I didn't say that it is awarded to CAC, I said it likely has been awarded to CAC either in writing or in principle.
The reason I suspect that, is because of timing.
We know that the 6th generation fighter is projected to be in active service before 2035, meaning it would have had to started initial production about 2-3 years before hand, let's say 2032 (similar to how J-20 only entered proper service some 2-3 years after it began initial production in 2015).
That in turn means the maiden flight of the aircraft would have had to begun at least some 5 years before initial production, in turn meaning active development of the aircraft would have been ongoing for some 3-4 years prior to the maiden flight...
Peel back the numbers, and from 2035 you have to take 2-3 years + 5 years + 3-4 years, which takes us to 2023-2025.
In the 2023-25 period, for SAC, they at that point in time they would already be actively working on the development/testing and starting initial production of the standard carrier based J-XY. As a carrier based 5th generation aircraft (even as a derivative of the FC-31 V1 and V2 airframes), it will be quite reasonably tied up by the challenge of ensuring it works. (This is ignoring the land based J-XY variant btw)
Meanwhile, in the 2023-25 period for CAC, they would not have any new major aircraft project in the works at that point that we can predict. Perhaps one can argue that the WS-15 powered J-20 could be considered a major new aircraft project, but I don't think anyone expects it to be anywhere near the challenge of the J-XY, as it would likely end up just being a J-20 variant with modestly improved avionics and integrated with the new engines without any other meaningful structural enhancements.
So in summary, based on when the 6th gen fighter is projected to enter service, and based on what the timelines for developing a new fighter are, and based on the workloads for developing, testing and establishing production for a new fighter aircraft between CAC and SAC... I find it very unlikely that SAC will have the aerospace resources to develop the primary 6th generation manned fighter in the timescale that would be needed.
Certainly, for two major reasons:
1. Land based J-XY is a less structurally complex and less heavily engineered variant of the already flown standard carrier based J-XY, and entire subsystem domains are likely to be shared (sensors, datalinks, general avionics, weapons). Systems integration tests done on the standard J-XY will be able to substantially accelerate the similar development/testing stages of the land based J-XY, and there are likely to be substantial cross over between the flight testing of the J-XY with the land based J-XY as well.
2. Both the J-XY, and the land based J-XY, in terms of flight testing, will likely benefit meaningfully from the years of flight testing done on FC-31 V1 and V2, likely with gains in risk reduction (and therefore cutting down time). There likely will be no benefit in systems integration as the FC-31 V1 and V2 to our knowledge was never equipped with a sensor suite.
Keep in mind the first J-20 tech demo s/n 2001 first flew in early 2011, and the first initial low rate production of J-20 began in late 2015 -- however the first J-20 prototype s/n 2011 first flew in early 2014, barely two years from first initial low rate production of J-20.
In the case of J-XY, the standard carrier J-XY is much closer to J-20 s/n 2011 than 2001, and I expect the land based J-XY to be similar as well.
So yes, I think 2-3 years between the maiden flight of the first land based J-XY, and initial low rate production, is very much within reason and not an exceptional date at all.
Well then I simply disagree, there's no two ways about it.
So to me, "land based J-XY/35" is already guaranteed, confirmed.
Just like how in 2008-2010 the idea of J-20 was guaranteed, confirmed -- or how in 2019-2020 the idea of J-XY/35 was guaranteed, confirmed.
The only level of "debate" to me is whether the J-XY/35 is going to have the PLAAF be a definitive launch customer, and that's a simple yes or no answer, which is uninteresting and is not useful for productive discussion.
Therefore to me, the only productive discussion that can be had about this "land based J-XY/35" topic is about how the aircraft could hypothetically make sense for the PLAAF.
Also, how "land based J-XY/35 variant slots into future PLAAF" and "the balance of PLAAF 5th generation fighter fleet" to me is the same discussion, and the same level of "speculation" -- i.e.: they're part of the same "how does the land based J-XY/35 make sense for the PLAAF".
If you don't want to have this discussion, that is fine, you do not have to participate.
I disagree, I think it is perfectly reasonable, and more importantly it lines up with other rumours that have since proven to be true (J-XY/35 most notably/relevantly).
Last edited:
