J-20 5th Gen Fighter Thread VI

[KlRc80]

good catch.
As to the highlighted question, only F-35 can do so because only F-35 and J-31 has one piece aileron. J-31 may put the actuators inside the side booms and use the limited space in the wing to house a rotation bar. F-35 can do the same if needed.

All other jets, J-20, F-22 and Su-57 have two piece ailerons, the inboard ones can do the same if the booms have enough "thickness", but the outboard bumps will remain unless some "dark" technology exists to miniaturize the actuators.

The next natural question would be why the one piece vs. two pieces ailerons? My guess is that the different performance requirements of the two type of aircraft (based on current aerodynamic knowledge) dictates the choice. Air Superiority vs. Multirole. Given the same understanding of how air flow works, one choice is always superior other the other in their given requirement.

The odd thing is F-16 and F-15's are hidden while the F-22 is bulging. Why's the US, Russian and Chinese stealth air-superiority platforms having bulging ones? Flanker and JF-17 are hidden too.

Sorry for dragging on this item but the more I look at pictures the more intriguing it is.

 

[ougoah]

That's a good catch. The main reason is because even though it seems like these 4th gen planes don't have the bulge, they still have housings for the actuator arms so despite not showing clearly in these photos, they are there just smaller and they contribute enough to RCS increase. The 5th gens with the large bulges just have sizes and shapes optimised for certain radar bands and observation/ reflection angles. Could possibly also be housing sensors or have the space available for whatever future upgrades. It's interesting that FC-31 is the exception and it does not have any bulges for actuators. Not even small ones like those on the listed 4th gen fighters. Also many of these are hidden inside the wing and on side of fuselage. 5th gen probably have different wing design requirements and have different dimensions making hiding it inside not possible.

 

[vesicles]

The odd thing is F-16 and F-15's are hidden while the F-22 is bulging. Why's the US, Russian and Chinese stealth air-superiority platforms having bulging ones? Flanker and JF-17 are hidden too.

Sorry for dragging on this item but the more I look at pictures the more intriguing it is.

Is it possible that, although all the 4th gen fighters have smaller actuators, they contribute significantly to RCS. So most of the 5th stealth fighters go out of their ways to design bulky chambers to hide those actuators. So Although those bulky actuator thingies on the 5th gen may be bigger, their shape has less RCS and protects stealth... My guess...

 

[KlRc80]

Those sources could be wrong or only partly true and ignored the fact J-20 is still in competition against FC-31 for carrier borne fighter. Unless they're already testing upgraded engines and/or frames for J-20, and this cartoon is revealing of actual program, they wouldn't be painting those markers. CAC may have realised they can make J-20 carrier ready with some effort but still achieve this around the same time SAC can get FC-31 completed. J-20 program is further ahead after all.

Is it beyond possibility that those in charge in the PLAN/AF actually decide that they need both J-20 and FC-31 naval carrier derivatives? I mean we look at the US and see the F/A-18E/F and EA-18G and replacement F35C. Seems in general 2 main types of planes. This is what the US is using to project power around the world this past decade or so with no real credible threat of a direct clash with a near peer naval carrier force. So what was done this past decade was viable with limited plane types considering the reasonable and foreseeable threats. And if indeed both derivatives are needed both need not happen within the same timeframe. There could be a delay of say 5 years in between for instance. Of course cost and budgets is another thing.

But if we look at US' previous carrier air-wings there seem to be more mish-mash of plane types when facing credible foes.

Could it be possible that the PLAN/AF did their sums and found that in the face of credible or even superior foes, they need more than just the J-15 and one between the J-20 and FC-31 carrier derivatives? For example the J-20 carrier derivative specifically to avoid the limited range/tanker vulnerability that they see as the US' weak point and the FC-31 derivative for loitering in the air for fleet protection with a LO aircraft to make things more unpredictable for potential aircraft attacks on the fleet while the J-15 does the heavy lifting.

The below is a related and interesting read on the US carrier air wing from WWII onwards. It's a link to a pdf download.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

 

[ougoah]

Is it beyond possibility that those in charge in the PLAN/AF actually decide that they need both J-20 and FC-31 naval carrier derivatives? I mean we look at the US and see the F/A-18E/F and EA-18G and replacement F35C. Seems in general 2 main types of planes. This is what the US is using to project power around the world this past decade or so with no real credible threat of a direct clash with a near peer naval carrier force. So what was done this past decade was viable with limited plane types considering the reasonable and foreseeable threats. And if indeed both derivatives are needed both need not happen within the same timeframe. There could be a delay of say 5 years in between for instance. Of course cost and budgets is another thing.

But if we look at US' previous carrier air-wings there seem to be more mish-mash of plane types when facing credible foes.

Could it be possible that the PLAN/AF did their sums and found that in the face of credible or even superior foes, they need more than just the J-15 and one between the J-20 and FC-31 carrier derivatives? For example the J-20 carrier derivative specifically to avoid the limited range/tanker vulnerability that they see as the US' weak point and the FC-31 derivative for loitering in the air for fleet protection with a LO aircraft to make things more unpredictable for potential aircraft attacks on the fleet while the J-15 does the heavy lifting.

The below is a related and interesting read on the US carrier air wing from WWII onwards. It's a link to a pdf download.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Well I'm sure the PLAN and PLAAF don't underestimate F-35s and USN. The problem with that thinking is the assumption that the two different platforms offer enough difference to warrant supplying and maintaining two separate platforms with few things in common. Unlike J-10 and J-11 sharing similar engines throughout the variants, J-31 and J-20 cannot really trim down logistical issues. I can't see how J-31 can offer much advantage over J-20. Unless it is considerably more stealthy, why would PLAN or PLAAF need both types in service together if they can get the numbers from one type anyway. Diversifying efforts to modernise these in the future will also be more costly than if there was just the larger platform to work with.

 

[KlRc80]

Well I'm sure the PLAN and PLAAF don't underestimate F-35s and USN. The problem with that thinking is the assumption that the two different platforms offer enough difference to warrant supplying and maintaining two separate platforms with few things in common. Unlike J-10 and J-11 sharing similar engines throughout the variants, J-31 and J-20 cannot really trim down logistical issues. I can't see how J-31 can offer much advantage over J-20. Unless it is considerably more stealthy, why would PLAN or PLAAF need both types in service together if they can get the numbers from one type anyway. Diversifying efforts to modernise these in the future will also be more costly than if there was just the larger platform to work with.

Yes logistics would be an issue. The advantage of FC-31 derivative that I can think of plausibly is
- lower cost,
- smaller so you can stuff more on the carrier and maybe comparable agility vs a J-20 with TVC (of course it's arguable when the WS-15 arrives you may not need TVC).
- Keeping an FC-31 loitering consumes less fuel than a J-20 or J-15 loitering. Of course one can argue to send a loitering LO UAV instead.

 

[SinoSoldier]

Is it beyond possibility that those in charge in the PLAN/AF actually decide that they need both J-20 and FC-31 naval carrier derivatives? I mean we look at the US and see the F/A-18E/F and EA-18G and replacement F35C. Seems in general 2 main types of planes. This is what the US is using to project power around the world this past decade or so with no real credible threat of a direct clash with a near peer naval carrier force. So what was done this past decade was viable with limited plane types considering the reasonable and foreseeable threats. And if indeed both derivatives are needed both need not happen within the same timeframe. There could be a delay of say 5 years in between for instance. Of course cost and budgets is another thing.

But if we look at US' previous carrier air-wings there seem to be more mish-mash of plane types when facing credible foes.

Could it be possible that the PLAN/AF did their sums and found that in the face of credible or even superior foes, they need more than just the J-15 and one between the J-20 and FC-31 carrier derivatives? For example the J-20 carrier derivative specifically to avoid the limited range/tanker vulnerability that they see as the US' weak point and the FC-31 derivative for loitering in the air for fleet protection with a LO aircraft to make things more unpredictable for potential aircraft attacks on the fleet while the J-15 does the heavy lifting.

The below is a related and interesting read on the US carrier air wing from WWII onwards. It's a link to a pdf download.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Very unlikely given the costs of maintaining an all-5th-gen carrier air wing, not to mention that the J-20 would need to be extensively modified for carrier operations (as does the FC-31, but to a lesser extent). So far, military insiders have pointed out that the PLAN is looking for a mixed J-15B + FC-31X fleet; the J-15B would provide the necessary platform for long-range anti-surface strikes while the FC-31 would be appropriate for situations where stealth is needed.

 

[SinoSoldier]

Yes logistics would be an issue. The advantage of FC-31 derivative that I can think of plausibly is
- lower cost,
- smaller so you can stuff more on the carrier and maybe comparable agility vs a J-20 with TVC (of course it's arguable when the WS-15 arrives you may not need TVC).
- Keeping an FC-31 loitering consumes less fuel than a J-20 or J-15 loitering. Of course one can argue to send a loitering LO UAV instead.

Aside from range and perhaps payload, there should be no inherent difference in combat capability between the J-20 and FC-31 designs. Thus, having more FC-31 derivatives aboard a vessel brings a greater amount of tactical flexibility and capability to your air wing.

 

[KlRc80]

... the J-15B would provide the necessary platform for long-range anti-surface strikes while the FC-31 would be appropriate for situations where stealth is needed.

This way also combining the FC-31 + J-15 enables the PLANAF to get the kick the door down function of the J-20. FC-31 flies in front and cues the J-15 at the back. I remember Yang Wei in a recent video specifically saying the function of the J-20 as a kick the door down plane.

 

[SinoSoldier]

This way also combining the FC-31 + J-15 enables the PLANAF to get the kick the door down function of the J-20. FC-31 flies in front and cues the J-15 at the back. I remember Yang Wei in a recent video specifically saying the function of the J-20 as a kick the door down plane.

The drawback of the FC-31, and I suspect of the J-20 as well, is that it would not be able to carry heavy air-to-surface weapons in its internal bays. The J-15B will be primarily used for that role, although like you pointed out it can also act as a "missile truck" for a scouting FC-31.