(cont)
It should also improve its performance at low speed, essential for an onboard aircraft whose landing speed is very controlled, and the maximum mass at the deck depends greatly.
But from an engineering point of view, it is always easier to try to optimize a large platform, like the J-20, than having to enlarge and weigh down a small one, if for example we have to transform the
from today. to a machine over 30t.
If we take into account the fact that the number of Chinese naval aviation groups should be lower than that of the Americans, and the Chinese navy has much less experience in the operation of naval air forces, then heavier and therefore more autonomous aircraft would allow also to relieve the pressure on the efficiency of operations on the sending deck.
Price and schedule
We do not know the exact price of J-20 today, but we know for example that its coating costs more than 2 million Yuan (268 k €) per m², or its AESA antenna radar is worth more than 100 million Yuan (~ € 13 million).
Some rumors speak of no less than 800 million Yuan, more than 107 million euros, for a turnkey J-20. Although these are just rumors, but the amount seems consistent.
The acquisition of the arm is a balance between "what we want to do with" and "what we can afford financially." Now let's see how much it will cost the Chinese navy if it had to choose the J-20 as its future onboard aircraft.
I do not know what proportion of the purchase price of a fighter jet compared to its LCC (Lifecycle Cost). My experience in civil aviation tells me that the initial acquisition represents about 25% of LCC, in the case of an A320 for an airline for example.
If we extrapolate this ratio by applying an inflation rate of 3% per year, it will be necessary to add € 576 million in service fees for a 25-year lifecycle of the machine, in addition to the € 107 million purchase. approximately € 583 million in total for a non-naval J-20.
Assuming that China will have 3 CATOBAR aircraft carriers in the end, and each will have at least 40 fighter jets (70 000t of displacement), this will mathematically cost nearly 70 billion euros if the 120 aircraft are all J-20.
We will say that it is a straw given the size of China and its economy, but if we see that the LCC of a 25-year-old J-20 returns the same price to buy a
destroyer of 12 000t, we will probably have another vision of things.
My sources in China like to tell me that "For every Yuan of budget, we are obliged to spend it in 2 times 50 cents". An expression I took a long time to understand - This is tense in terms of the budget for the Chinese navy, even though the Chinese government seems to be tilting the budget a little closer to them today.
It is for this reason that it seems improbable to me to have a fleet "all J-20" or "any heavy stealth aircraft", at least not at first.
If the J-20 variant is chosen as the next-generation onboard aircraft, it will certainly be accompanied by a low-end aircraft, which is cheaper to buy and operate, but of comparable size - by example the
J-15T (??) catapult version which is currently under development.
We always have another alternative that is the FC-31, but no indication of its price is available today. It is therefore difficult to make any comparison, especially if we assume that it will have to be expanded to meet the needs of the navy.
At the timing level, we know that Chengdu is currently preparing the delivery of its first J-20s to the Chinese Air Force, a sign that the program has reached a certain maturity and that the design office could be released in part. .
If Chengdu is chosen to supply the future embedded aircraft to the navy, it would still be necessary to add 5 to 7 years, in my opinion, to transform and then deliver the first modified J-20 so it will not be available until 2021 at the earliest . The date on which the first CATOBAR
Type 003 aircraft carrier could be delivered to the Chinese Navy.
On the other hand, if the Shenyang FC-31 is chosen, it will most likely take 7 to 12 years to see the product completed, because expanding such a platform means designing a new aircraft.
Moreover, neither the Air Force nor the Chinese Navy had been involved in the definition and specification of FC-31 from the beginning, so there are many things to be taken over entirely.
While in the case of J-20, the Chinese navy and the naval industry had already initiated exchanges with the 611 Chengdu Institute since 2008, according to one of my sources.
Moreover, the reading of some recent publications suggests that Chengdu has already started the design of the embedded variant of J-20.
In the article published on August 9 in the China Aviation News of the AVIC group for example, we learn that a team from Chengdu is working on a structural part that must meet the requirement to "support a "heavy load", which is more "light", and which must operate in "a confined space".
The work required a "cross-functional and trans-specialty collaboration".
I personally think that it is the development of landing gear, which must be redesigned and reinforced in the case of embedded version. This remains to be confirmed, of course.
Objectively, the Shenyang Institute 601 has more experience in designing heavy aircraft aircraft. Apart from the J-15 and its variants (two-seater and electronic warfare), it is also the first design office in China to have initiated the associated pre-studies in the 80's.
But if the product they are offering in the Future Airplane Competition is an enlarged FC-31, then I will be very doubtful that it can be achieved on time in relation to the demands of the country and the navy. Chinese.
J-15S, the two-seater on-board version of the J-15
Although the 611 Institute in Chengdu has never designed an embedded aircraft, the J-20 is a more mature platform that is easier to transform today than the FC-31. And the onboard "specificity" could be "transferred" by Shenyang - the two institutes being managed by the same parent company AVIC - for a possible co-production of the plane later to balance the interests of each.
With the start of construction of the first Chinese CATOBAR aircraft carrier by 2017, it should not be long before we know the final choice of the future aircraft, knowing that the Chinese navy had already expressed this need since 2003, in its submitted file. to the government.
And you what do you think ?
Henri K.
