Shenyang J-15 aircraft carrier-based aircraft

[GiantPanda]

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.

 

[Akasa]

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/x/status/854319286977830913

 

[rcrmj]

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。

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 ?!!

...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:

...
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:

...
```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]

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``````

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

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``````

 

[Akasa]

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]

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]

After the deployment of the Type 002.

Had type 002 started construction?

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.

 

[ChineseTiger1986]

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.

 

[rcrmj]

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

 

[Akasa]

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.

 

[GiantPanda]

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.

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.