Posted on 06/23/2011 9:56:53 AM PDT by sukhoi-30mki
China’s J-15 No Game Changer
June 23, 2011By Gabe Collins & Andrew Erickson
The Chinese military's J-15 Flying Shark fighter is no great leap forward. Still, it suggests blue-water ambitions.
Following is a guest entry from Gabe Collins and Andrew Erickson, co-founders of China Sign Post.
Gen. Chen Bingde, Chief of Staff of the People’s Liberation Army (PLA), has reportedly said that, for the first time, a Chinese ‘aircraft carrier is under construction.’ China is also already preparing the refitted ski-jump carrier Varyag, purchased from Ukraine in 1998, to go to sea.
Given these developments, it seems a good time to look at the first carrier-based aircraft that China will employ: the new J-15 ‘Flying Shark’ carrier-based heavy fighter-bomber.
As currently configured, the J-15 is no ‘great leap forward,’ but is nevertheless triggering concern in the region because it indicates rapid improvement in Chinese naval aviation, and suggests Chinese determination to extend its regional blue water presence. The J-15’s initial role will be linked to, and limited by, its first operational platform: a ‘starter carrier’ to project a bit of power, confer prestige on a rising great power, and master basic procedures.
What’s Happening Now?
On April 24, 2011, Chinese Internet sources posted new photos of a J-15 sitting outside a hangar at the No. 112 Factory of Shenyang Aircraft Corporation airfield.
The J-15, which has an airframe closely resembling that of the Russian Su-33, boasts more advanced, indigenously made avionics, including a shortened tailcone, an arresting hook, and strengthened landing gear.
The lack of a second seat in the J-15 suggests that the PLA believes its electronics suite is sufficiently integrated and automated to require only one person to operate it, which is normal practice for carrier aircraft.
Given China’s low baseline in naval aviation, any progress could make a big difference. The J-15’s potential for long-range missions and heavy payloads, however, is negated by Varyag’s ski-jump deck and China’s lack of refuelling capabilities. For now, it would seem to be dependent on land-based tankers, at least until China develops or acquires catapults.
As for potential mission applications, the J-15 is a large aircraft and likely has a normal take-off weight similar to that of the United States’ now-retired F-14 Tomcat. If the J-15’s avionics suite can support a ground attack mission, it will have two primary uses in a future Chinese carrier group, with a third role of providing air cover as necessary during future operations to protect and/or evacuate Chinese citizens threatened by violence overseas.
If properly equipped, supported, and employed—and these are significant ‘ifs’—the J-15 could affect the regional military balance substantially. If China is able to eventually employ an effective indigenous active electronically scanned array radar in the J-15, this would offer it stealth and high jamming-resistance, and the potential ability to track and engage cruise missiles. While too many variables remain at this time to determine precisely how the J-15 will contribute to China’s military capabilities, its very existence suggests for the first time the possibility of China developing serious maritime aviation capabilities—a prospect that would have regional implications. In fact, there’s already a substantial likelihood that the J-15’s existence will prompt China’s maritime neighbours, in particular Japan, to purchase additional late-generation fighter aircraft.
Possible J-15 missions
While the Flying Shark’s capabilities remain uncertain, its potential is significant. If deployed effectively, it could offer China new options for combat air patrol (CAP) and maritime strike.
Design Factors
The basic design features high internal fuel capacity and allows for a substantial operational radius. Even with the reduction in fuel and weapons loadout imposed by a ski-jump launch, it’s probable that a J-15’s combat radius could extend as far as 700 kilometres from the carrier, particularly if the buddy tanking capability is included. The J-15 will likely be able to carry China’s PL-12 air-to-air missile, adding an additional 100 kilometres to its reach out range.
When the J-15 is deployed, it could help push potential foes much further away from a Chinese carrier. Organic fighter cover would be vital for maritime security missions located far enough from land to preclude land-based air support. In a close-in fight, the J-15, given its favourable thrust-to-weight ratio and low wing loading, could be a dangerous foe.
Maritime Strike/Anti-Ship Missions
If armed and able to launch successfully with advanced missiles, carrier-based J-15s could credibly hold surface platforms within 500 kilometres of the Chinese carrier group at risk. Existing Chinese surface combatants and submarines pose a very serious threat to surface vessels, but they take much longer to move into firing positions and thus can be more easily accounted for by planners and air defence personnel.
The time taken for a J-15 strike package to cover several hundred kilometres – only a few minutes – would also give Chinese commanders much greater tactical flexibility.
One creative way in which the PLA might attempt to the impact of deck aviation in a regional conflict would be to ‘lily pad’ by launching a number of fully loaded J-15s from coastal airbases, aerially refuel them in protected airspace, and subsequently use the carrier for aeroplane recovery after the first-strike mission.
Regardless of the J-15’s specific capabilities, however, it’s likely to be limited severely by the deck aviation platform from which it operates – the ski-jump. A ski-jump design imposes significant restrictions in terms of allowing an aircraft to approach maximum take-off weight. It also requires the carrier to depend on helicopters to provide airborne early warning (AEW) – a major problem given that helicopters are one of the PLAN’s greatest areas of weakness. As long as the PLAN operates ski-jump carriers, therefore, it’s unclear how much the air group on the carrier will contribute to the overall ISR picture.
Another key limitation is that ski-jump carriers can’t operate tankers, whose aerial refuelling is essential for extending naval aircraft range. Thus, even if China had three carriers in the fleet, up from zero today, PLAN Aviation would still be a primarily land-based air force.
For these reasons, Chinese ski-jump carriers simply can’t be used in any of the combat roles that US Navy carriers have performed.
Issues and Challenges
1) Development or acquisition of catapult launches. Ski-jump launches are highly restrictive, and effectively limit China to operations inside the range of its handful of land-based large tanker aircraft, thus excluding the entire strategic zone between the straits of Hormuz and Malacca.
2) Landing gear. A related question concerns the plane’s ability to absorb the impact of landing. Mistakes or faulty equipment can cause major damage to the aircraft and kill or injure those on deck.
3) AEW and tanker support is needed to function at maximum combat effectiveness. China would need to negotiate access agreements of some type to deploy tankers to support any possible future operations outside the region.
4) China needs to build advanced air-launched Anti-Ship Cruise Missiles to compensate for range restrictions induced by lower fuel payloads during ski-jump operations.
5) China still faces huge challenges improving reliability and safety standards, and has yet to demonstrate top-tier indigenous production capabilities in aero engine development.
6) How many J-15s will PLAN Aviation acquire? Deploying a carrier with a full component of highly capable fighters sends a very different strategic message than deploying one outfitted primarily with helicopters.
7) Assuming that the J-10 can be turned into a successful carrier fighter, will China promote a follow-on version of the slightly-navalised variant of its already developed J-10 fighter? There’s little evidence of this as yet.
So what does all this ultimately mean? While a new step for China and an important indicator, the J-15 is limited in capability; its launch platform even more so. The key issues here are the range and payload, which are both constrained significantly by a ski-jump.
To obtain significantly extended range it’s necessary to use large tankers, which the US Air Force employs extensively, but China lacks. The limitations on number of aircraft carried and the take-off weight limits of ski-jump launched aircraft mean that Chinese planners would be faced with a very difficult choice – attack at longer ranges with a greatly reduced strike package, or bring the carrier in close to get more aircraft on target and expose the entire carrier group to greater risk.
While a first-generation Chinese carrier would not represent a threat to US ships and facilities in the way that the United States uses carriers, it could nevertheless be employed to provide significantly increased air defence to a group of surface ships in order to get them within firing range of a US carrier group or a key US base.
In addition, while a Chinese carrier group would be no match in a head-to-head confrontation with the US Navy, the very existence of a Chinese carrier capability would potentially exert significant pressure on China’s neighbours to settle maritime disputes in ways favourable to China.
One should therefore not necessarily interpret this development as aimed at a specific goal, but rather view J-15’s development as part of a long-term PLAN Aviation effort to ‘dip its toe’ in the water in order to build more robust capabilities in the long run.
Andrew Erickson is an associate professor at the US Naval War College and fellow in the Princeton-Harvard China and the World Programme. Gabe Collins is a commodity and security specialist focused on China and Russia. This is an edited and abridged version of a longer analysis. The full version can be read here.
I finally realized:
What's the reason for the arched "neck" on these aircraft?
What are we talking here...a Chinese copy of a Russian FA-18 knockoff?
If Im not mistaken, the SU-27 (the basis for the J-15) flew around the same time as the Hornet. And it’s significantly larger so its hardly a knockoff.
ping
It’s hard to make technology judgments based on pictures. Also, GE via Obama, is helping China (transferring technology) design a new fighter engine. That may be as much of a “game changer” as putting the Rolls Royce engine into the P-51 Mustang. It was only a mediocre performer before that.
In addition, rules of engagement and tactics come into play. If they’re willing to pull the trigger and our side’s orders aren’t to (Obama sent a destroyer to the Spratlys) then they could be flying a Spad and they’ll win.
sub-laminar anti-stall lift a la` a flamingo?
I am thinking room for the air intakes.
The questions will be (as they are with all carrier aircraft) Max gross weight for takeoff, range and endurance, and bring back capability.
The goods for the J-15 will be thrust and probably endurance. The big questions will be loadout and precision strike capability.
The big others for the PLAN will be the number of aircraft on the roof, cycle times, ability to run cyclic operations, and variety of support aircraft.
Like I said a few days ago, if the ChiComs use the Shi Lang to train up a large number of pilots for their carrier(s) currently under construction, within the next decade the Chinese Navy will be a serious threat throughout the Pacific.
Click on pic for past Navair pings.
Post or FReepmail me if you wish to be enlisted in or discharged from the Navair Pinglist.
The only requirement for inclusion in the Navair Pinglist is an interest in Naval Aviation.
This is a medium to low volume pinglist.
While the J-15 is not on par with the F-22 or the JSF by any stretch, in the proper hands...meaning well trained, expreienced, with a lot of backup capability (ie AEW, EW, etc.)...the J-15 is on par with the F-18 basic airframe and capabilities.
Now, we have all of those extra capabilities and are well honed in all of them. The Chinese do not and would thus be sorely lacking against any US air presences. It would be a turkey shoot at present.
But before now, there was no prospect for any Red Chinese aircraft carrier presence or power projection in that regard.
However, given time and experience, the Chinese will close that gap, just as they are closing the material and tech gap. They intend to have two more full size carriers and the airwings to support them by 2020...making three altogether.
We will have 10 or 11...but the Chinese will all be concentrated in the WESTPAC.
That's why you see our allies building up their own capabilities in this regard...counting on the JSF to give their smaller carriers much greater reach. The Japanese, the Koreans and the Australians are all building sea control type multi-role carriers.
Everyone else in the region can handle them, no problem.
There is a rather brisk naval arms race going on in the WESTPAC right now, and most of it is in response to the PLAN.
Hi Jeff
You and I have argued the finer points of this over quite a few years now:)
I think about the only thing we agree on is TIME.
Sure, eventually the PLAN will be a threat, and a considerable one if the USA doesn't get on the shipbuilding program. And I'm not talking about $1bil LCS - Frigate wannabees. Real $250mil Frigates...$850mil subs...and keeping our Burke Class and all other shipbuilding programs going. We'll need replacements for the Trident boats soon too.
I would advise DOD to go with 8 tubes and more boats if it was up to me.
However, the Aussie F-18s and the Korean/Japanese F-15s are MORE than a match of this lumbering stupid bird the Chinese are putting up. And, all their Blue Water ships exceed the Chinese in every category including numbers. Especially the Japanese.
Yes, aircraft in TRUE Blue Water are a game changer...but the Chinese have yet to show they can get to Blue Water. They are a coastal fleet...and have merely increase their reach by a few hundred kilometers. And, I might add, just increased the distance from home that they will die.
Re: However, the Aussie F-18s and the Korean/Japanese F-15s are MORE than a match of this lumbering stupid bird the Chinese are putting up.
Talk is cheap...
I mean we from the West will never know what we are dealing with, J-15-wise, until we do a real to life duel it out over the skies of the South China Sea with them instead of just basing things from statistics that we gather from out of an air combat game consul.
What we in the West needs to do is to take advantage of the opportunity that the VietCom’s and the Filipees provides and see with our own eyes how good the Shark really is as compared to our super F-18’s and 15’s — in a MiG-15 verses F-86 fashion otherwise this is all but self comfort and self gratification.
In the realms of science, we need to proof a theory before it’s deemed facts.
So, are we up to the task?
Re: Nobody believes these aircraft to be a significant threat except maybe the Philippines and Viet Nam.
Well... There’s this constant argument going around the defense sector and that argument is this: Today, it’s a threat; tomorrow it isn’t; the day following it’s no contest to our birds which now are top of the air combat food chain; and on the forth day the story is that these new ChiCom toys posts a grave concern to every of birds we have with the exception of the F-22 and F-35 and back and forth and over and over again... I mean who knows anymore — for real???
I think we agree on a lot more than that.
I agree that we have to keep building...should never have slowed down or looked back after Gulf War I.
I’d love to see 800 F22s instead of the 187 or whatever it is we have stopped at. I’d love to see 12 carriers and 12 large amphibs...maybe 14 of each instead of scaling back to 10. I’d love to see a bunch of true Frigates too. Our allies have taken and improved the Oliver H. Perry’s we have given them and we have de-fanged our own. We need a new frigate. Perhaps an upgraded USCGC Bertholf class, suitably armed for naval duty, or the upgraded Lockheed version of the LCS that is more of a true frigate that the Israelis are considering.
Also would like to see us replace the Ticos with an upgraded Burke along the lines of the larger, more heavily armed S. Korean Sejong class.
Finally, the new avionics and the capabilities of the J-15 are not junk...but they are not in capable hands either. Our aviators would clean their slate handily in F-18s, F-15s and F-16s. But given time and experience, those aircraft in capable hands could give those aircraft a challenge.
And that’s the rub. Those three aircraft are all 20+ years old tech to us. We should already be moving well along. The J-15 is new and impressive to the Chinese (and indeed is better than what they have been able to produce in the past), but our F-22s and F-35s is what those J-15s should meet in numbers.
What we need is a congres and president who are working together in the best foreign policy interests of the US and who recognize that the best foreign aid we have is a strong and unchallengable military, and keep it that way...unassailable.
I didn’t know that Earl Scheib painted airplanes...
Now that’s funny.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.