J-15 payload only 2 tons

Discussion in 'China' started by Armand2REP, Sep 29, 2013.

  1. Armand2REP

    Armand2REP CHINI EXPERT Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2009
    Messages:
    10,397
    Likes Received:
    2,314
    Chinese Media Takes Aim at J-15 Fighter

    [​IMG]

    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.”

    Kashin said, “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

    :rofl:
     
  2.  
  3. lookieloo

    lookieloo Regular Member

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2013
    Messages:
    463
    Likes Received:
    248
    Location:
    US
    Much as we like to view China as an authoritarian state, the government there is actually quite keen to flow with popular sentiment (perhaps more so than our Western democracies). If the Chinese government wishes to build maximum popular support for something so costly as a CATOBAR fleet, it stands to reason that some criticism of their STOBAR carrier would need to be allowed.
     
    Tolaha likes this.
  4. SajeevJino

    SajeevJino Long walk Elite Member

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2012
    Messages:
    5,654
    Likes Received:
    3,032
    Location:
    Inside a Cage
    I bet you China Any match for This from Your Navy atleast in Air Force too

    [​IMG]

    This one will take off from a Carrier with this full load
     
  5. bennedose

    bennedose Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2013
    Messages:
    1,336
    Likes Received:
    1,955
    Location:
    Pindliyon ka gooda
    What strikes me about the article is that no one has mentioned the post important word The engine.

    Without an engine that develops the thrust required everything else is moot. What engine are the Chinese Copy Su-33 aircraft using?
     
    sayareakd likes this.
  6. shiphone

    shiphone Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2009
    Messages:
    1,475
    Likes Received:
    1,241
    LOL...funny thoughts related to 'China' everywhere...Military enthusiasts is just a small part of people within the nation. others never care and know nothing...actually it's some kind of Leader's will to build the second STOBAR carrier for some Conservative thought...the third one would be definately CATOBAR...these two would be under construct parallelly, the STOBAR project a little bit ahead...By2020. CV16 would be operational.. the STOBAR would be hand over and in training. .the CATOBAR would be in sea trial phase.
    ----------------------
    Selective ignoring ....and the news from TAIWAN news source? did they know anything? .............LOL

    X post in Liaoning thread.


    [​IMG]

    BTW...J15: Max speed .2.17 Mach....Max combat radius: 1270 Km...Max Payload: 6.5 tons.

    ----------------------
    those Payload' Display' on the ground or in the hangar really mean nothing...actually just days ago Mig29K did the same tests...

    [​IMG]
     
    Last edited by a moderator: May 10, 2015
  7. dealwithit

    dealwithit Regular Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2013
    Messages:
    371
    Likes Received:
    304
    Location:
    India
    self delete
     
    Last edited: Sep 29, 2013
  8. Armand2REP

    Armand2REP CHINI EXPERT Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2009
    Messages:
    10,397
    Likes Received:
    2,314
    SINA is owned by the CCP doofus. :facepalm:
     
  9. bennedose

    bennedose Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2013
    Messages:
    1,336
    Likes Received:
    1,955
    Location:
    Pindliyon ka gooda
    It does not matter how useless F-22,F-35, F/A 18 PAK-FA, Eurofighter, Rafale, Tejas, Su-33 or MiG 29 are. Whatever the level of worthlessness of these aircraft it will not make the Copy Su 33 (aka J-15 any more capable. Perhaps it would be easier to understand if I wrote that in simpler language. No matter how useless I say that Brad Pitt is, I am not going to become more attractive to Angelina Jolie.

    As fas as I can see, no one ever said that the J-15 copy of Su 33 cannot carry 6 x 500 kg bombs and 2 missiles. but note that no one is saying how much fuel it can carry at take off. That is what the article is all about. Videograbs of ChiCom TV simply does not cut it. Sorry.
     
    drkrn likes this.
  10. Decklander

    Decklander New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2012
    Messages:
    2,654
    Likes Received:
    4,043
    Location:
    New Delhi
    That shud the chinese as to why India chose Mig-29K rather than Su-33 for Vikky. Even russians realised their stupidity and Indian wisdom and have decided to go for Mig-29k as replacement for Su-33 rather than replace them with similar heavy ac. Mig-29K can outfly outrange and outgun Su-33 from Deck.
     
  11. shiphone

    shiphone Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2009
    Messages:
    1,475
    Likes Received:
    1,241
    Sina is a privately owned, NASDAQ-listed company with 4 independent major business in Mainland China ,Hongkong, Taiwan,USA ...LOL..

    such so called ' Exclusive Analysis ' by some stupid news website editor is shi*... most of Hongkong and Taiwan's Chinese news agency is lack of basic Military sense and they are drunk with translation the so called unreliable personal analysis into English and published... that's why so many funny and terriable wrong info about china in English...

    ------------------
    with simple Keywords in Chinese, I managed to get the origin...the first was publiced on the Blog and Phone version News APP...and the third one in Sina's Military section with a title started with '独家分析‘ (Exclusive Analysis)by some Website news Editor...LOL...pity indeed...next time , let's talk about something decent and reliable...

    http://jczs.news.sina.com.cn/2013-09-18/1055741156.html
     
    Last edited: Sep 29, 2013
  12. Armand2REP

    Armand2REP CHINI EXPERT Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2009
    Messages:
    10,397
    Likes Received:
    2,314
    uh no, SINA Corp. is majority owned by Chinese SOEs which makes it a CCP mouthpiece. :facepalm:

    If that isn't enough for you the designer of the J-15 said on Xinhua...

     
  13. shiphone

    shiphone Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2009
    Messages:
    1,475
    Likes Received:
    1,241
    since you claimed ,then you'd better to list these so called Chinese SOEs please....LOL...some idiot never learn, just a big mouth left

    1. the link ''http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/china/2013-09/12/c_132203228.htm'' is a dead one or fake one? LOL
    2. some cheap and dirty trick here...

    since the link provided by you is dead(or fake), I have the right reason tos suspect that you fake the quot....
    actually the origin news source might be this one from the http://www.wantchinatimes.com/


    and the statement is :
    [​IMG]

    that's what came out from your sh*t mouth
    [​IMG]
     
  14. t_co

    t_co Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2012
    Messages:
    2,537
    Likes Received:
    699
    Location:
    China
    :lol: Armand is faking quotes now? Pathetic
     
  15. ice berg

    ice berg Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2011
    Messages:
    2,145
    Likes Received:
    289
    The russians picked mig-29K because the Indians had more or less funded the modernized Mig-29K development and ordered a hefty number to boot, lowering production costs.
    If PLAN had decided to buy modernized Su-33 from irkut then the Russians could have gone for Su-33 as well.

    It had nothing to do with "indian wisdom". More to do with russian pragmatism.
    Let us drop the D measuring contest.
     
  16. ice berg

    ice berg Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2011
    Messages:
    2,145
    Likes Received:
    289
    You dont trust a chicom TV cut, but do believe in a chicom article? :rolleyes:
     
  17. Decklander

    Decklander New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2012
    Messages:
    2,654
    Likes Received:
    4,043
    Location:
    New Delhi
    I wish to inform you that Su-33 & Mig-29k both were on offer to India but India has more exp in operating an ac carrier than even russians. When India chose Mig-29k, the russians were quite puzzled as Su-33 was already operational on russian carrier while Mig-29K was still on design board. While chosing an ac for deck ops, you need to consider not only the space but also sortie rate, deck space, ease of handling and finally its efficiency in terms of MTOW vs Payload graphs vs range graphs. IN found Su-33 inferior in all these terms. Though one more factor but not the deciding one was that IAF was already operating Mig-29s. IN Mig-29Ks are far superior in all manners compared to IAF Mig-29s.
     
    happy likes this.
  18. bennedose

    bennedose Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2013
    Messages:
    1,336
    Likes Received:
    1,955
    Location:
    Pindliyon ka gooda
    The Chicom TV cut says 6 x 500 kg bombs plus 2 AAMs, but it does not say how much fuel is carried or the total weight at take off. (convenient silence?)

    The Chicom article merely says that it is possible to carry a full load with reduced fuel

    Neither of these Chicom articles is contradictory or mutually exclusive. Both could be right. It is YOU and not me insisting that one should be believed over the other. Both could be 100% correct. No proof either way.

    A J 15 (Su 33 clone) carrying 3.5 tons of munitions could be carrying just 25% of its total fuel capacity at take off, allowing for a chukker for the TV cameras and a landing.
     
  19. Decklander

    Decklander New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2012
    Messages:
    2,654
    Likes Received:
    4,043
    Location:
    New Delhi
    How do we compare ac? The size, weight, wing area/span, etc is not important. What we compare is efficiency of the complete airframe which is compared broadly on only five parameters- Payload, Range, sensor fit, weapons fit and manoverability. Take a case of GripenNG vs Su-30MKI.
    GripenNG has a payload of 7.5 tons, shorter range, good sensor fit, better weapon fit and same manoverability. But Su-30 MKI has better payload of 8.5 tons, better range, better sensor fit & better weapons fit. But twomen cockpit allows better and more efficient use of sensors.

    Now take a case wherein an ac has better range based on internal fuel to the point that SU-30MKI will need to carry fuel in D/Ts to match that range, the payload of Su-30MKI will be reduced by an amount which is equal to the additional fuel which needs to be carried to match the range of other ac. This is the point where Rafale scores over Su-30MKI by leaps and bounds. Rafale has bigger weaponload and if it is reduced to that of Su-30MKI by replacing extra payload by fuel, Rafale far outranges Su-30MKI.
     
    happy likes this.
  20. ice berg

    ice berg Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2011
    Messages:
    2,145
    Likes Received:
    289
    If either could be right or wrong, then what is your point? How do you know it is 25%? not 50% or 70%? And since when was questioning your assesment become an admission of either theory?
     
  21. ice berg

    ice berg Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2011
    Messages:
    2,145
    Likes Received:
    289
    You have already answered yourself.
    Mig-29K was chosen because it is the best option for IN. A navy whith existing mig29s and limited deck space.
    Su-33 was choosen because it is the best option for PLAN.

    It has nothing to do with how J-15 or Mig-29K been superior or inferior. Two different navies with different requirements.
     
    singa likes this.

Share This Page