Shenyang J-15 "Flying Shark"

Hood said:
Rumours that the Chinese are looking to develop a successor for the J-15 which might not be turning out to be such a practical carrier-borne fighter after all.
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/beijing-keen-to-develop-j-15-successor-report-449956/
Click to expand...

CATOBAR, three catapults, conventional. Possibly/probably depicted below, with an alright summary from Jane's http://www.janes.com/article/81249/image-emerges-showing-possible-design-of-china-s-third-aircraft-carrier

qS7t0nD.jpg



But the source article from SCMP is a bit silly -- there was always going to be a successor to J-15, a 5th generation fighter, but it didn't have anything to do with J-15 being inherently unsuitable for carrier operations or any of the accidents that J-15s have had, but because the J-15 would obviously be unable to contend with opposing 5th generation fighters like F-22 and F-35.

If anything I expect the J-15 to continue being a part of the future carrier's airwing in some form, either through a new family of J-15s with J-16 level avionics, and/or the electronic warfare variant J-15s, along with the future 5th generation fighter.
 
Long expected and finally confirmed 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)

J-15 Batch 3 confirmed - 20200222 - 3.jpg J-15 Batch 3 confirmed - 20200222 - 2.jpg J-15 Batch 3 confirmed - 20200222 - 1.jpg
 
Last edited:
Deino said:
Long expected and finally confirmed 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 627590View attachment 627591View attachment 627592
Click to expand...


https://twitter.com/x/status/1313846989818408962
View: https://twitter.com/RupprechtDeino/status/1313846989818408962
 
Any info why J-15 using AL-31 outside J-15T? If it because older production batch, will China produce new J-15 (STOBAR) with WS-10? Or just use J-15T on their sky jump carrier?
 
The new j-15 with extended flaps and slats is a beauty to behold. Also the new sapphire IRST housing us huge. Wonder what kind of powerful EO equipment is behind it.

Edit: was intending on posting about IRST but I apparently spaced and just assumed I did. My brains no work 2 bigly 2dae.
 
Last edited:
Finally a new a even a bit clearer image of the improved J-15B. Clearly visible is the catapult bar on the front landing gear And the different (canted) radome.

However, still not clear is the type of engine and if this is a prototype or already/finally a serial aircraft.

via @恒苏Actline

J-15B - 20231122 - 恒苏Actline.jpg
 
How is it that the Chinese were able to buy the Su-35S from Russia despite the fact that they "cloned" the Su-27SK with the J-11 yet were never able to acquire any Su-33s? From some of the reported difficulties the J-15 has had I'd have to guess that the carrier variant T-10 prototype that the J-15 was derived from lacked some of the reinforcement and other necessary modifications for repeated carrier takeoffs and landings. Maybe the J-15B resolves these issues but from the reporting it sounds like there would be a preference to jump forward to the J-35 instead.
 
Having a navalized flanker will be vital. The thing can stay in the sky longer, travel further, carry much more powerful weaponry and even act in other roles which the new stealth fighter might be limited in.

A highly advanced sea flanker yeeted in large number is pretty awe inspiring and scary. There is still a whole lot it can do.
 
Colonial-Marine said:
How is it that the Chinese were able to buy the Su-35S from Russia despite the fact that they "cloned" the Su-27SK with the J-11 yet were never able to acquire any Su-33s? From some of the reported difficulties the J-15 has had I'd have to guess that the carrier variant T-10 prototype that the J-15 was derived from lacked some of the reinforcement and other necessary modifications for repeated carrier takeoffs and landings. Maybe the J-15B resolves these issues but from the reporting it sounds like there would be a preference to jump forward to the J-35 instead.
Click to expand...


Honestly, IMO this is pure non-sense!

China has been manufacturing improved Flankers - aka the J-11B and later J-16 with further strengthened structures - since years, so to think the J-15 even if "based" on the original older T-10K-prototype lacking certain structural stiffness, would still have issues and be able only for a few take-offs and landings is in fact ridiculous! Does anyone really believe they would build strengthened & improved land-based Flankers and the naval ones would lack those modifications?
 
I know the su-33 had/has some serious problems with excess weight being one of them. I know from what I have read about the j-16 that more composites had been utilized so I wonder if the j-15t has received substantial weight savings compared to the older j-15 and especially the heavy su-33.

Also very curious about the irst on this updated j-15 as it looks massive compared to other flanker variants.

Edit: fixed mistyped word
 
And being outdated with old equipment, the limited carrier doctrine the soviets used; not so much the airframe.
 
Deino said:
Honestly, IMO this is pure non-sense!

China has been manufacturing improved Flankers - aka the J-11B and later J-16 with further strengthened structures - since years, so to think the J-15 even if "based" on the original older T-10K-prototype lacking certain structural stiffness, would still have issues and be able only for a few take-offs and landings is in fact ridiculous! Does anyone really believe they would build strengthened & improved land-based Flankers and the naval ones would lack those modifications?
Click to expand...
It isn't. The question isn't just reinforcing(something) - the question is where and how. It requires practical experience at sea.
Basic reinforcement (as per theoretical understanding/testing, observation of known foreign practices&available experience, etc) was already done on t-10k.

Sukhoi, for example, only assumingly* got it done right by 3rd iteration of Naval Flanker optimization, i.e. 33kub.
Su-33 as produced is a second iteration(and known to be seriously underoptimized for sea, despite "reinforced"). All T-10Ks are obviously the first (i.e. result of engineering w/o firsthand experience).

So yes, it's perfectly believable that both (1)early J-15s are more or less T-10Ks, (2)consecutive batches probably got some tweaks here and there with beefing up specific parts, sealing/plumbing, etc, and (3)solving those problems properly requires a major redesign(J-15B?).
And, since we don't have practical experience with stage 3 - it may very well end up that huge&volumous flanker simply can't be made stiff enough at all - this can be only achievable on a different airframe, designed from scratch.

*as claimed; no operational experience.
 
Ainen said:
It isn't. The question isn't just reinforcing(something) - the question is where and how. It requires practical experience at sea.
Basic reinforcement (as per theoretical understanding/testing, observation of known foreign practices&available experience, etc) was already done on t-10k.

Sukhoi, for example, only assumingly* got it done right by 3rd iteration of Naval Flanker optimization, i.e. 33kub.
Su-33 as produced is a second iteration(and known to be seriously underoptimized for sea, despite "reinforced"). All T-10Ks are obviously the first (i.e. result of engineering w/o firsthand experience).

So yes, it's perfectly believable that both (1)early J-15s are more or less T-10Ks, (2)consecutive batches probably got some tweaks here and there with beefing up specific parts, sealing/plumbing, etc, and (3)solving those problems properly requires a major redesign(J-15B?).
And, since we don't have practical experience with stage 3 - it may very well end up that huge&volumous flanker simply can't be made stiff enough at all - this can be only achievable on a different airframe, designed from scratch.

*as claimed; no operational experience.
Click to expand...


But what are your points on which you conclude such a speculative outcome?

If you look at the reported losses, then there are in fact quite few only and in fact much lesser than expected … if you look at the number of J-15 on deck of the carrier, the number of exercises and sorties, then they are still well below US rates, but much better than for such „assumed issues“ ! I would go even that far … we see NOTHING that hints such structural issues and even more they look almost fabricated by „wish“. In comparison the so much more experienced Indian Navy with its - as per such claims much more modern and even more capable - MiG-29Ks show only a low percentage of PLAN ops and no-one comes to the „conclusion“ there must be some issues!
 
Deino said:
But what are your points on which you conclude such a speculative outcome?
Click to expand...
Well, because literally no one got their carrier plane on their first attempt right, and yes, we saw mentions that first gen J-15s are bad at *sea* side of things.

Deino said:
if you look at the number of J-15 on deck of the carrier
Click to expand...
What matters is not the number on the deck, it can be a whole deck full of them.
What matters is sorties and how aicraft behave(for example, so they can survive more than one proper deployment without corrosion eating them apart from inside).

Deino said:
MiG-29Ks show only a low percentage of PLAN ops and no-one comes to the „conclusion“ there must be some issues!
Click to expand...
Can you provide numbers? From what i know, Indian mig-29k actually fly quite a lot, and do lots of rather complicated operations.
 
Ainen said:
What matters is not the number on the deck, it can be a whole deck full of them.
What matters is sorties and how aicraft behave(for example, so they can survive more than one proper deployment without corrosion eating them apart from inside).
Click to expand...
www.globaltimes.cn

PLA’s carrier Shandong doubles aircraft sortie rate record in latest far sea drill - Global Times

www.globaltimes.cn
"Shandong carrier operated from October 28 to Sunday (November 5) in the international waters in the Philippine Sea, between the southeast of the island of Taiwan, northeast of the Philippines, west of Guam and south of Japan's southwestern islands, according to a chart and a map attached to the Japanese press release.
During the drills, the Shandong carried out around 420 fighter jet sorties and 150 helicopter sorties, totaling 570 aircraft sorties, the Japanese press release said.
This indicates that the Shandong carried out about 63 aircraft sorties a day on average during its latest exercise, nearly twice as many as when the carrier conducted its first far sea exercise in the region in April, about 34 a day, and three times as many as the sortie rate record set by the PLA's first aircraft carrier, the Liaoning, in January, about 21 per day."

According to the report, it's a 9 days drill totaling 420 J-15 sorties about 47 sorties per day.
Anyone know how many J-15 Shandong carried during the drills?
So we can tell how many sorties per J-15 during 9 days.
 
Last edited:
minimes said:
www.globaltimes.cn

PLA’s carrier Shandong doubles aircraft sortie rate record in latest far sea drill - Global Times

www.globaltimes.cn
"Shandong carrier operated from October 28 to Sunday (November 5) in the international waters in the Philippine Sea, between the southeast of the island of Taiwan, northeast of the Philippines, west of Guam and south of Japan's southwestern islands, according to a chart and a map attached to the Japanese press release.
During the drills, the Shandong carried out around 420 fighter jet sorties and 150 helicopter sorties, totaling 570 aircraft sorties, the Japanese press release said.
This indicates that the Shandong carried out about 63 aircraft sorties a day on average during its latest exercise, nearly twice as many as when the carrier conducted its first far sea exercise in the region in April, about 34 a day, and three times as many as the sortie rate record set by the PLA's first aircraft carrier, the Liaoning, in January, about 21 per day."

According to the report, it's a 9 days drill totaling 420 J-15 sorties about 47 sorties per day.
Anyone know how many J-15 Shandong carried during the drills?
So we can tell how many sorties per J-15 during 9 days.
Click to expand...


Again, why do you think you can draw any conclusions about structural issues and limitations from such data? A lower number of missions lets say in comparison to the USN can much more likely be explained with any reasons like the lack of qualified pilots and back to my IN example, why don‘t you rate the low numbers of missions by India‘s MiG-29K as a lack of structural integrety? Simply since it makes no sense, but to claim China‘s J-15s still have issues is fine since it fits your opinion or public agenda?
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom