Video of Chinese J-15 fighter and aircraft carrier ops.. [Archive] - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : Video of Chinese J-15 fighter and aircraft carrier ops..


bunk22
11-25-2012, 08:55
They have the colored shirts and all on the deck. Looks like flying the ball till touchdown.

J-15 take off and landing on board Liaoning - YouTube

robin303
11-25-2012, 09:05
I only believe half what that guy said. The other half is BS. :supergrin:

EdTracker
11-25-2012, 09:10
I'll wager $20 on CGI or Photoshop

eagle359
11-25-2012, 09:13
No cat?

bunk22
11-25-2012, 09:34
I'll wager $20 on CGI or Photoshop

You're serious? About which part? The SU-27, variants of, have been flying off the boat for a while, testing at least. I am a Navy carrier pilot, I see nothing CGI in there at all. If it is, those guys need a job in Hollywood!

bunk22
11-25-2012, 09:38
No cat?

Nope, they use a ski jump, effective it seems. Not cat issues, that's for sure. I have no idea how it effects the load out of a jet for launch.

Drjones
11-25-2012, 09:38
1) The image by the reporters head at the beginning of the clip is absolutely photoshopped. This destroys the credibility of the entire story.

2) I'll gladly defer to the real-world experts we have here on GT, but I've seen way too many clips of real carrier take-offs to believe that this one is real. No way the aircraft was moving fast enough.

The landing looked good, but hey...Transformers looked pretty real too.

Captain Steinbrenner
11-25-2012, 09:39
Is good to know we have new targets for our tomahawks...

Sent from my SPH-D710 using Tapatalk 2

Drjones
11-25-2012, 09:41
You're serious? About which part? The SU-27, variants of, have been flying off the boat for a while, testing at least. I am a Navy carrier pilot, I see nothing CGI in there at all. If it is, those guys need a job in Hollywood!


:supergrin:
Aaaaaand, I spoke too soon. :)

Thank you for your service!

Billua
11-25-2012, 09:53
1) The image by the reporters head at the beginning of the clip is absolutely photoshopped. This destroys the credibility of the entire story.

2) I'll gladly defer to the real-world experts we have here on GT, but I've seen way too many clips of real carrier take-offs to believe that this one is real. No way the aircraft was moving fast enough.

The landing looked good, but hey...Transformers looked pretty real too.

FAIL

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2012/11/25/china-lands-first-jet-on-its-aircraft-carrier/

Ragnar
11-25-2012, 10:01
Nope, they use a ski jump, effective it seems. Not cat issues, that's for sure. I have no idea how it effects the load out of a jet for launch.

No cat means they have to download the jet. Fuel and weapons will not be maxed.

http://defensetech.org/2012/04/25/how-effective-will-chinas-carrier-based-fighters-be/

Ragnar
11-25-2012, 10:03
1) The image by the reporters head at the beginning of the clip is absolutely photoshopped. This destroys the credibility of the entire story.

2) I'll gladly defer to the real-world experts we have here on GT, but I've seen way too many clips of real carrier take-offs to believe that this one is real. No way the aircraft was moving fast enough.

The landing looked good, but hey...Transformers looked pretty real too.

1) evidence?

2) ski jump ramps reduce take off speed considerably. For instance, the Russian MiG-29 needs 140kts for a conventional takeoff, but only about 70kts using the ramp on their carrier. I would expect similar resutls with the J-15 (albeit a little faster due to weight of the J-15).

raven11
11-25-2012, 10:30
Cool video, interesting wheel stops they have instead of a cat, won't be surprised if they develop a catapult in the future just so they can catch and send planes out at the same time

CourtCop
11-25-2012, 10:33
Big deal. There are only two types of ships in the world's oceans... Submarines and targets.

posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire (http://www.outdoorhub.com/mobile/)

raven11
11-25-2012, 10:35
Big deal. There are only two types of ships in the world's oceans... Submarines and targets.

posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire (http://www.outdoorhub.com/mobile/)

Can't project power with a submarine like you can a aircraft carrier

F14Scott
11-25-2012, 10:55
Completely real and believable. Nice passes, and the silhouette reminded me a lot of my beloved Turkey.

But, deck running a jet off a ski jump and making day, perfect WX , zero sea state, Case 1 landings are a long way off from running actual carrier operations.

The complexity in the latter is managing 70 aircraft, all packed on two decks and needing elevator runs, while they go through their maintenance cycles and breakages, changing missions, changing weather, changing seas, their ordinance, fueling, and servicing, and doing a takeoff and landing cycle about every 1+15.

Anybody with enough money to throw at the problem could build a big deck and launch and recover a jet from it. It will take many, many years and a fundamental change in the way the Chinese empower their troops as decision-makers before their carrier is anything more than an experiment.

bunk22
11-25-2012, 11:19
No cat means they have to download the jet. Fuel and weapons will not be maxed.

http://defensetech.org/2012/04/25/how-effective-will-chinas-carrier-based-fighters-be/

Good article and makes sense in terms of limited capability.

Deanster
11-25-2012, 11:41
I think the linked article makes a very good point, which is that the Chinese don't necessarily need the planes and carrier to be at US levels of capability for it to be a potent tool regionally. Even if it's a fair-weather, limited-range, low-strike-weight asset, parking it and a half-dozen destroyers and a dozen fast missile boats in the area of a disputed island or other disputed zone absolutely changes the equation for any of their neighbors.

I actually think US analysts may be underplaying the potential impact as China gets their ski-jump carrier up and running... as noted above, it's a LOOOOONG way to being ready to compete with the US, but there's also a LOT of places in the West Pacific where the level of capability they can reach in the next few years could be a game-changer if the US isn't directly involved.

true believer
11-25-2012, 12:12
willing to bet if we ever had a war with them the carrier would be sunk in less then 4 hours....:whistling:
:shocked:

EdTracker
11-25-2012, 12:31
You're serious? About which part? The SU-27, variants of, have been flying off the boat for a while, testing at least. I am a Navy carrier pilot, I see nothing CGI in there at all. If it is, those guys need a job in Hollywood!

CGI is the peoples faces :P

Don't you know that military analysts thought the Asian races can't fly because lack of balance from being carried on their mothers backs as infants...

Not serious about that either.

Good article and makes sense in terms of limited capability.

Seriously bunk22, as a naval aviator how could you NOT KNOW the limitations of a ski jump style carrier.

3glkdog
11-25-2012, 12:37
I only believe half what that guy said. The other half is BS. :supergrin:

I think he said shop at Wal Mart.

raven11
11-25-2012, 12:38
I think the linked article makes a very good point, which is that the Chinese don't necessarily need the planes and carrier to be at US levels of capability for it to be a potent tool regionally. Even if it's a fair-weather, limited-range, low-strike-weight asset, parking it and a half-dozen destroyers and a dozen fast missile boats in the area of a disputed island or other disputed zone absolutely changes the equation for any of their neighbors.

I actually think US analysts may be underplaying the potential impact as China gets their ski-jump carrier up and running... as noted above, it's a LOOOOONG way to being ready to compete with the US, but there's also a LOT of places in the West Pacific where the level of capability they can reach in the next few years could be a game-changer if the US isn't directly involved.

Good point, take the China -Japan island dispute or the Philippines fishing grounds incident that happened this year, the u.s. didn't get involved militarily so it was up to the Philippines Navy ex-us coast guard vessels and the Japanese , SK, and china's coast guard ships to maintain their borders. park a carrier off the coast of a disputed island or fishing ground and china is the de-facto owner

Rooster Rugburn
11-25-2012, 12:50
Cool video, interesting wheel stops they have instead of a cat, won't be surprised if they develop a catapult in the future just so they can catch and send planes out at the same time


They will wait for US to perfect the maglev system, then they will amazingly have one very similar.

eagle359
11-25-2012, 12:59
Nope, they use a ski jump, effective it seems. Not cat issues, that's for sure. I have no idea how it effects the load out of a jet for launch.

Combat load equal to or less than Harrier AV8, do you think?

Baba Louie
11-25-2012, 13:06
Good for them. And if you screw up just this much, you'll be flying a cargo plane full of rubber dog "doo" out of Hong Kong!

mj9mm
11-25-2012, 13:30
they can make thousands of fancy fighter jets, but they have limited areas to real world practice, unless obama lets them.

wrczx3
11-25-2012, 13:39
How come the numbers on the plane are not written in Chinese?

mj9mm
11-25-2012, 14:18
so our pilots know which planes they are shooting down:rofl:

WT
11-25-2012, 14:43
FWIW, the Chinese pilots have been training for several years with the Brazilian aircraft carrier SAO PAULO (formerly French carrier FOCH).

If they keep their carrier in the South China Sea with access to aerial tankers and protection via ground based anti-ship missiles, they could be the Big Guy on the block in WESTPAC.

Yes, I guess one of our subs could sink her. Then the Chinese could drop a nuclear equipped missile on one of our carrier task forces. That would not be nice.

Hicksville Kid
11-25-2012, 14:46
Completely real and believable. Nice passes, and the silhouette reminded me a lot of my beloved Turkey.

But, deck running a jet off a ski jump and making day, perfect WX , zero sea state, Case 1 landings are a long way off from running actual carrier operations.

The complexity in the latter is managing 70 aircraft, all packed on two decks and needing elevator runs, while they go through their maintenance cycles and breakages, changing missions, changing weather, changing seas, their ordinance, fueling, and servicing, and doing a takeoff and landing cycle about every 1+15.

Anybody with enough money to throw at the problem could build a big deck and launch and recover a jet from it. It will take many, many years and a fundamental change in the way the Chinese empower their troops as decision-makers before their carrier is anything more than an experiment.

I can't see more than 8-12 fighter a/c on a ski jump ship. Just an observers opinion. There are no forward elevators that I can see. And I don't see them parking them on a 'hill' they use for takeoff. As a matter of fact, I didn't see too many tiedowns at all and I never saw an elevator outline.

None the less, it's a beautiful ship and a very good accomplishment.

I agree, it certainly looks "Turkey" like on approach. Watching the elevator flutter in the burble looks similar.

SouthpawG26
11-25-2012, 14:50
Was there an entire fire truck on the deck or what??

HollowHead
11-25-2012, 14:54
How come the numbers on the plane are not written in Chinese?

They use the Muslim number system, just like we do. HH

bunk22
11-25-2012, 15:02
Seriously bunk22, as a naval aviator how could you NOT KNOW the limitations of a ski jump style carrier.

Never used one, no need to know really. My guess was it would limit it but the SU-27 series of fighters has big ole motors and maybe combined with the ski jump, it didn't make a difference. On a low thrust jet, yeah, I could it see making a big difference.

bunk22
11-25-2012, 15:04
Combat load equal to or less than Harrier AV8, do you think?

No idea, haven't flown either. I only know how carrier ops work with our boats and the aircraft I flew.

bunk22
11-25-2012, 15:06
FWIW, the Chinese pilots have been training for several years with the Brazilian aircraft carrier SAO PAULO (formerly French carrier FOCH).

Interesting as we, the US, train the Brazilian Navy carrier pilots. We train all nations who have a carrier except the Chinese. Let's see, the French, the Italians, the Spanish, the Indians and the Brazilians.

EdTracker
11-25-2012, 15:06
They use the Muslim number system, just like we do. HH

Did you learn that from NASA?

Actually, the numerical system that we use came from India and was introduced to Europe by Muslim traders.


http://www-history.mcs.st-and.ac.uk/HistTopics/Indian_numerals.html

Arquebus12
11-25-2012, 15:06
Is that the carrier they bought from Russia?

Didn't count a lot of hard points on that Sukhoi clone, either...

HollowHead
11-25-2012, 15:09
Is that the carrier they bought from Russia?

Didn't count a lot of hard points on that Sukhoi clone, either...

Yes, but the Russians never finished it. China built the deck and the island, IIRC. HH

EdTracker
11-25-2012, 15:10
Is that the carrier they bought from Russia?

Didn't count a lot of hard points on that Sukhoi clone, either...

Yep. Quite an accomplishment to buy someone elses technology and then... implement it. Oh Noes!

aircarver
11-25-2012, 15:11
Is that the carrier they bought from Russia?

Didn't count a lot of hard points on that Sukhoi clone, either...

'Cuz, as has been noted previously, they can't haul a lot of 'stuff' off the deck without a catapult ... :rofl:

,

Ragnar
11-25-2012, 15:13
Seriously bunk22, as a naval aviator how could you NOT KNOW the limitations of a ski jump style carrier.

Does the USN teach its aviators about skijump carrier takeoff and weight limits?

Does the US Army teach its infantry about the care and feeding of horses?

I doubt that USN training programs include a lot about skijumps.

Ragnar
11-25-2012, 15:18
How come the numbers on the plane are not written in Chinese?

Because for the last several centuries they've used arabic numbers in science and engineering. Most people in China, Korea, and Japan use them in everyday life as well.

bunk22
11-25-2012, 15:18
I think they theoretically can if they kept the same setup at the Russian Kuznetsov which has three launch points, at least one that looks like it can be used while landing aircraft (on the starboard side forward of the island).


The Kuznetsov:


http://rusnavy.com/nowadays/concept/reforms/rebuildingthecarrier/images/kuznetsov.jpg




http://www.theaircraftcarrier.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/Comparision-of-Admiral-Kuznetsov-aircraft-carrier-with-other-modern-aircraft-carriers0.jpg


The Liaoning (from the picture it does appear they kept all three launch points):


http://i1.mail.com/792/1585792,h=425,pd=1,w=620/liaoning.jpg

EdTracker
11-25-2012, 15:19
Does the USN teach its aviators about skijump carrier takeoff and weight limits?

Does the US Army teach its infantry about the care and feeding of horses?

I doubt that USN training programs include a lot about skijumps.

I would think that a Naval Aviator would be more educated about his potential enemy than an Army grunt or even butterbar.

The skijump we are discussing was from initially a Russian carrier. The carrier would be a frontline enemy if the coldwar ever went hot. Knowing the capabilities of ones enemy goes back to the Art of War.

bunk22
11-25-2012, 15:21
Does the USN teach its aviators about skijump carrier takeoff and weight limits?

Does the US Army teach its infantry about the care and feeding of horses?

I doubt that USN training programs include a lot about skijumps.

I'm going to go with zero about the ski jump, learning as I go concerning this type of boat. I get the point that it seemed more common sense that the aircraft payload (fuel included) would be limited but my knowledge is very limited about ski jump boats, so my hones answer was I don't know.

bunk22
11-25-2012, 15:27
I would think that a Naval Aviator would be more educated about his potential enemy than an Army grunt or even butterbar.

The skijump we are discussing was from initially a Russian carrier. The carrier would be a frontline enemy if the coldwar ever went hot. Knowing the capabilities of ones enemy goes back to the Art of War.

Hornet drivers might know more than I do, the intel guys certainly but nothing in my career was ever taught about ski jump boats. I never had a need to know and in intermediate/advanced jet where I instruct now, no need to learn anything about them. Our students have to learn our system, nothing else matters. However, anytime you want to talk about carrier aviation, specifically carrier ops and how we operate, I'm game Ed.

EdTracker
11-25-2012, 15:34
Shocking Bunk22,

I guess I am an education nut ( I am projecting ). I feel like I am always studying for a test next week even though my last grad class was 9 years ago.

Other than engineering, I am a medicine and history nut.

Knowing your future enemy seems like a no brainer to me.

bunk22
11-25-2012, 15:39
Shocking Bunk22,

I guess I am an education nut ( I am projecting ). I feel like I am always studying for a test next week even though my last grad class was 9 years ago.

Other than engineering, I am a medicine and history nut.

Knowing your future enemy seems like a no brainer to me.

I know one thing you're not, a Navy pilot. Regardless, I'm not a Hornet driver and they might know and I'll ask tomorrow. My guess is they know more about the capabilities of the Flanker series than they know about the ski jump boats. The fact that as of now, we will not face navalized versions of the Flanker, might be a factor, don't know enough. A land based J-15 is probably going to have a bit more capability and thus knowing its capabilities is good enough for now.

expatman
11-25-2012, 15:41
EdTracker,
I am sure there are men and women who are schooled on the capabilities of the enemy equipment but I suspect you are over thinking it a bit. A U.S. fighter pilot needs to know the capabilities of his platform and the enemy platform he will go up against. A fighter pilot does not really need to know what an enemy ship can do so much as he needs to know what the enemy PLANE can do.

At a higher level, yes, there will be guys that plan our fight around the capability of that enemy ship but that is not the role of the individual pilot.

Just like a grunt (me) only needs to know the capability of the enemy weapons (AKs, PKMs, etc..) I don't need to know how far his logistics train can push him forward. That would be the job of my commanders to be aware of.

HollowHead
11-25-2012, 15:47
Did you learn that from NASA?

Actually, the numerical system that we use came from India and was introduced to Europe by Muslim traders.


http://www-history.mcs.st-and.ac.uk/HistTopics/Indian_numerals.html

I would imagine that even NASA knows that the Indian system had no "zero". The muzzies fixed that. HH

tsmo1066
11-25-2012, 16:27
The Russian's never completed their second Admiral Kuznetsov class carrier because the whole class was considered a strategic and tactical failure. As a combination missile cruiser/medium carrier, it never fullfilled either role effectively, and although the Russians kept on the original Kuznetsov as a flagship for both political and PR reasons, the whole program was quietly scrapped as far as any future platforms in the class were concerned.

The Chinese are using the carrier they purchased as a stepping stone to train crews and develop basic carrier tactics and operational skills before building their own, more effective designs.

Deanster
11-25-2012, 16:32
Shocking Bunk22,

I guess I am an education nut ( I am projecting ). I feel like I am always studying for a test next week even though my last grad class was 9 years ago.

Other than engineering, I am a medicine and history nut.

Knowing your future enemy seems like a no brainer to me.

Somehow casting a Naval Aviator as ignorant because he doesn't happen to know precisely how much ski-jump takeoffs hinder max takeoff weight seems like a pretty high bar.

My sense is that's the sort of thing you might come across in the line of professional learning, or not, just depending on circumstance.

There's for sure SOMEONE who knows or can find out in a few minutes on an aircraft carrier's intel staff, but part of the point of operating as a team is that you don't have to know absolutely everything yourself, and can specialize in getting really really good at your particular job.

Last time I checked, the learning and knowledge burden on carrier-qualified aviators was pretty substantial - you might consider cutting the guy a little slack because he lives, you know, in the real world.

Deanster
11-25-2012, 16:53
I was just reading up on the Admiral Kuznetsov, and was reminded that one oddity of the class was the 12x 'Shipwreck' anti-ship missile launchers in the middle of the flight deck...

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_K5b9pLiE_VM/SZ71fqZZ4AI/AAAAAAAAAJI/PN1kCJiL4XA/s400/Granits+of+Kusteenov.jpg

http://amphibiousnecessity.blogspot.com/2009/02/carriers-fully-loaded-admiral-kuznetsov.html

I wonder if the Chinese retained these? Shipwreck is supposed to be an absolutely wicked missile.

Since it was supposed to be a combo missile cruiser/carrier, Kuznetsov also has 192 short-range SAM's on board, AND 8x Kashtan CIWS each with 2x 30mm gatling AND a missile launcher. Then 8x more individual 30mm CIWS gatling guns, for a total of 24 spread across 16 mounts.

Yikes... and Kashtan is supposedly a very good CIWS, though I just know what I read on Wikipedia.

Again, wondering how much of that capability the Chinese kept. Nimitz class has four Phalanx CIWS, by contrast, and there's a persistent conversation that the 20mm ammo really limits Phalanx's range and multi-target engagement capability, even with DU rounds. 16 CIWS is more than 4 CIWS, no matter how you cut it. ;)

EdTracker
11-25-2012, 17:34
I would imagine that even NASA knows that the Indian system had no "zero". The muzzies fixed that. HH

Actually Fibonacci is credited with the invention of the concept of zero. He was not a "muzzi".

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=history-of-zero

The concept of the Arabic numbers is a bit of a misnomer.

EdTracker
11-25-2012, 17:35
Somehow casting a Naval Aviator as ignorant because he doesn't happen to know precisely how much ski-jump takeoffs hinder max takeoff weight seems like a pretty high bar.

My sense is that's the sort of thing you might come across in the line of professional learning, or not, just depending on circumstance.

There's for sure SOMEONE who knows or can find out in a few minutes on an aircraft carrier's intel staff, but part of the point of operating as a team is that you don't have to know absolutely everything yourself, and can specialize in getting really really good at your particular job.

Last time I checked, the learning and knowledge burden on carrier-qualified aviators was pretty substantial - you might consider cutting the guy a little slack because he lives, you know, in the real world.

Excellent Post!

I stand corrected.

Slug71
11-25-2012, 17:38
Theres talk that the new J-31 is to operate from Chinese carriers.

F14Scott
11-25-2012, 18:56
I can add that fighter aircrews study numerous and specific characteristics of dozens of threat aircraft: turn rate and radius, energy addition, fuel capacity and consumption, roll rate, high AOA capabilities, visual indicators of airspeed (such as flaps, slats, boards, and other high lift devices), radars, IR tracking, ECM, ECCM, helmet-cued targeting, scores of missiles and bombs, and their guns. All these weapons, especially, are meticulously committed to memory, as their envelopes, ranges, speeds, and altitudes are key to employing one's own weapons while avoiding the enemy's.

Then, we study the tactics and training of the enemy aircrews themselves. Each country has its own playbook, and knowing and fighting to those scenarios is important, although we were pretty conservative and assumed that even the worst country would fight a good fight, leading us to almost always fight our best fight.

Then, we study dozens of enemy SAM systems, AAA systems, and MANPADS, which means we learn their threat envelopes, speeds, altitudes, warheads, and maneuvering capabilities, as well as committing to memory their ever changing locations in our operating area.

Don't forget about our own aircraft and its dozens of systems and dozens of weapons, all of which get routine upgrades requiring memorization of new procedures and implementations. Then, of course, are our tactics, which are hugely complex and ever-evolving. These tactics are the keys to US superiority, and are the topic of long hours of preparation, study, discussion, critique, and practice. It's a three-dimensional extreme sport with up to a dozen teammates (a strike package) fighting a dozen bandits on a field 100x100 nautical miles, speeds of 1500 knots closure, +8 and -3 Gs, and athletic gear valued in the hundreds of millions of dollars.

We also study enemy ships and subs, to the extent that we could identify them visually. That reminds me, we learn the minute differences between different models of the same enemy jets. Does that MiG-21 have a conformal tank on its spine and a particular blade antenna configuration? I used to know them all.

We also learn the geography of our op areas, and also the local politics and peoples, such that if we find ourselves ejecting into them we might have a better chance of surviving. Of course, we learn the targets, too.

You can be sure if there were naval Flanker variants in the area, we could tell you its max TO weight, probably fuel and stores loadout, combat radius, loiter time, ladder, JOKER, and BINGO states. My first thought, when watching the J-15 on the ball, was, "wouldn't it be fun to zorch in and splash that guy while he's trick-or-treat on the ball?"

TheExplorer
11-25-2012, 18:58
Just wait until they need warranty parts. They'll take forever to fix it.

Big Bird
11-25-2012, 19:07
No cat?


Only on the menu in the galley.:rofl:

G19Tony
11-25-2012, 20:00
Only on the menu in the galley.:rofl:

Winner! :rofl:

Ragnar
11-25-2012, 20:06
I would imagine that even NASA knows that the Indian system had no "zero". The muzzies fixed that. HH

The "muzzies" did no such thing. They brought it from India.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=what-is-the-origin-of-zer

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=history-of-zero

Pwhfirefighter
11-25-2012, 21:31
To those who fly for a living out there, I am curious as to how formidable the their latest fighters as well as to their air crews are. I still believe our aircrews (as in US) are the best but can't help but wonder how theirs would be compared to ours. I gather from what F14SCOTT said and, from my interaction with aircrews as a maintainer, that our side trains for the worst case scenario (if I understand correctly).

HollowHead
11-25-2012, 21:36
To those who fly for a living out there, I am curious as to how formidable the their latest fighters as well as to their air crews are. I still believe our aircrews (as in US) are the best but can't help but wonder how theirs would be compared to ours. I gather from what F14SCOTT said and, from my interaction with aircrews as a maintainer, that our side trains for the worst case scenario (if I understand correctly).

I would imagine that's it's hard to say what would happen in a shooting war, but in some recent wargames, India's Su-30s spanked our F-15s. HH

F14Scott
11-25-2012, 21:49
I would imagine that's it's hard to say what would happen in a shooting war, but in some recent wargames, India's Su-30s spanked our F-15s. HH

There's more to that story.

http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/2008/11/usaf-pilot-describes-iaf-su30m.html

Pwhfirefighter
11-25-2012, 23:03
There's more to that story.

http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/2008/11/usaf-pilot-describes-iaf-su30m.html

Good info in those videos. I had heard some about the India thing, that clarifies a lot. Thanks

Slug71
11-25-2012, 23:43
I've always wondered how the Gripen would fair against the F/A-18, F-15 and F-16. Especially the Viper.

JuneyBooney
11-26-2012, 00:59
They have the colored shirts and all on the deck. Looks like flying the ball till touchdown.

J-15 take off and landing on board Liaoning - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q2LSmpqAZ74&sns=fb)

It kind of resembles a tomcat in my opinion.

lunarspeak
11-26-2012, 06:08
i watched the vid and i came away from it with this,the IAF had several problems that the US. airforce noticed and then told them about,so im betting they are working on those problems now.

and what does the IAF have to do with the chinese airforce?
dont the chinese airforce have way more chengdo j-10s and shenyang j-11's then su-30's???

apples to oranges.

Foxtrotx1
11-26-2012, 06:54
CGI is the peoples faces :P

Don't you know that military analysts thought the Asian races can't fly because lack of balance from being carried on their mothers backs as infants...

Not serious about that either.



Seriously bunk22, as a naval aviator how could you NOT KNOW the limitations of a ski jump style carrier.

Because the US does not use them maybe.....:upeyes:

ggarciatx
11-26-2012, 07:43
Naval Aviators and Aircrew don't know the intricate workings of the Catapult and Arresting gear unless they have done so previously. Believe me if a "Nugget" walked out on the flightdeck trying to boss everyone around and telling how to set the aircraft in the "box" or try to attach a holdback bar to an F-14 or A-6, there would be serious problems. Just because Bunk and F-14 Scott may not know Flight deck Operations doesn't mean who they are not Naval Pilots. USN Aircrew are not formally trained in Flight deck operations like Greenshirts, Blueshirts, BB stackers, grapes, etc.
That is like a U.S. Army Infantry man being expected to know the workings of an M-1 Abrams or Patriot Missile system.

To Bunk and F-14Scott, That J-15 did look good in the glidepath and it is scary that flight Operation look orchestrated so well. I realize one J-15 on a 3 1/2 acre flight deck is not the controlled chaos on a CV or CVN.

This looks like a formidable threat. Anyone remember the Falklands? A couple of Ski jump carriers with subsonic Sea Harriers and Harriers outnumbered by about 20-1 by the Argentine Navy and Air Force? Yes, The Brits had a few years of training before hand with the Sea Harrier, but this J-15 could probably turn circles around a Harrier. The Brits decimated the Argentinians in that War. This has the potential to cause a headache to all of the smaller Navies in the Pacific Rim.

They have a long way to go to match our Carriers, but being familiar with Flight Operations, they are looking pretty good.

raven11
11-26-2012, 08:08
My first thought, when watching the J-15 on the ball, was, "wouldn't it be fun to zorch in and splash that guy while he's trick-or-treat on the ball?"

So much for chivalry:rofl: how about you trip him while he is on they way to the head :tongueout:

RedTop
11-26-2012, 08:54
Only on the menu in the galley.:rofl:

Now that is funny! :rofl:

Slug71
11-26-2012, 13:38
Theres talk that the new J-31 is to operate from Chinese carriers.

http://www.news.com.au/world/new-j-31-fighter-gives-china-a-fighting-chance/story-fndir2ev-1226509942525

Looks like a cross between a F-35 and F-22.

dherloc
11-26-2012, 13:52
I can add that fighter aircrews study numerous and specific characteristics of dozens of threat aircraft: turn rate and radius, energy addition, fuel capacity and consumption, roll rate, high AOA capabilities, visual indicators of airspeed (such as flaps, slats, boards, and other high lift devices), radars, IR tracking, ECM, ECCM, helmet-cued targeting, scores of missiles and bombs, and their guns. All these weapons, especially, are meticulously committed to memory, as their envelopes, ranges, speeds, and altitudes are key to employing one's own weapons while avoiding the enemy's.

Then, we study the tactics and training of the enemy aircrews themselves. Each country has its own playbook, and knowing and fighting to those scenarios is important, although we were pretty conservative and assumed that even the worst country would fight a good fight, leading us to almost always fight our best fight.

Then, we study dozens of enemy SAM systems, AAA systems, and MANPADS, which means we learn their threat envelopes, speeds, altitudes, warheads, and maneuvering capabilities, as well as committing to memory their ever changing locations in our operating area.

Don't forget about our own aircraft and its dozens of systems and dozens of weapons, all of which get routine upgrades requiring memorization of new procedures and implementations. Then, of course, are our tactics, which are hugely complex and ever-evolving. These tactics are the keys to US superiority, and are the topic of long hours of preparation, study, discussion, critique, and practice. It's a three-dimensional extreme sport with up to a dozen teammates (a strike package) fighting a dozen bandits on a field 100x100 nautical miles, speeds of 1500 knots closure, +8 and -3 Gs, and athletic gear valued in the hundreds of millions of dollars.

We also study enemy ships and subs, to the extent that we could identify them visually. That reminds me, we learn the minute differences between different models of the same enemy jets. Does that MiG-21 have a conformal tank on its spine and a particular blade antenna configuration? I used to know them all.

We also learn the geography of our op areas, and also the local politics and peoples, such that if we find ourselves ejecting into them we might have a better chance of surviving. Of course, we learn the targets, too.

You can be sure if there were naval Flanker variants in the area, we could tell you its max TO weight, probably fuel and stores loadout, combat radius, loiter time, ladder, JOKER, and BINGO states. My first thought, when watching the J-15 on the ball, was, "wouldn't it be fun to zorch in and splash that guy while he's trick-or-treat on the ball?"


And we nucs' thought you guys just hung out in the ready rooms and played spades! :wavey:

F14Scott
11-26-2012, 15:56
And we nucs' thought you guys just hung out in the ready rooms and played spades! :wavey:

Only when we weren't in our staterooms during GQ watching Caddyshack with the volume turned way down. :supergrin:

dherloc
11-26-2012, 16:09
Only when we weren't in our staterooms during GQ watching Caddyshack with the volume turned way down. :supergrin:

Are you sure it wasn't Top Gun? :tongueout:

dherloc
11-26-2012, 16:13
I remember the 1st time I walked on TR and saw one of those F-14s up close...those things are HUGE! A whole lotta awesomeness that isn't around any more.:crying:

cgjane
11-26-2012, 16:50
Nothing new, and f18s gonna eat them up

F14Scott
11-27-2012, 10:05
I remember the 1st time I walked on TR and saw one of those F-14s up close...those things are HUGE! A whole lotta awesomeness that isn't around any more.:crying:

'Bout the size of a tennis court. I was most shocked by the size the first time I pulled up next to a DC-9. We were smaller, but not by much, considering we held two people.

http://i41.photobucket.com/albums/e294/F14Scott/boeing_dc9_51-19908.jpg

JLB768
11-27-2012, 10:56
I call BS...

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8061/8223782481_27cb2ed5ac_c.jpg