Ask anything Thread (Air Force)
- Thread starter Jeff Head
- Start date
Role-wise, that would be the J-31/35.
Besides, like @99PLAAFBalloons and the quoted post by @Blitzo have mentioned - China's medium-weight 5th-gen fighter i.e. the J-31/35 entering service with PLA is pretty much set in stone by this point, with all the personnel training, production lines, supply chain and network, service facilities, and maintenance infrastructure already partially/fully established.
So it doesn't really make sense to develop yet another 5th-gen light fighter just for China's own usage from homeland defense, when she already has the J-20 and J-31/35 to work with. Similarly, you don't see the US and Russia developing 5th-gen light fighters either (the Su-75 is export-exclusive).
When and where have you seen that?
Typo error, slight correction.
Also want to point out a single-engjne ws15 powered jet would come verrrrrrrrrrry late to the party (blank sheet design based on an engine not yet past its testing phase, sounds like a recipe for disaster if you ask me), which can be a big problem for PLAAF depending on which scenario we’re talking about. At the same time we have FC-31/J-35 which can work with existing engines and have been undergoing testing for years, being a pretty fast and straightforward purchase should PLAAF want a cheaper 5th gen fighter.
But the WS-15 should basically be compatible in size with the existing WS-10 series. Otherwise it would not fit into the J-20.
They can just fly the prototype with the WS-10 and switch to the WS-15 when it becomes available for mass production.
As for the Su-75 being export exclusive, I think no one really believes that. Development is being self-funded by the UAC but so was the FC-31 self-funded by Shenyang. Russia will be lacking aircraft after the conflict in Ukraine. Existing aircraft will have been severely worked and need heavy maintenance or total replacement. The perception will be that the major opponent will be in Europe, so there will be less of a need for long range fighters to cover their entire airspace. Finally there will be less money to spend on fighters at the same time the amount of soldiers in the armed forces will increase. All of this favors the Su-75 acquisition.
As for having two light fighters we already have precedent of that in the US i.e. the F-16 and F/A-18. Which was arguably a lot more successful combination than trying to fit the F-35 into all use cases.
They can just fly the prototype with the WS-10 and switch to the WS-15 when it becomes available for mass production.
As for the Su-75 being export exclusive, I think no one really believes that. Development is being self-funded by the UAC but so was the FC-31 self-funded by Shenyang. Russia will be lacking aircraft after the conflict in Ukraine. Existing aircraft will have been severely worked and need heavy maintenance or total replacement. The perception will be that the major opponent will be in Europe, so there will be less of a need for long range fighters to cover their entire airspace. Finally there will be less money to spend on fighters at the same time the amount of soldiers in the armed forces will increase. All of this favors the Su-75 acquisition.
As for having two light fighters we already have precedent of that in the US i.e. the F-16 and F/A-18. Which was arguably a lot more successful combination than trying to fit the F-35 into all use cases.
Last edited:
Someone knows if they are still new H-6 batches and how many they will build per year ? With all the speculations on a new bomber without clear evidences, production numbers of H-6 could at least give us some cue.
I looked at XAC using Sentinel recently and production seemed to be almost all Y20 and no H6 but hard to tell at Sentinel resolution.
Why are there two “Ask Anything Thread” threads?
There is one such thread for each subsection Air Force/Army/Navy, etc I think.
To clarify
1. "Light(-weight) fighter" hereby refers to fighters that have a max takeoff weight of below ~15 tons, e.g. L-15, JF-17, FA-50, Yak-130 and Tejas;
2. "Medium(-weight) fighter" hereby refers to fighters that have a max takeoff weight of ~15 to ~30 tons, e.g. J-10, F-16, F-18, MiG-29, J-31/35 and F-35; plus
3. "Heavy(-weight) fighter" hereby refers to fighters that have a max takeoff weight of above ~30 tons, e.g. J-16, F-15, Su-30, J-20, F-22 and Su-57.
Though, should this single-engine 5th-gen fighter be (somehow) deemed necessary for development, I'm more inclined that the fighter be fitted with a futher-developed WS-10 variant (WS-10D, perhaps?) that utilizes some technologies from the WS-15 and WS-19 (similarly to the F414-EPE development), instead of outright fitting it with a WS-15 that is considered a top-of-the-line product for China at the moment.
Other than offering an export-viable advanced low-bypass turbofan engine, the WS-10D also ensures that while foreign countries can procure this technology from China and make their air forces comparable to the lower-to-mid spectrum of 5th-gen fighters elsewhere, they won't get too strong to challenge China directly.
On the other hand, the F-16 and F-18 were developed and introduced in the 1970s and 1980s, when (4th-gen) fighter jets back then were comparably less complex and challenging to develop and build than (5th-gen) fighter jets of today. That's why we don't see the US developing more than 2 models of 5th-gens, and similarly for the 6th-gens in the coming years.
Besides, the realities surrounding the F-35 actually differs a lot from the realities surrounding the J-31/35. Comparing both is like pitting an apple against an orange.
For the F-35, Lockheed Martin practically had to design the fighter such that all the needs of the USAF, USMC and the USN can be met using that one airframe design with variables suited to each of the 3 branches, courtesy of the Pentagon merging the CALF (to replace USAF's F-16 and USMC's Harrier) and JAST (for the USN) programs into the all-in-one JSF program in the early 1990s. That's one of the major factors on why the F-35 turned out to be a clusterfvck of a fighter jet family program.
Meanwhile, China's J-31/35 has no such debacles to deal with:
- Unlike the USMC, the PLANMC has no need for a (sub-)branch-exclusive fighter (they can rely upon the PLAAF and PLANAF for air cover and fire support), hence Shenyang is free from all the troubles associated with S/VTOL;
- With a smaller dimension and having two mid-thrust yet powerful engines onboard mean that the J-31/35 is a highly favorable option as a carrier-based fighter for use by the PLAN compared to the J-20; and
- The initial variant, i.e. FC-31 was originally developed to be an export-oriented land-based fighter in the first place, hence the J-31/35 can also be readily procured by the PLAAF should there be a need by them.
That's why the J-31/35 is so different from the F-35A/B/C - And also why there is scant need for China to develop yet another, single-engine, 5th-gen fighter for the PLAAF that is distinct from the 5th-gen fighter for the PLAN.
1. "Light(-weight) fighter" hereby refers to fighters that have a max takeoff weight of below ~15 tons, e.g. L-15, JF-17, FA-50, Yak-130 and Tejas;
2. "Medium(-weight) fighter" hereby refers to fighters that have a max takeoff weight of ~15 to ~30 tons, e.g. J-10, F-16, F-18, MiG-29, J-31/35 and F-35; plus
3. "Heavy(-weight) fighter" hereby refers to fighters that have a max takeoff weight of above ~30 tons, e.g. J-16, F-15, Su-30, J-20, F-22 and Su-57.
Yes, largely.
Though, should this single-engine 5th-gen fighter be (somehow) deemed necessary for development, I'm more inclined that the fighter be fitted with a futher-developed WS-10 variant (WS-10D, perhaps?) that utilizes some technologies from the WS-15 and WS-19 (similarly to the F414-EPE development), instead of outright fitting it with a WS-15 that is considered a top-of-the-line product for China at the moment.
Other than offering an export-viable advanced low-bypass turbofan engine, the WS-10D also ensures that while foreign countries can procure this technology from China and make their air forces comparable to the lower-to-mid spectrum of 5th-gen fighters elsewhere, they won't get too strong to challenge China directly.
Thanks for the correction on the Su-75.
On one hand, both the YF-16 (predecessor to the F-16) and YF-17 (predecessor to the F-18) were initially conceived by General Dynamics and Boeing to compete in the LWF competition held by the USAF, of which the YF-16 won. The YF-17 was then picked by the USN during the revived VFAX competition. Both of them eventually entered active service with the USAF and USN respectively as medium-weight fighters.
On the other hand, the F-16 and F-18 were developed and introduced in the 1970s and 1980s, when (4th-gen) fighter jets back then were comparably less complex and challenging to develop and build than (5th-gen) fighter jets of today. That's why we don't see the US developing more than 2 models of 5th-gens, and similarly for the 6th-gens in the coming years.
Besides, the realities surrounding the F-35 actually differs a lot from the realities surrounding the J-31/35. Comparing both is like pitting an apple against an orange.
For the F-35, Lockheed Martin practically had to design the fighter such that all the needs of the USAF, USMC and the USN can be met using that one airframe design with variables suited to each of the 3 branches, courtesy of the Pentagon merging the CALF (to replace USAF's F-16 and USMC's Harrier) and JAST (for the USN) programs into the all-in-one JSF program in the early 1990s. That's one of the major factors on why the F-35 turned out to be a clusterfvck of a fighter jet family program.
Meanwhile, China's J-31/35 has no such debacles to deal with:
- Unlike the USMC, the PLANMC has no need for a (sub-)branch-exclusive fighter (they can rely upon the PLAAF and PLANAF for air cover and fire support), hence Shenyang is free from all the troubles associated with S/VTOL;
- With a smaller dimension and having two mid-thrust yet powerful engines onboard mean that the J-31/35 is a highly favorable option as a carrier-based fighter for use by the PLAN compared to the J-20; and
- The initial variant, i.e. FC-31 was originally developed to be an export-oriented land-based fighter in the first place, hence the J-31/35 can also be readily procured by the PLAAF should there be a need by them.
That's why the J-31/35 is so different from the F-35A/B/C - And also why there is scant need for China to develop yet another, single-engine, 5th-gen fighter for the PLAAF that is distinct from the 5th-gen fighter for the PLAN.
Last edited: