Chinese J-15 carrier aircraft with Russian-made Su-33 technology
China’s Shenyang Aircraft Corporation to successfully produce the F -15 carrier aircraft, the Russian media said the Chinese people from the Ukraine through the purchase of Russian Su -33 decryption technology.
Russia’s Interfax News Agency quoted in May published “Chinese Defense Review” reported that the Shenyang Aircraft Company successfully produced copies of SU -33 and carrier aircraft named J-15.
Itar-Tass reported, although Moscow refused to sell to China, the Soviet Union to prevent the leakage of -33, but China still buy through the Ukraine and Soviet -33 to imitation. Based primarily on the Chinese fighter from the Soviet Union era T10K, it was purchased from Ukraine. Chinese engineers had solved the problem of carrier-based aircraft wing folding now been resolved. But as yet not clear whether the new aircraft built its first flight. J-15 after the factory test will be sent to the Air Force base. This is because the Chinese navy has not yet own aviation test center.
Reported that Russia had sold China to enter the Chinese market, Su-27SK, but then appeared in the Chinese J-11 and conduct a series of production. Russian experts are concerned that China may be crowding out the Russian market from a third party. China is now producing the J-10, J-11 and FC-1 imitation of a Russian Su and MiG -29 -27/30. The future, China may produce and market than Russia, “original” cheaper fighters, at least 1200.
Source: http://www.global-military.com/chinese-j-15-carrier-aircraft-with-russian-made-su-33-technology.html
By: swerve - 15th July 2010 at 11:20
Thanks for clarifying that.
One quibble: you can’t copyright technology. Only the plans can be copyrighted, not the technology they describe. You can patent it, but that’s covered by different laws.
By: haerdalis - 15th July 2010 at 10:54
Nope. What I meant was, for all practical purposes Lockheed owns both the technologies. So there is no question of owning copyrights on the technology. All China can do is probably get access to the technology from Russia but they can’t copyright it anymore.
Flash of genius on Lockheed’s part to ensure free access to the technology. 😎 For example France could also buy the plans from Yak and build a new variant from it.
Its not restricted now.
By: swerve - 15th July 2010 at 10:47
Buying the right to use it does not necessarily mean buying the right to prevent anyone else from using it. You imply that Yak is no longer allowed to build or develop its own product, or make copies of its own plans, without Lockheed permission. I doubt that.
By: haerdalis - 15th July 2010 at 10:44
I think it would be more interesting if the Chinese developed their own stvol aircraft and operated those from the Varyag. Perhaps they can buy the rights of the Yak-141 from Yakovlev and make an improved and updated variant.
China can’t buy the rights for the yak-141. Lockheed bought the plans for both the 3-bearing swivel nozzle and the FBW software in the early 1990’s from Yak.
By: BlauerMax - 15th July 2010 at 10:41
I think it would be more interesting if the Chinese developed their own stvol aircraft and operated those from the Varyag. Perhaps they can buy the rights of the Yak-141 from Yakovlev and make an improved and updated variant.
An improved stealthy variant with EODAS and lift fan? 😀
By: Arabella-Cox - 15th July 2010 at 10:23
I think it would be more interesting if the Chinese developed their own stvol aircraft and operated those from the Varyag. Perhaps they can buy the rights of the Yak-141 from Yakovlev and make an improved and updated variant.
By: Multirole - 14th July 2010 at 09:42
What are the Chinese going to use as a carrier trainer? Will they buy the Ukrainian Su-25UTGs or just use regular jet trainers?
Most likely the L-15 Falcon.
By: Wanshan - 13th July 2010 at 09:20
The tailhook is controlled separately from the landing gear, so it is certain that the Su-33 has it lowered (where is it obscured from view by the engine & tailplane), while the J-15 has it stowed in flight position.
That difference in the pics is irrelevant.
Oh please. DO NOTE THE SMILEY.
(Folks, you’re getting way to serious)
By: Stan hyd - 13th July 2010 at 00:06
A-4’s.
First wave will go through Brazil, I’m sure of this.
By: Witcha - 12th July 2010 at 22:37
What are the Chinese going to use as a carrier trainer? Will they buy the Ukrainian Su-25UTGs or just use regular jet trainers?
By: Bager1968 - 12th July 2010 at 22:19
The tailhook is controlled separately from the landing gear, so it is certain that the Su-33 has it lowered (where is it obscured from view by the engine & tailplane), while the J-15 has it stowed in flight position.
That difference in the pics is irrelevant.
By: Wanshan - 12th July 2010 at 21:26
Well, I am not very sure about your concern, the number 79 fighter jet in the picture is a well documented Su-33 shipborne fighter.
What concern? (Do note the smiley 😉
By: Pinko - 12th July 2010 at 16:25
Well, I am not very sure about your concern, the number 79 fighter jet in the picture is a well documented Su-33 shipborne fighter.
By: Wanshan - 12th July 2010 at 12:02
Look at the fighter on the left in below image, isn’t there clearly a “full-span leading-edge slats” as well? So it’s also without “foldable” wings according to your observation, but the plane on the left is a real Su-33 and we know it’s with foldable wing.
Conclusion simply can’t be drawn in such a way.
I can’t find the tailhoook on the left plane …. (ok, maybe it has been lowered and is obscured from view, but still 😉
By: Bager1968 - 12th July 2010 at 05:09
I did zoom in. While the gray area on the leading edge is clear, I couldn’t see any line indicating a split.
By: Erkokite - 12th July 2010 at 04:53
That’s funny… I didn’t see one with the wings actually folded.
I agree it might be just the smallness of the image size that hides the split in the leading-edge slats… but we need either a better picture of the area in question or a picture of a J-15 with the wings folded to conclusively say one way or another.
Actually, a wing-fold really isn’t that hard to engineer, even a self-powered one… as long as the internal structure of the wing is designed to properly support the hinges and locking pins.
The question is simply “have they done it or not”, not “can they do it”.
I can quite clearly see a split in the slats. Trying zooming in. It’s there.
By: Bager1968 - 12th July 2010 at 04:45
That’s funny… I didn’t see one with the wings actually folded.
I agree it might be just the smallness of the image size that hides the split in the leading-edge slats… but we need either a better picture of the area in question or a picture of a J-15 with the wings folded to conclusively say one way or another.
Actually, a wing-fold really isn’t that hard to engineer, even a self-powered one… as long as the internal structure of the wing is designed to properly support the hinges and locking pins.
The question is simply “have they done it or not”, not “can they do it”.
By: foxmulder - 11th July 2010 at 16:57
This plane has folding wings. Pictures in Pinko’s post clearly show it.
By: Witcha - 11th July 2010 at 16:07
It’s only a prototype, so the lack of folding wings can be excused. Compared to the other problems of navalising a fighter developing a hydraulic wing folding mechanism isn’t such a great problem.
By: Pinko - 11th July 2010 at 15:19
Yes, the hook is clear in that picture… as are the full-span leading-edge slats.
Which makes it very clear there is no folding wing on this aircraft, in contrast to the real Su-33.
It could be flown off ex-Varyag as a training aircraft, but it could not be taken down into the hangar without folding wings.
…
Look at the fighter on the left in below image, isn’t there clearly a “full-span leading-edge slats” as well? So it’s also without “foldable” wings according to your observation, but the plane on the left is a real Su-33 and we know it’s with foldable wing.
Conclusion simply can’t be drawn in such a way.
Sign In
June 11, 2010 at 2:51 pm