's smaller RCS will give it an advantage. There is no need for me to stoop the level of some J-20 fanboys by furiously denying and producing factitious claims.



tanlixiang28776 said:


> No you have to bother insult the rest of the Chinese here by arguing with LocaLoca all the time who isn't even Chinese.





I never insult Chinese, I only challenge and occasionally poke fun of the J-20 fanboys, most of which just happen to be Chinese, and it's actually me that constantly gets insulted, apparently it is fine to call me a vodka guzzler and russki. And it is not all J-20 enthusiasts, there are many people such as Siegecrossbow that are respectful and sensible. Further, I never criticize the J-20 just for the pleasure of criticizing I do it to educate people, and on many occasions I have offered alternative explanations or viewpoints as to why it is possible that the J-20 can overcome a particular challenge. But the J-20 fanboys are not so sensible, they believe that the pak-fa will go into production with exposed rivets, they believe that radar blockers do not work well even though that has been disproven and I general they show no mercy, but get upset when someone does the same to the J-20. And it's not just LocaLoca, there are countless members here that constantly insult not only the pak-fa but the F-22, F-35, Tejas and in general anything that is not Chinese.


----------



## ptldM3

CardSharp said:


> Google meaning open source or do I need to use smaller words next time?




Oh, Im sorry, next time I will bring you an aircraft engineer and his credentials to your door because apparently technical writings from accredited people are not considered sources.



cn_habs said:


> Can we stop arguing with no-lives wannabe experts in our own forum? *They don't have any of CAC's data and evaluation* all they can do to make them feel better is to speculate and convince themselves of their so-called intelligence.



And you and your fellow fanboys don't have any data from Sukhoi, but that doesn't seem to stop the fanboys from making up factitious claims. Further, i have a good understanding of how 'stealth' works. Everything i say can be varified, unless you are suggesting that experts in the field of 'stealth' are liars.


----------



## nightcrawler

^^ you have made your point extremely clear...u don't need to talk with them. Once you prove your point thats OK..thy don't want to listen its their choice. Anyway thnx for your informative replies


----------



## rcrmj

ptldM3 said:


> Oh, Im sorry, next time I will bring you an aircraft engineer and his credentials to your door because apparently technical writings from *accredited people *are not considered sources.


name and their occupation? when you believe them creditable and they are, but otherwise? 8-year-old kid philosophy 




ptldM3 said:


> And you and your fellow *fanboys *don't *have any data from Sukhoi*, but that doesn't seem to stop the fanboys from making up *factitious claims*.


arent you one of the fanboys club? keep making up those noncensical claims that T-50 is superior yet mostly a poor design did by lack of fund Russian scientists```` and it sounds you are the only one who has all the 'secretitive' Sukhoi data?--again 8-year-old ranting```most of your claims are factitious``



ptldM3 said:


> Further, *i have a good understanding of how 'stealth' works*. Everything i say can be varified, unless you are suggesting that experts in the field of 'stealth' are liars.


so do many many other members```yet your claim is still questionable`


----------



## cn_habs

ptldM3 said:


> Oh, Im sorry, next time I will bring you an aircraft engineer and his credentials to your door because apparently technical writings from accredited people are not considered sources.
> 
> 
> 
> And you and your fellow fanboys don't have any data from Sukhoi, but that doesn't seem to stop the fanboys from making up factitious claims. Further, i have a good understanding of how 'stealth' works. Everything i say can be varified, unless you are suggesting that experts in the field of 'stealth' are liars.



You can google all you want but as far as we are concerned you don't work for Sukhoi so everything you've presented is pure speculation. 
We'll see how a quasi bankrupt firm like Sukhoi can even rival with a state-owned CAC in terms of R&D.


----------



## rcrmj

cn_habs said:


> You can google all you want but as far as we are concerned you don't work for Sukhoi so everything you've presented is pure speculation.
> We'll see how a quasi bankrupt firm like Sukhoi can even rival with a state-owned CAC in terms of R&D.


 
I doubt he will accept this reality which proves over and over again that Sukhoi is losing its edge to CAC or even SAC...the only area that China aviation suffers are the turbofan engines, but it is not going to be perminant```10 years ago China wouldnt even think about in terms of innovation and R&D out-put in lines with U.S, Japan and Germany``but now China's position in R&D is non-questionable. One Chinese Company ZTE receives 400 more patent from PCT than whole Russia has in 2010``

now what left to Sukhoi was the Echo of the mighty Soviet, and persoanlly I believe it has been overrated


----------



## ptldM3

rcrmj said:


> name and their occupation? when you believe them creditable and they are, but otherwise? 8-year-old kid philosophy




Besides quoting engineers that worked on aircraft such as the F-117 i have quoted various publications including scientific journals, and what have you quoted? Nothing, What about your fellow fanboys? The most credible sources you guys use is some blogs, pathetic.

Back to topic here is the references of one source i used:

Thinking in the US Air Force, 1907-1960, Vol. I (Maxwell AFB, AL:
Air University Press, 1989) p. 485.
33. Walton S. Moody, Building a Strategic Air Force (Washington,
DC: USGPO, 1996) p. 104-105.
34. Moody, p. 106.
35. Moody, p. 422.
36. Gen. Thomas D. White, quoted in Futrell, p. 514.
37. Fletcher Knebel, The Coming Death of the Flying Air
Force, Look magazine, Oct. 1, 1957.
38. Quoted in Ben Rich and Leo Janos, Skunk Works: A
Personal Memoir of My Years at Lockheed (Boston: Little
Brown, 1994) p. 147.
39. Quoted in Rich and Janos, p. 247.
40. Futrell, Ideas, Concepts and Doctrine: Basic Thinking in the
US Air Force, 1961-1984, Vol. II, p. 389.
41. Gen. William W. Momyer, USAF (Ret.), Airpower in Three
Wars (Washington, DC: Department of the Air Force, 1978)
p. 125-126.
42. Lt. Col. James R. Brungress, USAF, Setting the Context:
Suppression of Enemy Air Defenses and Joint Warfighting
in an Uncertain World (Maxwell AFB, AL: Air University Press,
1994) p. 11.
43. Maj. A. J. C. Lavalle, USAF, gen. ed., The Tale of Two Bridges
and the Battle for the Skies Over North Vietnam, USAF
Southeast Asia Monograph Series, Vol. 1, Monographs 1 and
2 (Washington, DC: Office of Air Force History, 1976) p. 152.
44. Brig. Gen. James R. McCarthy, Lt. Col. George B. Allison and,
Col. Robert E. Rayfield, gen.ed., Linebacker II: A View From
the Rock, USAF SEA Monograph Series Vol. VI, Monograph 8
(Washington, DC: Office of Air Force History, 1985) p. 173.
45. Werrell, p. 52-53.
46. Capt. Robert E. Wolff, USAF, Linebacker II: A Pilots
Perspective, Air Force Magazine, September 1979, p. 89.
47. Maj. Calvin R. Johnson, Project CHECO Report: Linebacker
Operations, September - December 1972 (Hickam AFB, HI:
Hq. Pacific Air Forces Office of History, 1978) Appendix Five, p.
95; Wolff, p. 89-91.
48. Col. John A. Warden III, USAF, The Air Campaign: Planning for
Combat (Washington, DC: Pergamon-Brasseys International
Defense Publishers, 1989) p. 60.
49. Brungress, p. 28.
50. Quoted in Maj. William A. Hewitt, Planting the Seeds of
SEAD: The Wild Weasel in Vietnam (Maxwell AFB, AL: Air
University, 1992) p. 34.
51. Lt. Gen. Joseph W. Ralston, Keynote Address to HAVE
Forum, 1994, US Air Force Academy.
52. William Green, The Warplanes of the Third Reich (New
York: Galahad Books, 1986) p. 247-251. The British also had a
wooden (but not composite and charcoal-coated) bomber,
the Mosquito, though its stealth characteristics were almost
nil because the radar waves that passed through the wood
outer structure would reflect off internal structures, such as
the skeleton, wing spars, bomb racks, the cockpit, and the
engines. The Mosquito probably had a lower RCS than a
metallic Lancaster or Halifax, though this amount was not
militarily significant. The Mosquitos survivability was derived
from its performance rather than its RCS reduction. Doug
Richardson, Stealth (New York: Orion Books, 1989) p. 42.
53. Green, p. 249.
54. Green, p. 251.
55. Cited in Richardson, p. 96.
56. Rich, p. 24, 215.
57. David C. Jenn, Radar and Laser Cross-Section Engineering
(Washington, DC: AIAA, 1995) p. 6.
58. Conduct of the Persian Gulf War: Final Report to Congress
(Washington, DC: Department of Defense, April 1992) p. 154.
59. Gulf War Air Power Survey, Volume II: Operations and
Effectiveness (Washington, DC: Department of the Air Force,
USGPO, 1993) p. 79. Hereafter referred to as GWAPS.
60. Michael R. Gordon and Bernard E. Trainor, The Generals
War: The Inside Story of the Conflict in the Gulf (Boston: Little,
Brown, c1995) p. 115.
61. GWAPS Vol. II, p. 123-124.
62. Thomas A. Keaney and Elliot A. Cohen, Gulf War Air Power
Survey Summary Report (Washington, DC: Department of
the Air Force, 1993) p. 224.
63. Christopher J. Bowie, Untying the Bloody Scarf (Arlington,
VA: IRIS Independent Research, 1998) p. 15.
64. John Shaeffer, Understanding Stealth (Marietta, GA:
Marietta Scientific, Inc., undated paper) p. 15.





rcrmj said:


> arent you one of the fanboys club? keep making up those noncensical claims that T-50 is superior yet mostly a poor design did by lack of fund Russian scientists```` and it sounds you are the only one who has all the 'secretitive' Sukhoi data?--again 8-year-old ranting```most of your claims are factitious``





Wrong, fanboy. I never made any claims about the pak-fa, the closest thing to a claim i made was about the wing geometry based off of know design laws and physics. Other than that i provided sources about how effective radar blockers can be after a couple of your fellow fanboys dismissed the technology, than again it had nothing to do specifically with the pak-fa. Further, it is you and chumps like yourself that constatnly emmbaress yourselves by guessing rcs, assuming the J-20 is stealthy because it had 'DSI' and a 'one peice canopy' and using terms such as 'super advanced'. 




rcrmj said:


> so do many many other members```yet your claim is still questionable`



 this is a joke right? Are these the same member that claim the 'metal' in a canopy increases RCS or that canards do not increas RCS because they 'are like papers from the front'. Show me what you know, disprove my finding or else keep quiet and stay out of conversations you have no bussiness being in.



cn_habs said:


> You can google all you want but as far as we are concerned you don't work for Sukhoi so everything you've presented is pure speculation.






Wrong, everything i presented is based off of know laws of physics, so unless J-20 engineers somehow magically managed to defy the laws of physics i think it is safe to say that my finding are not speculation. Of course maybe individuals such as Petr Ufimtsev, the man than wrote the book on stealth are idiots, maybe the designers of the F-117 are liars, maybe all of publishers i have quoted have formed a big conspiracy.





cn_habs said:


> We'll see how a quasi bankrupt firm like Sukhoi can even rival with a state-owned CAC in terms of R&D.



Are you kidding me? What the hell is CAC  and Sukhoi has shares by both private companies as well as the 'state'. Furhter, how am i supoosed to take your comment seriously, when Chinese companies shamelessly copy the Sukhoi airframe? What is the matter, they can't come up with something on their own? I'm sure Sukhoi is trembling in their boots, afterall how can they compete with someone that copies them. At the end of the day Sukhoi sell aircraft all over the world, the SU-30 is wildly popular and for good reason. Superjest 100 has 189 orders and counting, India and Russia plan to purchase 500 pak-fa's, this is not counting other potential customers, the SU-35 and SU-34 have orders and many countries continue to purchase the SU-30. Yes how can Sukhoi compete with the world renowned (sarcasm) CAC?




rcrmj said:


> I doubt he will accept this reality which proves over and over again that Sukhoi is losing its edge to CAC or even SAC...





Losing it edge, based on what? Your deluted perception?



rcrmj said:


> the only area that China aviation suffers are the turbofan engines, but it is not going to be perminant```




Yet Russian components other than turbofan engines are used in Chinese aircraft......





rcrmj said:


> now what left to Sukhoi was the Echo of the mighty Soviet, and persoanlly I believe it has been overrated



A company that has produced thousands of aircraft and countless varieties is overrated? The SU-27 alone broke *41* world records, how many world records have Chinese aircraft broke? Why did China purchase SU-27's than SU-30's, and than shamlessly copied the SU-27 airframe in the J-11 and J-15? Is that overrated? So which part of Sukhoi is overrated?

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## cn_habs

Sukhoi used to be a world leader in aviation alongside of Lockheed/Beoing but we aren't in the 80's anymore and the Russian government is pretty much bankrupt.

The Russian government has in service:
11 Su-30s
14 Su-34s
11 Su-35s

Sooner or later, Sukhoi's financial struggles due to lack of order from its own government will become obvious. 

In 1990's, China was still making J-7s which was first introduced in the 1960's. 
In early 2000's, J-10 came out and its latest J-10B variant with AESA/IRS/DSI intake is comparable to the F-16 C/D.
In early 2011, J-20 makes its first public flight which is 1 generation ahead of the likes of Rafale and EF. 

Given the progress of the Chinese aviation backed by the growth of its economy in the past 2 decades, we'll see how big of a difference there will be between the CAC and Sukhoi in 5 or 10 years or so.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## gambit

ptldM3 said:


> A company that has produced thousands of aircraft and countless varieties is overrated? The SU-27 alone broke 41 world records, *how many world records have Chinese aircraft broke?* Why did China purchase SU-27's than SU-30's, and than shamlessly copied the SU-27 airframe in the J-11 and J-15? Is that overrated? So which part of Sukhoi is overrated?


Given the population count and today's Internet, probably the amount of baseless fanboy assumptions, many of which practically defied the laws of physics.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## CardSharp

Cutting and pasting the entire reference section not really that impressive.

"42. Lt. Col. James R. Brungress, USAF, Setting the Context: Suppression of Enemy Air Defenses and Joint Warfighting in an Uncertain World (Maxwell AFB, AL: Air University Press," - Google Search

RadarGame_Understanding Stealth and Aircraft Survivability






ptldM3 said:


> Besides quoting engineers that worked on aircraft such as the F-117 i have quoted various publications including scientific journals, and what have you quoted? Nothing, What about your fellow fanboys? The most credible sources you guys use is some blogs, pathetic.
> 
> Back to topic here is the references of one source i used:
> 
> Thinking in the US Air Force, 1907-1960, Vol. I (Maxwell AFB, AL:
> Air University Press, 1989) p. 485.
> 33. Walton S. Moody, Building a Strategic Air Force (Washington,
> DC: USGPO, 1996) p. 104-105.
> 34. Moody, p. 106.
> 35. Moody, p. 422.
> 36. Gen. Thomas D. White, quoted in Futrell, p. 514.
> 37. Fletcher Knebel, The Coming Death of the Flying Air
> Force, Look magazine, Oct. 1, 1957.
> 38. Quoted in Ben Rich and Leo Janos, Skunk Works: A
> Personal Memoir of My Years at Lockheed (Boston: Little
> Brown, 1994) p. 147.
> 39. Quoted in Rich and Janos, p. 247.
> 40. Futrell, Ideas, Concepts and Doctrine: Basic Thinking in the
> US Air Force, 1961-1984, Vol. II, p. 389.
> 41. Gen. William W. Momyer, USAF (Ret.), Airpower in Three
> Wars (Washington, DC: Department of the Air Force, 1978)
> p. 125-126.
> 42. Lt. Col. James R. Brungress, USAF, Setting the Context:
> Suppression of Enemy Air Defenses and Joint Warfighting
> in an Uncertain World (Maxwell AFB, AL: Air University Press,
> 1994) p. 11.
> 43. Maj. A. J. C. Lavalle, USAF, gen. ed., The Tale of Two Bridges
> and the Battle for the Skies Over North Vietnam, USAF
> Southeast Asia Monograph Series, Vol. 1, Monographs 1 and
> 2 (Washington, DC: Office of Air Force History, 1976) p. 152.
> 44. Brig. Gen. James R. McCarthy, Lt. Col. George B. Allison and,
> Col. Robert E. Rayfield, gen.ed., Linebacker II: A View From
> the Rock, USAF SEA Monograph Series Vol. VI, Monograph 8
> (Washington, DC: Office of Air Force History, 1985) p. 173.
> 45. Werrell, p. 52-53.
> 46. Capt. Robert E. Wolff, USAF, Linebacker II: A Pilots
> Perspective, Air Force Magazine, September 1979, p. 89.
> 47. Maj. Calvin R. Johnson, Project CHECO Report: Linebacker
> Operations, September - December 1972 (Hickam AFB, HI:
> Hq. Pacific Air Forces Office of History, 1978) Appendix Five, p.
> 95; Wolff, p. 89-91.
> 48. Col. John A. Warden III, USAF, The Air Campaign: Planning for
> Combat (Washington, DC: Pergamon-Brasseys International
> Defense Publishers, 1989) p. 60.
> 49. Brungress, p. 28.
> 50. Quoted in Maj. William A. Hewitt, Planting the Seeds of
> SEAD: The Wild Weasel in Vietnam (Maxwell AFB, AL: Air
> University, 1992) p. 34.
> 51. Lt. Gen. Joseph W. Ralston, Keynote Address to HAVE
> Forum, 1994, US Air Force Academy.
> 52. William Green, The Warplanes of the Third Reich (New
> York: Galahad Books, 1986) p. 247-251. The British also had a
> wooden (but not composite and charcoal-coated) bomber,
> the Mosquito, though its stealth characteristics were almost
> nil because the radar waves that passed through the wood
> outer structure would reflect off internal structures, such as
> the skeleton, wing spars, bomb racks, the cockpit, and the
> engines. The Mosquito probably had a lower RCS than a
> metallic Lancaster or Halifax, though this amount was not
> militarily significant. The Mosquitos survivability was derived
> from its performance rather than its RCS reduction. Doug
> Richardson, Stealth (New York: Orion Books, 1989) p. 42.
> 53. Green, p. 249.
> 54. Green, p. 251.
> 55. Cited in Richardson, p. 96.
> 56. Rich, p. 24, 215.
> 57. David C. Jenn, Radar and Laser Cross-Section Engineering
> (Washington, DC: AIAA, 1995) p. 6.
> 58. Conduct of the Persian Gulf War: Final Report to Congress
> (Washington, DC: Department of Defense, April 1992) p. 154.
> 59. Gulf War Air Power Survey, Volume II: Operations and
> Effectiveness (Washington, DC: Department of the Air Force,
> USGPO, 1993) p. 79. Hereafter referred to as GWAPS.
> 60. Michael R. Gordon and Bernard E. Trainor, The Generals
> War: The Inside Story of the Conflict in the Gulf (Boston: Little,
> Brown, c1995) p. 115.
> 61. GWAPS Vol. II, p. 123-124.
> 62. Thomas A. Keaney and Elliot A. Cohen, Gulf War Air Power
> Survey Summary Report (Washington, DC: Department of
> the Air Force, 1993) p. 224.
> 63. Christopher J. Bowie, Untying the Bloody Scarf (Arlington,
> VA: IRIS Independent Research, 1998) p. 15.
> 64. John Shaeffer, Understanding Stealth (Marietta, GA:
> Marietta Scientific, Inc., undated paper) p. 15.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## CardSharp

The sad part about this is, is the report you so authoritatively cite was written and researched by highschool students.




> The core mission of the Mitchell Institute is to increase the likelihood that young people from every community in Maine will aspire to, pursue and achieve a college education. Each year, a Mitchell Scholarship is awarded to a graduating senior from every public high school in Maine who will be attending a two-or four-year postsecondary degree program. Selection is based on academic promise, financial need and a history of community service. The Mitchell Scholarship Program has awarded nearly $8 million in financial assistance to nearly 1,800 Maine students since 1995.
> 
> Mitchell Institute support programs create ongoing Scholar involvement in leadership and professional development, as well as community service and mentoring activities. The Mitchell Institute believes that through participation in these activities, Mitchell Scholars will be more inclined to remain in Maine to live and work after graduation. The Mitchell Institute strengthens the involvement of a new generation of civic-minded and committed citizens, all the while creating educational opportunity for Maine's young people.



THE MITCHELL INSTITUTE


What about this whole thing is suppose to make anyone change their minds about you just being some guy without a formal education who uses open source docs to say only he is qualified to post on the interwebz.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## rcrmj

ptldM3 said:


> Are you kidding me? What the hell is CAC  and Sukhoi has shares by both private companies as well as the 'state'. Furhter, how am i supoosed to take your comment seriously, when Chinese companies shamelessly copy the Sukhoi airframe? What is the matter, they can't come up with something on their own? I'm sure Sukhoi is trembling in their boots, afterall how can they compete with someone that copies them. At the end of the day Sukhoi sell aircraft all over the world, the SU-30 is wildly popular and for good reason. Superjest 100 has 189 orders and counting, India and Russia plan to purchase 500 pak-fa's, this is not counting other potential customers, the SU-35 and SU-34 have orders and many countries continue to purchase the SU-30. Yes how can Sukhoi compete with the world renowned (sarcasm) CAC?
> 
> Losing it edge, based on what? Your deluted perception?
> 
> Yet Russian components other than turbofan engines are used in Chinese aircraft......
> 
> A company that has produced thousands of aircraft and countless varieties is overrated? The SU-27 alone broke *41* world records, how many world records have Chinese aircraft broke? Why did China purchase SU-27's than SU-30's, and than shamlessly copied the SU-27 airframe in the J-11 and J-15? Is that overrated? So which part of Sukhoi is overrated?


 
You have just proved my point that Sukhoi is overrated, as I stated in my earlier posts that the current Sukhoi is living with their past achivement! all the things you've listed like Su-27 and Su-30 were Soviet products, and what did post 1991 Sukhoi actually accomplished? apart selling conditional appalling Su-27s to China thats why we had to 'copy' in order to make it at least state operational```do you know how many russian built s-27s sold to China crashed??

and I used the word 'losing' not lost``do you even understand the meaning of 'losing' and 'lost' ?? delusional one is you not us``from 1992 t0 2011 we saw the development of F-35, F-22, upgraded version of F-16s, F-15s and F-18s and they even sucessfully tested the 6th gen fighter```and also during this 20 years we saw China maturing with her J-7s, J-8s, FBC-1s, FC-1s, J-10s and J-20s and other bunches``however, during these 20 years what did we witness from Russia?? nothing new but old bunches like the flanker families and the R.I.P Mikoyan!! and poor performance of russian weapons in quite a few conflicts``

why it is difficult for you to just accept the demise of mighty Soviet defence industry? in terms of budget, R&D output, number of scientist and natinal will china is out pacing Russia not by small but huge margin``arent these enough to justity my 'losing edge' to China??

think again do not indulge in the past 'sources'``` the mighty Soviet was long gone and the Russia nowaday is nowhere on the field of technology superpower like the america

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## rcrmj

CardSharp said:


> Cutting and pasting the entire reference section not really that impressive.
> 
> "42. Lt. Col. James R. Brungress, USAF, Setting the Context: Suppression of Enemy Air Defenses and Joint Warfighting in an Uncertain World (Maxwell AFB, AL: Air University Press," - Google Search
> 
> RadarGame_Understanding Stealth and Aircraft Survivability


 
thats why i refer him as a fanboy `

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## grey boy 2

gambit said:


> Given the population count and today's Internet, probably the amount of baseless fanboy assumptions, many of which practically defied the laws of physics.



Ha, old man, still here busying spreading your outdated anti-Chinese propangada as usual? *"FANBOY"? what about yourself? did you forget you admitted you are also one of the "FANBOY" on this forum before? *my friendly advice to you will be better to behave yourself, cut down your lies and feed on your women's money like most of your countrymen do. Easy life, isn't it great eh? 
PS, seriously, how you still got the nerve to continue your so-called professionalism claim after your so-called J-20 "photochop" accusation being debunked right at your face? hmm, thick face professional?

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## CardSharp

rcrmj said:


> thats why i refer him as a fanboy `


 

Not really my point. What I'm trying to say is that we're all here for shits and giggles, while he's working himself up into a lather calling people fanboys, as if that is the ultimate insult and he himself isn't the biggest fanboy of all.


----------



## gambit

grey boy 2 said:


> Ha, old man, still here busying spreading your outdated anti-Chinese propangada as usual? *"FANBOY"? what about yourself? did you forget you admitted you are also one of the "FANBOY" on this forum before? *my friendly advice to you will be better to behave yourself, cut down your lies and feed on your women's money like most of your countrymen do. Easy life, isn't it great eh?
> PS, seriously, how you still got the nerve to continue your so-called professionalism claim after your so-called J-20 "photochop" accusation being debunked right at your face? hmm, thick face professional?


Of course I am a 'fanboy'. But the issue is *BASELESS* assumptions from fanboys. Mine are not baseless. Even if any of my assumptions is wrong, it can never be considered 'baseless' because I support my arguments with credible third party sources. More than you Chinese boys can say for yourselves.


----------



## ptldM3

cn_habs said:


> The Russian government has in service:
> 11 Su-30s
> 14 Su-34s
> 11 Su-35s




And your point is? The numbers are increasing esspecially when the SU-34 and the SU-35BM or SU-35S are brand new aircraft, and the Russian air force preferes the SU-35 over the SU-30 hense the low numbers. SU-34's, SU-35's, and pak-fa will replace older Sukhois. Lets keep on track, you fanboys loose every conversation so you revert to making fools out of yourselves by diverting the subject to numbers of aircraft, sources, companies, patents and a whole lot of other nonesense.





cn_habs said:


> Sooner or later, Sukhoi's financial struggles due to lack of order from its own government will become obvious.






The Russian airforce has ordered about 100 SU-34's/SU-35S's, minumum. And is planing on purchasing 250 pak-fa's, the Superjet 100 is also has many orders in Russia, and nearly 190 worldwide. And why would it matter if the orders are in Russia or obroad? Money is money, Sukhoi's are selling everywhere from Guatamala to Vietnam, Malyasia, to India.





cn_habs said:


> In 1990's, China was still making J-7s which was first introduced in the 1960's.
> In early 2000's, J-10 came out and its latest J-10B variant with AESA/IRS/DSI intake is comparable to the F-16 C/D.
> In early 2011, J-20 makes its first public flight which is 1 generation ahead of the likes of Rafale and EF.





J-10 and AESA? Reading too many blogs arn't we?



CardSharp said:


> Cutting and pasting the entire reference section not really that impressive.







The man or girl asked for who my sources are and i provided them, did you want me to sent them via mail? Or did you want me to type every source free-hand? Your above statment is as obsured as your other statment regarding Google and searching sources. 




CardSharp said:


> The sad part about this is, is the report you so authoritatively cite was written and researched by highschool students.




No the sad part is that you cant read and that you think that i'm as gullible as some J-20 fanboys. Firstly your quote did not say anything about highschool students reasearching or writing *anything*.

Your quote only metioned that the Mitchell Institute awards scholarships, and nothing, apsolutely nothing about students researching or writing anything.

Here is who the author was:




> ABOUT THE AUTHOR: Dr. Rebecca Grant is an airpower analyst with 20 years of experience in Washington, D.C. She is President of IRIS Independent Research and serves as director, Mitchell Institute, for the Air Force Association. She has written extensively on airpower and among her most recent publications are several Mitchell reports, including The Vanishing Arsenal of Airpower (2009),The Tanker Imperative (2009), and Airpower in Afghanistan (2009).




Nice try, but the only thing you proved was that you have a reading imparment and that you are a liar.





rcrmj said:


> apart selling conditional appalling Su-27s to China thats why we had to 'copy' in order to make it at least state operational```*do you know how many russian built s-27s sold to China crashed??*





India operates a very large amount of SU-30's and has been for 13 years, some Indian SU-30 pilots receive as much as 300 flight hours anually, some of the highest in any airforce, yet there has been only 2 crashes one of which is pilot error if im not mistaken, so Sukhoi's are actually very safe, infact when you factor in all the airforces that operate SU-30's you will find out that crashes are extremely rare.

Maybe China needs to train it pilots and technicians better than perhaps they would be crashing. 





rcrmj said:


> and I used the word 'losing' not lost``do you even understand the meaning of 'losing' and 'lost' ?? delusional one is you not us``from 1992 t0 2011 we saw the development of F-35, F-22, upgraded version of F-16s, F-15s and F-18s and they even sucessfully tested the 6th gen fighter```*and also during this 20 years we saw China maturing with her J-7s, J-8s, FBC-1s, FC-1s, J-10s and J-20s and other bunches``however, during these 20 years what did we witness from Russia?? *nothing new but old bunches like the flanker families and the R.I.P Mikoyan!! and poor performance of russian weapons in quite a few conflicts``




Yea and Russia didn't upgrade any of their airrcaft right? The SU-34 had 11 avionics upgrades before it even entered service. The SU-30 is offered with multiple avionics packages. And if you were not so naive you would know Russia has had a number of project besides the SU-30's, SU-34's amd SU-35's. KA-50, KA-60 Superjet, yak-130, pak-fa as well as heavy cargo aircraft are either in service or in development.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## CardSharp

^^^^

You're right about the author though my point holds regardless, you're substituting web surfing for an educational and professional background. It's obvious you spend a lot of time on the internet reading this stuff. If you have fun with it, great but stop being so fcking pretentious. People who actually design air planes go to top universities and take courses, they don't troll the fcking internet.


----------



## cn_habs

ptldM3 said:


> And your point is? The numbers are increasing esspecially when the SU-34 and the SU-35BM or SU-35S are brand new aircraft, and the Russian air force preferes the SU-35 over the SU-30 hense the low numbers. SU-34's, SU-35's, and pak-fa will replace older Sukhois. Lets keep on track, you fanboys loose every conversation so you revert to making fools out of yourselves by diverting the subject to numbers of aircraft, sources, companies, patents and a whole lot of other nonesense.



TALK IS SO CHEAP NOWADAYS...ANYONE KNOWS HOW TO PLACE ORDERS BUT TO PAY FOR THEM WITH ACTUAL MONEY IS ANOTHER DIFFERENT MATTER. 

Why do you think I listed the number of past-Soviet acquisitions of Sukhoi planes? Money is hard to come by for your armed forces ever since the collapse of the USSR.

The Russian military has in service:
11 Su-30s
14 Su-34s
11 Su-35s

Your government has been bankrupt for 20 years now and its defense industry has had trouble rolling out new products just look at how the number of serviceable jets, surface combatants and submarines has shrunk compared with the Soviet era.


----------



## REEVER

Speeder 2 said:


> the ruskies here are no trolls, just being patriotically biased...
> 
> oke, to be fair, much biased.


 
Well china did steal all there ideas so yeah.


----------



## tanlixiang28776

REEVER said:


> Well china did steal all there ideas so yeah.


----------



## ptldM3

CardSharp said:


> ^^^^
> 
> *You're right about the author though my point holds regardless*, you're substituting web surfing for an educational and professional background.





I know I was right, and you shamelessly lied, did you think I wouldn't check? 




CardSharp said:


> *It's obvious you spend a lot of time on the internet reading this stuff*.





Actually I do not, I know what Im talking about, thus the searching is quick and painless. In fact Im away from home 13-14 hours week days.




CardSharp said:


> If you have fun with it, great but stop being so fcking pretentious. People who actually design air planes go to top universities and take courses, they don't troll the fcking internet.




Do not pretend that you know me, although Im not an aircraft designer how can you be sure so sure that I didn't study aeronautics? 

And what baffles me most is that you accuse me of being a troll, as usual it is the J-20 fanboys that were the instigators, but of course when someone confronts the J-20 fanboys, they are automatically 'trolls'. The original topic was the design of a wing, yet when you fanboys clearly lost the argument and had no response, you fanboys changed the topics to, sources, methods of searching, how Chinese aircraft companies that I never even heard about are better than Sukhoi, patents, ect, ect.

It's very clear what is going on, when people humiliate themselves they start deviating from the subject by going all over the place. So before you accuse me of being a troll look back at what your J-20 fanboys have been spouting. And if you really think Im wrong, prove it, discount my finding, show everyone how wrong you think I am. I issued this challenge many times before yet no one has taken it. And it is plainly obvious why, I know what Im talking about and I can prove it, J-20 fanboys are, on the other hand, clown, only capable of making crap up and changing the subject.



cn_habs said:


> TALK IS SO CHEAP NOWADAYS...ANYONE KNOWS HOW TO PLACE ORDERS BUT TO PAY FOR THEM WITH ACTUAL MONEY IS ANOTHER DIFFERENT MATTER.




Is that the best you have? As if constantly changing the subject wasn't bad enough now you stoop to the level of disregarding facts, and the fact is Russia has made substantial order.





cn_habs said:


> Why do you think I listed the number of past-Soviet acquisitions of Sukhoi planes? *Money is hard to come by for your armed forces ever since the collapse of the USSR.*





Really?

Russian Military to Purchase 600 Planes, 100 Ships



> *Russia will spend $650 billion to equip its dilapidated military with 600 new warplanes, 100 ships and 1,000 helicopters by 2020, Defense Ministry officials were quoted as saying Thursday.*







cn_habs said:


> The Russian military has in service:
> 11 Su-30s
> 14 Su-34s
> 11 Su-35s




So what does the above supposed to prove? The Russian air force has thousand of aircraft in service, the aircraft you listed are new and *still being assembled *so the orders are still being filled. Is there something Im missing? Is your memory that short terms that you forgot the number of SU-34 and SU-35S orders? Do you really think that that the Russian air force is that small or that the Russian air force isn't ordering other aircraft?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## kawaraj

from what we see of J-20, China's weapon capability is surpassing Russian's.

i may be wrong , but the T-50 is only targetting F35, though still in downside.

and obviously the J-20 is really challenging F-22, the latter halt flying announcement indicates it's inferior in the function in projected combat with J-20.


----------



## fast

CardSharp said:


> Cutting and pasting the entire reference section not really that impressive.
> 
> "42. Lt. Col. James R. Brungress, USAF, Setting the Context: Suppression of Enemy Air Defenses and Joint Warfighting in an Uncertain World (Maxwell AFB, AL: Air University Press," - Google Search
> 
> RadarGame_Understanding Stealth and Aircraft Survivability


 
Pwned! LOL. That's quite an impressive reading list from ptldM3.


----------



## gambit

CardSharp said:


> You're right about the author though my point holds regardless, *you're substituting web surfing for an educational and professional background.* It's obvious you spend a lot of time on the internet reading this stuff. If you have fun with it, great but stop being so fcking pretentious. People who actually design air planes go to top universities and take courses, they don't troll the fcking internet.


Talk about irony...It is hilarious that you would criticize someone for using credible third party sources while excusing yourselves for substituting nationalistic fervor for 'an educational and professional background' in talking about technical issues.


----------



## rcrmj

ptldM3 said:


> India operates a very large amount of SU-30's and has been for 13 years, some Indian SU-30 pilots receive as much as 300 flight hours anually, some of the highest in any airforce, yet there has been only 2 crashes one of which is pilot error if im not mistaken, so Sukhoi's are actually very safe, infact when you factor in all the airforces that operate SU-30's you will find out that crashes are extremely rare.


 China bought S-27SK in 1992, and India only decided to purchase Su-30 in 1996``do you know the difference? after the appaling quality of the Su-27SK to China you think Sukhoi set doing nothing?



ptldM3 said:


> Yea and Russia didn't upgrade any of their airrcaft right? The SU-34 had 11 avionics upgrades before it even entered service. The SU-30 is offered with multiple avionics packages. And if you were not so naive you would know Russia has had a number of project besides the SU-30's, SU-34's amd SU-35's. KA-50, KA-60 Superjet, yak-130, pak-fa as well as heavy cargo aircraft are either in service or in development.


 
again these are all soviet products, and yet they are almost everythin what russia came up during the 20 years```and the lists of kits from america and china are only a fraction of their new inventory``see the differance?

btw is KA-50 and KA-60 in service??


----------



## zaheer.triple.es23

kawaraj said:


> from what we see of J-20, China's weapon capability is surpassing Russian's.
> 
> i may be wrong , but the T-50 is only targetting F35, though still in downside.
> 
> and obviously the J-20 is really challenging F-22, the latter halt flying announcement indicates it's inferior in the function in projected combat with J-20.


 
no man no...i don't know bout j20 but i definitely know that the T-50 is being made keeping an eye on F22. And ultimately the T-50 will beat the raptor, thats a certainity!


----------



## rcrmj

zaheer.triple.es23 said:


> no man no...i don't know bout j20 but i definitely know that the T-50 is being made keeping an eye on F22. And ultimately the T-50 will beat the raptor, thats a certainity!


 
t-50 is keeping an eye on F-22 doesnt mean it will supass f-22 once in service, it takes many aspects to catch-up with F-22, in many aspects Pak Fa is decades behind f-22.


----------



## lawxx

J -15 "is the first generation of carrier-based fighter, is a typical third-generation fighter aircraft. J-15 is T10K generation prototype developed for the domestic carrier based fighter aircraft, the aerodynamic shape similar to the Soviet Union (Russia) Su-33 carrier-based fighters. J-15 is a twin, twin vertical tails of the heavy fighter, with a three-wing canard aerodynamic configuration with Arresting hook, by telex or flight control system, with excellent maneuverability. August 31, 2009 morning, made F -15 fighter prototype maiden flight successfully in Shenyang. 





Source:http://baike.baidu.com/view/2309489.htm

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## lawxx

Introduction 
J -15 "Flying Shark" fighters said to be the first species of the Chinese Navy carrier-based fighter. The aircraft is believed to Central China Aviation Industry Corporation, Shenyang Aircraft design and manufacturing, the design from the F -11, with reference to the Ukrainian T-10K-3 demonstrator. So far there is no picture of any fighter aircraft F -15 Appreciation (20) where the official information on the machine. Only some information from some people speculate, and the official press speculation had also just witnessed the picture test report (see right). So far, there is no any official source confirmed that the machine exists, but is widely believed the aircraft carrier-based fighter has become the preferred model. Allegedly, the aircraft will be deployed in China purchased from Ukraine, "Varyag" aircraft carrier, and China designed and built their own aircraft carrier. According to information from the network, May 6, 2010 J -15 flying leaps for the first time slip, the same year on July 8 for a second test flight. If true, then the proof will become the future of domestic F -15's main carrier-based aircraft carrier. Although there is certain F -15, but still no official word as a basis. J -15 is still currently in flight test, another two-seat F--15, according to news is also under development. 
Edit this paragraph development background 
F -15 fighter prototype is the same as the SAC design and manufacture the J-11B fighters and T-10K-3 demonstrator, and T-10K-3 is the former Soviet Sukhoi Su-based prototype T-10K -33 
Total Bureau in the Soviet Union developed based on the -27 single-seat carrier-based fighter twin - Su -33 fighter prototype. Su -33 "Sea Flanker" fighters (Su -33 "Flanker-D"), is the one developed by the Russian Sukhoi multi-purpose production of single-seat carrier-based aircraft. As Su Su -27 -33 is derived from carrier-based fighter aircraft, one of the Soviet Union extended -27 so the NATO code, known as the Flanker-D (Flanker-D). Su -33 in May 1985 the first flight. J -15 allegedly combines with the Russian-made Su-F-11B -33 technology. After the news claimed that Russia and China on the first purchase of two Su -33 fighter part of the motion was signed in 2006. However, due to China may not be purchased in bulk, which led to the breakdown of negotiations. In addition, China reportedly had earlier bought a Ukrainian T-10K-3 aircraft, which is the carrier-based fighter Su -33, more specifically, the mass production model T10K state (T10K-3 to T10K-9) . No doubt, it is the aircraft will become experts in research priorities. Clearly, T-10K-3 with folding wings, the Chinese experts from the body "learn" all design and technical concepts. Su -33 more than speculation about the outside world is considered to be China's access to carrier-based aircraft technology, and technology as the basis of J -15 main channel, and that China has acquired related technology Su -33 F -15 have been used, but the Chinese this has not been officially confirmed. J-11 machine (J-15 for similar) 
October 12, 2009, the United States, "Aviation Week" website (aviation week) publication entitled "China's emergence aircraft carrier," the article, the paper also equipped with three pictures, accusing China of a place appears on a large roof platform straight -8 helicopters and mounted missiles "Flanker" fighter, an aircraft carrier under construction next to the main superstructure. The article first said that the Chinese people's ambitions may give it from the "aircraft carrier air wing," the role of a space ship combat began, at least from a Navy-type "Flanker" fighter on the physical model will be able to see this idea out. The model program is considered to be the first public appearance F -15. According to July 2010, "Han Defense Review" reported that Shenyang Aircraft Company in October 2009 completed the first flight test aircraft type J -15 prototype production, and start from that year in November were in the Shenyang Aircraft Factory retractable folding wings and other experiments, is currently awaiting flight. The magazine said the F -15 -33 in the Russian Su-Test Machine T-10K of the Shenyang J -15 parked on the tarmac prototype 
Based on the imitation from the Navy aircraft carrier fighter, shaped like the Soviet Union -33. Appear in the Shenyang plant yellow skin of the aircraft, this aircraft has been using the "J -15" name, but also its own production plant in Shenyang, and plans to begin test flights. This is so quick to imitate the Soviet -33, due to China from Ukraine won the Soviet -33 prototype, factory sources said the situation from several experiments, the technical wing folding problem has been solved .


----------



## lawxx

Edit this paragraph suggested performance
Because the performance parameters of J -15 is still shrouded in secrecy, it is not the specific performance of J -15 for an evaluation. However, as with J -15 J -15 J-11B's effect diagram (Alpine production)
Special blood relationship, we are able to roughly guess some of the performance index J -15. J -15 with folding wings and in appearance very similar to the Russian-made Su--33. Western military experts have even had the first aircraft is the F -15 mistaken previously purchased from Ukraine T-10K. Some experts pointed out that China's aircraft manufacturing company was developed in a short time -15 F carrier-based aircraft, mostly because they mastered through the T-10K fighter aircraft such general techniques. Meanwhile, the advent of the F -15 also showed that Chinese people have solved the previous problems encountered in terms of folding wings. J -15 Central Air Industrial Manufacturing Company, Shenyang Aircraft development and production. Its predecessor is China's Su -33 from Ukraine to buy the prototype T-10K-3. From the exterior view. J -15 with the front full-motion duck wings, this is the most typical "Flanker" series of three wing layout. But also in appearance, is also quite similar to the Su-F -15 -33. From this point of view, F -15 -33 really quite closely with the Soviet Union. Meanwhile, hovering in the aircraft landing gear down after landing at the beginning, clearly demonstrating the high column before the landing gear. And judging from the appearance, than the land-based landing gear F -15 F-11B is much more stout, have a much higher intensity. This is also the land-based aircraft carrier-based aircraft and the biggest difference. T-10K-3 and active Soviet Russia there is a certain difference -33, if China really, as some so-called pure "copy" of the T-10K-3, will face enormous unforeseen technical difficulties, J - There are currently 15 projects could not progress so quickly. 20 years before the Soviet Union through the -27 series of technology-depth study and exploration, as well as the growth of its technological capability development, China has accumulated rich technical staff solid technical foundation. J -11B/BS to such self-developed Chinese version of good. It is precisely because there is such a solid foundation, combined with T-10K-3 in-depth study. China can in a short time, the rapid introduction of J -15. To put it bluntly, even to the SAC an "authentic" Su -33, if not their own strong technical basis, thoroughly "Flanker" series of related technology, will be no way to imitation. Domestic network speculate that the purchase of the Su -33 demonstrator itself is not perfect, so the only reference to the Su-F -15 -33 verify the machine and on the relevant part of the ship, such as: structure, landing gear, tail hook and so on. J -15 before the news had inherited the technical state of the F-11B, so J -15 J-11B is essentially changed, basically are the F-11B with the technology, structure, F is the F -15 - 11B of the strengthening and folding wing, pneumatic level and the early years of the Soviet Union without vectored thrust -35 (ie, Su-27M) is similar. However, because of strength, weight loss and corrosion requirements of the structural parts should be more use of the titanium alloy and composite materials. Said Su -33 J -15 is the copy is not correct, in addition to basically the same shape, and are derived from the T-10 / Su -27 outside descent are basically not comparable. Presumably, the F -15 inevitable in combat power over the Soviet Union on the -33. First, although both are highly similar in appearance, but still there are some differences. For example, Su -33 tail hook landing was external. And J -15 is two engines in the rear, the tail has a hook built-in compartment, which is now known J -15 -33 in appearance with the biggest difference between the Soviet Union. Prior to the canard, and both have slightly different shape. F -15 -33 canard to sharp more than the Soviet Union, and the sweep angle is greater. The overall aircraft lift coefficient than the Soviet Union -33, coupled with a certain body weight loss, take off the load of the ship and significant progress than the Su -33. Photos from the comparison point of view, the F -15 -33 wingspan smaller than the Soviet Union, different positions, folding wings, flaps and also different from the Soviet Union -33, lift efficiency is different, specific parameters are still unknown. From the perspective of avionics, the F -15 -33 as development time than the Soviet Union 20 years later, coupled with the rapid development of China's electronics industry technology, ahead of F -15's own version of the Russian Soviet -33 active duty is an indisputable fact. It is due to the avionics system is seriously lagging behind, which leads to the ability of Su -33 much less in combat F/A-18E-F U.S. and French "Rafale", even as China's own production of J -11 series. In the avionics system, estimated the basic inherited from the F -15 F-11B and J-11BS. Cabin fire control system to achieve a fully digital, a true sense of the "glass" cockpit. Including a new HUD-made, two China-made large-scale multi-function color LCD display matrix and the three medium-sized multi-function color LCD matrix. Retained only the cockpit as a backup with a few mechanical and electrical instrumentation. Of course, as is the navy aircraft carrier, F -15 avionics compared with the J-11B, will certainly be very different. For example, will certainly increase with the carrier landing environment, and marine combat environment-related equipment, such as automatic landing guidance devices, in this regard would surely be much more complicated F-11B. And the current operator J -15 only based on improvement of late with the batch will be very substantial. In addition, given the complex and demanding marine environment operational requirements of the cabin F -15 F-11B will definitely inherited the equipment, is currently the most advanced cockpit domestic integrated environmental control system to ensure the comfort of the cabin environment reduce pilot fatigue. In addition, the F-11B and J-11BS already made use of the latest helmet targeting display system, and integrated the domestic satellite positioning navigation system and laser gyroscopes and other home-made new integrated navigation system, and a new on-board integrated optical / electronic self-defense / electronic warfare systems will be applied. Internet comments that F -15 and F-11B in the avionics systems, the main difference is in terms of airborne radar. F-11B is produced domestically is used in the new 1471 multi-function digital pulse Doppler fire control radar system of the mainframe. The radar system is now known to the Chinese Air Force's most advanced fighter aircraft with the mainframe contains pulse Doppler fire control radar, air target to achieve maximum detection range of 350 km, can simultaneously track 20 targets and guide the active radar-guided STV Air to Air Missile threats from one of the largest six goals, have a good ground (sea) surface topography on the ground detection capability and the Doppler Beam Sharpening scanning / mapping function maps a timely manner, and have a very strong anti-interference ability. J -15 is estimated to be used with the new F-10B and J-11BS Similarly, domestic new digital active phased array radar. This type of radar in 2007 through the technical review and acceptance, and is making the delivery of some key departments. Of course, we can not rule out an early version of the F -15 F-11B to continue with the possibility of the pulse Doppler. However, the naval version of the radar, the Air Force version would surely be much more intensive anti-ship capability and capacity of the sea. J -15 effect diagram (Alpine production)
Sea-based Navy attack on the special needs of airborne radar -15 F and it will be to strengthen the sea search and anti-ship missile guidance capability, will have higher detection accuracy and detection distance, and stronger anti-sea clutter capacity. In addition, the right to install a windshield on the F-11B equipped with the latest China-made forward-looking quantum well infrared photo detection devices, the technology has reached the international advanced level of similar products. The system combines the latest China-made infrared / thermal imaging detector and laser range-finder, the infrared radiation source according to target search, detection and tracking of air targets, when the pilot can see visual observation targets, used to determine the target coordinates can be seen, measuring distance, and aim to complete the task of air and ground targets. When the system detects affected by weather conditions such as clouds, the aircraft fire control radar will automatically take over the probe. The left is a retractable air by tubing. Compared with the Chinese brothers, Russian-made Su -33 in the avionics system to be behind nearly 20 years. Su -33 -27 radar is Miss Jisu the N-001 Improved airborne radar. Su -27, compared with the original radar, enhanced target detection capability of the water, but also increased the use of air - air-ship guided missiles or weapons control capabilities. Su -33 N001 radar used in air combat model was outdated and do not have the ability to multi-objective at the same time intercept, and air - surface mode, with only a simple-to-sea combat mode, you can control more than medium-sized anti-ship missile attack surface ships. With the J-11B made in China compared to 1471 airborne radar, both detection range, or the anti-jamming capability, and integrated multi-purpose combat capability, there are a huge gap, more than China-made new new digital airborne active phased array radar. Meanwhile, Su -33 cockpit fully demonstrated the "Soviet-style", full of old electromechanical meters. The upper right corner there is a monochrome multifunction displays, radar and infrared systems can display the signal received graphics. The only superior than the old Soviet -27, is the use of more advanced at the time HUD. Ergonomic aspects of the glass cockpit is far better than the F -15. SU -33 have an early model of the helmet sight, you can and fire control systems and windshield before the optical detection device to achieve cross-linking, used to control a large off-axis of the R-73 short-range air - air missiles. Its photoelectric detection device and the same type of early Soviet -27, role and function of the distance are not as -15 F on the new products in China. The control system should be and J -11 J -15 series, F -10 series and JH-7A fighter-bombers and other domestic heavy as a new generation of models, using the most advanced in China made full authority digital three-axis more than four degree telex flight control system. The system is completely independent research and development in China, have complete independent intellectual property rights. Performance than the prototype used Russian-made Su -27 analog fax technology leader in flight control system in the generation, reached the international advanced level, will greatly improve the operation of the J -15 flexibility and mobility. Of course, because it is carrier-based aircraft, land-based aircraft take-off and control is much more complicated than that, so the manipulation of the system is willing to -15 F with the land-based aircraft are very different, especially in the core difference between the flight control software is more manipulation large. J -15's fire control radar, fire control systems and avionics and electronic warfare systems, it is possible and J -11 J -10 Series, and the JH-7A fighter-bombers and other domestic heavy as a new generation of models, via optical fiber networks or data bus structure and the new high-capacity high-speed intelligent central computer linked to form a whole system open avionics network, more than Russian-made Su -33 to lead a whole generation. Improvements in accordance with the Shenyang J -8 series of style, appearance on the F -15 in the air compared with the F-11B does not change much. As previously successfully developed a pure-made F-11B and J-11BS, so J -15 certainly uses a lot of J has been serving the domestic J-11BS-11B and the mature technology. This will be his major differences with the Sudanese -33. Since the birth of the Soviet Union -27 longer than 20 years later, the F-11B in the body material has great progress, the use of a large number of composite materials. The aircraft carrier because it is -15 F, a strengthened body structure is bound to increase weight. So as much as possible weight loss, J -15 J-11B full advantage of inheritance. Without affecting the overall structure of the body strength and resistance to corrosion under the premise of ocean salt spray, to reduce body weight, uses a lot of the latest development of China's own epoxy matrix composites, carbon fiber composite materials and titanium. Composite materials are mainly used in the main wing and horizontal tail on the full-motion, while still wing, trim, front air intakes and tail of non-conductive material to increase. Strato that the extensive use of composite materials, primarily for as much as possible to reduce body weight, improve agility and fuel load. But also improve the aircraft's radar stealth. As the body of Russian-made Su -33 was born earlier than twenty years J -15, subject to technical constraints, extensive use of a metal material. Although this course to ensure a solid, but largely increased body weight, and very detrimental to stealth. Therefore, the body weight of F -15 definitely lighter than the Russian-made Su -33. This has very important significance. On the one hand means that the F -15 can carry more fuel and payload, range, combat radius and payload will definitely stronger than the SU -33. On the other hand, is not very different in the case of engine power, the lighter the J -15 mobility and agility will be more than the Soviet Union -33, so its close combat capability will be stronger than the SU -33. The stealthy F -15 and certainly stronger than SU -33. Of course, strengthen the body structure of the carrier confidential, will inevitably lead to weight gain, so J -15 is likely to slightly heavier than land-based F-11B. In order to reduce the intensity and take-off weight, payload and fuel capacity would decline, but the radar and fire control will enhance the capacity in the sea. F/A-18 empty weight 10,810 grams of dry, take-off weight of 15,740 kg (combat), 22,328 kg (ground attack), the maximum takeoff weight of 25,401 kg; F-35C carrier-based aircraft stealth maximum landing weight 18,750 kg; J - 11B empty weight 15,700 kg, normal take-off weight of 23,700 kg, maximum takeoff weight of 33,000 kg; Su -33 Empty weight 17,000 kg, normal take-off weight of 29,940 kg, maximum takeoff weight of 33,000 kg. F-11B's empty weight is 1.45 times the F/A-18, Su -33's empty weight is 1.57 times the F/A-18. Empty weight of the best F -15 F-11B is only 70%, or 10,990 kg, and the F/A-18 of 10,810 grams of very dry. If the F-11B F -15 light than 30%, from the mobility point of view than the F-35C F -15 has certain advantages, because F-35C air mobility is clearly not as good as the F-11B, while the lighter weight of the J - mobility is clearly higher than 15 J-11B tapes. If the airborne radar and F -15 F-35C rather, on the F-35C will be able to pose a certain threat. As the "Varyag" was made and the first vessel to fly the aircraft carrier should still sliding leaps mainly J -15 or ongoing flight test has been conducted has been carried out in accordance with the sliding mode jump. However, the high intensity of F--15 of the landing gear, fully able to withstand ejection front drag, because the beginning of J -15 designed to catapult take-off to consider the issue. J -15 effect diagram (Alpine production)
Su -27 for this with excellent subsonic, high subsonic cruise performance and stable hovering and the aerodynamic configuration, since the existence of transonic sudden jump when the air after the shift the focus of the characteristics is caused by the aerodynamic transonic main reason for the overload limit , not simply structural reinforcement can be completely solved. Increase the canard, due to the focus of the front wing in the air in front of more distant location. Cross / When supersonic, with Mach speed increases, the front wing angle is gradually increased, which focus on the main wing lift provides a remote front torque rise, the overall effect is the focus of active aerodynamic forward to reduce the horizontal stabilizer in supersonic trim under pressure, the main wing to provide the same lift, greater availability of whole machine hovering overhead. So cross / supersonic when the front wing is a good side to enhance the three-wing supersonic Su -35 hovering performance. Because when the front wing transonic well being partial inhibition of the aerodynamic focus jumps backward to reduce the load of the main wing of the wing root, a fundamental solution to the transonic overload limits. The same three-wing design with J -15 also have similar characteristics. The introduction of duck wings, an increase of the static instability when subsonic characteristics, so the flight control must be a full authority digital telex. As the ship flying the F -15 fire with improved cross-linking of the flight control system, its nature is superior to the Soviet Union -33, -33 flight performance should be higher than the Soviet Union. For the SU -33 is concerned, constraints on its performance in the biggest problem is smooth flying leaps. Once achieved catapult take-off to -27 from the Soviet Union within range of high-oil index, and the power of the ejection system, coupled with advanced avionics, heavy to take off fully play its F -15 to indicator tactics completely can be achieved with the F/A-18E/F "Super Hornet" similar level. Objectively speaking, and the F/A-18E/F, F-35C, "gust" M, MiG-29K (later type) and other developed countries the main medium-sized aircraft carrier model compared to the comprehensive technical performance of the F -15 among these models is not likely to be advanced, but some, such as caused by heavy air defense fighter and attack radius, payload, loiter time patrolling the flexibility and tactical advantage or is obvious (of course, this advantage is difficult to flying leaps at the slip, "Varyag" sign and the first domestic carrier fully reflect the vessel, but must be installed such as home-made aircraft carrier catapult there can only be fully realized. In other words, have to continue to be patient for several years.) Moreover, as radar, fire control, airborne weapons, a class of things in the future but also to constantly upgrade and add, the performance of J -15 also continue to improve the potential. For example, the domestic active phased array radar is about practical, and for the development of four generations of machines, such as fire / flight / propulsion integrated and comprehensive control of advanced technology like the future, you can migrate to the J--15. This also further enhance the combat effectiveness of the F -15 created a possibility. The most crucial point is that the F -15 power system problems. Power system adopted, and how the performance of power systems will be directly related to the aircraft's overall performance, especially carrier-based aircraft even more so. F-11B made by the introduction of the earlier batch of Russian-made AL-31 engine, later models in the technology mature dress made for the two Taihang turbofan engine improved carrier-based version. "Taihang" maximum afterburner thrust of 13,200 kg kg, thrust-weight ratio is 7.5, bypass ratio of 0.8, so the fuel consumption lower than the AL-31F. Design finalized in 2006, 2008, the first public appearance at the Zhuhai Air Show, has begun service in small quantities, is the new F-11B, J-11BS standardized and J-10B General Dynamics system, in the future as there will be as AL31F specifically designed to meet the special working conditions at sea naval version of the Taihang engine. According to video and photos J -15 prototype characteristics of the engine vents the end of the current J -15 is still used in the introduction of the Russian AL-31F engines, mainly because of lower risk development side, as well as speed up the progress compromise approach taken. J -15 is the first generation of carrier-based aircraft, and now the prototype aircraft, whether military or on the development side are extremely valuable. So the test must be stable as possible and strive to safety. And just started a new service "Taihang" compared to, AL-31F's technology after all much more mature, more at ease with it. In addition, domestic WS-10A "Taihang" There is already technically mature, and has begun mass service. But the problem just on the right track in its production, yield and production capacity is very limited, only limited active duty to meet the Air Force F-11B and J-11BS needs. At present, the introduction of this AL-31f is the size of the external layout and so on, is specifically required by the Chinese side to improve, and can with the WS-10A "Taihang" interchangeably. Therefore, the long analysis, the future shape of the F--15 after the power system will still be the domestic models. In airborne weapons, the F -15 F should active-11B, F-11BS similar. However, the Navy model, therefore will be more emphasis on sea attack capability, especially with the use of powerful anti-ship missile capability. Weapons is a fixed 30mm cannon and can carry all current domestic use of precision strike weapons, such as Charlie -8 / 9 short-range air - air missiles, long-range active radar guidance Perak -12 air - air missiles, super-Eagle -91 Sonic the remote ship / anti-radiation missiles, air-to-ship Eagle -8 missiles, KD-88 ground missiles to the target version of the sea, soar -2 type anti-radiation missile and the "Thunder Rock" series guided bombs, and can use and Russian-made Su -30 fighter-bombers supporting the introduction of a variety of Russian-made precision strike weapons such as long-range standoff Kh-59ME ground missiles. As a large load of bombs, but also made use of heavy anti-ship missiles such as the Eagle -62 or Russian KH-41 "Sandfly." Mainly used for the implementation of aircraft carrier battle groups, the long-range air defense mission, and broke into the local air superiority over the enemy to win great depth tasks. Can be used as the carrier of heavy long-range strike fire, implementation, remote process on the land / sea combat missions. Great depth into the enemy or to implement long-range attack missions. Compared with the F -15, -33 Russian Su-active on-board weapons have significant gaps. Too little variety of weapons, but also by carrier aircraft fire control system limits, and land / sea precision strike capability is very limited. Therefore, significantly less comprehensive combat capability -15 F / F-11B. But both have a common problem, that is, flying leaps by way of sliding constraints, are not full of oil off the whole mount, payload and combat radius is severely constrained. However, with the domestic analysis the contrary, Russian military analysts believe that the F -15 fighter was unable to challenge the global market Russian-made Su -33 fighter. Coronation Te Qinke Russian defense experts Igor said: "China's fighter aircraft F -15 -33 impossible with Russian-made Su-performance carrier-based aircraft have the same, I do not rule out China and Russia to re-negotiate bulk purchases Su - 33 fighter. "Moreover, &#31185;&#32599;&#29305;&#38054;&#31185; also said that China can not solve the folding-wing aircraft and design-related technical problems, they can not be developed for a reliable aircraft engine. According to the Russian military industrial complex web of July 7 article published that, although J has been around -15, but the Chinese used in aircraft engine development and flight test the new machines are still faced with many problems. According to reports, the former Soviet Union T-10K carrier-based aircraft based on the experimental imitation from the J -15 is currently being tested, may have started to conduct test flights. At present, Chinese people need to be addressed in terms of carrier-based aircraft One of the main issues flight. In this regard, China needs to solve several problems. Russian experts pointed out that the test should be conducted at the manufacturer, and are all from the Air Force test pilot - not yet born in the Chinese Navy, Air Force test pilot. After the flight of the F -15 take part will be shipped to the Shaanxi Province is located in the space flight centers Yanliang further testing. The aircraft carrier will be equipped as a fighter, the Chinese Navy to build their own test center to test and where his test pilot training. It is reported that the Navy's flight test center in China is only just beginning to build, where as to when to begin testing for the F--15 remains unknown. In addition, the F -15's flight control system there are also serious problems. Experts noted that the flight control system J -15 J-11B is developed for the foundation, which itself is not high reliability. Therefore, the F -15 flight began in the course of this year, may face a range of issues.
Editing equipment of this paragraph
Before the appearance of the J -15, -33 on China's purchase of Soviet troops as the main carrier-based aircraft models network news has been uproar at home and abroad. Currently, however, such information had been gradually and with the emergence of the F -15 -33 retired Soviet and Russian forces died down. China may be waiting for news of J -15 production. J -15 stereotypes once production is every reason to judge that China will give up the purchase of Su -33. It is believed that the development of China has been the F -15 8 years, and has begun test flights. In this case, China for the procurement of Su -33 casual look just fine. In addition, although the Chengdu Aircraft Industrial Corporation has proposed to -10 as a two-seat F-type carrier-based aircraft, but the proposal eventually rejected by the Chinese military. Some experts in the analysis of the main reasons which pointed out that the military choice is to maintain the F -15 Shenyang Aircraft Industry Group's survival. Russia has the world's arms trade analysis center predicted that China will construct 4-6 in 2020 about 6.5 million tons of ship displacement of medium-sized aircraft carrier (with the "Varyag" was pretty). The future of the Chinese Navy carrier battle group will be mainly deployed in the South China Sea and East China Sea. Anticipated within the next five years, a new generation of F-11B, F-11BS, J -15 are likely to become more mature volume production fighter, the F -15 test to finish, probably in 2012 or so, provided that continue to use Russian engines. 2013 to 2014 or so, F -15 may enter mass production stage. Consider the current SAC 70 to more than 80 planes a year capacity, the Air Force and naval air force to go to most of the shore, each year the number of produced J -15 may be quite limited. If you want to meet the backup machine equipped with a total of two aircraft carriers and the number 60-100 aircraft is required to meet the continuous production of a few years the number of equipment, and more equipment to meet future local demand for carrier-based aircraft carrier will undoubtedly take longer. As for China in terms of carrier-based aircraft Another problem to be solved is the engine. China developed WS-10A "Taihang" engine development has been completed and officially equipped F-11B fighter. Chinese-made composite materials present both in structure and quality still can not reach the level of the United States and Russia, it is still currently used Russian-made engine F -15. However, considering the construction of an aircraft carrier made progress in improving the Chinese people are still in the F -15 have enough time, so the future is still in service is expected to equip the F -15 domestic engine.


----------



## lawxx

Overall rating
Overall, F -15 -33 in the Soviet Union should be the prototype of Chinese T-10-3, based on a large number of F-11B combines domestic and J-11BS made rendering the mature F -15
Technology developed for a new carrier-based aircraft. Although the aircraft body structure and aerodynamic layout and Su -33 strikingly similar, but the body materials, avionics, fire control radar system and flight control systems is the pure Chinese technology. Therefore, from a strict sense, can be seen as Russia and China, Su -33 F-11B of the hybrid, but significantly more of Chinese origin. J -15 J -11 series clearly belongs to a new variant, it will work with prior to the J-11B and J-11BS one, marking the "Flanker" series in China will eventually take root and reproduce off, the success of a fully evolved The new East Asian branch. Throughout the world, except Russia, its design, the current can "Flanker" master of this skill, and on their own development and growth of its only China. Can be expected, the F -15 will be developed into an excellent heavy-duty multi-purpose carrier fighter. With the future use of home-made large aircraft carrier catapult service, J -15 range far larger combat radius and payload advantages will be full. Meanwhile, as a heavy fighter, the F -15 naval air force for China a huge potential to provide a universal platform for heavy modification. F -15 to the basic platform for a series of special carrier aircraft modification, such as carrier-based fixed-wing anti-submarine aircraft, electronics and other aircraft and tanker aircraft. This will maximize the use of existing technology. Chinese navy can be modified through this, and ultimately the formation of a fighter aircraft F -15 mainly include a variety of different uses of the improved series F -15 huge family of carrier-based aircraft unit. This can be done will be the aircraft carrier-based aircraft parts and components and other systems the greatest degree of generalization, will greatly reduce the carrier-based aviation ground personnel and logistics sector, pressure, effective conservation of funds, with excellent cost effective. Comprehensive comparison, the time of birth 20 years later, coupled with the rapid development of China's military aviation technology, J -15 in the avionics system, the body materials, stealth capability, airborne weapon systems and integrated combat capability, and multi-purpose and so will be significantly better than Russian Su -33 active. In fact, since J -15 debut, many of the foreign authority of its evaluation is very high, mainly from the opposition and belittle the voice of Russia. One important factor is to maintain and to monopolize the Chinese fighter jet market, and curb the rise of the Chinese Navy, Russian fighter jets and other high-end in the modern military technology, and the blockade against China is very strict. Especially in the aircraft carrier project, the aircraft did not sell long-term adherence to the technology, which eventually led, the Russian and Soviet -33 transaction failed. Russians used to believe that, without their support, carrier aircraft developed by China will be very difficult. But even in the case of Russia, under the strict blockade of technology, the Chinese people still with their own efforts in a short time, the successful production of the J -15, this is undoubtedly a declaration of Russia's aircraft carrier project in an attempt to "kill the Chinese sword" plot bankruptcy. This is emotionally difficult to accept the Russians, and only its -15 F to China's continuing degeneration. In fact, many Russian logic is not withstand scrutiny. For example, they insisted, the Chinese-made F -15 telex flight control system there are major problems, but also come out of the F-11B the same. But the reality is just the opposite - use telex flight control system made the J-11B has a lot of service, and since there has never been in service since a major accident, which fully demonstrated the reliability of Chinese technology and the Russians, the typical "eat grapes to sour "psychological. And some Chinese Internet users, for various purposes, regardless of the facts, to follow the trend of constant J -15 or belittle F-11B, and even openly blatant lies, to vilify the Chinese people themselves, the production of two aircraft touted Russian aircraft such as Su -35 (the most typical example is in the network before the so-called "J-11B is too backward to stop," "F-11B can not overestimate the performance of garbage", etc.). This behavior is not only very wrong, it is the Chinese military researchers and even the level of China's military aviation industry a serious miscarriage of justice, is not objective. Carrier system as an important part of the technical difficulty of modern aircraft carrier is quite large, far more than land-based fighters. Therefore, the current world land-based fighter jets capable of developing modern country, but do the independent development, production modernization of the national carrier aircraft are rare. J -15 is one of the few in the world today a heavy carrier jet fighter. Despite the many challenges will face, itself has some drawbacks, but the birth of J -15 epoch-making in China will no doubt be far-reaching significance. J -15 marks the successful development of China became the world's very few can produce heavy modern aircraft carrier independent country, China's development of aircraft carriers and ocean-going navy was the biggest technical barriers have this declaration no longer exist. Since then, as the core of China's ocean-going navy aircraft carrier battle group plans, the development will enter the fast lane. F -15 to the Chinese Navy, China's military aviation industry as a whole, its significance has gone beyond a new type of aircraft development. Prior to China's aircraft carrier technology is almost a blank, with the world advanced level there is a big gap. J -15 through research, Chinese scientists have accumulated a large number of carrier-based aircraft development of the valuable lessons and techniques, exercise and train a large number of relevant personnel, and had a good crack technical team, and this is undoubtedly the most important , and the core of the force. They will develop their own future, the Chinese aircraft carrier battle groups, as well as research and develop entirely within China's own modern aircraft carrier laid a solid technical foundation, which is -15 F for the Chinese navy and the Chinese aviation industry's largest value and meaning.


----------



## lawxx

The latest models
It is approved leak, part of the J--15 naval aviation has been replaced by a coating, the column may have been formally installed


----------



## Akasa

I came across a photo of a J-15 possibly in flight testing. What's interesting is that the nozzle of its engine seems to be angled, which could emphasize thrust vectoring (3D or 2D?).

Here is it:






So far we don't know what kind of engine the production aircraft will be using. It may be the WS-10B/G variant or it could be the Russian Al-31FN M3.

Military official Lei Qiang also stated that the J-15 might include thrust vectoring.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## siegecrossbow

Good picture sino! Looks like an AL variant. Where did you find the picture?


----------



## localoca

SinoSoldier said:


> Military official Lei Qiang also stated that the J-15 might include thrust vectoring.



Go China...

many haters will hate the fact China will make this babies in their home and call them their own...


----------



## CardSharp

siegecrossbow said:


> Good picture sino! Looks like an AL variant. Where did you find the picture?


 
How do you tell the two engines apart?


----------



## S-A-B-E-R->

NO thats just covering cloth hanging not TVC i said that before on another thread


----------



## siegecrossbow

CardSharp said:


> How do you tell the two engines apart?


 
AL nozzles are longer and feature two sets of petals.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## localoca

S-A-B-E-R-> said:


> NO thats just covering cloth hanging not TVC i said that before on another thread


 Wrong...

China its capable of making a 5th gen engine, why should a 2D/3D VT 4th gen engine be difficult to produce?... its not like China its building the Kaveri

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## siegecrossbow

Hmm now that I look at it it does look like cloth covers. Oh well.


----------



## DV RULES




----------



## S-A-B-E-R->

localoca said:


> Wrong...
> 
> China its capable of making a 5th gen engine, why should a 2D/3D VT 4th gen engine be difficult to produce?... its not like China its building the Kaveri


 
i m not denying the capability of chinese engenearing im just saying that in the pic in question the thurst nozzel is not turned down its covered by a camo cloth and that cloth is hanging thus creating the illusion of TVN

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Akasa

siegecrossbow said:


> Good picture sino! Looks like an AL variant. Where did you find the picture?


 
Surprisingly, it was on a Western defense blog. I didn't notice it until a person commented on the engine nozzles.


----------



## Kompromat

Bring these to gawadar , we will test its "Thrust vectoring" over Arabian & Indian seas .


----------



## aimarraul

&#20063;&#19981;&#32454;&#25105;&#25293;&#28404;
¶¦Ê¢ÂÛÌ³ ¾üÊÂÌìµØ ÖÐ¹úº½Ä¸Ö®Ã¬~²»ÊÇÎÒÅÄµÄ~






&#37325;&#28857;&#26159;PP

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## houshanghai

aimarraul said:


> &#20063;&#19981;&#32454;&#25105;&#25293;&#28404;
> ¶¦Ê¢ÂÛÌ³ ¾üÊÂÌìµØ ÖÐ¹úº½Ä¸Ö®Ã¬~²»ÊÇÎÒÅÄµÄ~




omg.veryyyy godd j15 pics


----------



## Night_Raven

Can anyone share the basic specs of J-15 and in what ways it is different from J-11B ?

Is it a full navalised version of J11B ?


----------



## Night_Raven

---self delete----


----------



## no_name

WS-10 engines.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## siegecrossbow

no_name said:


> WS-10 engines.


 
They really have no choice. The AL-31s that China purchased aren't designed to work in high salinity environments.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## houshanghai

no_name said:


> WS-10 engines.


 
WS10AH &#28023;&#22826;&#34892;

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Martian2

Do you remember this picture of China's J-15 Flying Shark navalized fighter from a few months ago? The jet engines were covered by a tarp and we couldn't ascertain the engine type.






China's J-15 Flying Shark with engines covered.

-----

Today, we can clearly see the J-15 flying with silver WS-10 engines.





J-15 Flying Shark powered by WS-10 (or Taihang) engines.

-----

For completeness, I have included a picture of China's indigenous J-11B (except for airframe) fighter equipped with WS-10 engines.





J-11B was the first to be powered by WS-10 (or Taihang) engines.

[Note: Thank you to Aimarraul for the post on the J-15 with WS-10/Taihang engines]

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Akasa

The J-11B and J-15 will be the first Chinese twin engined fighters to be equipped with AESA radar. More is coming.


----------



## REEVER

looks good how much for each unit?


----------



## houshanghai

j15 with navy paint coating







j15 pt






more J-15 - Flying Shark pics link;

http://www.chinesedefence.com/forums/showthread.php?t=397


----------



## Akasa

houshanghai said:


> Shenyang J-15 - Flying Shark carrier Fighters- Pics & Videos



There's a China Defence now?


----------



## houshanghai

SinoSoldier said:


> There's a China Defence now?


 
yes




Which bird is more cool to you?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Akasa

houshanghai said:


> yes
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which bird is more cool to you?


 
All of them.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## dingyibvs

SinoSoldier said:


> Please note that at this stage the pilots are pretty much independent of their instructor. The JL-9 and L-15 will be used for beginners while the graduating pilots will be beefing up in J-15s. Pilots that are not active on patrol can use the J-15 to do drills. The J-15 program is nothing compared to the other programs in terms of cost. The jets are very similar to the J-11B, so the switch will not be very big. In terms of capabilities and avionics the J-15 is pretty much the naval brother of the J-11B, thus enhancing the flexibility of the pilot training.
> 
> Stealthy carrier borne fighters don't grow on trees. The PLANAF have got to have secondary planes for a hi lo mix.



L-15 and JL-9 for beginners? Really? What's the point of building a single seat trainer? Why not just build more regular fighters if you want more planes for veteran pilots to train with? That way they can train in the EXACT planes they'll be fighting in, AND it reduces logistics complexity.



Night_Raven said:


> Can anyone share the basic specs of J-15 and in what ways it is different from J-11B ?
> 
> Is it a full navalised version of J11B ?



Mostly just the usual carrier modifications like reinforced frame + landing gear, increased wing area(for the J-15 it's mostly the addition of the canards), folding wings, navalized engines, and overall increased resistance to corrosion, etc, etc.)


----------



## Akasa

dingyibvs said:


> L-15 and JL-9 for beginners? Really? What's the point of building a single seat trainer? Why not just build more regular fighters if you want more planes for veteran pilots to train with? That way they can train in the EXACT planes they'll be fighting in, AND it reduces logistics complexity.



Think of the J-15 as the "N" for your driver's license. Canada uses CF-18Bs for training, which gives them a much more realistic approach to modern day combat.


----------



## dingyibvs

SinoSoldier said:


> Think of the J-15 as the "N" for your driver's license. Canada uses CF-18Bs for training, which gives them a much more realistic approach to modern day combat.



You mean the TWO-SEATER CF-18Bs?


----------



## Akasa

dingyibvs said:


> You mean the TWO-SEATER CF-18Bs?


 
Please note that Canada does not have any lead in fighter trainers or advanced jet trainers like the L-15 or JL-9.

I did not say that the J-15 will be specifically used for training. Newly graduated pilots could start on the J-15 to get used to flying on a real carrier while the more advanced aircraft are reserved for senior pilots.


----------



## lcloo

SinoSoldier said:


> Please note that Canada does not have any lead in fighter trainers or advanced jet trainers like the L-15 or JL-9.
> 
> I did not say that the J-15 will be specifically used for training. Newly graduated pilots could start on the J-15 to get used to flying on a real carrier while the more advanced aircraft are reserved for senior pilots.


 
J-15 can be used for pilot certification flights on day and night carrier landing, also for "buddy inflight refueling" training. Night landing on deck is the most dangerous. Certification flights need not have an instructor onboard the aircraft as the pilot should be already well trained.


----------



## Akasa

lcloo said:


> J-15 can be used for pilot certification flights on day and night carrier landing, also for "buddy inflight refueling" training. Night landing on deck is the most dangerous. Certification flights need not have an instructor onboard the aircraft as the pilot should be already well trained.


 
We do not know if the J-15 possesses buddy refueling capability yet.


----------



## lcloo

SinoSoldier said:


> We do not know if the J-15 possesses buddy refueling capability yet.


 
I hope PLAN will seriously develop this capability because it is common for aircraft to run low in fuel after returning from a long mission from carrier, if the weather or accident onboard carrier does not permit immediate deck landing, inflight refuel becomes critical.


----------



## siegecrossbow

SinoSoldier said:


> We do not know if the J-15 possesses buddy refueling capability yet.


 
Another concern would be the relatively low number of tankers that the PLAAF currently fields.


----------



## Akasa

lcloo said:


> I hope PLAN will seriously develop this capability because it is common for aircraft to run low in fuel after returning from a long mission from carrier, if the weather or accident onboard carrier does not permit immediate deck landing, inflight refuel becomes critical.


 
It is possible that they do have this capability but just haven't demonstrated it yet.


----------



## Akasa

siegecrossbow said:


> Another concern would be the relatively low number of tankers that the PLAAF currently fields.


 
Currently PLA/NAF fighters would be able to operate for regional defense without tankers. If the Air Force is to expand its role internationally, I have no doubt they could build a tanker variant of the Y-20.


----------



## lawxx



Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## wmdisinfo

air superority fighter this is a beauty


----------



## Mytime

Nice Rip off


----------



## beijing consensus

Mytime said:


> Nice Rip off



better than anything innovative india produces.

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## rai_kamal

beijing consensus said:


> better than anything* innovative* india produces.


 
Sir,i think it looks like sukhois there is nothing new innovative.
But still you have some changes in it so may be it can be better than mkis and j-11.
We would love to compare them with super sukhois which will come in 2012..
waiting for it..


----------



## Secur

Mytime said:


> Nice Rip off


 Some cant even do that  Trying something for decades

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## Mytime

beijing consensus said:


> better than anything innovative india produces.



J-15 is indeed "Innovative" 

India procures the license to build Su30MKI in India and build it on our own rather than going for unlicensed rip offs


----------



## ChineseTiger1986

These are the old pics of the prototype.

Here is a better recent pic.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## S10

Mytime said:


> J-15 is indeed "Innovative"
> 
> India procures the license to build Su30MKI in India and build it on our own rather than going for unlicensed rip offs


You do know China aquired T-10K prototype from Ukranian government right? Maybe you'd know if you weren't a retard.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## rai_kamal

Mytime said:


> J-15 is indeed "Innovative"
> 
> India procures the license to build Su30MKI in India and build it on our own rather than going for unlicensed rip offs


Hey wait man,coping does require innovation...!!!
By the way its India-China fighting going on what the pakistani has to do over here,if pakistani is posting post something good about china rather than showing your anger against india..


----------



## Secur

Mytime said:


> J-15 is indeed "Innovative"
> 
> India procures the license to build Su30MKI in India and build it on our own rather than going for unlicensed rip offs


 What is more difficult ?
Producing something under license with full technical support or reverse engineering ?
Leave ethical - unethical theory aside , it doesn't matter at the end of the day ...
You never going to ask Chinese in war " Hey is it a rip off of a Russian plane " ? Will you ?

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## ChineseTiger1986

More production models from the last year.


----------



## Mytime

S10 said:


> You do know China aquired T-10K prototype from Ukranian government right? Maybe you'd know if you weren't a retard.



Good to know you brought a proto type from else where based on which you are building J-15 in your assembly lines in your country .... that's what India is doing too , buying a few directly and manufacturing the rest in our facilities ... for your info Su30MKI is being manufactured at HAL in India. 
You can drive home a point in a civilized way too !


----------



## wmdisinfo

rai_kamal said:


> Hey wait man,coping does require innovation...!!!
> By the way its India-China fighting going on what the pakistani has to do over here,if pakistani is posting post something good about china rather than showing your anger against india..


its about the amount of work they did to devolp everything inside this and alot more fighters and bombers not like india just make a factory of aircraft like a factory of cars or needles,indians here are just bruning within them selves by looking at the acheivement of china

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Imran Khan

again bloody china vs india started by kids .cant you guys simply avoid hate for few minutes?

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Mytime

Secur said:


> *What is more difficult ?
> Producing something under license with full technical support or reverse engineering ?*
> Leave ethical - unethical theory aside , it doesn't matter at the end of the day ...
> You never going to ask Chinese in war " Hey is it a rip off of a Russian plane " ? Will you ?



Ok we are doing it the easier way ... how does it matter ! 

my point is no need for china to do any chest thumping because they too are building planes based on copied from others technology and prototypes only


----------



## joekrish

What ever a ripoff is a ripoff and is not the real thing,anyways all the best.


----------



## Mytime

wmdisinfo said:


> its about the *amount of work they did to devolp* everything inside this and alot more fighters and bombers not like india just make a factory of aircraft like a factory of cars or needles,indians here are just bruning within them selves by looking at the acheivement of china



How does it matter , the bottom line is it isnt close to being as good as Su30MKI that India is manufacturing at its facilities 

And what is pakistans role in JF-17 , Chinese design , Russian Engine ... manufactured in Pakistan isnt it ?I am not saying its wrong to borrow technologies but why is it wrong if India does the same ?


----------



## Secur

Mytime said:


> Ok we are doing it the easier way ... how does it matter !
> 
> my point is no need for china to do any chest thumping because they too are building planes based on copied from others technology and prototypes only


 And after reverse engineering for decades , they have gained enough experience and expertise that they are now developing a 5th generation aircraft ... And dont come back with conspiracy theories like J20 is a mating of the F22 and PAK-FA or some random MIG 1.44 *** or worst of all based on Lavi  There's something for chest thumping for Chinese - Self Reliance ... They aren't the largest importer of weapons like some ...



joekrish said:


> What ever a ripoff is a ripoff and is not the real thing,anyways all the best.


 As usual the Indians are trying to troll and derail the thread ... Suffering from Inferiority complex that they cant develop even MIG 21 +++ by themselves ...

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Mytime

Secur said:


> And after reverse engineering for decades , they have gained enough experience and expertise that they are now developing a 5th generation aircraft ... And dont come back with conspiracy theories like J20 is a mating of the F22 and PAK-FA or some random MIG 1.44 *** or worst of all based on Lavi  There's something for chest thumping for Chinese - Self Reliance ... They aren't the largest importer of weapons like some ...



Ok They have J-20 good luck , We will have FGFA and AMCA by then ..... what will you have ?


----------



## Secur

Mytime said:


> Ok They have J-20 good luck , We will have FGFA and AMCA by then ..... what will you have ?


 Forget about the paper tiger AMCA ... First sort the problems with LCA and if you aren't updated go check the related thread ... As for us , we are already developing J-2X with China so dont worry and option for J 20 is open ...

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## MUHARIB

Imran Khan said:


> again bloody china vs india started by kids .cant you guys simply avoid hate for few minutes?



Agree... its getting too much nowadays.


----------



## Secur

Mytime said:


> *How does it matter , the bottom line is it isnt close to being as good as Su30MKI that India is manufacturing at its facilities*
> 
> *And what is pakistans role in JF-17 , Chinese design , Russian Engine ... manufactured in Pakistan isnt it ?I am not saying its wrong to borrow technologies but why is it wrong if India does the same ?*


 
How are you so sure of that ? Received some briefing from the AVIC ? Possibly the Chinese have surpassed the Russians in aerospace technologies ... Who knows ? ... and dont present the same old crap about Chinese goods being " cheap and unreliable " ... It has been debunked literally dozens of times earlier ... 

Who said that it is wrong if India is borrowing technologies ? 
A capable platform is flying at the end of the day ... What else matters ?  ... As for the Pakistani contributions , refer to JFT thread ...



MUHARIB said:


> Agree... its getting too much nowadays.


 Start from Page 1 and see who started trolling as usual ...

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Mytime

Secur said:


> Forget about the paper tiger AMCA ... First sort the problems with LCA and if you aren't updated go check the related thread ... As for us , we are already developing J-2X with China so dont worry and option for J 20 is open ...



You forgot to mention (PAk-FA) FGFA i guess which is not so much on paper ... good luck on J-2X *with China* , so coming back to the point where i started there is no harm in using an already existing technology or partnering with others for development of weapons systems ... thats what both India , China and Pakistan are doing in different ways ... end result is the same !!!


----------



## Secur

Mytime said:


> You forgot to mention (PAk-FA) FGFA i guess which is not so much on paper ... good luck on J-2X *with China* , so coming back to the point where i started there is no harm in using an already existing technology or partnering with others for development of weapons systems ... thats what both India , China and Pakistan are doing in different ways ... end result is the same !!!



I never said anything about PAK-FA since the Russians are developing it ... I never criticized India for co-developing FGFA with Russia ... First , you were hell bent on proving that ripping off and reverse engineering are unethical and now suddenly you change your stance to " no problem in using already existing technology " ... Whisper of retreat ?  ... Atleast try to stick to your arguments ... You were the one who started trolling in this thread ...

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## siegecrossbow

ChineseTiger1986 said:


> These are the old pics of the prototype.
> 
> Here is a better recent pic.



I think this is the final paint work for the J-15. Notice the WS-10A engines installed on the plane.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## ChineseTiger1986

siegecrossbow said:


> I think this is the final paint work for the J-15. Notice the WS-10A engines installed on the plane.



This is the WS-10H, a further improvement of the WS-10A.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Secur

Whats the difference between WS-10H and WS-10A ? I will be thankful if someone tells me about WS 15 too ...


----------



## S10

Mytime said:


> Good to know you brought a proto type from else where based on which you are building J-15 in your assembly lines in your country .... that's what India is doing too , buying a few directly and manufacturing the rest in our facilities ... for your info Su30MKI is being manufactured at HAL in India.
> You can drive home a point in a civilized way too !


When you comment like a retard, be prepared to be called one.

In addition, the T-10K prototype was for airframe research. Sub-systems are directly imported from J-11B. License assembly of Su-30MKI is alot different than manufacturing from the ground up.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## ChineseTiger1986

Secur said:


> Whats the difference between WS-10H and WS-10A ? I will be thankful if someone tells me about WS 15 too ...



The WS-10H is the naval version of WS-10A, and it produces a higher thrust about 148kn.

And the WS-15 is the future engine for J-20, and it can produce the afterburner thrust about 186kn

Right now, the engine of J-20 is a technology demonstrator of the WS-15.


----------



## S10

joekrish said:


> What ever a ripoff is a ripoff and is not the real thing,anyways all the best.


I completely agree. That's why LCA will always be a Mirage 2000 rip-off. FGFA will always be a PAK-FA rip-off and Su-30MKI simply assembled with Russian parts. Perhaps in 50 years you will finally be creative enough to have a design of your own, like this:




---------- Post added at 12:45 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:43 PM ----------



Mytime said:


> How does it matter , the bottom line is it isnt close to being as good as Su30MKI that India is manufacturing at its facilities


I laughed.

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## Secur

ChineseTiger1986 said:


> The WS-10H is the naval version of WS-10A, and it produces a higher thrust about 148kn.
> 
> And the WS-15 is the future engine for J-20, and it can produce the afterburner thrust about *186kn*


 
Fair Dinkum ! 186 KN  ... Shows how much the engine building technology has been matured by the Chinese ... Absolutely Amazing ! 

Whats the thrust of WS 10 A ?


----------



## ChineseTiger1986

Secur said:


> Fair Dinkum ! 186 KN  ... Shows how much the engine building technology has been matured by the Chinese ... Absolutely Amazing !
> 
> Whats the thrust of WS 10 A ?



The WS-10A can produce the afterburner thrust about 132kn, and it is the basic version of the TH engine family.


----------



## HANI

ChineseTiger1986 said:


> The WS-10A can produce the afterburner thrust about 132kn, and it is the basic version of the TH engine family.



And when will we using them on jf-17s sir???????????


----------



## S10

Mytime said:


> Ok we are doing it the easier way ... how does it matter !
> 
> my point is no need for china to do any chest thumping because they too are building planes based on copied from others technology and prototypes only


Oh? So Indian's understanding of planes if that if it looks similar, it must be the same? No changes to flight control? Avionics? Radar? EW suites?

No wonder all you can do is put together Russian kits, paint it and call it Indian.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Secur

HANI said:


> And when will we using them on jf-17s sir???????????


 The engine which will be used on future JFT's is WS-13 with 96 KN thrust ... Its already been tested in China at the moment and there's a high probability of it being used on Block 2 ...


----------



## ChineseTiger1986

HANI said:


> And when will we using them on jf-17s sir???????????



The TH engine is simply too big to fit into a light combat aircraft like JF-17.

It is almost 50% heavier than both RD-93 and WS-13.


----------



## Dil Pakistan

WS10A is the engine for FC20 (J-10B) .

WS13 is future engine for JF-17 (block-II)


----------



## ChineseTiger1986

Dil Pakistan said:


> WS10A is the engine for FC20 (J-10B) .
> 
> WS13 is future engine for JF-17 (block-II)



The J-10B uses the WS-10B version (145kn).

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## siegecrossbow

Secur said:


> Whats the difference between WS-10H and WS-10A ? I will be thankful if someone tells me about WS 15 too ...



WS-10H is the naval version of the WS-10 which is more corrosion resistant.

WS-15, a fifth generation engine, will eventually power the J-20.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Akasa

[/COLOR]


rai_kamal said:


> Sir,i think it looks like sukhois there is nothing new innovative.
> But still you have some changes in it so may be it can be better than mkis and j-11.
> We would love to compare them with super sukhois which will come in 2012..
> waiting for it..





joekrish said:


> What ever a ripoff is a ripoff and is not the real thing,anyways all the best.





Mytime said:


> Nice Rip off



A "rip off" is defined for something that is completely the same as its original.

As for the J-15, that couldn't be further from the truth. The J-15, besides its basic fuselage design, *uses none of the technologies featured on the Su-33* or any Sukhoi. *Everything on the J-15 has been developed by PLAAF*. Even the airframe has been upgraded to have RAM and composites, hereby making it 7*00 kg lighter than any Flanker and eight times stealthier than the Su-30MKI*. The technologies on the J-15 are also extremely new, such as its AESA radar, IRST, and more.

It is a wholly indigenous fighter that simply uses a Russian airframe design.

---------- Post added at 06:05 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:04 PM ----------




rai_kamal said:


> Sir,i think it looks like sukhois there is nothing new innovative.
> But still you have some changes in it so may be it can be better than mkis and j-11.
> We would love to compare them with super sukhois which will come in 2012..
> waiting for it..



Everything inside the J-15 is new and developed by PLAAF besides the airframe design.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Akasa

Mytime said:


> How does it matter , the bottom line is it isnt close to being as good as Su30MKI that India is manufacturing at its facilities



J-15 is stealthier (eight times stealthier), operates superior radar, has IRST, MAWS, has a superior thrust to weight ratio.

Parameters disagree with you.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## aimarraul



Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Zabaniyah

Mytime said:


> Good to know you brought a proto type from else where based on which you are building J-15 in your assembly lines in your country .... that's what India is doing too , buying a few directly and manufacturing the rest in our facilities ... for your info Su30MKI is being manufactured at HAL in India.
> You can drive home a point in a civilized way too !



J-15 is still in prototype stages. So put your pants on.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## aimarraul

J15+J10B cockpit drawing

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## rcrmj

Secur said:


> And after reverse engineering for decades , they have gained enough experience and expertise that they are now developing a 5th generation aircraft ... And dont come back with conspiracy theories like J20 is a mating of the F22 and PAK-FA or some random MIG 1.44 *** or worst of all based on Lavi  There's something for chest thumping for Chinese - Self Reliance ... They aren't the largest importer of weapons like some ...
> 
> As usual the Indians are trying to troll and derail the thread ... Suffering from Inferiority complex that *they cant develop even MIG 21 +++ by themselves ..*.



I think they can but it will take 30 years or even more plus direct bits and bots import```reverse enginnering is a long hard prograss, one has to do with reverse enginnering when facing high tech embargos by the west, because we have to reinvent the wheels and it takes looonnnggg time``we started in 50s only recently we start seeing some fruits coming out of our scientists' long hard determination.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## nomi007

both india and china are using mig-21 more than 4 decades
but india still relying on Russia for up gradation
bison is Israeli modified
but Chinese still making j-7 or f-7
now they modified a new version j-7e latest

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## nomi007

Chinese j-15 is the copy of su-33
but why india is not making mig-29 and su-30
when china is making j-16 copy of su-30


----------



## Zabaniyah

nomi007 said:


> Chinese j-15 is the copy of su-33



It was derived from a Ukrainian prototype (T10K) to be exact.
J15 J-15 naval carrier based fighter jet - China Navy 



nomi007 said:


> but why india is not making mig-29 and su-30



Well, they do licence produce the MKI already, including the engines. 



nomi007 said:


> when china is making j-16 copy of su-30



Who told you this? We haven't even seen the J-16.


----------



## Amey

China ki baat hi alag hai yar


----------



## nomi007

than what you have seen


----------



## MJaa

New Images Of Chinese J-15 Flying Shark Naval Fighter Jet ~ Chinese Military Review

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Lawrie

Mytime said:


> You forgot to mention (PAk-FA) FGFA i guess which is not so much on paper ... good luck on J-2X *with China* , so coming back to the point where i started there is no harm in using an already existing technology or partnering with others for development of weapons systems ... thats what both India , China and Pakistan are doing in different ways ... end result is the same !!!


Lol after paying millions of dollars you get some not-so-stealthy crap that Russians built on USSR technology. What was India's role in the R&D process? Bill payer? Spent more time learning stuff and develop your own fighter no matter how and stop being jealous of what others have accomplished. Congrats China and welcome to the club.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Zabaniyah

Lawrie said:


> Lol after paying millions of dollars you get some not-so-stealthy crap that Russians built on USSR technology. What was India's role in the R&D process? Bill payer? Spent more time learning stuff and develop your own fighter no matter how and stop being jealous of what others have accomplished. Congrats China and welcome to the club.



The Russian T-50 and the Indian T-50 are two different programs. And it's still in prototype stages.


----------



## ChineseTiger1986

Zabaniya said:


> The Russian T-50 and the Indian T-50 are two different programs. And it's still in prototype stages.



The FGFA will be as indigenous as the MKI.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## damiendehorn

Zabaniya said:


> The Russian T-50 and the Indian T-50 are two different programs. And it's still in prototype stages.



How different are they really? Different enigines? Different radar? What percentage is going to be different and what percentage of the plane is going to be DESIGNED in india?

What I suspect is india will provide the bulk of the cost of developing the FGFA, and the majority of RnD work will be done in Russia, very similar to the MKI. Not a true JV project. India waited too late, if it joined earlier in the development phase it could have got a better work share.

Anyway good luck to them, hope they atleast get some TOT, so they can move on to their next project (AMCA).


----------



## LaBong

^
# India and Russia will pay equal share of development. 
# India will work on at least 25% of RnD independently. 
# India will be* co-owner* of of FGFA, ie she can sell FGFA to other countries.


----------



## Zabaniyah

The Russian T-50 would be a single seater. From what I've heard, it'd focus more on maneuverability than stealth unlike the F-22 and J-20. 

The Indian one it seems, would be a two seater and would focus more on stealth, since they already have the MKI which is highly maneuverable. 

No idea about the AMCA.


----------



## beijing consensus

Lawrie said:


> Lol after paying millions of dollars you get some not-so-stealthy crap that Russians built on USSR technology. *What was India's role in the R&D process? Bill payer?* Spent more time learning stuff and develop your own fighter no matter how and stop being jealous of what others have accomplished. Congrats China and welcome to the club.



hey dont make fun of india, india has a very important role actually, india provides the paint job.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Project 627

Lawrie said:


> Lol after paying millions of dollars you get some not-so-stealthy crap that *Russians built on USSR technology.* What was India's role in the R&D process? Bill payer? Spent more time learning stuff and develop your own fighter no matter how and stop being jealous of what others have accomplished. Congrats China and welcome to the club.



I am sorry, I am not aware that USSR build Stealth aircraft.


----------



## teddy

nomi007 said:


> Chinese j-15 is the copy of su-33
> but why india is not making mig-29 and su-30
> when china is making j-16 copy of su-30



J15 should be J11 + T10K, because its vertical fin is small than Su33, and same size of su27. it is more like su27 than su33.


----------



## Akasa

teddy said:


> J15 should be J11 + T10K, because its vertical fin is small than Su33, and same size of su27. it is more like su27 than su33.



J-15 shares none of the components found in any Flanker besides its airframe.

J-15 should be a naval J-11B.


----------



## rcrmj

damiendehorn said:


> How different are they really? Different enigines? Different radar? What percentage is going to be different and what percentage of the plane is going to be DESIGNED in india?
> 
> What I suspect is india will provide the bulk of the cost of developing the FGFA, and the majority of RnD work will be done in Russia, very similar to the MKI. Not a true JV project. India waited too late, if it joined earlier in the development phase it could have got a better work share.
> 
> Anyway good luck to them, hope they atleast get some *TOT*, so they can move on to their next project (AMCA).



there is no such thing called TOT transfer in terms of defense technology, taking Japan and S.Korea for example, they got lots TOT transfers from America and Europ in defense industry but everyone knows even there are the closest allie with U.S.A but still cannot develop state of art weapons independently given the fact that they are innovation driven economies. 

but in India's case its still at primative stage of social development (1. primative society, 2. moving towards efficiency driven society, 3. efficiency society, 4.moving towards innovation driven society, 5. innovation driven society), where very lack at technological know-how to most civilian techs let alone defense techs. so it is always a joke when Indians talking about their 'innovative society' or 'IT superpower' status, whereas they dont know the fact that all the important works are done else where not india.

in terms of TOT, it is just a carrot stick played by smart russians to lure those ego thursty and unpragmatic indians.. lets make a extreem analogy, you can copy a methmatic answer for your homework from someone, it only means you know how to write the answer but not the methmatic logics behind that.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## houshanghai

*J15 PT (AL31F)*






*J15 mass-production version(WS10H)*

THX &#30701;&#31361;

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## April.lyrics

nice pic.Go WS10


----------



## ChineseTiger1986

It is the first time to see J-15 with its folded wings.

Reactions: Like Like:
11


----------



## aimarraul

it's a full-scale model.....

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## CarbonD

cool hope it works out well. Looks good as new


----------



## untitled

aimarraul said:


> it's a full-scale model.....


 


CarbonD said:


> cool hope it works out well. Looks good as new



Well according to *aimarraul* it is a model


----------



## 帅的一匹

It looks like a model


----------



## shuntmaster

This is the original >


----------



## Edevelop

shuntmaster said:


> This is the original >



holy .... this looks deadly!

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## shuntmaster

cb4 said:


> holy .... this looks deadly!



yeah.. this is the Russian Su-33, currently on the Russian aircraft carrier.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Aramsogo

shuntmaster said:


> This is the original >


 

Yes, like the image on the left is the original version of the human on the right.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Aramsogo

shuntmaster said:


> yeah.. this is the Russian Su-33, currently on the Russian aircraft carrier.



Like we didn't know. You guys are only capable of the same ctrl+c ctrl+v punchline every time. No originality in any post. Absolutely None. 85.


----------



## shuttler

ChineseTiger1986 said:


> It is the first time to see J-15 with its folded wings.



S-p-e-c-t-a-c-u-l-a-r! 

March On Boys! 

Pitiful China haters keep wetting their pants multiple times every day!

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## 帅的一匹



Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## HavocHeaven

pdf_shurtah said:


> Well according to *aimarraul* it is a model



it truly is


----------



## AerospaceEngineer

ChineseTiger1986 said:


> It is the first time to see J-15 with its folded wings.







WOW, awesome, it progressed way faster than I thought!

---------- Post added at 04:31 AM ---------- Previous post was at 04:30 AM ----------




shuntmaster said:


> yeah.. this is the Russian Su-33, currently on the Russian aircraft carrier.





.

---------- Post added at 04:33 AM ---------- Previous post was at 04:31 AM ----------




Aramsogo said:


> Yes, like the image on the left is the original version of the human on the right.







Dude your joke is to sophiscated for them to understand!

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## AerospaceEngineer

wanglaokan said:


>






Nice picture, this is the J-15. You can also see the silver engine nozzle indicating WS-10A engine.

J-15 is much more modern and potent than the current SU-33.

1. AESA radar.
2. Much betteer avonics almost state of the art.
3. Better airframe with more composite material to reduce weight and added more RAM to recude RCS.
4. More powerful engine, combined with reduced aircraft weight, the thrust to weight ratio is 1.06 much higher than SU-33's 0.86.
5. A lot more weapon slections include PL-12, SU-33 can not fire R-77!

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Akasa

shuntmaster said:


> This is the original >



In airframe design, yes, but in everything else, no.


----------



## Edevelop




----------



## Akasa

shuntmaster said:


> So, its a fake Su-33, like 'made in China fake Gucci bags'? Looks and feels like the original, but it is not



Of course it is not. It features composites, radar absorbent material, AESA radar, MAW, IRST, next generation cockpit, long range weapons, integrated electronics, all of which are lacking on the Flanker-D and most other Flankers.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## AerospaceEngineer

shuntmaster said:


> So, its a fake Su-33, like 'made in China fake Gucci bags'? Looks and feels like the original, but it is not




It is much better than the original SU-33, just go read my previous comment. Initnally Russia and China are negotiating SU-33 deal in 2005, however the SU-33 Russia offered is too outdated. China got T-10K from Ukraine and designed the J-15 with state of the art electronics, radar system and much better airframe.


Also, J-15 is superior to your Su-30MKI.

1. J-15 has AESA radar.
2. J-15 has morden and advanced avonics.
3. J-15 has better airframe.


The only advantage SU-30MKI has is TVC engine, lol.


Face the bitter reality again, indian.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## ChineseTiger1986

AerospaceEngineer said:


> It is much better than the original SU-33, just go read my previous comment. Initnally Russia and China are negotiating SU-33 deal in 2005, however the SU-33 Russia offered is too outdated. China got T-10K from Ukraine and designed the J-15 with state of the art electronics, radar system and much better airframe.
> 
> 
> Also, J-15 is superior to your Su-30MKI.
> 
> 1. J-15 has AESA radar.
> 2. J-15 has morden and advanced avonics.
> 3. J-15 has better airframe.
> 
> 
> The only advantage SU-30MKI has is TVC engine, lol.
> 
> 
> Face the bitter reality again, indian.



The WS-10H engine also has the 3D TVC feature.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## tjpf

AerospaceEngineer said:


> WOW, awesome, it progressed way faster than I thought!
> 
> ---------- Post added at 04:31 AM ---------- Previous post was at 04:30 AM ----------
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> ---------- Post added at 04:33 AM ---------- Previous post was at 04:31 AM ----------
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *
> Dude your joke is to sophiscated for them to understand*!



says ctrl+c ctrl+v

---------- Post added at 11:04 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:02 AM ----------




1962 spanking said:


> mods can you please ban all indians that comment on chinese section to troll, they are unwanted invaders that are nothing but jealous, frustrated, anger filled losers.
> 
> the indian mentality sums up their primitive culture and society, thats why they never progress but can brag as good as anyone but when it comes to delivering results, they fire blanks, just look at the commonwealth games farce.
> 
> there is absolutely nothing any indian or anyone else says or does will stop the rapid rise of china.
> 
> is it any wonder indians are hated all over the world, i travel overseas, and i can tell you, people hate indians more than anyother group,they are rude, arrogant, smug, noisy, obnoxious, uncivilized bunch of animals.
> 
> everytime china, pakistan, bangladesh and sri lanka achieve something, these indian rats flock to a thread like a fly that wants to eat some dung and completely destroys the thread with their trolling.
> 
> mods, i urge you to please monitor threads on the chinese section for indian trolls.
> they are unwelcome guests.
> no one likes indians and we dont want these trolls in here.
> 
> 
> 
> back to the topic, great news with the J-15, some say its comparable to the super hornet.
> good to see china advancing, just to make the jealous and frustrated haters squirm.





ouch mirchi laga kya

haters gonna hate


----------



## yyetttt

Looking good J-15!


----------



## Mujraparty

congrats to china  ..looks deadly


----------



## qwerrty

shuntmaster said:


> Its like saying the fake Gucci bag with more pockets inside is better than the original Gucci bag.
> Fake is a fake. Accept this fact Chinaman


no one knows this better than them yindians that can't even clone simple AK.

brand new state of the art ISAS rifle straight from ordance factory. i can understand why their own army don't want em.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## conworldus

qwerrty said:


> no one knows this better than them yindians that can't even clone simple AK.
> 
> brand new state of the art ISAS rifle straight from ordance factory. i can understand why their own army don't want em.


\

The finish is definitely very very bad. However, we can't judge a gun just on the finish. How does the new INSAS perform?


----------



## qwerrty

conworldus said:


> \
> 
> The finish is definitely very very bad. However, we can't judge a gun just on the finish. How does the new INSAS perform?


 
that's the new INSAS. their own army don't want it, prefer spending billions on foreign rifles. nepalese army which is their only customer want their money back.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## retaxis

Indians couldn't clone a bloody coffee cup unless you send in 3 advisors and a team of specialists to do it for them. Usual trash talking is annoying especially with their WW2 aircraft carrier with WW2 weapons waiting to be scrapped.


----------



## Aramsogo

conworldus said:


> \
> 
> The finish is definitely very very bad. However, we can't judge a gun just on the finish. How does the new INSAS perform?


 
You don't know guns my friend. Finish outside is a good indicator of finish inside (ie tolerances). Look at a Lewis Machine Tool or a Colt AR-15, the upper and lower wont join if they are off by 0.25 mm.

This INSAS 100% cant shoot straight. If someone is shooting at you with an Indian rifle, best thing to do is stand still.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Awesome

Thread closed - talk sensibly and on topic. J-15 vs Su-33 comparisons cannot be done anywhere J-15 is mentioned.


----------



## Type 052D

J-15












SU-33





SU-33









J-15

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## Luftwaffe

As much as I know considerably 65% internal changes have been done to J-15 as well as the newest J-11Bs would be closer to SU-35s, J-20/J-31 programs are transferring alot to these J-11B/BS-J-15 programs.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## SpArK

neehar said:


> how can you even compare the case of the computer with the air frame..airframe is 80% of the aircraft..it wouldnt even mtr in the case of computer case...plz thnk before u post



J-15s air frame looks just fine for me.


----------



## scherz

neehar said:


> how can you even compare the case of the computer with the air frame..airframe is 80% of the aircraft..it wouldnt even mtr in the case of computer case...plz thnk before u post


lol 80% of the aircraft? rly? Well i undestated the importance of the airflame, indeed, but ur claim, that the airframe is more important then the radar and engines together is just ridiculous
the same to u neehar

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## SpArK

neehar said:


> i didnt said that its not good...i was mentionin his comparisn thats all..



Whatever it is. Copied or not , it has landed on a fighter and can fire latest Chinese missiles.

Objective is more important, not the path.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## seven7seven

China's J-15 fighter superior to Russian Su-33
(People's Daily Online)
08:52, December 06, 2012

On Nov. 25, 2012, China's carrier-borne J-15 fighter jet has successfully undergone a series of sailing and technological tests on the Liaoning, China's first aircraft carrier, marking a great success of the carrier-borne fighter jet independently developed by China and a major breakthrough in the development of aircraft carrier technology.

The J-15 is equipped with two high-power engines and a brand-new system of high lift device, takeoff and landing device and arrester hook. Its wing can be folded up to both maintain the excellent combat capability and meet the special requirement of landing on the Liaoning. Featuring large combat radius, excellent maneuvering performance and high bombs carrying capacity, the J-15 has a fighting capability of full sea and full airspace.

Foreign media especially Russian media guessed that the J-15 is a copy of Russian Su-33 carrier-borne fighter jet because its appearance is similar to Su-33. In this regard, spokesman of the Ministry of National Defense of China Geng Yansheng said on Nov. 29, "The world military affairs have an objective law of development. Many weapons have the same design principle and some command and protection methods are also similar. Therefore, it at least is non-professional to conclude that China copied the aircraft carrier technology of other countries only by simply comparison.&#8221;

First, J-15 has an avionics more advanced than Su-33. Su-33 is equipped with old-fashioned ARINC429 discrete avionics system of one-way low-speed data bus, while J-15 adopts joint avionics system of bidirectional data bus.

TS-100, the Su-33's fire-control computer, has a computing speed of only 170,000 times per second, while the J-15's fire-control computer has an estimated computing speed of over several million times per second.

The J-15 owns a much more advanced radar system than the Su-33. Due to its backward avionics system, the Su-33 can only serve as interceptors, and is incapable of air-to-ground precision strike.

The J-15 adopts improved materials and production techniques, and thus has greater strength and lighter weight.

Finally, the J-15 is powered by home-made Taihang (WS-10) turbofan engine, which is more powerful than the Su-33's engine. Overall, the J-15 is superior to the Su-33, and is comparable to world-class carrier-based aircraft such as the United States' F-18 and France's Rafale.

http://english.people.com.cn/90786/8047787.html

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## seven7seven

1ndy said:


> Yes it might be superior no doubts but still it is a *COPY* of Russian Su-33.



Copy or not, if it protects your country, it doesn't matter. India needs to get away from this noble notion that playing fair will get you respect because it will not. All countries engage in espionage and it's commonly accepted that you do what you have to do to get whatever intelligence you need. At the end of day, power is power, and nobody gives a damn how you got it, because once you gain that power, nobody is in a position to tell you what you can or can't do.

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## Obambam

seven7seven said:


> Copy or not, if it protects your country, it doesn't matter. India needs to get away from this noble notion that playing fair will get you respect because it will not. All countries engage in espionage and it's commonly accepted that you do what you have to do to get whatever intelligence you need. At the end of day, power is power, and nobody gives a damn how you got it, because once you gain that power, nobody is in a position to tell you what you can or can't do.



Well said. Being noble will not win you wars. Russians themselves are guilty of the charge. Right after the second world war , 1947 to be precise, they illegally copied British Rolls-Royce turbojet engines and produced them under names - Klimov VK-1 and RD-500. They later captured, stripped naked the American Boeing B-29 Super fortress, copied and produced it under the name of "Tupolev Tu-4". 
Even India was once guilty of the same. Their non licensed copy of the Kalashnikov AK-47 caught the Russians attention in an arms fair in Dheli.
USA was no different, under a project code named "Operation Paperclip".

This goes to show, getting strong often involves studying or copying of foreign technologies.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## BordoEnes

Obambam said:


> Well said. Being noble will not win you wars. Russians themselves are guilty of the charge. Right after the second world war , 1947 to be precise, they illegally copied British Rolls-Royce turbojet engines and produced them under names - Klimov VK-1 and RD-500. They later captured, stripped naked the American Boeing B-29 Super fortress, copied and produced it under the name of "Tupolev Tu-4".
> Even India was once guilty of the same. Their non licensed copy of the Kalashnikov AK-47 caught the Russians attention in an arms fair in Dheli.
> USA was no different, under a project code named "Operation Paperclip".
> 
> This goes to show, getting strong often involves studying or copying of foreign technologies.



Not to mension about the German V2 Rocket, Both USA and Russia stole the technology and reintroduced it in there space program... Both Nations entire space program evolved from the German V2, Thanks to that USA even landed on the moon.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## S10

TK-10 prototype developed into Su-33. The same prototype was purchased by China and developed into J-15, thus making it a parallel development. When two products are developed from the same concept, they are related, but not copies.


----------



## April.lyrics

well i must say history is not the excuse for pirate.

but whether u think chinese Flankers are pirates or not,SAC manages to assemble it with own devices.


----------



## seabreeze

Not just justify the pirating again, but again, human development is build upon each other's progress and knowledge, that's how we are.

What is the most innovative company in the world? Apple
Who is the man build the apple that made ipod, iphone, ipad possible? Steve Jobs
So he probably hated the most about pirating and copying, right? Wrong. Here's what he said:
"Good artists copy, great artists steal, we have been shameless to steal all great ideas." search youtube, you'll find that interview.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Anony

Which radar is integrated to J-15 ? Is it Klj-10 or any other mechanical array radar.


----------



## Pak47

^ joined in 2009 and making your first post in December 2012?


----------



## ashok321

seabreeze said:


> Not just justify the pirating again, but again, human development is build upon each other's progress and knowledge, that's how we are.
> 
> What is the most innovative company in the world? Apple
> Who is the man build the apple that made ipod, iphone, ipad possible? Steve Jobs
> So he probably hated the most about pirating and copying, right? Wrong. Here's what he said:
> "Good artists copy, great artists steal, we have been shameless to steal all great ideas." search youtube, you'll find that interview.



And the same apple co has audacity to sue samsung for concept copyrights violations for 2 billion dollars......
Hypocrisy is the lubricant of society.....


----------



## seabreeze

Pak47 said:


> ^ joined in 2009 and making your first post in December 2012?



I know, but this is not my first post. What happened to my previous ones?


----------



## Black Widow

What is the objective of this thread????

a) Look chinese have created Su33 replica from scratch (Not reffering T10's )
b) China has added subcomponent in Its own Su33 (which is called J15)?

As Russia is not providing sub-component of J15 (Su33) the subcomponents ought to be different,...


----------



## Fsjal

The J-15 uses the Su-33 airframe but with Chinese avionics, engines and weapons.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## giant panda

The model of J-15 Flying Shark prototype 554

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## giant panda

J-15 Flying Shark prototype 554 and J-15S prototype


----------



## S10

Fsjal said:


> The J-15 uses the Su-33 airframe but with Chinese avionics, engines and weapons.



It does not use Su-33's airframe. Both Su-33 and J-15 came from a T-10K prototype, which makes them parallel developments. They share the same parent, but that's where similarities end.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Type 052D

S10 said:


> It does not use Su-33's airframe. Both Su-33 and J-15 came from a T-10K prototype, which makes them parallel developments. They share the same parent, but that's where similarities end.



T-10K apparently came from Ukraine just the New Aircraft-Carrier. SAC had to create an entire variant of the Flanker family rather than merely coping the SU-33.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## ptldM3

S10 said:


> It does not use Su-33's airframe. Both Su-33 and J-15 came from a T-10K prototype, which makes them parallel developments. They share the same parent, but that's where similarities end.



The T-10k was merely a designation before the OFFICIAL designation of SU-33 was given. No matter how you twist it the J-15's airframe is a copy of the SU-33.


----------



## S10

ptldM3 said:


> The T-10k was merely a designation before the OFFICIAL designation of SU-33 was given. No matter how you twist it the J-15's airframe is a copy of the SU-33.


You must be a copy of your father then?

J-15 was developed from a T-10K prototype, not Su-33. We dealt with Ukraine, not some Russian eager to claim credit like you.


----------



## ptldM3

S10 said:


> You must be a copy of your father then?
> 
> J-15 was developed from a T-10K prototype, not Su-33. We dealt with Ukraine, not some Russian eager to claim credit like you.



And the T-10k was a pre-production SU-33. And what credit have I ever claimed? and to make things clear Ukraine had nothing to do with the T-10k other than having possession of it.


----------



## giant panda

J-15S model


----------



## giant panda

J-15S prototype


----------



## cnleio

In China ShenYang (SAC), Navy domestic J-15 fighters start to mass produce. 
It means China Navy developing into Carrier Strike Time.

Reactions: Like Like:
8


----------



## Echo_419

Great news congrats 
China should be a strong Maritime power in fact the Brest one in East Asia

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## cnleio

J-15 fighter can carry 6x anti-ship missiles (C80x series missiles) or 2x supersonic missiles (YJ series missiles)

Reactions: Like Like:
10


----------



## Beast

Can we have the video of the manufacturing footage? Thanks!


----------



## nomi007

i think they will just build 30-40 aircrafts


----------



## Genesis

nomi007 said:


> i think they will just build 30-40 aircrafts



it's not just for the aircraft carrier, it's for the whole navy, and airforce. So I'm expecting the numbers to be in the hundreds.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## viper46

flanker's design is damn hottttt

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Zabaniyah

viper46 said:


> flanker's design is damn hottttt



I agrees

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## S.Y.A

cnleio said:


> J-15 fighter can carry 6x anti-ship missiles (C80x series missiles) or 2x supersonic missiles (YJ series missiles)



in the first pic i see two more smaller lighter missiles are they short range AAMs?


----------



## Type 052D

Great. I hope PLAN has an 60 J-15 Naval fighters. It will increase China's expeditionary powers.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Luffy 500

Congrats to China. 

Btw is it with domestic engine?



Genesis said:


> it's not just for the aircraft carrier, it's for the whole navy, and airforce. So I'm expecting the numbers to be in the hundreds.



Doesn't PLAAF has J11 to do the job. J15 is said to be a carrier borne fighter based on the airframe of J11 just like SU33 is based on SU27. And yes I believe china will produce 100s of these for future carriers that will go well beyond 2040.


----------



## UKBengali

Luffy 500 said:


> Doesn't PLAAF has J11 to do the job. J15 is said to be a carrier borne fighter based on the airframe of J11 just like SU33 is based on SU27. *And yes I believe china will produce 100s of these for future carriers that will go well beyond 2040*.



It is not likely that anymore than 50 or so will be produced I think.

Only the current aircraft carrier will in all probability have the J-15.

Future carriers are likely to have the J-31 or another 5th generation fighter as their primary fighter.

J-15 cannot hope to fight F-35 but J-31 can.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Luffy 500

UKBengali said:


> It is not likely that anymore than 50 or so will be produced I think.
> 
> Only the current aircraft carrier will in all probability have the J-15.
> 
> Future carriers are likely to have the J-31 or another 5th generation fighter as their primary fighter.
> 
> J-15 cannot hope to fight F-35 but J-31 can.



J15 is a 4.5 gen fighter which can be upgraded with time. 4.5 gen fighters will be staying for the foreseeable future till 2040-2050 IMO. Look at F7 and Mirage V. They are still serving in different Air forces. J31 will not be out till 2025 and by that time PLAN will have another Aircraft carrier functioning I believe.


----------



## Genesis

Luffy 500 said:


> Congrats to China.
> 
> Btw is it with domestic engine?
> 
> 
> 
> Doesn't PLAAF has J11 to do the job. J15 is said to be a carrier borne fighter based on the airframe of J11 just like SU33 is based on SU27. And yes I believe china will produce 100s of these for future carriers that will go well beyond 2040.



Most new fighters are in China. This one is definitely domestic engine. The new J-10Bs, the new J-11s and whatever else are more and more using domestic.

The next generation of J-20 and J-31 can't use bought engines, for the simple fact, the US won't sell, and deals with the Russians are what it is and it can't be in large enough numbers.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Luffy 500

Genesis said:


> Most new fighters are in China. This one is definitely domestic engine. The new J-10Bs, the new J-11s and whatever else are more and more using domestic.
> 
> The next generation of J-20 and J-31 can't use bought engines, for the simple fact, the US won't sell, and deals with the Russians are what it is and it can't be in large enough numbers.



Don't U think china will be able to use domestic high performance engines in 5th gen stealth? It 2025 or 2030 we are talking about. I believe china will be able to make high performance reliable engines by then.


----------



## Genesis

Luffy 500 said:


> Don't U think china will be able to use domestic high performance engines in 5th gen stealth? It 2025 or 2030 we are talking about. I believe china will be able to make high performance reliable engines by then.



China is investing Billions every year on Engines. I

The new party leaders sees this engine plan as a validation to their rule. 

The J-15 leader died of a heart attack as he saw his plane land on the liaoning. This is very cut throat business. 

New WS-15 is in a very good stage and will be used on all J-20s when they enter production. We should be expect to see it in 2017 or 18.

The Chinese engine programs are getting more and more advanced, because, once you workout a ton of things, it gets "easier" from there. 

It was never the design, but the manufacturing process and quality of the material and avaliablities of certain materials due to low manufacturing know how.

China makes progress in developing alloy for airplane engines | Latest | FOCUS TAIWAN - CNA ENGLISH NEWS

Reactions: Like Like:
9


----------



## ChineseTiger1986



Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## ChineseTiger1986

The WS-10H engine for the mass production model of J-15 flying shark.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Darth Vader

viper46 said:


> flanker's design is damn hottttt



Yes but its also very hot on radar


----------



## BDforever

@Genesis J15 will be game changer, can you sell it in future ? if can, BD must go for it


----------



## Yzd Khalifa

Good job China. This will definitely help out building its military machine in the next coming decades. From what I can see its quite obvious that the PRC is becoming more dependent on its own ,but that doesn't mean they shouldn't look for friends because the more friends you have, the greater your power will be. 

Let't hope the PRC power will grow and grow fast.

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## Fsjal

viper46 said:


> flanker's design is damn hottttt



Yep. Its nice curves beats a lot of bulky fighter jets in its class (weight, not role), such as F/A-18E/F and F-15C/E

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Fsjal

Genesis said:


> China is investing Billions every year on Engines. I
> 
> The new party leaders sees this engine plan as a validation to their rule.
> 
> The J-15 leader died of a heart attack as he saw his plane land on the liaoning. This is very cut throat business.
> 
> New WS-15 is in a very good stage and will be used on all J-20s when they enter production. We should be expect to see it in 2017 or 18.
> 
> The Chinese engine programs are getting more and more advanced, because, once you workout a ton of things, it gets "easier" from there.
> 
> It was never the design, but the manufacturing process and quality of the material and avaliablities of certain materials due to low manufacturing know how.
> 
> China makes progress in developing alloy for airplane engines | Latest | FOCUS TAIWAN - CNA ENGLISH NEWS



Is it possible to fit thrust vectoring in the engine. I heard that somewhere (Don't know where?) that China will fit thrust vectoring in new fighter planes.

With thrust vectoring, the J-15 will be more agile

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## selvan33

which radar J 15 is using.Either AESA or PESA. what about its EW suites.


----------



## ChineseTiger1986

selvan33 said:


> which radar J 15 is using.Either AESA or PESA. what about its EW suites.



AESA, because J-11B is already using it.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## jhungary

I think they can expect the sales of J-15 overseas when Chinese think they master the skill of Stealth. 

However, I don't think J-15 would have a good international market tho, with no/low combat data. Many people would just go back to Su-27 or Mig-29 for their rep. Plus I don't think Chinese will make a lot of them for themselves as they see it as a stop gap fighter.


It will be interesting to see how China try to sell their fighter, compare to the big dog.


----------



## 帅的一匹

From the picture you could tell the mass production version is using WS10H engine, look at its nozzle.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## danger007

That is regular production line....


----------



## T-123456

Ni hao,good going China!


----------



## Beast

jhungary said:


> I think they can expect the sales of J-15 overseas when Chinese think they master the skill of Stealth.
> 
> However, I don't think J-15 would have a good international market tho, with no/low combat data. Many people would just go back to Su-27 or Mig-29 for their rep. Plus I don't think Chinese will make a lot of them for themselves as they see it as a stop gap fighter.
> 
> 
> It will be interesting to see how China try to sell their fighter, compare to the big dog.



Who say CHina is going to sell J-15? Are you high on drugs?

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## jhungary

Beast said:


> Who say CHina is going to sell J-15? Are you high on drugs?



*And no one (including me) say China is going to sell the Platform either*

I now started to wonder how's your English Comprehension Ability.

Bear in mine this is the first sentence I say

I think "*they*" can expect the sales of J-15 overseas when "*Chinese*" think they master the skill of Stealth. 

So it's kind of Obvious that the "they" did not refer to the Chinese......otherwise I will use "they" again, instead of the word "Chinese"

I was talking on the side of *Expected Customer*. However, I also maintained that China *THEMSELVES *see J-15 is a stop gap, hence the sale are unlikely, and those "expected customer" are most probably going back to buying Su-27 and Mig 29.

Dude, you are trying to be a smart arse prematurely. Next time try understanding other's post before trying to be a smart arse, thank you , really, this is beneath you, even as a Chinese Troll.....


----------



## Beast

jhungary said:


> *And no one (including me) say China is going to sell the Platform either*
> 
> I now started to wonder your English Comprehension Ability.
> 
> I was talking on the side of *Expected Customer*. However, I also maintained that China *THEMSELVES *see J-15 is a stop gap, hence the sale are unlikely, and those "expected customer" are most probably going back to buying Su-27 and Mig 29.
> 
> Dude, you are trying to be a smart arse prematurely. Next time try understanding other's post before trying to be a smart arse, thank you , really, this is beneath you, even as a Chinese Troll.....



Do you want me to quote back your word, American Troll?


> However, I don't think J-15 *would have a good international market tho*, with no/low combat data. Many people would just go back to Su-27 or Mig-29 for their rep. Plus I don't think Chinese will make a lot of them for themselves as they see it as a stop gap fighter.



If you do not think China is going to sell J-15 on market , why would you even mention whether it will do well or not on international market? That will be irrelevant.. But you did and you are a troll.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## jhungary

Beast said:


> Do you want me to quote back your word, American Troll?
> 
> 
> If you do not think China is going to sell J-15 on market , why would you even mention whether it will do well or not on international market? That will be irrelevant.. But you did and you are a troll.



lol, really??

United States CANNOT sell F-22 but does that mean the market does not happen?? Or no one going to ask for it? Japan and Australia did ask for it.

What do having an international market have to do with the desire to sell??

Wow, your English really sucks


----------



## Beast

jhungary said:


> lol, really??
> 
> United States CANNOT sell F-22 but does that mean the market does not happen?? Or no one going to ask for it? Japan and Australia did ask for it.
> 
> What do having an international market have to do with the desire to sell??
> 
> Wow, your English really sucks



What got it do with previous thing you mention? You seems to be in a lost of words. You are caught with your pants down and you are not backing it? If you do not know what you are talking. I suggest you better keep it to youself. Troll

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## jhungary

Beast said:


> Do you want me to quote back your word, American Troll?
> 
> 
> If you do not think China is going to sell J-15 on market , why would you even mention whether it will do well or not on international market? That will be irrelevant.. But you did and you are a troll.





Beast said:


> What got it do with previous thing you mention? You seems to be in a lost of words. You are caught with your pants down and you are not backing it? If you do not know what you are talking. I suggest you better keep it to youself. Troll





ok, let me break it down for you so you will understand

the same comment I made for J-15 is also true for F-22, even everybody know US had no intention of selling F-22 and they are simply prohibited

"However, I don't think F-22 would have a good international market tho, with 200 millions pricetag. Many people would just go back to F-15 or F-18 for their Price. Plus I don't think American made a lot of them for themselves as they see it as a stop gap fighter for F-35."

compare to this 



> However, I don't think J-15 would have a good international market tho, with no/low combat data. Many people would just go back to Su-27 or Mig-29 for their rep. Plus I don't think Chinese will make a lot of them for themselves as they see it as a stop gap fighter.



So you are saying the above comment also, does not make sense? Or did I imply US are going to sell their F-22??


----------



## Beast

jhungary said:


> ok, let me break it down for you so you will understand
> 
> the same comment I made for J-15 is also true for F-22, even everybody know US had no intention of selling F-22 and they are simply prohibited
> 
> "However, I don't think F-22 would have a good international market tho, with 200 millions pricetag. Many people would just go back to F-15 or F-18 for their Price. Plus I don't think American made a lot of them for themselves as they see it as a stop gap fighter for F-35."
> 
> compare to this
> 
> 
> 
> So you are saying the above comment also, does not make sense? Or did I imply US are going to sell their F-22??



That's irrelevant too, Since US is not going to sell F-22 that makes your mention of F-22 under that context equally irreleavnt. It equally applies to J-15 too. You are talking to yourself and making up nonsense.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## cnleio

S.Y.A said:


> in the first pic i see two more smaller lighter missiles are they short range AAMs?


4x PL-8 shot range AAMs(red colors) on the wing, 2x PL-12 medium-range AAMs(white colors) between jet engines.


----------



## cirr

When are we gonna see J-15S with the same grey paint job as the pair of J-15s below&#65311;






















It is hoped that J-15B is being finalized.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Genesis

cirr said:


> When are we gonna see J-15S with the same grey paint job as the pair of J-15s below&#65311;
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is hoped that J-15B is being finalized.



Don't hold your breath. It's not going to be soon.

These fighters are extremely expensive, think about buying a private jet to put into perspective how expensive they really are.

The navy will at least use these J-15s as a test for engines and other features, also as a test and training for Carrier operations.

It would be foolish to roll out the 15Bs or any other variants without a lot of data collected from this current batch and batches after it.


----------



## Nishan_101

cnleio said:


> In China ShenYang (SAC), Navy domestic J-15 fighters start to mass produce.
> It means China Navy developing into Carrier Strike Time.



I think we all know that Chinese would have taken license from Russian of Su-33 to develop at home and it means that there are 2-3 more carriers in line although then IN and IAF should also prepare it self and I am sure IAF should now look towards buying Rafaels and EF-2000 along with some 100 Mirage-2000s as interim from France...


----------



## UKBengali

@ChineseTiger1986:

In you last diagram/table:

WS-15 - 2014
WS-10 - 2012
WS-13 - 2009

I take it that the year refers to when the engine will be ready to start testing on production aircraft rather than fully ready for use?



Beast said:


> That's irrelevant too, Since US is not going to sell F-22 that makes your mention of F-22 under that context equally irreleavnt. It equally applies to J-15 too. You are talking to yourself and making up nonsense.



Don't waste your breath with fools like this.

He had the nerve to call me stupid but his only argument to say that China in the future would not be able to build a powerful military was that rich Chinese would not allow the CCP to take their money to spend on weapons!

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Martian2

UKBengali said:


> @ChineseTiger1986:
> 
> In you last diagram/table:
> 
> WS-15 - 2014
> WS-10 - 2012
> WS-13 - 2009
> 
> I take it that the year refers to when the engine will be ready to start testing on production aircraft rather than fully ready for use?



No. The dates refer to mass production. WS-10 was first installed on a J-11 test platform in 2002.

----------

*Shenyang Aircraft Corporation's WS-10A engines are already in mass production*






Could the WS-10A engine power the J-10, J-11B, and J-15 aircraft? The answer is "yes" if two conditions are met. Firstly, Chinese production of WS-10A engines must be sufficient to meet the demand (including production of parts for maintenance and replacement engines at the end of the expected lifetime) for all three aircraft.

Secondly, I don't know if WS-10A engines are interchangeable with AL-31F engines. If they are not readily interchangeable without modifying the fuselage then the current fighters with AL-31F engines will most likely stay with AL-31F replacement engines.





J-10B Vigorous Dragon flying with WS-10A engine





J-11B flying with WS-10A engines





J-15 Flying Shark with WS-10A engines

To conclude the discussion on the use of domestic WS-10A engines on the J-10, J-11B, and J-15, there is a new photograph of a J-11BS equipped with WS-10A engines.





"A [J-11BS] tandem twin-seat combat-capable training aircraft for J-11B pilots."

[Note: Thank you to SiegeCrossbow for the J-11BS picture.]

----------

*WS-10A engine for J-10B Vigorous Dragon fighter in mass production*





WS-10A engine (with gearbox at the bottom) is designed to power the J-10B Vigorous Dragon fighter. This version of the WS-10A turbofan engine is said to have 13.2 ton maximum thrust. There are several wrapped engines near the floor.

[Note: Thank you to Pinko for the post.]

----------

*Four new Chinese J-11B Shenyang Flanker fighters with domestic WS-10A engines*

New-type Fighters in training (2) - People's Daily Online

"New-type Fighters in training (2)
(China Military Online)
September 17, 2012





Recently&#65292;four new-type fighters of an aviation unit of the air force under the Jinan Military Area Command (MAC) of the Chinese People's Liberation Army (PLA) flew to unfamiliar sea waters and organized training on such subjects as electronic confrontation and medium-range missile attack, penetration and assault, valley flight and so on, in a bid to lay a solid foundation for actual combat.





The fighter formation is in hedge-hopping flight. (Photo by Cui Wenbin/Chinamil)"

[Note: Thank you to Greyboy2 for the newslink.]

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## UKBengali

@Martian2 : 

I am a little confused.

The WS-10A has been used in J-11B production aircraft since 2010 and there are reports that at least 200 have already been produced. The WS-10H is now being used for production J-15. So 2012 seems about right if the version being referred to maybe WS-10B in that table.

However, the WS-15 cannot be ready for mass production by 2014 as it is only 1 year away and it has not even been tested on J-20 fighters yet

Likewise, it is know that the WS-13 was first used on a flying JF-17 prototype in 2010 but there have not been much more news of this since then for some reason.


----------



## Martian2

UKBengali said:


> @Martian2 :
> 
> I am a little confused.
> 
> The WS-10A has been used in J-11B production aircraft since 2010 and there are reports that at least 200 have already been produced. The WS-10H is now being used for production J-15. So 2012 seems about right if the version being referred to maybe WS-10B in that table.
> 
> However, the WS-15 cannot be ready for mass production by 2014 as it is only 1 year away and it has not even been tested on J-20 fighters yet
> 
> Likewise, it is know that the WS-13 was first used on a flying JF-17 prototype in 2010 but there have not been much more news of this since then for some reason.



You are confusing lack of publicly released news with lack of development. The WS-15 has been in development for a decade.

According to Global Security, the core of the WS-15 engine was already functioning in 2005 (which is almost a decade ago).

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/china/ws15.htm

"*The core engine for the WS-15 engine was first tested in April 2005. The demonstrator was developed successfully and the prototype WS-15 was running smoothly.* [Deleted gratuitous anti-China propaganda sentence]. Nonetheless, China has produced the WS-9 engine for the JH-7, the WS-10A engine for J-10, and the WS-15 for the new J-20 fourth generation stealth fighter. The WS-9 and WS-10A were both usable, and without the WS-10A China would not have negotiated J-10 orders with PAF."

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## UKBengali

Martian2 said:


> You are confusing lack of publicly released news with lack of development. The WS-15 has been in development for a decade.
> 
> According to Global Security, the core of the WS-15 engine was already functioning in 2005 (which is almost a decade ago).
> 
> WS15
> 
> "*The core engine for the WS-15 engine was first tested in April 2005. The demonstrator was developed successfully and the prototype WS-15 was running smoothly.* [Deleted gratuitous anti-China propaganda sentence]. Nonetheless, China has produced the WS-9 engine for the JH-7, the WS-10A engine for J-10, and the WS-15 for the new J-20 fourth generation stealth fighter. The WS-9 and WS-10A were both usable, and without the WS-10A China would not have negotiated J-10 orders with PAF."



Looks like J-20 could be deployed by 2015/2016 if all goes well.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## cnleio

Nishan_101 said:


> I think we all know that Chinese would have taken license from Russian of Su-33 to develop at home and it means that there are 2-3 more carriers in line although then IN and IAF should also prepare it self and I am sure IAF should now look towards buying Rafaels and EF-2000 along with some 100 Mirage-2000s as interim from France...


China didn't buy the license of Russia Su-33 and Russia also didn't exported any Su-33 to China (Seriously Russian ever refused China's Su-33 request), But Chinese got one T-10k(the prototype of Su-33) from Ukraine then delieved it to China ShenYang(SAC) research center. 

Strickly China J-15 developed from Airforce J-10B and refered by that T-10k prototype (to google ShenYang T-10K u will find the pic). The T-10k of former S.U's Su-33 prototype in China was another opened secret !

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## ChineseTiger1986

UKBengali said:


> @ChineseTiger1986:
> 
> In you last diagram/table:
> 
> WS-15 - 2014
> WS-10 - 2012
> WS-13 - 2009
> 
> I take it that the year refers to when the engine will be ready to start testing on production aircraft rather than fully ready for use?



It is the date of the initial production, not the date of the mass production.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## ChineseTiger1986

Russia has lost the platform of Su-33, that's why they are going after Mig-29K.

But seriously, a modernized Su-33 will no doubt be much more superior to a modernized Mig-29.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## UKBengali

ChineseTiger1986 said:


> Russia has lost the platform of Su-33, that's why they are going after Mig-29K.
> 
> *But seriously, a modernized Su-33 will no doubt be much more superior to a modernized Mig-29*.



I remember Indian members jumping on me when I stated a while back that the J-15 would easily outperform the Mig-29K.

It is a larger aircraft and can carry a wider variety of both air-to-air and air-to-surface ordnance. Also it would be equipped with a radar that could detect much further than the smaller radar in Mig-29K.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## hk299792458

Mass production of *J-15* not yet started.

A few days ago there was still an official article from 112 to "_secure the milestone_".

Henri K.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## jhungary

Beast said:


> That's irrelevant too, Since US is not going to sell F-22 that makes your mention of F-22 under that context equally irreleavnt. It equally applies to J-15 too. You are talking to yourself and making up nonsense.



Dude, the concept is the irrelevancy. 

for example 

China do not want to sell the J-15 and Pakistan wanted China to sell the J-15 have no relevance what so ever

So, even if China refuse to sell J-15, *does that mean country like Pakistan or Sri Lanka cannot Day dream about getting J-15??*

*Same as US will not sell F-22 to foreign country does not mean anything to both Japan and Australia whom had expressed interest on the sale of F-22 before. Those 2 argument are both valid.*

You are getting crazy with your argument here dude, suggest that you get your head check. You are getting ridiculous by the days


----------



## Genesis

Fsjal said:


> Is it possible to fit thrust vectoring in the engine. I heard that somewhere (Don't know where?) that China will fit thrust vectoring in new fighter planes.
> 
> With thrust vectoring, the J-15 will be more agile



I'm afraid no, all indications are that the J-15s will not have thrust vectoring. 

The J-15 will be a possible complementary/training/testing plane with the J-31 looking to be the main player in the years to come for Chinese Carrier force. 

The WS-15 will have Thrust vectoring, but there are still hurdles to cross. Though breakthroughs are being made. It is planned that J-31 and J-20 will have it barring any major setbacks.

The WS-15 is designed to match the F-22's F-199, and exceed the PAK FA's engine. Though it is still unclear on the PAK FA's engine situation until it actually starts to be produced.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## ptldM3

Genesis said:


> I'm afraid no, all indications are that the J-15s will not have thrust vectoring.
> 
> The J-15 will be a possible complementary/training/testing plane with the J-31 looking to be the main player in the years to come for Chinese Carrier force.
> 
> The WS-15 will have Thrust vectoring, but there are still hurdles to cross. Though breakthroughs are being made. It is planned that J-31 and J-20 will have it barring any major setbacks.
> 
> *The WS-15 is designed to match the F-22's F-199, and exceed the PAK FA's engine. Though it is still unclear on the PAK FA's engine situation until it actually starts to be produced*.



Stop talking nonsense, you can't design to match something you know nothing about.


----------



## Luftwaffe

ptldM3 said:


> Stop talking nonsense, you can't design to match something you know nothing about.



That was a poor post, did not China design/develop J-20 And J-31 to match, exceed and correct in Areas.


----------



## ptldM3

Luftwaffe said:


> That was a poor post, did not China design/develop J-20 And J-31 to match, exceed and correct in Areas.



No, because there is nothing to suggest that either of those match or exceed anything.

What is a poor post is claiming to match something when you have nothing to compare it to. Tell me what is the thrust-to weight ratio, fuel consumption, time between overhaul, service life, dry thrust, wet thrust, heat signature, reliability, ect of either engine.


----------



## ChineseTiger1986

Genesis said:


> The WS-15 is designed to match the F-22's F-199, and exceed the PAK FA's engine. Though it is still unclear on the PAK FA's engine situation until it actually starts to be produced.



I heard that the newest version of F-119 has reached the afterburner thrust of 177kn from the 156kn afterburner thrust of the original F-119.

That's why WS-15 needs at least 180kn, perhaps even more than 190kn, since the maximum takeoff weight of J-20 is going to be more than the F-22 raptor.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## conworldus

ptldM3 said:


> Stop talking nonsense, you can't design to match something you know nothing about.



Can you say at least WS-15 aims to match the published specs of F-119?

Pratt & Whitney F119 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WS-15 needs to power the next gen Chinese aircraft with the F-22 and 35 being the primary adversary. Why isn't it sensible to you that China attempts to match the specs?


And if the US and Russian accusation of China copying F-22 is true, I am sure China knows a thing or two about F-119's specs.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Martian2

*T-50 engine flameout sets the Russian standard*

I think PtldM3 is claiming that Russian engines are better than Chinese jet engines.

For example, Chinese jet engines do not flame out like Russian ones. Amazing Russian engineering.

----------

Flameout Caused T-50 Takeoff Abort | Defense Tech

"*Flameout Caused T-50 Takeoff Abort*
by John Reed on August 22, 2011







The Sukhoi T-50 PAK FA&#8217;s aborted takeoff yesterday was caused by a flameout in the right-hand (starboard) engine built by Russian jet engine-maker Saturn. It turns out the jet that suffered the flameout was, T-50&#8211;2 (Side 52), the second of two PAK FA test jets built so far. T-50&#8211;2 was built to test out the actual mission systems of the stealthy fighter while its older sibling, T-50&#8211;1, was built to test the actual airframe. However, T-50&#8211;2 was grounded in early April and didn&#8217;t resume flying until about two weeks ago. Who knows what the cause of the grounding was and if it was linked to a reportedly new type of thrust-vectoring engine rumored to be planned for use in the jet.

T-50&#8211;2&#8217;s pilot had to slam on the brakes and deploy the braking parachute after two bursts of flame shot from the right engine as the aircraft was headed down the runway at roughly 60 mph."

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## danger007

Martian2 said:


> *T-50 engine flameout sets the Russian standard*
> 
> I think PtldM3 is claiming that Russian engines are better than Chinese jet engines.
> 
> For example, Chinese jet engines do not flame out like Russian ones. Amazing Russian engineering.
> 
> ----------
> 
> Flameout Caused T-50 Takeoff Abort | Defense Tech
> 
> "*Flameout Caused T-50 Takeoff Abort*
> by John Reed on August 22, 2011
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Sukhoi T-50 PAK FA&#8217;s aborted takeoff yesterday was caused by a flameout in the right-hand (starboard) engine built by Russian jet engine-maker Saturn. It turns out the jet that suffered the flameout was, T-50&#8211;2 (Side 52), the second of two PAK FA test jets built so far. T-50&#8211;2 was built to test out the actual mission systems of the stealthy fighter while its older sibling, T-50&#8211;1, was built to test the actual airframe. However, T-50&#8211;2 was grounded in early April and didn&#8217;t resume flying until about two weeks ago. Who knows what the cause of the grounding was and if it was linked to a reportedly new type of thrust-vectoring engine rumored to be planned for use in the jet.
> 
> T-50&#8211;2&#8217;s pilot had to slam on the brakes and deploy the braking parachute after two bursts of flame shot from the right engine as the aircraft was headed down the runway at roughly 60 mph."



china still importing jet engines from Russia.... does you guys mass producing any jet engine? lol.... unlike Russians, chinese maintain secrecy in every thing, they don't let the info of technical problems that they are facing into media.... so you guys started thinking you are advanced in jet engine field? lol


----------



## Martian2

danger007 said:


> china still importing jet engines from Russia.... *does you guys mass producing any jet engine? lol*.... unlike Russians, chinese maintain secrecy in every thing, they don't let the info of technical problems that they are facing into media.... so you guys started thinking you are advanced in jet engine field? lol



Did you not read post #42 on the previous page in this thread?

----------

*Shenyang Aircraft Corporation's WS-10A engines are already in mass production*






Could the WS-10A engine power the J-10, J-11B, and J-15 aircraft? The answer is "yes" if two conditions are met. Firstly, Chinese production of WS-10A engines must be sufficient to meet the demand (including production of parts for maintenance and replacement engines at the end of the expected lifetime) for all three aircraft.

Secondly, I don't know if WS-10A engines are interchangeable with AL-31F engines. If they are not readily interchangeable without modifying the fuselage then the current fighters with AL-31F engines will most likely stay with AL-31F replacement engines.





J-10B Vigorous Dragon flying with WS-10A engine





J-11B flying with WS-10A engines





J-15 Flying Shark with WS-10A engines

To conclude the discussion on the use of domestic WS-10A engines on the J-10, J-11B, and J-15, there is a new photograph of a J-11BS equipped with WS-10A engines.





"A [J-11BS] tandem twin-seat combat-capable training aircraft for J-11B pilots."

[Note: Thank you to SiegeCrossbow for the J-11BS picture.]

----------

*WS-10A engine for J-10B Vigorous Dragon fighter in mass production*





WS-10A engine (with gearbox at the bottom) is designed to power the J-10B Vigorous Dragon fighter. This version of the WS-10A turbofan engine is said to have 13.2 ton maximum thrust. There are several wrapped engines near the floor.

[Note: Thank you to Pinko for the post.]

----------

*Four new Chinese J-11B Shenyang Flanker fighters with domestic WS-10A engines*

New-type Fighters in training (2) - People's Daily Online

"New-type Fighters in training (2)
(China Military Online)
September 17, 2012





Recently&#65292;four new-type fighters of an aviation unit of the air force under the Jinan Military Area Command (MAC) of the Chinese People's Liberation Army (PLA) flew to unfamiliar sea waters and organized training on such subjects as electronic confrontation and medium-range missile attack, penetration and assault, valley flight and so on, in a bid to lay a solid foundation for actual combat.





The fighter formation is in hedge-hopping flight. (Photo by Cui Wenbin/Chinamil)"

[Note: Thank you to Greyboy2 for the newslink.]

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## conworldus

Martian,

J-10B 1035 is indeed equipped with WS-10A, and we have seen it flying since 2011 as I recall.

In two year, assuming it test flies 5 hours per week, it would have only accumulated 540 hours on J-10B 1035.

I honestly would prefer 1000 hrs of flying record at least before mass deploying WS-10A on J-10Bs since the aircraft sports just one engine, and reliability is crucial. I believe that the engine is maturing, but it would be more prudent to delay the deployment on J-10B for a couple more years unless we are facing immediate war scenario. I am sure CAC is thinking similarly.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## ptldM3

Martian2 said:


> *T-50 engine flameout sets the Russian standard*
> 
> I think PtldM3 is claiming that Russian engines are better than Chinese jet engines.
> 
> For example, Chinese jet engines do not flame out like Russian ones. Amazing Russian engineering.
> 
> ----------
> 
> Flameout Caused T-50 Takeoff Abort | Defense Tech
> 
> "




It was a glitch in the software, that was quickly corrected. In early stages of development faults happen. You have to be naive to think that the J-20 has not encountered problems.

Either way I would take a flameout instead of a WS-10 disintegrating. And yes, currently Russian engines are much better then Chinese ones, better in service life, TBO, thrust, thrust-to-weight, ect.


And one question to all the Chinese here, why are you always picking fights, acting ignorant, and plainly acting like A-holes? While always playing the victims?


----------



## shuttler

ptldM3 said:


> It was a glitch in the software, that was quickly corrected. In early stages of development faults happen. You have to be naive to think that the J-20 has not encountered problems.
> 
> Either way I would take a flameout instead of a WS-10 disintegrating. And yes, currently Russian engines are much better then Chinese ones, better in service life, TBO, thrust, thrust-to-weight, ect.
> 
> 
> And one question to *all the Chinese here, why are you always picking fights, acting ignorant, and plainly acting like A-holes? While always playing the victims*?



because many posters here like you are giving false claims, trying to spread the demons on us!

we are developing engines which will have a much better performance and service life. You just have to wait for it. Not all Russians are like you thank goodness!

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## That Guy

Congrats to China, hope it dominates the seas and takes over the responsibilities of keeping shipping lanes open from the US.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## ptldM3

shuttler said:


> because many posters here like you are giving false claims, trying to spread the demons on us!
> 
> we are developing engines which will have a much better performance and service life. You just have to wait for it. Not all Russians are like you thank goodness!



What claims have I made that are false? Check who started the trash talking, it was a Chinese poster. This is what happens every time, yet I always get labeled the bad guy.

The Chinese members are always----*always*, the ones that go on the attack, it's always the pak-fa sucks, the F-22 sucks, the F-35 is garbage, we will surpass the Americans, we have surpassed the Russian, the Europeans have been surpassed, ect. Whenever anyone's challenges those claims they are immediately labeled trolls, anti Chinese, or false claimers for simply calling someone out on their BS.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## selvan33

ptldM3 said:


> What claims have I made that are false? Check who started the trash talking, it was a Chinese poster. This is what happens every time, yet I always get labeled the bad guy.
> 
> The Chinese members are always----*always*, the ones that go on the attack, it's always the pak-fa sucks, the F-22 sucks, the F-35 is garbage, we will surpass the Americans, we have surpassed the Russian, the Europeans have been surpassed, ect. Whenever anyone's challenges those claims they are immediately labeled trolls, anti Chinese, or false claimers for simply calling someone out on their BS.



Buddy. Are you taking those chinese seriously. Just take them as a time passers.


----------



## shuttler

ptldM3 said:


> What claims have I made that are false? Check who started the trash talking, it was a Chinese poster. This is what happens every time, yet I always get labeled the bad guy.
> 
> The Chinese members are always----*always*, the ones that go on the attack, it's always the pak-fa sucks, the F-22 sucks, the F-35 is garbage, we will surpass the Americans, we have surpassed the Russian, the Europeans have been surpassed, ect. Whenever anyone's challenges those claims they are immediately labeled trolls, anti Chinese, or false claimers for simply calling someone out on their BS.



Review all the posters here. All have been carrying on in very nice discussions until that China hater @jhungary came in, and some indians here made some frivolous remarks and then it is *you who generalize us with your garbage*!

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## UKBengali

conworldus said:


> Martian,
> 
> J-10B 1035 is indeed equipped with WS-10A, and we have seen it flying since 2011 as I recall.
> 
> *In two year, assuming it test flies 5 hours per week, it would have only accumulated 540 hours on J-10B 1035.*
> 
> I honestly would prefer 1000 hrs of flying record at least before mass deploying WS-10A on J-10Bs since the aircraft sports just one engine, and reliability is crucial. I believe that the engine is maturing, but it would be more prudent to delay the deployment on J-10B for a couple more years unless we are facing immediate war scenario. I am sure CAC is thinking similarly.




Why restrict WS-10A testing to just a single J-10B?


----------



## jhungary

shuttler said:


> Review all the posters here. All have been carrying on in very nice discussions until that China hater @jhungary came in, and some indians here made some frivolous remarks and then it is *you who generalize us with your garbage*!



Classic Chinese Diversion tactics again.

*My first ever post is this *



> I think they can expect the sales of J-15 overseas when Chinese think they master the skill of Stealth.
> 
> However, I don't think J-15 would have a good international market tho, with no/low combat data. Many people would just go back to Su-27 or Mig-29 for their rep. Plus I don't think Chinese will make a lot of them for themselves as they see it as a stop gap fighter.
> 
> 
> It will be interesting to see how China try to sell their fighter, compare to the big dog.
> 
> Source: http://www.defence.pk/forums/chines...ers-mass-production-navy-2.html#ixzz2TDwXQbXV



I post it because some Member in BD and Pakistan asking if J-15 will be available to them.

And I answer, J-15 is hard for China to sell and country like BD and Pakistan would probably better off buying Su-27 or Mig-29 which have a better combat record and cheaper airframe and cheaper parts. And China themselves would not be interested on selling them on the account they are also using them as a Stop Gap fighter

Then some Over-zealous Chinese member here then attack my post and say am I high on drug that I claim China are selling those J-15. Which is totally not my point. And as far as I concern, that post is the one that gone off topic.

LOL @shuttler  Did you ran out of thing to say??

If you accuse me of off topic, please go head and report my post, but not trying to point the finger on someone else when you have nothing better to say.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## ptldM3

shuttler said:


> Review all the posters here. All have been carrying on in very nice discussions until that China hater @jhungary came in, and some indians here made some frivolous remarks and then it is *you who generalize us with your garbage*!



Check *post #52*, It was a chinese member that started making wild claims. I challenged him on those claims by simply stating the fact that he has no information on Russian engines or even Chinese engines to make that kind of claim.

From there another Chinese member started making unworented and immature attacks only to be thanked by his fellow Chinese. Those posts were *deleted*. So how am I the bad guy again, and what did I do?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Martian2

UKBengali said:


> Why restrict WS-10A testing to just a single J-10B?



*A single prototype J-10B with WS-10A engine is manageable. A fleet is not.*

The single J-10B with WS-10A engine is a prototype. You need to run the tests to discover if there are problems with the mating of the WS-10A engine to the J-10B gearbox and other interfaces (e.g. software control systems and other hardware control systems). You also need to test the J-10B prototype to discover the engine performance of a single WS-10A and the aircraft performance of the J-10B (such as forward and lateral g-acceleration).

There is a mountain of technical data and reliability information that can be gathered by testing a J-10B with a WS-10A engine.

You do not want to test a large number of J-10Bs with WS-10A engines, because the long-term reliability of WS-10A engines under real-world conditions is currently unknown. Furthermore, it is easy to maintain a single WS-10A engine on a J-10B prototype.

It is not realistic to check, maintain, and repair a large fleet of J-10Bs with WS-10A engines. The manpower/technicians, time, and cost are too burdensome to justify a fleet of prototype J-10Bs with a new WS-10A engine.

It makes sense to fly a single prototype J-10B with a WS-10A engine, but it doesn't make sense to fly a fleet of experimental J-10Bs with WS-10A engines.

For an analogy, look to the American F-35 fleet. Every time that a problem (such as a crack in the turbofan blade) is discovered, the entire fleet of 30 F-35s are grounded and repaired. It is very expensive and time-consuming. Not the smartest way to test a new aircraft or engine.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## ChineseTiger1986

UKBengali said:


> Why restrict WS-10A testing to just a single J-10B?



There could have many J-10B '1035' prototypes, since China has the habit to fool its opponent.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## UKBengali

@Martian2 - You have some good points but I think it would be wise to maybe test on several aircraft at once to gather the most amount of data in the shortest point in time.


----------



## gambit

Martian2 said:


> *A single prototype J-10B with WS-10A engine is manageable. A fleet is not.*
> 
> The single J-10B with WS-10A engine is a prototype. You need to run the tests to discover if there are problems with the mating of the WS-10A engine to the J-10B gearbox and other interfaces (e.g. software control systems and other hardware control systems). You also need to test the J-10B prototype to discover the engine performance of a single WS-10A and the aircraft performance of the J-10B (such as forward and lateral g-acceleration).
> 
> There is a mountain of technical data and reliability information that can be gathered by testing a J-10B with a WS-10A engine.
> 
> You do not want to test a large number of J-10Bs with WS-10A engines, because *the long-term reliability of WS-10A engines under real-world conditions is currently unknown.* Furthermore, it is easy to maintain a single WS-10A engine on a J-10B prototype.
> 
> It is not realistic to check, maintain, and repair a large fleet of J-10Bs with WS-10A engines. The manpower/technicians, time, and cost are too burdensome to justify a fleet of prototype J-10Bs with a new WS-10A engine.
> 
> It makes sense to fly a single prototype J-10B with a WS-10A engine, but it doesn't make sense to fly a fleet of experimental J-10Bs with WS-10A engines.
> 
> For an analogy, look to the American F-35 fleet. Every time that a problem (such as a crack in the turbofan blade) is discovered, the entire fleet of 30 F-35s are grounded and repaired. It is very expensive and time-consuming. Not the smartest way to test a new aircraft or engine.


All the more reasons why you should conduct testing and development under 'parallelism'. Real world data cannot be gathered when you have only one unit with common experience in relatively uniform environment working on the new component. And the F-35 is an inappropriate analogy because the F-35 is a brand new aircraft, not a derivative or evolution like the J-10B, and the -35's manufacturing and development is under 'concurrency', not 'parallelism'. Look up both terms.


----------



## Audio

Off topic, but this camo scheme is kick ass. Easily the best looking Flanker anywhere. imho

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## S10

ptldM3 said:


> It was a glitch in the software, that was quickly corrected. In early stages of development faults happen. You have to be naive to think that the J-20 has not encountered problems.
> 
> Either way I would take a flameout instead of a WS-10 disintegrating. And yes, currently Russian engines are much better then Chinese ones, better in service life, TBO, thrust, thrust-to-weight, ect.
> 
> 
> And one question to all the Chinese here, why are you always picking fights, acting ignorant, and plainly acting like A-holes? While always playing the victims?


Aside from pilot error, the single most important reason for crashes in PLAAF is Russian engines. AL-31F and FN caused far more losses than WS-10A could ever hope for. Before you go around talking trash about WS-10, look in the mirror.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## ptldM3

S10 said:


> Aside from pilot error, the single most important reason for crashes in PLAAF is Russian engines. AL-31F and FN caused far more losses than WS-10A could ever hope for. Before you go around talking trash about WS-10, look in the mirror.



That is funny considering there are thousands of Al-31s in service all around the world and very few incidents have been reported in 30+ years, and yes twin engine aircraft do crash if one engine flames out depending on altitude, airspeed, and pilot skills.

But, the Chinese need a scapegoat, after all the glorious People's Republic of China can do no wrong. I'm sure if the JH-7 would be equipped with Russian engines those crashes would be blamed on Russian engines too. Might as well blame us for Chinese ejection seats not working too.


----------



## Genesis

ptldM3 said:


> That is funny considering there are thousands of Al-31s in service all around the world and very few incidents have been reported in 30+ years, and yes twin engine aircraft do crash if one engine flames out depending on altitude, airspeed, and pilot skills.
> 
> But, the Chinese need a scapegoat, after all the glorious People's Republic of China can do no wrong. I'm sure if the JH-7 would be equipped with Russian engines those crashes would be blamed on Russian engines too. Might as well blame us for Chinese ejection seats not working too.



We are your biggest customer, so of course our crash rate will be higher due to longer flying hours. Some small country may not fly them much at all so as to reduce the possiblity and it's probably ordered in small number.

This isn't Russian fault or anyone's fault, there's danger in flying jets true everywhere.

However, you seem to think Russian cannot be surpassed, America has. China will.

Why do I say this? Russians for a very long time were not technologically superior to rest of the world until pretty much the last 80 years or so, if that. 

So we can say, any people can surpass anybody.

Russia under Communist can use mass amounts of money on weapons even with a weak economy, not so anymore.

China is a economic superpower increasing budget and GDP by the year, so it is logical China will surpass Russia eventually.

The only way for Russia to change this is through economic reform or increase budget to match or surpass China to make sure China doesn't surpass Russia.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## ptldM3

Genesis said:


> We are your biggest customer, so of course our crash rate will be higher due to longer flying hours. Some small country may not fly them much at all so as to reduce the possiblity and it's probably ordered in small number.
> 
> This isn't Russian fault or anyone's fault, there's danger in flying jets true everywhere.
> 
> However, you seem to think Russian cannot be surpassed, America has. China will.
> 
> Why do I say this? Russians for a very long time were not technologically superior to rest of the world until pretty much the last 80 years or so, if that.
> 
> So we can say, any people can surpass anybody.
> 
> Russia under Communist can use mass amounts of money on weapons even with a weak economy, not so anymore.
> 
> China is a economic superpower increasing budget and GDP by the year, so it is logical China will surpass Russia eventually.
> 
> The only way for Russia to change this is through economic reform or increase budget to match or surpass China to make sure China doesn't surpass Russia.



Russia is spending 600 billion on modernizing it's military, they have no shortage of money. And money can only get you so far.

No one including myself is claiming China has not made some impressive advancements overall; they have, but it's silly how many Chinese on this forum make statement such as we will surpass or we have surpassed Russia. If Russia simply and abruptly stoped development of their military programs then that would be a valid argument.


----------



## Genesis

ptldM3 said:


> Russia is spending 600 billion on modernizing it's military, they have no shortage of money. And money can only get you so far.
> 
> No one including myself is claiming China has not made some impressive advancements overall; they have, but it's silly how many Chinese on this forum make statement such as we will surpass or we have surpassed Russia. If Russia simply and abruptly stoped development of their military programs then that would be a valid argument.



Russia to modernize army for $600 billion till 2020 ? RT News

russia 600 billion military in 10 years is impressive for any other country. China is spending 120+ billion a year with 210+ billion by 2020 spending a year officially. 

While America spends that a year and more.

So if we were to look at it from this angle, China will match Russia at the latest at about 2025, if not a little sooner. 

The fact of the matter is Russia cannot like the US support too many programs at once while it's GDP is still below 3 trillion. 

By the end of the decade, even conservative increases would put China at 11 trillion GDP. 

This would mean, better education, living environment to attract people, better infrastructure, more room for innovation. 

Economy and military are tied hand in hand, not just in money. American military invented internet, but it was not there that the internet developed into today's internet to give America the edge in info tech warfare it has today. A large economy is needed to advance technology.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## ptldM3

Genesis said:


> Russia to modernize army for $600 billion till 2020 ? RT News
> 
> russia 600 billion military in 10 years is impressive for any other country. China is spending 120+ billion a year with 210+ billion by 2020 spending a year officially.
> 
> 
> While America spends that a year and more.
> 
> So if we were to look at it from this angle, China will match Russia at the latest at about 2025, if not a little sooner.
> 
> The fact of the matter is Russia cannot like the US support too many programs at once while it's GDP is still below 3 trillion.
> 
> By the end of the decade, even conservative increases would put China at 11 trillion GDP.
> 
> This would mean, better education, living environment to attract people, better infrastructure, more room for innovation.
> 
> Economy and military are tied hand in hand, not just in money. American military invented internet, but it was not there that the internet developed into today's internet to give America the edge in info tech warfare it has today. A large economy is needed to advance technology.




That is only for modernization/upgrades this does not include annual military spending which includes feeding, training, housing, transporting, and paying soldiers. It doesn't include fuel, storage, program funding, ect.

The only thing it includes is new equipment. Personnel and fighting wars will cause annual military spending to go sky high.


----------



## applesauce

ptldM3 said:


> That is only for modernization/upgrades this does not include annual military spending which includes feeding, training, housing, transporting, and paying soldiers. It doesn't include fuel, storage, program funding, ect.
> 
> The only thing it includes is new equipment. Personnel and fighting wars will cause annual military spending to go sky high.



anyway you put it, the chinese economy is already FAR larger than the Russian one and the gap is only getting larger, russia can dump 600 billion over 10 years? china can easily manage that in half the time, heck if its spending was like america, it would be spending over 300 billion this year alone. even at its current spending of ~1.5% to 2%, over time, assuming no major unforeseeable problems,there is nothing wrong with thinking that china will surpass russia, and it already has in certain areas, for instance, ship building. That said, there are many areas where china is still behind, most noticeably in the engines department. but the chinese engines are NOT worst than comparable russian engines, for instance ws-10 vs AF-31, the ws-10 suffered initial problems, including slower spool up time, and less reliability and mass production problems. However those problems has since been fixed and the ws-10 is now in mass productions with all the new j-11b using it, and new j-15/16 using it, and its highly probably the j-10b will use it as well.


----------



## ptldM3

applesauce said:


> anyway you put it, the chinese economy is already FAR larger than the Russian one and the gap is only getting larger, russia can dump 600 billion over 10 years? china can easily manage that in half the time, heck if its spending was like america, it would be spending over 300 billion this year alone. even at its current spending of ~1.5% to 2%, over time, assuming no major unforeseeable problems,there is nothing wrong with thinking that china will surpass russia, and it already has in certain areas, for instance, ship building. That said, there are many areas where china is still behind, most noticeably in the engines department. but the chinese engines are NOT worst than comparable russian engines, for instance ws-10 vs AF-31, the ws-10 suffered initial problems, including slower spool up time, and less reliability and mass production problems. However those problems has since been fixed and the ws-10 is now in mass productions with all the new j-11b using it, and new j-15/16 using it, and its highly probably the j-10b will use it as well.



once again, that figure is not annual spending, it's only for purchasing new equipment.


----------



## Fsjal

Audio said:


> Off topic, but this camo scheme is kick ass. Easily the best looking Flanker anywhere. imho



I prefer the light gray camo on J-15. But anyway, dark gray looks good as well.



ptldM3 said:


> Russia is spending 600 billion on modernizing it's military, they have no shortage of money. And money can only get you so far.
> 
> No one including myself is claiming China has not made some impressive advancements overall; they have, but it's silly how many Chinese on this forum make statement such as we will surpass or we have surpassed Russia. If Russia simply and abruptly stoped development of their military programs then that would be a valid argument.



Wouldn't all this spending have an effect on your nation's economy.


----------



## applesauce

ptldM3 said:


> once again, that figure is not annual spending, it's only for purchasing new equipment.



right, where do you see me say its annual spending?

i merely said that its a fact that china is much larger GDP wise and if necessary can afford much more(and in fact it does have the second highest military spending), and that over time, given its larger GDP and thus Larger R and D and militray spending overall, its not strange to expect china to surpass russia in many areas even though russia does have a considerable head start.


----------



## Beast

ptldM3 said:


> once again, that figure is not annual spending, it's only for purchasing new equipment.



I don't know what is your insistence in convincing us Russia has a superior military spending power than China? Even a kid will know China has far fatter defence budget to progress better since China has a bigger economy. Look at our national reserve, how much money we got.

Just look at the amount of modern warships we pump out in the last 5 years compare to Russia.


----------



## AUSTERLITZ

Can anyone tell me what's the radar on the j15?And any information on its EW suite.


----------



## ptldM3

Beast said:


> *I don't know what is your insistence in convincing us Russia has a superior military spending power than China?* Even a kid will know China has far fatter defence budget to progress better since China has a bigger economy. Look at our national reserve, how much money we got.
> 
> Just look at the amount of modern warships we pump out in the last 5 years compare to Russia.



I don't know what your (and Chinese in this forum) insistence is in always pounding your chests and picking fights but the entire argument started off by a Chinese member making a provocative claim about engines that he could not back, from there, when he could not support his claim he started using military spending to justify himself.

I mentioned that Russia has no shortage of money when it comes to military spending since it allocated 600 billion on new equipment purchases (something that some here can still not grasp).

Either way do you know how much active soldiers China has compared to Russia? Over a million more soldiers, do you have any idea how much money it would cost to have those soldiers? A large chunk of Chinese military spending is simply on feeding, housing, transporting, clothing, and training those soldiers.


----------



## AUSTERLITZ

Why are chinese buying su-35 then,if chinese engines have surpassed russian.Another reason why j-20 without thrust vector or supercruising engine will fall short of true 5th gen standard if it uses chinese engine.


----------



## hurt

AUSTERLITZ said:


> Why are chinese buying su-35 then,if chinese engines have surpassed russian.Another reason why j-20 without thrust vector or supercruising engine will fall short of true 5th gen standard if it uses chinese engine.



Plz tell me why buy Rafale without thrust vector engine?


----------



## ChineseTiger1986

AUSTERLITZ said:


> Why are chinese buying su-35 then,if chinese engines have surpassed russian.Another reason why j-20 without thrust vector or supercruising engine will fall short of true 5th gen standard if it uses chinese engine.



No one is willing to buy Su-35, but Russia will offer anything if anyone could buy their Su-35. 

Rosoboronexport offers Su-35 fighters and technology transfer to Brazil outside the framework of a tender - News - Russian Aviation - RUAVIATION.COM

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## AUSTERLITZ

ChineseTiger1986 said:


> No one is willing to buy Su-35, but Russia will offer anything if anyone could buy their Su-35.
> 
> Rosoboronexport offers Su-35 fighters and technology transfer to Brazil outside the framework of a tender - News - Russian Aviation - RUAVIATION.COM



Then why china buy 24 su-35 ,what i heard that china wanted to get its hand on the engine,but after j-11 experience russia agreed only to sell engine if they also bought su-35.24 was minimum number needed to be bought for russia to agree to sell.


----------



## ChineseTiger1986

AUSTERLITZ said:


> Then why china buy 24 su-35 ,what i heard that china wanted to get its hand on the engine,but after j-11 experience russia agreed only to sell engine if they also bought su-35.24 was minimum number needed to be bought for russia to agree to sell.



We wanna obtain a good bargain for the oïl, that's it.

If they can offer us the cheap oïl price, then we could buy some of their fighters and diesel subs as a gift.


----------



## hurt

AUSTERLITZ said:


> Then why china buy 24 su-35 ,what i heard that china wanted to get its hand on the engine,but after j-11 experience russia agreed only to sell engine if they also bought su-35.24 was minimum number needed to be bought for russia to agree to sell.



Plz tell me how many you want us to buy Su-35?


----------



## AUSTERLITZ

ChineseTiger1986 said:


> We wanna obtain a good bargain for the oïl, that's it.
> 
> If they can offer us the cheap oïl price, then we could buy some of their fighters and diesel subs as a gift.



China only imports around 6-7% of its oil from russia.So that's definitely not the case.


----------



## ChineseTiger1986

AUSTERLITZ said:


> China only imports around 6-7% of its oil from russia.So that's definitely not the case.



We are deciding to increase our import, but the only prolem is the price.


----------



## AUSTERLITZ

hurt said:


> Plz tell me how many you want us to buy Su-35?



I just told u why china bought su-35,not because of aircraft but engine.Because russia won't sell engine without aircraft.


----------



## hurt

AUSTERLITZ said:


> China only imports around 6-7% of its oil from russia.So that's definitely not the case.



But russia want more


----------



## AUSTERLITZ

ChineseTiger1986 said:


> We are deciding to increase our import, but the only prolem is the price.



Putting a smiley after every post will not convince people man.


----------



## ChineseTiger1986

AUSTERLITZ said:


> I just told u why china bought su-35,not because of aircraft but engine.Because russia won't sell engine without aircraft.



What engine?

Even if China decides to buy some Su-35, it will still get delivered later than the deployment of J-20.

The 117S engine is not that useful for us.


----------



## AUSTERLITZ

ChineseTiger1986 said:


> What engine?
> 
> Even if China decides to buy some Su-35, it will still get delivered later than the deployment of J-20.
> 
> The 117S engine is not that useful for us.



Of course it is,its got both supercruise and 3d TVC,features china would love to have in j-20.


----------



## ChineseTiger1986

AUSTERLITZ said:


> Of course it is,its got both supercruise and 3d TVC,features china would love to have in j-20.



J-20 doesn't wait for any Russian engine, but only our Indian friends here seem to know better than anyone else.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## hurt

AUSTERLITZ said:


> Of course it is,its got both supercruise and 3d TVC,features china would love to have in j-20.



China is not india


----------



## AUSTERLITZ

ChineseTiger1986 said:


> J-20 doesn't wait for any Russian engine, but only our Indian friends here seem to know better than anyone else.




Its not just your indian friends who are skeptical my friend,its ur european and american freinds who are more skeptical on engine of j-20.If it doesn't have supercruise or TVC then j-20 value as 5th gen fighter is greatly decreased.Not trolling,just stating fact.


----------



## ChineseTiger1986

AUSTERLITZ said:


> Its not just your indian friends who are skeptical my friend,its ur european and american freinds who are more skeptical on engine of j-20.If it doesn't have supercruise or TVC then j-20 value as 5th gen fighter is greatly decreased.Not trolling,just stating fact.



Sure, haters will always be skeptical.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## hurt

AUSTERLITZ said:


> Its not just your indian friends who are skeptical my friend,its ur european and american freinds who are more skeptical on engine of j-20.If it doesn't have supercruise or TVC then j-20 value as 5th gen fighter is greatly decreased.Not trolling,just stating fact.



PLz tell me that su-35 can supercruise?

If not ,why J-20 need its Engine?


----------



## ptldM3

hurt said:


> *PLz tell me that su-35 can supercruise?*
> 
> If not ,why J-20 need its Engine?



The SU-35 can supercruise.


----------



## Genesis

AUSTERLITZ said:


> Its not just your indian friends who are skeptical my friend,its ur european and american freinds who are more skeptical on engine of j-20.If it doesn't have supercruise or TVC then j-20 value as 5th gen fighter is greatly decreased.Not trolling,just stating fact.



The eruopeans and americans still see us as famers and labours. They are skeptical that China can do anything. And yet here we are. 

Chinese engineers even if they are idiots still knows the requirements of what 5th gen needs to have. So if it doesn't have it, it would just be a different J-10, not a J-20. Why would they create a J-10 with different design? Just to fool people?

Look at our defence industry in 1989 and 2000 and see where we are today. Then compare to US military advancement in the same time frame and see how much faster we are moving. 

Americans still think we eat dogs, when it is illegal to eat dogs in China. With jail time to up to 15 days. So even our publicly known laws does little to change American and european perception, much less our top secret programs.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## ChineseTiger1986

Genesis said:


> Americans still think we eat dogs, when it is illegal to eat dogs in China. With jail time to up to 15 days. So even our publicly known laws does little to change American and european perception, much less our top secret programs.



Personally, i have never eaten any dog, nor i would like to taste it, the dog meat has too much heat.

But why eating dog is a sin? Because the westerners don't like it? How about the cattles, they are also the best friend of humans, before the age of industrializaton, all farmers used the cattles as the tools for the agridculture.

Westerners also ate dogs when they had the economic crisis.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## cirr

ChineseTiger1986 said:


> Personally, i have never eaten any dog, nor i would like to taste it, the dog meat has too much heat.
> 
> But why eating dog is a sin? Because the westerners don't like it? How about the cattles, they are also the best friend of humans, before the age of industrializaton, all farmers used the cattles as the tools for the agridculture.
> 
> Westerners also ate dogs when they had the economic crisis.



Not only cattles&#65292;they also eat horses&#12290;

Talking about hypocrites&#12290;

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Beast

ptldM3 said:


> I don't know what your (and Chinese in this forum) insistence is in always pounding your chests and picking fights but the entire argument started off by a Chinese member making a provocative claim about engines that he could not back, from there, when he could not support his claim he started using military spending to justify himself.
> 
> I mentioned that Russia has no shortage of money when it comes to military spending since it allocated 600 billion on new equipment purchases (something that some here can still not grasp).
> 
> Either way do you know how much active soldiers China has compared to Russia? Over a million more soldiers, do you have any idea how much money it would cost to have those soldiers? A large chunk of Chinese military spending is simply on feeding, housing, transporting, clothing, and training those soldiers.



Don't kid yourself.. A economy based mainly on export of raw material? Australia too has a economy based on that but they do not require the massive military commitment like maintaining a huge air, navy and ground forces. Unlike Russia, tell me so far how many modern destroyer has Russia commission? None of them yet. In fact, Soviet Union crumble precisely becos they do not have the economy to sustain that kind of expenditure. Not too mention the current Russia.

The Russia couldn't even afford the R&D for upgraded Su-33 and forced to settle for Mig-29K just becos India already help Russian bear the burden of developing it. What kind of fantasy massive expenditure are going to happen?

China precisely can easily afford that becos we are 2nd largest economy.


----------



## ice bomb

AUSTERLITZ said:


> I just told u why china bought su-35,not because of aircraft but engine.Because russia won't sell engine without aircraft.



Russia supplies China with engines all the time. J10s, Su-27s, SU-30 MKK , Y20 etc. They dont need to sell Su-35 just for the engines. They can make good money with the engines alone.


----------



## AUSTERLITZ

Nope they refuse to sell advanced engines alone after the j-11 incident.Only al-31 that china already has.They wouldn't sell su-35 engine alone,just so china can copy it.They put it in package to earn bucks for themselves.


----------



## ice bomb

AUSTERLITZ said:


> Nope they refuse to sell advanced engines alone after the j-11 incident.Only al-31 that china already has.They wouldn't sell su-35 engine alone,just so china can copy it.They put it in package to earn bucks for themselves.



That is just poor journalism. They supplied lots of engines including engines for J20. And your post shows lack of understanding of how engines works. You can not copy an engine. Name me one unauthorized engine copied by the chinese.

The ws-10 is based on US tech, but it is not an exact copy of it.


----------



## AUSTERLITZ

Russia only supply rd-33 and al-31 engines,not any advanced types unless china bought su-35.Engine does not need to be copied,but u can take various features of it.After j-11 and j-15 chinese backstab russia don't trust chinese with anything.'Furious' is the word i heard again and again on russian forums.


----------



## AUSTERLITZ

How china cheated russia on j-11 and j-15.Shameless stuff.
The Boresight: Slow Motion Train Wreck


----------



## ice bomb

AUSTERLITZ said:


> Russia only supply rd-33 and al-31 engines,not any advanced types unless china bought su-35.Engine does not need to be copied,but u can take various features of it.After j-11 and j-15 chinese backstab russia don't trust chinese with anything.'Furious' is the word i heard again and again on russian forums.



Not reading my post carefully, do you? Why did they supply the engines for J-20 if they do not want to sell advanced engines? Read it carefully till you get it.


----------



## AUSTERLITZ

They need the money,but don't want to give china hands on engine for cheap .So they force china to buy su-35 which russia itself won't use as more than stopgap.China buying su-35 now mostly to get its hand on the engine at inflated price.Russia use the money to further boost its pak fa,russian revenge for j-11 stab.Also buying lada ssk rejected by russian navy.


----------



## ice bomb

AUSTERLITZ said:


> They need the money,but don't want to give china hands on engine for cheap .So they force china to buy su-35 which russia itself won't use as more than stopgap.China buying su-35 now mostly to get its hand on the engine at inflated price.Russia use the money to further boost its pak fa,russian revenge for j-11 stab.Also buying lada ssk rejected by russian navy.



I see instead of adressing the question regarding to engines on J-20, you stick your head in the sand with your silly russian gossips. 

You build your fighter based on the engine, not the other way around. 

And your arguments has gigantic holes on size of supernovas. If the russian dont want to sell the engines, why the f. sell the su-35 in the first place? And how did they force China to buy engines in the first place? It gets even more ridiculous with the price argument. Russia got a 60 billion annual budget, the chinese spend twice that. Inflated price? using the money on pak fa? force China to buy su-35? silly, plain silly. The annual sales of russian engines to China alone outstrips your socalled su-35 deal.


----------



## AUSTERLITZ

Russia just needs money,thats all.You people are just frustrated that after vehemently denying for 2 yrs that china didn't need su-35,russian propaganda etc etc,we build better engines so on and so forth,you found out that ultimately they had to go to russia and buy same su-35...that china apparently had absolutely no need of.The truth stares u in the face and u deny it,its not shame that developing countries may have trouble in developing certain high tech especially with tech sanctions.What is shameful is the way china blatantly steals techs and then forumers brag and deny .Why did china buy stopgap su-35 and russian navy reject lada....russia must be laughing fucked you just like they fucked us with vikramaditya.


----------



## ice bomb

I see you still stick to the stupid arguement of Russia needs money when they got a 60 billion dollars budget and they make good money on the annual sales of engines, helo and transporters to China. Hell even Iraq managed to buy 4 billions worth of russian hardwares. But russia is so desperate for a mere 2 billion sale of Su-35?
There is simply no cure for stupidity. Alas, at least I have tried to reason with you. 

Mark Twain - "Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience."


----------



## AUSTERLITZ

Really?Then WHY did u buy the aircraft at all..if u didn't need any of it as chinese members have been claiming for past 2 yrs.You will not admit the truth and then calling me stupid.YOu are the one that doesn't see reason.Actions speak louder than words..and the action china has taken is buy 24 su-35 fighters that it apparently has no need of.Now let people make their own conclusions.


----------



## Sasquatch

Get back on topic the thread isn't about Russia.


----------



## klub

Guys I think I have an answer to China's claims of AESA on J11B. 

SU 30MK3

The MKK3 was to possibly feature either the *Phazotron Zhuk-MSF phased array radar, or a new "Panda" radar developed by Tikhomirov, which is based on Pero passive phased array radar, both were rumored to be under Chinese evaluation.* Either radar would significantly improve the Su-30s air target detection range to 190 km and surface detection range at 300 km. It is uncertain whether the PLAN or PLAAF would order any of these aircraft, despite their significant advantages with their advanced radars. *Therefore, if these radars passed Chinese tests, they will likely to be retrofitted to earlier MKK and MKK2 and even possibly Shenyang J-11 due to uncertain status of MKK3 project.*

J15 in my opinion uses ZHUK MSE radar (MIG 29K uses ZHUK ME, MSE is version for Flanker). Good increment but a heavy class aircraft on an A/C away from land is a maintenance nightmare.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Fsjal

klub said:


> Guys I think I have an answer to China's claims of AESA on J11B.
> 
> SU 30MK3
> 
> The MKK3 was to possibly feature either the *Phazotron Zhuk-MSF phased array radar, or a new "Panda" radar developed by Tikhomirov, which is based on Pero passive phased array radar, both were rumored to be under Chinese evaluation.* Either radar would significantly improve the Su-30s air target detection range to 190 km and surface detection range at 300 km. It is uncertain whether the PLAN or PLAAF would order any of these aircraft, despite their significant advantages with their advanced radars. *Therefore, if these radars passed Chinese tests, they will likely to be retrofitted to earlier MKK and MKK2 and even possibly Shenyang J-11 due to uncertain status of MKK3 project.*
> 
> J15 in my opinion uses ZHUK MSE radar (MIG 29K uses ZHUK ME, MSE is version for Flanker). *Good increment but a heavy class aircraft on an A/C away from land is a maintenance nightmare*.


Why? Is the radar massive, because I heard the MKK3 was cancelled because that would mean China would need an MKI style Su-30, which cost alot of money, also, the MKK and MKK2 don't have enough power for the radar..


----------



## klub

Fsjal said:


> Why? Is the radar massive, because I heard the MKK3 was cancelled because that would mean China would need an MKI style Su-30, which cost alot of money, also, the MKK and MKK2 don't have enough power for the radar..



Man this radar WAS designed for SU 30 MKK airframe but at lower performance to BARS (BARS is bigger). Congrats on PESA!

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Akasa

klub said:


> Guys I think I have an answer to China's claims of AESA on J11B.
> 
> SU 30MK3
> 
> The MKK3 was to possibly feature either the *Phazotron Zhuk-MSF phased array radar, or a new "Panda" radar developed by Tikhomirov, which is based on Pero passive phased array radar, both were rumored to be under Chinese evaluation.* Either radar would significantly improve the Su-30s air target detection range to 190 km and surface detection range at 300 km. It is uncertain whether the PLAN or PLAAF would order any of these aircraft, despite their significant advantages with their advanced radars. *Therefore, if these radars passed Chinese tests, they will likely to be retrofitted to earlier MKK and MKK2 and even possibly Shenyang J-11 due to uncertain status of MKK3 project.*
> 
> J15 in my opinion uses ZHUK MSE radar (MIG 29K uses ZHUK ME, MSE is version for Flanker). Good increment but a heavy class aircraft on an A/C away from land is a maintenance nightmare.



Unfortunately these reports are nothing when compared to the information given by military insiders and the defense companies themselves.

- The AESA on the J-11B, not all of which have been retrofitted, are developed by the 607 institute and is the same model as the one installed on the J-15 and J-16

- It features 1760 T/R modules

- It can track a 0.4 m^2 target from 280 km away, meaning that it will be able to detect a 1 m^2 target from 450 km away or detect a 0.1 m^2 target from 250 km away

- Anything with a grey randome means that it has an AESA radar

- The test pilot of the J-10, Lei Qiang, said that the J-15 uses an AESA radar

- The idea that China relies on Russia for radar systems is absurd since they have had far more experience than the Russians in AESA radars and have deployed and developed far more models

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## klub

SinoSoldier said:


> Unfortunately these reports are nothing when compared to the information given by military insiders and the defense companies themselves.
> 
> - The AESA on the J-11B, not all of which have been retrofitted, are developed by the 607 institute and is the same model as the one installed on the J-15 and J-16
> 
> - It features 1760 T/R modules
> 
> - It can track a 0.4 m^2 target from 280 km away, meaning that it will be able to detect a 1 m^2 target from 450 km away or detect a 0.1 m^2 target from 250 km away
> 
> - Anything with a grey randome means that it has an AESA radar
> 
> - The test pilot of the J-10, Lei Qiang, said that the J-15 uses an AESA radar
> 
> - The idea that China relies on Russia for radar systems is absurd since they have had far more experience than the Russians in AESA radars and have deployed and developed far more models



Buddy judging by Flankers nose, 1200 T/R for an ESA is at most. In your own museum there's this ESA called PPAR (PASSIVE PHASED ARRAY RADAR) used on J10B.








J10B

















Antennas NEVER exist on AESA. The IFF are counterintutive to a AESA design who use radiations being controlled via gallium arsenide nodes than thses Fishhooks.

EXAMPLE :

AESA 

F22






OLD PIC

F35






RAFALE AESA






ZHUK AESA






NOW PESA

BARS N011M

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## MJaa

*Chinese J-15 Flying Shark Grows Long Range Teeth ~ Chinese Military Review*

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Akasa

klub said:


> Buddy judging by Flankers nose, 1200 T/R for an ESA is at most. In your own museum there's this ESA called PPAR (PASSIVE PHASED ARRAY RADAR) used on J10B.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> J10B
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Antennas NEVER exist on AESA. The IFF are counterintutive to a AESA design who use radiations being controlled via gallium arsenide nodes than thses Fishhooks.



False. The number of T/R modules not only depends on randome size, but also the packing design of the radar. The AESA on the J-10B already has 1150 T/R modules, and since the competing company is the one building the radar for the J-16, 1760 T/R modules is not unreasonable at all.

Here are some documents from the institute that built the J-10B's AESA, the 14th institute. Both military insiders and company papers prove that it's an AESA.














Israeli AESA radars DO have antennas; they are not uncommon at all.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## UKBengali

@SinoSoldier:

Why do you bother with these Indians for?

They think that just because they have failed to build up an indigenous defence industry, then China must also do the same. The other reason why they downplay China's achievement is through sheer jealously. Just one look at the state of China's cities when compared to an Indian city and you can see the massive difference in levels of development between the two countries.

A nation that is unable to build an economy will naturally fail when it comes to technology as well. Only reason why India has been able to succeed in a few areas is due to the huge size of the India population and nothing else.

India is so badly run that it even makes BD look good - note that even though BD became independent a quarter of a century after India, the two countries GDP/capita is now almost equal. BD is now only 100 dollars below India and the Indians had an extra 24 year HEADSTART.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## klub

Chinese Deploy Superior Avionics (article)
August 17, 2007: China is touting the advanced electronics in their new J10A fighter. The J10A is using an Active Electronically Scanned Array (AESA) radar. *AESA systems consist of thousands of tiny radars that make it possible to track many different targets simultaneously. China claims the J10A radar can track ten targets at once, and attack four of them simultaneously (with long range missiles).* China has revealed other military AESA radars recently, indicating years of intense research and development in this area. 






Above text in museum mentions a PESA radar having ability to target 10 and engage 4. Since 2008 was year of testing doesn't it make it obvious? Also I have been through numerous sources but I have seen only gallium arsenide arrays. The radar in museum PPAR and picture seem to match otherwise for J10B.

I believe the AESA is this , nodes appear to similar to ZHUK AE under trials so good job there :


----------



## klub

UKBengali said:


> @SinoSoldier:
> 
> Why do you bother with these Indians for?
> 
> They think that just because they have failed to build up an indigenous defence industry, then China must also do the same. The other reason why they downplay China's achievement is through sheer jealously. Just one look at the state of China's cities when compared to an Indian city and you can see the massive difference in levels of development between the two countries.
> 
> A nation that is unable to build an economy will naturally fail when it comes to technology as well. Only reason why India has been able to succeed in a few areas is due to the huge size of the India population and nothing else.
> 
> India is so badly run that it even makes BD look good - note that even though BD became independent a quarter of a century after India, the two countries GDP/capita is now almost equal. BD is now only 100 dollars below India and the Indians had an extra 24 year HEADSTART.








Saab will increase sourcing from India - The Times of India

We have advanced in light years compared to you Jaamatis. That's why your own govt. is vanquishing you like ants.

India 

$1.824 trillion (nominal) 10th; 2012)
$4.684 trillion (PPP: 3rd; 2012)

Bangladesh

$153.6 billion (nominal; 2012 est.)
$306 billion (PPP; 2012 est.)

I came here to seek knowledge. What is your merit here? Earn some face first.


----------



## tranquilium

viper46 said:


> flanker's design is damn hottttt



The Flanker family tree pretty much got the best aerodynamics of its generation. There is a reason China picked Su-27 over the others in the 80s.


----------



## Akasa

klub said:


> Chinese Deploy Superior Avionics (article)
> August 17, 2007: China is touting the advanced electronics in their new J10A fighter. The J10A is using an Active Electronically Scanned Array (AESA) radar. *AESA systems consist of thousands of tiny radars that make it possible to track many different targets simultaneously. China claims the J10A radar can track ten targets at once, and attack four of them simultaneously (with long range missiles).* China has revealed other military AESA radars recently, indicating years of intense research and development in this area.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Above text in museum mentions a PESA radar having ability to target 10 and engage 4. Since 2008 was year of testing doesn't it make it obvious? Also I have been through numerous sources but I have seen only gallium arsenide arrays. The radar in museum PPAR and picture seem to match otherwise for J10B.
> 
> I believe the AESA is this , nodes appear to similar to ZHUK AE under trials so good job there :



Using an article from 2007 that claims the J-10A uses AESA... LOL seriously?

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## klub

UKBengali said:


> Let us use current exchange rates and you will see Indian GDP/capita is at 1100 dollars compared to around 1000 dollars for BD. 2012 is meaningless now.
> 
> You have an extra 100 dollars with a 24 year headstart over BD. India has now proved that economically it still cannot get it's economic act together after nearly 70 years of independence.
> 
> Funny seeing a clueless newbie like yourself questioning me as you have just shown you do not know what you are talking about.
> 
> Now rather than posting out of date stats and meaningless pictures with Indian "contribution" to a foreign plane, please show me how I am wrong on any of the assertions i have made about India.
> 
> I really look forward to any Indian here trying to prove that India is as well run economically as BD has been since independence.



What do you mean Jaamati? You have a 1tn$ economy at the least? 5tn$ PPP stats? Infact your economy has junk bond stats.
My maid here in Delhi is Bangladeshi and she tells me about the shitty environment and job oppurtunities in her country. She lives in a slum on the outskirts.


----------



## klub

SinoSoldier said:


> Using an article from 2007 that claims the J-10A uses AESA... LOL seriously?



The article was an interview with the guy who heads Nanjing 14 institute. That was approximately the time J10B was under trials/development. The stats he gave were 10 / 2. The PESA placard in museum says so too, shape of radar also matches. Thus one can see it is an ESA but of PESA type. Russian and swedish radars also use IFF probes but Western ones uses gallium arsenide array beams to navigate, which is why despite IBRIS -E performance, it remains PESA or hybrid ESA. The AESA set up on pic 2 is intended as the main model for J20. I follow these developments so I can make out with relative comfort. J15 may uses ZHUK model MSE or Pero radar or a bigger ESA derivative based on the PPAR.

India also has several ESA setups but for one to be fit into a fighter one truly requires proper T/R nodes to give output at 20KW peak to build a proper AESA array. 






PESA FIGHTER PROTOTYPE 2003

Can you show me some radar development for J15 , (no schematics please) ?


----------



## UKBengali

klub said:


> C*an you Jaamatis sanction the world's largest food security program?* Despite congress trying to take credit. It is already in access to all poor (24% of population currently). Regarding mobile phones 60% of Indians have 1. Change it every 1 1/2 years and buy 130 million+ handsets from a hundred different companies.
> 
> Regarding GDP leave it alone, see your figure it's like 10 times less in every thing than us. In PPP terms your country is 15 times less than us. So "Nijer Aukaad e thaka apna jono bhalo hobe. Aslam Miyar bari te theke rajmoholer shopno dekchen!"



BD has a safety net that is part of every year's budget and that is pegged at an affordable 2% of GDP. It is not like the Indian way of unaffordable Indian pre-election giveaways solely designed to help the governing party to get back into power. In BD, it is a annual expenditure that is supported by both the BNP and the Awami League and has no other motive than to help people who would otherwise starve.

I kindly now ask Indians to stop bragging about dominating the Indian Ocean with a Navy that they cannot afford to import and this fantasy of millions of illegal BD immigrants in their dirt-poor country.


----------



## PoKeMon

hurt said:


> Plz tell me why buy Rafale without thrust vector engine?



Because rafale is not a air superiority fighter and we were looking for a multirole fighter with higher ground attack capabilities.


----------



## 帅的一匹

J15 is far superior than Mig29k, be it loading, electronic configuration, weapon system, range. I mean it's kind of platform Indian want in their dream.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Beast

wanglaokan said:


> J15 is far superior than Mig29k, be it loading, electronic configuration, weapon system, range. I mean it's kind of platform Indian want in their dream.



Their INS Vickey Mouse is too small to fill with SU-33/J-15.. Even CV-16 Liaoning is barely enough such huge fighter if need to fill a few decent squadron of fighter. A Kitty Hawk size will be at least the benchmark.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Akasa

klub said:


> The article was an interview with the guy who heads Nanjing 14 institute. That was approximately the time J10B was under trials/development. The stats he gave were 10 / 2. The PESA placard in museum says so too, shape of radar also matches. Thus one can see it is an ESA but of PESA type. Russian and swedish radars also use IFF probes but Western ones uses gallium arsenide array beams to navigate, which is why despite IBRIS -E performance, it remains PESA or hybrid ESA. The AESA set up on pic 2 is intended as the main model for J20. I follow these developments so I can make out with relative comfort. J15 may uses ZHUK model MSE or Pero radar or a bigger ESA derivative based on the PPAR.
> 
> India also has several ESA setups but for one to be fit into a fighter one truly requires proper T/R nodes to give output at 20KW peak to build a proper AESA array.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PESA FIGHTER PROTOTYPE 2003
> 
> Can you show me some radar development for J15 , (no schematics please) ?



Guess what, the papers on the radar were released by the 14th institute themselves. The documents that talked about the larger AESA radars were from the 607th institute, which is a competitor to the 14th institute. The documents clearly stated that the radar was in fact an AESA and so did the insiders who work in the military.

Once again, the 14th institute did build a PESA, but it lost out to the AESA when bidding for the radar contract.

And once more again, an AESA can have an antenna but it doesn't have to. The Israeli ones do have antennae. 

There was no placard that said it was PESA. The placard simply stated that it was a phased array radar. The company papers and later military insiders proved that it was an AESA.


----------



## rott

klub said:


> What do you mean Jaamati? You have a 1tn$ economy at the least? 5tn$ PPP stats? Infact your economy has junk bond stats.
> My maid here in Delhi is Bangladeshi and she tells me about the shitty environment and job oppurtunities in her country. She lives in a slum on the outskirts.



Tell you something? Indian maids are no less than what you have described. You want me to describe how I treated my Indian maid while I was in India? I treated her as equal, like a man would treat another human being, but you, my friend, you are a F***ing racist. You treat your lower cast and lower individual like a coolie and that makes you a Fu***ng racist. I hope you are proud to be one. You might want want to say that to my face. I'll smash your face in if you do.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Gessler

TAIPEI  In an unusual departure for mainland Chinese-language media, 
the Beijing-based Sina Military Network (SMN) criticized the capabilities of 
the carrier-borne J-15 Flying Shark as nothing more than a flopping fish.

On Sept. 22, the state-controlled China Daily Times reported the new 
aircraft carrier Liaoning had just finished a three-month voyage and 
conducted over 100 sorties of various aircraft, of which the J-15 took 
off and landed on the carrier with maximum load and various weapons. 
This report was also carried on the official Liberation Army Daily.

Contradicting any report by official military or government media is unusual 
in China given state control of the media.

What sounded more like a rant than analysis, SMN, on Sept. 23, reported 
the new J-15 was incapable of flying from the Liaoning with heavy weapons, 
effectively crippling its attack range and firepower.

The fighter can take off and land on the carrier with two YJ-83K anti-ship 
missiles, two PL-8 air-to-air missiles, and four 500-kilogram bombs. But a 
weapons load exceeding 12 tons will not get it off the carriers ski jump ramp. 
This might prohibit it from carrying heavier munitions such as PL-12 
medium-range air-to-air missiles.

To further complicate things, the J-15 can carry only two tons of weapons 
while fully fueled. This would equip it with no more than two YJ-83K and 
two PL-8 missiles, thus the range of the YJ-83K prepared for the fighter 
will be shorter than comparable YJ-83K missiles launched from larger PLAN 
[Peoples Liberation Army Navy] vessels. The J-15 will be boxed into less 
than 120 [kilometers] of attack range.

Losing the ability to carry the PL-12 medium-range air-to-air missiles will 
make the J-15 an unlikely match against other foreign carrier-based fighters.

Even the Vietnam Peoples Air Force can outmatch the PL-8 short-range 
missile. Without space for an electronic countermeasure pod, a huge number 
of J-15s must be mobilized for even simple missions, a waste for the PLA Navy 
in using the precious space aboard its sole aircraft carrier in service.

Built by the Shenyang Aircraft Corporation, the J-15 is a copy of the 
Russian-made Su-33. China acquired an Su-33 prototype from the Ukraine in 
2001. Avionics are most likely the same as the J-11B (Su-27). In 2006, 
Russia accused China of reverse engineering the Su-27 and canceled a 
production license to build 200 Su-27s after only 95 aircraft had been built.

Vasily Kashin, a China military specialist at the Moscow-based Centre for 
Analysis of Strategies and Technologies, suggests the J-15 might be a better 
aircraft than the Su-33. I think that there might be some improvements 
because electronic equipment now weighs less than in the 1990s, he said. 
It could also be lighter due to new composites that China is using on the 
J-11B that were not available on the original Su-33.

Despite improvements, Kashin wonders why the Chinese bothered with 
the Su-33 given the fact that Russia gave up on it. Weight problems and 
other issues forced the Russians to develop the MiG-29K, which has better 
power-to-weight ratio and can carry more weapons. Of course, when the 
Chinese get their future carriers equipped with catapults, that limitation 
will not apply and they will be able to fully realize Su-33/J-15 potential  
huge range and good payload, Kashin said.

The Liaoning is the problem. The carrier is small  53,000 tons  and 
uses a ski jump. From Russias experience, taking off from the carrier with 
takeoff weight exceeding some 26 tons is very difficult, Kashin said.

Roger Cliff, a China defense specialist for the Center for Strategic and 
Budgetary Assessments in Washington, said this is one of the reasons 
why sky-jump carriers cant be considered to be equivalent to full-size 
carriers with catapults.

A number of unanswered questions are raised by the SMN report, Kashin 
said, including the amount of fuel on board, carrier speed, wind speed and 
direction.

Cliff also raises issues with SMNs conclusions. It doesnt make sense to 
me that the J-15 can take off with YJ-83s but not PL-12s, since the YJ-83 
weighs about 1,800 pounds and the PL-12 weighs about 400 pounds.

A possible answer is that it was unable to take off with both. The article 
says that it can only carry two tons of missiles and munitions when fully 
fueled, which is 4,400 pounds, and two YJ-83s plus two PL-8s would weigh 
over 4,000 pounds, leaving no margin for any PL-12s. But I dont see why it 
couldnt take off with PL-12s if it wasnt carrying YJ-83s. Cliff concludes 
that the J-15 should be capable of carrying PL-12s when it is flying purely 
air-to-air missions and that it probably just cant carry PL-12s when it is 
flying a strike mission.

Kashin said the J-15, unlike the Su-33, should have a potent internal 
countermeasures suite, thus allowing for more space for weapons. The 
SMN report suggests it has an external electronic countermeasures (ECM) 
pod.

Weight issues should also not be too much of a problem for the J-15, he said, 
since the Su-33 did fly from the same type of carrier carrying 6-8 air-to-air 
missiles and Sorbtsia ECM pods carrying something like 6 to 6.5 tons of fuel.

Chinas next carriers will reportedly use electromagnetic catapults, Kashin 
said, but limitations are significant when it comes to air-to-surface weapons, 
which limit the J-15s use as a multirole fighter.

Chinese Media Takes Aim at J-15 Fighter | Defense News | defensenews.com

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Beast

Gessler said:


> TAIPEI &#8212; In an unusual departure for mainland Chinese-language media,
> the Beijing-based Sina Military Network (SMN) criticized the capabilities of
> the carrier-borne J-15 Flying Shark as nothing more than a &#8220;flopping fish.&#8221;
> 
> On Sept. 22, the state-controlled China Daily Times reported the new
> aircraft carrier Liaoning had just finished a three-month voyage and
> conducted over 100 sorties of &#8220;various aircraft,&#8221; of which the J-15 &#8220;took
> off and landed on the carrier with maximum load and various weapons.&#8221;
> This report was also carried on the official Liberation Army Daily.
> 
> Contradicting any report by official military or government media is unusual
> in China given state control of the media.
> 
> What sounded more like a rant than analysis, SMN, on Sept. 23, reported
> the new J-15 was incapable of flying from the Liaoning with heavy weapons,
> &#8220;effectively crippling its attack range and firepower.&#8221;
> 
> The fighter can take off and land on the carrier with two YJ-83K anti-ship
> missiles, two PL-8 air-to-air missiles, and four 500-kilogram bombs. But a
> weapons &#8220;load exceeding 12 tons will not get it off the carrier&#8217;s ski jump ramp.&#8221;
> This might prohibit it from carrying heavier munitions such as PL-12
> medium-range air-to-air missiles.
> 
> To further complicate things, the J-15 can carry only two tons of weapons
> while fully fueled. &#8220;This would equip it with no more than two YJ-83K and
> two PL-8 missiles,&#8221; thus the &#8220;range of the YJ-83K prepared for the fighter
> will be shorter than comparable YJ-83K missiles launched from larger PLAN
> [People&#8217;s Liberation Army Navy] vessels. The J-15 will be boxed into less
> than 120 [kilometers] of attack range.&#8221;
> 
> Losing the ability to carry the PL-12 medium-range air-to-air missiles will
> make the J-15 an &#8220;unlikely match&#8221; against other foreign carrier-based fighters.
> 
> &#8220;Even the Vietnam People&#8217;s Air Force can outmatch the PL-8 short-range
> missile. Without space for an electronic countermeasure pod, a huge number
> of J-15s must be mobilized for even simple missions, a waste for the PLA Navy
> in using the precious space aboard its sole aircraft carrier in service.&#8221;
> 
> Built by the Shenyang Aircraft Corporation, the J-15 is a copy of the
> Russian-made Su-33. China acquired an Su-33 prototype from the Ukraine in
> 2001. Avionics are most likely the same as the J-11B (Su-27). In 2006,
> Russia accused China of reverse engineering the Su-27 and canceled a
> production license to build 200 Su-27s after only 95 aircraft had been built.
> 
> Vasily Kashin, a China military specialist at the Moscow-based Centre for
> Analysis of Strategies and Technologies, suggests the J-15 might be a better
> aircraft than the Su-33. &#8220;I think that there might be some improvements
> because electronic equipment now weighs less than in the 1990s,&#8221; he said.
> It could also be lighter due to new composites that China is using on the
> J-11B that were not available on the original Su-33.
> 
> Despite improvements, Kashin wonders why the Chinese bothered with
> the Su-33 given the fact that Russia gave up on it. Weight problems and
> other issues forced the Russians to develop the MiG-29K, which has better
> power-to-weight ratio and can carry more weapons. &#8220;Of course, when the
> Chinese get their future carriers equipped with catapults, that limitation
> will not apply and they will be able to fully realize Su-33/J-15 potential &#8212;
> huge range and good payload,&#8221; Kashin said.
> 
> The Liaoning is the problem. The carrier is small &#8212; 53,000 tons &#8212; and
> uses a ski jump. From Russia&#8217;s experience, &#8220;taking off from the carrier with
> takeoff weight exceeding some 26 tons is very difficult,&#8221; Kashin said.
> 
> Roger Cliff, a China defense specialist for the Center for Strategic and
> Budgetary Assessments in Washington, said this is &#8220;one of the reasons
> why sky-jump carriers can&#8217;t be considered to be equivalent to full-size
> carriers with catapults.&#8221;
> 
> A number of unanswered questions are raised by the SMN report, Kashin
> said, including the amount of fuel on board, carrier speed, wind speed and
> direction.
> 
> Cliff also raises issues with SMN&#8217;s conclusions. &#8220;It doesn&#8217;t make sense to
> me that the J-15 can take off with YJ-83s but not PL-12s, since the YJ-83
> weighs about 1,800 pounds and the PL-12 weighs about 400 pounds.&#8221;
> 
> A possible answer is that it was unable to take off with both. &#8220;The article
> says that it can only carry &#8216;two tons&#8217; of missiles and munitions when fully
> fueled, which is 4,400 pounds, and two YJ-83s plus two PL-8s would weigh
> over 4,000 pounds, leaving no margin for any PL-12s. But I don&#8217;t see why it
> couldn&#8217;t take off with PL-12s if it wasn&#8217;t carrying YJ-83s.&#8221; Cliff concludes
> that the J-15 should be capable of carrying PL-12s when it is flying purely
> air-to-air missions and that &#8220;it probably just can&#8217;t carry PL-12s when it is
> flying a strike mission.&#8221;
> 
> Kashin said the J-15, unlike the Su-33, should have a &#8220;potent&#8221; internal
> countermeasures suite, thus allowing for more space for weapons. The
> SMN report suggests it has an external electronic countermeasures (ECM)
> pod.
> 
> Weight issues should also not be too much of a problem for the J-15, he said,
> since the Su-33 did fly from the same type of carrier carrying &#8220;6-8 air-to-air
> missiles and Sorbtsia ECM pods carrying something like 6 to 6.5 tons of fuel.&#8221;
> 
> China&#8217;s next carriers will reportedly use electromagnetic catapults, Kashin
> said, but &#8220;limitations are significant when it comes to air-to-surface weapons,
> which limit the J-15&#8217;s use as a multirole fighter.
> 
> Chinese Media Takes Aim at J-15 Fighter | Defense News | defensenews.com



 The credibilities of this article is full of doubt and mistake. First no sina mainland China news criticise J-15. More likely fabricate. Then this news is reported by Taipei based newspaper which is from ROC Taiwan. Of cos they will rubbish whatever opportunities about PRC when come.

Russia never gives up of Flanker type carrier based fighter. They switch to Mig-29K becos sugar daddy India already fork out a huge chunk of money for development of Mig-29K. Russia can save the money of R&D by just producing more MIg-29K for themselves. In fact, Russia wanted China to buy upgraded Su-33 and paid for the development fee of it, Of cos , China refuse and we went for the J-15, all the money will goes to our own people and development.

Of cos, I can understand TS intention to try smear anything about China without even doing a basic analysis and post any rubbish of his intention..

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## thesolar65

Gessler said:


> TAIPEI  In an unusual departure for mainland Chinese-language media,
> the Beijing-based Sina Military Network (SMN) criticized the capabilities of
> the carrier-borne J-15 Flying Shark as nothing more than a flopping fish.
> 
> On Sept. 22, the state-controlled China Daily Times reported the new
> aircraft carrier Liaoning had just finished a three-month voyage and
> conducted over 100 sorties of various aircraft, of which the J-15 took
> off and landed on the carrier with maximum load and various weapons.
> This report was also carried on the official Liberation Army Daily.
> 
> Contradicting any report by official military or government media is unusual
> in China given state control of the media.
> 
> What sounded more like a rant than analysis, SMN, on Sept. 23, reported
> the new J-15 was incapable of flying from the Liaoning with heavy weapons,
> effectively crippling its attack range and firepower.
> 
> The fighter can take off and land on the carrier with two YJ-83K anti-ship
> missiles, two PL-8 air-to-air missiles, and four 500-kilogram bombs. But a
> weapons load exceeding 12 tons will not get it off the carriers ski jump ramp.
> This might prohibit it from carrying heavier munitions such as PL-12
> medium-range air-to-air missiles.
> 
> To further complicate things, the J-15 can carry only two tons of weapons
> while fully fueled. This would equip it with no more than two YJ-83K and
> two PL-8 missiles, thus the range of the YJ-83K prepared for the fighter
> will be shorter than comparable YJ-83K missiles launched from larger PLAN
> [Peoples Liberation Army Navy] vessels. The J-15 will be boxed into less
> than 120 [kilometers] of attack range.
> 
> Losing the ability to carry the PL-12 medium-range air-to-air missiles will
> make the J-15 an unlikely match against other foreign carrier-based fighters.
> 
> Even the Vietnam Peoples Air Force can outmatch the PL-8 short-range
> missile. Without space for an electronic countermeasure pod, a huge number
> of J-15s must be mobilized for even simple missions, a waste for the PLA Navy
> in using the precious space aboard its sole aircraft carrier in service.
> 
> Built by the Shenyang Aircraft Corporation, the J-15 is a copy of the
> Russian-made Su-33. China acquired an Su-33 prototype from the Ukraine in
> 2001. Avionics are most likely the same as the J-11B (Su-27). In 2006,
> Russia accused China of reverse engineering the Su-27 and canceled a
> production license to build 200 Su-27s after only 95 aircraft had been built.
> 
> Vasily Kashin, a China military specialist at the Moscow-based Centre for
> Analysis of Strategies and Technologies, suggests the J-15 might be a better
> aircraft than the Su-33. I think that there might be some improvements
> because electronic equipment now weighs less than in the 1990s, he said.
> It could also be lighter due to new composites that China is using on the
> J-11B that were not available on the original Su-33.
> 
> Despite improvements, Kashin wonders why the Chinese bothered with
> the Su-33 given the fact that Russia gave up on it. Weight problems and
> other issues forced the Russians to develop the MiG-29K, which has better
> power-to-weight ratio and can carry more weapons. Of course, when the
> Chinese get their future carriers equipped with catapults, that limitation
> will not apply and they will be able to fully realize Su-33/J-15 potential 
> huge range and good payload, Kashin said.
> 
> The Liaoning is the problem. The carrier is small  53,000 tons  and
> uses a ski jump. From Russias experience, taking off from the carrier with
> takeoff weight exceeding some 26 tons is very difficult, Kashin said.
> 
> Roger Cliff, a China defense specialist for the Center for Strategic and
> Budgetary Assessments in Washington, said this is one of the reasons
> why sky-jump carriers cant be considered to be equivalent to full-size
> carriers with catapults.
> 
> A number of unanswered questions are raised by the SMN report, Kashin
> said, including the amount of fuel on board, carrier speed, wind speed and
> direction.
> 
> Cliff also raises issues with SMNs conclusions. It doesnt make sense to
> me that the J-15 can take off with YJ-83s but not PL-12s, since the YJ-83
> weighs about 1,800 pounds and the PL-12 weighs about 400 pounds.
> 
> A possible answer is that it was unable to take off with both. The article
> says that it can only carry two tons of missiles and munitions when fully
> fueled, which is 4,400 pounds, and two YJ-83s plus two PL-8s would weigh
> over 4,000 pounds, leaving no margin for any PL-12s. But I dont see why it
> couldnt take off with PL-12s if it wasnt carrying YJ-83s. Cliff concludes
> that the J-15 should be capable of carrying PL-12s when it is flying purely
> air-to-air missions and that it probably just cant carry PL-12s when it is
> flying a strike mission.
> 
> Kashin said the J-15, unlike the Su-33, should have a potent internal
> countermeasures suite, thus allowing for more space for weapons. The
> SMN report suggests it has an external electronic countermeasures (ECM)
> pod.
> 
> Weight issues should also not be too much of a problem for the J-15, he said,
> since the Su-33 did fly from the same type of carrier carrying 6-8 air-to-air
> missiles and Sorbtsia ECM pods carrying something like 6 to 6.5 tons of fuel.
> 
> Chinas next carriers will reportedly use electromagnetic catapults, Kashin
> said, but limitations are significant when it comes to air-to-surface weapons,
> which limit the J-15s use as a multirole fighter.
> 
> Chinese Media Takes Aim at J-15 Fighter | Defense News | defensenews.com



What I say is that once you free the media in China and that too when true democracy prevails, we shall see the media(Chinese) tearing down the Chinese defense equipments just like our media tears down DRDO and others, where they take the cue and troll in PDF. This is tip of iceberg!!

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Beast

thesolar65 said:


> What I say is that once you free the media in China and that too when true democracy prevails, we shall see the media(Chinese) tearing down the Chinese defense equipments just like our media tears down DRDO and others, where they take the cue and troll in PDF. This is tip of iceberg!!



Please do not mix Indian military indigenous failure with China own domestic military effort. Trying to class us with Indian is an insult. 

Our military development effort is far superior and successful. Didn't we just bag an important air defense deal from Turkey that even US and Russia cant compete with us. 

The local media even given with freedom to pose will hard to find fault with China military production effort.

Reactions: Like Like:
9


----------



## OrionHunter

Beast said:


> The credibilities of this article is full of doubt and mistake. First no sina mainland China news criticise J-15. More likely fabricate. Then this news is reported by Taipei based newspaper which is from ROC Taiwan. Of cos they will rubbish whatever opportunities about PRC when come.


You guys can't face facts and neither accept any criticism, can you? Jeeez! The Chinese have this inveterate habit of cloning and reverse engineering everything from pins and matchboxes to aircraft, so what else can one expect? Indigenous R&D is zilch. The only R&D the Chinese do is to blindly copy/reverse engineer stuff from the Russians and Americans.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Beast

OrionHunter said:


> You guys can't face facts and neither accept any criticism, can you? Jeeez! The Chinese have this inveterate habit of cloning and reverse engineering everything from pins and matchboxes to aircraft, so what else can one expect? Indigenous R&D is zilch. The only R&D the Chinese do is to blindly copy/reverse engineer stuff from the Russians and Americans.



Typical pathetic response of Indian troll. If its so easy to copy, countries like East timor or Somalia shall be making 5th gen fighter jet now , right?

Let me show you one of the country that is doing copy also.

BBC NEWS | Business | Kalashnikov upset by Indian 'copy' 

Its not that we dont accept critism. So far the decision by PLAN to go on this route for carrier is absolutely rational. The only criticise I have for PLAN for carrier is they do things too precaution-sly and result in too slow development.

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## bolo

Beast said:


> The credibilities of this article is full of doubt and mistake. First no sina mainland China news criticise J-15. More likely fabricate. Then this news is reported by Taipei based newspaper which is from ROC Taiwan. Of cos they will rubbish whatever opportunities about PRC when come.
> 
> Russia never gives up of Flanker type carrier based fighter. They switch to Mig-29K becos sugar daddy India already fork out a huge chunk of money for development of Mig-29K. Russia can save the money of R&D by just producing more MIg-29K for themselves. In fact, Russia wanted China to buy upgraded Su-33 and paid for the development fee of it, Of cos , China refuse and we went for the J-15, all the money will goes to our own people and development.
> 
> Of cos, I can understand TS intention to try smear anything about China without even doing a basic analysis and post any rubbish of his intention..



Maybe so, but there is no denying that the Chinese military have issues with engine technology so there could be some facts with thus report. Thete were other reports I have encounterrd fact or fiction that could undermine the true fighting capabilities of PLA.

&#25152;&#20197;&#19968;&#20491;&#24375;&#22283;&#26371;&#26126;&#30333;&#20182;&#30340;&#28129;&#40670;&#32780;&#20173;&#33290;&#21152;&#27833;&#21040;&#25104;&#21151;&#20043;&#19978;&#12290;&#21482;&#26377;&#21360;&#24230;&#39740;&#23559;&#26371;&#32893;&#24040;&#22320;&#20491;"&#21862;&#21862;&#38538;"&#30340;&#26032;&#32862;&#12290;&#20013;&#22283;&#20154;&#19981;&#26159;&#20284;&#21360;&#24230;&#39740;&#12290;&#25105;&#22320;&#19981;&#26159;&#20302;B.


----------



## jhungary

Regardless of the creditibility of the article, there are some truth in the kernel, which has been tried and truth by many military in the world

That is - the armament configurment is limited by the ski jump of the carrier.

This is a known fact whee you cannot take off with as much ordinance on a ski-jump as in a catapult carrier 

J-15 may eventually work better with next gen Chinese carrier, but seems unlikely in lianling

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## siegecrossbow

This:






Looks they plan on implementing anti-ship missiles to me.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## GR!FF!N

@Beast
actually this same news is all over the internet.I atleast got several sites quoting the same news..is it this???






the truth is,Su-33 aka J-15 can't fully utilize its maximum weight from taking off via a Ski-Ramp..only solution is catapult and hopefully,china will deploy it in its new Carriers..

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Gessler

Beast said:


> The credibilities of this article is full of doubt and mistake. First no sina mainland China news criticise J-15. More likely fabricate. Then this news is reported by Taipei based newspaper which is from ROC Taiwan. Of cos they will rubbish whatever opportunities about PRC when come.



The article says the news comes from SMN, which means the news is from Chinese source. You are
100% free to question it's authenticity. However, you cannot just blabber that is from Taiwan so
it's wrong and this is from China so it's right.

If you see any miscalculation in the article or any factual mistake, prove that it is otherwise with 
constructive evidence instead of ranting on source.



> Russia never gives up of Flanker type carrier based fighter. They switch to Mig-29K becos sugar daddy India already fork out a huge chunk of money for development of Mig-29K. Russia can save the money of R&D by just producing more MIg-29K for themselves.



Hell what??? Atleast put things in perspective! Russia *already has operational Su-33s* and they have
been successfully operating from Kuznetsov for many years, even *before* India ordered MiG-29K!

What do you mean Russians switch to MiG-29K to save R&D cost? *Su-33 is already operational!* Where
is the need for new R&D for MiG-29K unless the latter is a better proposition?

*Maintaining an existing fighter is a lot cheaper than buying a new fighter, new training equipment,
new logistics line, and new maintenance procedures.* The only reason why Russia would switch
to MiG-29K is because it is a better plane when it comes to carrier-based ops.



> In fact, Russia wanted China to buy upgraded Su-33 and paid for the development fee of it, Of cos , China refuse and we went for the J-15, all the money will goes to our own people and development.



Still they supply the engines for carrier-based J-15s. So they are still supporting your program and you
are paying them money for it, eventhough you did not buy Su-33.



> Of cos, I can understand TS intention to try smear anything about China without even doing a basic analysis and post any rubbish of his intention..



First, prove that it is rubbish.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## That Guy

jhungary said:


> Regardless of the creditibility of the article, there are some truth in the kernel, which has been tried and truth by many military in the world
> 
> That is - the armament configurment is limited by the ski jump of the carrier.
> 
> This is a known fact whee you cannot take off with as much ordinance on a ski-jump as in a catapult carrier
> 
> J-15 may eventually work better with next gen Chinese carrier, but seems unlikely in lianling



I had the same thought in mind. Future Chinese carriers are probably going to try and rectify the shortcomings of the Liaoning.



GR!FF!N said:


> @Beast
> actually this same news is all over the internet.I atleast got several sites quoting the same news..is it this???
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the truth is,Su-33 aka J-15 can't fully utilize its maximum weight from taking off via a Ski-Ramp..only solution is catapult and hopefully,china will deploy it in its new Carriers..



Probably will, it seems the only logical choice, especially if they plan on putting the J-20s on their carriers in the future.


----------



## jhungary

That Guy said:


> I had the same thought in mind. Future Chinese carriers are probably going to try and rectify the shortcomings of the Liaoning.
> 
> 
> 
> Probably will, it seems the only logical choice, especially if they plan on putting the J-20s on their carriers in the future.



Problem is, china cannot afford (not financially) to operate catapult carrier until PLAN had operate some overseas ports, big ship and fleet require heck a lot of resource, and i really think they could not do that anytime soon.

So for the time being, Chinese CVs are gonna operate in defensive level and I would consider the need of operating J-15 is a bit overkill I would actually go for MiG-29 or naval used j-10 for now

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## That Guy

jhungary said:


> Problem is, china cannot afford (not financially) to operate catapult carrier until PLAN had operate some overseas ports, big ship and fleet require heck a lot of resource, and i really think they could not do that anytime soon.
> 
> So for the time being, Chinese CVs are gonna operate in defensive level and I would consider the need of operating J-15 is a bit overkill I would actually go for MiG-29 or naval used j-10 for now



Perhaps, I don't know much about the operating costs of an AC so I won't really argue. Having said that, China has long term ambitions for it's navy and air force, so I wouldn't be surprised if they continue regardless of the costs. In their minds, the awards may out weight the costs in the long term.

Who knows? Anything thing is possible.


----------



## GR!FF!N

jhungary said:


> Problem is, china cannot afford (not financially) to operate catapult carrier until PLAN had operate some overseas ports, big ship and fleet require heck a lot of resource, and i really think they could not do that anytime soon.
> 
> So for the time being, Chinese CVs are gonna operate in defensive level and I would consider the need of operating J-15 is a bit overkill I would actually go for MiG-29 or naval used j-10 for now




why are you saying that China can't afford to operate Catapult carrier??please elaborate..I heard that very next AC will have catapult.


----------



## jhungary

That Guy said:


> Perhaps, I don't know much about the operating costs of an AC so I won't really argue. Having said that, China has long term ambitions for it's navy and air force, so I wouldn't be surprised if they continue regardless of the costs. In their minds, the awards may out weight the costs in the long term.
> 
> Who knows? Anything thing is possible.



I think you failed to catch my point

Indeed everything and anything is possible, should the Chinese test/uses large fleet air arms WHEN they uses large CAT carrier? But not now?

I know Liaoning is a trial carrier and all but they run a risk to learn the carrier tactic using the wrong gear....


----------



## nomi007

kindly post cockpit image
of j-15


----------



## That Guy

jhungary said:


> I think you failed to catch my point
> 
> Indeed everything and anything is possible, should the Chinese test/uses large fleet air arms WHEN they uses large CAT carrier? But not now?
> 
> I know Liaoning is a trial carrier and all but they run a risk to learn the carrier tactic using the wrong gear....



Perhaps I did. Again, I know little to nothing about ACs, so I'll just trust you on this.


----------



## jhungary

GR!FF!N said:


> why are you saying that China can't afford to operate Catapult carrier??please elaborate..I heard that very next AC will have catapult.



There are operation parameter on running a catapult carrier, one parameter is for them to be constantly resupply, one of them being jet fuel and fresh water

Unlike the US and france(the Brazilian ac were x-French), most country opt for smaller STOVL/STOBAR carrier out of resource

It would be ok in peace time, as you only need to pay for port service, however, come war when you are restricted from neutral/enemy port, where would you get your resupply? For that you will need an oversea port or friend port to do the resupply for you, or your fleet is stranded

The larger the ship you get (catapulted ship are usually bigger) the more resource you need, hence it will reduce your sea worthy day unless you have allied port, or your own oversea port

Of course, they can run around their own coast with a large catapulted carrier, it's their money, I didn't say Chinese cannot do it, I said it's an overkill if they do that now

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Beast

Gessler said:


> The article says the news comes from SMN, which means the news is from Chinese source. You are
> 100% free to question it's authenticity. However, you cannot just blabber that is from Taiwan so
> it's wrong and this is from China so it's right.
> 
> If you see any miscalculation in the article or any factual mistake, prove that it is otherwise with
> constructive evidence instead of ranting on source.
> 
> 
> 
> Hell what??? Atleast put things in perspective! Russia *already has operational Su-33s* and they have
> been successfully operating from Kuznetsov for many years, even *before* India ordered MiG-29K!
> 
> What do you mean Russians switch to MiG-29K to save R&D cost? *Su-33 is already operational!* Where
> is the need for new R&D for MiG-29K unless the latter is a better proposition?
> 
> *Maintaining an existing fighter is a lot cheaper than buying a new fighter, new training equipment,
> new logistics line, and new maintenance procedures.* The only reason why Russia would switch
> to MiG-29K is because it is a better plane when it comes to carrier-based ops.
> 
> 
> 
> Still they supply the engines for carrier-based J-15s. So they are still supporting your program and you
> are paying them money for it, eventhough you did not buy Su-33.
> 
> 
> 
> First, prove that it is rubbish.



You seems not to know how military works? You simply think the old Su-33 airframe just get a radar switch and magically it can work without going trial and test of more prototype. don't tell me all this dont involved money? Definitely the airframe need to be updated to handle air to ground capabilities, newer material that works better.

Finally, I think I do not remind you, it will be cheaper to operate an updated aircraft which development fee already paid by some one and just built more airframe for its own existing carrier. Plus all the required maintenance fee Russian needed for their Mig-29K shall also be paid under the development fee from India.

I know what I am talking about. If you can't accept the reality Russia will be happier accepting updated Su-33 if money is not a problem so be it.


----------



## Beast

GR!FF!N said:


> @Beast
> actually this same news is all over the internet.I atleast got several sites quoting the same news..is it this???
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the truth is,Su-33 aka J-15 can't fully utilize its maximum weight from taking off via a Ski-Ramp..only solution is catapult and hopefully,china will deploy it in its new Carriers..



This video says all the good things about J-15. Does not bring down anything of J-15. As I say there is no such criticism from mainland China.


----------



## Genesis

jhungary said:


> There are operation parameter on running a catapult carrier, one parameter is for them to be constantly resupply, one of them being jet fuel and fresh water
> 
> Unlike the US and france(the Brazilian ac were x-French), most country opt for smaller STOVL/STOBAR carrier out of resource
> 
> It would be ok in peace time, as you only need to pay for port service, however, come war when you are restricted from neutral/enemy port, where would you get your resupply? For that you will need an oversea port or friend port to do the resupply for you, or your fleet is stranded
> 
> The larger the ship you get (catapulted ship are usually bigger) the more resource you need, hence it will reduce your sea worthy day unless you have allied port, or your own oversea port
> 
> Of course, they can run around their own coast with a large catapulted carrier, it's their money, I didn't say Chinese cannot do it, I said it's an overkill if they do that now




I just have one question, India will have a catapult carrier, it's size is still relatively small, but they will have it. Now, do you suppose Indians have more influence around the world then we do?

second, the Chinese government always plans ahead, do you suppose they are not working towards the supply problem now to make sure the future is secure? Deals with Africa, South Asian nations, ASEAN and Arab nations are not done for fun. 

Also consider the Chinese objective, before 2030, we won't go out of our immediate oceans for war. IE the China seas. At least we won't actively sought it out. So the scope of operation is different than US.

Any Chinese carrier to come out of production won't happen before 2018, if that. So this now concept is way too premature.


----------



## jhungary

Genesis said:


> I just have one question, India will have a catapult carrier, it's size is still relatively small, but they will have it. Now, do you suppose Indians have more influence around the world then we do?
> 
> second, the Chinese government always plans ahead, do you suppose they are not working towards the supply problem now to make sure the future is secure? Deals with Africa, South Asian nations, ASEAN and Arab nations are not done for fun.
> 
> Also consider the Chinese objective, before 2030, we won't go out of our immediate oceans for war. IE the China seas. At least we won't actively sought it out. So the scope of operation is different than US.
> 
> Any Chinese carrier to come out of production won't happen before 2018, if that. So this now concept is way too premature.



Let me answer your question with a question.

Brazil *ALREADY* had a catapult carrier now, does that mean they have bigger World stage influence than India and China combine??

As i said, and you quoted, you can do whatever the hell you like with your money, you can get a catapult carrier now, or you can get 12, China have the means and money to build it, just what are you doing to do with the one or 12 Catapult carrier with? Beside running up and down the chinese coast before 2030??

There are *PROPER* ways to train up to what you want, there are *STUPID* way to train up to what you want, my point being, *China should wait until the first catapult carrier to induce J-15 with it, not to running it half-arsed with a ski-jump carrier.* What are you going to expect from learning with plane running half of whatever it should be??

As i said, you fork the bill, you can do whatever the heck you want, even if that means you are wasting your own money, hey, that's fine by me

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Malik Usman

Beast said:


> Please do not mix Indian military indigenous failure with China own domestic military effort. Trying to class us with Indian is an insult.
> 
> Our military development effort is far superior and successful. Didn't we just bag an important air defense deal from Turkey that even US and Russia cant compete with us.
> 
> The local media even given with freedom to pose will hard to find fault with China military production effort.



Just ignore them...they can't live without their habit...

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Gessler

Beast said:


> You seems not to know how military works? You simply think the old Su-33 airframe just get a radar switch and magically it can work without going trial and test of more prototype. don't tell me all this dont involved money? Definitely the airframe need to be updated to handle air to ground capabilities, newer material that works better.



Your ignorance amazes me.



> Finally, I think I do not remind you, it will be cheaper to operate an updated aircraft which development fee already paid by some one and just built more airframe for its own existing carrier. Plus all the required maintenance fee Russian needed for their Mig-29K shall also be paid under the development fee from India.



First of all, MiG-29K was already modified enough to sustain carrier-based take off & landing with a meaningful weapon payload much before India ordered that plane. Here's a pic of one of the first -29K prototypes undergoing flight tests on Kuznetsov in the Soviet Union days -

















MiG-29K Testing

Pity, isn't it? You think India funded MiG-29K development? Truth is that MiG-29K was already developed by 1991, without any Indian funding or contribution in any way.

*India only paid for the 45 x MiG-29Ks that Indian Navy ordered for INS Vikramaditya (ex-Gorshkov) and new INS Vikrant (IAC-1), and some for maritime strike roles.*

Secondly, India does not pay for any MiG-29K ordered by the Russian Navy, Russian govt. does that. India does not pay for Russian Navy's maintenance fee either, what rubbish are you talking?

All that India has done, is to select the MiG-29K over the Su-33 after a careful analysis of which plane would be a better bet for carrier-based operations. Obviously MiG-29K emerged as a better proposition in the overall when compared to Su-33.

Now what happended is that when India ordered 16+29 MiG-29Ks, the MiG production line for this plane was activated, therefore even Russia was now free to order MiG-29K, which they always wanted to do but could not because ordering a new plane and changing all the maintenance & logistics lines would be quite costly.



> I know what I am talking about. If you can't accept the reality Russia will be happier accepting updated Su-33 if money is not a problem so be it.



You obviously have no idea what you're talking about.

At one point, you say Russia could not buy MiG-29K because it was too costly, and that India had paid for development of -29K, so now Russia too is ordering -29K because cost burden has reduced.

At another point, you say that maintaining/modifying Su-33 is more costly that's why Russia is buying -29K.

What is your point? If Su-33 is bad, so is J-15. *Is there any performance-related thing that 
J-15 can do that Su-33 cannot? Anything?*

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## gambit

jhungary said:


> There are operation parameter on running a catapult carrier, one parameter is for them to be constantly resupply, one of them being jet fuel and fresh water
> 
> Unlike the US and france(the Brazilian ac were x-French), most country opt for smaller STOVL/STOBAR carrier out of resource
> 
> It would be ok in peace time, as you only need to pay for port service, however, come war when you are restricted from neutral/enemy port, where would you get your resupply? For that you will need an oversea port or friend port to do the resupply for you, or your fleet is stranded
> 
> The larger the ship you get (catapulted ship are usually bigger) the more resource you need, hence it will reduce your sea worthy day unless you have allied port, or your own oversea port
> 
> Of course, they can run around their own coast with a large catapulted carrier, it's their money, I didn't say Chinese cannot do it, I said it's an overkill if they do that now


The only long term strategic goal I see for this -- a fleet of carriers capable of launching fully laden combat aircrafts -- is for overwhelming regional dominance, not necessarily global presence to challenge US dominance. These Chinese carriers would be quickly resupplied from Chinese home ports.


----------



## illuminatidinesh

> The only long term strategic goal I see for this -- a fleet of carriers capable of launching fully laden combat aircrafts -- is for overwhelming regional dominance, not necessarily global presence to challenge US dominance. These Chinese carriers would be quickly resupplied from Chinese home ports.


Regional alone? That they can easily do with Shore based bases right?
Tell me do think that the Russians deliberately didnt use Su33 for this specific reason?


----------



## Lightningbolt

Our strategy is regional dominance first, then global dominance.
Layer by layer, step by step, we are building our economic, financial, technological, military, political, cultural and information power to reclaim what is rightfully ours.

By 2030 we will have regional dominance and by 2049 we will have global dominance.
Post-2049 we start the beginning of the 1000 year Chinese rule....the Chinese millennium!!!

The sleeping dragon is awakening from our 500 year sleep. 
We are shaking the world as we awaken.

This is our dream, our destiny, our birthright!

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## jhungary

Lightningbolt said:


> Our strategy is regional dominance first, then global dominance.
> Layer by layer, step by step, we are building our economic, financial, technological, military, political, cultural and information power to reclaim what is rightfully ours.
> 
> By 2030 we will have regional dominance and by 2049 we will have global dominance.
> Post-2049 we start the beginning of the 1000 year Chinese rule....the Chinese millennium!!!
> 
> The sleeping dragon is awakening from our 500 year sleep.
> We are shaking the world as we awaken.
> 
> This is our dream, our destiny, our birthright!



Had anyone told you yet?

The world is going to end on 2-20-2020

I am afraid you are going to dominate nothing....

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Lightningbolt

jhungary said:


> Had anyone told you yet?
> 
> The world is going to end on 2-20-2020
> 
> I am afraid you are going to dominate nothing....



Don't worry, your Vietnam will be back as a Chinese province because it will be impossible to resist our overwhelming dominance


----------



## HariPrasad

Beast said:


> Please do not mix Indian military indigenous failure with China own domestic military effort. Trying to class us with Indian is an insult.
> 
> Our military development effort is far superior and successful. Didn't we just bag an important air defense deal from Turkey that even US and Russia cant compete with us.
> 
> The local media even given with freedom to pose will hard to find fault with China military production effort.



Our Small bird Tejas carries more than twice load compare to this 2 engine hyped plane. Now Chinese government controlled media has expose the hollowness of its owned cheap Russian copped J 15. This true for each and every chinese weapon and product. I see a funny attempt of Chinese trolls to defend their junk from being exposed by their own media.

This is really enjoyable. HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA !!!!!!!!

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## HariPrasad

Lightningbolt said:


> Our strategy is regional dominance first, then global dominance.
> Layer by layer, step by step, we are building our economic, financial, technological, military, political, cultural and information power to reclaim what is rightfully ours.
> 
> By 2030 we will have regional dominance and by 2049 we will have global dominance.
> Post-2049 we start the beginning of the 1000 year Chinese rule....the Chinese millennium!!!
> 
> The sleeping dragon is awakening from our 500 year sleep.
> We are shaking the world as we awaken.
> 
> This is our dream, our destiny, our birthright!



And this crap plane is the 1st step in that direction right?


----------



## xunzi

jhungary said:


> Let me answer your question with a question.
> 
> Brazil *ALREADY* had a catapult carrier now, does that mean they have bigger World stage influence than India and China combine??
> 
> As i said, and you quoted, you can do whatever the hell you like with your money, you can get a catapult carrier now, or you can get 12, China have the means and money to build it, just what are you doing to do with the one or 12 Catapult carrier with? Beside running up and down the chinese coast before 2030??
> 
> There are *PROPER* ways to train up to what you want, there are *STUPID* way to train up to what you want, my point being, *China should wait until the first catapult carrier to induce J-15 with it, not to running it half-arsed with a ski-jump carrier.* What are you going to expect from learning with plane running half of whatever it should be??
> 
> As i said, you fork the bill, you can do whatever the heck you want, even if that means you are wasting your own money, hey, that's fine by me


Our strategy is regional security in South China Sea and protecting our sea route abroad. We cannot rely on the US to protect our economic asset. 

Our strategic thinking already place the mass induction of J-15 with around the time frame of the new aircraft carriers battle group. We MUST defend our territorial integrity and asset and there is NO wasteful spending as you claimed in your post. It is our economic lifeline and we will achieve our independent development without disruption and threat from the West.


----------



## danish_vij




----------



## S10

HariPrasad said:


> Our Small bird Tejas carries more than twice load compare to this 2 engine hyped plane. Now Chinese government controlled media has expose the hollowness of its owned cheap Russian copped J 15. This true for each and every chinese weapon and product. I see a funny attempt of Chinese trolls to defend their junk from being exposed by their own media.
> 
> This is really enjoyable. HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA !!!!!!!!


You mean to tell me your LCA carries more weapons than a Flanker variant? Go seek treatment before the disease spreads to the rest of your brain.



HariPrasad said:


> And this crap plane is the 1st step in that direction right?


Perhaps one day we'll be able to reach LCA's level. Do you always get orgasms from rumour mill articles?

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Edison Chen

Audio said:


> If you go and research statistics you will find out the natality of almost all european countries was improving slightly before the crisis in 2008. Now with improving economic conditions, the levels will probably start growing in a year or two again.
> 
> 
> 
> Crisis sinks European birth rate: study | Herald Sun



What's Really Behind Europe's Decline? It's The Birth Rates, Stupid

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/29/magazine/29Birth-t.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

What's Really Behind Europe's Decline? It's The Birth Rates, Stupid - Forbes

Population decline is real and happening in Europe right now | Conservative Home

Spain's Population Declines in Sign of Europe's Woes - Businessweek

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Gessler

Does anything posted by the members above have to do about J-15 or Su-33?
@Oscar @Aeronaut @Jungibaaz Some moderation is required to keep the topic from deviating.


----------



## longewala

Thats a nice "2050 plan"
Step 1 should be to build something that hasn't been copied or stolen from other countries.
There is a reason why the Russians, with several decades of aircraft buidling expertise, were able to design and move on to the superior Mig-29k, while the Chinese are stuck with a copy of an inferior, overweight 90s-era design that relies on Russian engines.

Incidentally, for all their boasting, all we need is for Russia to stop supplying engines, and pretty much the entire Chinese modern fleet (and most of the PAF) will be wiped out. 

"China has actively sought to purchase Su-33s from Russia on numerous occasions&#8212;an unsuccessful offer was made as late as March 2009"
which says it all.


----------



## fallstuff

klub said:


> What do you mean Jaamati? You have a 1tn$ economy at the least? 5tn$ PPP stats? Infact your economy has junk bond stats.
> My maid here in Delhi is Bangladeshi and she tells me about the shitty environment and job oppurtunities in her country. She lives in a slum on the outskirts.



That was an argument?


----------



## dray

Lightningbolt said:


> Our strategy is regional dominance first, then global dominance.
> Layer by layer, step by step, we are building our economic, financial, technological, military, political, cultural and information power to reclaim what is rightfully ours.
> 
> By 2030 we will have regional dominance and by 2049 we will have global dominance.
> Post-2049 we start the beginning of the 1000 year Chinese rule....the Chinese millennium!!!
> 
> The sleeping dragon is awakening from our 500 year sleep.
> We are shaking the world as we awaken.
> 
> This is our dream, our destiny, our birthright!



Don't get too emotional.


----------



## cirr

Max payload is 6.6 tons according to the GAD&#12290;


----------



## longlong

China media is not controlled as tight as you guys thought.

They have no difference from the rest of the world (exclusive of N.K)----just don't challenge the CCP, anything is fine.

People there are at fast pace, and unsealed. Most of them are quite smart and it's difficult for foreigners to catch up.

*That's why the nation move forward so rapid. No one can achieve the same if people were really censored/brainwashed*.

Anyway, a proper controlled media is definitely better than a lost control one. 

That's not freedom, its messy.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## sicsheep

HariPrasad said:


> Our Small bird Tejas carries more than twice load compare to this 2 engine hyped plane. Now Chinese government controlled media has expose the hollowness of its owned cheap Russian copped J 15. This true for each and every chinese weapon and product. I see a funny attempt of Chinese trolls to defend their junk from being exposed by their own media.
> 
> This is really enjoyable. HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA !!!!!!!!



You can't even make it if Russians showed you the blue prints. 

another funny attempt for an incompetent Indian troll to bash on Chinese equipment. Name one other media besides Indian media thinks India produce good indigenous military hardware. what a joke LOL!

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## sicsheep

longewala said:


> Thats a nice "2050 plan"
> Step 1 should be to build something that hasn't been copied or stolen from other countries.
> There is a reason why the Russians, with several decades of aircraft buidling expertise, were able to design and move on to the superior Mig-29k, while the Chinese are stuck with a copy of an inferior, overweight 90s-era design that relies on Russian engines.
> 
> Incidentally, for all their boasting, all we need is for Russia to stop supplying engines, and pretty much the entire Chinese modern fleet (and most of the PAF) will be wiped out.
> 
> "China has actively sought to purchase Su-33s from Russia on numerous occasions&#8212;an unsuccessful offer was made as late as March 2009"
> which says it all.



"overweight 90s-era design"? LOL i think the Russians are pretty happy with the price you paid for MKIs hahahaha 

You think Russia is gonna stop selling us engines? 

India defense spending = 46.1 bil in 2013, lets say you spend every penny of it to buy Russian hardware
China defense spending = 166 bil LOL, we could do the same and still have 120 bil left. you get the picture? pity... 

I'll admit tho India is the better customer haha, but Russia and China shares way too many mutual interest than India. so good luck with that

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Lightningbolt

Indians laughing at us is like Ethiopians laughing at France.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## HariPrasad

sicsheep said:


> You can't even make it if Russians showed you the blue prints.
> 
> another funny attempt for an incompetent Indian troll to bash on Chinese equipment. Name one other media besides Indian media thinks India produce good indigenous military hardware. what a joke LOL!



HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA !!!!!!!!! Chines trol finds it difficult to defend the expose of his own media.


----------



## HariPrasad

S10 said:


> You mean to tell me your LCA carries more weapons than a Flanker variant? Go seek treatment before the disease spreads to the rest of your brain.
> 
> 
> Perhaps one day we'll be able to reach LCA's level. Do you always get orgasms from rumour mill articles?



Typical Chinese troll finding it difficult to defend the exposure of his own media.

Very entertaining.


----------



## 帅的一匹

When J15S enter into service, we will solve the problem. No matter how, China navy will be the strongest power in Asia by year 2025. Look the ways of Indian troll cheerleading here, it's just matter of time Pla navy kick your lame a$$.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Lightningbolt

J-15 is equal to the F/A-18E super hornet.


----------



## 帅的一匹

When WS15 engine get ready at 2016, you will see totally different J15 performance. MAX 16.5 tons of thrust power per renders it unbelievable paylaod, China is ahead of India too much in aviation field. China's rudimentary industry infrastructure is way better than India. The only opponent of China is USA.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## jhungary

xunzi said:


> Our strategy is regional security in South China Sea and protecting our sea route abroad. We cannot rely on the US to protect our economic asset.
> 
> Our strategic thinking already place the mass induction of J-15 with around the time frame of the new aircraft carriers battle group. We MUST defend our territorial integrity and asset and there is NO wasteful spending as you claimed in your post. It is our economic lifeline and we will achieve our independent development without disruption and threat from the West.



Honestly, i don't really care about this. PLAN want to operate their fighter at sea at Restricted envelope is their problem. 

I said my piece already, like it, take it, don't like it, move on 



cirr said:


> Max payload is 6.6 tons according to the GAD&#12290;



If you do 6.6 ton (which is ~12,000 lbs), the jet will plunge into the sea when takes off, the max payload is somewhere around 4,400 lbs payload, full fuel.

6.6 tons is on land or maybe using a catapult, not ski jump takes off. US Marine guideline is no more than 2.5 tons payload on LHD, RN guildline is 2 ton on their harrier. No way a ski jump carrier can launch a medium size planes with 6 tons of payload....


----------



## 帅的一匹

Today is the National celebration day of PRC, let us wish the best future of our motherland.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Genesis

The Russian Navy has a fleet of approximately 20 Su-33s, which are expected to be life expired by 2015. Production of new Su-33s is possible but not cost-effective for small volumes. The MiG-29K was more convenient, as the Indian Navy had already ordered the aircraft, saving on development and production set-up. India paid $730 million for the development and delivery of 16 units, while 24 for the Russian Navy would cost approximately $1 billion.[43] In September 2011, it was announced that the MiG-29K was to conduct its first at-sea deployment on board Admiral Kuznetsov in the Mediterranean.[44]

The Russian Navy ordered 24 MiG-29Ks in late 2009 for the Admiral Kuznetsov.[45] Deliveries of the MiG-29K for the Russian Navy started in 2010.[46][47] MiG and Russia were in final negotiations for an order for more MiG-29K/KUB aircraft in August 2011,[48] with an order for 20 MiG-29K fighter-bombers and four MiG-29KUB operational trainers for operation from Admiral Kuznetsov, replacing the Sukhoi Su-33, being officially announced during February 2012


From Wikipedia 


The J-15 is superior to the Mig-29 in almost every way, btw, all J-15s are made with WS-10A engines, no foreign engines used for this new fighter. This isn't a secret. All stats are available anywhere.

The only thing is the Liaoning is not a carrier capable of maximizing this fighter, which will be solved in the next carrier, as this is a test carrier.

I was skeptical on the test carrier as I thought this is for combat, but as more info is released, this really seem like a test carrier, for example the J-15 wheels are built for Catapult launch. 

It is more than likely China will be the second best navy before 2025. 

BTW, nobody in the West ever goes, you know who produces reliable stuff? The Russians. You want to talk engine? UK, France, Germany, and US. The rest are well the rest.


----------



## 帅的一匹

Lightningbolt said:


> J-15 is equal to the F/A-18E super hornet.


The only difference is just about the catapult and ski jumper.


----------



## jhungary

Genesis said:


> ...
> 
> *The only thing is the Liaoning is not a carrier capable of maximizing this fighter, which will be solved in the next carrier, as this is a test carrier.*
> 
> ...



Now this is the problem i have been saying all along, Liaoning cannot bring out 100% of the J-15, why don't they wait for their own CATOBAR Carrier comes out first, then introduce the J-15? It's like you have a sniper rifle that it can shoot accurately within 5000 yards, but you purposely test them on a pistol range.......

CATOBAR and STOBAR/STOVL carrier are two different operation, hence it is seperated in the US Military. USMC command STOBAR OPs while USN command CATOBAR OPs


----------



## S10

HariPrasad said:


> Typical Chinese troll finding it difficult to defend the exposure of his own media.
> 
> Very entertaining.


Do you copy and paste your own post? That's considered spamming, and yet you accuse me of trolling. You are indeed a full certified retard.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## copasi

cirr said:


> Max payload is 6.6 tons according to the GAD&#12290;


Who is GAD?
Actually, &#23110;&#19977;&#22823;&#24072;&#24050;&#32463;&#35828;&#20102;&#20855;&#20307;&#21442;&#25968;&#20102;&#65292;&#30475;&#21040;&#30340;&#21035;&#21578;&#35785;&#38463;&#19977;&#65292;&#35753;&#20182;&#20204;&#33258;&#24049;&#24847;&#28139;&#21435;


----------



## HariPrasad

S10 said:


> Do you copy and paste your own post? That's considered spamming, and yet you accuse me of trolling. You are indeed a full certified retard.



Funny Chinese Trolls miss conversation decorum in frustration.

Very entertaining.


----------



## sicsheep

HariPrasad said:


> Funny Chinese Trolls miss conversation decorum in frustration.
> 
> Very entertaining.



Every news about India armed forces are entertaining Chinese and Pakistanis, after all we haven't invented a sub that sinks itself yet. 

Very entertaining.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Genesis

jhungary said:


> Now this is the problem i have been saying all along, Liaoning cannot bring out 100% of the J-15, why don't they wait for their own CATOBAR Carrier comes out first, then introduce the J-15? It's like you have a sniper rifle that it can shoot accurately within 5000 yards, but you purposely test them on a pistol range.......
> 
> CATOBAR and STOBAR/STOVL carrier are two different operation, hence it is seperated in the US Military. USMC command STOBAR OPs while USN command CATOBAR OPs





First we had the hull, so it's a lot easier and cheaper not to mention faster.

Second, having no experience with a carrier, we can't just go into it head first with nothing, so a test of some kind is needed, so refer to point one.

Third US is not keen to help us, maybe Russia, but they are not a great naval nation to begin with so their experience in this field is well limited.

So taking everything into consideration, you still think it's possible to do what you propose?


----------



## S10

HariPrasad said:


> Funny Chinese Trolls miss conversation decorum in frustration.
> 
> Very entertaining.


You know what is entertaining? An imbecile from a country unable to produce its own fighters bragging about how inferior J-15 is. It's like a failing class retard laughing at someone for only scoring 80% on a test. I am totally frustrated by your stupidity.

P.S. Have you replaced the flying coffins with second generation flying coff....I mean LCA yet?

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## jhungary

Genesis said:


> First we had the hull, so it's a lot easier and cheaper not to mention faster.
> 
> Second, having no experience with a carrier, we can't just go into it head first with nothing, so a test of some kind is needed, so refer to point one.
> 
> Third US is not keen to help us, maybe Russia, but they are not a great naval nation to begin with so their experience in this field is well limited.
> 
> So taking everything into consideration, you still think it's possible to do what you propose?



I think you seriously misunderstand the term "doctrine"

The US operate their carrier force under their own doctrine, which is 2 carrier with strike group call, supported by subs and LHD for off shore operations. You will see that every time the US roll with their carrier every time

China , on the other hand, have no doctrine on running carrier/group. Problem is you either follow someone else's or you make your own. Since you get your ship, the hull from Ukraine, it's only natural to copy the ex-USSR doctrine and run mig29 on it. I don't think Russian/Ukrainian did not tell you anything when they transfer their ship

I am just stating my point, if you do go ahead with using j-15 liaoning, then expect to relearn everything come when china deploy their first catobar carrier, you are just wasting you time and money until 2018. When your catobar start commission. It will be a different ball game


----------



## HariPrasad

sicsheep said:


> Every news about India armed forces are entertaining Chinese and Pakistanis, after all we haven't invented a sub that sinks itself yet.
> 
> Very entertaining.



Ignorant Chinese always talk like very knowledgeable person. Very entertaining.

Chinese submarine 361 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

List of Chinese military accidents - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

70 die in China submarine accident | Mail Online

Very entertaining.



S10 said:


> You know what is entertaining? An imbecile from a country unable to produce its own fighters bragging about how inferior J-15 is. It's like a failing class retard laughing at someone for only scoring 80% on a test. I am totally frustrated by your stupidity.
> 
> P.S. Have you replaced the flying coffins with second generation flying coff....I mean LCA yet?




HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA !!!!!!!!!!

Onother semi educated on the loose.!!!!!!!!


----------



## S10

HariPrasad said:


> Ignorant Chinese always talk like very knowledgeable person. Very entertaining.
> 
> Chinese submarine 361 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> List of Chinese military accidents - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 70 die in China submarine accident | Mail Online
> 
> Very entertaining.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA !!!!!!!!!!
> 
> Onother semi educated on the loose.!!!!!!!!


You see, we were able to produce our own AIP subs from lessons learned. What can you produce? Perhaps you can show us how to torpedo your own boat in the future? On second thought, I don't want to catch the stupid.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sino-Indian_War

Now this was funny.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## sicsheep

Hhaha this list is short compared to the Indian one...

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## HariPrasad

S10 said:


> You see, we were able to produce our own AIP subs from lessons learned. What can you produce? Perhaps you can show us how to torpedo your own boat in the future? On second thought, I don't want to catch the stupid.
> 
> Sino-Indian War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Now this was funny.



Funny Chinese troll citing 1962 war to defend hi crap fighter.

Very entertaining.


----------



## Lightningbolt

HariPrasad said:


> Funny Chinese troll citing 1962 war to defend hi crap fighter.
> 
> Very entertaining.



Don't ever compare your country to us.

Do you realise what an insult it is to be compared to India? 

Being compared to India means we are going backwards.

There is no greater insult to us than being compared with India and Indians.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## rcrmj

this 'creditable' Taiwan news surely gave those inferior complex and primitive indian a good toss of their bell-end heads..

this is what they really needed at the moment, as their feudal monarchies merrily brainfucked the 'shining' slum and its dwellers again, but hard this time.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## rcrmj

Lightningbolt said:


> Don't ever compare your country to us.
> 
> Do you realise what an insult it is to be compared to India?
> 
> Being compared to India means we are going backwards.
> 
> There is no greater insult to us than being compared with India and Indians.



when I compared India with turkey, my turkey classmates felt insulted
when I compared India with Vietnam, that restaurant owner felt insulted
when I compared India with U.S, that tourist in my shop felt unpleasant
when I compared India with Arabs, my arab classmates felt insulted
when at the opening day at Uni, I misjudged one of the mates as Indian, he was not happy for many days

so mate, I don't think it only applies to us. their foul reputation does not come from nowhere

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Genesis

jhungary said:


> I think you seriously misunderstand the term "doctrine"
> 
> The US operate their carrier force under their own doctrine, which is 2 carrier with strike group call, supported by subs and LHD for off shore operations. You will see that every time the US roll with their carrier every time
> 
> China , on the other hand, have no doctrine on running carrier/group. Problem is you either follow someone else's or you make your own. Since you get your ship, the hull from Ukraine, it's only natural to copy the ex-USSR doctrine and run mig29 on it. I don't think Russian/Ukrainian did not tell you anything when they transfer their ship
> 
> I am just stating my point, if you do go ahead with using j-15 liaoning, then expect to relearn everything come when china deploy their first catobar carrier, you are just wasting you time and money until 2018. When your catobar start commission. It will be a different ball game



ex-USSR doctrine is useless, the USSR is not a naval power. Besides, we bought the ship as a casino, maybe they gave us a lesson in serving vodka to customers, but not in carrier operations.

Carrier operation is different and yet the same, the US doctrine isn't suited for China, mostly because we don't have quit as many carrier nor are our missions the same. The different launch methods and equipments on a carrier will change things, but it's not as big a leap as no carrier to carrier.

LAstly, it's not like without the liaoning we would have had a catapult carrier now, it's more like it would be commissioned around 2020 regardless, and to fill in the gap we got this floating casino of a carrier out at sea. 

It's also a chance to train the pilots, though I will admit I don't know what the pilot needs to know and how different it is for launching and landing between the different carriers.


----------



## Lightningbolt

rcrmj said:


> when I compared India with turkey, my turkey classmates felt insulted
> when I compared India with Vietnam, that restaurant owner felt insulted
> when I compared India with U.S, that tourist in my shop felt unpleasant
> when I compared India with Arabs, my arab classmates felt insulted
> when at the opening day at Uni, I misjudged one of the mates as Indian, he was not happy for many days
> 
> so mate, I don't think it only applies to us. their foul reputation does not come from nowhere



Totally agree.

Most Africans would feel insulted to be compared to Indians.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## IND151

Genesis said:


> ex-USSR doctrine is useless, the *USSR is not a naval power*. Besides, we bought the ship as a casino, maybe they gave us a lesson in serving vodka to customers, but not in carrier operations.
> 
> Carrier operation is different and yet the same, the US doctrine isn't suited for China, mostly because we don't have quit as many carrier nor are our missions the same. The different launch methods and equipments on a carrier will change things, but it's not as big a leap as no carrier to carrier.
> 
> LAstly, it's not like without the liaoning we would have had a catapult carrier now, it's more like it would be commissioned around 2020 regardless, and to fill in the gap we got this floating casino of a carrier out at sea.
> 
> It's also a chance to train the pilots, though I will admit I don't know what the pilot needs to know and how different it is for launching and landing between the different carriers.



Soviet Navy was global naval power throughout 70s and 80s, mainly due to expansion and leadership of Gorshkov.

They were the pioneers of STOBAR carries and launched several ones, one of which is Varyag.


----------



## Luftwaffe

thesolar65 said:


> What I say is that once you free the media in China and that too when true democracy prevails, we shall see the media(Chinese) tearing down the Chinese defense equipments just like our media tears down DRDO and others, where they take the cue and troll in PDF. This is tip of iceberg!!



You must be an idiot to tell that media can actually tear down defense equipment really media getting close to BVR missile?radars?SAMs?Jets where the watch dog would first tear their arses. You hindustans and your 0 level IQs. 

Your media doesn't tear down DRDO, your companies and organization let down themselves by their hands by testing the products in front of the whole world which fails and collapse with-in short period, your media is not mature enough like BBC to dig into such sensitive information.


----------



## S10

HariPrasad said:


> Funny Chinese troll citing 1962 war to defend hi crap fighter.
> 
> Very entertaining.


Well it just proves we're better than you in every possible way. Unlike you, we don't get orgasms from third rate news sites quoting some unknown Taiwan source which has no access to Chinese military information.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## jhungary

Genesis said:


> ex-USSR doctrine is useless, the USSR is not a naval power. Besides, we bought the ship as a casino, maybe they gave us a lesson in serving vodka to customers, but not in carrier operations.
> 
> Carrier operation is different and yet the same, the US doctrine isn't suited for China, mostly because we don't have quit as many carrier nor are our missions the same. The different launch methods and equipments on a carrier will change things, but it's not as big a leap as no carrier to carrier.
> 
> LAstly, it's not like without the liaoning we would have had a catapult carrier now, it's more like it would be commissioned around 2020 regardless, and to fill in the gap we got this floating casino of a carrier out at sea.
> 
> It's also a chance to train the pilots, though I will admit I don't know what the pilot needs to know and how different it is for launching and landing between the different carriers.



*IT IS REALLY STUPID TO SAY USSR IS NOT OF NAVAL POWER*

USSR Navy was at lease at the same level with US Navy during 60s, 70s and early 80s. In some case, some expert will also consider USSR's navy is somewhat stronger than the US Navy. Maybe you are thinking of Russian Navy instead, i don't know .

As @IND151 said, USSR is the master of STOBAR carrier operation. Their doctorine were widely used in multiple area in this world, they also partly influence the way the Big gun runs their own navy, Royal Navy is a prime example.

And again you fail to see my point, my point is not being aircraft/pilot training, but carrier operation. You can put a navy pilot to train with an airforce pilot, you can even put J-15S inline with the airforce too. However, does that mean you can put that naval aviator into a ship and expect he knows everything or anything??

Problem with this is, PLA have plenty of *PILOT* training, it's the *NAVAL AVIATION *training they are lacking and that should be what they are going to. If you still fail to see my point then don't bother......

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## ice bomb

jhungary said:


> *IT IS REALLY STUPID TO SAY USSR IS NOT OF NAVAL POWER*
> 
> USSR Navy was at lease at the same level with US Navy during 60s, 70s and early 80s. In some case, some expert will also consider USSR's navy is somewhat stronger than the US Navy. Maybe you are thinking of Russian Navy instead, i don't know .
> 
> As @IND151 said, USSR is the master of STOBAR carrier operation. Their doctorine were widely used in multiple area in this world, they also partly influence the way the Big gun runs their own navy, Royal Navy is a prime example.
> 
> And again you fail to see my point, my point is not being aircraft/pilot training, but carrier operation. You can put a navy pilot to train with an airforce pilot, you can even put J-15S inline with the airforce too. However, does that mean you can put that naval aviator into a ship and expect he knows everything or anything??
> 
> Problem with this is, PLA have plenty of *PILOT* training, it's the *NAVAL AVIATION *training they are lacking and that should be what they are going to. If you still fail to see my point then don't bother......



I wont call USSR master of STOBAR carrier operation. They never used the AC the way US does. The centerpiece of USSR naval strategy was their SSNs and boomers. Their ACs is the escort. 
PLAN is following the US path. 
Many of PLANs ship captains are naval aviators.


----------



## That Guy

jhungary said:


> Let me answer your question with a question.
> 
> Brazil *ALREADY* had a catapult carrier now, does that mean they have bigger World stage influence than India and China combine??
> 
> As i said, and you quoted, you can do whatever the hell you like with your money, you can get a catapult carrier now, or you can get 12, China have the means and money to build it, just what are you doing to do with the one or 12 Catapult carrier with? Beside running up and down the chinese coast before 2030??
> 
> There are *PROPER* ways to train up to what you want, there are *STUPID* way to train up to what you want, my point being, *China should wait until the first catapult carrier to induce J-15 with it, not to running it half-arsed with a ski-jump carrier.* What are you going to expect from learning with plane running half of whatever it should be??
> 
> As i said, you fork the bill, you can do whatever the heck you want, even if that means you are wasting your own money, hey, that's fine by me



Question, if they don't opt for catapult carriers, would they be better off with just developing another carrier based aircraft and dropping the J-15 project? Or should they work on perfecting the J-15 and trying to get it to work on the carrier they do have?


----------



## Superboy

Methinks J-15 should be used primarily as a fleet defense fighter and not as an anti ship plane. For its role as a fleet defense fighter, it can carry plenty of PL-12 for the job. Anti ship job should be given to Type 052D and Type 095 and Type 041.


----------



## copasi

So everyone reply here agree Taiwan belongs to China


----------



## jhungary

ice bomb said:


> I wont call USSR master of STOBAR carrier operation. *They never used the AC the way US does*. The centerpiece of USSR naval strategy was their SSNs and boomers. Their ACs is the escort.
> PLAN is following the US path.
> Many of PLANs ship captains are naval aviators.



The bolted is your problem...

Maybe because you fail to see CATOBAR and STOBAR are two different application.

The US have never master the STOBAR ops but they are getting quite good for CATOBAR opeartion.

USSR uses their carrier as a major part of sub hunting, instead of using them CAS/CAP role like if they were to be used by a CATOBAR carrier with hugh payload and hugh planeload.

If you even care to look at the ex-USSR complement of any of their carrier, you will find they very much depend on Ka-28 and Ka-50 to do the work, both if which were anti-sub platform.

However, US uses their STOBAR (LHDS) again differently, when they were tasked and commanded by the Navy, but it was the Maine who are actually using it, they use it as actual LHDs only difference is they do operation stand alone and do not require outside force (Fleet carrier) to support with their operation, hence freezing them to do CAP/CAS for other asset.

By saying USSR does not use their carrier like the US do, you kill the whole reason of why USSR using STOBAR carrier, which is by no mean using them same as a fleet carrier. The PATH you mentioned is simply different.

So in the end you are wrong.....

And i don't know why you said most PLANs ship captain are (were, they were but now commanding ship) naval aviator.

And they are not the same as what US called "Naval Aviator" anyway as China only have naval air fleet arms - fix wing after they acquire liaoning in 2012, unless you are saying those Captain were serving with another navy that with an aircraft carrier in the 60s, 70s, 80s, 90s, 00s, their experience of naval aviator should not be counted nor relevant.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## nomi007



Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Maler

S10 said:


> You know what is entertaining? An imbecile from a country unable to produce its own fighters bragging about how inferior J-15 is. It's like a failing class retard laughing at someone for only scoring 80% on a test. I am totally frustrated by your stupidity.
> 
> P.S. Have you replaced the flying coffins with second generation flying coff....I mean LCA yet?




If India is not able to produce aircraft, then It makes J-15 superior???? High IQ logic!!!!!!!


----------



## S10

Maler said:


> If India is not able to produce aircraft, then It makes J-15 superior???? High IQ logic!!!!!!!


It makes us superior to you in every possible way.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## cnleio

PLAN's 1st mass production version of J-15 fighter out






Congratulate ! China fighter family add a new member for the Navy.

Reactions: Like Like:
14


----------



## RAMPAGE

cnleio said:


> PLAN's 1st mass production version of J-15 fighter out


5th generation avionics ???


----------



## cnleio

China J-15 prototype landing on the deck of CV-16 "LiaoNing"

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## UKBengali

Any idea how many J-15s China plans to produce?


----------



## Flynn Swagmire

I think frameless canopy will give J-15 fighter better look.


----------



## cnleio

RAMPAGE said:


> 5th generation avionics ???


Happy

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## shuntmaster

Wasn't China negotiating with Russia to buy Su-33's??


----------



## cnleio

UKBengali said:


> Any idea how many J-15s China plans to produce?


I think it depend on how many aircraft carrier will build ... at least currently CV-16 "LiaoNing" need 30+ J-15 and prepare 30+ for duty rotation, also need some J-15 to train new pilots.



shuntmaster said:


> Wasn't China negotiating with Russia to buy Su-33's??


After S.U gone, Russian closed Su-33 produce line. Now they select Mig-29k with Indian, they think invest money to build a Mig-29k produce line is cheaper than re-open Su-33 produce line, specially many Su-33's componet manufacturers came from other states of S.U now they all gone. 
Russian need to do lots of work to make Su-33 reborn, but smart Russian find Indian to invest Mig-29k joint project.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Flynn Swagmire

shuntmaster said:


> Wasn't China negotiating with Russia to buy Su-33's??


Old news. Now they have J-15.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## cnleio

J-15 testing

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## cnleio

@RAMPAGE
5th generation avionics ???
============================

A good pic of J-15 cockpit, i think so

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## cnleio

J-15 development history







J-15 mass production

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## Echo_419

cnleio said:


> I think it depend on how many aircraft carrier will build ... at least currently CV-16 "LiaoNing" need 30+ J-15 and prepare 30+ for duty rotation, also need some J-15 to train new pilots.
> 
> 
> After S.U gone, Russian closed Su-33 produce line. Now they select Mig-29k with Indian, they think invest money to build a Mig-29k produce line is cheaper than re-open Su-33 produce line, specially many Su-33's componet manufacturers came from other states of S.U now they all gone.
> Russian need to do lots of work to make Su-33 reborn, but smart Russian find Indian to invest Mig-29k joint project.



In my opinion why don't you guys use J-15 as a stopgap measure & start(if not already started) on a naval J-31 or J-20  
What's your opinion 
& your argument is not right Russians realised that small Mig-29k is better on STOVL carriers than the big SU-33 
But we financed Mig-29k is also one of the major reasons

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Fsjal

Echo_419 said:


> In my opinion why don't you guys use J-15 as a stopgap measure & start(if not already started) on a naval J-31 or J-20


I think it's better for J-15 to be main naval fighter of China until 2030's. The J-15 would be cheaper since it is not stealth. 

By 2030, I think J-31 will be a good choice to replace the J-15. J-20 isn't really a good plane to replace J-15, since it is too big and heavy. Also, naval J-20 would need to carry less load, sacrificing it's weapon loadout and range. 

If China was to make a V/STOL plane, like Harrier or F-35B, the J-31 would be a good candidate. 

In my opinion, China needs 3 CATOBAR carriers and 5 small carriers for V/STOL planes. By 2030, China would need to replace J-15 with J-31.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Beidou2020

Echo_419 said:


> In my opinion why don't you guys use J-15 as a stopgap measure & start(if not already started) on a naval J-31 or J-20
> What's your opinion
> & your argument is not right Russians realised that small Mig-29k is better on STOVL carriers than the big SU-33
> But we financed Mig-29k is also one of the major reasons



According to Huitong, the competition for the 5th generation Naval fighter jet is ongoing between SAC (Navalized J-31) and CAC (Navalized J-20).

The winner has not been chosen yet.

Huitong says the J-15 is a stopgap measure. Although J-15B is under development and J-15S to be EW variant.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## cnleio

J-15,J-15,J-15...

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Echo_419

Beidou2020 said:


> According to Huitong, the competition for the 5th generation Naval fighter jet is ongoing between SAC (Navalized J-31) and CAC (Navalized J-20).
> 
> The winner has not been chosen yet.
> 
> Huitong says the J-15 is a stopgap measure. Although J-15B is under development and J-15S to be EW variant.



So you are basically saying that J-15 is gonna act as a stop gap measure for 10-15 years 
Considering that Competion is on then design will be freezed after a couple of years of research prototypes will fly
10-15 years it will take to come up with a full combat ready Chinese naval 5th gen aircraft 
Till then J-15 with constant upgrades & stuff 
Right?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Zarvan

Echo_419 said:


> So you are basically saying that J-15 is gonna act as a stop gap measure for 10-15 years
> Considering that Competion is on then design will be freezed after a couple of years of research prototypes will fly
> 10-15 years it will take to come up with a full combat ready Chinese naval 5th gen aircraft
> Till then J-15 with constant upgrades & stuff
> Right?


 Mr what ever they have is more than enough to destroy you and many other small countries who are messing with China


----------



## Obambam

Fsjal said:


> I think it's better for J-15 to be main naval fighter of China until 2030's. The J-15 would be cheaper since it is not stealth.
> 
> By 2030, I think J-31 will be a good choice to replace the J-15. J-20 isn't really a good plane to replace J-15, since it is too big and heavy. Also, naval J-20 would need to carry less load, sacrificing it's weapon loadout and range.
> 
> If China was to make a V/STOL plane, like Harrier or F-35B, the J-31 would be a good candidate.
> 
> In my opinion, China needs 3 CATOBAR carriers and 5 small carriers for V/STOL planes. By 2030, China would need to replace J-15 with J-31.



Problem with having a massive fan in the middle of the plane is it will cause the plane to become heavier, it will also affect the planes maximum load.

From a technological achievements perspective it maybe desirable to have and it may look good when you look at the paper spec, but on a personal level, I don't think it is ideal at all.

I think it is more ideal to have lighter fighter, each with the capability to carry more load, giving them the maneuverability and greater number of munitions to carry out their missions.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## cnleio

Echo_419 said:


> So you are basically saying that J-15 is gonna act as a stop gap measure for 10-15 years
> Considering that Competion is on then design will be freezed after a couple of years of research prototypes will fly
> 10-15 years it will take to come up with a full combat ready Chinese naval 5th gen aircraft
> Till then J-15 with constant upgrades & stuff
> Right?


China has next-gen fighter project for the Navy, will replace J-15. It would be J-20 Navy version / J-31 Navy version / other 2x engines medium-size fighter. J-15 just current main fighter for PLAN's CV16 and next aircraft carrier, not serve for a long time. When J-20 mass produce and join PLAAF, soon PLAN will accept new 5-gen fighter stronger than J-15.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Echo_419

Zarvan said:


> Mr what ever they have is more than enough to destroy you and many other small countries who are messing with China



WHOA man don't be to harsh on me man 
It hurts man 
If you will try to read my post on Chinese threads you will see I have most of the times Contributed to them & positively 
I might add 
Only in the rarest of instances I have trolled 
That to was counter trolling 
Btw this is a nice thread lets not ruin it 
My question was a genuine one 
& from the bottom of my heart I am sorry if I hurt your feelings

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## lcloo

Fsjal said:


> I think it's better for J-15 to be main naval fighter of China until 2030's. The J-15 would be cheaper since it is not stealth.
> 
> By 2030, I think J-31 will be a good choice to replace the J-15. J-20 isn't really a good plane to replace J-15, since it is too big and heavy. Also, naval J-20 would need to carry less load, sacrificing it's weapon loadout and range.
> 
> If China was to make a V/STOL plane, like Harrier or F-35B, the J-31 would be a good candidate.
> 
> In my opinion, China needs 3 CATOBAR carriers and 5 small carriers for V/STOL planes. By 2030, China would need to replace J-15 with J-31.



J-20 is actually smaller than J-15, the perception that it is is large mainly due to the lower vertical height of the canted V tails which made visual illusion that it is a longer than actual length. If you replace the canted V tails with the vertical tails of Flankers, the dramatic visual effect can immediately be observed.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Superboy

J-15 documentary

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## S10

shuntmaster said:


> Wasn't China negotiating with Russia to buy Su-33's??


Russia shut down the Su-33 production line in the mid 1990's. They decided to go with Mig-29K.


----------



## FNFAL

S10 said:


> Russia shut down the Su-33 production line in the mid 1990's. They decided to go with Mig-29K.


err..last time i heard, you folks wanted to buy about 50 su-33s from russia. Then after some time you purchased two su33s from ukraine and now you have the j-11 and j-15...
the su-33 and mig 29 were always the hi-lo mix from the soviet/russian perspective back in the day.


----------



## Zabaniyah

FNFAL said:


> err..last time i heard, you folks wanted to buy about 50 su-33s from russia. Then after some time you purchased two su33s from ukraine and now you have the j-11 and j-15...
> the su-33 and mig 29 were always the hi-lo mix from the soviet/russian perspective back in the day.



Taking care of heavy fighters on a carrier is not rational from an operations perspective. That was mainly why the Americans ditched the Tomcat and the Russians, the Su-33. 

It was rumored that MiG-29K's under Russian service would be sporting AESA radar. 

Flankers are....big. Big planes. Big engines. Everything big. It's just too big.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Superboy

F6F Hellcat was the key to beating A6M AKA Zero in the Pacific. It was big, fast, bad. J-15 remains the world's most capable and most terrifying carrier fighter jet.


----------



## S10

FNFAL said:


> err..last time i heard, you folks wanted to buy about 50 su-33s from russia. Then after some time you purchased two su33s from ukraine and now you have the j-11 and j-15...
> the su-33 and mig 29 were always the hi-lo mix from the soviet/russian perspective back in the day.


Yes, the Russians wanted China to cover the cost of re-opening the Su-33 production line, which was shut down almost a decade earlier. Instead China went to Ukraine to obtain a TK-10 prototype, and developed the J-15.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Akasa

FNFAL said:


> err..last time i heard, you folks wanted to buy about 50 su-33s from russia. Then after some time you purchased two su33s from ukraine and now you have the j-11 and j-15...
> the su-33 and mig 29 were always the hi-lo mix from the soviet/russian perspective back in the day.



When was "last time"? 20 years ago?


----------



## Shinigami

Loki said:


> Taking care of heavy fighters on a carrier is not rational from an operations perspective. That was mainly why the Americans ditched the Tomcat and the Russians, the Su-33.
> 
> It was rumored that MiG-29K's under Russian service would be sporting AESA radar.
> 
> Flankers are....big. Big planes. Big engines. Everything big. It's just too big.



I was wondering if everyone here were dumb cheerleaders, looks like i was wrong.

you are right. big planes will cause a lot of problems for carrier ops US knows this, Russia knows this, india knows this. PLAN will figure this out in a couple of years



Superboy said:


> F6F Hellcat was the key to beating A6M AKA Zero in the Pacific. It was big, fast, bad. J-15 remains the world's most capable and most terrifying carrier fighter jet.



 i realize being in a pakistani forum gives you license to say cr@p like that but lets keep our patriotism in check shall we?


----------



## FNFAL

SinoSoldier said:


> When was "last time"? 20 years ago?


No,as late as 2009 if the following link is to be believed
China can't buy Sukhoi fighter jets - UPI.com



Loki said:


> Taking care of heavy fighters on a carrier is not rational from an operations perspective. That was mainly why the Americans ditched the Tomcat and the Russians, the Su-33.
> 
> It was rumored that MiG-29K's under Russian service would be sporting AESA radar.
> 
> Flankers are....big. Big planes. Big engines. Everything big. It's just too big.



Agree with you on that.If a smaller aircraft with updated technology , even with reduced range can achieve 85-90% operational capability coverage, then smaller is better. 

Which begs the question, why is china after this doctrine of sporting larger aircraft? IMHO a naval version of say the j-10 would be an automatic analogue to the mig-29


----------



## Bilal587

Im so concerned about chinese engines why they not been able to make it ? while making excellent beast planes.

btw what engine J-15 uses is it Russian made ?


----------



## S10

Bilal587 said:


> Im so concerned about chinese engines why they not been able to make it ? while making excellent beast planes.
> 
> btw what engine J-15 uses is it Russian made ?


China does produce engines, but it cannot produce them quick enough and the military is unhappy with their quality.


----------



## Bilal587

S10 said:


> China does produce engines, but it cannot produce them quick enough and the military is unhappy with their quality.



Its so bad that to produce a fighter china would have to depend on engines to be ordered it give me feelings if Russia stops exporting engine to China the production process comes to hurdles.

A complete failure


----------



## S10

Bilal587 said:


> Its so bad that to produce a fighter china would have to depend on engines to be ordered it give me feelings if Russia stops exporting engine to China the production process comes to hurdles.
> 
> A complete failure


Failure?

Fighter production would not be halted if Russia did not supply the engines, but it would slow considerably. China can produce the engines, but the production rate cannot keep up with demands. It's a matter of how fast can China build engines, not if it could.

Also, J-15 uses WS-10A for engines, not Russian AL-31F.


----------



## lcloo

First batch of J-15 actually used AL-31F, all production WS-10A are allocated to J-11B, and J-16. WS-10A is a new engine that needs many more years to prove its maturity and PLAN would not take risk since you will have problem during emergerncy landing at sea. Land base jets have the advantage of landing at any nearby airfield, in open sea the option is very much limited.

Also bear in mind that J-15 is only a stop-gap aircraft that may not warrant too much investment, future aircraft carrier borne jets will be either navalised J-20 and/or J-31. And the timing is very important, by the time other PLAN aircraft carriers are commissioned, J-20 and J-31 will also be operational.


----------



## aliaselin

Loki said:


> Taking care of heavy fighters on a carrier is not rational from an operations perspective. That was mainly why the Americans ditched the Tomcat and the Russians, the Su-33.
> 
> It was rumored that MiG-29K's under Russian service would be sporting AESA radar.
> 
> Flankers are....big. Big planes. Big engines. Everything big. It's just too big.



CVs is designed based on planes，not just simply put planes on it or fit planes on a CV. The CV Liaoning is designed for Su-33, so the best choice is using J-15.
Americans retired Tomcat is not because it is not suitable, but:
1. New F18E/F is much larger than the F18C/D, which can be called as heavy fighter to some extent, though still not as larger as F14
2. F14 used variable sweep wing，which is a big problem for logistics


----------



## Zabaniyah

aliaselin said:


> CVs is designed based on planes，not just simply put planes on it or fit planes on a CV. The CV Liaoning is designed for Su-33, so the best choice is using J-15.
> Americans retired Tomcat is not because it is not suitable, but:
> 1. New F18E/F is much larger than the F18C/D, which can be called as heavy fighter to some extent, though still not as larger as F14
> 2. F14 used variable sweep wing，which is a big problem for logistics



The F-18 E/F is a medium combat aircraft. And do not fall into the heavy category of the F-14 and the F-15. It's the jack of all trades. It can do a little bit of everything, while being a master of none. That is where part of its strength lies.

And yes, the variable sweep wing geometry caused difficulties, but there was a rational for it in the first place. But as technology advanced, variable sweep wings quickly became obsolete.

Another factor was that the AIM-54 Phoenix missile was no longer needed. The F-14's primary role was to hunt down long-range Soviet bombers which were a huge threat to American carrier groups.

Choice of weapons, strategy and tactics are based on the environment. What is the exact rational behind choosing the Flanker design on China's new carrier?


----------



## Akasa

FNFAL said:


> No,as late as 2009 if the following link is to be believed
> China can't buy Sukhoi fighter jets - UPI.com
> 
> 
> 
> Agree with you on that.If a smaller aircraft with updated technology , even with reduced range can achieve 85-90% operational capability coverage, then smaller is better.
> 
> Which begs the question, why is china after this doctrine of sporting larger aircraft? IMHO a naval version of say the j-10 would be an automatic analogue to the mig-29



Just because a news article was reported in 2009 doesn't mean the actual occurrence happened in 2009, especially when one takes into account the fact that the J-15 made its maiden flight in 2009.


----------



## FNFAL

SinoSoldier said:


> Just because a news article was reported in 2009 doesn't mean the actual occurrence happened in 2009, especially when one takes into account the fact that the J-15 made its maiden flight in 2009.


Given your logic,im sure no incident from 2001 would figure into 2009. so give or take a year or two..its still no where close to 2001. Most imp , it must have been in 2006-08 period when russians challenged china with photocopying the su-27sk in to the j-11 over grounds of intellectual property,
Also note that the official press release for the maiden flight of j1-5 was release in mid 2010, and china is not of the shy nature whn it comes to sharing advances in mil tech.


----------



## Akasa

FNFAL said:


> Given your logic,im sure no incident from 2001 would figure into 2009. so give or take a year or two..its still no where close to 2001.





Really? Then how did a 2006 rumor of a Su-35 purchase make its way in 2013?



FNFAL said:


> Most imp , it must have been in 2006-08 period when russians challenged china with photocopying the su-27sk in to the j-11 over grounds of intellectual property,




How is that related to the J-15 development?




FNFAL said:


> Also note that the official press release for the maiden flight of j1-5 was release in mid 2010, and china is not of the shy nature whn it comes to sharing advances in mil tech.




China has not officially announced the J-20 yet; does that mean such a plane does not exist?



Bilal587 said:


> Its so bad that to produce a fighter china would have to depend on engines to be ordered it give me feelings if Russia stops exporting engine to China the production process comes to hurdles.
> 
> A complete failure



Huh? The J-11B and J-16 do not use Russian engines and they are being produced perfectly fine. The prototypes of the J-10B, J-15, do not use Russian engines as well and the projects are running great.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Pakistanisage

Bilal587 said:


> *Its so bad that to produce a fighter china would have to depend on engines to be ordered it give me feelings if Russia stops exporting engine to China the production process comes to hurdles.*
> 
> A complete failure





Must you display your ignorance thru your posts. Please try to do some research before you make such bogus claims.* J-15 uses Chinese WS-10H engine*. Only the prototype used Russian engine in the beginning.


The first J-15 prototype is believed to have performed its maiden flight on August 31, 2009, powered by Russian-supplied AL-31 turbofan engines.[5] Video and still images of the flight were released in July 2010, showing the same basic airframe design as the Su-33.[13] In July 2011, it was reported FWS-10H turbofan engine was chosen for J-15 fighter, which has takeoff thrust increased to 12,800 kg, comparing *FWS-10 turbofan's* 12,500 kg. Other improvements were also made to make it better suited to carrier-based fighter's requirement.[14] On May 6, 2010, the aircraft conducted its first takeoff from a simulated ski-jump.[5]




Shenyang J-15 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## RAMPAGE

cnleio said:


> @RAMPAGE
> 5th generation avionics ???
> ============================
> 
> A good pic of J-15 cockpit, i think so


Why no HMD ???


----------



## FNFAL

SinoSoldier said:


> Really? Then how did a 2006 rumor of a Su-35 purchase make its way in 2013?
> 
> Could you fill me on that?? Maybe a link or two?
> 
> 
> 
> How is that related to the J-15 development?
> Bcoz the base design is of a flanker which you photo copied. Su33 is the naval variant of the su-27. Its not f15 and f18 that we are talking here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> China has not officially announced the J-20 yet; does that mean such a plane does not exist?
> 
> J20首飞庆功 记住这些英雄 :: 空军世界
> This official ceremony screams J20 programme. What else do you need? A selfie of ur pm with the J20 in the backdrop?





SinoSoldier said:


> Really? Then how did a 2006 rumor of a Su-35 purchase make its way in 2013?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How is that related to the J-15 development?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> China has not officially announced the J-20 yet; does that mean such a plane does not exist?



Could you fill me on that?? Maybe a link or two?

How is that related to the J-15 development?
Bcoz the base design is of a flanker which you photo copied. Su33 is the naval variant of the su-27. Its not f15 and f18 that we are talking here.


China has not officially announced the J-20 yet; does that mean such a plane does not exist?

J20首飞庆功 记住这些英雄 :: 空军世界
This official ceremony screams J20 programme. What else do you need? A selfie of ur pm with the J20 in the backdrop?


----------



## hari sud

J-15 is a dumped Russian SU-33 fighter. The Russian dumped this design in nineties in favor of MIG-29 (Naval Version). The Chinese bought a copy in Ukraine and further coping it since 2001. (Read DefenceNews)

If Su-33 was working well, then the Russians would not have dumped it. Never the less, it has become a Chinese problem. All technologies cannot be reverse engineered as the Chinese think. Hence their renamed J-15 can take off only with quarter of the ordinance load from their lone carrier. (Again DefenceNews).

Hence Chinese official propaganda has way too many pictures of J-15 taking off from their carrier. These are for show and tell purposes. It will be fool hardy to pick up a fight with MIG - 29K Naval fighters in Russian inventory or in Indian inventory.


----------



## 帅的一匹

Russian is too poor to maintain SU33 in service. Mig29K is way inferior in terms of range and payload.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## aliaselin

Loki said:


> The F-18 E/F is a medium combat aircraft. And do not fall into the heavy category of the F-14 and the F-15. It's the jack of all trades. It can do a little bit of everything, while being a master of none. That is where part of its strength lies.
> 
> And yes, the variable sweep wing geometry caused difficulties, but there was a rational for it in the first place. But as technology advanced, variable sweep wings quickly became obsolete.
> 
> Another factor was that the AIM-54 Phoenix missile was no longer needed. The F-14's primary role was to hunt down long-range Soviet bombers which were a huge threat to American carrier groups.
> 
> Choice of weapons, strategy and tactics are based on the environment. What is the exact rational behind choosing the Flanker design on China's new carrier?



No, maximun take off weight of F18E/F is 30 ton, and this can not be considered as medium combat aircraft. Correspondingly, Mig29K and rafale 24.5 ton, F18C/D 25.5 ton
Moreover, the new toy of USA navy F35C is 32 ton.
The trend of the mainstream is choosing larger planes rather than smaller.
The reasons for choosing larger planes are because larger combat radius, more playloads, more space for electronic equipment. If a combat radius of the planes on a AC can not greatly surpass the range of anti-AC missiles, then the AC will be in a very dangerous condition


----------



## Beast

hari sud said:


> J-15 is a dumped Russian SU-33 fighter. The Russian dumped this design in nineties in favor of MIG-29 (Naval Version). The Chinese bought a copy in Ukraine and further coping it since 2001. (Read DefenceNews)
> 
> If Su-33 was working well, then the Russians would not have dumped it. Never the less, it has become a Chinese problem. All technologies cannot be reverse engineered as the Chinese think. Hence their renamed J-15 can take off only with quarter of the ordinance load from their lone carrier. (Again DefenceNews).
> 
> Hence Chinese official propaganda has way too many pictures of J-15 taking off from their carrier. These are for show and tell purposes. It will be fool hardy to pick up a fight with MIG - 29K Naval fighters in Russian inventory or in Indian inventory.



 Pure sourgraped from our Indian friends.... Mig-29K is picked becos sugardaddy Indian decide to help finance the whole Mig-29K project.

When Kuztnesov was commissioned, both Su-33 and Mig-29K were considered. Why Su-33 is chosen by Russian? 

Russian are too poor to upgraded Su-33 to Chinese J-15 standard. Plain truth is hard to swallow for some.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## sincity

China did the right thing by build up their own aerospace industry, instead of funding the Russian to build China Su-33, China bought the Su-33 phototype from Urkain and build their own version of Su-33 since China already have their own production line building Su-27.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## hari sud

Here is what Defence News had to say about Chinese copy j-15

Chinese Media Takes Aim at J-15 Fighter | Defense News | defensenews.com

Chinese Media Takes Aim at J-15 Fighter
Sep. 28, 2013 - 03:45AM | By WENDELL MINNICK | Comments

A

Poor Performance: State-owned media have criticized China's new J-15 carrier fighter, saying it is limited in how much ordnance it could carry. (Agence France-Presse/CCTV)
FILED UNDER
World News
TAIPEI — In an unusual departure for mainland Chinese-language media, the Beijing-based Sina Military Network (SMN) criticized the capabilities of the carrier-borne J-15 Flying Shark as nothing more than a “flopping fish.”

On Sept. 22, the state-controlled China Daily Times reported the new aircraft carrier Liaoning had just finished a three-month voyage and conducted over 100 sorties of “various aircraft,” of which the J-15 “took off and landed on the carrier with maximum load and various weapons.” This report was also carried on the official Liberation Army Daily.

Contradicting any report by official military or government media is unusual in China given state control of the media.

What sounded more like a rant than analysis, SMN, on Sept. 23, reported the new J-15 was incapable of flying from the Liaoning with heavy weapons, “effectively crippling its attack range and firepower.”

The fighter can take off and land on the carrier with two YJ-83K anti-ship missiles, two PL-8 air-to-air missiles, and four 500-kilogram bombs. But a weapons “load exceeding 12 tons will not get it off the carrier’s ski jump ramp.” This might prohibit it from carrying heavier munitions such as PL-12 medium-range air-to-air missiles.

To further complicate things, the J-15 can carry only two tons of weapons while fully fueled. “This would equip it with no more than two YJ-83K and two PL-8 missiles,” thus the “range of the YJ-83K prepared for the fighter will be shorter than comparable YJ-83K missiles launched from larger PLAN [People’s Liberation Army Navy] vessels. The J-15 will be boxed into less than 120 [kilometers] of attack range.”

Losing the ability to carry the PL-12 medium-range air-to-air missiles will make the J-15 an “unlikely match” against other foreign carrier-based fighters.

“Even the Vietnam People’s Air Force can outmatch the PL-8 short-range missile. Without space for an electronic countermeasure pod, a huge number of J-15s must be mobilized for even simple missions, a waste for the PLA Navy in using the precious space aboard its sole aircraft carrier in service.”

Built by the Shenyang Aircraft Corporation, the J-15 is a copy of the Russian-made Su-33. China acquired an Su-33 prototype from the Ukraine in 2001. Avionics are most likely the same as the J-11B (Su-27). In 2006, Russia accused China of reverse engineering the Su-27 and canceled a production license to build 200 Su-27s after only 95 aircraft had been built.

Vasily Kashin, a China military specialist at the Moscow-based Centre for Analysis of Strategies and Technologies, suggests the J-15 might be a better aircraft than the Su-33. “I think that there might be some improvements because electronic equipment now weighs less than in the 1990s,” he said. It could also be lighter due to new composites that China is using on the J-11B that were not available on the original Su-33.

Despite improvements, Kashin wonders why the Chinese bothered with the Su-33 given the fact that Russia gave up on it. Weight problems and other issues forced the Russians to develop the MiG-29K, which has better power-to-weight ratio and can carry more weapons. “Of course, when the Chinese get their future carriers equipped with catapults, that limitation will not apply and they will be able to fully realize Su-33/J-15 potential — huge range and good payload,” Kashin said.

The Liaoning is the problem. The carrier is small — 53,000 tons — and uses a ski jump. From Russia’s experience, “taking off from the carrier with takeoff weight exceeding some 26 tons is very difficult,” Kashin said.

Roger Cliff, a China defense specialist for the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments in Washington, said this is “one of the reasons why sky-jump carriers can’t be considered to be equivalent to full-size carriers with catapults.”

A number of unanswered questions are raised by the SMN report, Kashin said, including the amount of fuel on board, carrier speed, wind speed and direction.

Cliff also raises issues with SMN’s conclusions. “It doesn’t make sense to me that the J-15 can take off with YJ-83s but not PL-12s, since the YJ-83 weighs about 1,800 pounds and the PL-12 weighs about 400 pounds.”

A possible answer is that it was unable to take off with both. “The article says that it can only carry ‘two tons’ of missiles and munitions when fully fueled, which is 4,400 pounds, and two YJ-83s plus two PL-8s would weigh over 4,000 pounds, leaving no margin for any PL-12s. But I don’t see why it couldn’t take off with PL-12s if it wasn’t carrying YJ-83s.” Cliff concludes that the J-15 should be capable of carrying PL-12s when it is flying purely air-to-air missions and that “it probably just can’t carry PL-12s when it is flying a strike mission.”

Kashin said the J-15, unlike the Su-33, should have a “potent” internal countermeasures suite, thus allowing for more space for weapons. The SMN report suggests it has an external electronic countermeasures (ECM) pod.

Weight issues should also not be too much of a problem for the J-15, he said, since the Su-33 did fly from the same type of carrier carrying “6-8 air-to-air missiles and Sorbtsia ECM pods carrying something like 6 to 6.5 tons of fuel.”

China’s next carriers will reportedly use electromagnetic catapults, Kashin said, but “limitations are significant when it comes to air-to-surface weapons, which limit the J-15’s use as a multirole fighter.


----------



## Shinigami

wanglaokan said:


> Russian is too poor to maintain SU33 in service. Mig29K is way inferior in terms of range and payload.





Beast said:


> Pure sourgraped from our Indian friends.... Mig-29K is picked becos sugardaddy Indian decide to help finance the whole Mig-29K project.
> 
> When Kuztnesov was commissioned, both Su-33 and Mig-29K were considered. Why Su-33 is chosen by Russian?
> 
> Russian are too poor to upgraded Su-33 to Chinese J-15 standard. Plain truth is hard to swallow for some.



Chinese Media Takes Aim at J-15 Fighter | Defense News | defensenews.com


hari sud said:


> *Despite improvements, Kashin wonders why the Chinese bothered with the Su-33 given the fact that Russia gave up on it. Weight problems and other issues forced the Russians to develop the MiG-29K, which has better power-to-weight ratio and can carry more weapons. *


----------



## vostok

Beast said:


> Pure sourgraped from our Indian friends.... Mig-29K is picked becos sugardaddy Indian decide to help finance the whole Mig-29K project.
> 
> When Kuztnesov was commissioned, both Su-33 and Mig-29K were considered. Why Su-33 is chosen by Russian?
> 
> Russian are too poor to upgraded Su-33 to Chinese J-15 standard. Plain truth is hard to swallow for some.


Su-33 was chosen because of building nuclear aircraft carriers (Ulyanovsk class). For the "Kuznetsov" and "Varyag" it's too heavy.


----------



## Bilal587

Pakistanisage said:


> Must you display your ignorance thru your posts. Please try to do some research before you make such bogus claims.* J-15 uses Chinese WS-10H engine*. Only the prototype used Russian engine in the beginning.
> 
> 
> The first J-15 prototype is believed to have performed its maiden flight on August 31, 2009, powered by Russian-supplied AL-31 turbofan engines.[5] Video and still images of the flight were released in July 2010, showing the same basic airframe design as the Su-33.[13] In July 2011, it was reported FWS-10H turbofan engine was chosen for J-15 fighter, which has takeoff thrust increased to 12,800 kg, comparing *FWS-10 turbofan's* 12,500 kg. Other improvements were also made to make it better suited to carrier-based fighter's requirement.[14] On May 6, 2010, the aircraft conducted its first takeoff from a simulated ski-jump.[5]
> Shenyang J-15 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



thx bro for informing ...

bro can u tell me also that when jf-17 engine chinese made available or i have heard that the proto type already have been flown by chinese engine ? how much time required to be fitted these new engine in jf-17


----------



## Akasa

FNFAL said:


> Could you fill me on that?? Maybe a link or two?
> 
> How is that related to the J-15 development?
> Bcoz the base design is of a flanker which you photo copied. Su33 is the naval variant of the su-27. Its not f15 and f18 that we are talking here.
> 
> 
> China has not officially announced the J-20 yet; does that mean such a plane does not exist?
> 
> J20首飞庆功 记住这些英雄 :: 空军世界
> This official ceremony screams J20 programme. What else do you need? A selfie of ur pm with the J20 in the backdrop?



The link to the 2006 article has been dead for some years now, but the statement still stands. This wasn't the first time that an age-old rumor has been re-posted and interpreted as fresh news. A similar thing also happened with the Tu-22M3 purchase rumors, which originally stemmed from 2010.

The fact the Russians tried to accuse the Chinese of "copying" (in which the Russian arguments held no water since both the J-11B and J-15 uses wholly homegrown technologies and subsystems) had no effect on the Chinese decision to pursue their own carrier aircraft. In fact, it even had no effect on Russia's willingness to sell planes to China; Sukhoi wished to sell the Su-33 as late as 2009.

The J-20 pictures you are seeing are not from an official PLA/AF source. They took seven years to officially reveal the J-10A after its maiden flight. The first Chinese nuclear submarine, which was commissioned in the 1970 era and has already been retired, was not revealed in detail until 2013. Photographs of the J-10B were held until four months after its maiden flight, and even then the engineers did not acknowledge its development until 2013. It is very evident that openness and transparency are not highly endorsed in their establishments.



hari sud said:


> J-15 is a dumped Russian SU-33 fighter. The Russian dumped this design in nineties in favor of MIG-29 (Naval Version). The Chinese bought a copy in Ukraine and further coping it since 2001. (Read DefenceNews)
> 
> If Su-33 was working well, then the Russians would not have dumped it. Never the less, it has become a Chinese problem. All technologies cannot be reverse engineered as the Chinese think. Hence their renamed J-15 can take off only with quarter of the ordinance load from their lone carrier. (Again DefenceNews).
> 
> Hence Chinese official propaganda has way too many pictures of J-15 taking off from their carrier. These are for show and tell purposes. It will be fool hardy to pick up a fight with MIG - 29K Naval fighters in Russian inventory or in Indian inventory.



The Chinese did not have any intentions to copy anything aboard the Su-33.

Instead, they took the airframe and filled it in with their own parts and pieces that are modernized, which is why the J-15 is essentially a brand new fighter that simply adopts a Su-33 airframe.



Shinigami said:


> Chinese Media Takes Aim at J-15 Fighter | Defense News | defensenews.com



A few American articles also claim that the F-35 will not fare well against adversaries; are those authoritative pointers in the aircraft's true capabilities? Consider those aforementioned points especially in this article, in which the author bases everything on the fact that the J-15 can't take off with a full load on the ski ramp. Ironically, that is caused by the carrier, not the plane.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Shinigami

SinoSoldier said:


> A few American articles also claim that the F-35 will not fare well against adversaries; are those authoritative pointers in the aircraft's true capabilities? Consider those aforementioned points especially in this article, in which the author bases everything on the fact that the J-15 can't take off with a full load on the ski ramp. Ironically, that is caused by the carrier, not the plane.



I still feel PLAAN screwd up. A heavyweight like j15 is not meant for ramp take off and will be ineffective due to obvious reasons. even the lighter f18 needs a catapult and it can just makeit to full load config


----------



## Akasa

Shinigami said:


> I still feel PLAAN screwd up. A heavyweight like j15 is not meant for ramp take off and will be ineffective due to obvious reasons. even the lighter f18 needs a catapult and it can just makeit to full load config



Well, if they chose to go with the J-15 rather than the originally-proposed twin-engine J-10, they obviously have their reasons. The J-15 would have very long legs and loitering time that are needed for a carrier that ultimately does not carry a lot of aircraft.


----------



## Beast

Bilal587 said:


> thx bro for informing ...
> 
> bro can u tell me also that when jf-17 engine chinese made available or i have heard that the proto type already have been flown by chinese engine ? how much time required to be fitted these new engine in jf-17



PLAAF and PLANAF dont even have JF-17. Do you think the Chinese will bother put resources and finance for a domestic engine for JF-17? Unless PAF can come up with cash to finance the Chinese domestic engine for JF-17. If not, a Chinese domestic engine for JF-17 will still be a long way to go and painfully slow.

Chinese has put priority on engine development on WS-10G and WS-15. Other engine project can wait.



vostok said:


> Su-33 was chosen because of building nuclear aircraft carriers (Ulyanovsk class). For the "Kuznetsov" and "Varyag" it's too heavy.



The Russian has long known nuclear carrier will not be commission and plan be abandon. But they still choose Su-33 over Mig-29K for their sole carrier. You can twist and hide your sourgrape but the fact is Su-33 is better than Mig-29K. Range and payload are the major factor why Russian decide to opt Su-33 early days.


----------



## Shinigami

SinoSoldier said:


> Well, if they chose to go with the J-15 rather than the originally-proposed twin-engine J-10, they obviously have their reasons. The J-15 would have very long legs and loitering time that are needed for a carrier that ultimately does not carry a lot of aircraft.



you see, J15 was chosen over j10 because the former is the derivative of a proven russian design while the latter has not (or maybe had not) earned the confidence of the PLAAF let alone the PLAAN.
and as i said before, j15 cannot have those "long legs" without a catapult.

Most people dont know this but the chinese carrier is basically a paper tiger meant for prestige and propaganda. the greatest chinese threat from the seas comes from its vast array of conventional and nuke subs and its industrial base and manufacture know how.

trust me iam a military enthusuiast and i know a lot


----------



## Akasa

Shinigami said:


> you see, J15 was chosen over j10 because the former is the derivative of a proven russian design while the latter has not (or maybe had not) earned the confidence of the PLAAF let alone the PLAAN.
> and as i said before, j15 cannot have those "long legs" without a catapult.



Being combat-tested or not has no affect on their respective capabilities, which are changed anyways since the Chinese stuck their own technologies in them and brought them to modern levels.

The J-15 still carries more fuel than the J-10 and thus has a far greater striking range and operational radius even if the ski ramp expends a lot of fuel.



Shinigami said:


> Most people dont know this but the chinese carrier is basically a paper tiger meant for prestige and propaganda. the greatest chinese threat from the seas comes from its vast array of conventional and nuke subs and its industrial base and manufacture know how.



Most people "do not know" this because this isn't true. The "Liaoning" is the third largest type of carrier that are operational or soon-operational, after the Nimitz and Ford class. It is also one of the few carriers that has a huge array of modern detection systems that comprise of active phased array radars. It is fitted with the Chinese equivalent of the Sea-RAM, which few navies use, and also the world's largest CIWS weapon. It carries 4.5 generation fighters that also very few nations are capable of having, let alone building. If that carrier is a "paper tiger", then one could imagine what kind of paper cats the Vikramaditya, Charles de Gaulle, and Queen Elizabeth are.



Shinigami said:


> trust me iam a military enthusuiast and i know a lot



After reading the entire post, one starts to have serious doubts about that statement.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Shinigami

SinoSoldier said:


> Being combat-tested or not has no affect on their respective capabilities, which are changed anyways since the Chinese stuck their own technologies in them and brought them to modern levels.
> 
> The J-15 still carries more fuel than the J-10 and thus has a far greater striking range and operational radius even if the ski ramp expends a lot of fuel.
> 
> 
> 
> Most people "do not know" this because this isn't true. The "Liaoning" is the third largest type of carrier that are operational or soon-operational, after the Nimitz and Ford class. It is also one of the few carriers that has a huge array of modern detection systems that comprise of active phased array radars. It is fitted with the Chinese equivalent of the Sea-RAM, which few navies use, and also the world's largest CIWS weapon. It carries 4.5 generation fighters that also very few nations are capable of having, let alone building. If that carrier is a "paper tiger", then one could imagine what kind of paper cats the Vikramaditya, Charles de Gaulle, and Queen Elizabeth are.
> 
> After reading the entire post, one starts to have serious doubts about that statement.



hmm... looks like your patriotism has clouded your judgement. bye


----------



## UKBengali

Shinigami said:


> I still feel PLAAN screwd up. A heavyweight like j15 is not meant for ramp take off and will be ineffective due to obvious reasons. even the lighter f18 needs a catapult and it can just makeit to full load config




Of course you know more than some of the smartest men in China

The J-15 can take off with full fuel and the whole assortment of air-to-air missiles from the Varyag currently.

It cannot take off with full fuel and the whole assortment of air-to-ground weapons due to the fact that there is no catapult.

For the Varyag, China is happy to have a purely air-to-air fighter that will be able to provide air-cover to the fleet.

Future Chinese carriers, that will have catapults, will allow the J-15 to be utilised to it's maximum capabilities.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Beast

Shinigami said:


> hmm... looks like your patriotism has clouded your judgement. bye



More like you are trying to put down Chinese advancement at any cost. We Chinese know what is worth listening and what is pure sourgraped from fanatic who cannot accept rise of China.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Shinigami

Beast said:


> More like you are trying to put down Chinese advancement at any cost. We Chinese know what is worth listening and what is pure sourgraped from fanatic who cannot accept rise of China.


i am being pragmatic. this is my area of expertise. if you do some research, you will see that everything i say is true
and i am not dumb enough to "put down Chinese advancement"


----------



## Manticore



Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## Superboy

Rather than build a catapult carrier, IMO a bigger ski jump carrier is better. I don't trust the reliability of catapults.


----------



## Akasa

Shinigami said:


> hmm... looks like your patriotism has clouded your judgement. bye



One's so-called "patriotism" has no affect on the capabilities of an aircraft carrier.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## lcloo

Superboy said:


> Rather than build a catapult carrier, IMO a bigger ski jump carrier is better. I don't trust the reliability of catapults.


 There will be a cat launch in new ac, many think that 001 should have a ski ramp and a cat, that may actually reflect that they are sharing your concern regarding reliability of a cat. 

Remember the first unit of a product is always having problems, and any solution found in fixing that problems will be apply to all subsequent units. Thus 001A or 002 will be a better ship. Thus even if you dont think cat is reliable, you still have to have it, for future sake. Even CV Liaoning will have many problems in operation procedures and hardware application that need to be fixed and any lessons learned will be apply to later ships, that is why CV liaoning is doing not only training but also tests and experiments.

And cat launch carrier is the ultimate solution because you will need it to launch max load jets aw well as large heavy AWAC aircrafts

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## cnleio

China J-15 full load model, official release

4x C803 anti-ship missiles
2x YJ-62 super-sonic anti-ship missiles
4x PL-8 anti-aircraft missiles









vs




China JH-7A

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## xhw1986

cnleio said:


> China J-15 full load model, official release
> 
> 4x C803 anti-ship missiles
> 2x YJ-62 super-sonic anti-ship missiles
> 4x PL-8 anti-aircraft missiles
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> vs
> 
> China JH-7A



What about JH-7B ?


----------



## cnleio

xhw1986 said:


> What about JH-7B ?


Rumor ... no real plane come out yet.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## cirr

UKBengali said:


> Any idea how many J-15s China plans to produce?



24-28，including J-15S and a couple of J-15Gs for electronic warfare。

J-15B with AESA、upgraded avionics etc is said to debut in 2014。

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## cirr

Fsjal said:


> I think it's better for J-15 to be main naval fighter of China until 2030's. The J-15 would be cheaper since it is not stealth.
> 
> By 2030, I think J-31 will be a good choice to replace the J-15. J-20 isn't really a good plane to replace J-15, since it is too big and heavy. Also, naval J-20 would need to carry less load, sacrificing it's weapon loadout and range.
> 
> If China was to make a V/STOL plane, like Harrier or F-35B, the J-31 would be a good candidate.
> 
> In my opinion, China needs 3 CATOBAR carriers and 5 small carriers for V/STOL planes. By 2030, China would need to replace J-15 with J-31.



The PLAN can't wait that long。

The design of carrier borne 5th gen stealth fighter jet will be finalized soon（waiting for the outcome from two competing bids），with the arrival of the 1st prototype expected in 2015 or 2016。

This means that China will have to rely on J-15 and J-15B for at least the next 8 years, hence the "decision" to build one(possibly two) Type 001A Liaoning variant(s) in place of flattops(Type 002 conventional or Type 003 nuclear driven with steam catapult(done) or EMALS(1:1 engineering prototype in initial test runs),respectively).

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## cirr

Bilal587 said:


> Im so concerned about chinese engines why they not been able to make it ? while making excellent beast planes.
> 
> btw what engine J-15 uses is it Russian made ?



It's the engine again.

I have said it earlier and will repeat it：

China will continue to use Russian engines for Russian made jets，which are in their hundreds and include Su-27s、Su-30s and J-11As（assembled from Russian supplied kits）。

China will use Chinese engines for Chinese made jets，such as J-10B（not for initial batch）、J-11B、J-11BS、J-15、J-16 etc。

Production rate is a limiting factor and China is in no hurry to ramp up the capacity，for better engines are on the way and now is no time for an arms race。

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## cirr

I have it on authoritative source regarding J-15：

Max Mach No.：2.17
Max load：6.5 tons
Max combat range：1270km
Wing span：14.7m
Folded wing span：8.4m

How do the above compare with Mig-29K？

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## BigDaddyWatch

Watch this documentary. Here is the real reason why the Russian choose the SU-33 over the MiG-29 in the 1990's. They start talking about the Flanker and the Fulcrum from 42:50 onwards.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Akasa

cirr said:


> 24-28，including J-15S and a couple of J-15Gs for electronic warfare。
> 
> J-15B with AESA、upgraded avionics etc is said to debut in 2014。



Correction: the J-15B should not be a "new variant", but rather the late-model combat-capable production version of the J-15, which is currently only serving as a trainer. What happened to the original 2015 date for its reveal?



cirr said:


> I have it on authoritative source regarding J-15：
> 
> Max Mach No.：2.17
> Max load：6.5 tons
> Max combat range：1270km
> Wing span：14.7m
> Folded wing span：8.4m
> 
> How do the above compare with Mig-29K？



Max combat load of 6.5 tons? That is only 500 kg heavier than that of the J-10A and 1.5 tons less than that of the J-16. Max range of 1270 km? That is less than the combat radius of the JF-17. For a fighter that uses two 132 kN engines and the same airframe as a Flanker that is likely to be a bogus.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## cirr

SinoSoldier said:


> Correction: the J-15B should not be a "new variant", but rather the late-model combat-capable production version of the J-15, which is currently only serving as a trainer. What happened to the original 2015 date for its reveal?
> 
> 
> 
> Max combat load of 6.5 tons? That is only 500 kg heavier than that of the J-10A and 1.5 tons less than that of the J-16. Max range of 1270 km? That is less than the combat radius of the JF-17. For a fighter that uses two 132 kN engines and the same airframe as a Flanker that is likely to be a bogus.



（1）You are completely screwed up concerning J-15 and its future variants。J-15 is combat-ready as it is。J-15B will be equipped with AESA and more advanced avionics etc。J-15S is for both training and ground attack capability。There will also be J-15s for electronic warfare and mate-refueling。

（2）We are talking about carrier-borne fighter here，not your run-of-the-mill land based jets。
You should feel very pleased that J-15 is such a lethal machine。Do you have any idea what India's Mig-29K is capable of？Ask Indians！

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## shuttler

CG sample of appearance J-15 on duty (credit: 3ders.org)


The following is a video clip from Guangdong Cable TV confirming the production of J-15. J-15 was seen in its new look (Navy coloured paint, and PLAAF insignia & "Flying Shark" flashes appropriately painted on various parts of the plane)

【直播全球】歼-15正式量产列装—在线播放—优酷网，视频高清在线观看

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## shuttler

Bilal587 said:


> thx bro for informing ...
> 
> bro can u tell me also that when jf-17 engine chinese made available or i have heard that the proto type already have been flown by chinese engine ? how much time required to be fitted these new engine in jf-17



As for the engines of JF-17, I'll try to post the news about that here.
or on this thread:
JF-17 Thunder Multirole Fighter [Thread 5]

if I have the info.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## shuttler

*歼15挂载伙伴加油吊舱秘照曝光
来源：环球网 2014年01月03日09:20

J-15 pictures equipped with a fuel pod on the centerline*











Credit: xinhuanet, people.com.cn, huanqiu

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Kyle Sun

TurboProp said:


> I think frameless canopy will give J-15 fighter better look.


It cost a lot of money ,dude!

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## xhw1986

*The Chinese Navy released two photos of a J-15 tandem seat ejection test being carried out at supersonic speed. *

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Kyle Sun

pic ?


----------



## xhw1986

Kyle Sun said:


> pic ?


Two photos have been released.


----------



## Rashid Mahmood




----------



## veekysingh

cant see any pic, post again.


----------



## Imran Khan

i am trying to watch but failed


----------



## xhw1986

veekysingh said:


> cant see any pic, post again.





Imran Khan said:


> i am trying to watch but failed


Can you see the photos now ?

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Rashid Mahmood



Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Imran Khan

yes its clear


----------



## xhw1986

Kyle Sun said:


> pic ?


Fixed


----------



## veekysingh

yes , I see them now, but how do u know its for j-15? it can be for any Chinese fighter.


----------



## Akasa

veekysingh said:


> yes , I see them now, but how do u know its for j-15? it can be for any Chinese fighter.



It's not a J-15. It was an old J-10A seat prototype during its days.


----------



## gambit

veekysingh said:


> yes , I see them now, but how do u know its for j-15? it can be for any Chinese fighter.


If you wonder about the partial fuselage in the test pics, the seats may be a new design for the J-15, but the reason why we use a partial fuselage of a different aircraft is because we want to produce certain airflow at speed to see if the new seat are affected in anyway, most crucial are the first few milliseconds when the seat is initially exposed to supersonic air. It does not have to be the exact nose section of the J-15 or whatever aircraft, as long as the test nose section is of approximate design of the intended aircraft or aircrafts, the airstream produced at speed will be close enough.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## acetophenol

Excuse my ignorance,but the pic shows a part of cockpit moving in what appears to be some sort of rails,showing the model is in land.Is it possible to achieve "supersonic" speed in land?I believe the supersonic part is wrong,if else please prove me wrong.


----------



## Kompromat

acetophenol said:


> Excuse my ignorance,but the pic shows a part of cockpit moving in what appears to be some sort of rails,showing the model is in land.Is it possible to achieve "supersonic" speed in land?I believe the supersonic part is wrong,if else please prove me wrong.




Because there is a rocket motor at the end of it, how could you miss the rocket exhaust?


----------



## AMCA

acetophenol said:


> Excuse my ignorance,but the pic shows a part of cockpit moving in what appears to be some sort of rails,showing the model is in land.Is it possible to achieve "supersonic" speed in land?I believe the supersonic part is wrong,if else please prove me wrong.



Yes.. Its called a Rocket Sled or Forward Velocity Sled I believe. You can witness one if you have the opportunity to Visit NAL in future.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## acetophenol

Aeronaut said:


> Because there is a rocket motor at the end of it, how could you miss the rocket exhaust?



I did see the rocket motors in the end,but my question is,is it possible to attain supersonic speeds in land,even with rocket engines attached to you?


----------



## Kompromat

acetophenol said:


> I did see the rocket motors in the end,but my question is,is it possible to attain supersonic speeds in land,even with rocket engines attached to you?



Yes it is possible.

They are building SGVs (Supersonic Ground Vehicles) too.

BBC News - Bloodhound supersonic car replica on display at Cardiff Bay

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## lcloo

Land vehicle powered by jet engine achieved World Supersonic record in 1997

From Wiki

ThrustSSC, Thrust SSC, or Thrust supersonic car, is a British jet-propelled car developed by Richard Noble, Glynne Bowsher, Ron Ayers and Jeremy Bliss.[1]

Thrust SSC holds the World Land Speed Record, set on 15 October 1997, when it achieved a speed of 1,228 km/h (763 mph) and became the first car to officially break the sound barrier.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## acetophenol

Thanks for the clarifications folks!


----------



## mrnohnaimers

hari sud said:


> J-15 is a dumped Russian SU-33 fighter. The Russian dumped this design in nineties in favor of MIG-29 (Naval Version). The Chinese bought a copy in Ukraine and further coping it since 2001. (Read DefenceNews)
> 
> If Su-33 was working well, then the Russians would not have dumped it. Never the less, it has become a Chinese problem. All technologies cannot be reverse engineered as the Chinese think. Hence their renamed J-15 can take off only with quarter of the ordinance load from their lone carrier. (Again DefenceNews).
> 
> Hence Chinese official propaganda has way too many pictures of J-15 taking off from their carrier. These are for show and tell purposes. It will be fool hardy to pick up a fight with MIG - 29K Naval fighters in Russian inventory or in Indian inventory.



This is one of the most moronic thing's I've ever heard.
1) Assuming similar thrust to weight ratios and from the same generation, the larger aircraft will always have greater range and weapons payload than the smaller aircraft. That's why the Indian Airforce bought a large # of Su-30MKIs and is producing them under license instead of going all out on Mig-29Ks. By taking off from a ski jump will not change this simple fact, especially considering the Mig-29s are harder to take off compared to Su-33 (Mig-29 have higher stall speed).

2) Su-33s with the Russian navy did not have this weapon payload problem. There's no reason the J-15 will have weapons payload problem especially considering J-15 is most likely significantly lighter than Su-33 due to use of composites. The Chinese have have extensively used composites to save weight (eg, Jh-7A, J-11B), for a shipborne fighter in which weight is even more important it's ridiculous to think that they didn't use composite to save weight. 

3) The Russians went with Mig-29K because of cost. As everybody already knows the unit cost of a fighter decreases dramatically as the # of units produced increases. INS Vikramaditya is a much smaller ship with less storage space and shorter flight deck, Su-33s never were an option. When Russia piggy backed on India's order of Mig-29K, their per unit cost decreased dramatically. On the other hand, if they went with newly built Su-33s they'd be the only customer and thus much higher per unit cost (the Su-33 they currently have are old and outdated)

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Kiss_of_the_Dragon

China should place few squadrons of J-15 in Tibet, with canard configuration that will drastically improve the take off on Tibet runways.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Akasa

(20131104开贴)歼15 9吨内油还可以挂5吨弹药。 对海 鹰击83K 5枚 两格斗弹 3.7吨左右。 对地 500公斤激光制导炸弹6枚或者憋版JDMA或者KD88A 两枚格斗弹 3.5吨 空战8枚PL12C加4枚PL10 3吨。这些是195米起飞点挂载能力。
*1 .* 2 号起飞点 7.5吨内油 6枚霹雳12C 4枚霹雳10 2吨多一点。。。。。
这是飞出来的数据。
至于9吨内油 5吨弹药挂载，只飞了两三次。。。具体什么挂载 先不说了 
忘了补充一下。。。。这是在24节航速下得出的数据。 辽宁舰由于锅炉方面的成绩 在28节速度都可以很长时间保持，极速飙到过30节 
飞五吨弹那两次 。那种弹药才是保密度比较高的，一种对地的 一种对舰的 。 陆地飞的真弹，舰上飞的假弹
飞9吨油5吨弹药那两次 起飞轨迹不是很理想。。 上头不太满意，说是舰机配合不到位。飞了两次就没飞了。
平了三百米
舰载预警机遇到大麻烦了。。。。。。。。。。。。
明年就会通过各种渠道公布了。。。。。也没什么可隐瞒的。(20131104)
我不知道001A的情况 。。。
伙伴加油很早前就飞过了。
（海盘）新平台有问题，有向后延后计划的打算。。要改的地方不少。机体设计挨批啦，得改，被骂 拖了后腿。。 
我们以6小时为一个计算周期。（回答辽宁长时间高航速）
网上那个算纯标本。据某个老头说我读书的时候就有了。（回答网上Y7改图）
平300米的时候 高度60米 而后转入正常飞行。我们规定滑越甲板出去时低于25米记入一次安全警告记录。
（海盘）18.6米 26米 6.2米 巡航速度要在500以上 巡航时间不能低于5小时 还得改。。。。。
当时气象条件 风速都比较好，他觉得战场环境恶劣一点的话这样就不行。（回答平三百米不让飞）
我会选择合适的时候发一些当时的照片。
额，没马甲穿。就是个闲逛的。上去收数据，然后需要调整的调整。（回答是否甲板上穿马甲的）
最近进展不错，也有点时间休息，所以发上来为那几个 大叔 老头 高兴一下。
我们要求飞行员着舰至少保留15%左右的油量。最多的时候带了两吨多一点的弹药着舰。
下一步要做完全侧风的起飞。这是我们最紧张的。
我不是舰上人员。。。。我们上去采数据的 也不是每次都我去。
（海盘）主要设计是以弹射为重点，但是也能以25吨的重量滑跃起飞。
现在为止我们的测试都是很保守的，留有很大的安全余度。以后会逐渐增加测试强度和难度。
进展不错 除了预警机 其他都很顺利 所以为那几个大叔老头高兴一下。平时对我挺关照的。出于开心，奉命的话就轮不到我啦。。。。。基本都是些对 保密来说无关痛痒的东西。呵呵挺高兴的。。。。。
帮各研究组成员跑腿的角色，船上船下白天夜里都要跑。
当时确实气象条件不错，如果只靠24节的速度，可能起飞轨迹会下沉，至于还剩多少安全余度 还得进行测试，这方面还没有展开。下一步 侧风的起飞测试完了之后 也许会跟进。
其实这个公开图的起飞重量是31吨。。。。。。。。。
这个起飞重量是28.7吨
近点的9吨油带了两枚中距弹两枚格斗弹。后面的情况新闻没播，不是很轻松的飞行轨迹。24节
（空重）18700公斤。算滑油 飞行员 和两个常用挂架。翼尖是设计挂架
我们还没开始极限数据的测试。 这次是搞侧风的起降和夜间的多批次起降。
额。。。。。。没KH41那么大 。挂了三枚（回答飞五吨弹那次的新弹）
是两种比较新的弹
从别国得到的数据显示库兹涅佐夫号不能长时间保持24节的航速对苏33的起飞造成很大影响 。
这次跑其他地方去了 没上舰。我们采数的五个人得伺候好几个研究团队 跑腿工。
以后会飞极限挂载，至今飞过最高的就是接近33吨和前点28.7吨。。。。。。还没测试过下沉的极限起飞轨 迹。实弹的挂载也还没测试，伙伴加油只挂过没装配完的主加油仓。侧风的起降也还没做。。。还有得弄了。慢慢 来。
有几款比较重的新型弹药。反舰和对地的，一吨多和两吨级别的。他们希望是能尽可能的得到歼15各种条件下所 能做到的数据。。。。
对面武器挂起来飞过的就KD88A YJ83K 还有两款新蛋。一吨多一个的。。 他那个图第二张的怕是要接近极限挂载了吧，还没飞过极限挂载呢。（回答高山CG）
滑跃是依靠战机自身动力和气动性能，只要飞机的动力够强，起飞的气动性能够好，推重比够高，理论上对飞机起 飞重量并无限制。
弹射对比滑越的优势在于起飞更节省甲板空间使甲板能放更多飞机，起飞效率更高，对于不好的天气环境起飞适应 性更好。很多人对于弹射和滑越的认识不全造成各种误解。
前点我们现在飞过最高的重量是28.7吨，起飞线长105米 起飞滑越距离是95米 这样短的距离在现在的发动机推力水平上就必然比不过使用距离差不多的弹射了。如果发动机推重比比现在高得多 ，前点的起飞重量也不是不能跟弹射相比甚至更大。说到底还是发动机推重比水平高低限制着滑越甲板的飞机起飞 重量。
按我们从国外弄到的一些数据来看。米格29K在远点都能以接近22吨的重量起飞，油料弹药总载荷都可以达到 9吨多。
歼15 设计指标舰上起飞的最大重量极限是34.5吨。 他这个38吨应该是理论值吧。。。。舰载机训练大纲里面也没说过。
单机极限测试还早呢。暂时没看见实验安排。下一步侧风起降 实弹挂载 。夜间起降实际上次就进行过初期测试了，后面还要继续。。。。能看见的实验进度表后期是三起飞点恶劣天气条 件下 挂弹 密集起飞。。。
噢。舰载伙伴加油测试还没搞，上次弄了个没装配完全的主加油吊舱飞了几次。后面还要继续
实际上以前也考虑过米格29K 。因为给我们的数据是 母舰20多节航速下 远点可以载5吨多的油 外挂4吨多执行作战任务。后面综合各方面考虑包括本身对性能的需求 和 中间还掺杂着一些我们隐形舰载机发展计划（要求保密）的情况下马上就否决了。
现在看来当初的决定没错。。
是这样。甲板风对提高舰载机的载荷帮助很大，差不多的飞行轨迹。24节甲板风与没有甲板风之间的载荷可以相 差几吨。
同意，我们现在还没飞过极限下沉轨迹。等准备充足之后会尝试。（回答：这实际上就是滑跃起飞的特点，不允许 平飞段出现是约束了滑跃起飞的最大重量，或者说之是约束了滑跃起飞的效率，之所以不允许平飞段出现只不过是 滑跃起飞在世界范围内仍是新事物，无经验下不敢放手去试而已。）
对，美国的航母弹射重挂载舰载机的时候一样需要母舰高速航行来配合起飞。搞核动力航母除了众所周知的好处之 外追求持续的高航速来配合舰载机也是主要原因之一。 
这个确有其事，普加乔夫进行极限轨迹测试的时候飞过31吨多 前点。以前通过乌克兰渠道弄到的测试数据里面有提到这个事情，轨迹下降到了20米安全线之下拉起来的。（回 答普加乔夫在前点飞起过31.8吨）
有钻地弹，反舰弹，防区外武器等，一吨级别 两吨左右级别。。 型号比较新 没了。（回答新弹）
俄罗斯胆很大的，步子比我们迈得大。普加乔夫飞前点31吨多 这没胆没能力的不敢轻易尝试，安全线之下都快坠海了才拉起来的。
我们都是小碎步稳稳当当。
通过数百架次的测试，我国渤海一带的气候条件有的季节有时候会让战机推力减少4%左右，至今没发现更高的推 力损失。这也是为什么平了300米上头都不满意的原因，安全余度留得很大。
不考虑自然风24节和18节的对比这个一系列的详细数据没经过计算不敢乱说。
陆地相对无风状态和舰上24节航速加自然风的测试对比相同起飞距离相同滑越角度的载荷是差了好 几吨
库兹涅佐夫号有一段时间的航速还是不错的，后来某些原因造成以后的动力问题。俄罗斯还派了人来想获得一些帮 助。现在还在洽谈中。
（辽宁）滑跃甲板的角度船厂给来的资料说是 14.3度。
你这个模型挂了5吨多。。。不过我们测试进气道下方的挂架只挂过中距弹。机翼折叠处外面那个挂架可以挂85 0公斤左右的武器。（20131116）
换KD88A 有卫星制导滑翔炸弹 有激光制导炸弹 有反辐射导弹 防区外对地导弹 又有格斗弹中距弹防身。。。。对地的多任务没问题啦。
没有。就是增快母舰航速，选择合适的风向航向和以后换装更大推力的发动机。。。现在挂三枚1.5吨的某型对 地巡航弹也就平了300米，安全余度还很足。（回答有无针对超重载起飞的辅助措施比如火箭助飞 ）
最低配置24 标准30（回答辽宁会载多少J15）
机翼折叠处外的那个挂架可以挂920公斤左右的武器。 肌腹中线挂架可以串两枚500公斤炸弹或者一枚反舰弹
从现在知道的数据来看，两个前点起飞的歼15油料加弹药总载荷可以略超过米格29K195米起飞的最大载荷 。。
特殊情况下留一定的安全余度下应该还能提高0.5-1吨的载荷，现在前点飞过最高重量是28.7吨。整个飞行轨迹无下沉但有转平的现象。
早就研究过各方优劣了，当初选择重型机也是考虑重型机底子好 弥补一下与弹射的差距。。要是用米格29K的话与F18E差距太大。。
粗略的计算同样的甲板面积 同样的舰载机 滑越方式甲板载机量只能达到弹射的70% 
恶劣天气条件下弹射所能起飞的海况可以高一到两级，这次出去的辽宁舰训练了 四级海况的起飞。
同样的条件弹射的重载效率比滑越方式高得多，与尼米兹级相比辽宁舰重载起飞效率只有它的30% 
所以上头还是要求走弹射的路。。。第二艘真正国产的航母（不算辽宁舰和某改进型）一直是计划上 弹射器的。
850--920公斤，连挂架和不连挂架的区别，70公斤一个挂架一般的重载，超重的那种有一两百公斤的。（回答机翼 折叠处挂架到底挂多重）
换新相控阵雷达？ 新款的那个好像更重。。。我们不负责那个 。不好发表看法，只知道性能很不错。具体什么时候装不知道。（回答J15以后会否换相控阵雷达 ）
歼15主要是机翼折叠位造成外面那个挂架 强度损失。
重载起飞效能比不上尼米兹级，但比戴高乐号那种中型弹射航母是没问题的。。。
空战任务能达到尼米兹级的70%。这也不错的。
量产型跟歼16一个档次的雷达航电系统。（回答J15雷达）
在安全的情况下，前后点应该还能有0.5-1吨的载荷提升空间。 这在以后的训练测试中还要继续。。
当时歼16基本都搞定后，上头很高兴。就说了一句话。 我们的第一代舰载机也要达到这个水平，那是我们的远洋保障。
好吧，辽宁舰的弹药库 油库，动力舱，机库的某些部分 加装了一种新研制的材料和损管设备，有什么用呢？？，似乎很有用。
米格29K挂重型武器最多挂两枚，其他重载挂点要挂副油箱 不然飞不远，选择歼15的时候就考虑过这一点。
歼15与苏33在外部设备上只有一些细节的变化，机翼折叠后也是一模一样长。7.4米
航母编队测试训练在舰载机所有测试实验任务完成之前就会展开。2014年年底之前。。。。（回答舰载机试验 估计还要多长时间才完成）
根据实验进度表来看2015年基本能完成所有舰载机和母舰的测试任务。 
详细点应该说是2015年基本能完成歼15单座，某型通用直升机，母舰的测试实验任务。。。
三亚太黑了，一顿饭吃了两千多，几个普通菜而已。。。（20131130）
同时起降，意思是1.2号起飞点战备值班飞机待飞 或者准备起飞的同时，回收带弹的降落飞机。军官说这很重要。。
这个不算新，以前也弄过 这次算正式操练。
然后。其他的 只能说很热闹。很刺激。我从没经历过这些。闪了。过段时间再来。（回答南海有没有新科目）
轮流操练，1.2号起飞点待飞准备的飞机 等带弹降落的飞机降落后飞出去一架，降落的飞机补上2号点的位置待飞准备，第二架降落的飞机降落后，1号点 的飞机起飞，第二架降落的飞机补上1号点位置待飞准备。。
如此循环了几十个架次。。。当然机库的其他飞机也从升降机升上来轮流操练。
这次可待久了。没两个月怕是不不肯走了。看来过段时间我得坐运保障设备的飞机回去了。（201 31201）
实际上，从斜角甲板中线冲出去，J15的翼尖也擦不到偏流板。大概有3米多的间隙。
三亚这地方消费有点高。。。。。。这次我居然有点晕船的迹象。一路跑得有点快。有点颠簸。
最后回下贴。这次搞高海况起降，夜间多批次起降（加强版）。编队防空训练。。。。。。高海况。会吐的。（2 0131201）
很长时间以来参加测试的不止这三架，只是没曝光。。。J15已经进入了小批量产阶段。这次不止 3架 但也不多。。。
现在大概有20架左左右右。。。。
2号点与飞机降落回收同时运作已经有一定的架次了。保证回收作业的同时前点有一到两架值班飞机随时起飞作战 。。。。
2015年要完成所有的舰机实验任务。。。。。2014-2015年航母这一块会有重大的事情发生。比如说某改型国产航母等。比如固定翼舰载预警机可能会曝光。16 号舰也会到一个高峰期，会看见甲板上很多各种的飞机。有些是现在没上过新闻的。（201312 02）
2015年完成舰机所有试验任务是工作安排。。其他的都是我猜的。。如今资讯这么发达我看也隐藏不了多久。 。。
到现在为止甲板上还从来没同时运作超过5架战机。。。。还要点耐心。
2号点参与同时起降作业 已经是常态化训练，没有想象中那么危险。
俄罗斯的锅炉 但从锅炉内部 到外部设备全部被改过 可以说是面目全非。。。
嗯，侧风起飞和降落是必练科目。。。
2号点参与同时起降作业已经是常态训练之一了
必须有国产发动机。再等等，时间长了会慢慢曝光滴。。。（回答J15后续发动机）
准备前的时间暂时不来了。。准备准备要晕船喽。再见各位。。（20131203）
累惨了。瘦了五斤 吐了十几次。。。晕船药似乎没啥效果啊。也可能浪太大。通报说6级海况。。。。还开高速！受不了。测试机库 和甲板的飞机固定。。。（20131223）
话说这次测试整舰 和护航舰艇的电子系统电磁兼容，某国的巡洋舰收到了风声 心急火燎的开过来。。。
第一次看见了11管的近防炮开火，右舷 两门 嗡嗡嗡的声音。。。。以前只听同事说过。他们见过了，这次轮到我大饱眼福了。。嘿嘿
短时间我是没什么反应，长时间 受不了。。。。不过虽然吐了幸好还能吃得下东西。舰上有做披萨的。加培根。。。饮料就不敢多喝 了 喝一点点。
新设计的机体。。。（回答海盘为何不用Y12）
通用直升机。。。。。比直九大。
25节甲板风 160米长的平甲板 就可以放飞25吨的类似E2的窝浆飞机。。。我们就是朝E2这个标准在走，或许会超过E2的技 术指标。
说看见 实际也就一个黑点。。。别人不说我还以为是个芝麻。。。在编队区域内左冲右突 摆明了捣乱。看见辽宁舰的位置后开直线过来想伴行。中途被一艘大船挡住了。（20131224 ）
舰上厨房还真有咸鸭蛋，。。，。。早餐 稀饭陪咸鸭蛋 或者豆浆配油条啊。。包子也有 白菜猪肉馅的。
谢谢。。。。。。有成果的话也不觉得怎么累。最郁闷的时候搞一个东西最后 白辛苦。比如等了整整一天因为各种原因也没弄到数据的时候。。
电子水平设计超E2C。。。当然还要看以后实际出来之后的测试数据。。。
不能说的 我不敢说。。。。前途不能开玩笑。三十岁的人了 。
比较有意思的一点我注意到了，。。 几乎每次都有随舰记者啊几乎。。。。保密测试的时候让他们呆舱室里面斗地主，有时候让他们出来拍拍照。呵呵 呵。不准单独接触。
一分钟 接近一万发的射速哟。。。（回答11管）
有啊，测试舰机适配，高海况下的甲板 机库固定必须要真飞机，还有各种直升机。。（回答这次有无带J15）
那大船 和巡洋舰都只能看到一个黑点而已，不知道有多大。隔太远。
伴随我们的驱逐舰开了一段距离。 当时的驱逐舰大概在辽宁舰的20多公里远。然后朝辽宁舰开过来，半路被一艘大船拦住了。。
近防 ，电子系统 ，声呐。。（回答新闻说是综合测试作战系统，包括电磁兼容还有什么）
非常不错，动力充沛，起伏不大，综合作战系统都运作正常。。。（回答6级海况表现如何）
设计可以，实际还没挂过。。。。。。只挂过两吨的。（回答J15腹部前后两个挂点联合起来使用，可以挂单件 4吨的重物）
高海况飞过了，次数不多，四级海况。。。
这次最高的时候有六级海况。。。。我就是这么吐的。
2015年会看到个大概。。（回答舰载预警机进度）
噢。。。。。。美国人恶人先告状啊，他们在编队内乱窜 阻挡正常航行 在提前警告的情况下还企图靠近辽宁舰，幸好半路把它拦了。。。
一种传感器，全面衡量船体的状况，了解其不同部位的变形力矩、剪切压力、甲板所受的抨击力。。 。。
可测量船体的弯曲应力，而且可测量海浪对湿甲板的抨击力。
这东西不属于我的工作范畴。。。。。。。我那时候呆在机库检测 飞机固定受力。（回答甲板上一排白色物体是什么）
坐直九到另外一艘船搞定一些事情之后 从那艘船爬下来的。。。。（回答是否先爬到交通艇上然后摆渡上岸）
不敢威武，飞过去 顺带把我捎上的 。。。呃呃呃。老一辈真是值得钦佩，我也一直被关怀照顾。版主老大四十多了？？？我82年的 小你一轮啊，你也是前辈。
似乎科研行业的身体都不怎么样。熬夜熬的吧。还有经常接触一些有害物质。。橡胶什么的 长久下来都危害健康。颈椎病，慢性气管炎 鼻炎 这些。
2015年应该会透露出一些大概，上舰还早。。。。除非有大进展（回答海盘）
2015年辽宁舰基本就是青壮年了。。。能参与持械斗殴了。
通用直升机嘛。。。会发展舰载型，这个系列我没参与过，数据就不知道了。。
稳步推进中。这个回答有点那个啥。。。。。。我自己都觉得吐。（回答太行上舰）
至今为止 我就到过餐厅 住舱 机库 甲板 舰桥 。洗衣房这些。。 ，但确定没有变成机库的一部分 因为机库的前端也就稍微过了前一个升降机一点点。再往前就是弹药库了。。。（回答辽宁舰上原来放反舰导弹的 地方现在变成啥了）
实际上每次飞行 都有搜救直升机待命 新闻里面没拍那个画面而已。。
滑跃航母，重点是舰体设计。。。（回答第一艘自制的航母，会不会装蒸汽弹射器）
我只知道北方的。。（回答第二艘自制航母）
2015年 舰载机方面可能有个惊喜。。。。。嘿嘿嘿
歼15的各种改型中的一种至关重要的。。。对战力提升非常有帮助的。
惭愧惭愧 辅助人员一个 打下手的，跟搞科研的比差一大截。中航工业集团直属部门。由集团分配工作。
能带，长剑10？？？ 没见带过。KD88A 还有一些激光制导炸弹 卫星制导的滑翔炸弹 这些对地武器都可以带。火箭发射巢什么的等等。。。（回答J15能否带对陆攻击弹药）
长。。。（回答你给的18.6米是长还是翼展？）
所以国产滑跃航母会扩展一点宽度。。（回答预警机只能从3号长跑道起飞，翼展太宽不好调度）
精确地就不说了 。。。大概的试验情况是 195米处起飞在一定条件配合下大概 推比0.72-0.75就可以比较稳妥的滑跃起飞。。。。。105米处同样条件就是大概 0.86-0.88.。。 增加10米甲板 这个能产生什么 我不知道。。。
前批次不是AESA。后面的会慢慢上。前面楼层也说过这个。进度合适的话2015年底到2016年有一款比 较强的雷达系统会开始装配，前批次的也会慢慢换装。（回答中秋的航电和J16一样，那就是AESA雷达，数 字电传）
8中四近不是接近三吨？带挂架2.7吨。。（回答确定是接近三吨？）

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Stealth

Above Article for Chinese: 

For all other communities on PDF: 

assadsaddasdasdsadasdas
asdsadasdasdasdwq213k423rkofdesaw
rft34ffmmm465j543t6
sdfjm34653m4564m3g
sfsdmfdsmm345m34m534
sdfmsdmfwm34m543m534m534sdfdsm
3453m44mrmwfdsdf

  OOO BHAI KEHNA KYA CHAHTAY HOO!!

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Pakistanisage

dvjklasdjv'lkasl;kv'ladsmvl;sadm'lfakdslngklsamvlmsd;LAq
smfd;smvadms;lvmads;lvm;lasdkmvf;lakms;lvgfas
nknfmdsalmgladsmglsdamlvms/lamg/sldmgklsdm/dg

@SinoSoldier

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Genesis

Fuel capacity about 9 ton, 8,000 KG give or take.

5 ton weaponry, so 45 hundred.

Usually, it's about 3.5 ton weapons, for air to air, it's 12 missiles, for sea, it's 7, for land it's 8.

The usual can be done with 24 knots of carrier speed, the carrier can go up to 28, and 30 if needed.



Full, 9 and 5 has been tried a few times, but the result is not great. So not tried again since. 


refueling has happened for a while now.


25 tons take off is about the standard right now, this is a modest weight for safety right now, will be stepped up later. 


early warning plane is a no go on Liaoning.


rest don't want to read, too damn long.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Akasa

Genesis said:


> Fuel capacity about 9 ton, 8,000 KG give or take.
> 
> 5 ton weaponry, so 45 hundred.
> 
> Usually, it's about 3.5 ton weapons, for air to air, it's 12 missiles, for sea, it's 7, for land it's 8.
> 
> The usual can be done with 24 knots of carrier speed, the carrier can go up to 28, and 30 if needed.
> 
> 
> 
> Full, 9 and 5 has been tried a few times, but the result is not great. So not tried again since.
> 
> 
> refueling has happened for a while now.
> 
> 
> 25 tons take off is about the standard right now, this is a modest weight for safety right now, will be stepped up later.
> 
> 
> early warning plane is a no go on Liaoning.
> 
> 
> rest don't want to read, too damn long.



Thanks! One thing though; what does the article say about its avionics?


----------



## Genesis

SinoSoldier said:


> Thanks! One thing though; what does the article say about its avionics?



The outer shape and stuff aren't changed much from SU-33.

Haven't installed AESA yet, this guy isn't responsible for this part, but it's likely going to be more expensive. The electronic system is the same as J-16. AESA will probably be installed around 2015 when a newer version is finished, it will gradually replace the older ones too.

This carrier's size makes it as effective as the De Gualle, even though it doesn't have any catapult. It's about 70% as effective as Nimitz. I guess this means in terms of amount of air craft launches? The Mig 29k was considered but turned down, the J-15 can reach 38 Tons, it's a heavy jet. Obviously not as effective as say launched on Nimitz, but this is definitely the second best out there. Mig 29 is 29 tons btw, more or less.

Which means we still suck, go first or go home. (my comment, not part of story lol)


There's about 20 J-15s currently made with more on the way. By 2015, all should be good including flight testing of fighter and helicopter. Will probably enter service then.


One of the things done is taking off and landing of a few fighters at the same time, a couple dozen times at a time.


The current AEW is about 25 tons, it's electronic system is better than E-2 Hawkeye, mmm, how did he know that Further testing still needed. The Hawkeye is 43 tons, so there is still a difference.

at 160 meters run way it can take off, at least in theory.


Surprise in 2015 for the carrier.

There's been quite a few tests in rough seas, but the carries are reduced in such situations for safety, with further training and testing to happen.




I should get a damn positive rating, that was freaking long.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## cnleio

N.o 001, 1st mass production version Navy J-15







N.o100, leader J-15






N.o 104 J-15







Many J-15 fighters has served in PLAN

Reactions: Like Like:
8


----------



## cirr

Batch 0 #4
Batch 1 #4


----------



## cirr

105

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## cirr

歼-15新机曝光 辽宁舰或已装备14架战斗机-20140523凤凰视频-凤凰视频-最具媒体品质的综合视频门户-凤凰网

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## UKBengali

Is it me or are the engines Al-31?


----------



## ChineseTiger1986

UKBengali said:


> Is it me or are the engines Al-31?



The AL-31F engine is better for the ski-jump carrier.

Since the specs of the WS-10 series is more similar to the F-110 series, thus it will be used for the aircrafts the Type 002 (catapult carrier) instead of the Type 001/001A.


----------



## UKBengali

ChineseTiger1986 said:


> The AL-31F engine is better for the ski-jump carrier.
> 
> Since the specs of the WS-10 series is more similar to the F-110 series, thus it will be used for the aircrafts the Type 002 (catapult carrier) instead of the Type 001/001A.



Wasn't the WS-10H specifically designed for use on aircraft carriers?

It is worrying that even in 2014 that China is still using Russian engines for twin engined aircraft. Both the reliability and production levels should now be sufficient.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## aliaselin

UKBengali said:


> Wasn't the WS-10H specifically designed for use on aircraft carriers?
> 
> It is worrying that even in 2014 that China is still using Russian engines for twin engined aircraft. Both the reliability and production levels should now be sufficient.


Engine for naval is different, so need test and finalize the design again, such as Su-27 use AL-31F but Su-33 use AL-31F3. Another example is Su-27SM used AL-31F M1 finalize the design in 2007 but J-10B used AL-31FN series 3 finalize design in this year, even though they have only small difference.
I think WS-10 for J-10 have the same process.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Pangu

UKBengali said:


> Wasn't the WS-10H specifically designed for use on aircraft carriers?
> 
> It is worrying that even in 2014 that China is still using Russian engines for twin engined aircraft. Both the reliability and production levels should now be sufficient.



The WS-10A has been used in the J-11 series for quite some time, note that an improved version is on the way. Also, engines used on the J-15 has special need to corrosion resistant in maritime environment, so another version is needed.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## cnleio

*记飞鲨冲天路　歼15已量产近10架（组图）*

China HuNan news reported the J-15 product line in SAC, had an interview with J-15 Chief Designer and he told there'r 10x J-15 fighters produced for PLAN.

Reactions: Like Like:
8


----------



## cnleio



Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## Hamartia Antidote

I was expecting a picture like this

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Genesis

Peter C said:


> I was expecting a picture like this




at most we need 100 fighters before 2020, at most, that's about 15 or so a year for the next 6 years, so why would we do that? Besides, this new fighter is still very new, no previous carrier fighter existed, so good to take it slow.


----------



## cnleio

Peter C said:


> I was expecting a picture like this


Very nice. China is just behind after America 
(CAC J-10A produce lines)









(SAC J-11 produce lines)

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Hamartia Antidote

cnleio said:


> Very nice. China is just behind after America
> (CAC J-10A produce lines)



F35 a little more automated

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Beidou2020

Peter C said:


> I was expecting a picture like this



We have many of these too.


----------



## cnleio

Peter C said:


> F35 a little more automated


Although i can't directly access to youtube.com in China, i have seen many F-35 produce line pics on the internet it's like automobile produce line, very impressive !

Hope China can have the same one in the future.


----------



## xhw1986

A China Hunan Television documentary on PLAN Senior Colonel Chen Qing, program manager of J-15 program. Offers rare glimpse into the J-15 production line in Shenyang.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Syed Hussain

Good, but it would have been great if they would have applied fly by wire system...plus only a Chinese can say something more sure about how ready WS-10 is...!


----------



## cnleio

J-15

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## conworldus

The Chinese photos are in the painting stage. The one you posted is of the assembly stage. The assembly stage is automated, but you can't, and shouldn't automate the painting stage. Sometimes humans hands work better than robotic arms.



Peter C said:


> F35 a little more automated


----------



## Hamartia Antidote

conworldus said:


> The Chinese photos are in the painting stage. The one you posted is of the assembly stage. The assembly stage is automated, but you can't, and shouldn't automate the painting stage. Sometimes humans hands work better than robotic arms.



you can easily automate the painting stage...you just need to get better robots.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## tonyget

Peter C said:


> F35 a little more automated



I have heard that F-35 production line can produce one Jet per day


----------



## Infra_Man99

Peter C said:


> F35 a little more automated



That's an impressive picture of mass production, but the F-35 has a history of major problems despite being the most expensive fighter jet ever researched and developed. The F-35 is currently more fancy bullsh** than next-gen sophistication.




Peter C said:


> you can easily automate the painting stage...you just need to get better robots.



To anyone reading this:

I've seen pictures and read reports of the F-22 and F-35 being painted manually. What is the practical difference between robot painting and manual painting?


----------



## Superboy

LM fire workers. Bad. American unemployment too high.


----------



## Aepsilons

Genesis said:


> The outer shape and stuff aren't changed much from SU-33.
> 
> Haven't installed AESA yet, this guy isn't responsible for this part, but it's likely going to be more expensive. The electronic system is the same as J-16. AESA will probably be installed around 2015 when a newer version is finished, it will gradually replace the older ones too.
> 
> This carrier's size makes it as effective as the De Gualle, even though it doesn't have any catapult. It's about 70% as effective as Nimitz. I guess this means in terms of amount of air craft launches? The Mig 29k was considered but turned down, the J-15 can reach 38 Tons, it's a heavy jet. Obviously not as effective as say launched on Nimitz, but this is definitely the second best out there. Mig 29 is 29 tons btw, more or less.
> 
> Which means we still suck, go first or go home. (my comment, not part of story lol)
> 
> 
> There's about 20 J-15s currently made with more on the way. By 2015, all should be good including flight testing of fighter and helicopter. Will probably enter service then.
> 
> 
> One of the things done is taking off and landing of a few fighters at the same time, a couple dozen times at a time.
> 
> 
> The current AEW is about 25 tons, it's electronic system is better than E-2 Hawkeye, mmm, how did he know that Further testing still needed. The Hawkeye is 43 tons, so there is still a difference.
> 
> at 160 meters run way it can take off, at least in theory.
> 
> 
> Surprise in 2015 for the carrier.
> 
> There's been quite a few tests in rough seas, but the carries are reduced in such situations for safety, with further training and testing to happen.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I should get a damn positive rating, that was freaking long.



Thanks for the translation, Genesis.


----------



## terranMarine

Nihonjin1051 said:


> Thanks for the translation, Genesis.



I thought you can read Chinese

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Aepsilons

terranMarine said:


> I thought you can read Chinese





@terranMarine , hou noi muoh gin..

I thanked him because he took the effort to translate for us. Showing a little appreciation.


----------



## Saifullah Sani

*Satellite imagery provided by Airbus Defence and Space has confirmed media reports that Chinese aircraft carrier Liaoning recently undertook a four-month maintenance period in the Dalian shipyard, which refurbished the ship after its acquisition from Ukraine.*

The Kuznetsov (Orel) (Project 1143.5/6)-class carrier, which completed its first sea trials in the South China Sea in January, was shown alongside at Dalian in 26 July imagery. The absence of markings shows that the flight deck had been repainted, but no other maintenance work is visible.

The flight deck surface has been stripped and repainted at least once before, following Liaoning 's first sea trials in August 2011.

*The images of the Dalian shipyard throw up a number of interesting issues. *One is the presence of a Shenyang J-15 combat aircraft mockup in a ship assembly area next to the dry dock where Liaoning underwent maintenance. This may be the calibration model that made an appearance on the carrier's flight deck in early 2012 and it could be there as part of the maintenance programme that Liaoning was undergoing when the July 2014 images were taken.

The alternative is that the mockup is part of China's future carrier programme, although this seems unlikely as there are no signs of carrier construction at the Dalian shipyard. *In January 2014 a senior Chinese Communist Party official from Dalian was reported as saying that the city could build a second carrier in "six years" and also claimed that China would eventually acquire four aircraft carriers.*

In 2013 the Dalian shipyard and Shanghai's Jiangnan-Changxing shipyard produced sections of aircraft carrier hulls as an exercise to demonstrate their capacity to do so. Since then, *there has been no sign of carrier construction at either site, although it is possible - and likely - that blocks are being fabricated in hangars before being positioned in dry docks.*

Imagery shows Liaoning, J-15 mockup at Dalian shipyard - IHS Jane's 360


----------



## qwerrty

i must be blind, where the hell is the mockup in that satellite photo?


----------



## jkroo

qwerrty said:


> i must be blind, where the hell is the mockup in that satellite photo?


In the drydock and it's several dots.


----------



## english_man

jkroo said:


> In the drydock and it's several dots.



.......these dots, they must be very small........coz i cant make anything out either.

How about someone highlighting the photo of what they can see, by using a Windows 'Paint' program for example!


----------



## terranMarine

english_man said:


> .......these dots, they must be very small........coz i cant make anything out either.
> 
> How about someone highlighting the photo of what they can see, by using a Windows 'Paint' program for example!



You need sharp Chinese eyes mate


----------



## english_man

terranMarine said:


> You need sharp Chinese eyes mate



very funny ...........more like i need an electron microscope to see some of the things you guys post!


----------



## Saifullah Sani

New photos that have appeared on Chinese aviation websites suggest that mass production of the Shenyang Aircraft Corporation (SAC) J-15 carrier-based multirole fighter is gathering pace.

Two new J-15 aircraft, numbered 104 and 105, are ready for delivery by SAC to the People's Liberation Army Naval Air Force (PLANAF). The new additions take the total of known J-15 aircraft to 11, including prototypes.

At the same time testing continues with the J-15S, the twin-seat variant of the J-15. New photos show a bright yellow prototype conducting flight tests. The aircraft appears to be very close to production status.





Shenyang is also testing J-15S tandem-seat aircraft. *Chinese internet sources state that there will be three variants of the J-15S: an advanced trainer for J-15 pilots; a multirole combat variant; and an electronic warfare variant modelled on the US Navy's Boeing EA-18G Growler. (via Chinese internet)*

Chinese internet sources state that there will be three variants of the J-15S: an advanced trainer for J-15 pilots; a multirole combat variant; and an electronic warfare variant modelled on the US Navy's Boeing EA-18G Growler.

*The J-15S will also be able to function as a command-and-control platform *within a fleet of J-15/J-15S combat aircraft: a capability that Sukhoi developed on the Su-30MKK2 - a version of the legacy Su-30 family (the basis for the J-15) that was optimised for naval operations. This ability is especially relevant to the PLANAF as China has yet to put a fixed-wing carrier-based airborne early warning and control aircraft into service.

Shenyang makes progress on J-15 fleet - IHS Jane's 360

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Imran Khan

this bird getting so long man . or i missed something ?


----------



## rockstar08

Imran Khan said:


> this bird getting so long man . or i missed something ?



and mature too ..


----------



## Cat Shannon

variant of a flanker. cheaper variant. what about the engine ? whats the status on it ?


----------



## Beast

Cat Shannon said:


> variant of a flanker. cheaper variant. what about the engine ? whats the status on it ?


It's a better variant than Su-33, updated avionics, radar , engine and airframe. The squadron shall be ready by end of year.


----------



## Cat Shannon

Beast said:


> It's a better variant than Su-33, updated avionics, radar , engine and airframe. The squadron shall be ready by end of year.



i'm not buying it man, we have the mki.

these are not available for sale ?


----------



## Beast

Cat Shannon said:


> i'm not buying it man, we have the mki.
> 
> these are not available for sale ?



That is your business if you are not buying it. I heard your whole MKI just grounded.

Su-33 is 2 decades antique. China is able to make the whole fastest supercomputer and what makes so difficult to update the avionics and radar? Plus China is the leader in 3D printing. It is the latest technology in making lighter and stronger airframe in aeronautics area due to eliminate of traditional welding.

China's J-15 fighter superior to Russian Su-33 - People's Daily Online

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Cat Shannon

Beast said:


> That is your business if you are not buying it. I heard your whole MKI just grounded.
> 
> Su-33 is 2 decades antique. China is able to make the whole fastest supercomputer and what makes so difficult to update the avionics and radar? Plus China is the leader in 3D printing. It is the latest technology in making lighter and stronger airframe in aeronautics area due to eliminate of traditional welding.
> 
> China's J-15 fighter superior to Russian Su-33 - People's Daily Online



these are for sale or export or just for domestic plaaf ?


----------



## Beast

Cat Shannon said:


> these are for sale or export or just for domestic plaaf ?


j-15 is meant for domestic use only.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Cat Shannon

Beast said:


> j-15 is meant for domestic use only.



is there an export version of it ?


----------



## Beast

Cat Shannon said:


> is there an export version of it ?


No, it will never be export.


----------



## Kiss_of_the_Dragon

Do you guys know anything more about this? seems like we already had a catapulted version of J-15 under test...look forward to see it in action


----------



## AMDR

Chinese Carrier Fighter Now In Serial Production - USNI News







China has put the Shenyang J-15 Flying Shark carrier-borne multirole fighter into serial production, with at least eight production examples known to be flying already. This is in addition to the six J-15 prototypes, some of which conducted carrier trials on board China’s refurbished former Soviet Kuznetsov-class carrier, Liaoning.

Undated photos published on Chinese online forums in October showed J-15s bearing the tail numbers 107 and 108 operating from an undisclosed airfield in China. Both aircraft carried the Flying Shark motif on the tail, along with the People’s Liberation Army Navy (PLAN) ensign on the fuselage, similar to all production J-15s seen so far.

Earlier, in October 2013, Chinese state-run media showed news clips of J-15 production facilities at Shenyang Aircraft Corporation in which they revealed a production aircraft said to be being readied for delivery to the PLAN. This was followed by photos of J-15s bearing tail numbers 100, 101, and 102 appearing on the Internet in early December 2013.

Since then, photos of J-15s bearing sequential tail numbers up to 108 (with the exception of 106) have been published. These aircraft are very likely based at the newly constructed base near Huludao, Liaoning Province. Purpose-built as a carrier training facility, the base boasts of 24 shelters for a regiment of fighter-sized aircraft, maintenance hangars, as well as ski-jumps and flight-deck markings that replicate those found on the Liaoning.

With an article in the Chinese-language Shanghai Morning Post published in August saying that Liaoning’s will embark 24 J-15s, it would mean that China is on its way to fielding its complement of carrier-borne fighters.

It is worth noting that all production J-15s seen thus far have been powered by the Russian Saturn AL-31 turbofan engine instead of the locally-developed WS-10 Taihang. The Russian engine is still used in a number of aircraft types in the People’s Liberation Army Air Force (PLAAF) and PLAN, including the Sukhoi Su-27/30 Flanker and their license-built Shenyang J-11A counterparts, as well as the indigenous Chengdu J-10A/B fighter.

Despite reports of developmental troubles, the stronger WS-10 has been powering Shenyang J-11B (Chinese-built Su-27s with Chinese radar and electronics) land-based fighters built in the past few years for the PLAAF and land-based fighter regiments of the PLAN. Indeed, photos released by the U.S. Navy of the PLAN J-11BH that intercepted a Boeing P-8 Poseidon over the South China Sea in August indicated it was powered by WS-10s.

The WS-10 was also used on at least two of the six J-15 prototypes for a time, although one of the prototypes switched to the AL-31 before its carrier trials on the Liaoning. To date, no WS-10 powered J-15s have been observed in carrier operations. The reason for that reticence to use the WS-10 is unclear, but it is possible that the Chinese are still not satisfied enough with the reliability of the WS-10 to use it for carrier operations.

The Chinese military has acknowledged that it still has a lot to learn about carrier warfare, but there is no doubt that it is making strides in that direction. The limitations of the Liaoning as an aircraft carrier are well known, and it is expected she will serve mostly as a training carrier, building up a core of experienced naval aviators and deck crew.

If reports that China is building more carriers—including ships with catapults for operating aircraft—are true, then it already has a capable platform to work with by the time those ships become operational.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## TopCat

Are they not too big for carrier? Even Russians are moving to Mig-29K.


----------



## AMDR

iajdani said:


> Are they not too big for carrier? Even Russians are moving to Mig-29K.


They are built for carriers. Equivalent of F/A-18 Hornet in US Navy

J-15 trials aboard CV-16 Liaoning


----------



## Beast

iajdani said:


> Are they not too big for carrier? Even Russians are moving to Mig-29K.


The Russians moves to mig-29K becos they do not have the money to improve SU-33. India pay for the development of Mig-29K and production line. Of cos, Russian with under fund will switch to Mig-29K.

A bigger aircraft will essentially means longer range and more fuel.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Saifullah Sani

China is developing a new variant of the J-15 carrier-based fighter modified for catapult-assisted take-off but arrested recovery (CATOBAR) operations, according to images posted on the Xinhua website.

China's only operational carrier, Liaoning (CV-16), has a short take-off but arrested recovery (STOBAR) configuration based on a ski jump and arrestor cables. *The J-15 developments pictured suggest that China's second generation of indigenous carriers will employ a CATOBAR configuration instead.*

While the images on Xinhua have been blurred to prevent identification of the research organisation, a version of the photo posted elsewhere online shows the name 'China Shipbuilding Industry Corporation [CASIC] 704 Research Institute' on the J-15's fuselage.

CASIC, China's largest shipbuilder, is responsible for the aircraft carrier programme. The 704 Research Institute is one of CASIC's many maritime research wings, and is also known as the Shanghai Marine Equipment Research Institute (SMERI).

SMERI was founded in 1956 and employs about 1,800 scientists. According to its website, it specialises in research into integrated ship power systems and auxiliary mechanical and electrical equipment. This suggests the institute could be involved in the design and development of the catapult and arresting gear for China's future catapult-equipped aircraft carriers.

*COMMENT*

Given the development work conducted on the J-15 so it can serve on Liaoning , it makes sense for Chinese designers to adapt the aircraft to operate in a CATOBAR environment, writes James Hardy .


However, there has been no evidence in 2014 that China is ready to launch a CATOBAR carrier. Despite much speculation on carrier construction programmes in recent months, satellite imagery analysis of likely construction sites at Shanghai and Dalian show no evidence of carrier construction - at least in open-air dry docks.

Images suggest China developing J-15 for CATOBAR-equipped carrier - IHS Jane's 360


----------



## lcloo

Also because the production line for SU-33 had been closed down. It will take tonnes of cash to re-open new production lines.


----------



## war is peace

How powerful is j-15?


----------



## cnleio

war is peace said:


> How powerful is j-15?


a AVIC official J-15 model, if they didn't brag ...











AVIC official air combat version J-15 model, if they didn't brag ...


----------



## Irfan Baloch

what about J-16?
Shenyang J-16 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

so why so many derivates I see J-11, J15 and J16.. are there any more Sukhoi clones ?


----------



## Beast

Irfan Baloch said:


> what about J-16?
> Shenyang J-16 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> so why so many derivates I see J-11, J15 and J16.. are there any more Sukhoi clones ?


J-15S twin seat.


----------



## war is peace

Lol beast any more clones? J15s lmao


----------



## Deino

For the first time serial J-15's spotted on the Liaoning !

Reactions: Like Like:
12


----------



## ChineseTiger1986

Deino said:


> For the first time serial J-15's spotted on the Liaoning !
> 
> View attachment 181829



The carrier based software is done for the WS-10 engine, so the coming J-15 will be using the WS-10H engine when takeoff on Liaoning.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Beast

China's J-15 fighter superior to Russian Su-33 - People's Daily Online

CCP has long mention domestic engine will be used on J-15. Better thrust and more reliable crystal blade fan than Russian made one.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Deino

Beast said:


> China's J-15 fighter superior to Russian Su-33 - People's Daily Online
> 
> CCP has long mention domestic engine will be used on J-15. Better thrust and more reliable crystal blade fan than Russian made one.




To admit I'm still a bit skeptical: look at the date "08:52, December 06, 2012" ... and all we've seen so far on this WS-10H is the no. 554 prototype and the J-15S prototype ... as long as the operational birds are using Russian AL-31F there must be a reason to still use the older and reportedly "inferior" ones.

Deino


----------



## Deino

No. 109 spotted

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## vsdave2302

iajdani said:


> Are they not too big for carrier? Even Russians are moving to Mig-29K.


 
Read here more about this plane:

Chinese Media Takes Aim at J-15 Fighter | Defense News | defensenews.com


----------



## DrSomnath999

J 15 is carrying which engines Russian or the Chinese ones

*CHEERS*


----------



## Sine Nomine

Su-27 rocks all the way.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Deino

DrSomnath999 said:


> J 15 is carrying which engines Russian or the Chinese ones
> 
> *CHEERS*




So far the current serials are AL-31F powered !


----------



## ChineseTiger1986

Deino said:


> So far the current serials are AL-31F powered !



They were using the WS-10H when testing on the land, but switched back to the carrier based AL-31F when testing on Liaoning.

However, with software integration being solved, the WS-10H will be back on Liaoning.

中国太行发动机数字控制获突破 助舰载动力攻关-中新网

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Deino

ChineseTiger1986 said:


> However, with software integration being solved, the WS-10H will be back on Liaoning.
> 
> 中国太行发动机数字控制获突破 助舰载动力攻关-中新网




So it was a matter of software integration ? ... and not something in regard to a technical problem, corrosion or the saline environment ?


----------



## Deino

Just found at the Trumpeter-FB-page:

Tru 01670 1/72 Chinese J-15 Fighter with Fligt Deck | Facebook

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## ChineseTiger1986

Deino said:


> So it was a matter of software integration ? ... and not something in regard to a technical problem, corrosion or the saline environment ?



The report claims they are digitizing it, so to make it suitable for the carrier base.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Major Shaitan Singh

A J-15 fighter on the deck of Liaoning. (Photo/CNS)

China was probably trying to interest Brazil in its first first generation carrier-based fighter, the J-15, during the Zhuhai Air Show held in November last year, according to a March 6 report in Kanwa Defense Review, a Chinese-language military magazine based in Canada.

The model of the J-15 fighter displayed at the air show was equipped with a WS10A Taihang turbofan engine designed by Shenyang Liming Aircraft Engine Company. While China equips most of its fighters with Russian engines, the designer of the Taihang said that the engine will be reliable enough for export. J-15 fighters could be operated from the flight deck of the Brazilian Navy's Clemenceau-class aircraft carrier, the Sao Paulo.

A military cooperation agreement may be signed to enhance the relationship between the People's Liberation Army Navy and the Brazilian Navy. As Brazil is still constructing its first nuclear-powered submarine, the SNB Alvaro Alberto and China may assist in training the crew. China could also benefit from the experience of the Brazilian Navy in operating an aircraft carrier and carrier-based aircraft.

A source from Beijing also told the magazine that China is pushing for the sale of the S20, the export version of the Type 039A submarine conventional-powered submarine, to Brazil. However, Brasilia did not confirm the rumors. China is continuing the improvement of J-15 fighters, as a steam-powered catapult will be installed on board China's future aircraft carrier, so stronger landing gear will be needed for the carrier-based fighter.

Brazil may buy China's J-15: Kanwa｜Politics｜News｜WantChinaTimes.com

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Beast

Another nonsense article!

Brazil Sao paolo CV is so small and getting a giant J-15 onboard will limit the number carries and its operation.


----------



## Deino

Beast said:


> Another nonsense article!
> 
> Brazil Sao paolo CV is so small and getting a giant J-15 onboard will limit the number carries and its operation.




Yes ... and excatly what I already said: Links containing the word "wantchinatimes" and or "Kanwa" should be banned. They contain nothing but BS ... and - honestly, at least it is my will - to keep the quality of this forum, we should irgore them.

Deino


----------



## ChineseTiger1986

J-15 was starting to use the WS-10H in 2011, but when they were used to train aboard Liaoning, the engines were swapped back to AL-31F because the WS-10H was not yet ready to be all weather operational on the aircraft carrier.

Now the newly built J-15 have been re-swapped back to WS-10H, so this means that WS-10H now can operate properly on the aircraft carrier.

Reactions: Like Like:
13


----------



## Zarvan

ChineseTiger1986 said:


> J-15 was starting to use the WS-10H in 2011, but when they were used to train aboard Liaoning, the engines were swapped back to AL-31F because the WS-10H was not yet ready to be all weather operational on the aircraft carrier.
> 
> Now the newly built J-15 have been re-swapped back to WS-10H, so this means that WS-10H now can operate properly on the aircraft carrier.
> 
> View attachment 218659


What are other features of J-15 I mean radar system and if your J-11 D is better or at least equal to SU-35 than why are you still producing or going to produce J-16 ???

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## ChineseTiger1986

Zarvan said:


> What are other features of J-15 I mean radar system and if your J-11 D is better or at least equal to SU-35 than why are you still producing or going to produce J-16 ???



Apart from the new engine, J-15 will feature with the AESA radar and EOTS, also with more advanced composite materials.

J-16 will not be further produced if J-11D entering into the mass production stage, because a J-11D can already do everything that a J-16 can do but with only the single pilot rather than the dual pilot.

J-11D is going to replace J-16 just like Su-35 is going to replace Su-30.

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## Zarvan

ChineseTiger1986 said:


> Apart from the new engine, J-15 will feature with the AESA radar and EOTS, also with more advanced composite materials.
> 
> J-16 will not be further produced if J-11D entering into the mass production stage, because a J-11D can already do everything that a J-16 can do but with only the single pilot rather than the dual pilot.
> 
> J-11D is going to replace J-16 just like Su-35 is going to replace Su-30.


So you will also retire SU-30 and replace it with SU-35


----------



## ChineseTiger1986

Zarvan said:


> So you will also retire SU-30 and replace it with SU-35



Initially, we did plan to replace Su-30 with J-16, but now it gonna be replaced with J-11D.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Deino

ChineseTiger1986 said:


> ...
> 
> Now the newly built J-15 have been re-swapped back to WS-10H, so this means that WS-10H now can operate properly on the aircraft carrier.
> 
> View attachment 218659




Are You sure this is a new & recent image ??? IMO it is simply one from 2011 ... the scene showing one WS-10-powered J-15 in front of a row of J-11BH and BSH for the PLANAF is from 17. May 2011 !

Deino


----------



## ChineseTiger1986

Deino said:


> Are You sure this is a new & recent image ??? IMO it is simply one from 2011 ... the scene showing one WS-10-powered J-15 in front of a row of J-11BH and BSH for the PLANAF is from 17. May 2011 !
> 
> Deino



It is the recent pic, because the original J-15 prototypes with WS-10H all got the numbers such as 55X.

While these aircrafts are the production models, not the prototypes.

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## HttpError

ChineseTiger1986 said:


> It is the recent pic, because the original J-15 prototypes with WS-10H all got the numbers such as 55X.
> 
> While these aircrafts are the production models, not the prototypes.
> 
> View attachment 218662



Will they be available for export ?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## ChineseTiger1986

HttpError said:


> Will they be available for export ?



Well, it is only for the aircraft carrier, which country really needs it?

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## MastanKhan

HttpError said:


> Will they be available for export ?



Hi,

Do you mean to say for Pakistan!

This is coming right out of the I would say 'horses mouth' but no---it is coming from the jockey that rides the horse---if Pakistan wants it--it is available to Pakistan---in the naval version non aircraft carrier type---or other version.

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## Tipu7

MastanKhan said:


> This is coming right out of the I would say 'horses mouth' but no---it is coming from the jockey that rides the horse-


what u mean to say?  Is their any possibility that Pak navy will get a chance for J11D/J15/J16? or all such things r assumptions?


----------



## MastanKhan

Tipu7 said:


> what u mean to say?  Is their any possibility that Pak navy will get a chance for J11D/J15/J16? or all such things r assumptions?



What I mean to say is that if Pakistan air force or navy want this or any other version of this aircraft---it is available to Pakistan. The only issue in the past was the engine---. I got the information on my last visit to Pakistan.

Pakistan already has something high end in its possession---but I cannot give any details about it.

The military relationship between Pakistan and China has gone to a totally different level.

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## Zarvan

MastanKhan said:


> Hi,
> 
> Do you mean to say for Pakistan!
> 
> This is coming right out of the I would say 'horses mouth' but no---it is coming from the jockey that rides the horse---if Pakistan wants it--it is available to Pakistan---in the naval version non aircraft carrier type---or other version.


Well even with best economy and massive defense budget instead of these I would love PAF to go for J-11 D and J-10 C and for more new F-16 and than focus on 5th Generation

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Deino

ChineseTiger1986 said:


> It is the recent pic, because the original J-15 prototypes with WS-10H all got the numbers such as 55X.
> 
> While these aircrafts are the production models, not the prototypes.




Honestly, that's not correct ... these images are all from 17. May 2011 (and a few days later 26. May) and they all show a WS-10-powered aircraft without a number. IMO it was simply the later '554' !

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Tipu7

MastanKhan said:


> What I mean to say is that if Pakistan air force or navy want this or any other version of this aircraft---it is available to Pakistan. The only issue in the past was the engine---. I got the information on my last visit to Pakistan.
> 
> Pakistan already has something high end in its possession---but I cannot give any details about it.
> 
> The military relationship between Pakistan and China has gone to a totally different level.


yr ap ki baton se bht tasali hoti he  mjhe to curiosity ne mar dala he

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## ChineseTiger1986

Deino said:


> Honestly, that's not correct ... these images are all from 17. May 2011 (and a few days later 26. May) and they all show a WS-10-powered aircraft without a number. IMO it was simply the later '554' !
> 
> View attachment 218672
> View attachment 218673
> View attachment 218674



Well, it is the recent pic according to the big shrimp.

Also, one J-15 with WS-10H is now testing on Liaoning according to the CD forum.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## cirr

Zarvan said:


> What are other features of J-15 I mean radar system and if your J-11 D is better or at least equal to SU-35 than why are you still producing or going to produce J-16 ???



The J-11D is a heavy air superiority fighter mainly for defence purposes while the J-16 is a fighter/attacker for offence purposes，with the two using different AESA radars developed by CETC's No. 14 Inst. in Nanjing and AVIC's No. 607 Inst. in Wuxi，respectively。

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## Zarvan

cirr said:


> The J-11D is a heavy air superiority fighter mainly for defence purposes while the J-16 is a fighter/attacker for offence purposes，with the two using different AESA radars developed by CETC's No. 14 Inst. in Nanjing and AVIC's No. 607 Inst. in Wuxi，respectively。


Okay you have explained it good


----------



## Deino

ChineseTiger1986 said:


> Well, it is the recent pic according to the big shrimp.
> 
> Also, one J-15 with WS-10H is now testing on Liaoning according to the CD forum.




o.k. ... however - I admit - I remain skeptical since IMO both aircraft are too much the same !


----------



## ChineseTiger1986

Deino said:


> o.k. ... however - I admit - I remain skeptical since IMO both aircraft are too much the same !



Let's see.

Since AL-31F was already proven before to be all wealth operational on the AC, while the newer engine like WS-10H had not yet proven on the AC.

Also, China got no experience to takeoff/land on the AC before, so it would be more secured to first try with a mature proven engine like AL-31F.

After with the training on the AC with AL-31F, China could use its first hand data to tweak the WS-10H and made it more AC compatible like AL-31F.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Beast

AL-31F engine is like a whore. She will do a dirty job of testing and being wasted of the lifespan since China already bought it in significant numbers and gonna use it until it expire it's usefulness.

When comes to real operational J-15, WS-10H will be used not AL-31F.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Donatello

MastanKhan said:


> What I mean to say is that if Pakistan air force or navy want this or any other version of this aircraft---it is available to Pakistan. The only issue in the past was the engine---. I got the information on my last visit to Pakistan.
> 
> Pakistan already has something high end in its possession---but I cannot give any details about it.
> 
> The military relationship between Pakistan and China has gone to a totally different level.



hi,

Why do you think Chinese are readily offering these to Pakistan? There must be some catch or something big in return for them?



Deino said:


> Honestly, that's not correct ... these images are all from 17. May 2011 (and a few days later 26. May) and they all show a WS-10-powered aircraft without a number. IMO it was simply the later '554' !
> 
> View attachment 218672
> View attachment 218673
> View attachment 218674



Is this fully in service?


----------



## Beidou2020

Deino said:


> o.k. ... however - I admit - I remain skeptical since IMO both aircraft are too much the same !



You can remain skeptical buddy. Doesn't make any difference to us.



Zarvan said:


> What are other features of J-15 I mean radar system and if your J-11 D is better or at least equal to SU-35 than why are you still producing or going to produce J-16 ???



J-11D is an air superiority fighter like the F-15C.
J-16 is a strike fighter like the F-15E.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## ziaulislam

Zarvan said:


> Okay you have explained it good



its like f-15 an airsuperiority and f-18 a true multi role


----------



## Tipu7

cirr said:


> The J-11D is a heavy air superiority fighter


any pic available of J11D?


----------



## Brainsucker

ChineseTiger1986 said:


> Initially, we did plan to replace Su-30 with J-16, but now it gonna be replaced with J-11D.



I don't agree with this. J-11 is more of Air superiority Fighter, with it's single seat. While J-16 is more of Multi Role Fighter. So I don't think that J-11D will replace J-16. They have difference role. It just like Su-27 and Su-30. Both are different, but it doesn't mean that Su-27 is less capable than Su-30


----------



## cirr

Tipu7 said:


> any pic available of J11D?














PS China has ceased the production of J-11B and J-11BS，both of which will be retrofitted to incorporate new technologies such as 14-ton WS-10G engines、AESA radar、4th generation avionics and new missiles used on the J-11D。

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Akasa

cirr said:


> PS China has ceased the production of J-11B and J-11BS，both of which will be retrofitted to incorporate new technologies such as 14-ton WS-10G engines、AESA radar、4th generation avionics and new missiles used on the J-11D。




When will the J-15B and J-11D enter service?


----------



## Stephen Cohen

MastanKhan said:


> The problems of south china seas would stay in south china seas------if they spilt over to the Arabian seas as well---then it is asking for big trouble.



You are right 

US navy just owns the Persian Gulf and North Arabian Sea

China has already enough to deal with in SCS


----------



## ChineseTiger1986

Brainsucker said:


> I don't agree with this. J-11 is more of Air superiority Fighter, with it's single seat. While J-16 is more of Multi Role Fighter. So I don't think that J-11D will replace J-16. They have difference role. It just like Su-27 and Su-30. Both are different, but it doesn't mean that Su-27 is less capable than Su-30



The twin seat multirole fighters are becoming obsolete, and they will soon get replaced by the single seat multirole fighters.


----------



## Deino

Simply nice ....

Reactions: Like Like:
8


----------



## Beast

Up close personal with J-15

探访受阅歼15舰载机基地 _手机新浪网

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Deino

... und it seems as if the first J-15S was spotted (via "cirr" in the "2014, The Beginning Of A New Era For PLAN Build-up" tread !) ... and given the ARJ-21 in the background that images seems to be taken at the CFTE at Xi'an-Yanliang and not at SAC !






+ J-15 no. 113 + maybe 114 spotted !

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Akasa

Huitong has updated his website, claiming that the 01 batch has been completed.

What sort of upgrades will we see in the 2nd? @cirr

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## cnleio

Home of PLAN J-15 fighters

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## Akasa

Huitong is claiming that the J-15S is equipped with the 14-ton WS-10 variant, the same engine on the J-11D. According to a similar rumor, the first batch has been completed (the 2nd batch and J-15S will feature upgrades).

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Akasa

It now seems that the J-15 with serial numbers 110 and beyond belong to the second batch.

@cirr , is the second batch comprised of J-15Bs (i.e. AESA radar, WS-10 upgrades)?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Deino

SinoSoldier said:


> It now seems that the J-15 with serial numbers 110 and beyond belong to the second batch.
> 
> @cirr , is the second batch comprised of J-15Bs (i.e. AESA radar, WS-10 upgrades)?




Yes ... and sorry for putting it into the wrong tread.

Leio's PLA Photos (Strictly Photos, many kinds of PLA equipments) | Page 66






And no, since externally they are at least IMO all the same, no AESA, no WS-10 ... just like Block 01.following my previous list of all known serials (=_ in *Bold-Italics*_) and an estimation of the missing ones, it looks like:

*Block 01 =*

*No. 100 = c/n 0101
No. 101 = c/n 0102
No. 102 = c/n 0103
No. 103 = c/n 0104
No. 104 = c/n 0105
No. 105 = c/n 0106 *
No. 106 = c/n 0107
No. 107 = c/n 0108
No. 108 = c/n 0109
No. 109 = c/n 0110

*Block 02 =*

No. 110 = c/n 0201
No. 111 = c/n 0202
No. 112 = c/n 0203
*No. 113 = c/n 0204*

It all fits quite nicely.
Deino

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Brainsucker

Deino said:


> Yes ... and sorry for putting it into the wrong tread.
> 
> Leio's PLA Photos (Strictly Photos, many kinds of PLA equipments) | Page 66
> 
> View attachment 264110
> 
> 
> And no, since externally they are at least IMO all the same, no AESA, no WS-10 ... just like Block 01.following my previous list of all known serials (=_ in *Bold-Italics*_) and an estimation of the missing ones, it looks like:
> 
> *Block 01 =*
> 
> *No. 100 = c/n 0101
> No. 101 = c/n 0102
> No. 102 = c/n 0103
> No. 103 = c/n 0104
> No. 104 = c/n 0105
> No. 105 = c/n 0106 *
> No. 106 = c/n 0107
> No. 107 = c/n 0108
> No. 108 = c/n 0109
> No. 109 = c/n 0110
> 
> *Block 02 =*
> 
> No. 110 = c/n 0201
> No. 111 = c/n 0202
> No. 112 = c/n 0203
> *No. 113 = c/n 0204*
> 
> It all fits quite nicely.
> Deino



I found this in SDF first, I wanted to want to said something there but I can't. Well, it's okay. I still can interact with you in here 

So, both block 01 and 02 are the same? No improvement at all?
Looking at the number that we can see here, there are already 14. How many more that they need these fighters for their carrier? I forgot, they need 24 like J-15 for Liaoning?


----------



## Deino

IMO - and like Blitzo explained at SDF - it is probably better to call them Batch 02 and not Block 02 since it is only the second production batch similar to the ones we already know at other Flanker-versions build at SAC.

The true Block 02 would be IMO the often rumoured J-15A or even B, since the PLA usually don't use the Block-designation, but a new letter to differ between true new versions.

Deino


----------



## Akasa

Latest update from Huitong: "However *J-15* is expected to have a limited production and deployment since its technology is no longer state of the art, *but it is also expected to be upgraded in the future with an AESA radar similar to the one installed on J-11D*."

Can anybody corroborate with this rumor or know where this claim originated from?

It's odd why the J-11D's (rather than the J-16's) radar would be used, considering that the J-15S will likely enter service with J-16's avionics.


----------



## Beast

SinoSoldier said:


> Latest update from Huitong: "However *J-15* is expected to have a limited production and deployment since its technology is no longer state of the art, *but it is also expected to be upgraded in the future with an AESA radar similar to the one installed on J-11D*."
> 
> Can anybody corroborate with this rumor or know where this claim originated from?
> 
> It's odd why the J-11D's (rather than the J-16's) radar would be used, considering that the J-15S will likely enter service with J-16's avionics.



Huitong usually is quite accurate in his assessment.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Sanchez

Deino said:


> IMO - and like Blitzo explained at SDF - it is probably better to call them Batch 02 and not Block 02 since it is only the second production batch similar to the ones we already know at other Flanker-versions build at SAC.
> 
> The true Block 02 would be IMO the often rumoured J-15A or even B, since the PLA usually don't use the Block-designation, but a new letter to differ between true new versions.
> 
> Deino



It's called production batch. Each batch may or may not be produced with slight modifications.


----------



## BoQ77

SinoSoldier said:


> Latest update from Huitong: "However *J-15* is expected to have a limited production and deployment since its technology is no longer state of the art, *but it is also expected to be upgraded in the future with an AESA radar similar to the one installed on J-11D*."
> 
> Can anybody corroborate with this rumor or know where this claim originated from?
> 
> It's odd why the J-11D's (rather than the J-16's) radar would be used, considering that the J-15S will likely enter service with J-16's avionics.



How many J-15 would be deployed to Liaoning/Varyag carrier, pal ?


----------



## lcloo

SinoSoldier said:


> Latest update from Huitong: "However *J-15* is expected to have a limited production and deployment since its technology is no longer state of the art, *but it is also expected to be upgraded in the future with an AESA radar similar to the one installed on J-11D*."
> 
> Can anybody corroborate with this rumor or know where this claim originated from?
> 
> It's odd why the J-11D's (rather than the J-16's) radar would be used, considering that the J-15S will likely enter service with J-16's avionics.



May be J-16's radar is optimized for ground strike while J-11D's avionics has better all round capability?


----------



## Beast

lcloo said:


> May be J-16's radar is optimized for ground strike while J-11D's avionics has better all round capability?


J-11D main priority is air superiority. While J-16 is both air and ground attack which sacrifice bit for air superiority.


----------



## Akasa

lcloo said:


> May be J-16's radar is optimized for ground strike while J-11D's avionics has better all round capability?



Possibly, although there shouldn't be too significant of a difference to hamper its air-to-air capabilities. That being said, the J-15S is likely equipped with the J-16's avionics as it is oriented towards strike.


----------



## cirr

A catapult launch J-15 is rumoured to have successfully made its first flight.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Akasa

cirr said:


> A catapult launch J-15 is rumoured to have successfully made its first flight.



Is this variant equipped with AESA, or has existing ones already?


----------



## cirr

Third generation platforms entering service en mass, fourth generation platforms under intensive R & D.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## 星海军事

cirr said:


> A catapult launch J-15 is rumoured to have successfully made its first flight.


To my knowledge, it made its maiden flight a few days ago and has an interesting code name.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Akasa

星海军事 said:


> To my knowledge, it made its maiden flight a few days ago and has an interesting code name.



Does the J-15 have an AESA? A rumor from a while ago suggests they do.


----------



## 星海军事

SinoSoldier said:


> Does the J-15 have an AESA? A rumor from a while ago suggests they do.


Not sure. Another source said,



> Although not in its fully-developed state, it (the latest J-15×) is sufficient for the next several years.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Dungeness

lcloo said:


> This may have something related to steam or eletro-magnetic cat to be or not to be deployed on the 002 aircraft carrier which is No. 1 hot topic in Chinese navy forums.
> 
> That is why it is interesting that the boss is taking good care of the one in charge of the new tech. What does this indicate?



Yes, indeed! Two sides are at each other's throat!  What an exciting era for Chinese military funs!



ChineseTiger1986 said:


> I am rooting for Professor Ma and his EMALS, because I am sure his team is going to win.
> 
> POP3 is rooting for the steam catapult, because he is part of the project.




To be honest, as much as we want to see EMALS on Type 003, POP3 and Huahua are going to win the bet.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## cirr

Dungeness said:


> Yes, indeed! Two sides are at each other's throat!  What an exciting era for Chinese military funs!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To be honest, as much as we want to see EMALS on Type 003, POP3 and Huahua are going to win the bet.



As much as I am a pessimist, I am sure we will see EMALS on Type 003 but not Type 002. 

And I might add that preliminary design centred on EMALS has begun.

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## Dungeness

cirr said:


> As much as I am a pessimist, I am sure we will see EMALS on Type 003 but not Type 002.



None of us could have envisioned when CNS-16 was a rusty basket sitting rotten on the port of Dalian, 10 years down the road we would be fighting for what kind of catapult system, steam or EMAILS, we should be using on China's 3rd, and 4th aircraft carrier! What the exciting era we are in!

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## ChineseTiger1986

Dungeness said:


> To be honest, as much as we want to see EMALS on Type 003, POP3 and Huahua are going to win the bet.



Of course, the Type 003 is to be designated as a 100,000+ tonnes nuclear supercarrier with the EMALS, and right now our nuclear reactor for the supercarrier isn't fully ready yet. So better to aggregate the EMALS with the nuclear supercarrier for the Type 003.

The Type 002 is also designated to have a twin.



Dungeness said:


> None of us could have envisioned when CNS-16 was a rusty basket sitting rotten on the port of Dalian, 10 years down the road we would be fighting for what kind of catapult system, steam or EMAILS, we should be using on China's 3rd, and 4th aircraft carrier! What the exciting era we are in!



We shall see the entire hull of the Type 002 in 2018, and it should be launched in 2019-2020. And the Type 003 should start the construction by 2022-2023.

Reactions: Like Like:
 6


----------



## cirr

Dungeness said:


> None of us could have envisioned when CNS-16 was a rusty basket sitting rotten on the port of Dalian, 10 years down the road we would be fighting for what kind of catapult system, steam or EMAILS, we should be using on China's 3rd, and 4th aircraft carrier! What the exciting era we are in!



Spoiled for choices.

This luxury has apparently landed PLAN and other relevant parties in a dilemma.

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## Dungeness

ChineseTiger1986 said:


> Of course, the Type 003 is to be designated as a 100,000+ tonnes nuclear supercarrier with the EMALS, and right now our nuclear reactor for the supercarrier isn't fully ready yet. So better to aggregate the EMALS with the nuclear supercarrier for the Type 003.
> 
> The Type 002 is also designated to have a twin.
> 
> 
> 
> We shall see the entire hull of the Type 002 in 2018, and it should be launched in 2019-2020. And the Type 003 should start the construction by 2022-2023.



2021 will be a BIG year, so 003 will not see the show.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## ChineseTiger1986

Dungeness said:


> 2021 will be a BIG year, so 003 will not see the show.



The 100th anniversary of the CPC will be the big event attainable for the first Type 002, and I guess the first Type 003 has a good chance to attend the 80th anniversary of the PLAN.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Akasa

星海军事 said:


> Not sure. Another source said,



Does J-15X refer to the catapult version?


----------



## grey boy 2

http://war.163.com/photoview/4T8E0001/2188065.html#p=BQSR2KJG4T8E0001

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## lcloo

I believe many people may want to know this J15X took off from which of the two cat hotly debated right now.


----------



## 星海军事

SinoSoldier said:


> Does J-15X refer to the catapult version?


Yes, but it's not J-15X. The source wants to keep that code name in secret, so I replaced it with an ×. 



lcloo said:


> I believe many people may want to know this J15X took off from which of the two cat hotly debated right now.


The maiden flight was of course conducted in Shenyang and by rolling.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## cirr

星海军事 said:


> Yes, but it's not J-15X. The source wants to keep that code name in secret, so I replaced it with an ×.
> 
> 
> The maiden flight was of course conducted in Shenyang and by rolling.



T for x.


----------



## 星海军事

J-15× is likely to be equipped with new avionics and new engines.

Reactions: Positive Rating Positive Rating:
1 | Like Like:
11


----------



## Deino

Ohhh ... Just back from a school-trip and You again beat me by minutes !

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Akasa

星海军事 said:


> Yes, but it's not J-15X. The source wants to keep that code name in secret, so I replaced it with an ×.
> 
> 
> The maiden flight was of course conducted in Shenyang and by rolling.



Is the J-15x an one-off prototype or is it a new variant?


----------



## Bussard Ramjet

Deino said:


> Ohhh ... Just back from a school-trip and You again beat me by minutes !
> 
> 
> View attachment 315143



What is this?


----------



## dingyibvs

Bussard Ramjet said:


> What is this?



Note the hook in front of the landing gear, it's for catapult assisted take-off, signifying the first J-15 variant designed for CATOBAR.

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## Bussard Ramjet

dingyibvs said:


> Note the hook in front of the landing gear, it's for catapult assisted take-off, signifying the first J-15 variant designed for CATOBAR.



But isn't CATOBAR a minimum of 6-7 years from even being constructed? What is then the use of a CATOBAR fighter?


----------



## Deino

Bussard Ramjet said:


> But isn't CATOBAR a minimum of 6-7 years from even being constructed? What is then the use of a CATOBAR fighter?




IMO it fits nicely ... You have to develop that technology, test it ... certify and then produce it in serial, to train the pilots and ground crew ...

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## nang2

Bussard Ramjet said:


> But isn't CATOBAR a minimum of 6-7 years from even being constructed? What is then the use of a CATOBAR fighter?


So you can test the catapult. You don't expect Chinese will install catapult in AC without testing it with real aircraft first, do you?

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## 星海军事

SinoSoldier said:


> Is the J-15x an one-off prototype or is it a new variant?


A new variant designed for future CATOBAR carriers.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## grey boy 2



Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Makarena

for EMALS carrier?


----------



## Deino

grey boy 2 said:


>




But the one on top is only a quite crude mock up ... the real cat-launch-able gear is much more a standard front gear + launch bar.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## grey boy 2

Deino said:


> But the one on top is only a quite crude mock up ... the real cat-launch-able gear is much more a standard front gear + launch bar.


Thanks, just trying to post whatever i found "maybe" interesting for others to comment
Hopefully better luck next time

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Deino

Never mind ... it's exactly this collection of posts by all of us which in the end gives a clearer image of what's truly going on ...

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Deino

星海军事 said:


> Yes, but it's not J-15X. The source wants to keep that code name in secret, so I replaced it with an ×.
> 
> The maiden flight was of course conducted in Shenyang and by rolling.





cirr said:


> T for x.



Huitong also calls this version* J-15T* (http://chinese-military-aviation.blogspot.de/p/fighters-ii.html#J-15) ... any idea, what that *"T"* could stand for ?

Deino


----------



## nang2

Deino said:


> Huitong also calls this version* J-15T* (http://chinese-military-aviation.blogspot.de/p/fighters-ii.html#J-15) ... any idea, what that *"T"* could stand for ?
> 
> Deino


Chinese word that is pronounced as "tan" and means eject.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## 星海军事

Deino said:


> Huitong also calls this version* J-15T* (http://chinese-military-aviation.blogspot.de/p/fighters-ii.html#J-15) ... any idea, what that *"T"* could stand for ?
> 
> Deino



J-15T is just a guess.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Kiss_of_the_Dragon

Deino said:


> Ohhh ... Just back from a school-trip and You again beat me by minutes !
> 
> 
> View attachment 315143



Catapult assisted take-off don't fold up but just hanging like that when the landing gear is exposed?



Makarena said:


> for EMALS carrier?



EMALS means nuclear power carrier, that will be another challenge for China

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Deino

...

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## Deino

Interesting comparison ...

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## grey boy 2



Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Akasa

grey boy 2 said:


>



Translate, please? What does the CGI at the bottom represent?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Deino

SinoSoldier said:


> Translate, please? What does the CGI at the bottom represent?




The image on top is a Russian concept from 1979 for a catapult-capable version of the Su-27K/Su-33 since the second RuN carrier were once planned to feature cats (the _Ulyanovsk) _... as such it is not related to China or the J-15.

The second image is - at least as far as I know - a what-if CG made by Bai Wei based on the assumption that a second generation J-15 "could" feature design elements of the J-11D, a cat-capable gear ... and a what-if topping, these outward canted tails.

I like his artworks very much - and even more I'm still thankful for his help on my book ! - but I would be very much surprised if any Chinese Flanker will ever feature canted tails.

Deino

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Deino

Following some reports the J15 crashed was #117.

Anyway R.I.P. To The pilot.

27 April 2016:
J-15.
PLAN.

12:59 PM, during ground-based simulated carrier landing training, flight control malfunctioned, and crashed.

Pilot ejected, but killed.

Lieutenant Commander ZHANG Chao.
Squadron commander.
Born in August 1986, and military career began when attended air force aviation university in September 2004.

http://www.ettoday.net/news/20160727/743349.htm
http://hk.on.cc/cn/bkn/cnt/news/2016...05011_001.html
http://news.ltn.com.tw/news/world/breakingnews/1776308
http://news.wenweipo.com/2016/07/27/IN1607270025.htm
http://photo.chinatimes.com/20160727004815-260813

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## JSCh



Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## JSCh



Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## The Eagle

*China reveals cause of fatal April crash of J-15*
*Richard D Fisher Jr, Washington DC* - IHS Jane's Defence Weekly
29 July 2016
China has revealed the cause of the 27 April fatal crash of a Shenyang Aircraft Corporation (SAC) J-15 carrier-based fighter: the first such revelation of its kind.





Chinese media have revealed the cause of a fatal crash involving a SAC J-15 fighter (similar to this one). (Via Chinese Internet)

A report by China National Radio on 26 July revealed that the People's Liberation Army Navy (PLAN) J-15 fighter encountered a breakdown with the fly-by-wire flight control system while practising an arrested landing at an unspecified inland base.

According to Chinese sources, the flight control failure apparently caused the J-15 to pitch up upon touching the ground. When the pushrods failed, the pilot, identified as Lieutenant Zhang Chao, ejected and died as a result of an injury on landing, the report added.

This is not the first accident involving the multirole J-15, which is a key fighter for the PLAN aircraft carrier _Liaoning_ . An August 2014 commendation order to the J-15 test unit issued by Chinese President Xi Jinping mentioned that two pilots had died testing the fighter, but offered no explanation.

This is the first time a Chinese government source has said the J-15 uses fly-by-wire flight control: a system believed only to have been incorporated in the newer SAC J-16 strike fighter and J-11D fighter.

SAC's development of fly-by-wire technology is longstanding, with its experimental J-8ACT fly-by-wire testbed first flown in June 1990.

The canard addition noted on the PLAN SAC J-15's structure does indicate electronic management of the flying controls to assist combat manoeuvrability and low-speed handling characteristics.

However, laws governing management of this technology are generally embedded in early design models rather than retrospectively during upgrade action, given the fundamental impact on aircraft capability.

Based extensively on the Russian Sukhoi Su-33 carrier-based fighter, the J-15 made its first flight in August 2009 and its first arrested landing on _Liaoning_ in late November 2012.

Thus far the J-15 is only capable of ski-jump-assisted operations, but imagery from early July indicates that flight testing has begun for a J-15 with a nose-wheel modified to allow catapult assisted take-off but arrested recovery (CATOBAR) operations.

http://www.janes.com/article/62661/china-reveals-cause-of-fatal-april-crash-of-j-15

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## 艹艹艹

*We must sum up experiences and lessons from it.*

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## The Eagle

long_ said:


> *We must sum up experiences and lessons from it.*



Exactly, incidents are to learn. In this article, few things are shared as FBW on J-15 which China shared for the time means, China is indeed developing the tactics on daily basis as well advancing in tech as well. The crash is no doubt a sad news that claimed precious lives but it is also a chance to learn. 

A few things like: 

The canard addition noted on the PLAN SAC J-15's structure does indicate electronic management of the flying controls to assist combat manoeuvrability and low-speed handling characteristics.

flight testing has begun for a J-15 with a nose-wheel modified (new thing). 

While looking at the development, there are many of surprises to the rivals.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## gambit

long_ said:


> We must sum up experiences and lessons from it.


This kind of general statement does not mean anything. Of course we must learn from it. To do anything else would be unprofessional.

I see one major contradiction in the article. It is a serious one. No, it has nothing to do with grammar or spelling or anything relating to the English language. The contradiction is *PURELY TECHNICAL*. Given how much I have posted on this forum about aviation, and there is a strong possibility that the error is from the technical ignorance of the article's author, either the contradiction is from the author, or that there is something at least very odd with the design of the Su-33, which is the source for the J-15.

Let us see if the PDF Chinese can find this contradiction.

Further teaser.

If this contradiction is from the author, then the probability that the mishap came from pilot error increases dramatically, because...

http://www.janes.com/article/62661/china-reveals-cause-of-fatal-april-crash-of-j-15


> ...Chinese President Xi Jinping mentioned that two pilots had died testing the fighter, but offered no explanation.


I predicted yrs ago on this forum that there would be *FATAL* mishaps for the PLAN as it begins training for carrier operations. Not so much 'prediction' as it is an educated guess from the American experience.

The Su-33 have had carrier operations with the Soviet/Russian Navy.

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


> ...Col. Igor Korotchenko of the Defense Ministry stating in early June 2010, "The Chinese J-15 is unlikely to achieve the same performance characteristics of the Russian Su-33 carrier-based fighter,...


If China modified the basic Su-33 systems to create the J-15, what kind ? How extensive ? How specific to what sub-system(s) ? The possibility that there was an intrinsic flaw introduced in those modifications cannot be dismissed, and that it is possible that the flaw(s) may not manifest until under an ideal condition, such as the pilot preparing for a carrier landing.

Landing on an aircraft carrier is not the same as landing on a normal runway. It is different in everything, from pilot training to aircraft systems configuration.

For starter, an aircraft carrier landing is a 'no flare' approach...

http://www.skybrary.aero/index.php/Landing_Flare


> ...landings on an aircraft carrier in which the aircraft maintains the approach attitude and rate of descent until touchdown. For all intents, *there is no flare* and the landing gear design must be robust enough to ensure that no damage occurs because of the high rate of descent.


That mean there is no pitch up like a normal runway landing.

With the worst case scenario, China modified the Su-33 to produce the J-15 and introduced an intrinsic flaw that does not manifest itself unless the pilot reconfigure the aircraft for a carrier landing. All this time, the J-15 have been flying as normal. If this worst case scenario is true, this will be a serious set back for the Chinese naval aviation program as the J-15 itself must be forensically investigated to find this flaw. Three dead pilots from the naval aviation training program cannot be casually dismissed.


----------



## Providence

Well you can copy only so much !


----------



## The Eagle

gambit said:


> This kind of general statement does not mean anything. Of course we must learn from it. To do anything else would be unprofessional.
> 
> I see one major contradiction in the article. It is a serious one. No, it has nothing to do with grammar or spelling or anything relating to the English language. The contradiction is *PURELY TECHNICAL*. Given how much I have posted on this forum about aviation, and there is a strong possibility that the error is from the technical ignorance of the article's author, either the contradiction is from the author, or that there is something at least very odd with the design of the Su-33, which is the source for the J-15.
> 
> Let us see if the PDF Chinese can find this contradiction.
> 
> Further teaser.
> 
> If this contradiction is from the author, then the probability that the mishap came from pilot error increases dramatically, because...
> 
> http://www.janes.com/article/62661/china-reveals-cause-of-fatal-april-crash-of-j-15
> 
> I predicted yrs ago on this forum that there would be *FATAL* mishaps for the PLAN as it begins training for carrier operations. Not so much 'prediction' as it is an educated guess from the American experience.
> 
> The Su-33 have had carrier operations with the Soviet/Russian Navy.
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shenyang_J-15
> 
> If China modified the basic Su-33 systems to create the J-15, what kind ? How extensive ? How specific to what sub-system(s) ? The possibility that there was an intrinsic flaw introduced in those modifications cannot be dismissed, and that it is possible that the flaw(s) may not manifest until under an ideal condition, such as the pilot preparing for a carrier landing.
> 
> Landing on an aircraft carrier is not the same as landing on a normal runway. It is different in everything, from pilot training to aircraft systems configuration.
> 
> For starter, an aircraft carrier landing is a 'no flare' approach...
> 
> http://www.skybrary.aero/index.php/Landing_Flare
> 
> That mean there is no pitch up like a normal runway landing.
> 
> With the worst case scenario, China modified the Su-33 to produce the J-15 and introduced an intrinsic flaw that does not manifest itself unless the pilot reconfigure the aircraft for a carrier landing. All this time, the J-15 have been flying as normal. If this worst case scenario is true, this will be a serious set back for the Chinese naval aviation program as the J-15 itself must be forensically investigated to find this flaw. Three dead pilots from the naval aviation training program cannot be casually dismissed.



Sir, not to get into anti/pro-China discussion but as posters like me can read a lot here so i would like to ask 

what about the finding as:

According to Chinese sources, the flight control failure apparently caused the J-15 to pitch up upon touching the ground. When the pushrods failed, 

forced engineer to do as: 

but imagery from early July indicates that flight testing has begun for a J-15 with a nose-wheel modified to allow catapult assisted take-off but arrested recovery (CATOBAR) operations.

So they are testing the new concept that would counter the threat of last technical crash while addressing the area of lacking.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Akasa

The Eagle said:


> Sir, not to get into anti/pro-China discussion but as posters like me can read a lot here so i would like to ask
> 
> what about the finding as:
> 
> According to Chinese sources, the flight control failure apparently caused the J-15 to pitch up upon touching the ground. When the pushrods failed,
> 
> forced engineer to do as:
> 
> but imagery from early July indicates that flight testing has begun for a J-15 with a nose-wheel modified to allow catapult assisted take-off but arrested recovery (CATOBAR) operations.
> 
> So they are testing the new concept that would counter the threat of last technical crash while addressing the area of lacking.



Modifying a fighter for CATOBAR operations has nothing to do with preventing accidents.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Ultima Thule

Providence said:


> Well you can copy only so much !


And you are ranting against China so much just shut up

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## ebrahym

Providence said:


> Well you can copy only so much !


major
copying needs expertise as well

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## 艹艹艹

Providence said:


> Well you can copy only so much !


*Stupid american, ignorant English*

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## gambit

So where are the PDF Chinese aviation 'experts'. All too often they so eagerly jump on any Western article critical of Chinese military hardware, now...


----------



## Beast

Providence said:


> Well you can copy only so much !


Yes yes we copy. We make a supercomputer faster than American can make one. 

And you sourgrape can claim its copy from American. I am so happy you are so ignorant

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## gambit

Since the PDF Chinese ran away from my challenge, guess it is up to me, as usual, to dissect these articles.

http://www.janes.com/article/62661/china-reveals-cause-of-fatal-april-crash-of-j-15


> ...J-15 fighter encountered a breakdown with the *fly-by-wire flight control system* while practising an arrested landing at an unspecified inland base.
> 
> According to Chinese sources, *the flight control failure apparently caused the J-15 to pitch up upon touching the ground. When the pushrods failed*, the pilot, identified as Lieutenant Zhang Chao, ejected and died as a result of an injury on landing, the report added.


The highlighted does not make sense.

Let us take the F-16, the first operational aircraft with a full fly-by-wire (FBW) flight control system (FLCS).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Dynamics_F-16_Fighting_Falcon


> ...eliminating mechanical linkages between the control stick and rudder pedals, and the flight control surfaces.


What this mean is that there is literally *NO* mechanical anything between the cockpit and the hydraulic actuators that are connected to the flight control surfaces.

The F-16 set the standards on how to design and engineer a FBW-FLCS. Its architecture is the reference for worldwide adoption of the concept, civilian and military.

So what is the _janes_ author, Richard D Fisher Jr., talking about when he wrote this: 'When the pushrods failed...'

What is this 'pushrods' ? Is he talking about the 'push-pull' rod or tube ?

http://navyaviation.tpub.com/14014/css/Flight-Control-Mechanisms-83.htm


> In a *push-pull tube* system, metal push-pull tubes(or rods) are used as a substitute for the cables (fig.4-11). Push-pull tubes get their name from the way theytransmit force.


But the F-16 have no such mechanical linkages in its FBW-FLCS. Neither does the newer Boeing and Airbus airliners. Neither does the French Rafale fighter. Neither does plenty of other late '4th gen' fighter that has FBW-FLCS.

The Su-33 have been flying off Soviet/Russian aircraft carriers for yrs. The J-15 is the Chinese unapproved and unlicensed version of the Su-33.

To use the word 'copy' loosely, did the Chinese fully copied the Su-33's FBW-FLCS into the J-15 ? If the Chinese were unable to copy the Su-33's FBW-FLCS, did they made adaptations that included mechanical linkages in the J-15's FLCS ? If this is true, what else could not the Chinese do in that technology transfer ?

These paragraphs...



> This is the first time a Chinese government source has said the J-15 uses fly-by-wire flight control: a system believed only to have been incorporated in the newer SAC J-16 strike fighter and J-11D fighter.
> 
> SAC's development of fly-by-wire technology is longstanding, with its experimental J-8ACT fly-by-wire testbed first flown in June 1990.
> 
> ...laws governing management of this technology are generally embedded in early design models rather than retrospectively during upgrade action, given the fundamental impact on aircraft capability.


...Only adds to the confusion.

It seems to hint that the J-15 uses a different FBW-FLCS than the parent Su-33. The laws that Fisher mentioned are 'flight control laws'.

Example...

http://www.airbusdriver.net/airbus_fltlaws.htm

Whether it is 'pushrods' or 'push-pull rods', this is not a trivial matter. If it is true that the Chinese were unable to fully copy the Su-33's FBW-FLCS and made independent in-house adaptations, how extensive were the testings of those modifications ? Flaws do not always manifest themselves consistently. Quite often, they need ideal conditions and with the deaths of three pilots, maybe each time, systems conditions were just right.

This is assuming Fisher was technically competent in the field of aviation and reported the Chinese sources accurately. This would be the worst case scenario. So let us put this aside for now.

Maybe what Fisher meant by 'pushrods' was the hydraulic actuators.

In carrier landings, there is no 'flare' or pitch up maneuver, and yet, the Chinese authority reported...



> ...the flight control failure apparently caused the J-15 to *pitch up* upon touching the ground....


Assuming the Chinese fully copied the Su-33's FBW-FLCS into the J-15, this leads to pilot error. So what is that 'flight control failure' that Fisher reported ?

For the Su-33 and J-15, as they are canard-ed platforms, there are two ways to produce a pitch up maneuver. Either by the rear horizontal stabs, or by the canards. How many other J-15 successful carrier landings ? That mean each of those successful landings must be examined to see why there were no pitch up maneuver. If it is technically eliminated, then the focus would be on pilot error. Three pilots dead mean findings from the first two mishaps were not properly studied and remedies not produced.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## cnleio

gambit said:


> Since the PDF Chinese ran away from my challenge, guess it is up to me, as usual, to dissect these articles.
> 
> http://www.janes.com/article/62661/china-reveals-cause-of-fatal-april-crash-of-j-15
> 
> The highlighted does not make sense.
> 
> Let us take the F-16, the first operational aircraft with a full fly-by-wire (FBW) flight control system (FLCS).
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Dynamics_F-16_Fighting_Falcon
> 
> What this mean is that there is literally *NO* mechanical anything between the cockpit and the hydraulic actuators that are connected to the flight control surfaces.
> 
> The F-16 set the standards on how to design and engineer a FBW-FLCS. Its architecture is the reference for worldwide adoption of the concept, civilian and military.
> 
> So what is the _janes_ author, Richard D Fisher Jr., talking about when he wrote this: 'When the pushrods failed...'
> 
> What is this 'pushrods' ? Is he talking about the 'push-pull' rod or tube ?
> 
> http://navyaviation.tpub.com/14014/css/Flight-Control-Mechanisms-83.htm
> 
> But the F-16 have no such mechanical linkages in its FBW-FLCS. Neither does the newer Boeing and Airbus airliners. Neither does the French Rafale fighter. Neither does plenty of other late '4th gen' fighter that has FBW-FLCS.
> 
> The Su-33 have been flying off Soviet/Russian aircraft carriers for yrs. The J-15 is the Chinese unapproved and unlicensed version of the Su-33.
> 
> To use the word 'copy' loosely, did the Chinese fully copied the Su-33's FBW-FLCS into the J-15 ? If the Chinese were unable to copy the Su-33's FBW-FLCS, did they made adaptations that included mechanical linkages in the J-15's FLCS ? If this is true, what else could not the Chinese do in that technology transfer ?
> 
> These paragraphs...
> 
> 
> ...Only adds to the confusion.
> 
> It seems to hint that the J-15 uses a different FBW-FLCS than the parent Su-33. The laws that Fisher mentioned are 'flight control laws'.
> 
> Example...
> 
> http://www.airbusdriver.net/airbus_fltlaws.htm
> 
> Whether it is 'pushrods' or 'push-pull rods', this is not a trivial matter. If it is true that the Chinese were unable to fully copy the Su-33's FBW-FLCS and made independent in-house adaptations, how extensive were the testings of those modifications ? Flaws do not always manifest themselves consistently. Quite often, they need ideal conditions and with the deaths of three pilots, maybe each time, systems conditions were just right.
> 
> This is assuming Fisher was technically competent in the field of aviation and reported the Chinese sources accurately. This would be the worst case scenario. So let us put this aside for now.
> 
> Maybe what Fisher meant by 'pushrods' was the hydraulic actuators.
> 
> In carrier landings, there is no 'flare' or pitch up maneuver, and yet, the Chinese authority reported...
> 
> 
> Assuming the Chinese fully copied the Su-33's FBW-FLCS into the J-15, this leads to pilot error. So what is that 'flight control failure' that Fisher reported ?
> 
> For the Su-33 and J-15, as they are canard-ed platforms, there are two ways to produce a pitch up maneuver. Either by the rear horizontal stabs, or by the canards. How many other J-15 successful carrier landings ? That mean each of those successful landings must be examined to see why there were no pitch up maneuver. If it is technically eliminated, then the focus would be on pilot error. Three pilots dead mean findings from the first two mishaps were not properly studied and remedies not produced.


The lost of three Chinese pilots is very normal during China learning how to operate A.C and J-15 ... as long as China Navy having A.Cs on the sea, no doubt there will be more casualties as many as U.S Navy had during past half-century, Did American avoid thousand casualties on the A.C deck or in training ? NO.

J-15 is a good fighter for PLAN, better than nothing ... it's China 1st-gen carrier-borne jet fighter, without first there no next, the J-15 keep going.


F-18 with a full fly-by-wire (FBW) flight control system (FLCS), is that work ?

Reactions: Like Like:
8


----------



## cnleio



Reactions: Like Like:
8


----------



## onebyone

cnleio said:


> The lost of three Chinese pilots is very normal during China learning how to operate A.C and J-15 ... as long as China Navy having A.Cs on the sea, no doubt there will be more casualties as many as U.S Navy had during past half-century, Did American avoid thousand casualties on the A.C deck or in training ? NO.
> 
> J-15 is a good fighter for PLAN, better than nothing ... it's China 1st-gen carrier-borne jet fighter, without first there no next, the J-15 keep going.
> 
> 
> F-18 with a full fly-by-wire (FBW) flight control system (FLCS), is that work ?
> View attachment 323051
> 
> View attachment 323052
> 
> View attachment 323053


 Good US number one

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## jhungary

SinoSoldier said:


> Translate, please? What does the CGI at the bottom represent?



You don't read Chinese?? (I thought you were Chinese......)

It said

(We) need to be careful to modify the original design, the Russian Sukhoi Design Bureau first developed Su-27KI in use with Type 1153 Nuclear power Aircraft Carrier in 1971. The Aircraft (Su-27KI) was equipped with landing gear designed to be catapulted off the aircraft carrier, however, due to the fail development of steam catapult, The Type 1153 Aircraft Carrier was cancelled and the Su-27KI development was also terminated in 1978, until today, the Su-27KI concept reborn as J-15T (Eject).

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Providence

jhungary said:


> You don't read Chinese?? (I thought you were Chinese......)
> 
> It said


----------



## Akasa

jhungary said:


> You don't read Chinese?? (I thought you were Chinese......)
> 
> It said
> 
> (We) need to be careful to modify the original design, the Russian Sukhoi Design Bureau first developed Su-27KI in use with Type 1153 Nuclear power Aircraft Carrier in 1971. The Aircraft (Su-27KI) was equipped with landing gear designed to be catapulted off the aircraft carrier, however, due to the fail development of steam catapult, The Type 1153 Aircraft Carrier was cancelled and the Su-27KI development was also terminated in 1978, until today, the Su-27KI concept reborn as J-15T (Eject).



Thanks for the translate.

I presume that the Russians have moved on to a CATOBAR-capable MiG-29K concept for their future vessels, however far off into the future they may be.


----------



## gambit

cnleio said:


> The lost of three Chinese pilots is very normal during China learning how to operate A.C and J-15 ... as long as China Navy having A.Cs on the sea, no doubt there will be more casualties as many as U.S Navy had during past half-century, Did American avoid thousand casualties on the A.C deck or in training ? NO.
> 
> J-15 is a good fighter for PLAN, better than nothing ... it's China 1st-gen carrier-borne jet fighter, without first there no next, the J-15 keep going.


My point in post 1150 was not about China's loss of three pilots. Of course there will be casualties and I told you guys that yrs ago.

Post 1150 was about the PDF Chinese.

I challenged *ALL* of you to find that contradiction in that _janes.com_ article. None of you could.


----------



## 星海军事



Reactions: Like Like:
11


----------



## Deino

Simply incredible ... here are more: And also with the WS-10.

Reactions: Like Like:
12


----------



## ChineseTiger1986

Deino said:


> Simply incredible ... here are more: And also with the WS-10.
> 
> View attachment 334391
> View attachment 334393



The Type 001A will remain with the J-15A.

While the Type 002 (regardless it uses the steam catapult or the EMALS) will have the J-15B.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## grey boy 2

Can some one explain whats the different with J-15A and B please?

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## ChineseTiger1986

grey boy 2 said:


> Can some one explain whats the different with J-15A and B please?



The J-15A is the current J-15 deployed on the CV-16.

The J-15B will be deployed on the Type 002, and it will use the WS-10 instead of the AL-31.

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## Dungeness

Deino said:


> Simply incredible ... here are more: And also with the WS-10.
> 
> View attachment 334391
> View attachment 334393




What a way to celebrate 8/15 holiday!

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Beast

14000kg Max thrust WS-10B debuts.

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## SouI

Beast said:


> 14000kg Max thrust WS-10B debuts.


Wait, it is one engine?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Dungeness

Beast said:


> 14000kg Max thrust WS-10B debuts.



Is it confirmed?

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Beast

Dungeness said:


> Is it confirmed?


Shall be. It is all the while waiting for a more powerful thrust of engine that competitive with the west, not just in terms of reliabilities, lifespan. J-10C, J-20, J-15 are all waiting for this babies. If you see it's on it. Very likely is the rumour WS-10B. Saw on fyjs claimed it will debut this year. 

All the PLAAF I mention require more powerful thrust of engine. J-11B, J-11BS and J-16 do not require that much power thrust of engine. Therefore WS-10A are install on those.



SouI said:


> Wait, it is one engine?


Both not one. Military spec requirement.

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## Deino

By the way .. are there any news regarding the J-15S ??


----------



## Akasa

The major discrepancy between the J-15A and the earlier J-15 series would be the addition of an AESA radar. This would immensely augment its tactical versatility given the limited range of combat air patrols that it could undertake.


----------



## Deino

Interesting comparison of the new catapult-capable landing gear: J-15A or J-15T left vs. a regular J-15 on the right...

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Deino

By the way I have two more questions that were spinning thru my mind since some time:

1. Does anyone know the current status of the twin-seater ? So far we have seen one, maybe two prototypes and one - most likely of them - in grey at the CFTE ... final news were from September last year.

2. Again a J-15 prototype 557 was mentioned ... but I have never seen one !?? Did I miss this particular bird?

Thanks in advance,
Deino


----------



## ahojunk

*China’s Catapult Launched J-15 for Aircraft Carrier with Catapult*
*Posted:* September 20, 2016 | *Author:* chankaiyee2 |






_Prototype of catapult-launched j-15. Mil.news.sina.com.cn photo_






_The takeoff device and strengthened landing gear of the prototype. mil.news.sina.com.cn photo_


The above are photos of a new prototype of China’s J-15 carrier-based fighter jet. Taiwan’s major media chinatimes.com believes that it is the prototype of catapult-launched carrier-based J-15 fighter jet as the landing gear is strengthened for catapult assisted takeoff.

Source: huanqiu.com “Taiwan media: Disclosure of Mainland’s catapult-launched J-15, but perhaps not for China’s first homegrown aircraft carrier” (summary by Chan Kai Yee based on the report in Chinese)

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Zarvan

Airbus Defence and Space imagery showing a Chinese navy shore-based catapult test and training complex under construction at Huangdicun Airbase. Source: CNES 2016, Distribution Airbus DS / 2016 IHS
China has been flight testing a new variant of its J-15 navalised fighter modified for catapult-assisted take-off but arrested recovery (CATOBAR) operations, according to images posted on Chinese online forums.

Released on 15 September, the images show a Shenyang Aircraft Corporation (SAC) J-15 in flight featuring what appear to be modifications to its front undercarriage that would enable the aircraft to conduct catapult-assisted take-offs: yet another indication that China may be planning to develop a CATOBAR aircraft carrier.

Expectations that China's third carrier, which is commonly referred to as the Type 002, will be equipped with catapults were reinforced in early August when images emerged on Chinese online forums showing the country's land-based aircraft carrier mock-up in Wuhan, Hubei Province, undergoing modifications.

Most significantly, the ski-jump section had been removed from the mock-up.

Construction of China's third carrier is expected to take place at the Jiangnan Changxingdao shipyard near Shanghai. So far there has been no official confirmation of the programme, nor visible evidence of the construction, but there has been considerable speculation that production of the initial modules is already in progress.

Airbus Defence and Space imagery captured on 20 June 2016 already showed that significant progress was being made on two land-based catapult tracks for testing and training.





This image shows what appear to be modifications to the front undercarriage of a Chinese carrier-based J-15 fighter that could enable the aircraft to conduct catapult-assisted take-offs. (Via CJDBY web page)

Constructed at the People's Liberation Army Navy (PLAN) carrier air wing training facility at Huangdicun Airbase, the two tracks consist of a steam-powered track and an electromagnetic catapult track placed at the northeastern end of a new runway under construction. Installation of both suggests that a final decision on which system to adopt may not yet have been taken.

*Want to read more? For analysis on this article and access to all our insight content, please enquire about our subscription options　**ihs.com/contact*




To read the full article, Client Login
(292 of 419 words)

http://www.janes.com/article/64001/china-flight-testing-modified-j-15-for-catobar-operations

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## Deino

*@Zarvan 


PLAESE !!!!!! Why on earth do You always start for each and every bit of news a new thread even if these news are already potsed - some even several times - and if an already existing thread is available????

I really don't understand this.*

Deino

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## The Eagle

Deino said:


> *@Zarvan
> 
> 
> PLAESE !!!!!! Why on earth do You always start for each and every bit of news a new thread even if these news are already potsed - some even several times - and if an already existing thread is available????
> 
> I really don't understand this.*
> 
> Deino



Call it enthusiasm. However, @Zarvan if possible, kindly post such news, if there is current one and not shared before, in respective thread for the subject so the important information may be available at one place for readers and we can avoid duplication as well. Just saying. Thanks.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## grey boy 2

cockpit of J-15 flying shark

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Deino

A new image of the J-15T ...

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## Beast

Deino said:


> Again NO, it uses exactly the same engines, is probably a bit lighter but avionics-wise uses the same radar like the J-11B ... only the J-15A or T if You like maybe.



Su-33 uses basic AL-31F while J-15 uses newer higher thrust AL-31 M series. Btw, this about original Su-33 vs J-15, not J-15 vs J-11B. Are you going to deny J-15 is more superior than old Su-33 in terms of radar?

http://en.people.cn/90786/8047787.html


----------



## Deino

No... But you claim it features an AESA is wrong and by The way whats your source for an AL-31m ?


----------



## Beast

Deino said:


> No... But you claim it features an AESA is wrong and by The way whats your source for an AL-31m ?



https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/military-engines-russia-213591/

I have not heard Su-33 has installed any of the upgraded newer AL-31 engines. And I doubt Chinese will buy the original 80s design AL-31F engines in modern 21th century...

So everytime the same whining tune sing by Indians of copy being inferior to original is nothing but BS. In fact, its upgraded and far superior. The latter will always be better. Just like trying to claim F-16A is superior than F-16 block 52.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## grey boy 2



Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Deino

Beast said:


> https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/military-engines-russia-213591/
> 
> I have not heard Su-33 has installed any of the upgraded newer AL-31 engines. And I doubt Chinese will buy the original 80s design AL-31F engines in modern 21th century...
> 
> So everytime the same whining tune sing by Indians of copy being inferior to original is nothing but BS. In fact, its upgraded and far superior. The latter will always be better. Just like trying to claim F-16A is superior than F-16 block 52.




But the issue is: there have never been any reports about AL-31M - aka AL-31FM1 or M2 - on any naval Flanker. This is the engine used on the latest Su-30 versions and Su-34. The fact that You don't believe that China uses the same engines as in all other J-11A s is not a proof that the J-15 uses it. By the way if these engines were sold to China, I'm sure the Russians would have announced it ... and even more I think they would have refused to use their uprated engines on a clearly illegal copy of their own Su-33.
Concerning the radar Your claim is also not valid. The J-11B has an already better radar than the standard Su-27SK/Su-33 but an AESA was so far only speculated for the J-15A.

By the way I will move this J-15-stuff to the correct thread.



Beast said:


> https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/military-engines-russia-213591/



Sorry a link from 2007 reporting about plans on versions M1 to M3 is hardly a proof that China uses this versions esp. since China and the J-15 is not even mentioned in a single word.

See:


> ...Salyut hopes the AL-31FM-1 will be selected by China to modernise its fleet of Su-27/30s, for which rival NPO Saturn is proposing its new 117S engine. Under a 2005 contract worth $550 million, Salyut and UMPO are already supplying an additional 180 AL-31Fs over three years to China to power AVIC 2-built Su-27SKs (J-11s). A separate three-year, $100 million agreement covered spares for engines powering Su-27SKs and Su-30MK2s purchased from Russia and licence-built.
> ...




And we all know this deal finally failed since the WS-10 became matured by 2009.


----------



## WarFariX

an awesome aircraft based on su33


----------



## grey boy 2

J-15 now equip with (YJ-18 aircraft carrier killer) 歼-15挂鹰击-12反舰导弹，瞬间变身航母杀手

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## 星海军事




----------



## Akasa

星海军事 said:


>



New logo or squadron?


----------



## Deino

SinoSoldier said:


> New logo or squadron?



Indeed ... come on; tell us more. Really a new unit ... or - due to all this energy-emissions - a hint for a dedicated EW-version ???

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Deino

Deino said:


> Indeed ... come on; tell us more. Really a new unit ... or - due to all this energy-emissions - a hint for a dedicated EW-version ???



So I was probably not too much off ??


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/790964212440989696

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Akasa

Interesting; do they not plan to build a multirole variant of the J-15S (i.e. one that can carry out day-to-day CAP/strike missions akin to the F/A-18F)? Or is the J-15D variant capable of that as well (with removable EW equipment)?


----------



## Pepsi Cola

J-15D? What happened to J-15B and J-15C lol


----------



## Akasa

星海军事 said:


>



Is there a multirole variant of the J-15S (i.e. for regular strike/air-to-air missiles rather than any dedicated purpose)?


----------



## Dungeness

China tested Electromagnetic Aircraft Launch System with J-15 successfully








@星海军事 confirmed？

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Dungeness

@星海军事 can you confirm?

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Dungeness



Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Deino

Dungeness said:


> @星海军事 can you confirm?




*PLEASE !!!! ... not a new thread again !!*
*Esp. since You posted exactly the same post in the correct thread, there's NO need to open another new thread.*

Deino


----------



## 星海军事

Dungeness said:


> @星海军事 can you confirm?



The catapult-launch demonstrator left for Xingcheng last month

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Akasa

星海军事 said:


> The catapult-launch demonstrator left for Xingcheng last month



The J-15A is just a demonstrator, not a fully-fledged prototype?


----------



## Dungeness

星海军事 said:


> The catapult-launch demonstrator left for Xingcheng last month



EMALS successfully tested?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Deino

星海军事 said:


> The catapult-launch demonstrator left for Xingcheng last month




Is that Xingcheng ???


----------



## 星海军事

Deino said:


> Is that Xingcheng ???
> 
> View attachment 350230



Experimental catapult facility and a J-15 model in 704 Institute, CSIC

Reactions: Positive Rating Positive Rating:
1 | Like Like:
4


----------



## GiantPanda

Well, it looks like the CATOBAR carrier is assured and now one with EMALS as well. Planning and execution has been emaculate in building the carrier capability.

The J-15A looks like it will be ready by the time the carrier comes along.

Still think Type002 will be steam launched? Actually, it would still be nice to a see Chinese steam-catapault though it won't last more than two ships before the EMALS.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Deino

星海军事 said:


> The catapult-launch demonstrator left for Xingcheng last month




But isn't Xingcheng the older base and now replaced by Hungdicun close to the coast ?

At least I know the NATB under the name of Hungdicun.

Deino


----------



## Deino

Update: An image reportedly taken on 17. October shows a J-15 right behind the track ...

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Deino

Better now ... but, on what side is the steam and on what the EMALS ??? ... as far as I remember, the one where the J-15T stands is the steam catapult !???

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Zhu Rong Zheng Yang

Deino said:


> Better now ... but, on what side is the steam and on what the EMALS ??? ... as far as I remember, the one where the J-15T stands is the steam catapult !???



@grey boy 2 @ChineseTiger1986 @Asok @pakistanipower

LR = Left Runway = EMAL
RR = Right Runway = Steam

Obviously Logic said the Left Runway ( Narrower and Longer ) is the EMAL Catapult runway.
Why ?

1*) LR is much simpler and use much less supporting equipments ( Red roof bldg, perhaps housing Electronic ).
Because, EMAL Cat is much simpler and use much less supporting equipments,
plus EMAL Cat space usage is much smaller compares to the Steam Cat.

2*) RR is much more complex and use much more supporting equipments ( Red roof bldg + Greyish roof bldg ).
3*) RR is wider. underneath has much more complex supporting equipments ( Steam / Water pipings ).
4.) RR is located closer to the water source ( tiny river running to the sea )
4a.) Thus, it is ILLOGICAL to use underground fresh Water source by drilling a well.
5.) It is ILLOGICAL to build ( Steam Cat ) on the LR.

===

It means wasting more piping materials and riskier in terms of
damaging the ( EMAL Cat supporting equipments ).
Why ?
All the much more complex supporting equipments ( Steam / Water pipings ) have to go around the EMAL supporting materials on the RR. -- When the ( Ultra High Pressure Steam piping ) is leaking and piping is bursting it can damaged the ( EMAL Cat supporting equipments on the RR).

Thus, it is more likely CV-002 or CV-18 will be equipped with EMAL Cat,
because EMAL cat and J-15A are ready for service by end of 2017.

@Deino
Please use your logic -- before you dismiss my Logic and challenge me on this.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## grey boy 2

J-15

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## grey boy 2



Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## grey boy 2

J-15 EMAL version model

Reactions: Like Like:
10


----------



## Deino

Clearer images of J-15 serial 119 + 115 + 116 ... and there are reports about #122 being spotted at SAC !

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## grey boy 2

J-15 "119"

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Deino

grey boy 2 said:


> J-15 "119"



What I would like to know, what's the current production rate of J-15 and J-16 per month, how many lines are open for each type and (IMO I don't think so) if J-11B/BS are still manufactured?


----------



## 星海军事

Deino said:


> What I would like to know, what's the current production rate of J-15 and J-16 per month, how many lines are open for each type and (IMO I don't think so) if J-11B/BS are still manufactured?


J-11B/BH/BS are still in production

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Akasa

星海军事 said:


> J-11B/BH/BS are still in production



Interesting; do they plan to shut down J-11B assembly lines once the J-11D enters production?


----------



## Deino

From the serial number (as well as their construction numbers even if don not have all, the missing ones at least fit nicely) identified so far we have 20 J-15s build so far of which 1 (#117) was lost:

Block 01 =

No. 100 = c/n 0101
No. 101 = c/n 0102
No. 102 = c/n 0103
No. 103 = c/n 0104
No. 104 = c/n 0105
No. 105 = c/n 0106
No. 106 = c/n 0107
No. 107 = c/n 0108
No. 108 = c/n 0109
No. 109 = c/n 0110

Block 02 =

No. 110 = c/n 0201
No. 111 = c/n 0202
No. 112 = c/n 0203
No. 113 = c/n 0204
No. 114 = c/n 0205
No. 115 = c/n 0206
No. 116 = c/n 0207
No. 117 = c/n 0208 ... lost
No. 118 = c/n 0209
No. 119 = c/n 0210 ... just confirmed on the images below !


----------



## Deino

A recent image !??? ... so still alive and flying ?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## grey boy 2

J-15 dual seats version

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Deino

grey boy 2 said:


> J-15 dual seats version




Interesting ... any info on its current status ? I think the first prototype was already painted some time ago and a second yellow bird was spotted in October 2014 + a third (or the same) in September 2015.
Any info on how many are build so far ... when will it become operational ??

Deino


----------



## grey boy 2

J-15 "120"

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## ChineseLuver



Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## grey boy 2

ChineseLuver said:


> View attachment 360511


Nice, first time we saw J-15 firing missiles

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## ChineseLuver

Loaded and ready to fire YJ-83K?

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Deino



Reactions: Like Like:
9


----------



## ChineseLuver

This is just too awesome and at 1:14 the pilot's helmet reads "SHOOT IT!"

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## grey boy 2



Reactions: Like Like:
8


----------



## Deino

Just a crude attempt to deduct a production rate, even if I'm not sure if all images were up-to-date !

Anyway, ...I just picked up the "oldest" image I know for each aircraft and marked the biggest span in *bolt*:

100 - 22.4.14
101 - 2.5.14
102 - *2.12.13*
103 - 2.12.13
104 - 19.5.14
105 - 22.5.14
106 - 20.3.15
107 - 1.10.14
108 - 1.10.14
109 - *12.11.14*
... seem to be 10 aircraft between December 2013 and November 2014 = 10 J-15 in 12 months

110 - *5.9.15*
111 - 12.10.15
112 - 23.9.15
113 - 3.9.15
114 - 12.10.15
115 - 12.6.16
116 - 16.8.16
117 - 16.5.16
118 - 31.11.16
119 - 30.11.16
120 - *15.12.16*
... seem to be 11 aircraft between September 2015 and December 2016 = 11 J-15 in 16 months


Deino

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Sejong

how many J-15s will be built for China?


----------



## Akasa

Sejong said:


> how many J-15s will be built for China?



Likely 24 of the basic variant for the _Liaoning_, and 24 of the *J-15A* variant for the upcoming carrier.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## grey boy 2

J-15 firing PL-12

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Deino

... I want this in full size !

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Deino

I re-did my production rate calculation ... and the result – especially if mated with the c/ns – is interesting, since it fits nicely:


*Batch 01:*

No. 100 = c/n 0101 - 22.4.14
No. 101 = c/n 0102 - 2.5.14
No. 102 = c/n 0103 - 2.12.13
No. 103 = c/n 0104 - 2.12.13
No. 104 = c/n 0105 - 19.5.14
No. 105 = c/n 0106 - 22.5.14
No. 106 = c/n 0107 - 20.3.15
No. 107 = c/n 0108 - 1.10.14
No. 108 = c/n 0109 - 1.10.14
No. 109 = c/n 0110 - 12.11.14
... so these are 10 aircraft between December 2013 and November 2014 = 10 J-15 in 12 months (maybe less)


*Batch 02:*

No. 110 = c/n 0201 - 5.9.15
No. 111 = c/n 0202 - 12.10.15
No. 112 = c/n 0203 - 23.9.15
No. 113 = c/n 0204 - 3.9.15
No. 114 = c/n 0205 - 12.10.15
No. 115 = c/n 0206 - 12.6.16
No. 116 = c/n 0207 - 16.8.16
No. 117 = c/n 0208 - 16.5.16 ... reportedly lost
No. 118 = c/n 0209 - 31.11.16
No. 119 = c/n 0210 - 30.11.16
No. 120 = c/n 0211 - 15.12.16
... so these are 11 aircraft between September 2015 and December 2016 = 11 J-15 in 16 months (maybe less)


Would be interesting is the batch 01 J-16 fit exactly into this break of J-15-production, how many are produced and if the J-11B and BS production is continuing at a second line in parallel.

Deino


----------



## cirr

Deino said:


> I re-did my production rate calculation ... and the result – especially if mated with the c/ns – is interesting, since it fits nicely:
> 
> 
> *Batch 01:*
> 
> No. 100 = c/n 0101 - 22.4.14
> No. 101 = c/n 0102 - 2.5.14
> No. 102 = c/n 0103 - 2.12.13
> No. 103 = c/n 0104 - 2.12.13
> No. 104 = c/n 0105 - 19.5.14
> No. 105 = c/n 0106 - 22.5.14
> No. 106 = c/n 0107 - 20.3.15
> No. 107 = c/n 0108 - 1.10.14
> No. 108 = c/n 0109 - 1.10.14
> No. 109 = c/n 0110 - 12.11.14
> ... so these are 10 aircraft between December 2013 and November 2014 = 10 J-15 in 12 months (maybe less)
> 
> 
> *Batch 02:*
> 
> No. 110 = c/n 0201 - 5.9.15
> No. 111 = c/n 0202 - 12.10.15
> No. 112 = c/n 0203 - 23.9.15
> No. 113 = c/n 0204 - 3.9.15
> No. 114 = c/n 0205 - 12.10.15
> No. 115 = c/n 0206 - 12.6.16
> No. 116 = c/n 0207 - 16.8.16
> No. 117 = c/n 0208 - 16.5.16 ... reportedly lost
> No. 118 = c/n 0209 - 31.11.16
> No. 119 = c/n 0210 - 30.11.16
> No. 120 = c/n 0211 - 15.12.16
> ... so these are 11 aircraft between September 2015 and December 2016 = 11 J-15 in 16 months (maybe less)
> 
> 
> Would be interesting is the batch 01 J-16 fit exactly into this break of J-15-production, how many are produced and if the J-11B and BS production is continuing at a second line in parallel.
> 
> Deino



117 has been mended.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Deino

cirr said:


> 117 has been mended.



Indeed !?? That would be fine.


----------



## Akasa

cirr said:


> 117 has been mended.



Isn't that usually more expensive than writing it off an building a new one (perhaps the damage wasn't as irrevocable as previously thought)?


----------



## Deino

cirr said:


> 117 has been mended.




By the way, there is this report stating that in 2016 2 J-15 were lost ??? Do You have any more info on this ?



> Here is a list compiled by Chinese news releases on the recent PLA, PLAAF and PLANAF accidents:
> 
> Total: 10 aircraft and 7 lives lost
> 
> PLAAF: 5 aircraft, 1 pilot
> 
> 1x J-10S
> 2x J-10A
> 1x JH-7A
> 
> 
> PLANAF: 4 aircraft, 3 pilots and 1trainee
> 
> 1x J-10A
> 1x J-11BH
> 2x J-15
> 1x JL-8
> 
> PLA Army Aviation: One helicopter and 2 pilots
> 
> 1x Mi-171



http://china-defense.blogspot.de/2016/11/chinese-military-aircraft-accidents-jan.html


----------



## Beast

ChineseLuver said:


> This is just too awesome and at 1:14 the pilot's helmet reads "SHOOT IT!"


By the way, in the video it mention AWACS take off first but they did not show anything. Can it be Y-7 AWACS?

If its the Z-18J, why would they not want to show it?

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Deino

Beast said:


> By the way, in the video it mention AWACS take off first but they did not show anything. Can it be Y-7 AWACS?
> 
> If its the Z-18J, why would they not want to show it?




As far as I know, for the PLN either KJ-200 or -500 were also participating shore-based, but surely not from the Liaoning.


----------



## Beast

Deino said:


> As far as I know, for the PLN either KJ-200 or -500 were also participating shore-based, but surely not from the Liaoning.



How can you be so sure? Based on what? If CV-16 having such a major simulate exercise needed shored based AWACS instead of relying on itself AWACS, it completely defeat the purpose of having a CV and this exercise...


----------



## Deino

It is plain and simple logic and has nothing - not that least - to do with my inability to read Chinese: China simply does not have a carrier-borne AEW/AWACS ...


Do You really think that they were testing such an aircraft out of the blue and we did not even get aware of its first flight, its further testing and begin of serial production ???

So please be realistic !


----------



## Beast

Deino said:


> It is plain and simple logic and has nothing - not that least - to do with my inability to read Chinese: China simply does not have a carrier-borne AEW/AWACS ...
> 
> 
> Do You really think that they were testing such an aircraft out of the blue and we did not even get aware of its first flight, its further testing and begin of serial production ???
> 
> So please be realistic !


What nonsense are you talking about? Dont tell me you do not know Z-18J?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Deino

Beast said:


> What nonsense are you talking about? Dont tell me you do not know Z-18J? If its the Z-18J, why would they not want to show it?



And what BS are You talking again ??!! To admit I really have enough of Your constant attacks !


You were speaking about an carrier-borne AEW-plane ...


Beast said:


> .... *Can it be Y-7 AWACS? *



...so don't twist again words only to fit Your aggression.

Deino


----------



## Beast

Deino said:


> And what BS are You talking again ??!! To admit I really have enough of Your constant attacks !
> 
> 
> You were speaking about an carrier-borne AEW-plane ...
> 
> 
> ...so don't twist again words only to fit Your aggression.
> 
> Deino


If not ship borne AEW, they can used Z-18J. Why would they need to fly an AWACS from land?

No carrier aircraft AWACS, use helo AWACS. But why did they not showed the helo? And I seriously doubt the AWACS is launched from land based. Once again it defeat the purpose of having an CV.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Deino

Dear @Beast, I make it plain and simple:

You asked, what kind of AEW-PLANE from the carrier the PLN used and even suggested the Y-7-AEW ... what I replied as impossible ! And now You are again in wild-boar modus, calling me stupid and making chest-thumps as if I do not know the Z-18J ... that I never mentioned, that I am fully aware of but intentionally omitted since it was not the point.

Point was Your - IMO plain stupid - proposal or question if a *Y-7 AWACS *took part. So who's the fool and either You admit that and immediately stop this trolling around or I promise You a Christmas vacation until 2018.

Simply admit Your stupid post and otherwise shut up. 
Deino


----------



## Beast

Deino said:


> Dear @Beast, I make it plain and simple:
> 
> You asked, what kind of AEW-PLANE from the carrier the PLN used and even suggested the Y-7-AEW ... what I replied as impossible ! And now You are again in wild-boar modus, calling me stupid and making chest-thumps as if I do not know the Z-18J ... that I never mentioned, that I am fully aware of but intentionally omitted since it was not the point.
> 
> Point was Your - IMO plain stupid - proposal or question if a *Y-7 AWACS *took part. So who's the fool and either You admit that and immediately stop this trolling around or I promise You a Christmas vacation until 2018.
> 
> Simply admit Your stupid post and otherwise shut up.
> Deino



What a rude moderator you are? Why did you get so worked and resort to name calling? How many stupid did you used on your reply when I did not even resort to your standard.

If you could just reply, no ship borne AWACS but helo AWACS is used from carrier onboard. Wouldn't that solved all the problem? But you did not. You claimed a land based AWACS is needed to fly in and support a carrier. Does it sounds like a joke? In a military term. If you need fly an AWACS from land to support a carrier. You might as well stopped sending the carrier on sea. Its a waste of asset and its abilities.

@waz @Horus @Manticore

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Deino

@Beast;

case closed !


----------



## ChineseLuver

Guys, there has been speculation on CD that the current J-15 are indeed using TVC engines and would like to know what are your thoughts?


----------



## Deino

Plain and simple: No

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Pepsi Cola

TVC is simply too unlikely at this point. Nevertheless, even If it would be implemented, it would not be on J-15. J-15 is seen as the face of PLAN (you can see from the usually sophisticated markings on all J-15s) as it's the carrier borne fighter, and PLAN would never risk an untested technology on the "face of Chinese Navy" Furthermore, if TVC is going to be used then it would be on more stable land fighters. Plus, I personally don't think that when TVC is ready the Chinese government would try much to hide it.


----------



## Deino



Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## grey boy 2

Beautiful pictures from (《兵工科技》)

Reactions: Like Like:
8


----------



## grey boy 2

happy landing

Reactions: Like Like:
8


----------



## Deino

Ui ... 13 J-15s on deck ... !!!

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## cirr



Reactions: Like Like:
9


----------



## grey boy 2

Buddy refueling

Reactions: Like Like:
12


----------



## grey boy 2

119 spotted

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## Deino

And here's the video:

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## cirr

Looking forward to J-15 v2.0

Now the question is: will its avionics and radars be modelled on J-16 v2.0 or J-11D v2.0?

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## Deino

cirr said:


> 117 has been mended.




Just again to this question; since there have been reports about altogether three crashes until now. I also had a similar discussion at the ACIG-forum, where one member said:



> My source indicates 107,110 and 117 have been lost.


 
... and when I asked for sources, he posted this:




manfredzhang said:


> Not sure whether you have access to this site. If not, let me know I can post screenshot. Some one was asking for the serial numbers of the three lost J-15s.
> 
> http://miltalk.cn/index.php?threads/4266585/
> 
> I also posted some links on ACIG of at least three J-15 losses.
> 
> http://www.acig.info/forum/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=3759&start=15
> 
> One in the end of 2015
> 
> https://www.powerapple.com/news/li-shi-jun-shi/2015/12/25/2550347.html
> 
> 不过，就在歼-15舰载机和辽宁舰融合训练取得一系列成绩时，有不和谐的传闻称，编号113的歼-15舰载机似乎发生了二等事故：战机坠毁，但飞行员平安无事。
> 
> And two in 2016 from pro regime sources
> 
> https://3g.ishuo.cn/doc/aybndiqf.html
> 
> 2016年1月到11月初，全军共坠毁飞机10架，其中海航一架歼10A，一架歼11BH，两架歼15。
> 
> The only confirmed loss is 117 by Chinese news agency in the end of April. Pilot Zhang Chao died in the accident.
> 
> http://mil.news.sina.com.cn/china/2016-08-11/doc-ifxuxnah3102880.shtml
> 
> 张超，海军某舰载航空兵部队战斗机团飞行二大队一中队中队长、一级飞行员，在即将上舰前执行的一次陆基模拟着舰飞行训练中，由于歼－15战机突发故障，不幸以身殉职，年仅29岁。
> 
> Further details of the April accident.
> http://www.qntsw.com/junshi/20160802/3617.html




Any one of You can give an estimation on "these" reports, sources and esp. their reliability?

Thanks in advance,
Deino


----------



## lcloo

What do these numbers written by LSO means? 101 and 126.

Are 101 and 126 referred to Aircraft? 

In US navy, what would be written by USN LSO on the glass?


----------



## Deino

lcloo said:


> What do these numbers written by LSO means? 101 and 126.
> 
> Are 101 and 126 referred to Aircraft?




IMO YES, ... so there is already J-15 #126 out there ???


----------



## DayWalker90

Another new video showing even more flight deck operations. With 116 carrying a buddy refuelling probe preparing for take off as well.

Also showing the various escorts of the CSG the Liaoning is travelling with, including at least 1x 052D, 2x 052C, 2x 054A and 1x 903A

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Tiqiu

CCTV: Liaoning navy ship fleet to carry out training at the Western Pacific Ocean waters from Dec 24.
http://news.cctv.com/2016/12/24/ARTIMNTRb2DuaxBKtHAUP9sC161224.shtml

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Beast

I am waiting for JMSDF to release footage of PLAN CV fleet passing through miyako strait and their usual harassment.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## 帅的一匹

Beast said:


> I am waiting for JMSDF to release footage of PLAN CV fleet passing through miyako strait and their usual harassment.


They can't do anything. Seat and watch! I already saw those pictures JMSDF took, it looks blurred cause they can't get around CV16 close this time cause we have 6 battleship accompanied. I expect their fighter fly over our bridge? They don't have this gut.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Tiqiu

wanglaokan said:


> They can't do anything. Seat and watch! I already saw those pictures JMSDF took, it looks blurred cause they can't get around CV16 close this time cause we have 6 battleship accompanied. I expect their fighter fly over our bridge? They don't have this gut.


Or they can sit still and shoot plane -打飞机.

Does it imply there are another 13 underneath the deck?

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## grey boy 2



Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## 艹艹艹

grey boy 2 said:


>


华灯初上

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## GiantPanda

Carrier lights up at dusk, me think it looks like the start of night time operations.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Tiqiu

CCTV 《今日关注》20161225
- J-15 air refueling;
- Chinese second AC has started of building?

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Deino

At the end of the J-20+4tanks-video a J-15 was shown ...






Could it be that this is possibly a photo of a J-15A ??

The nozzles appear to be more silverish, more like a WS-10 and not like an AL-31F? Also there doesn't appear to be a pitot on the nose ... which could be a hint that this is already another J-15A and not the prototype aircraft we saw before???

... but hard to tell because of its low resolution.

What do You think ??

Deino

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Akasa

Deino said:


> At the end of the J-20+4tanks-video a J-15 was shown ...
> 
> View attachment 363434
> 
> 
> Could it be that this is possibly a photo of a J-15A ??
> 
> The nozzles appear to be more silverish, more like a WS-10 and not like an AL-31F? Also there doesn't appear to be a pitot on the nose ... which could be a hint that this is already another J-15A and not the prototype aircraft we saw before???
> 
> ... but hard to tell because of its low resolution.
> 
> What do You think ??
> 
> Deino



So far all of the in-service J-15s (and the J-15A prototype) used pitot tubes. This new aircraft might be the first J-15A installed with an AESA radar.


----------



## Beast

Deino said:


> At the end of the J-20+4tanks-video a J-15 was shown ...
> 
> View attachment 363434
> 
> 
> Could it be that this is possibly a photo of a J-15A ??
> 
> The nozzles appear to be more silverish, more like a WS-10 and not like an AL-31F? Also there doesn't appear to be a pitot on the nose ... which could be a hint that this is already another J-15A and not the prototype aircraft we saw before???
> 
> ... but hard to tell because of its low resolution.
> 
> What do You think ??
> 
> Deino


Another of my prediction comes through.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## ChineseTiger1986

Deino said:


> At the end of the J-20+4tanks-video a J-15 was shown ...
> 
> View attachment 363434
> 
> 
> Could it be that this is possibly a photo of a J-15A ??
> 
> The nozzles appear to be more silverish, more like a WS-10 and not like an AL-31F? Also there doesn't appear to be a pitot on the nose ... which could be a hint that this is already another J-15A and not the prototype aircraft we saw before???
> 
> ... but hard to tell because of its low resolution.
> 
> What do You think ??
> 
> Deino



The J-15 with the WS-10H is the J-15B, because the AL-31 is more suitable for the ski-jump takeoff than the WS-10.

I am not surprised if all 48 J-15A on both Type 001 and Type 001A are using the AL-31. However, the J-15 that will soon be deployed on the Type 002 will be the J-15B that using the WS-10H.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Tiqiu

ChineseTiger1986 said:


> The J-15 with the WS-10H is the J-15B, because the AL-31 is more suitable for the ski-jump takeoff than the WS-10.
> 
> I am not surprised if all 48 J-15A on both Type 001 and Type 001A are using the AL-31. However, the J-15 that will soon be deployed on the Type 002 will be the J-15B that using the WS-10H.


FWS-10H and FWS-10A both use A type (non-ceramic matrix composite) nozzles, one noticeable difference between the two is the petals of the former's are a little longer. Let's wait for some clearer images becoming available.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Deino

Interesting, however I would be careful until better images appear since this one is imo too blurred.


----------



## cirr

Another possibility is of course the plane in question is a J-15S.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Akasa

cirr said:


> Another possibility is of course the plane in question is a J-15S.



A catapult-capable J-15S? Equipped with AESA as well?


----------



## 星海军事

Deino said:


> At the end of the J-20+4tanks-video a J-15 was shown ...
> 
> View attachment 363434
> 
> 
> Could it be that this is possibly a photo of a J-15A ??
> 
> The nozzles appear to be more silverish, more like a WS-10 and not like an AL-31F? Also there doesn't appear to be a pitot on the nose ... which could be a hint that this is already another J-15A and not the prototype aircraft we saw before???
> 
> ... but hard to tell because of its low resolution.
> 
> What do You think ??
> 
> Deino



It's the demonstrator.

The video was taken at least two months ago.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Deino

Do you know its CFTE- serial 5xx ??


----------



## Deino

Need some help again ... this time concerning the nature of the PLANAF J-15-unit:

I was long thinking that it is not a Division but - alone concerning the 3-digit numbers - also not a Regiment. However the unit patch may help ... ?







A friend of mine - when this image belowwas not known - deducted from a fuzzy blurred image at least the 5 characters to be: 舰载航空兵 which can be translated "aircraft carrier-borne aviation troops" !


J-15 unit badge - JZZDT






But what kind of unit is? A dedicated Regiment ? or a Division-level unit ?

At least it is known, that the home base of the J-15 fighters is Huangdicun (Pos: 40°30'00"N 120°39'26"E) – also known as Xingcheng-2 – which was constructed as a dedicated carrier-training facility with a ski-jump ramp and hangars for a full J-15 regiment there. From what I read, the base is at least officially still under the jurisdiction of Xingcheng, the home base of the Naval Aviation Academy (Flight Training Institute).

Can anyone explain that more in detail ?

Thanks in advance,
Deino

PS:






Hmmm ??? 舰 载 航 空 兵 ... is this correct ?


----------



## ahojunk

*J-15 jet fighters make debut flights over South China Sea*
2017-01-03 15:01 | Ecns.cn | Editor:Li Yan





China's homegrown J-15 carrier-borne fighter jets, also know as Flying Sharks, made their debut flights over the South China Sea on Monday. The flight exercises were part of a routine training session conducted by the Chinese Navy, which involves the Liaoning, China's first aircraft carrier, and dozens of other ships and aircraft. (Photo: China News Service/Mo Xiaoliang)






China's homegrown J-15 carrier-borne fighter jets, also know as Flying Sharks, made their debut flights over the South China Sea on Monday. The flight exercises were part of a routine training session conducted by the Chinese Navy, which involves the Liaoning, China's first aircraft carrier, and dozens of other ships and aircraft. (Photo: China News Service/Mo Xiaoliang)






The formation led by the first Chinese aircraft carriers, the Liaoning, in the South China Sea for a training mission on January 2, 2017. (Photo: China News Service/Mo Xiaoliang)






The formation led by the first Chinese aircraft carriers, the Liaoning, in the South China Sea for a training mission on January 2, 2017. (Photo/81.cn)






The formation led by the first Chinese aircraft carriers, the Liaoning, in the South China Sea for a training mission on January 2, 2017. (Photo/81.cn)

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## grey boy 2

Nice CG of J-15 with the extra long range big missile PL-X









(002，弹射飞鲨，巨蛋的结合将会是怎么样的画面？至少半径900公里的海上铁墙，雄猫不死鸟组合的中国版指日可待呵上图！)

Reactions: Like Like:
10


----------



## grey boy 2

CCTV: J-15 firing PL-12 and YJ-83K supersonic anti-ship missile 
昨天的央视焦点访谈节目再次介绍辽宁号此次出海演训的情况，此前曝光的很多内容有更多地细节呈现。包括，歼15舰载机一次齐射了两枚PL12空空导弹，并首次曝光了发射鹰击83K反舰导弹的画面，说明歼15战机的对空对海攻击能力都已经得到了验证。

Reactions: Like Like:
8


----------



## grey boy 2

J-15 firing YJ-83K supersonic anti-ship missiles (歼-15发射反舰导弹连贯图)

Reactions: Like Like:
9


----------



## Deino

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/825361665239740417

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## cirr

A new batch of J-15s about to leave the factory gate

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## Deino

Any hint what number it has ?


----------



## grey boy 2



Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## lcloo

New photos of J15, take off or landing near land base.

Reactions: Like Like:
8


----------



## Deino

No. 122 spotted !

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## samsara

Deino said:


> No. 122 spotted !
> 
> View attachment 388409


Deino, what does the number "122" here mean *in relation to Quantity*, the number of units knowingly produced so far? 22 units? 122 units? Or else, irrelevant?


----------



## Deino

samsara said:


> Deino, what does the number "122" here mean *in relation to Quantity*, the number of units knowingly produced so far? 22 units? 122 units? Or else, irrelevant?




First of all it is simply a modex-number and since the first serial J-10 was numbered 100 and now we have 122 + all the other numbers (only 121 is missing) it is safe to assume, that at least 23 serial J-15's were operational by now.

However there were repeatedly reports about already 3 J-15s being lost.

Deino

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## grey boy 2

CCTV: J-15 at the training base

Reactions: Like Like:
9


----------



## 星海军事

607 is now developing AESA radar for J-15

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Akasa

星海军事 said:


> 607 is now developing AESA radar for J-15



Interesting. Isn't the J-15A already equipped with AESA?


----------



## Deino

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/853882382704754688

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## cirr

SinoSoldier said:


> Interesting. Isn't the J-15A already equipped with AESA?



*锐眼制霸千万里 飞鲨一跃贯长空 *

2017-04-16 第二研究部 中航工业雷达所 

“不行，尺寸还是太大，没有结构更紧凑的了吗？”

放下电话，刘建华又一头埋到满桌的元器件供应手册中。

“不行，还是不行，以前常用的接插件和微波器件没有办法满足这个型号全新的结构排布。如果不能找到更好的选件，只有在天线的结构上让步。”他眉头紧锁。

架构高度集成化实现天线阵面超薄、超轻，正是这个型号的设计初衷和最终目标。作为新一代的雷达天线，实现多项关键技术的全新突破，必将引发未来机载雷达的革新巨浪，如何抢占技术竞赛的先机，成败在此一举。

任何一个地方都不允许让步！

几个月的时间里，天线的设计稿改了又改，与结构、电源的研讨从未间断，加班和开会成为了常态。与以往不同的是，这次天线分机的主要设计人员更多地是年轻设计师。为配套某型号飞机，我所承担研制雷达任务，去年七月，郑婷部长牵头组织了一支平均年龄只有31岁的年轻队伍，刘建华担任队长。

雷达是飞机的眼睛，天线性能的优劣直接决定雷达的战技性能，决定作战飞机是否看得远、看得准、看得快。在现代空空对战中，雷达的性能优势将会为战机作战能力带来压倒性的优势，因此保证雷达天线技术的先进性意义非凡。同时该型号的成功与否，也直接决定我所能否在新一代雷达的研制技术上抢占先机，这个沉重又艰巨的任务就落到了这支年轻的队伍身上。

“年轻人就是要敢拼，敢干，敢赢”郑部长对这只队伍如是期望，这只队伍就是“飞鲨“罗阳青年突击队。

该型号虽为新一代雷达，相比之前的型号天线在系统架构上有跨越性的改变，而在有源相控阵雷达上，通过多年研究开发的经验积累，技术上优势的保留与体现尤为重要，因此身经百战的前辈参与指导，对于研究方案的形成、研究方法的确定、关键技术的攻克等都是巨大的推动力量。孔老师、侯哥、阿田、老陈和郭老师正是在团队中充当这样的智囊角色，作为多个重要型号的天线设计主管，他们百炼成钢，优秀的设计理念和丰富的工程经验使他们能够给予关键性的指导，一针见血的指出设计上存在的问题与隐患。

团队的其他队员虽然都是不满30岁的年轻设计师，但是都已经在大大小小的型号中学习摸索，在繁复紧张的调试中摸爬滚打，已然新发于硎，只等驰马试剑。他们敢试，大胆尝试新结构，采用新方法，使用新手段，不怕在新的设计上困难重重，就怕在旧的思路中寸步难行，不破则不立。他们敢拼，拼每一个细节，精益求精，拼每一指标，无休无止。可以为了一毫米的外部更改将自己的设计推倒重来，也可以为保证技术性能而为自己的设计据理力争，行成于思，业精于勤。

“罗阳”青年突击队不仅仅是一种荣誉，更传达着一种精神：重任当肩安得闲，上下求索自勤勉，年少当怀凌云志，不负风华正茂时。

*空中之霸，其名飞鲨，扶摇而上九万里。绝云气，负青天，只等睁锐眼*。

https://mp.weixin.qq.com/s?__biz ... m45rtTFZ43QPAoZm#rd

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Akasa

cirr said:


> *锐眼制霸千万里 飞鲨一跃贯长空 *
> 
> 2017-04-16 第二研究部 中航工业雷达所
> 
> “不行，尺寸还是太大，没有结构更紧凑的了吗？”
> 
> 放下电话，刘建华又一头埋到满桌的元器件供应手册中。
> 
> “不行，还是不行，以前常用的接插件和微波器件没有办法满足这个型号全新的结构排布。如果不能找到更好的选件，只有在天线的结构上让步。”他眉头紧锁。
> 
> 架构高度集成化实现天线阵面超薄、超轻，正是这个型号的设计初衷和最终目标。作为新一代的雷达天线，实现多项关键技术的全新突破，必将引发未来机载雷达的革新巨浪，如何抢占技术竞赛的先机，成败在此一举。
> 
> 任何一个地方都不允许让步！
> 
> 几个月的时间里，天线的设计稿改了又改，与结构、电源的研讨从未间断，加班和开会成为了常态。与以往不同的是，这次天线分机的主要设计人员更多地是年轻设计师。为配套某型号飞机，我所承担研制雷达任务，去年七月，郑婷部长牵头组织了一支平均年龄只有31岁的年轻队伍，刘建华担任队长。
> 
> 雷达是飞机的眼睛，天线性能的优劣直接决定雷达的战技性能，决定作战飞机是否看得远、看得准、看得快。在现代空空对战中，雷达的性能优势将会为战机作战能力带来压倒性的优势，因此保证雷达天线技术的先进性意义非凡。同时该型号的成功与否，也直接决定我所能否在新一代雷达的研制技术上抢占先机，这个沉重又艰巨的任务就落到了这支年轻的队伍身上。
> 
> “年轻人就是要敢拼，敢干，敢赢”郑部长对这只队伍如是期望，这只队伍就是“飞鲨“罗阳青年突击队。
> 
> 该型号虽为新一代雷达，相比之前的型号天线在系统架构上有跨越性的改变，而在有源相控阵雷达上，通过多年研究开发的经验积累，技术上优势的保留与体现尤为重要，因此身经百战的前辈参与指导，对于研究方案的形成、研究方法的确定、关键技术的攻克等都是巨大的推动力量。孔老师、侯哥、阿田、老陈和郭老师正是在团队中充当这样的智囊角色，作为多个重要型号的天线设计主管，他们百炼成钢，优秀的设计理念和丰富的工程经验使他们能够给予关键性的指导，一针见血的指出设计上存在的问题与隐患。
> 
> 团队的其他队员虽然都是不满30岁的年轻设计师，但是都已经在大大小小的型号中学习摸索，在繁复紧张的调试中摸爬滚打，已然新发于硎，只等驰马试剑。他们敢试，大胆尝试新结构，采用新方法，使用新手段，不怕在新的设计上困难重重，就怕在旧的思路中寸步难行，不破则不立。他们敢拼，拼每一个细节，精益求精，拼每一指标，无休无止。可以为了一毫米的外部更改将自己的设计推倒重来，也可以为保证技术性能而为自己的设计据理力争，行成于思，业精于勤。
> 
> “罗阳”青年突击队不仅仅是一种荣誉，更传达着一种精神：重任当肩安得闲，上下求索自勤勉，年少当怀凌云志，不负风华正茂时。
> 
> *空中之霸，其名飞鲨，扶摇而上九万里。绝云气，负青天，只等睁锐眼*。
> 
> https://mp.weixin.qq.com/s?__biz ... m45rtTFZ43QPAoZm#rd



That doesn't answer the question. Does the J-15A/J-15T have an AESA radar?


----------



## hnlylclmy

J-10


----------



## rcrmj

SinoSoldier said:


> That doesn't answer the question. Does the J-15A/J-15T have an AESA radar?


no, still using doppler radar


----------



## Akasa

rcrmj said:


> no, still using doppler radar



Even for the catapult variant? I thought it was rumored to have "upgraded" avionics.


----------



## Fledgingwings

Looks similiar to J10


----------



## S10

SinoSoldier said:


> Even for the catapult variant? I thought it was rumored to have "upgraded" avionics.


Any CATOBAR carrier will not be launched before 2020, so there is still a three year gap. It's more important to push a mature product using existing technologies rather than go for something new. New components mean greater delay. China needs to put as many J-15 in service in as short time as possible to test out training and combat doctrines.


----------



## Akasa

S10 said:


> Any CATOBAR carrier will not be launched before 2020, so there is still a three year gap. It's more important to push a mature product using existing technologies rather than go for something new. New components mean greater delay. China needs to put as many J-15 in service in as short time as possible to test out training and combat doctrines.



There is nothing preventing a CATOBAR-capable fighter from operating on a STOBAR vessel. It doesn't make sense to build an "interim" when they could use the same resources to hasten the development of the J-15A.


----------



## rcrmj

SinoSoldier said:


> Even for the catapult variant? I thought it was rumored to have "upgraded" avionics.


what catapult variant? J-15 was design at day one that can be catapulted from carrier, it has nothing to do with what radar they are using. J-15 will be fit with AESA but not for current ones, they are all with dopplar radars in service


----------



## Akasa

rcrmj said:


> what catapult variant? J-15 was design at day one that can be catapulted from carrier, it has nothing to do with what radar they are using. J-15 will be fit with AESA but not for current ones, they are all with dopplar radars in service



The catapult variant was first flight tested in 2016 with a reinforced set of landing gears and possibly an AESA. It's still under testing.

http://www.popsci.com/he-next-generation-chinas-carrier-borne-fighter-flying-shark-takes-to-skies


----------



## S10

SinoSoldier said:


> There is nothing preventing a CATOBAR-capable fighter from operating on a STOBAR vessel. It doesn't make sense to build an "interim" when they could use the same resources to hasten the development of the J-15A.


The point is there is no rush to push out a J-15 with all shiny gadgets. The important thing is getting the plane into service, which means using existing avionics and radar that are proven reliable. Every new component installed means additional time for system calibration and integration. Time that is better spent developing proper training, maintenance and fleet deployment procedure. That means you need a certain number of J-15 in service within a specific time frame.

It's not about what shiny toys you want. It's about what's practical and least time consuming.


----------



## Akasa

S10 said:


> The point is there is no rush to push out a J-15 with all shiny gadgets. The important thing is getting the plane into service, which means using existing avionics and radar that are proven reliable. Every new component installed means additional time for system calibration and integration. Time that is better spent developing proper training, maintenance and fleet deployment procedure. That means you need a certain number of J-15 in service within a specific time frame.
> 
> It's not about what shiny toys you want. It's about what's practical and least time consuming.



That was my point - it makes no sense to push out an interim AESA upgrade when they could simply appropriate all the resources towards the J-15A program. It would be like upgrading F-15Es with AESA while testing the F-15SE at the same time.


----------



## rcrmj

SinoSoldier said:


> The catapult variant was first flight tested in 2016 with a reinforced set of landing gears and possibly an AESA. It's still under testing.
> 
> http://www.popsci.com/he-next-generation-chinas-carrier-borne-fighter-flying-shark-takes-to-skies


it tested way before that date``anyway, again, *J-15 was designed at day one with CATOBAR in mind*, whether it is mounted with AESA or not has nothing to do with where and how it should take-off, as CATOBAR capable ≠ reinforced landing gears, of course it is just one of the things, but much work to be done which is not visible to naked eyes`````



SinoSoldier said:


> That was my point - it makes no sense to push out an interim AESA upgrade when they could simply appropriate all the resources towards the J-15A program. It would be like upgrading F-15Es with AESA while testing the F-15SE at the same time.


there is a basic logic error in your line of thinking, putting AESA on J-15 is an upgrade which is required by the army, there is no concept called 'interim' or 'thorough' upgrade. Any upgrades cannot be clear cut with A、B、C、D、X、Y、Z etc````it just doesnt work in this way! by your logic even different batches of J-11B have small upgrades from small to big, as the pace of military development evolves very fast, as long as the changes wont cause major difficulties in technology, finance, supply and production, they will do it.


----------



## Akasa

rcrmj said:


> it tested way before that date``anyway, again, *J-15 was designed at day one with CATOBAR in mind*, whether it is mounted with AESA or not has nothing to do with where and how it should take-off, as CATOBAR capable ≠ reinforced landing gears, of course it is just one of the things, but much work to be done which is not visible to naked eyes`````
> 
> 
> there is a basic logic error in your line of thinking, putting AESA on J-15 is an upgrade which is required by the army, there is no concept called 'interim' or 'thorough' upgrade. Any upgrades cannot be clear cut with A、B、C、D、X、Y、Z etc````it just doesnt work in this way! by your logic even different batches of J-11B have small upgrades from small to big, as the pace of military development evolves very fast, as long as the changes wont cause major difficulties in technology, finance, supply and production, they will do it.



There is a clear-cut variant of the J-15: the J-15A (pointed out in the preceding post). Since the J-15A is currently under flight testing already, it makes little sense to develop a *third* J-15 variant just to bridge the gap


----------



## rcrmj

SinoSoldier said:


> There is a clear-cut variant of the J-15: the J-15A (pointed out in the preceding post). Since the J-15A is currently under flight testing already, it makes little sense to develop a *third* J-15 variant just to bridge the gap


what third J-15 you are talking about? how many times I have to repeat that '* 'J-15 was designed at day one with CATOBAR in mind' and it is gong to have AESA on it, and it has jack to do with how it should take off from carrier. *how can you not understand this simple logic? 

well if your understanding is true, we should have J-15A、B、C、D、E by now``as the very first catapulted J-15 (way before the date you posted) was with a equivalent weight mockup radar, and that should be one version of J-15A lol? and those skijump J-15 should have designations of B、C、D, because as far as I know each patches are different from small to big```and please stop using 'bridging gap' ``` its sounds very amature, because very bit of upgrade is to ensure a fighter platform's effectiveness and technologcial advancement!


----------



## Akasa

rcrmj said:


> what third J-15 you are talking about? how many times I have to repeat that '* 'J-15 was designed at day one with CATOBAR in mind' and it is gong to have AESA on it, and it has jack to do with how it should take off from carrier. *how can you not understand this simple logic?
> 
> well if your understanding is true, we should have J-15A、B、C、D、E by now``as the very first catapulted J-15 (way before the date you posted) was with a equivalent weight mockup radar, and that should be one version of J-15A lol? and those skijump J-15 should have designations of B、C、D, because as far as I know each patches are different from small to big```and please stop using 'bridging gap' ``` its sounds very amature, because very bit of upgrade is to ensure a fighter platform's effectiveness and technologcial advancement!



As stated many times before, there are multiple variants of the J-15, the two major ones being the baseline J-15 (which _cannot_ be used on a CATOBAR vessel) and a CATOBAR-capable J-15A. If the report is indeed correct and that another AESA-equipped variant is under development, then that would overlap with the J-15A in terms of role & capability.

The Chinese may have had CATOBAR in mind when they first conceived the J-15, but due to engineering and timeline constraints, they were forced to separate the iterations into two main variants. The two are not interchangeable.


----------



## Deino

SinoSoldier said:


> As stated many times before, there are multiple variants of the J-15, the two major ones being the baseline J-15 (which _cannot_ be used on a CATOBAR vessel) and a CATOBAR-capable J-15A. If the report is indeed correct and that another AESA-equipped variant is under development, then that would overlap with the J-15A in terms of role & capability.
> 
> The Chinese may have had CATOBAR in mind when they first conceived the J-15, but due to engineering and timeline constraints, they were forced to separate the iterations into two main variants. The two are not interchangeable.



Why? IMO there is currently only the standard J-15 and the prototype for the catapult, which is not ready for some time due to the testphase. Imo it has either no radar at all or the same as the standard J-15. These new radar reports unrelated to this prototype and it will probably be tested in another prototype when ready. 

Only when the new radar and the catapult technology is matured and all tests were done they will be merged in a new serial version J-15A.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Akasa

Deino said:


> Why? IMO there is currently only the standard J-15 and the prototype for the catapult, which is not ready for some time due to the testphase. Imo it has either no radar at all or the same as the standard J-15. These new radar reports unrelated to this prototype and it will probably be tested in another prototype when ready.
> 
> Only when the new radar and the catapult technology is matured and all tests were done they will be merged in a new serial version J-15A.



I thought the catapult version was actually a new prototype, not just an one-off airframe. It was rumored to have a fair amount of upgrades including new avionics and engines.


----------



## Deino

SinoSoldier said:


> I thought the catapult version was actually a new prototype, not just an one-off airframe. It was rumored to have a fair amount of upgrades including new avionics and engines.



New prototyp with structural mods and new engines indeed, but imo nit necessarily an AESA already.


----------



## rcrmj

SinoSoldier said:


> As stated many times before, there are multiple variants of the J-15, the two major ones being the baseline J-15 (which _cannot_ be used on a CATOBAR vessel) and a CATOBAR-capable J-15A. If the report is indeed correct and that another AESA-equipped variant is under development, then that would overlap with the J-15A in terms of role & capability.
> 
> The Chinese may have had CATOBAR in mind when they first conceived the J-15, but due to engineering and timeline constraints, they were forced to separate the iterations into two main variants. The two are not interchangeable.


please stop using your hypothesis to this matter ok? there is no overlap or anything but usual upgrades and testings thats it! when I said * it was designed at day one with CATOBAR in mind *it doesnt mean they just had the idea of it ok?, it meant its all physically fit for that matter````I believe your knowledge of CATOBAR = enhanced leanding gear thats it isnt it? they are way more than that```

and where do you even come up the idea that they are not 'interchangable'? just because of the enhanced landing gear? or new bits or bots? and besides what does 'interchangable' actually means?``if thats the case I dont think 26 alphabets are enough to lable F-16s during its lifetime, actually the latest F-16 shouldnt be called F-16, as it is not 'interchangable' to the very first F-16s```because it is a universal thing for them to make upgrades and changes in different patches throughout their service lifetime, as long as it wont cause major escalation of money, time and technological difficulties`! if difficulty occurs, then they will start a, as you suggest, *'not overlapping'* project for that matter,

so have a deep thinking on the basic facts
*1*. *J-15 was designed at day one with CATOBAR in mind (not an idea, or a wish, or a blue print)
2. they are going to mount AESA on it (and its not overlapping with anything)
3. there are few units of J-15s are under testing
4. almost every batch has upgrades from small to big to its previous batch (and they are not going to using A/B/C for every bit of changes)
*
to develop a brand new heavy two engines sea born fighter is what called overlapping with the J-15 project! as *J-15 cant overlap with itself, it just doesnt make any sense at all*


----------



## Akasa

rcrmj said:


> please stop using your hypothesis to this matter ok? there is no overlap or anything but usual upgrades and testings thats it! when I said * it was designed at day one with CATOBAR in mind *it doesnt mean they just had the idea of it ok?, it meant its all physically fit for that matter````I believe your knowledge of CATOBAR = enhanced leanding gear thats it isnt it? they are way more than that```
> 
> and where do you even come up the idea that they are not 'interchangable'? just because of the enhanced landing gear? or new bits or bots? and besides what does 'interchangable' actually means?``if thats the case I dont think 26 alphabets are enough to lable F-16s during its lifetime, actually the latest F-16 shouldnt be called F-16, as it is not 'interchangable' to the very first F-16s```because it is a universal thing for them to make upgrades and changes in different patches throughout their service lifetime, as long as it wont cause major escalation of money, time and technological difficulties`! if difficulty occurs, then they will start a, as you suggest, *'not overlapping'* project for that matter,
> 
> so have a deep thinking on the basic facts
> *1*. *J-15 was designed at day one with CATOBAR in mind (not an idea, or a wish, or a blue print)
> 2. they are going to mount AESA on it (and its not overlapping with anything)
> 3. there are few units of J-15s are under testing
> 4. almost every batch has upgrades from small to big to its previous batch (and they are not going to using A/B/C for every bit of changes)
> *
> to develop a brand new heavy two engines sea born fighter is what called overlapping with the J-15 project! as *J-15 cant overlap with itself, it just doesnt make any sense at all*



Having CATOBAR in mind from the get-go does not mean that the J-15 program wasn't developed in "blocks" or succinct variants. The J-15A (with landing gear suited for CATOBAR) _is_ a different variant owing to the differences in structure & avionics, and the baseline J-15 cannot be launched from a CATOBAR vessel, furthering the difference between the two versions.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Daniel808

Henri K take on the new J 15 radar .
https://www.eastpendulum.com/j-15-sera-dote-dun-nouveau-radar-aesa


The new *J-15* Chinese on *-* board fighter aircraft will acquire a new active electronic scanning radar (AESA), which suggests an article published by a subsidiary of the AVIC group.

In this text last Sunday on the Weixin of the Institute 607 - one of the three main radar research offices in China and the sole radar entity of the AVIC group - we are talking about a new AESA radar under development Since July 2016, by a young team whose average age is 31 years.




The current J-15 is equipped with a mechanical scanning radar.

Designing an "ultra-thin" and "ultra-light" AESA radar is the goal of the project that can be read between the lines. There is also an AESA radar of all new generation, and the breakthrough in many "revolutionary" technologies, particularly in the architecture of the concerned systems that would be highly integrated.

Although no technical details have been provided, it is virtually certain that this is not yet another active electronic scanning radar that the 607 Institute is developing. It is assumed that it would be at least one AESA radar (DAR: Digital Array Radar), see a Sofatware Defined Radar (SDR).

*Compared to standard AESA radars, a DAR allows for a larger receiver field, faster beam scanning and a much better ability to combat jammers and noises. It is also better able to amplify the weak signals and filter the parasitic waves.

DAR technologies do not stem from today, however, theoretical research began elsewhere as early as the 1980s. If CETC Institute 14, another Chinese radar expert, has already succeeded in designing a DAR for the all-new AWACS KJ-500, eventually replacing, the four KJ-2000s based on the IL-76® platform , We have not yet seen the evidence that the Institute 607 has already developed similar radar in the past.*






The new Chinese AWACS KJ-500 at the Zhuhai 2016 Fair (Photo: situ)





The fixed DAR radar with 3 flat faces of KJ-500 (Photo: situ)

And we can also understand the importance of this new EASA project for the 607 Institute - the latest (shooting range?) radars chosen by the new Chinese fighter aircraft programs are predominantly designed by the CETC group, and the word " Competition "again appeared in the article of the subsidiary of AVIC. The Chinese navy would therefore most likely have launched a new tender to equip the upgraded version of its J-15 with an AESA radar from an internal competition, to ensure its performance and quality.

Knowing that the AVIC aircraft manufacturer is still developing catapult able CATOBAR variant J-15 , for the 3rd Chinese aircraft carrier by 2022 to 2023, it is therefore estimated that it could have a Intermediate version between the current J-15 and the catapult able J-15, integrate some updated radar and increase the capacity of the embedded naval air forces

To be continued.

Henri K.



Appendix: the original text

*青年 | 眼*

2017-04-16 研究 部

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Kiss_of_the_Dragon

Can new variant of J-15 be created by managing the body to accommodate 3 Awac operators and antenna on the top, some kind of AWAC j-15 so it can be use on Laoning or new 001A carrier...I know it sound crazy but I think it's feasible...imagine an supersonic AWAC, this will scare the sh1t out of enemy


----------



## rcrmj

SinoSoldier said:


> Having CATOBAR in mind from the get-go does not mean that the J-15 program wasn't developed in "blocks" or succinct variants. The J-15A (with landing gear suited for CATOBAR) _is_ a different variant owing to the differences in structure & avionics, and the baseline J-15 cannot be launched from a CATOBAR vessel, furthering the difference between the two versions.


thats what you guessed, its far from the truth, you still think CATOBAR = enhanced landing gear, or any small changes should be categorized as 'new' version?* again! if thats the case 26 alphabets arent enough to lable F-16's blocks during its lifetime*, *it is a universal thing for them to make upgrades and changes in different patches throughout their service lifetime, as long as it wont cause major escalation of money, time and technological difficulties`! *gosh`

the fact is, J-15 is a continuse project, there is no overlap or any kind of your imaginary 'versions' ```as some are under CATOBAR tests, some are tested with other new gadgets (without enhanced landing gear), they are all within the development! unless there is a major structual changes then otherwise.

as far as this matter is concerned, it didnt need* major structual *changes done on J-15 for CATOBAR tests (if you think an enhanced landing gear is, then so be it), as I reframe this phase again *it was designed at day one with CATOBAR in mind*,* the structure within were all designed and fited for CATOBAR.* and you come up with the 'baseline' idea```lol, I know they had catapulted J-15 even before the so called 'baseline' of yours 'offically' entered the serivce few years back, so in this sense which one should be called 'baseline' ``they skijump one or the one with enhanced landing gear? ``in all in, J-15 is CATOBAR capable since day one, and its going to have AESA and there is no such thing called overlap development for this project as far as I know```period !

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Akasa

rcrmj said:


> thats what you guessed, its far from the truth, you still think CATOBAR = enhanced landing gear, or any small changes should be categorized as 'new' version?* again! if thats the case 26 alphabets arent enough to lable F-16's blocks during its lifetime*, *it is a universal thing for them to make upgrades and changes in different patches throughout their service lifetime, as long as it wont cause major escalation of money, time and technological difficulties`! *gosh`
> 
> the fact is, J-15 is a continuse project, there is no overlap or any kind of your imaginary 'versions' ```as some are under CATOBAR tests, some are tested with other new gadgets (without enhanced landing gear), they are all within the development! unless there is a major structual changes then otherwise.
> 
> as far as this matter is concerned, it didnt need* major structual *changes done on J-15 for CATOBAR tests (if you think an enhanced landing gear is, then so be it), as I reframe this phase again *it was designed at day one with CATOBAR in mind*,* the structure within were all designed and fited for CATOBAR.* and you come up with the 'baseline' idea```lol, I know they had catapulted J-15 even before the so called 'baseline' of yours 'offically' entered the serivce few years back, so in this sense which one should be called 'baseline' ``they skijump one or the one with enhanced landing gear? ``in all in, J-15 is CATOBAR capable since day one, and its going to have AESA and there is no such thing called overlap development for this project as far as I know```period !



Let me put it another way:

The current J-15s in service *cannot* serve aboard the Type 002 (and beyond) carriers, while the CATOBAR prototype *can*. The J-15s currently in production (and soon the AESA-equipped upgrade) will be limited to STOBAR vessels; namely the 001A and 001.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## rcrmj

SinoSoldier said:


> Let me put it another way:
> 
> The current J-15s in service *cannot* serve aboard the Type 002 (and beyond) carriers, while the CATOBAR prototype *can*. The J-15s currently in production (and soon the AESA-equipped upgrade) will be limited to STOBAR vessels; namely the 001A and 001.


and where is the overlap thing you were talking about?


----------



## Akasa

rcrmj said:


> and where is the overlap thing you were talking about?



My point is: it would be a lot more efficient, cost-wise, to invest the money into the J-15A program instead. Rather than to build a third variant that acts as an interim between the baseline J-15 & the J-15A.


----------



## Deino

rcrmj said:


> what third J-15 you are talking about? how many times I have to repeat that '* 'J-15 was designed at day one with CATOBAR in mind' and it is gong to have AESA on it, and it has jack to do with how it should take off from carrier. *how can you not understand this simple logic?
> 
> well if your understanding is true, we should have J-15A、B、C、D、E by now``as the very first catapulted J-15 (way before the date you posted) was with a equivalent weight mockup radar, and that should be one version of J-15A lol? and those skijump J-15 should have designations of B、C、D, because as far as I know each patches are different from small to big```and please stop using 'bridging gap' ``` its sounds very amature, because very bit of upgrade is to ensure a fighter platform's effectiveness and technologcial advancement!




To admit since when was the J-15 designed from day one with catapult in mind !?? Do we have any credible source that confirms this ?? I wonder a bit why You repeatedly say this again and again without any prof.

From what we know, the J-15 is plain and simple a Chinese Su-33 modified with similar modifications (structure, avionics, ...) to the J-11B-standard and even if surely planned from the beginning like @SinoSoldier already explained, the current J-15s are not able to catapult-take-off while the prototype J-15T or A (whatever You call it) is to do.

Even more the changes from the J-15 to J-15T/A are more than a mediocre batch-update, especially the front gear is very much different with most likely modified - aka strengthened - structure to cope the catapult-forces during take-off, so that IMO a new letter is more than justified.







Again IMO the current J-15 is a Chinese J-11B-equivalent to the Russian Su-33 with J-11B-derived avionics, maybe a higher composite percentage on its fuselage but it is not able to take off from a catapult.

The current J-15T/A is therefore so far only a prototype incorporating the strengthened fuselage & the new catapult-capable front-gear and WS-10H but otherwise there's no need for it to act also as an avionics-testbed with a new radar. If testing is done these structural changes will be incorporated in a dedicated catapult-capable version.

This newly reported radar however is planned to be used in that version.

As such maybe - pending how long it will take to mature either the catapult or AESA - there will be an interim version based on the standard J-15 but already featuring that AESA, which then will be called J-15A, while the final version would then be the J-15B.

Deino



rcrmj said:


> ...
> 
> so have a deep thinking on the basic facts
> *1*. *J-15 was designed at day one with CATOBAR in mind (not an idea, or a wish, or a blue print)
> 2. they are going to mount AESA on it (and its not overlapping with anything)
> 3. there are few units of J-15s are under testing
> 4. almost every batch has upgrades from small to big to its previous batch (and they are not going to using A/B/C for every bit of changes)
> ...*



Pardon, but that's exactly where You miss the facts or at least a proof esp. for Your point 1 !!
Point 2 is also quite sure, but why does an AESA-equipped updated version then should not get a new letter ??? IMO the changes from a J-11A to B are dramatically minor - in fact only a new avionics + WS-10A - in contrast to these changes from the J-15 to J-15A.
Point 3 is also interesting: so far there is only one confirmed J-15A/T ... ? Or do You know more?
And finally point 4: Yes, therefore they are batches similar to the J-11B batch 01 to Batch 07 or now the J-15 Batch 01 and current Batch 02, but that new catapult-capable version is so much different that it surely deserves a new letter. Otherwise please explain why You deem these structural changes NOT important enough to warrant a new designation ??

Deino


----------



## GiantPanda

The J-15A is a new variant not an incremental upgrade of the J-15 initial 01/02 batches. 

The initial J-15s form the trunk of the program development. Any incremental change would be along the same trunk. Where there are major structural changes, the resultant prototype would form a new branch that is split from the trunk with a new manufacturing process.

When there are extensive structural changes -- and there has to be to compensate for the force of a catapult launch for the J-15A -- then it is no longer the same plane as the one that forms the trunk.

The J-15A is a new plane.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Deino

GiantPanda said:


> The J-15A is a new variant not an incremental upgrade of the J-15 initial 01/02 batches.
> 
> The initial J-15s form the trunk of the program development. Any incremental change would be along the same trunk. Where there are major structural changes, the resultant prototype would form a new branch that is split from the trunk with a new manufacturing process.
> 
> When there are extensive structural changes -- and there has to be to compensate for the force of a catapult launch for the J-15A -- then it is no longer the same plane as the one that forms the trunk.
> 
> The J-15A is a new plane.




Thanks ... exactly my point !


----------



## rcrmj

SinoSoldier said:


> My point is: it would be a lot more efficient, cost-wise, to invest the money into the J-15A program instead. Rather than to build a third variant that acts as an interim between the baseline J-15 & the J-15A.


what is the third variant? you keep making up some none existance versions of yours,
J-15 is a continous project, they have j-15s for catapult test, aesa test, new weapons system test and others tests and all require changes from small to big```where is the interim version? let me put this way, even batch 0 and batch 1 are not exactlly the same within their body```so is batch 1 the interim version of your category??



Deino said:


> To admit since when was the J-15 designed from day one with catapult in mind !?? Do we have any credible source that confirms this ?? I wonder a bit why You repeatedly say this again and again without any prof.
> 
> From what we know, the J-15 is plain and simple a Chinese Su-33 modified with similar modifications (structure, avionics, ...) to the J-11B-standard and even if surely planned from the beginning like @SinoSoldier already explained, the current J-15s are not able to catapult-take-off while the prototype J-15T or A (whatever You call it) is to do.
> 
> Even more the changes from the J-15 to J-15T/A are more than a mediocre batch-update, especially the front gear is very much different with most likely modified - aka strengthened - structure to cope the catapult-forces during take-off, so that IMO a new letter is more than justified.
> 
> View attachment 391778
> 
> 
> Again IMO the current J-15 is a Chinese J-11B-equivalent to the Russian Su-33 with J-11B-derived avionics, maybe a higher composite percentage on its fuselage but it is not able to take off from a catapult.
> 
> The current J-15T/A is therefore so far only a prototype incorporating the strengthened fuselage & the new catapult-capable front-gear and WS-10H but otherwise there's no need for it to act also as an avionics-testbed with a new radar. If testing is done these structural changes will be incorporated in a dedicated catapult-capable version.
> 
> This newly reported radar however is planned to be used in that version.
> 
> As such maybe - pending how long it will take to mature either the catapult or AESA - there will be an interim version based on the standard J-15 but already featuring that AESA, which then will be called J-15A, while the final version would then be the J-15B.
> 
> Deino
> 
> 
> 
> Pardon, but that's exactly where You miss the facts or at least a proof esp. for Your point 1 !!
> Point 2 is also quite sure, but why does an AESA-equipped updated version then should not get a new letter ??? IMO the changes from a J-11A to B are dramatically minor - in fact only a new avionics + WS-10A - in contrast to these changes from the J-15 to J-15A.
> Point 3 is also interesting: so far there is only one confirmed J-15A/T ... ? Or do You know more?
> And finally point 4: Yes, therefore they are batches similar to the J-11B batch 01 to Batch 07 or now the J-15 Batch 01 and current Batch 02, but that new catapult-capable version is so much different that it surely deserves a new letter. Otherwise please explain why You deem these structural changes NOT important enough to warrant a new designation ??
> 
> Deino


let me put this way, there is more difference between J-11B to J-15 (the current one in service) than Su-33 to J-15. again a CATOBAR capable J-15 is more than just to put an enhanced landing gear, and everyone knows the obvious reason, fundamental structure design is required in order to be tossed it of from carrier, landing gear is just one of them, so thats why I keep saying it was design since day one, as apart from the landing gear, the most important one, *the structure was ready!*`````all I am saying is to Sinosoldier's weird theory of 'third version', 'overlap' and 'interim' version``

to your question of *'explain why You deem these structural changes NOT important enough to warrant a new designation '* let me explain it with the example of J-11D, most people would believe that J-11D is just like putting an AESA on J-11B, no its not. it involes major changes of structure design, and SAC having a big problem of it (one of the main reasons to buy Su-35, this is other story, I want to leave it like this)```in this field (PLAAF, dont want to drag others into it, as I am not familar with their system) if when major structural changes are needed, then they will have a proper ‘立项’ and will give them an official designation like ABCD etc```in our circle we dont even call J-10B, they are all J-10C, but for the public consumption so here we go A/B/C. For J-15 apart from the landing gear, there is no major changes of its inner structure, therefore``````



GiantPanda said:


> The J-15A is a new variant not an incremental upgrade of the J-15 initial 01/02 batches.
> 
> The initial J-15s form the trunk of the program development. Any incremental change would be along the same trunk. Where there are major structural changes, the resultant prototype would form a new branch that is split from the trunk with a new manufacturing process.
> 
> When there are extensive structural changes -- and there has to be to compensate for the force of a catapult launch for the J-15A -- then it is no longer the same plane as the one that forms the trunk.
> 
> The J-15A is a new plane.


弹射的计划不是在飞鲨服役之后才有的，飞鲨在原型设计上就已经考虑到位了，不只是一个起落架的问题，内部的结构早就做好准备了，没有像很多人说得那样内部要很大的改造才可以（的确飞鲨的内部和筷子还有很大差别的，因为都是为了在航母上用，不管是弹射的还是滑跃的）。现在服役的飞鲨其实稍加改动（说的通俗点讲，就换个起落架）就可以弹射了。那帮家伙早就弄过了·····就讲到这吧


----------



## Deino

rcrmj said:


> ...
> let me put this way, there is more difference between J-11B to J-15 (the current one in service) than Su-33 to J-15. again a CATOBAR capable J-15 is more than just to put an enhanced landing gear, and everyone knows the obvious reason, fundamental structure design is required in order to be tossed it of from carrier, landing gear is just one of them, so thats why I keep saying it was design since day one, as apart from the landing gear, the most important one, *the structure was ready!*`````all I am saying is to Sinosoldier's weird theory of 'third version', 'overlap' and 'interim' version``
> 
> to your question of *'explain why You deem these structural changes NOT important enough to warrant a new designation '* let me explain it with the example of J-11D, most people would believe that J-11D is just like putting an AESA on J-11B, no its not. it involes major changes of structure design, and SAC having a big problem of it (one of the main reasons to buy Su-35, this is other story, I want to leave it like this)```in this field (PLAAF, dont want to drag others into it, as I am not familar with their system) if when major structural changes are needed, then they will have a proper ‘立项’ and will give them an official designation like ABCD etc```in our circle we dont even call J-10B, they are all J-10C, but for the public consumption so here we go A/B/C. For J-15 apart from the landing gear, there is no major changes of its inner structure, therefore``````




Yes, exactly what I meant as such thanks for making clear but either I misunderstood Your reply to SinoSoldier or I still don't get it. As far as I remember that was exactly his original claim, that the catapult-capable is so much different that it needs a new letter ... and You said it would only be an incremental batch-update .... ????


Anyway thanks for Your reply.
Deino


----------



## Akasa

rcrmj said:


> what is the third variant? you keep making up some none existance versions of yours,
> J-15 is a continous project, they have j-15s for catapult test, aesa test, new weapons system test and others tests and all require changes from small to big```where is the interim version? let me put this way, even batch 0 and batch 1 are not exactlly the same within their body```so is batch 1 the interim version of your category??



This has nothing to do with "batches". There is the baseline variant (which is in service), the J-15A CATOBAR-capable variant (picture here: http://www.janes.com/images/assets/001/64001/p1685960.jpg), and there now seems to be an interim variant in development that incorporates an AESA.


----------



## Deino

BY the way, Huitong speaks of 3 versions ....

http://chinese-military-aviation.blogspot.de/p/fighters-ii.html



> The latest rumor (April 2017) suggested that the production of *J-15* will end after 3 batches of 24 units for the Type 001 aircraft carrier. It is expected to be followed by the improved *J-15B* (?) which will feature a new AESA radar developed by the 607 Institute.



However I think his number of J-15 in three batches is wrong. We are now at confirmed #122 aka the 23rd serial aircraft but it is - as far as I know - still in batch 2 ?!!

Deino


----------



## Akasa

Deino said:


> BY the way, Huitong speaks of 3 versions ....
> 
> http://chinese-military-aviation.blogspot.de/p/fighters-ii.html
> 
> 
> 
> However I think his number of J-15 in three batches is wrong. We are now at confirmed #122 aka the 23rd serial aircraft but it is - as far as I know - still in batch 2 ?!!
> 
> Deino



Aren't batches in groups of 10? The serial number on the airframe suggested that.


----------



## Deino

SinoSoldier said:


> Aren't batches in groups of 10? The serial number on the airframe suggested that.




Maybe indeed ... but maybe the second Batch is larger ???

*Batch 01:
*
No. 100 = c/n 0101 - 22.4.14
No. 101 = c/n 0102 - 2.5.14
No. 102 = c/n 0103 - 2.12.13
No. 103 = c/n 0104 - 2.12.13
No. 104 = c/n 0105 - 19.5.14
No. 105 = c/n 0106 - 22.5.14
No. 106 = c/n 0107 - 20.3.15
No. 107 = c/n 0108 - 1.10.14
No. 108 = c/n 0109 - 1.10.14
No. 109 = c/n 0110 - 12.11.14
= 10 aircarft build / spotted between December 2013 and November 2014 


*Batch 02:*

No. 110 = c/n 0201 - 5.9.15
No. 111 = c/n 0202 - 12.10.15
No. 112 = c/n 0203 - 23.9.15
No. 113 = c/n 0204 - 3.9.15
No. 114 = c/n 0205 - 12.10.15
No. 115 = c/n 0206 - 12.6.16
No. 116 = c/n 0207 - 16.8.16
No. 117 = c/n 0208 - 16.5.16 ... reportedly lost
No. 118 = c/n 0209 - 31.11.16
No. 119 = c/n 0210 - 30.11.16

... with no. 120 so these are between September 2015 und December 2016


*Unconfirmed ...* _*maybe*_ *Batch 03:
*
No. 120 = c/n 0211 or 0301 - 15.12.16
No. 121 = c/n 0212 or 0302 - ... still unconfirmed 
No. 122 = c/n 0213 or 0303 - 03.04.17
No. 12x = c/n 0214 or 0304 - ...


Deino


----------



## Akasa

Deino said:


> Maybe indeed ... but maybe the second Batch is larger ???
> 
> *Batch 01:
> *
> No. 100 = c/n 0101 - 22.4.14
> No. 101 = c/n 0102 - 2.5.14
> No. 102 = c/n 0103 - 2.12.13
> No. 103 = c/n 0104 - 2.12.13
> No. 104 = c/n 0105 - 19.5.14
> No. 105 = c/n 0106 - 22.5.14
> No. 106 = c/n 0107 - 20.3.15
> No. 107 = c/n 0108 - 1.10.14
> No. 108 = c/n 0109 - 1.10.14
> No. 109 = c/n 0110 - 12.11.14
> = 10 aircarft build / spotted between December 2013 and November 2014
> 
> 
> *Batch 02:*
> 
> No. 110 = c/n 0201 - 5.9.15
> No. 111 = c/n 0202 - 12.10.15
> No. 112 = c/n 0203 - 23.9.15
> No. 113 = c/n 0204 - 3.9.15
> No. 114 = c/n 0205 - 12.10.15
> No. 115 = c/n 0206 - 12.6.16
> No. 116 = c/n 0207 - 16.8.16
> No. 117 = c/n 0208 - 16.5.16 ... reportedly lost
> No. 118 = c/n 0209 - 31.11.16
> No. 119 = c/n 0210 - 30.11.16
> 
> ... with no. 120 so these are between September 2015 und December 2016
> 
> 
> *Unconfirmed ...* _*maybe*_ *Batch 03:
> *
> No. 120 = c/n 0211 or 0301 - 15.12.16
> No. 121 = c/n 0212 or 0302 - ... still unconfirmed
> No. 122 = c/n 0213 or 0303 - 03.04.17
> No. 12x = c/n 0214 or 0304 - ...
> 
> 
> Deino



Whatever the batch distribution may be, there may be only 1-2 aircraft to be built before the first iteration finishes production. The J-15B may begin production very shortly afterwards since factory retooling is no longer a requirement.


----------



## Deino

SinoSoldier said:


> Whatever the batch distribution may be, there may be only 1-2 aircraft to be built before the first iteration finishes production. The J-15B may begin production very shortly afterwards since factory retooling is no longer a requirement.




Pardon ??? but why J-15B ???


----------



## Akasa

Deino said:


> Pardon ??? but why J-15B ???



J-15B is a fan-given name to the rumored version with AESA radar. Henri K. believes it's an interim between the baseline J-15 and the J-15A.


----------



## Deino

SinoSoldier said:


> J-15B is a fan-given name to the rumored version with AESA radar. Henri K. believes it's an interim between the baseline J-15 and the J-15A.




But then B - later than A - makes no sense if it is an Interim Version !

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## GiantPanda

rcrmj said:


> what is the third variant? you keep making up some none existance versions of yours,
> J-15 is a continous project, they have j-15s for catapult test, aesa test, new weapons system test and others tests and all require changes from small to big```where is the interim version? let me put this way, even batch 0 and batch 1 are not exactlly the same within their body```so is batch 1 the interim version of your category??
> 
> let me put this way, there is more difference between J-11B to J-15 (the current one in service) than Su-33 to J-15. again a CATOBAR capable J-15 is more than just to put an enhanced landing gear, and everyone knows the obvious reason, fundamental structure design is required in order to be tossed it of from carrier, landing gear is just one of them, so thats why I keep saying it was design since day one, as apart from the landing gear, the most important one, *the structure was ready!*`````all I am saying is to Sinosoldier's weird theory of 'third version', 'overlap' and 'interim' version``
> 
> to your question of *'explain why You deem these structural changes NOT important enough to warrant a new designation '* let me explain it with the example of J-11D, most people would believe that J-11D is just like putting an AESA on J-11B, no its not. it involes major changes of structure design, and SAC having a big problem of it (one of the main reasons to buy Su-35, this is other story, I want to leave it like this)```in this field (PLAAF, dont want to drag others into it, as I am not familar with their system) if when major structural changes are needed, then they will have a proper ‘立项’ and will give them an official designation like ABCD etc```in our circle we dont even call J-10B, they are all J-10C, but for the public consumption so here we go A/B/C. For J-15 apart from the landing gear, there is no major changes of its inner structure, therefore``````
> 
> 
> 弹射的计划不是在飞鲨服役之后才有的，飞鲨在原型设计上就已经考虑到位了，不只是一个起落架的问题，内部的结构早就做好准备了，没有像很多人说得那样内部要很大的改造才可以（的确飞鲨的内部和筷子还有很大差别的，因为都是为了在航母上用，不管是弹射的还是滑跃的）。现在服役的飞鲨其实稍加改动（说的通俗点讲，就换个起落架）就可以弹射了。那帮家伙早就弄过了·····就讲到这吧



There has been discussion over this. CATOBAR and STOBAR aircraft in a lot of ways are diametrically opposite. STOBAR needs a high TWR to launch itself off a ski-jump. You need to reduce weight as much as possible while maintaining frame integrity for arrested recovery. 

CATOBAR aircraft have less stringent requirement for weight since the catapult provides the required trust during takeoff but there is penalty and that penalty is added weight needed on on the front of the airframe to strengthened it. 

If you are designing aircraft for STOBAR carriers you would not penalize it needlessly with catapult necessitated elements. Especially since STOBAR capability is new to PLAN. You would want as light a design as possible.

Type 001A is a STOBAR carrier so this launch system will be with PLAN for many years. The Navy would not leave a less than optimal design for STOBAR carriers just to get a head start on the CATOBAR design.

I am sure the designers of the J-15 had CATOBAR in their plans all along -- China had studied and test CATOBAR first with Hermes and then had maintenance crews working with Brazil on the Foch/Sao Paulo.

But their plan is with different variants that are optimized for either launch methods. Not one plane planned for CATOBAR that would carry needless weight for catapult launching and forcing it to fly off a STOBAR carrier.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Akasa

Deino said:


> But then B - later than A - makes no sense if it is an Interim Version !



The J-15A is very unlikely to enter production or service in the near future (i.e. before the J-15"B").


----------



## samsara

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/854319286977830913

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## rcrmj

GiantPanda said:


> There has been discussion over this. CATOBAR and STOBAR aircraft in a lot of ways are diametrically opposite. STOBAR needs a high TWR to launch itself off a ski-jump. You need to reduce weight as much as possible while maintaining frame integrity for arrested recovery.
> 
> CATOBAR aircraft have less stringent requirement for weight since the catapult provides the required trust during takeoff but there is penalty and that penalty is added weight needed on on the front of the airframe to strengthened it.
> 
> If you are designing aircraft for STOBAR carriers you would not penalize it needlessly with catapult necessitated elements. Especially since STOBAR capability is new to PLAN. You would want as light a design as possible.
> 
> Type 001A is a STOBAR carrier so this launch system will be with PLAN for many years. The Navy would not leave a less than optimal design for STOBAR carriers just to get a head start on the CATOBAR design.
> 
> I am sure the designers of the J-15 had CATOBAR in their plans all along -- China had studied and test CATOBAR first with Hermes and then had maintenance crews working with Brazil on the Foch/Sao Paulo.
> 
> But their plan is with different variants that are optimized for either launch methods. Not one plane planned for CATOBAR that would carry needless weight for catapult launching and forcing it to fly off a STOBAR carrier.


you mean discussed by people on forum or the kind of discussions in one of SAC's lab rooms?
'less weight for STOBAR and more weight for CATOBAR' they all sound convenient to understand, but can you give a figure or a weight allowanc which is appropriate to 'increase' or 'decrease' the weight respectively? no you cant, as it is way more complicated than most of you believe. actually the line of thinking is quite different from your assumption.

do you even know to reduce an aircraft's weight while keeping its stats are way more harder than to put on few KGs? *[there is no extra weight is unnecessary on any state-of-art air craft]* this is the golden rule, remember this, the golden rule applies to Chinese, Russian, American, French and all aircraft designers``` but most amature military fans will carry it away when discuss things in details. So whe you have this in mind, does it sound logical now that *they went into a great deal to reduce the weight in order for STOBAR, then put on more weight just for the sake of CATOBAR (at this point you'd argue landing gear is bigger and fatter```well, if anything thats all, but anything inside are still the same if not lighter!!). Because J-15 is a front line fighter, carries feul weapons flying towards enemy's defense line! its not a flying sensation like T-10-15 just for the sake of breaking records with no fire-control system, no radar, no fin tail, shortened tail cone and this and that.* So it is illogical to reduce the weight just for the sake of STOBAR, remember *[there is no extra weight is unnecessary on any state-of-art air craft]* ```besides both STOBAR and CATOBAR are here for the same purpose``*your argument will make more sense if they are for different combat role purpose. *p.s there is another more agile one in development thats serves a different purpose than J-15s

here is the real deal, but Im not going to give any details, the current J-15 can take off from 195 meters point with around 12 matric tones of feul and weapons (war time safe conduct up limit)```but can carry 1-2 tones more when its catapulted``and that extra weight is not its frame skeleton or structrual enhancements or any 'necessary weights' you'd believe, they are almost all extra feul and weapon (the room is for your landing gear)````

as according to the infos we all know, there are going to be 2 ski jump ACs (even the first one is more experimental than fit for seriouse intensive war), and god knows how many catapult AC they are going to build, I guess A LOT, do you think it is economical for those guys to make 3 or 5 dozens of 'reduced weight' inner structually different J-15 just for the sake of 2 STOBAR ACs with compromised capability and then making a lot more with 'extra weighted' ones for incoming CATOBAR ACs? 你以后真的不要奇怪看见弹弓飞鲨在辽宁或者001A上面出现·····还没干过，但是不敢保证他们不会做。



SinoSoldier said:


> The J-15A is very unlikely to enter production or service in the near future (i.e. before the J-15"B").


stop making up your imaginary variants of J-15``seriously stop!


----------



## Kiss_of_the_Dragon

When we gonna see some video clip of the J-15 with catapult in action?


----------



## Deino

Thanks for Your reply again but as so often I have to more questions... First is concerning this sentence ?!!



rcrmj said:


> ...p.s there is another more agile one in development thats serves a different purpose than J-15s!



... any more on this ? Is it a new type, or a more agile (??) version of the J-15 ??


But then again to the question on "different versions YES/NO !??



> ...
> here is the real deal, but Im not going to give any details, the current J-15 can take off from 195 meters point with around 12 matric tones of feul and weapons (war time safe conduct up limit)```but can carry 1-2 tones more when its catapulted``and that extra weight is not its frame skeleton or structrual enhancements or any 'necessary weights' you'd believe, they are almost all extra feul and weapon (the room is for your landing gear)````
> ...



This sounds as if the current J-15 could be catapulted, which as far as we know is impossible since it lacks the catapult gear and as You explained Yourself:



rcrmj said:


> ...
> to your question of *'explain why You deem these structural changes NOT important enough to warrant a new designation '* let me explain it with the example of J-11D, most people would believe that J-11D is just like putting an AESA on J-11B, no its not. it involes major changes of structure design, and SAC having a big problem of it (one of the main reasons to buy Su-35, this is other story, I want to leave it like this)```
> ... For J-15 apart from the landing gear, there is no major changes of its inner structure, therefore``````



Agreed, but so the change is the new landing gear and even if You deem these changes "minor" or only related to the landing gear since the general structure is identical, I still deem this minor change enough to warrant a new letter. And even if the general structure might be the same, IMO You cannot simply fit a new gear per plug&play to make a standard J-15 cat-capable.

Concerning the J-11D I agree with You, from what I understand it is indeed some sort of deep upgrade not only concerning the avionics + engines, but a revised internal structure similar to the evolution from Su-27 to Su-35 in Russia. 


And finally even if a bit OT:



rcrmj said:


> ...
> ```in our circle we dont even call J-10B, they are all J-10C, but for the public consumption so here we go A/B/C. For J-15 apart from the landing gear, there is no major changes of its inner structure, therefore``````



But this contradicts all - and esp. images - we know with confirmed factory serials clearly stating a B-model ?!! So all we miss is an official statement confirming the C, but the B is quite well established.

Deino


----------



## rcrmj

Deino said:


> Thanks for Your reply again but as so often I have to more questions... First is concerning this sentence ?!!
> 
> ... any more on this ? Is it a new type, or a more agile (??) version of the J-15 ??
> 
> But then again to the question on "different versions YES/NO !??
> 
> Deino



They talked it alot about this agile one, not sure whether it has been started yet or not, but sure thing is, its a fifth gen fighter for air dominance and enemy theatre penetration purpose``````




Deino said:


> This sounds as if the current J-15 could be catapulted, which as far as we know is impossible since it lacks the catapult gear and as You explained Yourself:



yes, apart from the landing gear, they are more or less ready to be tossed off from AC




Deino said:


> But this contradicts all - and esp. images - we know with confirmed factory serials clearly stating a B-model ?!! So all we miss is an official statement confirming the C, but the B is quite well established.
> 
> Deino



there are two types of 'official' statements, one is from CCTV or any government owned outlets the way they want to name it for public consumption, and the one we care is the one whether had a proper 'official approval' of the project at very begining.

the brand new J-10B (the way you want to call it) had some fundamental changes from J-10A, and it did take quite long time to develop it, had few struggles I like to put, and during the time of development, there are leaps on China's semiconductor, radar and avionic developments, which can be used on it without making any major changes. However, as we all know, any project needs to frozen technology requirements in order to have it developed according to plan without 'disturbance' or 'temptation' from new techs, because its not a pull and plug thing````

so after few batches, they went with all new gadgets```and the changes are minor (I mean structural)`but we know they are all within one 'approved' project``but anyway, due to the sheer force of public opinion, we start to calling it too``

so in reality, after J-10A, there are only two officially approved projects```J-10B/C and J-10D its a BEAST and look quite different``````

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Akasa

rcrmj said:


> stop making up your imaginary variants of J-15``seriously stop!



Would be quite difficult to call them "imaginary" when the developmental timelines and onboard capabilities of the two variants are clearly distinct.


----------



## ChineseTiger1986

Kiss_of_the_Dragon said:


> When we gonna see some video clip of the J-15 with catapult in action?



After the deployment of the Type 002.


----------



## 帅的一匹

ChineseTiger1986 said:


> After the deployment of the Type 002.


Had type 002 started construction?



rcrmj said:


> They talked it alot about this agile one, not sure whether it has been started yet or not, but sure thing is, its a fifth gen fighter for air dominance and enemy theatre penetration purpose``````
> 
> 
> 
> 
> yes, apart from the landing gear, they are more or less ready to be tossed off from AC
> 
> 
> 
> 
> there are two types of 'official' statements, one is from CCTV or any government owned outlets the way they want to name it for public consumption, and the one we care is the one whether had a proper 'official approval' of the project at very begining.
> 
> the brand new J-10B (the way you want to call it) had some fundamental changes from J-10A, and it did take quite long time to develop it, had few struggles I like to put, and during the time of development, there are leaps on China's semiconductor, radar and avionic developments, which can be used on it without making any major changes. However, as we all know, any project needs to frozen technology requirements in order to have it developed according to plan without 'disturbance' or 'temptation' from new techs, because its not a pull and plug thing````
> 
> so after few batches, they went with all new gadgets```and the changes are minor (I mean structural)`but we know they are all within one 'approved' project``but anyway, due to the sheer force of public opinion, we start to calling it too``
> 
> so in reality, after J-10A, there are only two officially approved projects```J-10B/C and J-10D its a BEAST and look quite different``````


Until now, J10d is still a mistery.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## ChineseTiger1986

wanglaokan said:


> Had type 002 started construction?
> 
> 
> Until now, J10d is still a mistery.



I think we will likely see the laid down of the keel soon.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## rcrmj

SinoSoldier said:


> Would be quite difficult to call them "imaginary" when the developmental timelines and onboard capabilities of the two variants are clearly distinct.


thats what you believe, has nothing to do with reality```please read all my posts again and stop making those imaginary variants of yours, and yours alone``period

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Akasa

rcrmj said:


> thats what you believe, has nothing to do with reality```please read all my posts again and stop making those imaginary variants of yours, and yours alone``period



There are two distinct iterations of the J-15, one of which first flew in 2009 and the other in 2016, with very different capabilities and operating platforms. However you choose to group them is up to you.


----------



## samsara

*Military expert says mass production of new carrier-based fighter ‘fully expected’*

By Li Yan - People's Daily Online - 15:12, April 27, 2017






J-15 fighters (File photo)​
As attention is focused on the *J-15B* jet after the launch of China’s first domestically produced aircraft carrier, a military expert has said that *mass production of new carrier-based fighters can definitely be expected*.

Yin Zhuo made the remarks in response to reports that China has suspended production of its J-15 fighters, and will start production of J-15B fighters. *J-15B fighters are equipped with active electronically scanned array radars.* They can compete with U.S.-made F-35B fighters in terms of detecting range and capability, which means they are competitive in battles to control air and sea, according to media reports.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## GiantPanda

wanglaokan said:


> Had type 002 started construction?
> 
> 
> Until now, J10d is still a mistery.



Module fabrication of Type 002 has already begun according to most of the reliable sources in the chinese internet. Whether the keel is already laid down is up to debate. But building of Type 002 in Shanghai is certain.

The uncertainty is whether a sister Type 002 is being built in Dalian as well.



samsara said:


> *Military expert says mass production of new carrier-based fighter ‘fully expected’*
> 
> By Li Yan - People's Daily Online - 15:12, April 27, 2017
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> J-15 fighters (File photo)​
> As attention is focused on the *J-15B* jet after the launch of China’s first domestically produced aircraft carrier, a military expert has said that *mass production of new carrier-based fighters can definitely be expected*.
> 
> Yin Zhuo made the remarks in response to reports that China has suspended production of its J-15 fighters, and will start production of J-15B fighters. *J-15B fighters are equipped with active electronically scanned array radars.* They can compete with U.S.-made F-35B fighters in terms of detecting range and capability, which means they are competitive in battles to control air and sea, according to media reports.



Batch 01, 02, 03 are J-15. 

Second, came the J-15S two seater.

Third, the J15A (or T) with catapult enforced gear and tow bar.

If the now announced mass-produced J-15B does not include the catapult gear then the PLAN have decided on two variants -- one for the STOBARs and another for the CATOBARs beginning with Type 002.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Deino

samsara said:


> *Military expert says mass production of new carrier-based fighter ‘fully expected’*
> 
> By Li Yan - People's Daily Online - 15:12, April 27, 2017
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> J-15 fighters (File photo)​
> As attention is focused on the *J-15B* jet after the launch of China’s first domestically produced aircraft carrier, a military expert has said that *mass production of new carrier-based fighters can definitely be expected*.
> 
> Yin Zhuo made the remarks in response to reports that China has suspended production of its J-15 fighters, and will start production of J-15B fighters. *J-15B fighters are equipped with active electronically scanned array radars.* They can compete with U.S.-made F-35B fighters in terms of detecting range and capability, which means they are competitive in battles to control air and sea, according to media reports.




Interesting, since this would de facto confirm the J-15B-designation !


----------



## grey boy 2

http://bbs.meyet.com/thread-504518-1-1.html

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## rcrmj

Deino said:


> Interesting, since this would de facto confirm the J-15B-designation !


big thing happened at SAC yesterday morning`````packed with cars with official plates (came from top), loads of police were at presence```big banners been put on inside the facility````maybe someone is getting a proper 'HuKou' then````:


----------



## kuge

samsara said:


> *Military expert says mass production of new carrier-based fighter ‘fully expected’*
> 
> By Li Yan - People's Daily Online - 15:12, April 27, 2017
> 
> J-15 fighters (File photo)​
> As attention is focused on the *J-15B* jet after the launch of China’s first domestically produced aircraft carrier, a military expert has said that *mass production of new carrier-based fighters can definitely be expected*.
> 
> Yin Zhuo made the remarks in response to reports that China has suspended production of its J-15 fighters, and will start production of J-15B fighters. *J-15B fighters are equipped with active electronically scanned array radars.* They can compete with U.S.-made F-35B fighters in terms of detecting range and capability, which means they are competitive in battles to control air and sea, according to media reports.


what engines will be used? thanks


----------



## Deino

rcrmj said:


> big thing happened at SAC yesterday morning`````packed with cars with official plates (came from top), loads of police were at presence```big banners been put on inside the facility````maybe someone is getting a proper 'HuKou' then````:




MORE; PLEASE tell us more ... but that sounds less related to the J-15 and more to another project !?


----------



## 帅的一匹

rcrmj said:


> big thing happened at SAC yesterday morning`````packed with cars with official plates (came from top), loads of police were at presence```big banners been put on inside the facility````maybe someone is getting a proper 'HuKou' then````:


----------



## rcrmj

Deino said:


> MORE; PLEASE tell us more ... but that sounds less related to the J-15 and more to another project !?



I don't know! I don't know!```````the very basic instinct of his, pulled over and about to take a photo```and then this motion drew unnecessary attention from the security polices, a kindly wave with a serious face, so he went back to his seat, drove away````

New J-15? New 5th gen? or simply some kind of award ceremonies for the 1st of May National Labour's Holiday``who knows``?````I think more info will come out``be patient```

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Deino

rcrmj said:


> ``be patient```




That's exactly the problem ... my problem !


----------



## rcrmj

Deino said:


> That's exactly the problem ... my problem !


as I said long before, Chinese defense development and achievements are like teasing stripping dance```, you know what is behind that thin fabric, but you will never know what exactly looks like, and it could cost you a dear to know the 'exactly' ```````

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## grey boy 2

J-15B (兴城训练基地惊现黄皮歼15B)

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Deino

grey boy 2 said:


> J-15B (兴城训练基地惊现黄皮歼15B)




Why do you think ? Could be any factory-fresh unpainted J-15.


----------



## grey boy 2

Deino said:


> Why do you think ? Could be any factory-fresh unpainted J-15.


Thats what it said from the news article




http://www.nhjd.net/thread-65757-1-1.html

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Deino

Thanks again.


----------



## cirr

grey boy 2 said:


> Thats what it said from the news article
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.nhjd.net/thread-65757-1-1.html



J-15B(with AESA etc.), J-15T(catapult etc) or J-15D("Growler")?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## samsara

grey boy 2 said:


> Thats what it said from the news article
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.nhjd.net/thread-65757-1-1.html



_Simply a loose translation..._

_On April 9, 2017 satellite images showed Xincheng carrier pilot training base in a yellow skin (Xincheng city is located in Huludao, Liaoning). Included in the image was the J-15, appeared unexpectedly, not the usual type but in yellow skin in Xincheng training base. Again, we have yellow skin machine, which has been identified as the advanced model of the carrier-based aircraft, J-15B._

_Due to the large aircraft carrier fleet is a huge integrated project, includes nuclear submarines, surface combatant ships, naval fighters, planes and so on... all the needed equipment. Because our country "developmental stage" couldn't cope with the needs of building aircraft carrier fleet at that moment, therefore the constructions of aircraft carriers were carried out with smaller steps, incremental approaches for quick realization. The first two aircraft carriers employed the unassisted ski-jump take-off, to gain some familiarity and first-hand experiences with the use of carrier, wait further for the other carrier of more mature technology to deploy the catapult-assisted launch system._

_Some netizens said that our country in building the unassisted ski-jump take-off system, the aircraft carrier technology used is backward, and even has the technology level --there was even some mocking by foreign media-- to that of the 60 years old. This understanding is gravely wrong, because our country used the unassisted ski-jump take-off in building the early aircraft carriers, *while set plan for the medium-term improvement, carefully studying the modification of the island superstructure, reserved space for installing a catapult system in future.*_

_At present our country already has the ability to build carriers with catapult-assisted launch, forms a complete set (nuclear submarines, cruisers, AWACS) of engineering technology by leaps and bounds, so the current fighters J-15 only serve as a transitional type, when they are close to retirement age, the transformation from the unassisted ski-jump take-off (STOBAR) to catapult-assisted launch (CATOBAR) carrier renovation project will have been kicked off as well._​

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## grey boy 2

J-15B will be equip with the most advance AESA radar that is comparable to the F-35 if not exceeding

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## Deino

grey boy 2 said:


> J-15B will be equip with the most advance AESA radar that is comparable to the F-35 if not exceeding




But why is this always mentioned for the J-15B ?? Wouldn't one expect the "most advance AESA radar that is comparable to the F-35 if not exceeding" even more on the J-20 ?

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Deino



Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## grey boy 2



Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Ben-Liubin

Just want to share with you guys some latest pics of J15 and 001 Carrier on training

Source 163

Reactions: Like Like:
12


----------



## grey boy 2



Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## Deino

#121

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Deino

Deino said:


> #121
> 
> View attachment 402029




From what I found out additionally that pilot Cao Xian Jian crashed and was seriously injured during a routine training from a base around Bohai (Bo Sea) on 2016/04/06. After 419 days and multiple surgeries, he was qualified again as a J-15 pilot on 2017/05/30.

However the report published on the PLA News didn't mention which J-15 was lost:

http://m.guancha.cn/military-affairs/2017_06_07_411981.shtml

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Deino

A rare image of the crashed #117

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Deino

The original Ukrainian T-10K-7 reappeared !

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## grey boy 2

A 7 J-15 formation leaded by a JL-9G PLANAF (1架海山鹰领着7架J15编队飞行)

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## Deino

Now also in English !

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## sheik

Deino said:


> From what I found out additionally that pilot Cao Xian Jian crashed and was seriously injured during a routine training from a base around Bohai (Bo Sea) on 2016/04/06. After 419 days and multiple surgeries, he was qualified again as a J-15 pilot on 2017/05/30.
> 
> However the report published on the PLA News didn't mention which J-15 was lost:
> 
> http://m.guancha.cn/military-affairs/2017_06_07_411981.shtml



The lost one did not necessarily have to be a J-15. At least it's not mentioned in the original article.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Deino

By the way ... I nearly missed that note too:

Posted already in the news & carrier 002 thread from our own @52051 quoted at the SDF but the J-15-piece was not added here:




> Ma Weiming, the star scientist from PLA University of Navy Engineering, recently accepted a invitation from his friend, the president of Shanghai University, to give a talk with students there on innovation and future career advice.
> 
> ...
> 
> (4) During the talk, *Ma also show a video of EMALS-launched J-15* and also mentioned that China's electronic powertrain/transmission systems are at least 1 generation better than the next gen US comparable systems, and that China's electrified powertrain will be also used on next gen systems like SSN/SSBN/tanks.




I want !!!! I want now and very much !!!


----------



## JSCh

One picture, from weibo.

Reactions: Like Like:
8


----------



## Deino

J-15 serial 116, 119, 120, 121 & 122

Reactions: Like Like:
8


----------



## Deino

Some very nice J-15A CGs ....











... and a very funny "What-if" !!!

Reactions: Like Like:
11


----------



## Beast

They shall put GuanYu ,Zhao Zilong or Yue Fei on those plane.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Pangu



Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Deino

Interesting update from Huitong !



> It was rumored in November 2016 that a *J-15T* took off for the first time from a ground-based electromagnetic catapult (EMALS). The latest rumor (April 2017) suggested that the production of *J-15A* ended after 3 batches of 24 units for the Type 001 aircraft carrier. It is expected to be followed by the improved *J-15B* (?) which will feature a new AESA radar developed by the 607 Institute.
> _- Last Updated 7/3/17_



http://chinese-military-aviation.blogspot.de/p/fighters-ii.html#J-15


????

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Han Patriot

Deino said:


> Interesting update from Huitong !
> 
> 
> 
> http://chinese-military-aviation.blogspot.de/p/fighters-ii.html#J-15
> 
> 
> ????


This makes sense since officially CV-16 is just a training ship, no point giving it state of the art AESA radars.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Deino

+ IFR-pod ! 

via http://www.fyjs.cn/thread-1872942-1-1.html


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/881903019666919424

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Penguin

Deino said:


> Some very nice J-15A CGs ....


Is the number 911 coincidental?



Han Patriot said:


> This makes sense since officially CV-16 is just a training ship, no point giving it state of the art AESA radars.


Given how little difference there is between CV-16 and her newbuilt Chinese sister, it is safe to consider both fully capable carriers.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Han Patriot

Penguin said:


> Is the number 911 coincidental?
> 
> 
> Given how little difference there is between CV-16 and her newbuilt Chinese sister, it is safe to consider both fully capable carriers.


In some sense yes, but I guess Chinese leaders still do not have pride in a foreign vessel being China's first aircraft carrier, hence there is tendency to relegate it to a 'training' ship.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Penguin

Han Patriot said:


> In some sense yes, but I guess Chinese leaders still do not have pride in a foreign vessel being China's first aircraft carrier, hence there is tendency to relegate it to a 'training' ship.


So, it is just a cosmetic term, a symbolic issue. Because, for a training ship, it is remarkably well armed and equipped, pretty much equal (with few exceptions) to the homebuilt follow-on.

And the relationship between the two ships is not like this:

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Han Patriot

Penguin said:


> So, it is just a cosmeting term, a symbolic issue. Because, for a training ship, it is remarkably well armed and equipped, pretty much equal (with few exceptions) to the homebuilt follow-on.


Yes, symbolism means a lot to us Chinese. We are too proud to accept a freaking refurbished Ukrainian vessel as the FIRST AIRCRAFT CARRIER. It has got to be Chinese made with at least Chinese made planes although cloned in many facets.. The swadeshi psyche among Chinese is very strong.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Deino

Was this image already posted ???

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Penguin

That's a cut out from this one (J-15T), from Huitong's site, right?










http://chinese-military-aviation.blogspot.nl/p/fighters-ii.html

See also http://errymath.blogspot.com/2016/11/catobar-variant-j-15t-successfully.html#.WVvfo-nnqUk

*China flight testing modified J-15 for CATOBAR operations*
*Richard D Fisher Jr, Washington DC and Gabriel Dominguez, London and Sean O'Connor, Indianapolis* - IHS Jane's Defence Weekly
21 September 2016
http://www.janes.com/article/64001/china-flight-testing-modified-j-15-for-catobar-operations





Here it is called: Chinese J-15A prototype featuring nose-wheel catapult launch assembly.




http://www.ndtv.com/world-news/china-racing-ahead-of-india-in-aircraft-carrier-development-1472835

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Deino

#122 is now clearly confirmed c/n 0213 .. so right now not a Batch 03-bird.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## pzkilo

Beast said:


> They shall put GuanYu ,Zhao Zilong or Yue Fei on those plane.


guanyu/zhao zilong are not a good idea,I prefer to weiqing/huo qubing, 陈汤 also is OK.


----------



## 星海军事

Deino said:


> Interesting update from Huitong !
> 
> 
> 
> http://chinese-military-aviation.blogspot.de/p/fighters-ii.html#J-15
> 
> 
> ????


Maybe it is not J-15B or J-15T, or not even J-15

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Akasa

星海军事 said:


> Maybe it is not J-15B or J-15T, or not even J-15



What do you mean exactly? The CATOBAR-configured J-15 clearly exists; the only question now is whether the J-15T (aka CATOBAR version) is the same as the J-15B.


----------



## cirr

SinoSoldier said:


> What do you mean exactly? The CATOBAR-configured J-15 clearly exists; the only question now is whether the J-15T (aka CATOBAR version) is the same as the J-15B.



Meaning that SAC/601 is in the process of developing a new "variant" of the Flanker that is hardly recognisable as such.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Deino

cirr said:


> Meaning that SAC/601 is in the process of developing a new "variant" of the Flanker that is hardly recognisable as such.




In the meaning its designation is "hardly recognisable as such" or more - what I would hope - it is externally "hardly recognisable as such" ?


----------



## Akasa

cirr said:


> Meaning that SAC/601 is in the process of developing a new "variant" of the Flanker that is hardly recognisable as such.



Meaning that the J-15T or J-15B are not real prototypes but merely tech demonstrators?

It this related to the FC-31 (J-35) program?


----------



## 星海军事

SinoSoldier said:


> Meaning that the J-15T or J-15B are not real prototypes but merely tech demonstrators?
> 
> It this related to the FC-31 (J-35) program?



571 sure is the demonstrator.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Akasa

星海军事 said:


> 571 sure is the demonstrator.



Can you tell us more about this new program? Is it for a modified (perhaps stealthy) variant of the Flanker?


----------



## Akasa

星海军事 said:


> Maybe it is not J-15B or J-15T, or not even J-15





cirr said:


> Meaning that SAC/601 is in the process of developing a new "variant" of the Flanker that is hardly recognisable as such.



Any chance that this new fighter could be related to the schematic below, from many years ago?







Or perhaps the following?


----------



## Deino

Interesting comparison ...

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Deino

Interesting post by Henri Kenhmann's Eastpedulum:


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/896428928377786369
based on this report published by the AVIC group on its journal:

http://ep.cannews.com.cn/index.php?c=PhonePaper&m=showWen&id=3229&paperid=7&banmianid=97

... suggesting that the production of the catapult-capable-J-15 is underway.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Deino

Does anyone what happened here ? ... and when ?

https://lt.cjdby.net/thread-2407574-1-1.html

From what I was able to translate, pilot Yuan Wei (??) was able to land his J-15 safely while one engine was on fire. Report from CCTV7.








Deino said:


> Does anyone what happened here ? ... and when ?




J-15 #104 as one of the J-15s participating the parade on 30/07 had been damaged as a result of a collision with a group of birds.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Deino

A video from the pilot's view !

http://www.weibo.com/tv/v/Fhorzlw3e?fid=1034:1b57be64fcb7e18f725207c2e8664d6c


----------



## Pyr0test

birds ain't good for the digestive system

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## rendong

Valued at $sixty million


----------



## Deino

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/898434380967796737


----------



## Akasa

Deino said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/898434380967796737



Some think it was canceled while others suspect that it has been re-worked into the J-15D and related programs.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## ChineseTiger1986

Deino said:


> Does anyone what happened here ? ... and when ?
> 
> https://lt.cjdby.net/thread-2407574-1-1.html
> 
> From what I was able to translate, pilot Yuan Wei (??) was able to land his J-15 safely while one engine was on fire. Report from CCTV7.
> 
> View attachment 418772
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> J-15 #104 as one of the J-15s participating the parade on 30/07 had been damaged as a result of a collision with a group of birds.
> View attachment 418774
> View attachment 418775
> View attachment 418776
> View attachment 418777



The aircraft got hit by a group of birds.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## cirr



Reactions: Like Like:
9


----------



## Akasa

cirr said:


>



First prototype of the J-15B/T, as depicted by fanart? What is it?


----------



## Kiss_of_the_Dragon

cirr said:


>



what is the protrusion in between the two intakes : catapult gear?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Deino

cirr said:


>




Ohh, he replaced his typical 911 numbers with 815 !?


----------



## lcloo

815 = August 15th, 1945. The day Japan declared surrender.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## cirr

J15-122 






@Deino

Reactions: Like Like:
9


----------



## Akasa

cirr said:


> J15-122
> 
> View attachment 420721
> 
> 
> @Deino
> 
> View attachment 420722



Any idea when the J-15B (or the catapult version) will enter production?


----------



## samsara

*A more close-up look at the J-15 onboard Liaoning. Uploaded on 2017.08.20*
(Spoken Chinese, sorry no Engsub)

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## clarkgap

samsara said:


> *A more close-up look at the J-15 onboard Liaoning. Uploaded on 2017.08.20*
> (Spoken Chinese, sorry no Engsub)




Such video make no sense. No new picture, no reliable news, no accurate analysis.


----------



## samsara

clarkgap said:


> Such video make no sense. No new picture, no reliable news, no accurate analysis.


Yeah, it caters different needs and sophistication. Yet if one doesn't pay close attention on this jet, those some closer angles are still something (and definitely is something for the world outside the ardent mil fans).

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## grey boy 2

Catapult-capable-J-15 flying shark deployed (弹射型飞鲨已率先编入舰载机中队。)

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## cirr

grey boy 2 said:


> Catapult-capable-J-15 flying shark deployed (弹射型飞鲨已率先编入舰载机中队。)

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## cnleio

Catapult-capable-J-15 & CCTV release something(like track) of China steam catapult

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Deino

grey boy 2 said:


> Catapult-capable-J-15 flying shark deployed (弹射型飞鲨已率先编入舰载机中队。)



What deployed ??? It is an old image we know sine about one year akready.


----------



## grey boy 2

Deino said:


> What deployed ??? It is an old image we know sine about one year akready.


I posted what the big shrimp posted, the picture is only for reference
Don't believe it, how about learn some Chinese so that you can read whats in the tweet to verify? OK?

The original tweet, i did not added anything of my own

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Deino

grey boy 2 said:


> I posted what the big shrimp posted, the picture is only for reference
> Don't believe it, how about learn some Chinese so that you can read whats in the tweet to verify? OK?
> 
> The original tweet, i did not added anything of my own




Indeed, but at school I was not good in languages. English was hard, Latin a mess and French impossible ... So I don't think Chinese will be easier even if my motivation is surely greater.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## lmjiao

Deino said:


> What deployed ??? It is an old image we know sine about one year akready.


I think this news is reliable, since it has been confirmed by various sources.

However, many also think that this is not J-15B.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Deino

lmjiao said:


> I think this news is reliable, since it has been confirmed by various sources.
> 
> However, many also think that this is not J-15B.



Pardon, but how reliable are these reports, while in the meantime we know the J-11B is back in production + the J-16-manufacturing under way. We haven't heard anything nor seen any new-build J-15 at SAC since some time and "being deployed" would mean it is in production with already test finished, certified + a meaningful number built.

IMO all together unlikely.

Deino


----------



## Figaro

Deino said:


> Indeed, but at school I was not good in languages. English was hard, Latin a mess and French impossible ... So I don't think Chinese will be easier even if my motivation is surely greater.


Who learns Latin? LOL. Isn't that a dead language? But schools here teach it for some reason ... very weird language.


----------



## lmjiao

Deino said:


> Pardon, but how reliable are these reports, while in the meantime we know the J-11B is back in production + the J-16-manufacturing under way. We haven't heard anything nor seen any new-build J-15 at SAC since some time and "being deployed" would mean it is in production with already test finished, certified + a meaningful number built.
> 
> IMO all together unlikely.
> 
> Deino


I think the number is the key point here.
By entering service, it does not mean that catapult version of J-15 is or is going to be produced in any specific number.
In extreme case, we can think of this version enter service with only single one. 

IMO, it is a specific model for training. It may and may not enter mass production.


----------



## Deino

Figaro said:


> Who learns Latin? LOL. Isn't that a dead language? But schools here teach it for some reason ... very weird language.




Indeed, Germans are sometimes 



lmjiao said:


> I think the number is the key point here.
> By entering service, it does not mean that catapult version of J-15 is or is going to be produced in any specific number.
> In extreme case, we can think of this version enter service with only single one.
> 
> IMO, it is a specific model for training. It may and may not enter mass production.



But then it is not *DEPLOYED *but merely "on board the Liaoning" for further testing. This might surely be possible, but then I ask, why such an over-hyped term like "deployed" which is immediately spun into "in service" by some fan boys??

Deino


----------



## lmjiao

Deino said:


> Indeed, Germans are sometimes
> 
> 
> 
> But then it is not *DEPLOYED *but merely "on board the Liaoning" for further testing. This might surely be possible, but then I ask, why such an over-hyped term like "deployed" which is immediately spun into "in service" by some fan boys??
> 
> Deino


In PLAAF, if a fighter got the 5 digit number, then we consider it "deployed". We try to translate precisely, but sometimes we simply choose the most close word.

One more thing, _I think_ it might/not be "on board the Liaoning", cause it is a catapult version, and is mainly used for training pilots with EMALS.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## samsara

Figaro said:


> *Who learns Latin?* LOL. Isn't that a dead language? But schools here teach it for some reason ... very weird language.


If only you're a cleric of the Roman Catholic and go to the remnant of the Roman Empire, that is the theocratic city kingdom of the Papal Supremacy (the Vatican City) for further education then you're obliged to take the Latin language class and be versed into it, as did a friend of mine.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Sucha Kuggu

batmannow said:


> *J-15 Flying Shark *
> 
> *J-15 is the first generation of Chinese shipborne fighter aircraft being developed by both 601 Institute and SAC for PLAN's first aircraft carrier. In the beginning there were rumors claiming that J-15 was a new semi-stealth design based on a similar but more advanced stealth design developed earlier by SAC/601 Institute to compete for the J-14 project (see below), but this design turned out to be a follow-on design. In order to save time and cut cost, the aircraft is now believed to be based on Russian Su-33 in terms of structural configuration and flight control system as well as domestic J-11B (see above) in terms of radar and weapon systems.* Similar to *Su-33, J-15 *features folding wings, a pair of small canard foreplanes to improve its low speed handling and shortened tailcone to avoid tail-scrape during high *AoA *landing. Some key shipborne aircraft technologies such as landing/navigational systems are believed to have been obtained from Russia and Ukraine. One Su-33 prototype (T-10K-3) was acquired from Ukraine around 2001 and has been studied extensively. J-15 is believed to share many common components with J-11B, such as a similar radar, the same glass cockpit as well as the improved WS-10 turbofan engine. It can also fire a variety of Chinese designed weapons, including PL-8, PL-12 AAMs and YJ-83K AShM.
> * Overall J-15 is believed to be in the same class of American F/A-18C. The first prototype has been undergoing assembly at SAC since 2008. J-15 is expected first to be stationed onboard the Varyag aircraft carrier currently being fitted in Dalian. The latest news suggested that the first prototype made its maiden flight on August 31, 2009, powered initially by Russian AL-31F turbofan engines *
> 
> _*WWW.Chinese Military Aviation.COM *_
> *Yahoo! *
> 
> _1616?????????????????_




I am not a technical person in aviation, but by looking at other good fighter jets and comparing general proportions/ratios of their designs, it looks as like JF-17, J-15 also have smaller intakes than it should have.


----------



## Deino

Two new images via Eastpendulum/Henry K. ... blurred but anyway !


----------



## rcrmj

J-15 is catapault ready since day one```!! what they are doing now on J-15 is to change its avionics, radar and engines (two types of it: one close to 13 tons, and the other over 14 tons), hence there is the "new" designation J-15B`````the difference between J-15 to J-15B has nothing to do with "enhanced" landing gear!!! gosh````

and btw```the picture of our next gen stealth fighter on AC is getting clearer and clearer!! 



Deino said:


> Two new images via Eastpendulum/Henry K. ... blurred but anyway !
> 
> View attachment 426385
> View attachment 426386


I know the second picture, PSed from a previous one```

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Deino

rcrmj said:


> ...and btw```the picture of our next gen stealth fighter on AC is getting clearer and clearer!!



Just a hint ... will it have canards or not?


----------



## rcrmj

Deino said:


> Just a hint ... will it have canards or not?


I dont knwo```as they said “集大成者”·····you can ask few members here to translate```I cant bother`

oh, another thing, AC based AWACs will show its face in 2019 latest`````"theoretically" it can take-off from Ski-Jump`````

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## grey boy 2



Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## lmjiao

rcrmj said:


> I dont knwo```as they said “集大成者”·····you can ask few members here to translate```I cant bother`
> 
> oh, another thing, AC based AWACs will show its face in 2019 latest`````"theoretically" it can take-off from Ski-Jump`````


I am Chinese, but I don't know how to translate this. Because I can't understand their meaning.

These chinese words comes from VERY reliable ID pb19980515 from AVIC, Shengyang.

As a pure guess, I think this means some modified version of J-20.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Akasa

rcrmj said:


> J-15 is catapault ready since day one```!! what they are doing now on J-15 is to change its avionics, radar and engines (two types of it: one close to 13 tons, and the other over 14 tons), hence there is the "new" designation J-15B`````the difference between J-15 to J-15B has nothing to do with "enhanced" landing gear!!! gosh````
> 
> and btw```the picture of our next gen stealth fighter on AC is getting clearer and clearer!!
> 
> 
> I know the second picture, PSed from a previous one```



J-20 will become the next-generation carrier-based fighter.

And no, there are clearly two J-15 variants: one with CATOBAR-suited landing gear and one without.


----------



## lmjiao

SinoSoldier said:


> J-20 will become the next-generation carrier-based fighter.
> 
> And no, there are clearly two J-15 variants: one with CATOBAR-suited landing gear and one without.


There are at least three
J-15 jump
J-15 TS(?) CATOBAR
J-15 B CATOBAR+improved radar etc.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Akasa

lmjiao said:


> There are at least three
> J-15 jump
> J-15 TS(?) CATOBAR
> J-15 B CATOBAR+improved radar etc.



As I understand it, the J-15B and J-15T are one and the same. It makes no sense to build two variants of the CATOBAR variant: one with upgraded avionics and one without.


----------



## samsara

rcrmj said:


> I dont knwo```as they said “集大成者”·····you can ask few members here to translate```I cant bother`
> 
> oh, another thing, AC based AWACs will show its face in 2019 latest`````"theoretically" it can take-off from Ski-Jump`````


“集大成者” ==> synthesizer; person who absorbs different opinions from others ??? epitome ???

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Deino

available


Deino said:


> Two new images via Eastpendulum/Henry K. ... blurred but anyway !
> 
> View attachment 426385
> View attachment 426386



Now a bit better ...


----------



## samsara

J-15T's launch bar in 1st pic.

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/910061887454273537
This seems to be two new photos taken during testing of Catapult on the ground of a J-15. Confirmed.










__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/910047157784240128

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## lmjiao

SinoSoldier said:


> As I understand it, the J-15B and J-15T are one and the same. It makes no sense to build two variants of the CATOBAR variant: one with upgraded avionics and one without.


Time makes sense. J-15T with no upgraded avionics is much quicker in progress than J-15B. 

But anyway, what I posted is still rumor and you could be right. I will feel very happy if I am wrong.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Deino

rcrmj said:


> I dont knwo```as they said “集大成者”·····you can ask few members here to translate```I cant bother`
> 
> oh, another thing, AC based AWACs will show its face in 2019 latest`````"theoretically" it can take-off from Ski-Jump`````




I just started a new thread for this upcoming new fighter ... so let the show begin.

https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/j-xy-next-generation-carrier-borne-fighter.518751/

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## rcrmj

SinoSoldier said:


> J-20 will become the next-generation carrier-based fighter.
> 
> And no, there are clearly two J-15 variants: one with CATOBAR-suited landing gear and one without.


bull````that is the word I want to say````the real second variant is the one with new avionics, radar and engine````I have to say this, not personal, but honest, you have no clue of what you are saying



lmjiao said:


> I am Chinese, but I don't know how to translate this. Because I can't understand their meaning.
> 
> These chinese words comes from VERY reliable ID pb19980515 from AVIC, Shengyang.
> 
> As a pure guess, I think this means some modified version of J-20.


for 20 years of being a military enthusiastic, he is one of the real deals I have found, *real deal!*`````his job requires, like some of my relatives, very strict sercurity protocals, ones cannot use his/her mobile number to register any public accounts, and restrictions on freedom of travelling abroad`````but I'd suggest anyone can take easy on him````you'd scare them away if pushed too hard``

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Akasa

rcrmj said:


> bull````that is the word I want to say````the real second variant is the one with new avionics, radar and engine````I have to say this, not personal, but honest, you have no clue of what you are saying
> 
> 
> for 20 years of being a military enthusiastic, he is one of the real deals I have found, *real deal!*`````his job requires, like some of my relatives, very strict sercurity protocals, ones cannot use his/her mobile number to register any public accounts, and restrictions on freedom of travelling abroad`````but I'd suggest anyone can take easy on him````you'd scare them away if pushed too hard``



I suggest you take a look at the landing gears on the J-15 and the J-15B. One is evidently designed for catapults while the other is not.


----------



## rcrmj

SinoSoldier said:


> I suggest you take a look at the landing gears on the J-15 and the J-15B. One is evidently designed for catapults while the other is not.


i remember month ago, I had already told you, *a CATOBAR capable fighter has a lot crucial "inside jobs" *that obvious looking landing gear is the least technologically difficulties to do`````J-15 is CATOBR ready since day one of the design, whats inside of the plane were *all READY`*! and again, dont say stupid and amature things like *"look, its J-15B because its landing gears are different from J-15"*```the designation "B" has nothing to do with the landing gear``is this that difficult to understand

"evident" lol evident to 眼神党 (ask Chinese members to translate this for you)···

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Akasa

rcrmj said:


> i remember month ago, I had already told you, *a CATOBAR capable fighter has a lot crucial "inside jobs" *that obvious looking landing gear is the least technologically difficulties to do`````J-15 is CATOBR ready since day one of the design, whats inside of the plane were *all READY`*! and again, dont say stupid and amature things like *"look, its J-15B because its landing gears are different from J-15"*```the designation "B" has nothing to do with the landing gear``is this that difficult to understand
> 
> "evident" lol evident to 眼神党 (ask Chinese members to translate this for you)···



The original iteration of the J-15 is NOT catapult-compatible because it does not have the necessary landing gears to absorb the added stress and forces of a catapult launch. I'm not sure why it's so difficult for you to understand that, especially when 24 of the original configuration have been built.


----------



## Figaro

SinoSoldier said:


> The original iteration of the J-15 is NOT catapult-compatible because it does not have the necessary landing gears to absorb the added stress and forces of a catapult launch. I'm not sure why it's so difficult for you to understand that, especially when 24 of the original configuration have been built.


Do you know if that catapult in question (with the J-15B) is EMALS or Steam?


----------



## Akasa

Figaro said:


> Do you know if that catapult in question (with the J-15B) is EMALS or Steam?



I think there was a discussion a while back claiming that it was electromagnetic, but it's not confirmed.


----------



## rcrmj

SinoSoldier said:


> The original iteration of the J-15 is NOT catapult-compatible because it does not have the necessary landing gears to absorb the added stress and forces of a catapult launch. I'm not sure why it's so difficult for you to understand that, especially when 24 of the original configuration have been built.


the hull structure, the enhancements of the joints, the engine thrust control software, weapon management software and ect (I've been saying too much```), tell me 眼神党```fitting a fat gear is that difficult so that they have to give them a new designation of B? there few dozens of 阶段性改进, you need A/B/C/D/E/F for all your sake for those changes``

its like one of my friends bought a GTR, the speed limit is 260Km, but a change made to the software can lift the speed limit set from the factory which is according to China's speed regulation````so tell me, is this GTR physically capable of going over 260KM??

and the most stupidest thing is for you to say *"The original iteration of the J-15 is NOT catapult-compatible"*``the whole team would be sacked if they thought and made a plane that way``

what I am saying to you is not my opinion, or some senior fan's analysis, but from someone who actually works on the deck, notes the number, vomitting like no tomorrow, or someone were envolved in the mentioned initial debates and researches before any of the known projects were begun

so again, not personal, but all your thoughts and believes of projects of J-15s and future AC based 5th gen have no touch of reality and inside sources```as simple as that

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Akasa

rcrmj said:


> the hull structure, the enhancements of the joints, the engine thrust control software, weapon management software and ect (I've been saying too much```), tell me 眼神党```fitting a fat gear is that difficult so that they have to give them a new designation of B? there few dozens of 阶段性改进, you need A/B/C/D/E/F for all your sake for those changes``
> 
> its like one of my friends bought a GTR, the speed limit is 260Km, but a change made to the software can lift the speed limit set from the factory which is according to China's speed regulation````so tell me, is this GTR physically capable of going over 260KM??
> 
> and the most stupidest thing is for you to say *"The original iteration of the J-15 is NOT catapult-compatible"*``the whole team would be sacked if they thought and made a plane that way``
> 
> what I am saying to you is not my opinion, or some senior fan's analysis, but from someone who actually works on the deck, notes the number, vomitting like no tomorrow, or someone were envolved in the mentioned initial debates and researches before any of the known projects were begun
> 
> so again, not personal, but all your thoughts and believes of projects of J-15s and future AC based 5th gen have no touch of reality and inside sources```as simple as that



I'll give you the benefit of the doubt if you so claim that your relatives work on military projects, although we have yet to see evidence that the J-15 can easily swap out its old landing gear for catapult-compatible ones. Then, we must ask, is this new J-15 (the one seen on the electromagnetic catapult) merely an "original" J-15 with catapult gear or the first prototype of what you call the "J-15B"?


----------



## samsara

J-15 s/n #123










_dafeng cao @xinfengcao 2017-10-01_

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Figaro

SinoSoldier said:


> I'll give you the benefit of the doubt if you so claim that your relatives work on military projects, although we have yet to see evidence that the J-15 can easily swap out its old landing gear for catapult-compatible ones. Then, we must ask, is this new J-15 (the one seen on the electromagnetic catapult) merely an "original" J-15 with catapult gear or the first prototype of what you call the "J-15B"?


If someone needs to say that, I would not trust them ...


----------



## grey boy 2

J-15 "123"

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## grey boy 2



Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## cirr

_PLA Daily_ article reporting the successful launch by EMALS of J-15X 

*“勇当海军试飞奠基人”*

仲秋时节，辽西某机场。*某发展型号战斗机*上，海军试飞大队首任大队长程海林全副武装坐在驾驶舱，严阵以待。各项准备工作已经就绪，可天公似乎也有意考验程海林，能见度远远低于标值。到底飞不飞？现场最有决定权的程海林稍作权衡，果断发出了“照常试飞”的信号。

加力、对接、冲刺、拉杆……伴随着震耳欲聋的轰鸣，*战机短距离冲天而起*！成功了！

程海林的这次极限挑战，使得国防科技领域又一项空白被填补，海军试飞领域树起又一座里程碑。……

1991年程海林被招飞入伍。随后的17年间，从空军到海军，从学校到部队，从初教机到高教机，从二代机到最新型战机，程海林几乎飞过海军所有型号战机。他安全飞行2100多小时，成长为一名优秀的战斗机飞行员。

2008年底，海军在“海空雄鹰团”遴选首批舰载战斗机试飞员，程海林急不可耐地报了名。他过五关斩六将，如愿以偿成为“飞鲨”战机试飞团队的一员。正当程海林踌躇满志地准备驾机上舰时，上级经过对训练、人力等资源的统筹，却安排他去试飞舰载战斗机的教练机。该型教练机是海军舰载战斗机训练的主机型，程海林服从了组织安排。

在接下来的几年里，程海林辗转几地，试飞了多种机型。当他受命来到新成立的舰载航空兵部队时，首批舰载战斗机飞行员培训任务正在展开。组织上考虑安排他当教练，程海林提出了自己的想法：“教练必须具备驾机上舰的理论和实践。”他坚持地面苦练、空中精飞，既完成了放尾钩定点着陆、增阻轮挡直线斜线滑跃起飞等任务，还啃下了航母新一代阻拦索改进、地面加速冲索等试验鉴定“硬骨头”。2014年底，程海林驾驶歼-15舰载战斗机在辽宁舰上成功阻拦着舰和滑跃起飞，通过了航母飞行资质认证。

航母舰载战斗机出现之前，海军试飞任务一直依托空军。航母舰载战斗机试飞的坎坷历程深刻启示，航母舰载战斗机是海军特有，必须走独立自主的试飞路子。于是，2015年底，海军试飞大队应运而生。程海林被任命为首任大队长。……上任不久的程海林刚刚搭起大队的架子，还在四处招兵买马，就接到了新的任命：*航母建设某核心技术*试验试飞现场指挥部试飞指挥组组长兼首席试飞员。

全新设计的试验机、全新研制的装置、*尚未定型的飞机发动机*、未知的飞行轨迹……飞机性能究竟如何、装置是否过关、起飞后状态是否可控……面对一个个生死攸关的“未知”，程海林坚定地说：“海军试飞大队一定要为海军争气！”

他一头扎进飞机和装置的相关研制资料之中，虚心向研制专家求教，反复研究相关资料，短时间内整理出5万多字的笔记。

首飞当天上午，上级领导和有关研制单位、部队的同志齐聚试验场，共同见证一个伟大的时刻。

可天公不作美，在能见度上出了难题。但在程海林看来，试飞本身就是向风险的挑战。他以*堪称完美的一试，有效验证了装置与试验机的良好适配性，宣告了我国航母建设领域取得了世界领先的重大突破*。

这一试，不仅再次印证了程海林的高超技能，也试出了新生的试飞大队的战斗力，书写了海军试飞事业的新传奇。

程海林带头试高难科目，带头飞风险项目，牢牢把住质量关口和安全底数，积极与工业部门共同研讨完善试验流程细则，驾驶试验机完成了一系列开创性试验试飞任务，先后提出意见建议20余条，为后续装备的研制和试验试飞积累了宝贵经验。

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Akasa

cirr said:


> _PLA Daily_ article reporting the successful launch by EMALS of J-15X
> 
> *“勇当海军试飞奠基人”*
> 
> 仲秋时节，辽西某机场。*某发展型号战斗机*上，海军试飞大队首任大队长程海林全副武装坐在驾驶舱，严阵以待。各项准备工作已经就绪，可天公似乎也有意考验程海林，能见度远远低于标值。到底飞不飞？现场最有决定权的程海林稍作权衡，果断发出了“照常试飞”的信号。
> 
> 加力、对接、冲刺、拉杆……伴随着震耳欲聋的轰鸣，*战机短距离冲天而起*！成功了！
> 
> 程海林的这次极限挑战，使得国防科技领域又一项空白被填补，海军试飞领域树起又一座里程碑。……
> 
> 1991年程海林被招飞入伍。随后的17年间，从空军到海军，从学校到部队，从初教机到高教机，从二代机到最新型战机，程海林几乎飞过海军所有型号战机。他安全飞行2100多小时，成长为一名优秀的战斗机飞行员。
> 
> 2008年底，海军在“海空雄鹰团”遴选首批舰载战斗机试飞员，程海林急不可耐地报了名。他过五关斩六将，如愿以偿成为“飞鲨”战机试飞团队的一员。正当程海林踌躇满志地准备驾机上舰时，上级经过对训练、人力等资源的统筹，却安排他去试飞舰载战斗机的教练机。该型教练机是海军舰载战斗机训练的主机型，程海林服从了组织安排。
> 
> 在接下来的几年里，程海林辗转几地，试飞了多种机型。当他受命来到新成立的舰载航空兵部队时，首批舰载战斗机飞行员培训任务正在展开。组织上考虑安排他当教练，程海林提出了自己的想法：“教练必须具备驾机上舰的理论和实践。”他坚持地面苦练、空中精飞，既完成了放尾钩定点着陆、增阻轮挡直线斜线滑跃起飞等任务，还啃下了航母新一代阻拦索改进、地面加速冲索等试验鉴定“硬骨头”。2014年底，程海林驾驶歼-15舰载战斗机在辽宁舰上成功阻拦着舰和滑跃起飞，通过了航母飞行资质认证。
> 
> 航母舰载战斗机出现之前，海军试飞任务一直依托空军。航母舰载战斗机试飞的坎坷历程深刻启示，航母舰载战斗机是海军特有，必须走独立自主的试飞路子。于是，2015年底，海军试飞大队应运而生。程海林被任命为首任大队长。……上任不久的程海林刚刚搭起大队的架子，还在四处招兵买马，就接到了新的任命：*航母建设某核心技术*试验试飞现场指挥部试飞指挥组组长兼首席试飞员。
> 
> 全新设计的试验机、全新研制的装置、*尚未定型的飞机发动机*、未知的飞行轨迹……飞机性能究竟如何、装置是否过关、起飞后状态是否可控……面对一个个生死攸关的“未知”，程海林坚定地说：“海军试飞大队一定要为海军争气！”
> 
> 他一头扎进飞机和装置的相关研制资料之中，虚心向研制专家求教，反复研究相关资料，短时间内整理出5万多字的笔记。
> 
> 首飞当天上午，上级领导和有关研制单位、部队的同志齐聚试验场，共同见证一个伟大的时刻。
> 
> 可天公不作美，在能见度上出了难题。但在程海林看来，试飞本身就是向风险的挑战。他以*堪称完美的一试，有效验证了装置与试验机的良好适配性，宣告了我国航母建设领域取得了世界领先的重大突破*。
> 
> 这一试，不仅再次印证了程海林的高超技能，也试出了新生的试飞大队的战斗力，书写了海军试飞事业的新传奇。
> 
> 程海林带头试高难科目，带头飞风险项目，牢牢把住质量关口和安全底数，积极与工业部门共同研讨完善试验流程细则，驾驶试验机完成了一系列开创性试验试飞任务，先后提出意见建议20余条，为后续装备的研制和试验试飞积累了宝贵经验。



Has the J-15X entered production yet?


----------



## 星海军事

SinoSoldier said:


> Has the J-15X entered production yet?



It is merely a demonstrator.



星海军事 said:


> Sometimes I believed that some of our friends should learn to cut their expectations in half.


----------



## Akasa

星海军事 said:


> It is merely a demonstrator.



Just to clarify, is the J-15B the same aircraft as the catapult-capable J-15X? There were rumors that a CATOBAR version is entering production (according to Henri K.).


----------



## 星海军事

SinoSoldier said:


> Just to clarify, is the J-15B the same aircraft as the catapult-capable J-15X? There were rumors that a CATOBAR version is entering production (according to Henri K.).



How would that be possible? Since demonstrators were built for technology demonstration.


----------



## Akasa

星海军事 said:


> How would that be possible? Since demonstrators were built for technology demonstration.



Those are the words of some credible observers, not mine. So, these catapult capable J-15s are not even full or new-built prototypes, i.e. they were converted from existing airframes?


----------



## Deino

SinoSoldier said:


> Those are the words of some credible observers, not mine. So, these catapult capable J-15s are not even full or new-built prototypes, i.e. they were converted from existing airframes?



No. They are purely build to demonstrate certain technologies. This does not need to be a converted older aircraft.


----------



## Akasa

Deino said:


> No. They are purely build to demonstrate certain technologies. This does not need to be a converted older aircraft.



A very inefficient way to test new technologies IMO!


----------



## Deino

SinoSoldier said:


> A very inefficient way to test new technologies IMO!



Why? To test a new structurally different type you build a new airframe. Imo a better solution than to convert an old one.


----------



## Akasa

Deino said:


> Why? To test a new structurally different type you build a new airframe. Imo a better solution than to convert an old one.



That makes sense, since a catapult-able version would need to be structurally reconfigured. The extent to which the airframe needs to be modified is still a debate, though, since the J-11B prototype was able to be configured for a ski-jump launch without much problem.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## grey boy 2

CCTV: J-15 flying shark and pilots
【舰载战斗机飞行员：曹先建奉献海天忠实履职】
十九大代表曹先建是海军某舰载航空兵部队的飞行员，一次训练中他遭遇重大空中险情，身受重伤，在两次手术、四百多天的治疗后，他重返海天，充分展现了舰载战斗机飞行员果敢坚韧、英勇顽强的战斗作风和血性品格

Disclaimer: i do not warrant the accuracy or completeness of the information, text, graphics, links or other items contained within these materials.

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## cnleio

grey boy 2 said:


> CCTV: J-15 flying shark and pilots







When China produce enough J-15 flying sharks for PLAN as many as ever U.S Navy F-14, we should paint them as beautiful as "TomCat", Chinese military fans love these "TomCat" very much !














View attachment 430302

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## lcloo

Go forward the Chinese way, be proud of your own.

要就来个中国风涂彩，跟美帝后面没意思。

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## cnleio

lcloo said:


> Go forward the Chinese way, be proud of your own.
> 
> 要就来个中国风涂彩，跟美帝后面没意思。


LOL 。。。 How about painting the 'Po' ?!

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## samsara

cnleio said:


> LOL 。。。 How about painting the 'Po' ?!
> 
> 
> View attachment 430312


Even more _original _Chinese ingredient than this one... no Hollywood flavour  and Panda is cute yet Dragon is mighty!

Just as Icloo says above

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## cirr



Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## lcloo

samsara said:


> Even more _original _Chinese ingredient than this one... no Hollywood flavour  and Panda is cute yet Dragon is mighty!
> 
> Just as Icloo says above


I like to see somthing like this painted on Chinese fighter jets. zhongkui 钟馗, qilin 麒麟, Chinese dragon 龙王， thunder god 雷神 and other Chinese mystic characters etc.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## rambro

Keep it simple, just a personal thought.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Beast

Put Guan Yu or Zi Long on the plane.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Akasa

cirr said:


>



Any hint as to when the AESA-equipped J-15B might appear? Thanks.


----------



## Akasa

星海军事 said:


> How would that be possible? Since demonstrators were built for technology demonstration.



This is allegedly a photo of the J-15 catapult version ... are you sure that this is only a testbed? If so, what is it a testbed for?


----------



## 星海军事

SinoSoldier said:


> This is allegedly a photo of the J-15 catapult version ... are you sure that this is only a testbed? If so, what is it a testbed for?
> 
> View attachment 430745



No. This is a J-15 baseline.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## JSCh

grey boy 2 said:


> CCTV: J-15 flying shark and pilots
> 【舰载战斗机飞行员：曹先建奉献海天忠实履职】
> 十九大代表曹先建是海军某舰载航空兵部队的飞行员，一次训练中他遭遇重大空中险情，身受重伤，在两次手术、四百多天的治疗后，他重返海天，充分展现了舰载战斗机飞行员果敢坚韧、英勇顽强的战斗作风和血性品格
> 
> Disclaimer: i do not warrant the accuracy or completeness of the information, text, graphics, links or other items contained within these materials.
> 
> *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *


*Fighter pilot injured in crash is back in action*
By Zhao Lei | China Daily | Updated: 2017-10-18 07:30














Commander Cao Xianjian, a top jet fighter pilot of the PLA Navy, said he is looking forward to taking off from the deck of the nation's first domestically developed aircraft carrier, which is currently under construction.

"I am eager to operate from the new carrier. It must be more advanced and stronger than the CNS Liaoning," he said, referring to China's first carrier. "Now we are busy honing our combat capabilities and skills to become good carrier-based pilots as soon as possible," he told China Daily before traveling to Beijing as a delegate to the 19th National Congress of the Communist Party of China, which opens on Wednesday at the Great Hall of the People.

Cao, 36, a native of East China's Shandong province, has served 14 years in the People's Liberation Army and is qualified to fly seven types of aircraft, but it was a serious accident that launched him to national prominence.

During routine training in April 2016, the flight control systems on his J-15 fighter jet malfunctioned, and the aircraft fell into the sea. He tried his best to save it, but ultimately was forced to eject, two seconds before it plunged into the water.

"When malfunctions happen with a plane, the first thought that comes to our mind is 'How can I fly it back?' - not ditching it," Cao said. "A good pilot would never give up on the aircraft if there was any other choice."

Because the altitude at which he ejected from the J-15 was too low for the parachute to fully spread, he nearly hit the surface before his fall was arrested only minimally.

Cao's lumbar vertebrae were fractured, requiring two surgeries at Beijing's Navy General Hospital.

Doctors said Cao would likely have to bid farewell to his flying career, as the injuries were so bad that they had to put two steel plates inside his body to sustain his spine.

When he awoke from anesthesia after the first surgery, he asked a doctor: "Will I be able to fly again?" He was determined to return.

Cao began to exercise soon after nurses removed the stitches from the surgical incision. He managed to persuade doctors to carry out the second surgery ahead of their treatment schedule so he'd have more time for flight training. He didn't want to miss the carrier-based pilot's qualification test this year.

After months of rehabilitation, doctors decided in March that Cao had recovered sufficiently to return to his unit and resume his flight training.

China commissioned the Liaoning in September 2012, after several years of refitting on a half-built vessel purchased from Ukraine. Two months later, Dai Mingmeng landed on the carrier in a J-15, becoming the first Chinese pilot to do so. In May 2013, the PLA Navy established its first carrier-borne aircraft unit with Dai as its commander.

Cao said he was recruited by Dai's unit in 2013 and has spared no effort to qualify as a carrier-based pilot.

"I will never give up my flying career because of the injuries," he said.

On May 30, Cao became the first of a new generation of J-15 pilots to land a plane on the Liaoning, fulfilling his pledge. He was awarded a special badge to mark the achievement.

Cao said he looks forward to flying his fighter over expanses of ocean as the nation's carriers sail ever farther into blue waters.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## grey boy 2

J-15 flying shark 中国海军舰载航空兵
Disclaimer: I do not warrant the accuracy or completeness of the information, text, graphics, links or other items contained within these materials.

Reactions: Like Like:
8


----------



## samsara

*Shipboard fighter pilot, Cao Xianjian, insists on flying mission after severe injuries*


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/920942600072376320


JSCh said:


> *Fighter pilot injured in crash is back in action*
> By Zhao Lei | China Daily | Updated: 2017-10-18 07:30
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Commander Cao Xianjian, a top jet fighter pilot of the PLA Navy, said he is looking forward to taking off from the deck of the nation's first domestically developed aircraft carrier, which is currently under construction.
> 
> "I am eager to operate from the new carrier. It must be more advanced and stronger than the CNS Liaoning," he said, referring to China's first carrier. "Now we are busy honing our combat capabilities and skills to become good carrier-based pilots as soon as possible," he told China Daily before traveling to Beijing as a delegate to the 19th National Congress of the Communist Party of China, which opens on Wednesday at the Great Hall of the People.
> 
> Cao, 36, a native of East China's Shandong province, has served 14 years in the People's Liberation Army and is qualified to fly seven types of aircraft, but it was a serious accident that launched him to national prominence.
> 
> During routine training in April 2016, the flight control systems on his J-15 fighter jet malfunctioned, and the aircraft fell into the sea. He tried his best to save it, but ultimately was forced to eject, two seconds before it plunged into the water.
> 
> "When malfunctions happen with a plane, the first thought that comes to our mind is 'How can I fly it back?' - not ditching it," Cao said. "A good pilot would never give up on the aircraft if there was any other choice."
> 
> Because the altitude at which he ejected from the J-15 was too low for the parachute to fully spread, he nearly hit the surface before his fall was arrested only minimally.
> 
> Cao's lumbar vertebrae were fractured, requiring two surgeries at Beijing's Navy General Hospital.
> 
> Doctors said Cao would likely have to bid farewell to his flying career, as the injuries were so bad that they had to put two steel plates inside his body to sustain his spine.
> 
> When he awoke from anesthesia after the first surgery, he asked a doctor: "Will I be able to fly again?" He was determined to return.
> 
> Cao began to exercise soon after nurses removed the stitches from the surgical incision. He managed to persuade doctors to carry out the second surgery ahead of their treatment schedule so he'd have more time for flight training. He didn't want to miss the carrier-based pilot's qualification test this year.
> 
> After months of rehabilitation, doctors decided in March that Cao had recovered sufficiently to return to his unit and resume his flight training.
> 
> China commissioned the Liaoning in September 2012, after several years of refitting on a half-built vessel purchased from Ukraine. Two months later, Dai Mingmeng landed on the carrier in a J-15, becoming the first Chinese pilot to do so. In May 2013, the PLA Navy established its first carrier-borne aircraft unit with Dai as its commander.
> 
> Cao said he was recruited by Dai's unit in 2013 and has spared no effort to qualify as a carrier-based pilot.
> 
> "I will never give up my flying career because of the injuries," he said.
> 
> On May 30, Cao became the first of a new generation of J-15 pilots to land a plane on the Liaoning, fulfilling his pledge. He was awarded a special badge to mark the achievement.
> 
> Cao said he looks forward to flying his fighter over expanses of ocean as the nation's carriers sail ever farther into blue waters.

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## Beast

samsara said:


> *Shipboard fighter pilot, Cao Xianjian, insists on flying mission after severe injuries*
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/920942600072376320



Determination beats everything. Why is he so eager to fly again? Becos he is proud to be Chinese and the rich historical civilizations which hardly any other countries can matched it. Serving for China is a honor.

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## samsara

*The development of the J-15 and the landing assistance systems have benefited from calculations of the Tianhe-1 Supercomputer, which is located in Tianjin.*

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/924169977585741824

_*At the end of this new qualifying campaign,*_
_*the Chinese navy should have **between 29 and 36 certified J-15 pilots.*_

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/924196045680082944。。。

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Sucha Kuggu

Sucha Kuggu said:


> I am not a technical person in aviation, but by looking at other good fighter jets and comparing general proportions/ratios of their designs, it looks as like JF-17, J-15 also have smaller intakes than it should have.



I think smaller air-intakes reduces the max-thrust and larger will do a bit better to compensate for the aerodynamic air-drag.


----------



## Deino

Sucha Kuggu said:


> I am not a technical person in aviation, but by looking at other good fighter jets and comparing general proportions/ratios of their designs, it looks as like JF-17, J-15 also have smaller intakes than it should have.





Sucha Kuggu said:


> I think smaller air-intakes reduces the max-thrust and larger will do a bit better to compensate for the aerodynamic air-drag.



Surely not. The size of an intake is dictated by the mass-flow an engine requires. You simply don't reduce thrust by using a smaller intake and there's also nothing to compensate... that's ridiculous !

Just look at the engine a J-15 - or any Flanker uses - and then compare this with the JF-17 and its exhaust.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Sucha Kuggu

Deino said:


> Surely not. The size of an intake is dictated by the mass-flow an engine requires. You simply don't reduce thrust by using a smaller intake and there's also nothing to compensate... that's ridiculous !
> 
> Just look at the engine a J-15 - or any Flanker uses - and then compare this with the JF-17 and its exhaust.


There is no comparison between Flankers and Jf17. Flankers are just too good as F16 was at its time.
For the sake of discussion location of Fklanker's intake is also important coz it can take air more easily than Jf17's intake. Flankers intake under the wings make more air (and wings pressing down compressing air) to flow in, in jf17 the nose diverts air side ways making it less air going in that is way size of its intake matters more. location and size of intake both matters. Still Jf17 is competing with F16 side by side.
Closest comparison (design) of Jf17 is Mirages, and still Mirage's intakes are bigger than Jf17.

On the other hand "technically" speaking these huge fuel guzzler turbo jet engines are not dependent o size of air intakes but have their own suction power to feed their appetite for air. Considering this Jf17 not in any lose.

Overall splitting air intake into two divides the risk of accidents by 50% in air due to birds etc getting into the intake as in the case of JF17(F16 having one big intake). *At the same time more easy for a high performance engine to suck air is less fatigue on it and comfortable for it to meet their said life cycle*.


----------



## JSCh



Reactions: Like Like:
8


----------



## Deino



Reactions: Like Like:
9


----------



## samsara

The satellite image from November 1st shows that the electromagnetic catapulting (EMALS) tests in Xingcheng with the embedded fighter, J-15, continues.

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/936622954888052738

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/936678002070454272

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/936627641372770305。。。

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Deino



Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## cnleio



Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## JSCh

From angadow weibo,
天空的咆哮，已经传到了海洋。
Growler of the sky, has spread to the ocean.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Deino

JSCh said:


> From angadow weibo, 天空的咆哮，已经传到了海洋。
> Growler of the sky, has spread to the ocean.




Via "huitong"


> The latest rumor (October 2017) claimed that the EW variant of *J-15S* (*J-17*?) has flown for the first time.


http://chinese-military-aviation.blogspot.de/p/fighters-ii.html#J-15

However that image is an old image from 12.2016 and surely not a J-15D or J-17.

Deino

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## cirr

J-15X "Growler", based on the J-15S, is near its maiden flight.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Akasa

cirr said:


> J-15X "Growler", based on the J-15S, is near its maiden flight.
> 
> View attachment 460601



Any idea when the J-15B (for the Type 002 CV) will make its debut?


----------



## Deino

cirr said:


> J-15X "Growler", based on the J-15S, is near its maiden flight.
> 
> View attachment 460601




I thought that already happened? 



> ... The latest rumor (October 2017) claimed that the EW variant of *J-15S* (*J-17*?) has flown for the first time.



via: http://chinese-military-aviation.blogspot.de/p/fighters-ii.html

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Figaro

Deino said:


> I thought that already happened?
> 
> 
> 
> via: http://chinese-military-aviation.blogspot.de/p/fighters-ii.html


I don't believe it did. And if so, it was probably based on a rumor ...

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## LKJ86



Reactions: Like Like:
9


----------



## Deino

LKJ86 said:


>



Ohhh ... do you have the original full-size image??

Wings folded with two heavy YJ-83K AShMs, that's impressive.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Beast

I think its part of the massive SCS exercise involved 40 ships. Slowly will reveal the more J-15 carry advances weapon onboard CV-16

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## LKJ86



Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## LKJ86



Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## JSCh

From cjdby.net,

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## Akasa

JSCh said:


> From cjdby.net,
> 
> View attachment 465769​



Does "0001" indicate that it's a prototype or the first in a production series?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## onebyone

__ https://www.facebook.com/

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Beast



Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## LKJ86



Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## nika



Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Akasa

Note the serial numbers *207* and *208* on the board. What we don't know is whether these Batch 3 birds will be the J-15A variant or the much-awaited J-15B with AESA.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## samsara

onebyone said:


> __ https://www.facebook.com/


Please beware that one MUST have Facebook account and log in to be able to access such Facebook link. A not favourable requirement. 

I hope all posters posting the Facebook link in PDF Chinese Column are aware of this condition. And Facebook is getting more busy body nowadays, asking for phone number for account validation etc .. something I object to do!

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## samsara

LKJ86 said:


> View attachment 467508
> 
> 
> 207, 208 ???


*The grading board behind LSOs (landing signal officers) confirms the existence of the 2nd batch of J-15.*

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/986801244088881152

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Deino

But how likely is that these 20x numbers are for helicopters?
... maybe the Z-18F and/or Z-18J helicopters since the Z-18 VIP-transport has 381 and 382 and the Z-9S has 371 and 372?


----------



## lcloo

Unlikely, because the LSOs do not grade landing performance of helicopters.

LSOs judge the landing performance of aircraft by thier approach angles, speeds, descending rates and which wire their arrester hooks will catch. Using US navy's point of view, catching arrester wire No.3 is the best.

It is also logical to built the second batch of J-15 before CV17's 2019/20 service induction, and train the pilots and get them ready by then.

LSO = Landing Signal Officer.

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## Deino

lcloo said:


> Unlikely, because the LSOs do not grade landing performance of helicopters.
> 
> LSOs judge the landing performance of aircraft by thier approach angles, speeds, descending rates and which wire their arrester hooks will catch. Using US navy's point of view, catching arrester wire No.3 is the best.
> 
> It is also logical to built the second batch of J-15 before CV17's 2019/20 service induction, and train the pilots and get them ready by then.
> 
> LSO = Landing Signal Officer.



Indeed a striking argument, thanks for that.


Again; I do not want to find a different solution per se; I'm only looking for other possivle explanations es. since so far we have not seen any other J-15 beyond #123. 
Given that we also completely lost track of the J-10C and J-20 production it is however not unlikely.

Deino

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## JSCh

From weibo - 蓝鲨小队,

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## Akasa

Photos from recent PLAN exercises suggest that No. 203 and No. 212 have been built or at least planned.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## LKJ86

PLAN is said to take that today.
https://m.weibo.cn/2685677853/4232336712816091

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Deino

samsara said:


> *The grading board behind LSOs (landing signal officers) confirms the existence of the 2nd batch of J-15.*
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/986801244088881152



To admit, a confirmation is this clearly NOT, at best it is a hint or an option, but a confirmation would be a clear image showing a J-15 with 2xx-modex.



Akasa said:


> Photos from recent PLAN exercises suggest that No. 203 and No. 212 have been built or at least planned.
> 
> View attachment 468824



Also I don't think the are actually built since from all the recent images we've seen, none has a 2xx-number. However I think it is likely that these numbers are reserved for pilots to be assigned to these birds while getting their ratings.



LKJ86 said:


> View attachment 468942



J-15D EW-variant aka J-17??


----------



## LKJ86



Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## LKJ86

---





---










https://m.weibo.cn/2697658971/4232375691103680

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## cirr

LKJ86 said:


> View attachment 468946



J-15D "Growler"? 

Expensive stuff. Maiden flight successfuly completed this afternoon.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Deino

cirr said:


> J-15D "Growler"?
> 
> Expensive stuff. Maiden flight successfuly completed this afternoon.



But if it just "successfuly completed this afternoon" all these rumours stating it even entered operational service are plain wrong.


----------



## Akasa

Deino said:


> But if it just "successfuly completed this afternoon" all these rumours stating it even entered operational service are plain wrong.



Henri K. claims that it flew in the fall of 2016.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## sheik

LKJ86 said:


> View attachment 468943
> 
> PLAN is said to take that today.
> https://m.weibo.cn/2685677853/4232336712816091



J-15D Growler for PLAN CVs


----------



## IblinI

Deino said:


> But if it just "successfuly completed this afternoon" all these rumours stating it even entered operational service are plain wrong.


There was the saying of Navy first tested it on a J11BS and now a brand new J15D, meaning they are happy with the result.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Deino

YuChen said:


> There was the saying of Navy first tested it on a J11BS and now a brand new J15D, meaning they are happy with the result.



That might make sense, but also in mind of this post:


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/988815403664240641
... "reaching already operational service" is stil some time away when this is the first true J-15D.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## LKJ86

@*Deino*

Reactions: Positive Rating Positive Rating:
1 | Like Like:
6


----------



## Deino

LKJ86 said:


> View attachment 470752
> 
> 
> @*Deino*




Thanks a lot ... but still powered by Russian AL-31F engines.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## LKJ86



Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## samsara

LKJ86 said:


> View attachment 470752
> 
> 
> @*Deino*


*J-15D*

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/991138515701391360


----------



## Deino

Now wo. watermark (via Klon/SDF)

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Deino

... even better !

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Rashid Mahmood



Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## LKJ86

Deino said:


> Now wo. watermark (via Klon/SDF)
> 
> View attachment 470906


Is the PSed pic from CJDBY?


----------



## Deino

LKJ86 said:


> Is the PSed pic from CJDBY?



Seems so ... found it at the SDF.


----------



## LKJ86

Deino said:


> Seems so ... found it at the SDF.



https://lt.cjdby.net/forum.php?mod=...6&extra=page=1&filter=author&orderby=dateline


----------



## LKJ86

J-16D & J-15D







https://m.weibo.cn/1617093763/4234948518411730

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Deino

Hmmm??? Via Scramble:



> Recently, clear pictures have been published for the first time of *a new J15 version build by XAC (Xi’an Aircraft Company)*.
> 
> The J15S is nicknamed by enthusiasts as Sino-Growler, because it seems to have been developed to mimic the Boeing EA-18G in the Electronic Warfare role. For this purpose the wingtips feature large electronic support measures (ESM)/ Electronic Intelligence (ELINT) pods.
> 
> It is believed the airframe already first flew in October 2016. The dual seat aircr...aft is destined to operate within the Chinese Carrier Air Wing from their aircraft carriers.
> 
> Photo Chinese Internet



https://www.facebook.com/Scramblema...lU4kkT6aPLV4RCxiBng&fref=nf&hc_location=group

"*build by XAC*"?? Is that correct?? I thought they are from SAC?


----------



## Akasa

Deino said:


> Hmmm??? Via Scramble:
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.facebook.com/Scramblema...lU4kkT6aPLV4RCxiBng&fref=nf&hc_location=group
> 
> "*build by XAC*"?? Is that correct?? I thought they are from SAC?



Scramble needs to unscramble their knowledge regarding Chinese aviation.


----------



## Deino

Akasa said:


> Scramble needs to unscramble their knowledge regarding Chinese aviation.




They already corrected it.


----------



## LKJ86



Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## LKJ86



Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## LKJ86



Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## samsara

A close look at China's carrier-based SEAD Flanker, by @RupprechtDeino:

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/991379649769943040https://airforcesmonthly.keypublish...se-look-at-chinas-carrier-based-sead-flanker/

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## LKJ86

samsara said:


> A close look at China's carrier-based SEAD Flanker, by @RupprechtDeino:
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/991379649769943040https://airforcesmonthly.keypublish...se-look-at-chinas-carrier-based-sead-flanker/


Who is Andreas Rupprecht? @samsara


----------



## Akasa

LKJ86 said:


> Who is Andreas Rupprecht? @samsara



Our very own @Deino !


----------



## LKJ86

Akasa said:


> Our very own @Deino !






Deino said:


> ... even better !
> 
> View attachment 470920


No watermark




http://news.ifeng.com/a/20180502/58027317_0.shtml#p=1

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## samsara

*Here's an advisable read of a quality, well written & systematic and lengthy (thorough) as well as slur-absent article on the Shenyang J-15 written by a French guy, Red Samovar, in French language (14 May).*

just use the web translator of your choice —Bing, Google, Yandex, Baidu, and so on— to read in your language of convenience  

https://redsamovar.com/2018/05/14/dossier-shenyang-j-15-flying-shark-le-su-33-chinois/


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/996122534235033600


----------



## LKJ86




----------



## LKJ86

J-15D




@Deino

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## LKJ86



Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## LKJ86

Old picture about J-15S

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## LKJ86



Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## JSCh



Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Deino

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1006018460428582914

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Tsubodai

All other things being equal, would adding TVC to the J-15 materially improves its performance from the Liaoning?


----------



## Tsubodai

Any thoughts Deino? Or others.


----------



## Deino

Tsubodai said:


> Any thoughts Deino? Or others.




To admit I don't know


----------



## LKJ86



Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## LKJ86



Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## LKJ86

http://mil.huanqiu.com/gt/2018-06/2900086.html

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## LKJ86



Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## LKJ86

J-15 & YJ-83K

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Deino

interesting gloves

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## LKJ86



Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Deino

LKJ86 said:


> View attachment 490108
> View attachment 490109
> View attachment 490110




Also the new helmet.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## LKJ86

J-15 video:
https://m.weibo.cn/6005843218/4268663127672127

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## LKJ86



Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## LKJ86



Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## LKJ86



Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## LKJ86



Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Deino

But why still rocket pods

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## LKJ86



Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Akasa

LKJ86 said:


> View attachment 498489
> View attachment 498490
> View attachment 498491



Could you provide a translation? Any news about the upcoming J-15B?


----------



## LKJ86



Reactions: Positive Rating Positive Rating:
1 | Like Like:
3


----------



## JSCh

*Aircraft carrier-based fighter jet officially capable of night combat*
By Liu Xuanzun Source:Global Times Published: 2018/9/13 23:08:46 Last Updated: 2018/9/14 9:27:01

The J-15 fighter jet is capable of night takeoff and landing on an aircraft carrier, the Chinese navy newspaper said Wednesday, leading a Chinese military expert to marvel at how fast the pilots mastered a difficult and dangerous technique.

The People's Liberation Army (PLA) Navy has made a breakthrough in its aircraft carrier night takeoff and landing technique, a historic milestone for the J-15 and a significant breakthrough in overall attack and defense capability, the official PLA website navy.81.cn website reported on Wednesday.

At night during combat, aircraft carriers are likely to dim their lights making takeoff and landing a much more challenging proposition for pilots, Song Zhongping, a military expert and TV commentator, told the Global Times on Thursday.

Daytime take-off and landing are already difficult and dangerous as a carrier is much smaller than, for example, an airport landing strip, Song said.

Factor in the harsh sea and weather conditions, and the pilot must learn to face and overcome massive psychological pressure.

In a recent training session, J-15 pilots took off and landed at night multiple times and finished live-fire target practices with various types of missiles, the report said.

"Military conflicts do not only break out during daytime, and so it's very important to take nighttime operations into consideration in preparing for a potential war," Song said.

The fighter jets' abilities to take off and land in all weathers at all times are an important indication that a carrier has developed full combat capabilities, Song noted.

It took five years for the J-15 to evolve from test flights, pilot training, through flying by day to flying by day and night, navy.81.cn reported.

Compared to other countries that have aircraft carriers and have practiced the technique for decades, China took only a few years, Song said.

The achievement showed how much PLA pilots had invested in their training, he said.


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1040450062973845505

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Deino

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1040232280327745542

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## LKJ86

J-15 with WS-10 ???

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Deino

LKJ86 said:


> J-15 with WS-10 ???
> View attachment 499524




Yes, but that's IMO an old image of the no. 554 before it gained its number ... or is it a new and recent image?


----------



## Deino

PS ... here's another image posted on 1. August 2011, which is more than similar

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## LKJ86



Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Akasa

LKJ86 said:


> View attachment 500379
> View attachment 500380
> View attachment 500381
> View attachment 500382
> View attachment 500383
> View attachment 500384



We should be seeing the J-15B by now. Any idea if it has made its maiden flight?


----------



## LKJ86



Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## LKJ86

https://m.weibo.cn/1617093763/4290067113849855

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## LKJ86



Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## LKJ86




----------



## Maxpane

Beauty


----------



## LKJ86



Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Beast

Expensive shoot for exercise. Not once but twice.


----------



## LKJ86



Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## LKJ86



Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Deino

Please in English!!!

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## juj06750

oh please learn chinese !!! if you so eager to know us

Reactions: Negative Rating Negative Rating:
1 | Like Like:
1


----------



## Ultima Thule

LKJ86 said:


> View attachment 503913
> View attachment 503914
> View attachment 503915
> View attachment 503916


Firing PL-12 @LKJ86 ???


----------



## Figaro

juj06750 said:


> Please Learn Chinese !!! if you so eager to know our weapons


This is a English forum though, why should he be obligated to learn Chinese?

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## juj06750

oh it's not for translation service I strongly suggest you better to communicate chinese if you want to know us

Reactions: Negative Rating Negative Rating:
1 | Like Like:
1


----------



## LKJ86

pakistanipower said:


> Firing PL-12 @LKJ86 ???


Yes.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## JSCh

Chinese Navy releases a promo video for recruiting pilots for its ship-borne aircraft.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Deino

juj06750 said:


> oh please learn Chinese..



*Please stop with such stupid comments. This is a rule given by the owner - to speak English or at least give a translated summary - if you cannot obey to this rule or prefer to speak Chinese only, you should better leave this forum.*

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## LKJ86



Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## LKJ86



Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## LKJ86



Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Deino

Hey ... it's painted now. Would be interesting to know its tailart. Yet again the same shark or something different


----------



## LKJ86




----------



## aziqbal

Has batch 3 started?


----------



## LKJ86



Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## LKJ86

Old pic

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## LKJ86



Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## JSCh



Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## LKJ86



Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## LKJ86

LKJ86 said:


> View attachment 506253

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## LKJ86

J-15 & J-15S




https://mp.weixin.qq.com/s/zKeCFaHDH85bASNELwk5TA

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Deino

LKJ86 said:


> J-15 & J-15S
> View attachment 525806
> 
> https://mp.weixin.qq.com/s/zKeCFaHDH85bASNELwk5TA




Isn't this more likely the J-15D??


----------



## Möbius Curve

08:03, December 13, 2018

A modified two-seat variant of the J-15 fighter jet was spotted at a Chinese aircraft carrier training base in a recent TV program, suggesting the carrier-based warplane is already being tested and expected to greatly expand the carrier's combat capability with electronic warfare equipment that one pilot cannot manage.

The People's Liberation Army (PLA) Navy only operates the single-seat J-15 fighter jet on the Liaoning aircraft carrier at the moment, but military analysts predict the two-seat variant of the warplane would be able to join the ranks within two years.

The new fighter jet, which resembles the J-15 but with a larger cockpit, was seen parked in a hangar at an unspecified Chinese carrier-based aircraft training base in a Sunday China Central Television (CCTV) program.

CCTV's website, cctv.com, published a separate report on Tuesday titled "China's most mysterious carrier-based fighter jet quietly appears, greatly accelerating the pace of aircraft carrier's combat capability," saying the aircraft in the program is a modified two-seat version of the J-15.

The variant might already be undergoing tests with the PLA Navy, the cctv.com report said.

It is painted with military camouflage instead of the flight test color, which further supports the guess, military experts said.

Modifying the single-seat J-15 into a two-seat version can greatly increase the combat capability of the fighter jet and the aircraft carrier, cctv.com reported.

The new aircraft can also conduct electronic jamming missions, the report said.

In April, photos of the variant equipped with wingtip electronic warfare pods surfaced online, but their authenticity could not be verified.

A single pilot cannot manage to fly the jet and engage in complicated electronic battles at the same time, Wei Dongxu, a Beijing-based military expert, told the Global Times on Wednesday.

The extra seat can also be used to train new pilots, the cctv.com report said.

Wei said that having an experienced pilot to teach a trainee in actual flight is very effective and will contribute to the talent program, noting that the control panels for both pilots are the same.

However, having an extra pilot means the variant might need to reduce its payload or sacrifice mobility, Wei said.

We noted that it is better to combine the strengths of the single-seat and two-seat versions to compensate for their weaknesses.

*http://en.people.cn/n3/2018/1213/c90000-9527980.html*

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## LKJ86



Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## LKJ86



Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## LKJ86

J-15 with TVC engines?

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## LKJ86



Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## LKJ86



Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Deino

Huu?? ... why a new patch?


----------



## Akasa

Possibly the first images of the *J-15B*, rumored to have an AESA radar, CATOBAR-compatible gear, PL-10 & PL-15 missiles, and other possible upgrades. Photos are from a recently published video of a J-15 unit during day-night combat training.






Courtesy of huitong: https://www.weibo.com/5596911390/HbIgYwbNy

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Akasa

Akasa said:


> Possibly the first images of the *J-15B*, rumored to have an AESA radar, CATOBAR-compatible gear, PL-10 & PL-15 missiles, and other possible upgrades. Photos are from a recently published video of a J-15 unit during day-night combat training.
> 
> View attachment 532464
> 
> 
> Courtesy of huitong: https://www.weibo.com/5596911390/HbIgYwbNy



Larger version

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Deino

Akasa said:


> Possibly the first images of the *J-15B*, rumored to have an AESA radar, CATOBAR-compatible gear, PL-10 & PL-15 missiles, and other possible upgrades. Photos are from a recently published video of a J-15 unit during day-night combat training.
> 
> View attachment 532464
> 
> 
> Courtesy of huitong: https://www.weibo.com/5596911390/HbIgYwbNy



I must admit, I'm a sceptical, at least from this image: what makes him to assume these are a J-15B and J-15T?
Maybe I miss a certain detail - at least I cannot spot the catapult bar and the new radar is covered - but isn't it much more likely that these two are just ordinary prototypes at Huangdicun? Also, do we have any reports about a restarted production of J-15s of any kind at SAC??

My point is, that the sole J-15T prototype is known already in grey with the number 571 and that there are still several regular yellow one even with calibration markings still flying at Huangdicun. So until we have no better clearer images I think they are more likely ordinary prototypes.


----------



## Akasa

Deino said:


> I must admit, I'm a sceptical, at least from this image: what makes him to assume these are a J-15B and J-15T?
> Maybe I miss a certain detail but isn't it much more likely that these two are just ordinary prototypes at Huangdicun?
> My point is, that the sole J-15T prototype is known already in grey with the number 571 and that there are still several regular yellow one even with calibration markings still flying at Huangdicun.



I agree that the labeled jet cannot be a J-15T since the known prototype is already painted in grey.

I think he suspects that these are the J-15B due to them being in yellow primer, indicative of a freshly-built airframe, and that the time is appropriate for the J-15B to make an appearance considering that the PLAN's two aircraft carriers are almost all in service.


----------



## Deino

Akasa said:


> I agree that the labeled jet cannot be a J-15T since the known prototype is already painted in grey.
> 
> I think he suspects that these are the J-15B due to them being in yellow primer, indicative of a freshly-built airframe, and that the time is appropriate for the J-15B to make an appearance considering that the PLAN's two aircraft carriers are almost all in service.




But again:

-AFAIK we have no reports from SAC that production of any J-15 variant started
- we know there are several yellow painted regular J-15s at Huangdicun
- at least from this grainy image no certain details for the catapult bar are visible

... so why assuming a factory fresh rumoured J-15B if really no specific details gives any hint to it or even more likely explanations can be found?


----------



## LKJ86



Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Jäger

is the J-15 still under construction or is China focusing on other Shenyang, Chengdu models?


----------



## LKJ86

LKJ86 said:


> View attachment 531782
> View attachment 531783

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## LKJ86



Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## cirr



Reactions: Like Like:
10


----------



## LKJ86



Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## LKJ86



Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## LKJ86



Reactions: Like Like:
13


----------



## LKJ86

LKJ86 said:


> View attachment 547640
> View attachment 547641
> View attachment 547642
> View attachment 547643
> View attachment 547644
> View attachment 547645
> View attachment 547646
> View attachment 547647
> View attachment 547648


Video: https://m.weibo.cn/6005843218/4351657082931188

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Beast

Buddy tanker. Great!

This also proves that J-15 can take off from CV-16 Liaoning with full fuel load.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## JSCh

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1108192789978738688Global Times
✔@globaltimesnews

#ChinaDefense PLA Navy's aircraft carrier-based J-15 fighter jets conducted a buddy refueling exercise recently. (Video via CCTV)

10:25 AM - Mar 20, 2019

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Dungeness

J-15 peer-to-peer refueling:

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## lcloo

..."137, request for air refuelling."... 

So who is 137? J15 #137? A new batch of J15? Your guess is as good as mind.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## JSCh

*Buddy refueling exercise shows aircraft carrier combat capability: experts*
By Liu Xuanzun Source:Global Times Published: 2019/3/20 21:23:40
*
Buddy refueling exercise shows aircraft combat capability*



Two Chinese J-15 aircraft-based fighter jets conduct buddy refueling exercise in the air space above the Bohai Sea in 2019. Photo: China Central Television

China's aircraft carrier-based fighter jets can now have a larger combat radius and longer endurance and can also carry more weapons, thanks to aerial refueling, experts said after state media released a video of a buddy-to-buddy refueling exercise for the first time.

Several J-15 fighter jets of the People's Liberation Army Navy recently conducted an aerial refueling exercise in the airspace above the Bohai Sea, China Central Television (CCTV) reported on Tuesday.

The buddy pod used for buddy-to- buddy refueling was spotted on a picture of a J-15 some years ago, prompting military observers to think the aircraft-based fighter jet was capable of aerial refueling, but this is the first time a state media has released video of a real buddy-to-buddy refueling exercise.

Most aerial tankers are variants of large transport aircraft or bombers, but in this case, both the feeding aircraft and receiving aircraft are of the same type of warplane, which is why it is called "buddy-to-buddy refueling," the report said.

Normal tankers are too large for an aircraft carrier, but a small number of fighter jets can be reconfigured to carry more fuel and fewer weapons and act as smaller tankers, an anonymous military expert told the Global Times on Wednesday.

This will allow other fighter jets to greatly expand combat radius, extend endurance and also opt to carry more weapons and less fuel when taking off from the carrier, the expert said, elaborating that a carrier-borne warplane might not be able to take off with maximum payload due to the short take-off range, and sometimes has to choose between carrying more fuel or weapons.

Multiple J-15s joined the exercise in successive sessions, CCTV reported, noting it is challenging for the receiving aircraft to connect its refueling probe with the feeding aircraft's drogue due to the wake turbulence caused by the aircraft in the front.

The anonymous expert said the CCTV report indicates China's increasing confidence in the combat capability of its aircraft carrier.

Other experienced aircraft carrier-wielding countries also use the same refueling technique, but some analysts pointed out it might become obsolete in the near future.

The US is developing the MQ-25 carrier-based drone designated for aerial refueling, which analysts say is more efficient than buddy-to-buddy refueling. 

China also has extensive experience in developing drones, so people may see a drone playing similar role on China's future aircraft carriers, the expert predicted.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## samsara

*Henri Kenhmann (East Pendulum) is diligently doing the tally of the number of certified J-15 pilots.* See his latest tweet on this matter c/c to Navalnews.com (2019-03-24):

_The 9th Drivers and LSOs (Landing Signal Officer or Landing Safety Officer) promotion is said to be taking place onboard the Liaoning aircraft carrier from March 19th to 30th in the usual area of Bohai Bay. PLA Navy should have between 34 and 46 certified J-15 pilots. To confirm._


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1109700461781618688

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## LKJ86



Reactions: Like Like:
10


----------



## lcloo

LKJ86 said:


> View attachment 549040
> View attachment 549041
> View attachment 549042
> View attachment 549044


J15 Catapult demonstrator/variant.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Deino

Maybe someone 's interested !

https://www.facebook.com/kitti.fishbone/media_set?set=a.10218907615705404&type=3

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## JSCh

*Rare footage of how China's J-15 takes off at night*
New China TV
Published on Apr 14, 2019

Exclusive! How the "Flying Shark", China's J-15 fighter jet, takes off and lands on an aircraft carrier at night

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## sinait

JSCh said:


> *Rare footage of how China's J-15 takes off at night*
> New China TV
> Published on Apr 14, 2019
> 
> Exclusive! How the "Flying Shark", China's J-15 fighter jet, takes off and lands on an aircraft carrier at night


Excellent clear video footage the J-15 taking off and landing at night on aircraft carrier.
Thanks.
.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Deino

sinait said:


> Excellent clear video footage the J-15 taking off and landing at night on aircraft carrier.
> Thanks.
> .




Indeed, but isn't it already a bit older?

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## sinait

Deino said:


> Indeed, but isn't it already a bit older?


Thanks having you diligently helping us keep watch on what are up to date.
I must have missed the old one.
.


----------



## LKJ86



Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## LKJ86



Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Deino

And there are indeed still no news concerning additional J-15s??

I cannot imagine that until a new type is ready the PLAN will soldier on with only about 20+ fighters especially when they must be split for the Liaoning, the Type 002, training at Huangdicun and some in repair?!


----------



## LKJ86



Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## cirr



Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Deino

cirr said:


> View attachment 564574



J-15 related???

Or shall I move it to the new naval fighter thread?


----------



## Akasa

Deino said:


> J-15 related???
> 
> Or shall I move it to the new naval fighter thread?



It was posted by a self-proclaimed "eyewitness" who supposedly saw it fly past.

The original text from the poster:


> 看见一架造型奇特的飞机，想走近一看时，却听到一阵轰鸣声，转瞬之间，这架飞机直上九霄，翱翔而去……正张望间，只听一阵呼啸声由远而近，一架深蓝色酷似鲨鱼一样巨大的机头突然出现在我头顶上……这给我吓得，一下就醒了，原来是个梦啊，虽然醒了，但是那架奇特战机的样子就像是真的一样就在脑海里，我把它画了下来，比例啥的就别挑了，要啥自行车啊？看个大概意思就行了呗，是不？



From this thread: https://lt.cjdby.net/thread-2553856-1-1.html

It's likely BS, if you ask me.


----------



## Deino

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1149953425074991104


----------



## LKJ86



Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## LKJ86



Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## LKJ86

Via @鼎盛acer31 from Weibo

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## LKJ86



Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## LKJ86

Via @航空物语 from Weibo

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## JSCh



Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Deino

Given this small video and two - eventually three - identified serials and construction numbers my guess was wrong:


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1180699704654323712
c/n 0108 = 07 ?? (was formerly no. 107- not very clear in the background)
c/n 0209 = 18 (was formerly no. 118)
c/n 0211 = 20 (was formerly no. 120)

But this leaves the question on what happened to the former no. 100, is this now '00' - IMO unlikely - or has it become the new '24'?

And what's written under the c/n what looks like 'HIIIII20'?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## LKJ86

Via @CAN-MUGUA from Weibo

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## LKJ86

Via @央视军事报道 from Weixin

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Deino

J-15s seen for the first time with KD-88 LACM (in the foreground) together with the rgular guidance pod and another J-15 carrying a YJ-91/YJ-91A (?).

(Images via CCTV-7 via @10969YUKIKAZE)

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## samsara

LKJ86 said:


> View attachment 588283
> View attachment 588284
> View attachment 588285
> View attachment 588286
> 
> Via @央视军事报道 from Weixin


A new batch of J-15 pilots has accomplished the training and got their certification aboard Liaoning aircraft carrier recently, along with a batch of landing signal officer or landing safety officer (LSO).

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## LKJ86

Via CCTV 7 and @沉默的山羊 from Weibo

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## lcloo

Deino said:


> J-15s seen for the first time with KD-88 LACM (in the foreground) together with the rgular guidance pod and another J-15 carrying a YJ-91/YJ-91A (?).
> 
> (Images via CCTV-7 via @10969YUKIKAZE)
> 
> View attachment 588350
> View attachment 588351
> View attachment 588352


My question is why J15 #121 and not J15 #21 or #22? So how old are these photos?


----------



## LKJ86

Via Weibo

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Deino

Just noticed, that @huitong has updated his site:



> ...
> The latest rumor (November 2019) suggested that the 03 batch has been built.
> _- Last Updated 11/11/19_




Did anyone notice this too and who spread this rumour first?


----------



## LKJ86

Via @央广军事 from Weixin

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Deino

Deino said:


> Just noticed, that @huitong has updated his site:
> 
> Did anyone notice this too and who spread this rumour first?



Today another update... he says there is a number #124.

Does anyone remember an image of this aircraft?




...


----------



## lcloo

Deino said:


> Today another update... he says there is a number #124.
> 
> Does anyone remember an image of this aircraft?
> 
> View attachment 589581
> ...


There was no photo of #124 because the 24 aircrafts are #100 to #123.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Deino

lcloo said:


> There was no photo of #124 because the 24 aircrafts are #100 to #123.




Exactly my point and question. Even if I dont have the exact allocation of all numbers, there seems to be a pattern when renumbering the former 100 - 123 to the new 01 - 24. Anyway since I respect Huitong as reliable and he directly mentiones a number 124 I'm highly excited but also suspicious...

From what I've heard we haven't seen any new J-15 at SAC since some time, but it seems as if there might be a new J-15 in yellow primer on 7 October (however the satellite image is of so low quality, that it also could be an a J-15D that's still hanging out there). Otherwise the most recent image of SAC dated early November shows 5 yellow Flankers but they clearly have no canards and are therefore most likely J-16s.


----------



## LKJ86



Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## HRK

LKJ86 said:


>


summary man summary ....??


----------



## samsara

LKJ86 said:


>


_“The Real shots of J-15's high-speed impact arresting cable, want to get on the aircraft carrier, pass this test first.” 

“It's not easy to be a carrier-borne aircraft pilot. Before the first landing on an aircraft carrier, the most important course for the flight cadets is to complete the training of arresting lines on the ground.” _

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## Deino

Seems, she's still alive .... but any more news?



__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1200343814789050368

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Deino

Deino said:


> Seems, she's still alive .... but any more news?
> 
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1200343814789050368




... but I was wrong , it is a J-16D


----------



## lcloo

J15 training and aerial refuelling.

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## Deino

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1208392711952371712

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Deino

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1209773431195078656

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## LKJ86

Via @CAN-MUGUA from Weibo

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Deino

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1211628028637405190


----------



## StormBreaker

J-15D prototype at Xingcheng training base.






Via : Dafeng cao


----------



## Deino

StormBreaker said:


> J-15D prototype at Xingcheng training base.
> 
> View attachment 596773
> 
> 
> Via : Dafeng cao




__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1211643875552583681

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Dazzler

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1211656442156998661

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## LKJ86



Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Deino

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1212432102907617281

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## StormBreaker

Deino said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1212432102907617281


How many have been produced to date and are they enough for 2 carriers ?

Is the production halted ?


----------



## Deino

StormBreaker said:


> How many have been produced to date and are they enough for 2 carriers ?
> 
> Is the production halted ?



Yes, production is halted even if there are rumors from time to time concerning a new batch 3. 
Otherwise 24 J-15s were built in two batches with a few (some say between 2-4) lost.

If they are enough for two carrier? IMO not ... but I don't know.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## StormBreaker

Deino said:


> Yes, production is halted even if there are rumors from time to time concerning a new batch 3.
> Otherwise 24 J-15s were built in two batches with a few (some say between 2-4) lost.
> 
> If they are enough for two carrier? IMO not ... but I don't know.


Not enough, basing on the lower than usual serviceability rates of flankers.

So what is China waiting for ?


----------



## LKJ86

StormBreaker said:


> So what is China waiting for ?


Maybe waiting for J-15B/D/...

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## StormBreaker

LKJ86 said:


> Maybe waiting for J-15B/D/...


J-15D has appeared sometimes but Never heard of a B, any timeline bro ?


----------



## Deino

StormBreaker said:


> J-15D has appeared sometimes but Never heard of a B, any timeline bro ?




The J-15B is said to be either a MLU - some sort of J-11BG for the J-15 - fitted with an AESA radar and other goodies or even the catapult capable version, which should as an interim be used from these two STOBAR carriers as well.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## StormBreaker

Deino said:


> The J-15B is said to be either a MLU - some sort of J-11BG for the J-15 - fitted with an AESA radar and other goodies or even the catapult capable version, which should as an interim be used from these two STOBAR carriers as well.


Thanks, didn’t knew that J-15s lacked an AESA until today


----------



## Beast

J-15 take off from CV-17 domestic build carrier.

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## UKBengali

Beast said:


> J-15 take off from CV-17 domestic build carrier.



how many J-15s on the new carrier?

Wiki says 32 and so that would be a good number.


----------



## Deino

UKBengali said:


> how many J-15s on the new carrier?
> 
> Wiki says 32 and so that would be a good number.



Wiki is unrealiable and simply mixes the overall capacity to carry vs. available ones: So far only 24 J-15s were built but some were lost, so the number is less than 24 for two carriers; at least for the moment.


----------



## UKBengali

Deino said:


> Wiki is unrealiable and simply mixes the overall capacity to carry vs. available ones: So far only 24 J-15s were built but some were lost, so the number is less than 24 for two carriers; at least for the moment.



I meant what is the capacity.
Think Wiki is not too far off the mark.


----------



## FOOLS_NIGHTMARE




----------



## Deino

Long expected and finally confirmed by officially by AVIC/SAC new J-15s (Batch 03) are being produced. In contrast to previous batches they have a green primer. The text says: "resuming production, full steam ahead...", confirming previous rumors that a new production line is operating for some time.

(Images via by78/SDF)

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Maxpane

Deino said:


> Long expected and finally confirmed by officially by AVIC/SAC new J-15s (Batch 03) are being produced. In contrast to previous batches they have a green primer. The text says: "resuming production, full steam ahead...", confirming previous rumors that a new production line is operating for some time.
> 
> (Images via by78/SDF)
> 
> View attachment 607577
> View attachment 607578
> View attachment 607579


sir why colour is green? is it because of composite material?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## StormBreaker

Deino said:


> Long expected and finally confirmed by officially by AVIC/SAC new J-15s (Batch 03) are being produced. In contrast to previous batches they have a green primer. The text says: "resuming production, full steam ahead...", confirming previous rumors that a new production line is operating for some time.
> 
> (Images via by78/SDF)
> 
> View attachment 607577
> View attachment 607578
> View attachment 607579


@aliyusuf

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## aliyusuf

StormBreaker said:


> @aliyusuf


@Khafee Sahib stands vindicated.


----------



## StormBreaker

aliyusuf said:


> @Khafee Sahib stands vindicated.


IA

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Deino

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1231231110182514691

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Pakistani Fighter

StormBreaker said:


> IA


What does that means?


----------



## LKJ86

Via @海军航空大学 from Weixin

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## LKJ86

Via @舰船知识杂志 from Weibo

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## Deino

Deino said:


> Long expected and finally confirmed by officially by AVIC/SAC new J-15s (Batch 03) are being produced. In contrast to previous batches they have a green primer. The text says: "resuming production, full steam ahead...", confirming previous rumors that a new production line is operating for some time.
> 
> (Images via by78/SDF)
> 
> View attachment 607577
> View attachment 607578
> View attachment 607579



What was the official source? AVIC'S Weibo account or their HP?


----------



## Deino

Deino said:


> What was the official source? AVIC'S Weibo account or their HP?




Here it is! 

http://sfm.avic.com/sxzx/gcyw/681381.shtml

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## LKJ86

Via @奇圆JeffHoly from Weibo

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Beast

LKJ86 said:


> View attachment 609047
> 
> Via @舰船知识杂志 from Weibo


2 WVRAAM + 2 YJ-91 + 1 target pod and probably 2 PL-12 below the center fuselage for a J-15 payload onboard Chinese carrier with a jump ski take off. Not bad.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Deino

LKJ86 said:


> View attachment 609292
> 
> Via @奇圆JeffHoly from Weibo




Another one showing an operational J-15S!

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## bahadur999

*J-15 aircraft carrier-based fighter jet gets new anti-corrosion paint: reports*
By Liu Xuanzun Source:Global Times Published: 2020/2/27 22:09:49





A ship-borne J-15 fighter jet prepares to land at the flight deck of the aircraft carrier _Liaoning_ (Hull 16). Photo: eng.chinamil.com.cn





The latest batch of China's J-15 aircraft carrier-based fighter jet is getting new, green priming paint instead of the previous yellow one. Reports speculate it is a new anti-corrosion material that can enhance the aircraft's capabilities.

A J-15, which is under assembly at the Shenyang Aircraft Company under the Aviation Industry Corporation of China (AVIC), can be seen covered in green priming paint in a set of photos released by the company on its website.

Previous J-15 fighter jets used yellow priming paint, according to multiple reports and documentaries.

The color change in the priming paint likely indicates that it features a new type of anti-corrosion material, Weihutang, a column on military affairs affiliated with China Central Television, reported on Tuesday.

Aircraft carrier-based aircraft usually have stronger wear and tear properties compared to land-based aircraft due to extended exposure to sea water, salt haze, muggy weather and exhaust gas, and the priming paint is a key material that can protect the aircraft's structure from being corroded and damaged, Weihutang reported.

This will contribute to an increase in the J-15's usage, lower maintenance costs and greater lifespan, the report said.

The Chinese Navy received the _Shandong_, its second aircraft carrier, in December 2019 and a third one is reportedly being built, so China needs more J-15s to fulfill this potential, analysts said.

It is nice to see the production of the J-15 is not being significantly delayed due to the novel coronavirus outbreak, a military expert who asked not to be named told the Global Times on Thursday.

The new priming paint shows that the J-15 is becoming more powerful, as it is being improved to boost the aircraft carriers' overall capability, the expert said.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## LKJ86

By 齐晓东

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## LKJ86

Via www.haohanfw.com

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## LKJ86

By 齐晓东

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## LKJ86

By 齐晓东

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## LKJ86

By 齐晓东

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## LKJ86

By 齐晓东

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## LKJ86

By 齐晓东

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## LKJ86

Via @万全 from Weibo


----------



## LKJ86

Via navy.81.cn

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## LKJ86

LKJ86 said:


> View attachment 616447
> View attachment 616448
> View attachment 616449
> View attachment 616450
> View attachment 616451
> View attachment 616452
> View attachment 616453
> 
> Via navy.81.cn



















Via @央广军事 from Weibo


----------



## LKJ86

Via www.top81cn.cn

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## LKJ86

Via @海军航空大学 from Weixin


----------



## LKJ86

Via CCTV 13 and @沉默的山羊 from Weibo


----------



## LKJ86

Via @万全 from Weibo


----------



## kungfugymnast

LKJ86 said:


> View attachment 618130
> 
> Via @万全 from Weibo



J15 carries PL8, 12, 15, 21 air to air missiles. Guess no more r27 and r77 in PLAN inventory.


----------



## ali_raza

this will be our baby soon


----------



## Deino

kungfugymnast said:


> J15 carries PL8, 12, 15, 21 air to air missiles. Guess no more r27 and r77 in PLAN inventory.




Nope ... so far only PL-8B and PL-12 have been seen. And i don't think the PL-15 is already integrated whereas the PL-21 is either not ready yet or was superseded by a new AAm, which is also not ready yet.


----------



## kungfugymnast

Deino said:


> Nope ... so far only PL-8B and PL-12 have been seen. And i don't think the PL-15 is already integrated whereas the PL-21 is either not ready yet or was superseded by a new AAm, which is also not ready yet.



Thanks for the info, I guess J15 roles for now is air to air and anti-ship.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Deino

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1244344761454080002

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## LKJ86

Via @万全 from Weibo

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## LKJ86

Via @芝士乳酸君 from Weibo

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Deino

LKJ86 said:


> View attachment 621372
> 
> Via @芝士乳酸君 from Weibo




Great ... but I want to see the new Batch 3 J-15s flying!


----------



## kungfugymnast

Deino said:


> Great ... but I want to see the new Batch 3 J-15s flying!



What are the improvement on batch 3 J-15? It has been more than a year since J-15 conducting rail launch on mock flight deck. Do you prefer EMALS or catapult launch? I prefer steam catapult because it's mechanical and easier to fix.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Deino

kungfugymnast said:


> What are the improvement on batch 3 J-15? It has been more than a year since J-15 conducting rail launch on mock flight deck. Do you prefer EMALS or catapult launch? I prefer steam catapult because it's mechanical and easier to fix.




That's for the moment the Mio.$% question ... so far we've only seen it uses a different - aka green - anti-corrosion primer, but this could bean it is simply a different one or it could mean it covers a different surface material.

Otherwise we know nothing: if it uses WS-10 engines, if it has a new - maybe AESA - radar, if it is catapult capable ... 

I think we simply have to wait for more images.


----------



## kungfugymnast

Deino said:


> That's for the moment the Mio.$% question ... so far we've only seen it uses a different - aka green - anti-corrosion primer, but this could bean it is simply a different one or it could mean it covers a different surface material.
> 
> Otherwise we know nothing: if it uses WS-10 engines, if it has a new - maybe AESA - radar, if it is catapult capable ...
> 
> I think we simply have to wait for more images.



I remember you mentioned better paint coating to withstand sea salt. As for the radar, thought it's been using AESA all these while. Or is it because of still under testing and carrier trial, they fitted old pulse doppler radar from J11A/B temporarily until they are fit for active sea patrol? The only thing I could think of is newer WS10 TVC engine.


----------



## Deino

kungfugymnast said:


> I remember you mentioned better paint coating to withstand sea salt. As for the radar, thought it's been using AESA all these while. Or is it because of still under testing and carrier trial, they fitted old pulse doppler radar from J11A/B temporarily until they are fit for active sea patrol? The only thing I could think of is newer WS10 TVC engine.



No. ... no J-15 is currently using an AESA and before using the WS-10 TVC variant, I would already more than happy if it would be powered by a regular WS-10 anyway.


----------



## LKJ86

Deino said:


> no J-15 is currently using an AESA


What about J-15D?


----------



## Deino

LKJ86 said:


> What about J-15D?



I think the J-15D is some sort of a special bird, which si - at least by my understanding - not operational yet. 
Also, given @kungfugymnast 's remark "it's been using AESA all these while", I was quite sure he meant the regular J-15.

By the way, what is your information concerning the Batch 03 and its radar and engines?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## kungfugymnast

Deino said:


> No. ... no J-15 is currently using an AESA and before using the WS-10 TVC variant, I would already more than happy if it would be powered by a regular WS-10 anyway.



J-15 is still on sea trial and at risk of crashing from failed launch. J-15 will only be fitted with old radar and engine until there's good launch system for carrier being truly functional. Why is it so difficult for China to come up with catapult launch that has been around in 50's that even French could develop their own in 60's? There are many commercial catapult technology that China could obtain if it has no access to US or French military technology.



Deino said:


> I think the J-15D is some sort of a special bird, which si - at least by my understanding - not operational yet.
> Also, given @kungfugymnast 's remark "it's been using AESA all these while", I was quite sure he meant the regular J-15.
> 
> By the way, what is your information concerning the Batch 03 and its radar and engines?



Only for J-15 assigned to land based are fitted with AESA & WS10B for pilots training and maritime offshore patrol. PLAN carrier fleet is not combat ready status.


----------



## Deino

kungfugymnast said:


> J-15 is still on sea trial and at risk of crashing from failed launch. J-15 will only be fitted with old radar and engine until there's good launch system for carrier being truly functional. Why is it so difficult for China to come up with catapult launch that has been around in 50's that even French could develop their own in 60's? There are many commercial catapult technology that China could obtain if it has no access to US or French military technology.



Nope and I really don't know how you come to these strange conclusions? The J-15 might not have reached the same operational serviceability and performance like say the USN F/A-18E or French Rafale, but to call it "still on sea trial" is plain wrong. 



> Only for J-15 assigned to land based are fitted with AESA & WS10B for pilots training and maritime offshore patrol. PLAN carrier fleet is not combat ready status.




And here too a IMO very ridiculous statement: There are no such J-15s fitted with AESA & WS10B and others in standard configuration: We know exactly the same aircraft at Huangdicun and off the Liaoning with exactly the same fit, aka regular non-AESA radar and AL-31Fs.


----------



## kungfugymnast

Deino said:


> Nope and I really don't know how you come to these strange conclusions? The J-15 might not have reached the same operational serviceability and performance like say the USN F/A-18E or French Rafale, but to call it "still on sea trial" is plain wrong.
> 
> And here too a IMO very ridiculous statement: There are no such J-15s fitted with AESA & WS10B and others in standard configuration: We know exactly the same aircraft at Huangdicun and off the Liaoning with exactly the same fit, aka regular non-AESA radar and AL-31Fs.



PLAN carrier is still waiting to confirm whether their next carrier could get catapult or EMALS ready. Ski jump is just not ideal for fighters on full load launch. That's why I call these J-15 on carrier still stuck with sea trial and training. They are pending for future to fix. 

If what you said on the land based J-15 is true, I don't see what's the purpose of building that many if they aren't combat ready.


----------



## Deino

kungfugymnast said:


> ...
> If what you said on the land based J-15 is true, I don't see what's the purpose of building that many if they aren't combat ready.




Exactly... ego, your assumption they are not combat capable is wrong.


----------



## kungfugymnast

Deino said:


> Exactly... ego, your assumption they are not combat capable is wrong.



Not to say the J-15 with pulse doppler radar is entirely incapable. Only not as good as AESA in detection, tracking, ECCM against US advanced ECM, more manual work, slower response. 

US will be flying latest fighters with AESA if they are up against China. J-15 as maritime fighters will be first to face the F-35C and F/A-18E/F if there's war. EA-18G will go for selective jamming fooling or distorting J-15 pulse doppler radar reducing its effective tracking and missile range worse than AESA that is less susceptible to jamming. US would have at least 4 aircraft carriers at war time, imagine how many US fighters are there launching 2 AMRAAMs at every fighters. US fighters with AESA radar could guide missiles to targets better.


----------



## LKJ86

Via 解放军报

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## LKJ86

Via CCTV 13 and @沉默的山羊 from Weibo

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## LKJ86

LKJ86 said:


> View attachment 625087
> View attachment 625088
> View attachment 625089
> View attachment 625090
> View attachment 625091
> 
> Via CCTV 13 and @沉默的山羊 from Weibo


*Chinese Navy Conducts Day-night Drills to Improve Combat Capacity of J-15 Carrier-borne Fighter Jets*

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## aziqbal

Did they do refueling at night 

it’s one of the toughest jobs do it over the sea at night 

another breed of pilot


----------



## LKJ86

Via www.81.cn

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Deino

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1252568429338349568


----------



## LKJ86

Via www.81.cn

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## LKJ86

Via @万全 from Weibo

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## IblinI

LKJ86 said:


> View attachment 626456
> View attachment 626457
> View attachment 626458
> 
> Via @万全 from Weibo


J15D?


----------



## LKJ86

IblinI said:


> J15D?


J-15D is a dual-seat version.


----------



## Deino

LKJ86 said:


> J-15D is a dual-seat version.



I thought the dual-seater is the J-15S and the D is the EW-variant!

Otherwise there are rumors that both variants have been merged ... but does anyone know its status?


----------



## LKJ86

Deino said:


> the D is the EW-variant!


Does it contradict what I said?


----------



## Deino

LKJ86 said:


> Does it contradict what I said?



Nope, you are correct - my bad - I read twin-seater as trainer. Sorry.

But otherwise am I wrong and what is the current status of both the J-15S and J-15D?


----------



## LKJ86

Via @航空工业沈阳所 from Weixin and @沉默的山羊 from Weibo

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## LKJ86

Via @央广军事 from Weibo

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Deino

Interesting ... would love to see a clear image of both the grey J-15S and J-15D!

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## LKJ86

By 卢刚

Reactions: Like Like:
8


----------



## Deino

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1257944046242324482

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## LKJ86

《最后的军礼》




Via 卢刚

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Deino

LKJ86 said:


> 《最后的军礼》
> View attachment 630385
> 
> Via 卢刚




I briefly had the hope it would be the carrier-capable variant? ... and then I saw 552.

Anyway a great image.


----------



## LKJ86

By Wei Meng

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## LKJ86

April 30, 2020




Via @航空工业 from Weixin

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Deino

LKJ86 said:


> April 30, 2020
> View attachment 630765
> 
> Via @航空工业 from Weixin




Any hint on what they say, what prototype this is?


----------



## Akasa

Deino said:


> Any hint on what they say, what prototype this is?



Likely batch 03 birds, if the sign and landing gear are any indication.


----------



## Deino

Akasa said:


> Likely batch 03 birds, if the sign and landing gear are any indication.




The sign maybe, but the landing gear not ... it looks like an old J-15 prototype.

But maybe the grey one behind or one not seen in that image?

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Maxpane

Deino said:


> The sign maybe, but the landing gear not ... it looks like an old J-115 prototype.
> 
> But maybe the grey one behind or one not seen in that image?
> 
> View attachment 631008


what does it mean sir?


----------



## Deino

Maxpane said:


> what does it mean sir?




You mean the banner? 

At the SDF one member translated “let the party flag flutter at model ———” as rated this as a "Most likely the celebration for the successful development of CATOBAR version J-15". But IMO it is not the CATOBAR-variant.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Maxpane

Deino said:


> You mean the banner?
> 
> At the SDF one member translated “let the party flag flutter at model ———” as rated this as a "Most likely the celebration for the successful development of CATOBAR version J-15". But IMO it is not the CATOBAR-variant.


sir if its not CATOBAR version then where these jets are going to use ?


----------



## Deino

Maxpane said:


> sir if its not CATOBAR version then where these jets are going to use ?




Surely for the 002 carrier!


----------



## Deino

By the way, this J-15 seems to have no ejection seat fitted!

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Deino



Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Type59

Deino said:


>



Of topic what happened to Feng? No new blog posts sine 2017.

http://china-pla.blogspot.com/?m=1


----------



## kungfugymnast

Deino said:


> Interesting ... would love to see a clear image of both the grey J-15S and J-15D!
> 
> View attachment 626735



There are 4 J-15 in your illustration. 1st and 3rd are single seat whereas 2nd and 4th are tandem twin seat. 

1st = J-15A
2nd = J-15S
3rd = J-15B?
4th = J-15D?

Why suddenly jumped to S then newer 1 back to D unlike US fighters variant designation that follows sequence? Example F-15A single, F-15B twin, F-15C single, F-15D twin...


----------



## Deino

kungfugymnast said:


> There are 4 J-15 in your illustration. 1st and 3rd are single seat whereas 2nd and 4th are tandem twin seat.
> 
> 1st = J-15A
> 2nd = J-15S
> 3rd = J-15B?
> 4th = J-15D?
> 
> Why suddenly jumped to S then newer 1 back to D unlike US fighters variant designation that follows sequence? Example F-15A single, F-15B twin, F-15C single, F-15D twin...




Since the Chiness system follows the regular ABC only for the regular types. 

The letter S stands (AFAIK ... maybe @LKJ86 can correct me) for Shuang, which means something like twin-seater or trainer, wheras the D stans dor Dian (?) meaning electronic or so.


----------



## kungfugymnast

Deino said:


> Since the Chiness system follows the regular ABC only for the regular types.
> 
> The letter S stands (AFAIK ... maybe @LKJ86 can correct me) for Shuang, which means something like twin-seater or trainer, wheras the D stans dor Dian (?) meaning electronic or so.



Ah, you meant shuang 双 Dual and dian
电 electric. That should be it, got it. Like J-11B single seater and J-11BS twin seat.

If there's H means sea = hai 海

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## LKJ86

Via @人民海军 and @沉默的山羊 from Weibo

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## LKJ86

Via @万全 from Weibo

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## LKJ86



Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Deino

LKJ86 said:


> View attachment 634775




And what does this mean?


----------



## LKJ86

Deino said:


> And what does this mean?


Maybe about J-15B.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## laser911

Deino said:


> And what does this mean?


It seems J15B, without pitot tube, with new radar and PL15, will enter service soon.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## lcloo

Deino said:


> And what does this mean?


1. She has taken the war robe --- It is ready for battle/ entering serial production soon.
2. Aluminum Kid --- New aluminium alloy material used?
3. No hair on the mouth --- less connected to Russia/Ex-Soviet design? (Hair or 毛 always refer to Russia, Ukraine or Ex-Soviet.
4. Look further and clearer --- Better radar and longer range, may be other sensors as well.
5. Divine arrow --- New advance missiles,
6. More stronger --- New power plant with bigger thrust.

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## Deino

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1264091766241857536

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Nomad40

Is PAF getting J-15 apparently there are rumors on other forum!!!


----------



## Beast

Mirage Battle Commander said:


> Is PAF getting J-15 apparently there are rumors on other forum!!!


Nonsense


----------



## Khan Sahab

Mirage Battle Commander said:


> Is PAF getting J-15 apparently there are rumors on other forum!!!


You mean the rumour where Pakistan is supposed to receive 15 odd J-15s with folding wings within 45-60 days. Yeah! That's probably not happening because it doesn't make any sense.


----------



## Deino

Khan Sahab said:


> You mean the rumour where Pakistan is supposed to receive 15 odd J-15s with folding wings within 45-60 days. Yeah! That's probably not happening because it doesn't make any sense.




It not only makes no sense, it is plain stupid and most likely either based on yet another stupid report written by Minnie Chan and her secret contact to the PLA or a Pakistani fan-boy with too many wet-dreams during the last weeks.

It has been discussed so often, that it is almost too boring to reply to such a stupidity. But I'm sure certain members starting with an M would agree in all aspects!

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Nomad40

Damn didn't Know about the credibility of the source----------some people are FANS.


I know it just doesn't make any sense.


----------



## aziqbal

These silly Pakistani fanboys are making a complete fool of themselves and others 

I have over 20 on my ignore list unfortunately I can’t grow it anymore 

simply ban them, like cats meow meow all the time

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## LKJ86

J-15 and JL-9G





Via @央广军事 from Weibo

Reactions: Like Like:

3


----------



## aziqbal

Strange that after all these years China never built for whatever reason a naval trainer 

J15 is a very expensive trainer


----------



## LKJ86



Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## flowerfan2020

Surya 1 said:


> Useless third rate plane highly criticized by chines themselves.


Keyboard warrior, tell your curry air force come over to try out.

Reactions: Like Like:
13


----------



## LKJ86

Via navy.81.cn

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## capricorn5192

is J-15 will also be ram coated like this J-16

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Deino

capricorn5192 said:


> is J-15 will also be ram coated like this J-16




... and this statement is based on ???


----------



## Blacklight

Deino said:


> ... and this statement is based on ???


Its not a statement, he is asking a question.

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## Deino

Blacklight said:


> Its not a statement, he is asking a question.




Sorry, then I missed the "?"


----------



## Figaro

When will the J-15s use the WS-10H? All PLAAF land based aircraft are using Chinese engines now.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## kungfugymnast

Figaro said:


> When will the J-15s use the WS-10H? All PLAAF land based aircraft are using Chinese engines now.



Waiting for carrier with launch rail probably as WS10 engine gets into overheat slower and present ski ramp launch is not efficient for WS10H. By then J-35 probably already made its debut with Type 003 EMALS carrier almost ready.


----------



## Figaro

The Chinese really need to hurry with the development of the 5th gen naval fighter. I know the first J-35 prototype will come out next year but it's still a long ways from production. I really don't see the J-15 fairing well against the F-35.


----------



## kungfugymnast

Figaro said:


> The Chinese really need to hurry with the development of the 5th gen naval fighter. I know the first J-35 prototype will come out next year but it's still a long ways from production. I really don't see the J-15 fairing well against the F-35.



It won't take long for J-35 to enter active service as Shenyang group only have to port technology from FC-31 over. If J-35 is larger fighter, the avionics and engines are already available. They just need to focus on the fuselage, wings structure. It depends on how soon Type003 carrier with EMALS being commissioned


----------



## ZeEa5KPul

Figaro said:


> The Chinese really need to hurry with the development of the 5th gen naval fighter. I know the first J-35 prototype will come out next year but it's still a long ways from production. I really don't see the J-15 fairing well against the F-35.


Yeah, China's not about to have a fight with the US in the middle of the Pacific in the near future. The deterrent to America operating its carriers against China aren't a symmetrical Chinese capability, it's Chinese anti-ship missiles. Those are more than capable of holding the line until the "J-35" and 00Xs are ready and China can push its cordon sanitaire outward.


----------



## Figaro

ZeEa5KPul said:


> Yeah, China's not about to have a fight with the US in the middle of the Pacific in the near future. The deterrent to America operating its carriers against China aren't a symmetrical Chinese capability, it's Chinese anti-ship missiles. Those are more than capable of holding the line until the "J-35" and 00Xs are ready and China can push its cordon sanitaire outward.


I'm just saying if China wants to make use of their carriers' power projection in wartime, they better speed up the induction of the J-35. 


kungfugymnast said:


> It won't take long for J-35 to enter active service as Shenyang group only have to port technology from FC-31 over. If J-35 is larger fighter, the avionics and engines are already available. They just need to focus on the fuselage, wings structure. It depends on how soon Type003 carrier with EMALS being commissioned


I highly doubt the J-35 will be available upon the 003's commissioning. The most likely carrier air wing would be the upgraded J-15.


----------



## kungfugymnast

Figaro said:


> I'm just saying if China wants to make use of their carriers' power projection in wartime, they better speed up the induction of the J-35.
> 
> I highly doubt the J-35 will be available upon the 003's commissioning. The most likely carrier air wing would be the upgraded J-15.



It all based on how desperate PLAN needed stealth fighters to protect its fleet. The J-35 design is most likely taken from F-35 design cue but being enlarged with twin engines and more weapon bays. Most likely next year we'll see the prototype flying as soon as there's working EMALS carrier. PLAN would need numbers of J-15 for air to ground offensive anyway.


----------



## Figaro

kungfugymnast said:


> It all based on how desperate PLAN needed stealth fighters to protect its fleet. The J-35 design is most likely taken from F-35 design cue but being enlarged with twin engines and more weapon bays. Most likely next year we'll see the prototype flying as soon as there's working EMALS carrier. PLAN would need numbers of J-15 for air to ground offensive anyway.


The J-35 is a double engine fighter though right?


----------



## kungfugymnast

Figaro said:


> The J-35 is a double engine fighter though right?



Yes it is. Twin engine fighter with design copied from F-35 and F-22


----------



## LKJ86

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1287738555662467073

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Figaro

cirr said:


> View attachment 564574


We seem to have lost quite a few good members here, including @cirr over the past year. Hopefully they all come back.


----------



## LKJ86

LKJ86 said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1287738555662467073

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Deino

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1288499304055750658

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Figaro

Deino said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1288499304055750658


Wonder if these are using the WS-10H


----------



## Yongpeng Sun-Tastaufen

Figaro said:


> The Chinese really need to hurry with the development of the 5th gen naval fighter. I know the first J-35 prototype will come out next year but it's still a long ways from production. I really don't see the J-15 fairing well against the F-35.



F-35 is way smaller than J-15. Think frigate compared to cruiser. It's not even the same class.


----------



## Figaro

Austin Powers said:


> F-35 is way smaller than J-15. Think frigate compared to cruiser. It's not even the same class.


Yea because ones a 5th gen fighter while the other is 4th gen. The only advantage the J-15 has are its range and dogfighting ability ... everything else is a generation behind the F-35.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Yongpeng Sun-Tastaufen

Figaro said:


> Yea because ones a 5th gen fighter while the other is 4th gen. The only advantage the J-15 has are its range and dogfighting ability ... everything else is a generation behind the F-35.



This is not necessarily so. F-35 stealth is to date unproven. Who knows if it's really stealth? Maybe it's not stealthy at all.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Figaro

Austin Powers said:


> This is not necessarily so. F-35 stealth is to date unproven. Who knows if it's really stealth? Maybe it's not stealthy at all.


F-35's stealth is not proven ... come on man. You are talking about a country that operates the F-22 and the B-2 bomber.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Yongpeng Sun-Tastaufen

Figaro said:


> F-35's stealth is not proven ... come on man. You are talking about a country that operates the F-22 and the B-2 bomber.



The same country that is losing the war against coronavirus. Am I supposed to believe America has super duper military hardware? Not believing it.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## LKJ86

Via @海军航空大学 from Weixin

Reactions: Like Like:
8


----------



## LKJ86

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1289854502250508293

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## Figaro

Excellent ... 

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1289334200680812545

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## LKJ86



Reactions: Like Like:
 4


----------



## PeacefulWar

LKJ86 said:


> View attachment 660976


Solved one of my puzzle, now I know it is retractable.
Any idea whether J-10's are retractable as well? 
@LKJ86 @Deino

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## LKJ86

PeacefulWar said:


> Any idea whether J-10's are retractable as well?


J-10 is not big enough.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## PeacefulWar

LKJ86 said:


> J-10 is not big enough.


A bit disappointed.
But make sense.


----------



## Beast

PeacefulWar said:


> A bit disappointed.
> But make sense.


If its intercepting mission. No refuel pod will be installed. It takes less than 20-30mins to fix or unfixed it for ground crew.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Crystal-Clear

khafee sahib ne sab ka phuddu kaat diya apne forum per .


----------



## PeacefulWar

Beast said:


> If its intercepting mission. No refuel pod will be installed. It takes less than 20-30mins to fix or unfixed it for ground crew.


I'm thinking the refuel pod will increase the RCS quite a bit.
We may see new gen refuel pod in future J-35 on back like F-16/35


----------



## capricorn5192

Crystal-Clear said:


> khafee sahib ne sab ka phuddu kaat diya apne forum per .


Can you explain?


----------



## Yongpeng Sun-Tastaufen

PeacefulWar said:


> Solved one of my puzzle, now I know it is retractable.
> Any idea whether J-10's are retractable as well?
> @LKJ86 @Deino
> View attachment 660986



All Flankers have that same refueling probe.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Crystal-Clear

capricorn5192 said:


> Can you explain?


google this . 
"acquisition-of-j-15-for-paf-air-superiority-deep-strike-platfrom."
.
.
and you will gt the link of his forum jahan wo jii bhar k kahaniya banatey .


----------



## kungfugymnast

Austin Powers said:


> This is not necessarily so. F-35 stealth is to date unproven. Who knows if it's really stealth? Maybe it's not stealthy at all.



F-35 stealth is indeed proven and using 2nd generation stealth materials currently. For export variant, we won't know how much US downgraded the material as the few main NATO countries and US close ally Japan are likely to secretly try to reverse engineer and replicate US technology. The weaknesses of F-35 lies on maintenance, unreliable impractical parts that are designed to milk cash out of buyers, the low maximum speed, limitation of single engine and lacked of side bays. They'll need lots of F-35 to carry out missions of a squad of F-16C or F/A-18E due to limitation with belly only internal bay.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Figaro



Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Wow Wow:
1


----------



## Yongpeng Sun-Tastaufen

Figaro said:


> View attachment 663121



This is the advantage J-15 has over F-35. Bigger size means bigger payload.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## kungfugymnast

Austin Powers said:


> This is the advantage J-15 has over F-35. Bigger size means bigger payload.



When navalized stealth fighter J-35 became available, J-15 will serve as weapon platform mainly for anti-ship & air to ground role while for air to air limited to intercepting conventional fighters, bombers, AWACS, ASW aircraft, cargo planes, helicopters.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Figaro

Awesome J-15/PLAN naval aviation promotion video 

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1299636829197447168

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## LKJ86

Via @奇圆JeffHoly from Weibo

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Love Love:
1


----------



## LKJ86

Via www.81.cn

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## LKJ86

Via @北海舰队 from Weixin

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## LKJ86

Via @海军新闻 from Weixin

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## LKJ86

Via @人民海军 from Weixin

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## LKJ86

Via @人民海军 from Weixin

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## LKJ86

Via @解放军报 from Weixin


----------



## Deino

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1311730857376387072


----------



## Figaro

Deino said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1311730857376387072


This is very surprising considering we saw a picture of another production J-15 Batch 3 with WS-10 engines back in August. Maybe this Batch 3 is divided into different categories?


----------



## Akasa

Deino said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1311730857376387072



Interesting that these supposedly AESA-equipped fighters still have pitot tubes.


----------



## Figaro

Akasa said:


> Interesting that these supposedly AESA-equipped fighters still have pitot tubes.


Then probably these are not the AESA Block 3 J-15s ... they are still PESA with AL-31Fs.


----------



## siegecrossbow

Figaro said:


> Then probably these are not the AESA Block 3 J-15s ... they are still PESA with AL-31Fs.


 
No J-15 ever used PESA radar. They used the same slotted array radars as those from the J-11B to reduce development time.


----------



## Deino

Figaro said:


> This is very surprising considering we saw a picture of another production J-15 Batch 3 with WS-10 engines back in August. Maybe this Batch 3 is divided into different categories?




Are you sure? From my memory we only saw the aircraft in parts but not an engine. And on this image it at least had the pitot.


----------



## siegecrossbow

Akasa said:


> Interesting that these supposedly AESA-equipped fighters still have pitot tubes.



Pitot is not a litmus for whether an aircraft uses AESA. F-16V has AESA but has retained the pitot.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Figaro

Deino said:


> Are you sure? From my memory we only saw the aircraft in parts but not an engine. And on this image it at least had the pitot.
> 
> View attachment 675320
> View attachment 675321
> View attachment 675322
> View attachment 675323
> View attachment 675324


I was looking at these pictures ... the picture, although grainy, looks very much like WS-10 engines. Plus, I think the guy who took the photos also said they were WS-10s.

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1289334200680812545


----------



## kungfugymnast

siegecrossbow said:


> No J-15 ever used PESA radar. They used the same slotted array radars as those from the J-11B to reduce development time.



Yes, no PESA in J-15, probably just pulse doppler radar. The J-15A is just temporary substitute to fill the gap of pending EMALS carrier and J-15B therefore they aren't fitting anything advanced in J-15A.


----------



## Deino

Officially labelled only as "Pilot cadets assigned to the PLA Naval Aviation University walk in line to their positions prior to a flight training course in late September, 2020" it is in fact the first official confirmation that the Batch 03 J-15s are in PLAN Naval Aviation service at the Naval Aviation University at Huangdicun. 

Clearly confirmed are two aircraft by the construction numbers cn. 0303 & 0306.

(Images by Ni Shuai and Jiang Tao via chinamil.com.cn)

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Deino

Figaro said:


> Then probably these are not the AESA Block 3 J-15s ... they are still PESA with AL-31Fs.



Seems not to be and as such I'm a bit surprised and in fact even disappointed since I hoped for something along a single seater J-16 with the J-16's AESA without a pitot and WS-10 engines.


----------



## LKJ86

Deino said:


> I'm a bit surprised and in fact even disappointed since I hoped for something along a single seater J-16 with the J-16's AESA without a pitot and WS-10 engines.


IMO, PLAN and SAC have focused on J-15's CATOBAR variants.


----------



## Deino

LKJ86 said:


> IMO, PLAN and SAC have focused on J-15's CATOBAR variants.




You mean for a future Batch 04 after this one?

I must admit I'm considering several options and my stomach tells me that these Batch 03 J-15s are just additional standard J-15s as Batch 01 & 02 in order to replace those lost and to rise the number to a level so that both carriers have enough figthers for their regular duiy.
After that additional ones of the rumoured variant J-15B (or whatever) will be built and this one has the alleged AESA, WS-10 engines and is CATOBAR capable for the Type 003 carrier.


----------



## LKJ86

Via @奇圆JeffHoly from Weibo

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## LKJ86

Via @人民海军 from Weixin

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Love Love:
1


----------



## LKJ86



Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## LKJ86

Via @万全 from Weibo

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Love Love:
1


----------



## LKJ86

Via @牧是家 from Weibo

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Deino

LKJ86 said:


> View attachment 681698
> 
> Via @牧是家 from Weibo




A new variant?


----------



## IblinI

Deino said:


> A new variant?


Most likely J15B


----------



## Deino

IblinI said:


> Most likely J15B




Maybe another image ..

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## IblinI

Deino said:


> Maybe another image ..
> 
> View attachment 681943
> View attachment 681944


AESA, more composite materials used, two things that can be visually seen.


----------



## Deino

IblinI said:


> AESA, more composite materials used, two things that can be visually seen.




On what detail you recognise an AESA? 
I know, a pitot is no reason to decide on whether an AESA is installed or not, even if I had expected a J-16-like configuration. Anyway, for the radome looks just like the regular one.


----------



## Figaro

Deino said:


> Maybe another image ..
> 
> View attachment 681943
> View attachment 681944


Wonder what the engine is ... the nozzles look vaguely like Taihangs but we need clearer backside images!


----------



## Death_Angels

J-31 What happened to the sea version


----------



## Deino

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1319618843413762048


----------



## vi-va

Deino said:


> On what detail you recognise an AESA?
> I know, a pitot is no reason to decide on whether an AESA is installed or not, even if I had expected a J-16-like configuration. Anyway, for the radome looks just like the regular one.


J-15 has ASEA installed many years ago.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Deino

vi-va said:


> J-15 has ASEA installed many years ago.




Since when and why do all reliable reports say it uses the same radar like the J-11B?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## vi-va

Deino said:


> Since when and why do all reliable reports say it uses the same radar like the J-11B?


I know. J-15 has AESA installed, that's what I heard from a guy who really know PLA a lot. 
He said J-15 has higher priority, and he also said when and why J-35 is the jet for PLA navy many years ago.
He was banned in cjdby 2 years ago or so, some of his threads were deleted or hidden, too sensitive.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Love Love:
1


----------



## Deino

vi-va said:


> I know. J-15 has AESA installed, that's what I heard from a guy who really know PLA a lot.
> He said J-15 has higher priority, and he also said when and why J-35 is the jet for PLA navy many years ago.
> He was banned in cjdby 2 years ago or so, some of his threads were deleted or hidden, too sensitive.




Thanks for that explanation, but I must admit I'm still sceptical.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## vi-va

Deino said:


> Thanks for that explanation, but I must admit I'm still sceptical.


I am skeptical too. It's good to keep being skeptical until hard proof.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## LKJ86

Via CCTV 7 and @沉默的山羊 from Weibo

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Deino

LKJ86 said:


> View attachment 683625
> View attachment 683626
> 
> Via CCTV 7 and @沉默的山羊 from Weibo






As such ... 24 Batch 01 & 02 + at least 11 Batch 03 = 35 J-15s minus those lost.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## juj06750

Deino said:


> As such ... 24 Batch 01 & 02 + at least 11 Batch 03 = 35 J-15s minus those lost.


hahaha;
deino, I know you're only image hogger but you can't count like that because it's NOT always

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Deino

juj06750 said:


> hahaha;
> deino, I know you're only image hogger but you can't count like that because it's NOT always




What do you mean with "because it's NOT always"? ... NOT always what?


----------



## juj06750

Deino said:


> What do you mean with "because it's NOT always"? ... NOT always what?


hull number is NOT always in numeric order


----------



## Deino

juj06750 said:


> hull number is NOT always in numeric order




Oh please ... you did not even read my post properly or still lack an understanding of the numbering system. I never referred to the hull or bort number and as such NOT to the serial number but to the construction number. And if you would know all Batch 01 and 02 aircraft - which are confirmed for all 24 J-15 - and add this one 0311 - aka aircraft no. 11 within batch 03 - you get the number 35. 😉

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## juj06750

Deino said:


> Oh please ... you did not even read my post properly or still lack an understanding of the numbering system. I never referred to the hull or bort number and as such NOT to the serial number but to the construction number. And if you would know all Batch 01 and 02 aircraft - which are confirmed for all 24 J-15 - and add this one 0311 - aka aircraft no. 11 within batch 03 - you get the number 35. 😉


oh please ... you did not even read my post properly; I said it doesn't work; those number NOT tell exact number of manufactured aircrafts; nobody knows exact number of manufactured aircrafts except for government 😉


----------



## Deino

juj06750 said:


> oh please ... you did not even read my post properly; I said it doesn't work; those number NOT tell exact number of manufactured aircrafts; nobody knows exact number of manufactured aircrafts except for government 😉




But it is a difference if you turn down any right away without even considering the method it used to come up to this number or if you argue?


----------



## lcloo

From East Pendulum tweeter

En image, le 34e chasseur embarqué J-15. Les 12 élèves pilotes de J-15 de la 12e promotion vont bientôt terminer leur FCLP sur piste et passeront ensuite la qualification à l'appontage. L'aéronautique navale chinoise compterait entre 55 et 70 pilotes J-15 d'ici fin 2020.

In pictures, the 34th J-15 on-board fighter. The 12 J-15 student pilots of the 12th class will soon finish their FCLP on track and then pass the landing qualification. China's naval aeronautics would have between 55 and 70 J-15 pilots by the end of 2020.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## LKJ86

Via @手绘狼群 from Weibo

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## LKJ86

Via @海军新闻 from Weixin

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## LKJ86

LKJ86 said:


> View attachment 686202
> View attachment 686203
> View attachment 686204
> View attachment 686205
> View attachment 686206
> View attachment 686207
> View attachment 686208
> 
> Via @海军新闻 from Weixin


*New Batch of Chinese J-15 Fighter Pilots Pass Qualification Test*
A new batch of pilots for China's aircraft carrier-based J-15 fighter jets have recently passed a stringent qualification test after receiving training *under a new pilot training model developed by the Chinese People's Liberation Army (PLA) Navy*.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## samsara

LKJ86 said:


> View attachment 686202
> View attachment 686203
> View attachment 686204
> View attachment 686205
> View attachment 686206
> View attachment 686207
> View attachment 686208
> 
> Via @海军新闻 from Weixin


*From Henri Kenhmann at East Pendulum on 2020.11.08:*

A new class of at least 12 J-15 pilots successfully obtained the certificate of fitness for successful landing on the aircraft carrier Liaoning CV-16 yesterday.

This is a priori the 12th promotion since 2009, with the particularity that the pilots *have been trained and not "transformed".*







__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1325129882171404288
*From OedoSoldier on 2020.11.06:*

PLA Navy, a pilot of a carrier-based fighter trained from the initial zero, has acquired aircraft carrier qualification certification. All previous pilots were former land-based fighter pilots.


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1324738909142618114
The pilots certified this time are carrier-based fighter pilots who have been trained from scratch for those recruited from high school graduates in the early days of the PLA Navy.


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1324738991808151554

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## LKJ86



Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Scorpiooo

How much similarities are there in J16 and J15 in avionics, sensors and weaponry?


----------



## lcloo

Scorpiooo said:


> How much similarities are there in J16 and J15 in avionics, sensors and weaponry?


I doubt anyone can give you a detailed answer as this information is largely classified, but think of the difference between early batch of F-16 in Pakistan air force and the latest F-16 Pakistan is getting from USA. 

J16 is half a generation more advance than J15, it is also much more heavier.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Scorpiooo

lcloo said:


> I doubt anyone can give you a detailed answer as this information is largely classified, but think of the difference between early batch of F-16 in Pakistan air force and the latest F-16 Pakistan is getting from USA.
> 
> J16 is half a generation more advance than J15, it is also much more heavier.


Agree but as rumors of J15B is as power with J16 following its NDA


----------



## Deino

As far as I know this is the first very clear close-up image of the CATOBAR-capable J-15T; IMO most likely the prototype no. 571.

(Image via Xavier Vavasseur / @xaviervav at Twitter)






Here'S the video



https://weibo.com/1728148193/JulErnaGg?type=comment

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## LKJ86

Via @航空工业沈飞 from Weixin

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## shanlung

New Images Of China’s Elusive Catapult-Capable J-15T Carrier Fighter Emerge


Featuring beefed-up landing gear and indigenous engines, the J-15T should lead to a production fighter for China’s future supercarrier.




www.thedrive.com

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## LKJ86



Reactions: Like Like:
8 | Love Love:
1


----------



## Deino

Batch 03 J-15 out at sea

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Deino

This is another surprise ... so far J-15s have only been seen with numbers between 01 and 24 after the Batch 01 & 02 aircraft have been renumbered and no. 31-35 for the latest Batch 03, this J-15 however clearly carries the no. 62.

(Image courtesy of SSJ via Huitong's CMA-Blog)

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## kungfugymnast

shanlung said:


> New Images Of China’s Elusive Catapult-Capable J-15T Carrier Fighter Emerge
> 
> 
> Featuring beefed-up landing gear and indigenous engines, the J-15T should lead to a production fighter for China’s future supercarrier.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.thedrive.com



J-15 with catapult launch would mark the first advanced avionics flanker that could effectively take off from carrier on high payload. Having AESA, powerful WS10 engines with max payload of 17,000lb and internal fuel 18,000lb beats US equivalent F/A-18E/F and retired F-14A/B on speed and range. Apart from air to air and anti-ship roles, the J-15 might add FLIR pod for air to ground search and destroy role allowing PLAN to support country at war on the other side of globe such as South America and middle east.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Deino

kungfugymnast said:


> ... allowing PLAN to support country at war on the other side of globe such as South America and middle east.




Oh please... the PLAN will never fight a war "on the other side of globe such as South America".


----------



## kungfugymnast

Deino said:


> Oh please... the PLAN will never fight a war "on the other side of globe such as South America".



Haven't you heard of dangerous militants and separatists forces that kill innocents and attacked a country? If China has EMALS carriers and J-15 with working air to ground capabilities and an ally that has weak military being attacked by deadly merciless militants, you think China won't help with air strikes at all? UN peacekeeping forces can be seen deploying carriers sending fighters to provide air strikes to aid friendly countries.

For example, Philippines on good term with China and they have deadly militants in the south that often kidnap, behead innocent civilians in the country and neighboring coutries. PHL air force is too ill equipped and doesn't have aircraft that could really perform precision strike. In future when PLAN has EMALS carrier and J-15B, I won't be surprised to see J-15B carrying out air strikes for Philippines. It saves lives of Philippine civilians and soldiers as well as they don't have to get in too close into gun range. There was once an entire commando platoon being mercilessly killed by Abu Sayyaf guerillas in ambush marking the worst casualties from the campaign. You want to say irrelevant on this and give me another warning on purpose for replying to your question? I have reported you to admin by the way.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Deino

kungfugymnast said:


> Haven't you heard of dangerous militants and separatists forces that kill innocents and attacked a country? If China has EMALS carriers and J-15 with working air to ground capabilities and an ally that has weak military being attacked by deadly merciless militants, you think China won't help with air strikes at all? UN peacekeeping forces can be seen deploying carriers sending fighters to provide air strikes to aid friendly countries.
> 
> For example, Philippines on good term with China and they have deadly militants in the south that often kidnap, behead innocent civilians in the country and neighboring coutries. PHL air force is too ill equipped and doesn't have aircraft that could really perform precision strike. In future when PLAN has EMALS carrier and J-15B, I won't be surprised to see J-15B carrying out air strikes for Philippines. It saves lives of Philippine civilians and soldiers as well as they don't have to get in too close into gun range. There was once an entire commando platoon being mercilessly killed by Abu Sayyaf guerillas in ambush marking the worst casualties from the campaign. You want to say irrelevant on this and give me another warning on purpose for replying to your question? I have reported you to admin by the way.




Can you please simple stop with that BS?

First you are are talking about the PLAN fighting a war "on the other side of globe such as South America" and now you are even more mixing South America with "dangerous militants and separatists forces" against "Abu Sayyaf guerillas"! 

Are you crazy?? Do you even know for what type of missions the J-15 was built, where South America is an where Abu Sayyaf guerillas operate?? The PLAN will never ever fight any guerrillas with a carrier battle group in South America and even less with J-15s. This is as ridiculous like your last claims made from a fan-boy's sketch of the alleged J-35 prototype, you can clearly identify TVC-nozzles or by you analysis made of the faked 003 demo module, China would run the serial production of Type 003 carrier.

Do me a favour ... READ, THINK and then only write, and if you only would like to write such BS, then better leave it or at least give an explanation and don't take it again as a personnel offence and start to insult others.

OMG, grow up man and stop with this off-topic BS.


----------



## Figaro

kungfugymnast said:


> Haven't you heard of dangerous militants and separatists forces that kill innocents and attacked a country? If China has EMALS carriers and J-15 with working air to ground capabilities and an ally that has weak military being attacked by deadly merciless militants, you think China won't help with air strikes at all? UN peacekeeping forces can be seen deploying carriers sending fighters to provide air strikes to aid friendly countries.
> 
> For example, Philippines on good term with China and they have deadly militants in the south that often kidnap, behead innocent civilians in the country and neighboring coutries. PHL air force is too ill equipped and doesn't have aircraft that could really perform precision strike. In future when PLAN has EMALS carrier and J-15B, I won't be surprised to see J-15B carrying out air strikes for Philippines. It saves lives of Philippine civilians and soldiers as well as they don't have to get in too close into gun range. There was once an entire commando platoon being mercilessly killed by Abu Sayyaf guerillas in ambush marking the worst casualties from the campaign. You want to say irrelevant on this and give me another warning on purpose for replying to your question? I have reported you to admin by the way.


Can we please stop derailing threads with this hypothetical political talk? This is the J-15 thread ... not the what happens if China decides to intervene on behalf of the Philippines to take out militants thread. The job of UN peacekeeping forces is not to launch offensive measures (e.g. airstrikes); they are not just defensive but are there for the sole objective of keeping peace.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## kungfugymnast

Figaro said:


> Can we please stop derailing threads with this hypothetical political talk? This is the J-15 thread ... not the what happens if China decides to intervene on behalf of the Philippines to take out militants thread. The job of UN peacekeeping forces is not to launch offensive measures (e.g. airstrikes); they are not just defensive but are there for the sole objective of keeping peace.



Check earlier replies, it was Deino who started derailing by asking further that I have to provide him examples. It was stated on local and regional news that PLAN wanted nuclear powered aircraft carriers with EMALS complete with multirole J-15B, J-35, WZ20, AWACS, tankers for global fleet operations protecting interest and allies far away even on the other side of globe. It's part of the reason why more amphibious assault ships are being built. Also I read newspaper and magazines military articles mostly because these paid subscription provided more details than those free online news from west.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## samsara

From Henri Kenhmann at East Pendulum on 2020.12.20:

_AN ARTICLE published on 14 December by SAC Shenyang Plant 112 confirmed that __*production of new J-15 continues*__.

Recent videos on the aircraft carrier CV-17 Shandong showed that an aircraft registered as 62 was taking off. We do not know the meaning of this number, however._


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1340498124515635200

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## ZeEa5KPul

Deino said:


> Oh please... the PLAN will never fight a war "on the other side of globe such as South America".


Why wouldn't it? The US regularly states that it would militarily support its allies in the western Pacific, why wouldn't China fight to support future allies in South America? Although at that point in time, I would hope the J-15 had been retired from service.


----------



## Deino

ZeEa5KPul said:


> Why wouldn't it? The US regularly states that it would militarily support its allies in the western Pacific, why wouldn't China fight to support future allies in South America? Although at that point in time, I would hope the J-15 had been retired from service.




Since at least - by my understanding - China and the PLA, esp. the PLAN won't be active in any out-of-area actions like the proposed one. IMO China will surely intervene within the Indian Ocean up to the African coast but never within my lifespan further into the Atlantic and South America's coast, end even if, it will never fight guerrilla warriors with J-15s.

But now he once again managed to drivel the discussion so much off topic ... let's stick to the J-15 and its likely operations, and not into such fantasies.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## vi-va

Deino said:


> Since at least - by my understanding - China and the PLA, esp. the PLAN won't be active in any out-of-area actions like the proposed one. IMO China will surely intervene within the Indian Ocean up to the African coast but never within my lifespan further into the Atlantic and South America's coast, end even if, it will never fight guerrilla warriors with J-15s.
> 
> But now he once again managed to drivel the discussion so much off topic ... let's stick to the J-15 and its likely operations, and not into such fantasies.


Sure. You are correct. China like a boxer, knew our strength and weakness. Where to hit, what to be avoided to save energy.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Surya 1

This is docscarded as J no by Chinese themselves.


----------



## Death_Angels

J-31 Won't there be a marine version?


----------



## ziaulislam

Deino said:


> Since at least - by my understanding - China and the PLA, esp. the PLAN won't be active in any out-of-area actions like the proposed one. IMO China will surely intervene within the Indian Ocean up to the African coast but never within my lifespan further into the Atlantic and South America's coast, end even if, it will never fight guerrilla warriors with J-15s.
> 
> But now he once again managed to drivel the discussion so much off topic ... let's stick to the J-15 and its likely operations, and not into such fantasies.


Why? How can you be sure? I hope you arent the chinese president hiding in disguise??

To be honest we arent sure?

China is dictatorship now ..if the presedent thinks this can change..

They certainly have the economy and technology to do it in next 5-10 years (i hope your life span is not that short!!) when they will have four carriers second to only USA.

If rumours of catapult launch are true then all the ingredients are there.

To be honest i see USA involvment less and less

It is massively unpopular and rightly so..USA spent a trillion dollars eslewhere whcih is badly needed at home and USA is democracy

It would be death wish for any politician to get involve in ANY war..there is simply no public apetite

I would say its like WW1-WW2 situation where USA ignored europe

We are entring that stage. I belive the likely hood of china and russia going to war is several folds more then usa going to war

If any trump just proved that..

Had biden even hinted of war policy different then trump he would have LOST by large margin instead of wining by short margin

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## samsara

*Some cool pictures of the J-15*

From 逆襲 @horobeyo on 2020.12.20:

山东舰上的歼15
图自微博空天砺剑

_The J-15 on aircraft carrier Shandong CV-17
Images from @空天砺剑 at Weibo





_






__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1340581682131288068
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

From Henri Kenhmann at East Pendulum on 2020.12.20:

_Interesting configuration of a J-15 on the aircraft carrier 17 Shandong, with at least *2 YK-83KH anti-ship missiles* and *4 PL-12 missiles*._


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1340627731017465857

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## kungfugymnast

ZeEa5KPul said:


> Why wouldn't it? The US regularly states that it would militarily support its allies in the western Pacific, why wouldn't China fight to support future allies in South America? Although at that point in time, I would hope the J-15 had been retired from service.



Based on the articles I read, the military spokesperson said in his statement that J-15 will stay as PLAN conventional weapons platform for air to air and air to ground. He added that J-15B with AESA, WS10 would serve on new aircraft carriers with EMALS. Optronic FLIR targeting pod can be carried externally for air to ground search and destroy capabilities (under situation where GPS target designation not suitable) are to be added later making them comparable or better than US F/A-18E and French Rafale M. He added the J-15B has far better combat radius, aerodynamic and speed increasing PLAN combat capabilities. 

He mulled possible future plan of having tandem dual seat J-15BS for air to ground roles and hopefully ECM counterpart of US EF-18G Growler. They will serve alongside navalized stealth fighter J-35 on the new upcoming aircraft carriers.


samsara said:


> *Some cool pictures of the J-15*
> 
> From 逆襲 @horobeyo on 2020.12.20:
> 
> 山东舰上的歼15
> 图自微博空天砺剑
> 
> _The J-15 on aircraft carrier Shandong CV-17
> Images from @空天砺剑 at Weibo
> 
> View attachment 698520
> _
> View attachment 698519
> 
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1340581682131288068
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> 
> From Henri Kenhmann at East Pendulum on 2020.12.20:
> 
> _Interesting configuration of a J-15 on the aircraft carrier 17 Shandong, with at least *2 YK-83KH anti-ship missiles* and *4 PL-12 missiles*._
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1340627731017465857



When new aircraft carrier with EMALS entered service, J-15B would be carrying more fuel and armaments having greater payload on maximum take off weight than F/A-18E and F-35C.


----------



## lcloo

I think Henri K missed 2 more YJ-83.

Reactions: Like Like:
4 | Love Love:
2 | Wow Wow:
2


----------



## Deino

lcloo said:


> I think Henri K missed 2 more YJ-83.
> 
> View attachment 698536




IMO the two under the intakes are YJ-91 and the AAMs are PL-12, not -15

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Deino

No. 61 found

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## lcloo

Deino said:


> IMO the two under the intakes are YJ-91 and the AAMs are PL-12, not -15
> 
> View attachment 698542


My mistake, they are PL-12 AAM. 

Also, the units in service are probably like
1) 01 to 24 (one unit of 24 aircraft, or two units with 12 aircraft, or 3 units with 8 aircraft each)
2) 3X
3) 6X

Question is how many aircrafts are in 3X and 6X units. 
*Assuming if*
1) each unit has 8 aircraft, then there are 40 J15 at full strength.
2) each unit has 12 aircraft, then at full strength there are 48 J15.
3) each unit has 24 aircraft, then there will be/are 72 J15 at full strength.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Deino

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1341757207780741120

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## kungfugymnast

Deino said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1341757207780741120



PLAN having electronic warfare jamming J-15D will be good advantage to counter threat of EF-18G jamming. Missile and radar effectiveness will be reduced under ECM jamming as shown in Iraq and Serbia war. Iraqi mirage F1, Mig-25, Mig-29, mig-23 could only get the medium range missiles to work below 15 miles due to ECM from EA-6B and EF-111A. ECCM is vital for radar and missiles. How many ECM pods will be carried under wings? EF-18G carries 5 pods. J-15D is larger and could carry 5 or more, could even carry PL-10E & PL-15 for self defense.


----------



## IblinI

Deino said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1341757207780741120


I think the J15D and J16D are not getting enough attention as it should be.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Deino

Deino said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1341757207780741120



In fact it is already an older image, that was posted on 10 August 2020 here: 





__





J15升级到三代半后如何对战F35C？_腾讯新闻


J15无论怎么评价，有一点是绝对不能忘了的。这就是J15从一诞生就是全球现役体量和上舰起飞重量最大的主力舰载机。而且到目前为止仍然是全球现役体量最大的舰载机。原先全球最大的主力舰载机，不论是最大起飞……




new.qq.com


----------



## Figaro

Death_Angels said:


> J-31 Won't there be a marine version?


The marine version (which is basically a completely separate development from the J-31) is called the J-35.


----------



## LKJ86



Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## LKJ86

Via 中国航空报

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Figaro

LKJ86 said:


> View attachment 703566
> 
> Via 中国航空报


Those look like WS-10s! Looks like WS-10 on J-15 Batch 03 is confirmed!

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Deino

Figaro said:


> Those look like WS-10s! Looks like WS-10 on J-15 Batch 03 is confirmed!




Actually I had a similar idea ... but at second sight IMO it seems not so.


----------



## Figaro

Deino said:


> Actually I had a similar idea ... but at second sight IMO it seems not so.
> 
> View attachment 703794


The petals definitely look like the top left WS-10 image more so than the top right. Of course we probably should get a clearer photo for confirmation.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## LKJ86

Via @航空工业沈飞 from Weixin

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## kungfugymnast

Figaro said:


> The petals definitely look like the top left WS-10 image more so than the top right. Of course we probably should get a clearer photo for confirmation.



Which variant WS-10 will be fitted on J-15B? B, C or new variant?


----------



## LKJ86

Via @海军航空大学 from Weixin

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## LKJ86

Via @学习军团 from Weixin

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## LKJ86

Via 八一电视 and @沉默的山羊 from Weibo

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## LKJ86

Via @舰船知识 from Weibo

Reactions: Wow Wow:
1


----------



## aziqbal

Great batch 3 seems to be fully flying


----------



## LKJ86



Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## LKJ86

Via @海军新闻 from Weixin

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## LKJ86

0212 & 0308

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## LKJ86

Via @人民海军 and @利刃斩海飞剪艏 from Weibo

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## LKJ86

Via @柳絮纷飞竟不是雪 from Weibo

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Deino

LKJ86 said:


> View attachment 719006
> 
> Via @柳絮纷飞竟不是雪 from Weibo




Any news on the J-15S and J-15D??


----------



## LKJ86

LKJ86 said:


> View attachment 719006
> 
> Via @柳絮纷飞竟不是雪 from Weibo







Via @探索月球 from Weibo

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Deino

LKJ86 said:


> View attachment 719006
> 
> Via @柳絮纷飞竟不是雪 from Weibo




But here they claim this to be a J-11D






But based on the fact, that the only single seater in production and even more due to the greenish primer I think it is indeed most likely a J-15 ... but then these handles are new.


----------



## LKJ86

Deino said:


> But here they claim thsi to be a J-11D


LOL
Just because you don't know Chinese.




Deino said:


> Even more since the J-15 does not have these handles...


J-15's new variant for Type 003.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Haha Haha:
1


----------



## Deino

LKJ86 said:


> LOL
> Just because you don't know Chinese.
> 
> 
> 
> J-15's new variant for Type 003.




Thanks ... so 003 would/could be a catapult capable one?


----------



## LKJ86

Deino said:


> so 003 would/could be a catapult capable one?


There's no doubt about it.



------------------------------------------------------

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## sheik

Deino said:


> But here they claim this to be a J-11D
> 
> View attachment 719018
> 
> 
> But based on the fact, that the only single seater in production and even more due to the greenish primer I think it is indeed most likely a J-15 ... but then these handles are new.
> 
> View attachment 719017



The line under 'J-11D' reads 'Correction: should be new flying shark'.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Deino

I must admit, I'm not entirely sure, if this is finally after a very long break a new image of a J-15D EW-variant or a J-15S trainer?!





At least it is a new image of a J-15 twin-seater in yellow primer.

(Image via @Oneninety from Weibo)






PS: Based on that missing grey panel we've seen on the J-15D on both sides of the cockpit I would say it is more likely a J-15S,


----------



## LKJ86

LKJ86 said:


> View attachment 719006
> 
> Via @柳絮纷飞竟不是雪 from Weibo


Source: http://ep.cannews.com.cn/index.php?c=PhonePaper&m=paperIndex&paperid=7&timeId=2397&banmianid=16067


----------



## Deino

Do they confirm this as the J-15T or at least "new variant" ... since all I see from the text is this:


----------



## Deino

Deino said:


> I must admit, I'm not entirely sure, if this is finally after a very long break a new image of a J-15D EW-variant or a J-15S trainer?!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> At least it is a new image of a J-15 twin-seater in yellow primer.
> 
> (Image via @Oneninety from Weibo)
> 
> View attachment 719892
> 
> 
> PS: Based on that missing grey panel we've seen on the J-15D on both sides of the cockpit I would say it is more likely a J-15S,
> 
> View attachment 719893




In the meantime I had a similar idea since the tails look much taller than for a J-15, and indeed more like from a J-16 ... however since we don't see the wing-top pods or pylons it could also simply be a regular J-16?!


----------



## Yongpeng Sun-Tastaufen

J-15 buddy buddy in flight refueling training

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## lcloo

J15 Flying Shark launching anti-ship missile.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## LKJ86

Via CCTV 7 and @沉默的山羊 from Weibo

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## LKJ86

Via CCTV 13 and @沉默的山羊 from Weibo

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Deino

The J-15 story is getting more and more confusing!






... and now here is J-15 no. 72!

While the renumbering from 1xx numbers to 01-24 made sense and the additional Batch 03 fighters logically became No. 30+, the No. 60 modex J-15 were or are still unusual.
My feeling tells me that we see a second squadron under construction with numbers 01-35 in the first wing and no. 60-xx in the second.

(Image courtesy of KTLJ via Huitong's CMA-Blog)

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Scorpiooo

Deino said:


> The J-15 story is getting more and more confusing!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ... and now here is J-15 no. 72!
> 
> While the renumbering from 1xx numbers to 01-24 made sense and the additional Batch 03 fighters logically became No. 30+, the No. 60 modex J-15 were or are still unusual.
> My feeling tells me that we see a second squadron under construction with numbers 01-35 in the first wing and no. 60-xx in the second.
> 
> (Image courtesy of KTLJ via Huitong's CMA-Blog)
> 
> View attachment 734328


Is possible sir, they might want use J15 as non Carriers based option novy as well 
Will establish multiple sqr


----------



## LKJ86

Via @万全 from Weibo

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Deino

Once again a great read written by @RickJoe_PLA explaining why "rumors of the J-15’s unreliability have been greatly exaggerated"!









It’s Time to Talk About J-15, China’s First Carrierborne Fighter


Rumors of the J-15’s unreliability have been greatly exaggerated.



thediplomat.com





Thanks a lot even if I only have slim hopes that this will be heard by those who constantly repeat such rumours.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## sheik

Deino said:


> Once again a great read written by @RickJoe_PLA explaining why "rumors of the J-15’s unreliability have been greatly exaggerated"!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It’s Time to Talk About J-15, China’s First Carrierborne Fighter
> 
> 
> Rumors of the J-15’s unreliability have been greatly exaggerated.
> 
> 
> 
> thediplomat.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks a lot even if I only have slim hopes that this will be heard by those who constantly repeat such rumours.



According to Rick Joe, the rumors was started by a Taiwan-based news. That explained. 🤣

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## MajesticPug

sheik said:


> According to Rick Joe, the rumors was started by a Taiwan-based news. That explained. 🤣


I have developed the habit of double-checking and triple-checking news/reports from Taiwanese and Indian writers -- especially the articles are about China.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## CAPRICORN-88

_Precisely. Even a birdstrike was counted as a case of unreliably. 
It is simple unbelievable.  _


----------



## Deino

Great image of J-15 no. 19 carrying 4 PL-8B short-range AAMs and 4 PL-12 medium-range AAMs.

(Image via Huitong's CMA-Blog)

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## Scorpiooo

In


Deino said:


> Great image of J-15 no. 19 carrying 4 PL-8B short-range AAMs and 4 PL-12 medium-range AAMs.
> 
> (Image via Huitong's CMA-Blog)
> 
> View attachment 742722


Incredible beast

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## LKJ86

*PLA Navy's carrier-based fighter J-15 in 60 seconds*


----------



## Deino

Deino said:


> Once again a great read written by @RickJoe_PLA explaining why "rumors of the J-15’s unreliability have been greatly exaggerated"!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It’s Time to Talk About J-15, China’s First Carrierborne Fighter
> 
> 
> Rumors of the J-15’s unreliability have been greatly exaggerated.
> 
> 
> 
> thediplomat.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks a lot even if I only have slim hopes that this will be heard by those who constantly repeat such rumours.





Supplementing the first part on the J-15 the eagerly awaited second part again written by @RickJoe_PLA is again a "must read" for all interested not only in rumours but in facts. 









China’s J-15 Carrierborne Fighter: Sizing up the Competition


Just how capable is the J-15, and where does its future lie?



thediplomat.com

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## LKJ86




----------



## LKJ86

J-15D




Via @飞行的EXIA from Weibo

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Deino

And again some PLAN J-15 news: With no. 74 - seen here together with no. 67 - and no. 69 are again three more J-15s confirmed ... also no. 74 is the so far highest number seen.

(Images via Huitong's CMA-Blog)

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Love Love:
1


----------



## kungfugymnast

Deino said:


> And again some PLAN J-15 news: With no. 74 - seen here together with no. 67 - and no. 69 are again three more J-15s confirmed ... also no. 74 is the so far highest number seen.
> 
> (Images via Huitong's CMA-Blog)
> 
> View attachment 753326
> View attachment 753327



Are these J-15B fitted for EMALS carriers or just another J-15A?

Reactions: Love Love:
1


----------



## Deino

kungfugymnast said:


> Are these J-15B fitted for EMALS carriers or just another J-15A?




So far NO J-15B has been completed ... as such they are just regular J-15s


----------



## kungfugymnast

Deino said:


> So far NO J-15B has been completed ... as such they are just regular J-15s



Noted, thought they would start testing J-15B since Type 003 flight deck is already visible on construction dry dock.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## LKJ86

J-15D




Via @飞行的EXIA from Weibo

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Love Love:
1


----------



## Deino

LKJ86 said:


> J-15D
> View attachment 753554
> 
> Via @飞行的EXIA from Weibo



Looks very much like from the same even taken in February 2019!


----------



## Daniel808

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1408981941827760131

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Love Love:
1


----------



## LKJ86



Reactions: Love Love:
1


----------



## LKJ86

Via @34号军事室 from Weixin

Reactions: Love Love:
1


----------



## Akasa

> It was first rumored in October 2014 that a CATOBAR variant (J-15T?) was being co-developed by the 601 Institute and CSIC 704 Institute. This variant features a further strengthened nose landing gear in order to withstand the high-_g_ force during the catapult launch. The first prototype flew for the first time in July 2016, powered by two indigenous WS-10H engines. The nose landing gear appears to have a much longer and wider drag strut. It was rumored in November 2016 that a J-15T took off successfully for the first time from a ground-based electromagnetic catapult (EMALS). A recent image (February 2021) suggested that J-15T (officially known as J-15B?) CATOBAR variant is *in production* at SAC featuring a new narrow frame wide-angle holographic HUD and a pair of handholds attached to the canopy for catapult launch. *In addition, the aircraft could feature a new AESA radar developed by the 607 Institute and carry the latest PL-10/PL-15 AAMs. Consequently the old PF8 wingtip missile launch pylons (for PL-8B) could have been replaced by PF10 (for PL-10). Its nose pitot tube appears to have been removed too. *J-15T is expected to be stationed onboard the new Type 003 CATOBAR carrier which is still under construction, and eventually followed by the next generation stealth fighter J-35 which is still under development.


 - Huitong

Reactions: Haha Haha:
1


----------



## doorstar

Akasa said:


> I'll be frank, with some serious future upgrades and variations, this new J-15 might potentially match the capabilities of the naval Tejas in the far future.


noway China can ever match vedic tech. you are far too advanced for them Chinese

Reactions: Haha Haha:
6


----------



## Akasa

With some work and continued importation of foreign designs, China might potentially match the capabilities of the Naval Tejas in the future:









J-15 Block II unveiled (J-15B)


It was first rumored in October 2014 that a CATOBAR variant (J-15T?) was being co-developed by the 601 Institute and CSIC 704 Institute. This variant features a further strengthened nose landing gear in order to withstand the high-g force during the catapult launch. The first prototype flew for...



defence.pk


----------



## White and Green with M/S

Akasa said:


> With some work and continued importation of foreign designs, China might potentially match the capabilities of the Naval Tejas in the future:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> J-15 Block II unveiled (J-15B)
> 
> 
> It was first rumored in October 2014 that a CATOBAR variant (J-15T?) was being co-developed by the 601 Institute and CSIC 704 Institute. This variant features a further strengthened nose landing gear in order to withstand the high-g force during the catapult launch. The first prototype flew for...
> 
> 
> 
> defence.pk


@Deino can we stop the irrelevant comparison by @Akasa and focuses on only J 15 discussion, thanks


----------



## sheik

Akasa said:


> With some work and continued importation of foreign designs, China might potentially match the capabilities of the Naval Tejas in the future:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> J-15 Block II unveiled (J-15B)
> 
> 
> It was first rumored in October 2014 that a CATOBAR variant (J-15T?) was being co-developed by the 601 Institute and CSIC 704 Institute. This variant features a further strengthened nose landing gear in order to withstand the high-g force during the catapult launch. The first prototype flew for...
> 
> 
> 
> defence.pk



J-15 or J-15B cannot be compared to Tejas, which is in a league of its own, and almost as good as F-22, in terms of combat radius.

Reactions: Haha Haha:
2


----------



## LKJ86

Via @解放军报 from Weibo

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## kungfugymnast

sheik said:


> J-15 or J-15B cannot be compared to Tejas, which is in a league of its own, and almost as good as F-22, in terms of combat radius.



J-15 is to be compared to USAF F-15C/E/EX, F/A-18E/F that it will likely face in war. J-15A is just for carrier takeoff & landing evaluation, not really for war which is why it lacks all the latest avionics fitted with AL-31F engines. J-15B with EMALS launch will be the actual production model made for war fitted with AESA radar, IRST, FLIR pod having ability to take off on full fuel and armaments challenging US F/A-18E/F & F-15C/E/EX. It might gets redesign to have lower stall speed for safer carrier approach landing.


----------



## Deino

According to this image released on 1st August, the first Batch 04 J-15 (cn. 0401) was handed over to the PLAN. 

(Image via Huitong's CMA-Blog via @撒手锏_ from Weibo)

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## lcloo

J15 with jet blast from afterburner， seconds away from launch on an aircraft carrier.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Deino

So what do you think?


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1456382546686660609


----------



## kungfugymnast

Deino said:


> So what do you think?
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1456382546686660609



What is J-15T? Not J-15B/BS/D for catapult launch? Twin seats version? ECM?


----------



## S10

I definitely think China needs to push a new variant of the J-15 with modernized WS-10C, AESA and electronic warfare capabilities like J-16D. The current J-15s in service are essentially using the same radar and avionics package as J-11B, which are becoming obsolete.


----------



## kungfugymnast

S10 said:


> I definitely think China needs to push a new variant of the J-15 with modernized WS-10C, AESA and electronic warfare capabilities like J-16D. The current J-15s in service are essentially using the same radar and avionics package as J-11B, which are becoming obsolete.


It sure needs more thrust for better lift, climb, acceleration. New J-15B/D/T might get speed reduction with redesigned aerodynamic for better carrier approach landing slow speed stability & maneuverability. Max speed could be just Mach 2 or less. 

Unlike current J-15A needed the speed in order to pick up speed fast to take off successfully from ski ramp of Type 001 being most aerodynamic that made it the fastest flanker mach 2.4. The J-15A earns the bad nickname because of fast approach speed making it dangerous to land on carrier led to few fatal crashes. This is why there's no more J-15A being built leaving no fighter on Type002 Shandong class aircraft carrier.


----------



## S10

kungfugymnast said:


> It sure needs more thrust for better lift, climb, acceleration. New J-15B/D/T might get speed reduction with redesigned aerodynamic for better carrier approach landing slow speed stability & maneuverability. Max speed could be just Mach 2 or less.
> 
> Unlike current J-15A needed the speed in order to pick up speed fast to take off successfully from ski ramp of Type 001 being most aerodynamic that made it the fastest flanker mach 2.4. *The J-15A earns the bad nickname because of fast approach speed making it dangerous to land on carrier led to few fatal crashes*. This is why there's no more J-15A being built leaving no fighter on Type002 Shandong class aircraft carrier.


I'm going to need a reputable source on that.


----------



## Deino

kungfugymnast said:


> It sure needs more thrust for better lift, climb, acceleration. New J-15B/D/T might get speed reduction with redesigned aerodynamic for better carrier approach landing slow speed stability & maneuverability. Max speed could be just Mach 2 or less.
> 
> Unlike current J-15A needed the speed in order to pick up speed fast to take off successfully from ski ramp of Type 001 being most aerodynamic that made it the fastest flanker mach 2.4. *The J-15A earns the bad nickname* because of fast approach speed *making it dangerous to land on carrier led to few fatal crashes*. This is why there's *no more J-15A being built **leaving no fighter on Type002 Shandong class aircraft carrier.*




Sorry, but this is completely wrong! 

1. *The J-15A earns the bad nickname* because a few stupid reports from Hong Kong, Taiwan and the typical suspects in the USA fabricated stupid stories with even more stupid claims, that are in fact plain wrong (see point 2)!

2. ...* making it dangerous to land on carrier led to few fatal crashes*. Exactly one of these lies. NO J-15 so far crashed during carrier approach on the carrier. At least from what is known there was only one fatal crash - on 27 April 2016, when one J-15 fighter (allegedly no. 117) crashed due to problems in the flight control system during (a malfunction in the horizontal stabilizer) during simulated carrier landings (at Huangdicun). The pilot Zhang Chao became famous since even if he ejected at last moment, he later died of the injuries sustained. Lesser known is a second aircraft (eventually no. 114) that was eventually lost on 6 April 2016. Here indeed some say it crashed into the sea, but not on landing. And the third - in fact again not a crash - occurred on 17 August 2017, when pilot Yuan Wei flew with his no. 104 into a flock of birds right after the plane had taken off and he managed to make an emergency landing. In the end, the pilot was rescued, the fire quickly extinguished, but eventually the J-15 a write-off. As such, your claim of several fatal crashes is plain wrong!

3. This is why there's *no more J-15A being built*: Again plain wrong. It is well known, that after the first two batches of altogether 24 J-15s there were 20 more in Batch 03 built between early/mid 2020 to early/mid 2021 and currently Batch 04 is being delivered to the PLAN NA. In parallel the next batch of the improved - and see my Tweet from yesterday - J-15T (catapult capable) is being built. So again your claim of no more J-15As are being built is wrong again.


4. ... *leaving* *no fighter on Type002 Shandong class aircraft carrier.* And finally this too is wrong since there are in fact additional J-15s - altogether there are already more new-built one than have been built within the original batches - and a second permanent carrier-based unit is being established at Lingshui exactly for the Shandong. 

So again, please check what you post

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Beast

Deino said:


> Sorry, but this is completely wrong!
> 
> 1. *The J-15A earns the bad nickname* because a few stupid reports from Hong Kong, Taiwan and the typical suspects in the USA fabricated stupid stories with even more stupid claims, that are in fact plain wrong (see point 2)!
> 
> 2. ...* making it dangerous to land on carrier led to few fatal crashes*. Exactly one of these lies. NO J-15 so far crashed during carrier approach on the carrier. At least from what is known there was only one fatal crash - on 27 April 2016, when one J-15 fighter (allegedly no. 117) crashed due to problems in the flight control system during (a malfunction in the horizontal stabilizer) during simulated carrier landings (at Huangdicun). The pilot Zhang Chao became famous since even if he ejected at last moment, he later died of the injuries sustained. Lesser known is a second aircraft (eventually no. 114) that was eventually lost on 6 April 2016. Here indeed some say it crashed into the sea, but not on landing. And the third - in fact again not a crash - occurred on 17 August 2017, when pilot Yuan Wei flew with his no. 104 into a flock of birds right after the plane had taken off and he managed to make an emergency landing. In the end, the pilot was rescued, the fire quickly extinguished, but eventually the J-15 a write-off. As such, your claim of several fatal crashes is plain wrong!
> 
> 3. This is why there's *no more J-15A being built*: Again plain wrong. It is well known, that after the first two batches of altogether 24 J-15s there were 20 more in Batch 03 built between early/mid 2020 to early/mid 2021 and currently Batch 04 is being delivered to the PLAN NA. In parallel the next batch of the improved - and see my Tweet from yesterday - J-15T (catapult capable) is being built. So again your claim of no more J-15As are being built is wrong again.
> 
> 
> 4. ... *leaving* *no fighter on Type002 Shandong class aircraft carrier.* And finally this too is wrong since there are in fact additional J-15s - altogether there are already more new-built one than have been built within the original batches - and a second permanent carrier-based unit is being established at Lingshui exactly for the Shandong.
> 
> So again, please check what you post


This kungfugynamst full of fake lies and fabricated Info. He need to be warned and ban if subsequent more make up stories.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Beast

kungfugymnast said:


> Put your over patriotism aside and stick to military talk reply with facts. Else you shouldn't reply


There is nothing patriotism about my right assessment of you. Even a moderator rightfully call out your fake statement about J-15. I can bet you will claim China Mars Rover successful landed on Mars is patriotism only. In fact the rover crashed and burn. All fake lies from CCP. 

More like you cannot accept J-15. Or u want to haul up Deino and claim he lied about your statements?


----------



## ozranger

Beast said:


> This kungfugynamst full of fake lies and fabricated Info. He need to be warned and ban if subsequent more make up stories.


That's his daily job and he is striving to make ends meet by doing this job. You stop his lies, you stop his income stream.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Beast

ozranger said:


> That's his daily job and he is striving to make ends meet by doing this job. You stop his lies, you stop his income stream.


He need to be banned. Liars has no place here.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## kungfugymnast

Deino said:


> Sorry, but this is completely wrong!
> 
> 1. *The J-15A earns the bad nickname* because a few stupid reports from Hong Kong, Taiwan and the typical suspects in the USA fabricated stupid stories with even more stupid claims, that are in fact plain wrong (see point 2)!
> 
> 2. ...* making it dangerous to land on carrier led to few fatal crashes*. Exactly one of these lies. NO J-15 so far crashed during carrier approach on the carrier. At least from what is known there was only one fatal crash - on 27 April 2016, when one J-15 fighter (allegedly no. 117) crashed due to problems in the flight control system during (a malfunction in the horizontal stabilizer) during simulated carrier landings (at Huangdicun). The pilot Zhang Chao became famous since even if he ejected at last moment, he later died of the injuries sustained. Lesser known is a second aircraft (eventually no. 114) that was eventually lost on 6 April 2016. Here indeed some say it crashed into the sea, but not on landing. And the third - in fact again not a crash - occurred on 17 August 2017, when pilot Yuan Wei flew with his no. 104 into a flock of birds right after the plane had taken off and he managed to make an emergency landing. In the end, the pilot was rescued, the fire quickly extinguished, but eventually the J-15 a write-off. As such, your claim of several fatal crashes is plain wrong!
> 
> 3. This is why there's *no more J-15A being built*: Again plain wrong. It is well known, that after the first two batches of altogether 24 J-15s there were 20 more in Batch 03 built between early/mid 2020 to early/mid 2021 and currently Batch 04 is being delivered to the PLAN NA. In parallel the next batch of the improved - and see my Tweet from yesterday - J-15T (catapult capable) is being built. So again your claim of no more J-15As are being built is wrong again.
> 
> 
> 4. ... *leaving* *no fighter on Type002 Shandong class aircraft carrier.* And finally this too is wrong since there are in fact additional J-15s - altogether there are already more new-built one than have been built within the original batches - and a second permanent carrier-based unit is being established at Lingshui exactly for the Shandong.
> 
> So again, please check what you post



From neutral fair point of view, either side is lying, smearing or covering up. I won't side with either party blindly as facts shouldn't be twisted by favouritism.

This answer on J-15A will only be revealed after Type 003 entering active service with sisters ships in development. If you see all J-15A being reassigned to land based with the 2 ski ramp carriers turned into support carriers or temporary inactive, then most likely the western news is correct. There are countries that tested Su-27/30 including with forward canard on low speed approach, it doesn't have the ability of less swept wings aircraft such as F/A-18C/D/E/F & rafale M.

Also wait for the J-15B/D/T suited for catapult launch. If you see the top speed reduced to Mach 2 or less with less swept angle wings reducing its aerodynamic, you will know who's telling the truth as law of physics cannot be defied. There's reason why F/A-18, Rafale M (despite having forward canard) have lower top speed and cruising speed sacrificed aerodynamics for this purpose.


ozranger said:


> That's his daily job and he is striving to make ends meet by doing this job. You stop his lies, you stop his income stream.



What job? What I replied username "beast" below applies on you too. Wait for the catapult launch version J-15B/D/T and you'll find out. If the J-15A aerodynamic is good for carrier based fighter, Shenyang Group would surely retain its aerodynamic in catapult launch version. If they redesigned the J-15T then it means the J-15A design not suited for carrier approach landing. 



Beast said:


> There is nothing patriotism about my right assessment of you. Even a moderator rightfully call out your fake statement about J-15. I can bet you will claim China Mars Rover successful landed on Mars is patriotism only. In fact the rover crashed and burn. All fake lies from CCP.
> 
> More like you cannot accept J-15. Or u want to haul up Deino and claim he lied about your statements?



You are dragging irrelevant topic and made your own assumption.

Why not you wait for the J-15B/T/D flight envelope and aerodynamic design before you judge blindly? It won't be long for J-15B/T/D redesigned for catapult launch to reveal its specifications since China has mastered EMALS technology.

Reactions: Haha Haha:
1


----------



## Deino

What??? 



kungfugymnast said:


> Put your over patriotism aside and stick to military talk reply with facts. Else you shouldn't reply



Then stick yourself to this ... it is always you who derails threads by fabricating things. Yes, stick to the facts or prove your points.




kungfugymnast said:


> From neutral fair point of view, either side is lying, smearing or covering up. I won't side with either party blindly as facts shouldn't be twisted by favouritism.
> 
> This answer on J-15A will only be revealed after Type 003 entering active service with sisters ships in development. If you see all J-15A being reassigned to land based with the 2 ski ramp carriers turned into support carriers or temporary inactive, then most likely the western news is correct. There are countries that tested Su-27/30 including with forward canard on low speed approach, it doesn't have the ability of less swept wings aircraft such as F/A-18C/D/E/F & rafale M.
> 
> Also wait for the J-15B/D/T suited for catapult launch. If you see the top speed reduced to Mach 2 or less with less swept angle wings reducing its aerodynamic, you will know who's telling the truth as law of physics cannot be defied. There's reason why F/A-18, Rafale M (despite having forward canard) have lower top speed and cruising speed sacrificed aerodynamics for this purpose.
> 
> 
> What job? What I replied username "beast" below applies on you too. Wait for the catapult launch version J-15B/D/T and you'll find out. If the J-15A aerodynamic is good for carrier based fighter, Shenyang Group would surely retain its aerodynamic in catapult launch version. If they redesigned the J-15T then it means the J-15A design not suited for carrier approach landing.
> 
> 
> 
> You are dragging irrelevant topic and made your own assumption.
> 
> Why not you wait for the J-15B/T/D flight envelope and aerodynamic design before you judge blindly? It won't be long for J-15B/T/D redesigned for catapult launch to reveal its specifications since China has mastered EMALS technology.




The major issue is, you are hyping up certain things that are simply not, telling things that are irrelevant and then avoid an answer.

Just see above: You made 4 false or completely exaggerated claims and your reply is "This answer on J-15A will only be revealed after Type 003 entering active service with sisters ships in development". NO, you were plain wrong: None of statements was correct like it is a dangerous bird and several fatal crashes occurred - WRONG -, no J-15s are currently build = WRONG - and that there are no J-15s for the Shandong - WRONG again and your reply is "This answer on J-15A will only be revealed after Type 003 entering active service with sisters ships in development".  

So in fact you are the only one who's repeatedly "dragging irrelevant topic and made your own assumption" and when they are proven wrong you don't admit, but come up again with irrelevant stuff.

@Beast

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Beast

Deino said:


> What???
> 
> 
> 
> Then stick yourself to this ... it is always you how derails threads by fabricating things. Yes, stick to the facts or prove your points.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The major issue is, you are hyping up certain things that are simply not, telling things that are irrelevant and then avoid an answer.
> 
> Just see above: You made 4 false or completely exaggerated claims and your reply is "This answer on J-15A will only be revealed after Type 003 entering active service with sisters ships in development". NO, you were plain wrong: None of statements was correct like it is a dangerous bird and several fatal crashes occurred - WRONG -, no J-15s are currently build = WRONG - and that there are no J-15s for the Shandong - WRONG again and your reply is "This answer on J-15A will only be revealed after Type 003 entering active service with sisters ships in development".
> 
> So in fact you are the only one who's repeatedly "dragging irrelevant topic and made your own assumption" and when they are proven wrong you don't admit, but come up again with irrelevant stuff.
> 
> @Beast


One more nonsense from him , Just ban him.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## GiantPanda

Deino said:


> What???
> 
> 
> 
> Then stick yourself to this ... it is always you how derails threads by fabricating things. Yes, stick to the facts or prove your points.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The major issue is, you are hyping up certain things that are simply not, telling things that are irrelevant and then avoid an answer.
> 
> Just see above: You made 4 false or completely exaggerated claims and your reply is "This answer on J-15A will only be revealed after Type 003 entering active service with sisters ships in development". NO, you were plain wrong: None of statements was correct like it is a dangerous bird and several fatal crashes occurred - WRONG -, no J-15s are currently build = WRONG - and that there are no J-15s for the Shandong - WRONG again and your reply is "This answer on J-15A will only be revealed after Type 003 entering active service with sisters ships in development".
> 
> So in fact you are the only one who's repeatedly "dragging irrelevant topic and made your own assumption" and when they are proven wrong you don't admit, but come up again with irrelevant stuff.
> 
> @Beast



This kungfugymnast tries to insert falsehoods in a mass of "aerodynamic" mumble jumble almost every time in the major fighter threads. Seems like a tactic.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## kungfugymnast

Deino said:


> What???
> 
> 
> 
> Then stick yourself to this ... it is always you how derails threads by fabricating things. Yes, stick to the facts or prove your points.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The major issue is, you are hyping up certain things that are simply not, telling things that are irrelevant and then avoid an answer.
> 
> Just see above: You made 4 false or completely exaggerated claims and your reply is "This answer on J-15A will only be revealed after Type 003 entering active service with sisters ships in development". NO, you were plain wrong: None of statements was correct like it is a dangerous bird and several fatal crashes occurred - WRONG -, no J-15s are currently build = WRONG - and that there are no J-15s for the Shandong - WRONG again and your reply is "This answer on J-15A will only be revealed after Type 003 entering active service with sisters ships in development".
> 
> So in fact you are the only one who's repeatedly "dragging irrelevant topic and made your own assumption" and when they are proven wrong you don't admit, but come up again with irrelevant stuff.
> 
> @Beast



What's with the trolling warning when I told all those who disagreed to wait for J-15B/T/D design? It is you and the few that can't stick to discussion. You doubt my point on aircraft aerodynamic, you may ask Luftwaffe pilots and engineers from your nearest air force base since you're in Germany to verify. Luftwaffe has F/A-18 in their inventory now, they can tell you much on low speed stability and maneuverability. 

J-15A top speed Mach 2.4 at high altitude as per Wikipedia and specifications posted by numbers of users here. If J-15B/T meant for Type 003 catapult launch redesigned to have slower top speed, it means I win and proved you all wrong. It's just that simple, wait for the J-15B/T specifications. Other Moderator (not deino) be the judge here, don't delete any of my post on J-15. 


@ozranger
@Beast


----------



## Deino

kungfugymnast said:


> Put your over patriotism aside and stick to military talk reply with facts. Else you shouldn't reply





kungfugymnast said:


> What's with the trolling warning when I told all those who disagreed to wait for J-15B/T/D design? It is you and the few that can't stick to discussion. If J-15B/T meant for Type 003 catapult launch redesigned to have slower top speed, it means I win and proved you all wrong. It's just that simple, just wait for the J-15B/T.
> 
> @ozranger
> @Beast




No, there will be no redesign, we all know how the J-15T looks like and besides an MLU avionics-wise and the catapult-related changes there are none of what you eventually hope for.

Even more instead of simply admitting that you were posting BS - you were proven wrong and corrected in all four of your claims - and correcting your behaviour you were again diverting the discussion with yet another stupid idea of "let us wait what changes the J-15T will have" but evenb if, these changes won't make any of your stupid claims - and in fact I rate them as deliberate misinformation = lying = trolling! - correct.

So simply stop with this BS ... and the same goes on in the J-10 thread where you once again post any random BS about F-16s, CFT and so on. Plain off topi, irrelevant and deliberately misleading = trolling!

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## kungfugymnast

Deino said:


> No, there will be no redesign, we all know how the J-15T looks like and besides an MLU avionics-wise and the catapult-related changes there are none of what you eventually hope for.
> 
> Even more instead of simply admitting that you were posting BS - you were proven wrong and corrected in all four of your claims - and correcting your behaviour you were again diverting the discussion with yet another stupid idea of "let us wait what changes the J-15T will have" but evenb if, these changes won't make any of your stupid claims - and in fact I rate them as deliberate misinformation = lying = trolling! - correct.
> 
> So simply stop with this BS ... and the same goes on in the J-10 thread where you once again post any random BS about F-16s, CFT and so on. Plain off topi, irrelevant and deliberately misleading = trolling!



Why are you replying when the bet is on? Stop flooding this thread and wait for the result unless you are not confident to take the fair challenge. When J-10B/C being redesigned, you didn't expect the top speed reduced to Mach 1.8. you think you could predict the J-15B/T top speed? I repeat:

J-15A top speed Mach 2.4 at high altitude as per Wikipedia and specifications posted by numbers of users here. If J-15B/T meant for Type 003 catapult launch redesigned to have slower top speed, it means I win and proved you all wrong. It's just that simple, wait for the J-15B/T specifications. Other Moderator (not deino) be the judge here, don't delete any of my post on J-15.


----------



## Deino

kungfugymnast said:


> Why are you replying when the bet is on? Stop flooding this thread and wait for the result unless you are not confident to take the fair challenge. When J-10B/C being redesigned, you didn't expect the top speed reduced to Mach 1.8. you think you could predict the J-15B/T top speed? I repeat:
> 
> J-15A top speed Mach 2.4 at high altitude as per Wikipedia and specifications posted by numbers of users here. If J-15B/T meant for Type 003 catapult launch redesigned to have slower top speed, it means I win and proved you all wrong. It's just that simple, wait for the J-15B/T specifications. Other Moderator (not deino) be the judge here, don't delete any of my post on J-15.




There is no bet! ... there won't be any dramatic changes to the J-15T's airframe and as such NO changes in flight characteristics, NO-ONE claims, the J-15T is "to have slower top speed",... As such you must tell us WHY you think we should expect one, on what sources you base this claim. Otherwise it is nothing but again a lame attempt to drivel the discussion away from your already proven wrong false claims.

And now STOP THIS!


----------



## Deino

Wow ...


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1466733738163908615

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Scorpiooo

Can its possible in near future J15 new variant will have similar capabilities and even commonality with J16

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Deino

Scorpiooo said:


> Can its possible in near future J15 new variant will have similar capabilities and even commonality with J16




IMO not really ... I expect the next batch of J-15s - and as it seems they are already in production - again as single seater but CATOBAR capable and then, maybe additionally in parallel there could be the some J-15S and J-15D (maybe merged into a single variant), which I expect to be similar to the J-16/16D

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## kungfugymnast

Scorpiooo said:


> Can its possible in near future J15 new variant will have similar capabilities and even commonality with J16



Type 003 EMALS allow heavier payload to be carried and if J-15B/T proven successful, it is likely to have twin seat air to ground variant J-15 for offensive operations.


----------



## Deino

Allegedly the first clear image of the PLAN's next J-15 variant - and in fact I'm almost sure it is the catapult-capable variant J-15B (?) - was leaked. As it seems and even if some details - especially the catapult-gear - are obscured, there are some interesting changes visible: First, the wing-tip pylons are different and they are no longer the deeper PL-8-typical ones as on the regular J-15As but more like those on the J-16 aimed for the PL-10.

Also, it appears to have a new radome without a pitot, which would fit to reports a new AESA radar is installed AESA as well as a new EW system comparable to the J-16. 

Unfortunately, most of these important details are obscured, but anyway it seems to be ... 

It almost has some sort of Su-35-like look! 😉


via https://mp.weixin.qq.com/s/7dIuh1uiDVa1zZger1ZQ-A

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Love Love:
2


----------



## LKJ86

Via http://www.plapic.com.cn/pub/2022-02/11/content_10130825.htm

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Love Love:
1


----------



## Akasa

Possible photo of the J-15B?
Note the airbrake.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## lcloo

Akasa said:


> Possible photo of the J-15B?
> Note the airbrake.
> 
> View attachment 827825


This is the hint. It ain't no single seater Chinese Flanker.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Scorpiooo

Whats is the flying hours cost of J15


----------



## Deino

Akasa said:


> Possible photo of the J-15B?
> Note the airbrake.
> 
> View attachment 827825




IMO not even a J-15 ... it is claerly a twin-seater, I see no canards and the MLG does not look like a carrier-gear. I would say it's a simple standard J-16


----------



## Deino

No 90 and a new ECM-pod spotted

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Wow Wow:
1


----------



## LKJ86



Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Scorpiooo

j15 will sea any new advance variants in coming future or not


----------



## johncliu88

LKJ86 said:


> View attachment 830840
> View attachment 830841


Interesting. Everything is green now. No more yellow plane?


----------



## GiantPanda

johncliu88 said:


> Interesting. Everything is green now. No more yellow plane?



Seems like a new primer for naval planes. We saw it on the J-35 and KJ-600 too. 

The J-20AS still used the traditional yellow primer.


----------



## Deino

GiantPanda said:


> Seems like a new primer for naval planes. We saw it on the J-35 and KJ-600 too.
> 
> The J-20AS still used the traditional yellow primer.




And eventually the naval JL-10 too!

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## LKJ86

johncliu88 said:


> Everything is green now.


It is not true to CAC.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Scorpiooo

Green paint have some special specifications them yellow one


----------



## LKJ86

Via http://eng.chinamil.com.cn/view/2022-04/08/content_10146809.htm

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## S10

Scorpiooo said:


> j15 will sea any new advance variants in coming future or not



I think so. Two new variants are still needed to fill some capability gaps. I'm guessing J-15 will not be focused on air superiority for as its future role.

1. Strike variant - Naval version of J-16 for air-to-surface missions with precision guided munitions
2. EW variant - similar to J-16D


----------



## LKJ86

Via @解放军报 from Weibo

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## LKJ86

Via @央广军事 from Weibo

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## johncliu88

LKJ86 said:


> View attachment 834208
> View attachment 834209
> View attachment 834210
> View attachment 834212
> View attachment 834214
> View attachment 834215
> View attachment 834216
> View attachment 834217
> View attachment 834218
> 
> Via @央广军事 from Weibo


Wonderful! The pilots look younger then before.


----------



## LKJ86



Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## luciferdd

J-15Z?

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Love Love:
1 | Wow Wow:
1


----------



## Deino

luciferdd said:


> J-15Z?
> View attachment 836416
> View attachment 836412




From a local modeling fair?


----------



## S10

Deino said:


> From a local modeling fair?



It looks very similar to the SAC design proposal for the J-XX program, which ultimately lost to CAC's J-20.


----------



## Bin Laden

luciferdd said:


> J-15Z?
> View attachment 836416
> View attachment 836412



J-15 Silent Dragon 😏 (iykwim)


----------



## Deino

Bin Laden said:


> J-15 Silent Dragon 😏 (iykwim)




looks much more like one of the typical Ace Combat fantasy fighters!


----------



## LKJ86

Via @航空工业 from Weibo

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Deino

Maybe finally ....


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1517899117246169089

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1517903944101638151


----------



## LKJ86



Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## LKJ86

Via http://www.81.cn/hj/2022-05/05/content_10152292.htm

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## LKJ86



Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## LKJ86




----------



## LKJ86

Via @解放军报 from Weibo

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## johncliu88

Can't wait to see an official released version of J-15T.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Deino

johncliu88 said:


> Can't wait to see an official released version of J-15T.




Only one missing!


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1524034601001308160


----------



## LKJ86

Via http://www.81.cn/tp/2022-05/13/content_10152644.htm

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## LKJ86

Via http://eng.chinamil.com.cn/view/2022-05/28/content_10158533.htm

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## LKJ86



Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## LKJ86

Via @航空工业 from Weibo

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Deino

LKJ86 said:


> View attachment 854458
> 
> Via @航空工业 from Weibo




Bus isn't this an old image posted already last year?


----------



## LKJ86

Deino said:


> Bus isn't this an old image posted already last year?


Just to celebrate the launch of Type 003.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Deino

LKJ86 said:


> Just to celebrate the launch of Type 003.




Indeed ... but I cannot wait to see the first clear image of a J-15B!


----------



## johncliu88

Those are great pictures. I also want to see clear pictures of J-15T since 003 is officially launched.


----------



## kungfugymnast

johncliu88 said:


> Those are great pictures. I also want to see clear pictures of J-15T since 003 is officially launched.



Everyone is waiting for that. If the EMALS is efficient able to propel heavy fully loaded on maximum fuel & payload J-15B at over 72,000lb into the air easily, expect J-15B aerodynamic to be reduced for better low speed maneuverability and stability making carrier approach speed ideal and safest like F/A-18E & Rafale M. The earlier J-15A is made most aerodynamic & fastest (Mach 2.4) amongst Flankers family because it needed fast acceleration to take off safely from ski ramp of Liaoning carrier in order to carry more fuel and armaments but still can't carry full tank of fuel & maximum payload. 

While waiting, let's guess the new top speed of J-15B:
Mach 2.0
Mach 1.9
Mach 1.8

Based on US Navy finding, aircraft capable of flying faster than Mach 2 makes carrier landing approach speed higher and at higher risk. F-14 has swing-wing to reduce aerodynamic but the accident rate is still higher than F/A-18. Should we start a poll on J-15B/D/T top speed?


----------



## White and Green with M/S

kungfugymnast said:


> Everyone is waiting for that. If the EMALS is efficient able to propel heavy fully loaded on maximum fuel & payload J-15B at over 72,000lb into the air easily, expect J-15B aerodynamic to be reduced for better low speed maneuverability and stability making carrier approach speed ideal and safest like F/A-18E & Rafale M. The earlier J-15A is made most aerodynamic & fastest (Mach 2.4) amongst Flankers family because it needed fast acceleration to take off safely from ski ramp of Liaoning carrier in order to carry more fuel and armaments but still can't carry full tank of fuel & maximum payload.
> 
> While waiting, let's guess the new top speed of J-15B:
> Mach 2.0
> Mach 1.9
> Mach 1.8
> 
> Based on US Navy finding, aircraft capable of flying faster than Mach 2 makes carrier landing approach speed higher and at higher risk. F-14 has swing-wing to reduce aerodynamic but the accident rate is still higher than F/A-18. Should we start a poll on J-15B/D/T top speed?


MAX PAYLOADS/ MAX SPEED IS JUST A MARKETING STUNT AND NOTHING ELSE

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## kungfugymnast

White and Green with M/S said:


> MAX PAYLOADS/ MAX SPEED IS JUST A MARKETING STUNT AND NOTHING ELSE


Tell this to USAF, USN, IAF pilots that have been to war for real, they'll laugh at you. An F-16C for example has 6900lb internal fuel tank and able to carry 13,500lb payload with G-limit reduced to 6G when fully loaded. When really necessary & being overwhelmed, the F-16C could take off on full load destroying as many air and ground targets as possible. F/A-18C, F-15E could do the same too. That's why many countries air force would want to participate in military exercises with US because they get to learn much from US proven combat experience. 

With Type 003 EMALS, if they really good, the J-15B could fill full tank 18,000-20,000lb and carry up to 17,600lb armament payload without issue unike the J-15A that needs to sacrifice fuel for armament or armament for fuel due to limit on 60,000lb safe takeoff weight. If you filled the J-15A with only 10,000lb fuel can't go far and would get bingo fuel real soon (less loiter time) compared to you filling 10,000lb fuel in more fuel efficient F/A-18C which is almost its maximum internal fuel 11,000lb.


----------



## White and Green with M/S

kungfugymnast said:


> Tell this to USAF, USN, IAF pilots that have been to war for real, they'll laugh at you. An F-16C for example has 6900lb internal fuel tank and able to carry 13,500lb payload with G-limit reduced to 6G when fully loaded. When really necessary & being overwhelmed, the F-16C could take off on full load destroying as many air and ground targets as possible. F/A-18C, F-15E could do the same too. That's why many countries air force would want to participate in military exercises with US because they get to learn much from US proven combat experience.
> 
> With Type 003 EMALS, if they really good, the J-15B could fill full tank 18,000-20,000lb and carry up to 17,600lb armament payload without issue unike the J-15A that needs to sacrifice fuel for armament or armament for fuel due to limit on 60,000lb safe takeoff weight. If you filled the J-15A with only 10,000lb fuel can't go far and would get bingo fuel real soon (less loiter time) compared to you filling 10,000lb fuel in more fuel efficient F/A-18C which is almost its maximum internal fuel 11,000lb.


Ok Mr fake expert, with full PAYLOADS and full FUEL a fighter jets can only crawl on runways

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## kungfugymnast

White and Green with M/S said:


> Ok Mr fake expert, with full PAYLOADS and full FUEL a fighter jets can only crawl on runways


That's the maximum limit for an aircraft to take off. An aircraft will only crawl on runway if you loaded heavier than the specified maximum take off weight for example max take off weight for J-15B at 72,000lb, you loaded it to 76,000lb then it might crawl on runway unable to go airborne.


----------



## Deino

kungfugymnast said:


> Everyone is waiting for that. If the EMALS is efficient able to propel heavy fully loaded on maximum fuel & payload J-15B at over 72,000lb into the air easily, expect J-15B aerodynamic to be reduced for better low speed maneuverability and stability making carrier approach speed ideal and safest like F/A-18E & Rafale M. The earlier J-15A is made most aerodynamic & fastest (Mach 2.4) amongst Flankers family because it needed fast acceleration to take off safely from ski ramp of Liaoning carrier in order to carry more fuel and armaments but still can't carry full tank of fuel & maximum payload.
> 
> While waiting, let's guess the new top speed of J-15B:
> Mach 2.0
> Mach 1.9
> Mach 1.8
> 
> Based on US Navy finding, aircraft capable of flying faster than Mach 2 makes carrier landing approach speed higher and at higher risk. F-14 has swing-wing to reduce aerodynamic but the accident rate is still higher than F/A-18. Should we start a poll on J-15B/D/T top speed?




Can you stop spreading lies again!?? You lied in the J-15 thread, you lie again even facing the proof of your lies and now you lie again … take this as a warning. Any next such lie will be rated as repeated trolling! As such: SHUT UP!


----------



## White and Green with M/S

kungfugymnast said:


> That's the maximum limit for an aircraft to take off. An aircraft will only crawl on runway if you loaded heavier than the specified maximum take off weight for example max take off weight for J-15B at 72,000lb, you loaded it to 76,000lb then it might crawl on runway unable to go airborne.


Ok Mr fake expert no in the world can fly with full PAYLOADS and with full FUEL because thrust to weight ratio and lift to drag ratio are too low to airborne



Deino said:


> Can you stop spreading lies again!?? You lied in the J-15 thread, you lie again even facing the proof of your lies and now you lie again … take this as a warning. Any next such lie will be rated as repeated trolling! As such: SHUT UP!


Deino just ban him he called himself as a expert

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## LKJ86

Via @Oneninety from Weibo

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Love Love:
1


----------



## FuturePAF

LKJ86 said:


> View attachment 854969
> 
> Via @Oneninety from Weibo


Any specs of the radar?
GaA or GaN? and how many modules?

Any indication that a scaled down version of this radar will be used on the J-35 considering the J-35 and J-15 are both built by Shenyang Aircraft Corporation.

Just noticed; The PLANAF is dominated by SAC while the PLAAF will be a CAC force (J-20 and J-10)


----------



## Deino

LKJ86 said:


> View attachment 854969
> 
> Via @Oneninety from Weibo




Wow 😯.. eventually the first clear image of a J-15B‘s - the serial variant of the catapult-capable J-15T - front section was posted and the radome appears to be like the one we know from the J-11D.


----------



## LKJ86

Via http://www.81.cn/yw/2022-06/21/content_10164961.htm

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## LKJ86



Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Deino

Well 😯 ... this is a surprise! So far we've seen the yellow J-15S twin-seater no. 561 and we got hints for a second grey one eventually numbered 562 ... 563 is the first J-15D, but here are clearly two grey J-15S twin-seaters at the carrier-aircraft training base together with JL-9G trainers.

(Image via @柳成梁 / FB)

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## LKJ86

Via @中国军号 from Weibo

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Deino

J-15S in service

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## LKJ86

Via http://eng.chinamil.com.cn/view/2022-08/21/content_10179572.htm


----------



## LKJ86

Via @中国军号 from Weibo

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## LKJ86




----------



## Deino

LKJ86 said:


>




Yes, happy anniversary, and therefore PLEASE SAC  


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1564848738811912192

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## LKJ86

Via @9谢艺航6 from Weibo

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Deino

Deino said:


> Yes, happy anniversary, and therefore PLEASE SAC
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1564848738811912192




Seems my wish was heard! 
(Image via @Oneninety from Weibo)

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## LKJ86

Via http://eng.chinamil.com.cn/view/2022-09/09/content_10183702.htm

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Deino

kungfugymnast said:


> It sure needs more thrust for better lift, climb, acceleration. New J-15B/D/T might get speed reduction with redesigned aerodynamic for better carrier approach landing slow speed stability & maneuverability. Max speed could be just Mach 2 or less.
> 
> Unlike current J-15A needed the speed in order to pick up speed fast to take off successfully from ski ramp of Type 001 being most aerodynamic that made it the fastest flanker mach 2.4. The J-15A earns the bad nickname because of fast approach speed making it dangerous to land on carrier led to few fatal crashes. T*his is why there's no more J-15A being built leaving no fighter on Type002 Shandong class aircraft carrier.*




 

So much on "no fighters on Type 002 Shandong class aircraft carrier! This is a recent image and never before so many J-15s - in fact if you dare to count *14  *- have ever been seen on any Chinese aircraft carrier.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## LKJ86

Via http://eng.chinamil.com.cn/view/2022-09/17/content_10185183.htm

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Brainsucker

Deino said:


> Seems my wish was heard!
> (Image via @Oneninety from Weibo)
> 
> View attachment 875213
> 
> View attachment 875214


What is the different between J-15B and the current J-15? beside the catapult capable jump?


----------



## LKJ86

Brainsucker said:


> What is the different between J-15B and the current J-15? beside the catapult capable jump?


Similar to the difference between J-16 and J-11BS.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## S10

Deino said:


> Yes, happy anniversary, and therefore PLEASE SAC
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1564848738811912192



Forget J-15B, I want to see J-15D.

The PLAN needs a dedicated EW plane.


----------



## Brainsucker

S10 said:


> Forget J-15B, I want to see J-15D.
> 
> The PLAN needs a dedicated EW plane.


Don't think that J-15B can only become a CAS (Carrier Air Strike Element). They have already have a better aircraft for it, the J-35. You should also think that J-15B can replace JH-7A role in PLANAF. Just imagine if you have a JH-7A role Aircraft that can actually take off and land on any Chinese Aircraft Carriers; with the capability similar to PLAAF J-16. It can stay in any traditional JH-7A air bases, It can be placed on any Chinese Man Made Island airstrips, and it can even land and take off from Liaoning, Shandong and even Fujian (For refueling and rearming purpose). The versatility can make the Naval Air combat Missions become easier for PLAN and PLANAF in the future.


----------



## LKJ86

Deino said:


> in fact if you dare to count *14 *- have ever been seen on any Chinese aircraft carrier.


There are *24* ones on CV16.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Deino

Here completely

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## LKJ86

LKJ86 said:


> There are *24* ones on CV16.
> View attachment 881986
> View attachment 881985
> View attachment 881984





Deino said:


> Here completely
> 
> View attachment 882004

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Deino

Well???


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1573922358255095808

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## LKJ86



Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Deino

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1580448698026164224

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## LKJ86

Via http://eng.chinamil.com.cn/view/2022-11/10/content_10198208.htm

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## LKJ86

Via http://eng.chinamil.com.cn/view/2022-11/21/content_10200570.htm

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Raider 21

LKJ86 said:


>


How do you people use YouTube. VPN all the time?


----------



## johncliu88

Raider 21 said:


> How do you people use YouTube. VPN all the time?


I live in US, so no issue of using YouTube.


----------



## LKJ86

WS-10 & J-15





Via CCTV 7 and @沉默的山羊 from Weibo

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Deino

LKJ86 said:


> WS-10 & J-15
> View attachment 899616
> 
> Via CCTV 7 and @沉默的山羊 from Weibo




Wow ... indeed a major surprise!


----------



## LKJ86

LKJ86 said:


> WS-10 & J-15
> View attachment 899616
> 
> Via CCTV 7 and @沉默的山羊 from Weibo

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## LKJ86

Via @万全 from Weibo

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Deino

Oh come on SAC and PLAN ... please unveil the J-15B!


----------



## kuge

LKJ86 said:


> WS-10 & J-15
> View attachment 899616
> 
> Via CCTV 7 and @沉默的山羊 from Weibo


Is it possible to identify the anti-corrosion elements visibly from the normal taihang?


----------



## LKJ86

WS-10 & J-15




Via @Oneninety from Weibo

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Deino

LKJ86 said:


> WS-10 & J-15
> View attachment 899812
> 
> Via @Oneninety from Weibo




this looks like the old no. 554


----------



## Deino

Global Times' report on this issue:









China's J-15 carrier-based fighter jet to get domestic engines: report - Global Times







www.globaltimes.cn


----------



## hualushui

J-15D


----------



## Deino

hualushui said:


> J-15D




Where do you see a J-15D?


----------



## LKJ86

hualushui said:


> J-15D





Deino said:


> Where do you see a J-15D?


----------



## hualushui

Deino said:


> Where do you see a J-15D?






2:48

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Deino

hualushui said:


> 2:48





LKJ86 said:


>




Thanks a lot, but iIn fact I'm confused? 🤔

I tried to improve the original image a bit and put the cut-out parts of your tweet beside them, but I see nothing that looks like a J-15D. 🤷‍♂️ 

These are the original ones:










Here my layman attempt:








Why should this be a J-15D?

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## LKJ86

Via http://eng.chinamil.com.cn/view/2022-11/29/content_10201951.htm

Reactions: Like Like:

1


----------



## LKJ86



Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## LKJ86



Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## LKJ86

Via 央视网

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## LKJ86

Via @海军航空大学 from Weixin

Reactions: Love Love:
1


----------



## Deino

Huitong posted this as a J-15S Batch 01 - the regular J-15 Batch 01 had only 10 aircraft - and indeed, the construction number 0115 indicates this to be already the 15th J-15S built.
Also, according the new "serial number" H1741049 this should be bort number 49.
Even more interesting, its H1741xxx number correlates with three other H-numbers, namely H1741030, H1741031 and H1741032 on three J-15s carrying the bort numbers 30, 31 and 32:

(Image by YSJSBD via Huitog's CMA-Blog)


----------



## Deino

So far best image of a PLAN NA J-15 - here no. 34 - with the new low-visibility markings.

(Image via @沉默的山羊 from Weibo)


----------



## LKJ86



Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------

