This really isn’t a navalized J-11B at all. This is an Su-33 with modern avionics and electronics system for the most part. It’s based off a prototype Su-33 purchased from the Ukraine. Most Chinese aviation forums are pointing out the electronics, radar, and weapons systems though were most likely all Chinese and far newer than the circa 1980’s equipment of the Russian Su-33.
There WAS a navalized J-11 by SAC.
that navalized J-11 is absolutely not the J-15 that we see today.
As an aviation enthusiast, I am a little disappointed with J-15. Of course we had been hearing rumors for years regarding an aircraft that has “only a passing resemblance to su-33 and was conceptualized way back in early 80’s and is a totally different aircraft” but i expected the first chinese naval fighter to be based on j-10 rather than j-11. Modifying J-10 for naval use might had made a point about their aircraft designing abilities.
who said CAC don;t have a naval fighter in works? :dev2:
:diablo: … at least some better pics of the J-15 !
How low can you go.
Is there any information on the disc-shaped IFF on top of the Fregat-analogue radar? It’s certainly different from all the Russian variants.
Its a TACAN.
check A. Burke’s top mast.
a video of J-15 flying around.
It seems 2001 has no side weapons bays.
😀
Ballistic missiles can be vulnerable to anti-air/anti-ballistic.
….JASSM-ER and hopefully Prompt Global Strike ….
Huh?
What’s pulsating engine? And is it for the future UAVs?
pulse detonation engine?
F/B-22,
two seats.
2 F-135/136 engines (I still root for F-136!)
compound delta, cranked arrow with plenty of internal fuel capacity.
big internal weapon bays.
tailless design. no need for high AOA manuevers.
update of F35’s sensor systems.
F/E-22 Jammer/EW version.
Oh how I long for the days of Mig-21s.
a modern engined Mig-21/J-7 would be perfect.
cheap and easy to maintain, essential for air policing, and while at it Mach 2.1 topspeed and competitive performance still can put up a decent show.
FC-1/JF-17, that’s the closest thing you can get.
Have you ever heard of HT 2 , Kiran or Marut?
pure technical side:
in civil aviation analogy.
HT 2 and Kiran are what one would call a “part 23” aircraft.
meaning not as rigorous standard in analysis and design process would be applied.
and consider the mission they would not be under any form of duress and prob could make do with inspections and procedures.
Marut has Mr. Kurt Tank’s toy and is a old airplane. back then they never go anywhere near the analysis that they do today and typically they made it up by reserves plenty of margins on airframes. (ever heard of Grumman Iron Works?)
so in summary, the three examples you cited are not really applicable to specific case we are talking about here.
but, even experience airframe manufactures experience these problems, the more experience you have the less problems, but still problems. HAL just need to learn.
consider Serbia’s recent history and its geography.
a option is to get a limited number of front line fighters useful in airpolicing and limited conflict.
dedicate the majority of resources into AAA/SAMs and infrastructure hardening.
bunkers, tunnels, decoys.
large number of AAAs and short/med range sams distributed and hardened.
mobile long range sams from Russia.
and may be investigating the ability to hit back via cruise missiles.
yes, 052C was really expensive, because there was a huge up front development cost for the air defense system and the combat system. And after it, you still need a lot of real world testing, which adds to the cost. But now that the system is more mature, they can produce it at much lower cost, which is what they are doing.
PLAN does have a finite budget, but they also have probably the lowest procurement cost in the world. They have been able to lower the per unit cost. The recent systems have all gone through the process of producing a prototype or two and then mass producing. It is even happening for Type 071 now, which should be pretty expensive when you factor in the accompanying LCAC and helicopters.
just to give you an idea.
2003 is the launch of first 052C. roughly 4-5 years later it was still doing test shots in SCS testing area.
I meanwhile the Ludas are near death and china really didn’t have ocean going ships to fill the ranks. Jiangnan is moving to Changxing and the ability to build destroyers is moving too.
Also on cost.
China really doesn’t have as big of unit cost advantage as one thinks.
If you build ships in serial and using modern modular techniques the cost for JP/SK/US to build a Arleigh Burke is actually very competitive vs China to do a similar product at 2 off batches.
having a dedicated yard that is not doing any other work;
using modern techniques ;
a single line of ships;
in really large quantity.
…really does help to lower the unit cost.
the expectation is that Jiangnan at Changxing Island will dedicate one yard to naval ships. same goes with the new Longxue yard in Guangzhou.
Concur on the ability for maglev test track to be straight-run. The Japanese setup I saw was certainly straight line. Dont know about this looking all that short though…especially not for a cat track which, even at operational lengths, is only around 300ft. Even allowing for a braking area to allow full-load tests there looks to a lot of track length there with no easily explainable purpose?.
You would also expect a site like this to draw a lot of electrical power, yet, I cant see any obvious HT lines or power facilities feeding into the site?.
What was the source for this being labelled an EMCAT development site i.e. ?
you know how the chinese internet bbs work :dev2:
as for circular tracks. of course maglev can run on straight tracks. but length of a full track is the issue. besides. take a look at the transrapid maglev tracks. it is not at all simular to what was in the picture.
they can easily bury the high voltage lines, and house the transformers inside the building. remember this thing operates in bursts not continuously drawing power.
Yes some random forumer is cautioning DRDO against doing projects like AMCA.
They can do whatever they want.
what I am saying, from my own perspective, is that for a typical aerospace organization/ airframe OEM, an aircraft project in the current state as Tejas would not be considered finished and ready to “move on”. unless the organization thinks the project is a total loss and will not be worth the money it invested to correct all the mistakes and bring it inline with the original performance goals.
Now you attack the messenger and go onto one of you virulent ad hominem assault, again. that still hasn’t changed the facts on the ground. 😉