Shenyang J-15 aircraft carrier-based aircraft

[rcrmj]

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]

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]

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

...

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.

 

[Deino]

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]

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??

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``````

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]

...
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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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 !