Let's see a ski jump launch this...

[Tailhook]

10x GBU-32s!!! Plus a tank, AIM-9X, ATFLIR, and looks like an AMRAAM on the cheek. Bad day for ISIS. Submitted the loadout to the DB3000 thread.

[Dan109]

Impressive loadout - for the F-35, we may have to wait to see an actual photo, even though its wetpoints can technically support the weight for the same amount of ordinance - I suppose it would need the software to send targeting info and release commands for that exact amount of weapons - I don't think public info on the block software ever discusses that level of detail.

[Dysta]

Well, the STOBAR platform like Kuz and her sisters has one longer launching station, for 1 tons heavier of loadout than first two short stations. If I remember correctly, the J-15's short launch can only carry 2 PL-9, 4 PL-12 and one underbay fuel tank. Using the long launch may add 2 C-803A or 4 C-704A ASMs, but launch rate will be extremely slow.

Both are nowhere to be heavier than that Super Hornet launch from a catapult. And it's not even a full potential of Su-33/J-15 because of the much bigger size (and to be launched from the cancelled Soviet nuclear powered CASTOBAR). What I'm agree with is ski-ramp is by far the simplest method to put carrier jets to the sky, with inferior performance.

[Hongjian]

@Dysta
The confirmed take-off loadout of the J-15 was 2x YJ-83KH (each about 700+kg, depending on variant) and two PL-8 (each 115kg). This gives one around 1.6 tons of weapons payload, so way less than what we see the Super Hornet carrying here.

Indeed, ski-jumps are unsuitable for strike roles with a lot of heavy bombs and missiles, but looking from another side; these 1.6 tons of payload would still allow the J-15 to take off with its maximum AAM loadout: Eight PL-12 (each 180kg) + two PL-8, together being 1670kg.

Coincidentially, there were unconfirmed reports that claimed that the J-15 cannot take off with more than 2 tons maximum payload. This might be quite low, but this still allows for a quite decent loadout, if we actually calculated how each Chinese AAM and AShM weights.

[Dysta]

ORIGINAL: Hongjian

@Dysta
The confirmed take-off loadout of the J-15 was 2x YJ-83KH (each about 700+kg, depending on variant) and two PL-8 (each 115kg). This gives one around 1.6 tons of weapons payload, so way less than what we see the Super Hornet carrying here.

Indeed, ski-jumps are unsuitable for strike roles with a lot of heavy bombs and missiles, but looking from another side; these 1.6 tons of payload would still allow the J-15 to take off with its maximum AAM loadout: Eight PL-12 (each 180kg) + two PL-8, together being 1670kg.

Coincidentially, there were unconfirmed reports that claimed that the J-15 cannot take off with more than 2 tons maximum payload. This might be quite low, but this still allows for a quite decent loadout, if we actually calculated how each Chinese AAM and AShM weights.

1.6 tons? Well, I was overestimated that to be able to carry 2 tons from long and 1 ton from short. All I can say is, they need catapults very badly, something seriously powerful to haul a full-loaded Su-30 around 100 meters to the sky.

Otherwise, they are lemon sharks.

[kevinkins]

Perhaps irrelevant within a discussion of weights and measures ... but Chinese pilots have no direct combat experience nor combat tradition to fall back on. To field replicates of US forces would be foolhardy. They have to field platforms precisely tuned to their
grand strategy. Heavy strike a/c may not be efficient in the context of that strategy. Inexperienced soldiers are more reliable on the defensive e.g. slowly seize forward positions diplomatically and defend them with nibble fighters.

Kevin

[mikmykWS]

ORIGINAL: kevinkin

Perhaps irrelevant within a discussion of weights and measures ... but Chinese pilots have no direct combat experience nor combat tradition to fall back on. To field replicates of US forces would be foolhardy. They have to field platforms precisely tuned to their
grand strategy. Heavy strike a/c may not be efficient in the context of that strategy. Inexperienced soldiers are more reliable on the defensive e.g. slowly seize forward positions diplomatically and defend them with nibble fighters.

Kevin

5 years ago perhaps you could hang your hat on that one but they've had time to learn.

Mike

[Dysta]

Anyway, I think that bomb-truck FA-18 fields better combat effectiveness than heavier, but no AA capability of B-1 for CAS, as well as to face against limited aerial threats. It's nimble enough for A/C, and store enough ordinances for a substantial land attack. The only weakness is short-legged compare to the proper bomber.

A squadron of bomb-truck FA-18 can flatten most of the defense perimeters and convoys, and way more economical than cruise missiles. It's a big note to other navies in the world why warfare will favor to jets more than ships.

[Hongjian]

ORIGINAL: Dysta

ORIGINAL: Hongjian

@Dysta
The confirmed take-off loadout of the J-15 was 2x YJ-83KH (each about 700+kg, depending on variant) and two PL-8 (each 115kg). This gives one around 1.6 tons of weapons payload, so way less than what we see the Super Hornet carrying here.

Indeed, ski-jumps are unsuitable for strike roles with a lot of heavy bombs and missiles, but looking from another side; these 1.6 tons of payload would still allow the J-15 to take off with its maximum AAM loadout: Eight PL-12 (each 180kg) + two PL-8, together being 1670kg.

Coincidentially, there were unconfirmed reports that claimed that the J-15 cannot take off with more than 2 tons maximum payload. This might be quite low, but this still allows for a quite decent loadout, if we actually calculated how each Chinese AAM and AShM weights.

1.6 tons? Well, I was overestimated that to be able to carry 2 tons from long and 1 ton from short. All I can say is, they need catapults very badly, something seriously powerful to haul a full-loaded Su-30 around 100 meters to the sky.

Otherwise, they are lemon sharks.

Take note that this is just what has been confirmed by official images. If we believe their own papers, the PLAN has already tested with maximum takeoff weight of a J-15 (32.8 tons) successfully (requiring 20 knots wind over deck). But from the images, the heaviest load we could see was 2xYJ-83K and 2xPL-8, which would be around 1.6 tons.

[kevinkins]

5 years ago perhaps you could hang your hat on that one but they've had time to learn.

Mike

Hmm ... not sure a mere 5 years is able to replace several generations of tradition, experience and engineering prowess. Not to mention real blood, sweat, and tears. I admit I am not an expert on these matters and could be missing something. That said, we are all fortunate China fights commercially and not militarily. Their strategy is methodical and never enters the cable news cycle wherein it might alert the public in western democracies to their motives.

Kevin

[zaytsev]

ORIGINAL: Hongjian

Take note that this is just what has been confirmed by official images. If we believe their own papers, the PLAN has already tested with maximum takeoff weight of a J-15 (32.8 tons) successfully (requiring 20 knots wind over deck). But from the images, the heaviest load we could see was 2xYJ-83K and 2xPL-8, which would be around 1.6 tons.

Correct! But is 25kts headwind (even this 5kts means BIG difference) and they must be launched from 3.pos , long launch. Only 27000kg from pos.1/2 , short launch.

4. This is for SU-33
TOW : 30500kg
Fuel : 5700kg (9300kg is max , so this is half fuel)
Payload : 22 x 250kg bombs i.e. 5500kg
Range : 1700km
Flight time : 2hr 3min
Combat radius : 700km


And I've calculated rough weight for above hornet is ~4500kg ...
10x jdam = 5000lb ~ 2270kg
450 tank ~ 1700 kg
atflir ~ 200kg
amraam ~ 170kg
2x aim9x ~ 180kg

It is clearly 1000kg less of load then SU-33 with 5500kg of load, given, carrier is moving 25kts headwind and longer launch position.

I don't see any problem with ski-jump. Works just fine.

[Gunner98]

I don't see any problem with ski-jump. Works just fine.

In perfect conditions on a slow launch cycle.

[Dysta]

ORIGINAL: Gunner98

I don't see any problem with ski-jump. Works just fine.

In perfect conditions on a slow launch cycle.

One more: afterburner must be on.

[Hongjian]

ORIGINAL: zaytsev

ORIGINAL: Hongjian

Take note that this is just what has been confirmed by official images. If we believe their own papers, the PLAN has already tested with maximum takeoff weight of a J-15 (32.8 tons) successfully (requiring 20 knots wind over deck). But from the images, the heaviest load we could see was 2xYJ-83K and 2xPL-8, which would be around 1.6 tons.

Correct! But is 25kts headwind (even this 5kts means BIG difference) and they must be launched from 3.pos , long launch. Only 27000kg from pos.1/2 , short launch.

4. This is for SU-33
TOW : 30500kg
Fuel : 5700kg (9300kg is max , so this is half fuel)
Payload : 22 x 250kg bombs i.e. 5500kg
Range : 1700km
Flight time : 2hr 3min
Combat radius : 700km


And I've calculated rough weight for above hornet is ~4500kg ...
10x jdam = 5000lb ~ 2270kg
450 tank ~ 1700 kg
atflir ~ 200kg
amraam ~ 170kg
2x aim9x ~ 180kg

It is clearly 1000kg less of load then SU-33 with 5500kg of load, given, carrier is moving 25kts headwind and longer launch position.

I don't see any problem with ski-jump. Works just fine.

27 tons is still pretty good. Keep in mind that the internal fuel of the Su-33 is about 9 tons full, while the Super Hornet is half of that at 4.9 tons. Empty weight of the Su-33 is about 18 tons.
So, if the Sea Flanker takes off with half fuel, it would have 23 tons without weapons. This gives it about 4 tons of weapons, which is really not bad, if it could enable the Su-33 to be launched from the two forward positions with still decent range and payload. One always has to remember what huge plane the Sea-Flanker is.

[poaw]

ORIGINAL: zaytsev

Correct! But is 25kts headwind (even this 5kts means BIG difference) and they must be launched from 3.pos , long launch. Only 27000kg from pos.1/2 , short launch.

4. This is for SU-33
TOW : 30500kg
Fuel : 5700kg (9300kg is max , so this is half fuel)
Payload : 22 x 250kg bombs i.e. 5500kg
Range : 1700km
Flight time : 2hr 3min
Combat radius : 700km


And I've calculated rough weight for above hornet is ~4500kg ...
10x jdam = 5000lb ~ 2270kg
450 tank ~ 1700 kg
atflir ~ 200kg
amraam ~ 170kg
2x aim9x ~ 180kg

It is clearly 1000kg less of load then SU-33 with 5500kg of load, given, carrier is moving 25kts headwind and longer launch position.

I don't see any problem with ski-jump. Works just fine.

Those look like 1000lbs class JDAMs, not 500lbs, and you shouldn't ignore the Super Hornet's internal fuel even if you're measuring payload. If the weight restrictions mean that a larger payload has to come out of the fuel carried then that will have a significant impact on either the payloads it carries in practice or it's practical range.

Matching comparable aircraft in payload by only carrying half the fuel you can isn't fine, when the they don't have dedicated tanking aircraft to top them up after launch, they have a relatively small number of strike aircraft to begin with (which will suffer the same weight restrictions as the other aircraft) so chopping aircraft to buddy tank cuts much deeper, and their air forces have a much smaller tanker force overall.

[Cik]

i'm 90% those are MK83 and not mk82 like poaw says.

so it's a really, really heavy loadout.

[Dysta]

MK83 is a rare sight. I mean, most of the time we talk about bombardments are using MK82, or often heavier laser/GPS-guided bombs to bust down some strong fortification.

Even the upgrades are based on MK82, too. Is MK83 too powerful and dumb to be practical?

[shania]

Super Hornet
TOW: 21320kg (with 6780kg of internal fuel)
10x 1000lb bombs: 4500kg
450 tank ~ 1700 kg
atflir ~ 200kg
amraam ~ 170kg
2x aim9x ~ 180kg

=25070kg - still 4867kg reserve to MTOW

[Cik]

ORIGINAL: Dysta

MK83 is a rare sight. I mean, most of the time we talk about bombardments are using MK82, or often heavier laser/GPS-guided bombs to bust down some strong fortification.

Even the upgrades are based on MK82, too. Is MK83 too powerful and dumb to be practical?

MK83 is used frequently by the navy, but those probably aren't dumb.

unless i am really far off the mark, there are JDAM kits for MK83 and those are likely GBU-32 of some variety.


edit: yeah, definitely. note the enlarged tailfins over the normal MK83 and the midbody "brace"

[mikmykWS]

ORIGINAL: Cik

ORIGINAL: Dysta

MK83 is a rare sight. I mean, most of the time we talk about bombardments are using MK82, or often heavier laser/GPS-guided bombs to bust down some strong fortification.

Even the upgrades are based on MK82, too. Is MK83 too powerful and dumb to be practical?

MK83 is used frequently by the navy, but those probably aren't dumb.

unless i am really far off the mark, there are JDAM kits for MK83 and those are likely GBU-32 of some variety.


edit: yeah, definitely. note the enlarged tailfins over the normal MK83 and the midbody "brace"

I agree. Likely GBU-32.

M