Quickie
Colonel
The smoke trail normally looks to be more pronounced during the slower speed maneuver. The J-20 seems to have slowed down just after the loop maneuver when the smoke trail appears (or what appears to be).
J-20 5th Generation Fighter VII
- Thread starter siegecrossbow
- Start date
- Status
The smoke trail normally looks to be more pronounced during the slower speed maneuver. The J-20 seems to have slowed down just after the loop maneuver when the smoke trail appears (or what appears to be).
You have computer in it that give you assistance, it's incredible what can be done with them, making a chair flying more or less...
Forgive my inexperience....
Why can't China just make J-20 with reinforced landing gear and foldable wings and call it a day. You have EMALs on CATOBAR so takeoff weight isn't really an issue right? My point is.....it's less expensive and quicker to re-design J-20 than to build from scratch like J-35... And J-20 as a platform is more proven and mature than non-existent J-35. I just want J-20 on carrier so badly rather than wait forever for J-35....
Why can't China just make J-20 with reinforced landing gear and foldable wings and call it a day. You have EMALs on CATOBAR so takeoff weight isn't really an issue right? My point is.....it's less expensive and quicker to re-design J-20 than to build from scratch like J-35... And J-20 as a platform is more proven and mature than non-existent J-35. I just want J-20 on carrier so badly rather than wait forever for J-35....
Oh please, simply since adopting a certain design to carrier specifications is not that easy as some think. Maybe it has other considerations too like industrial participation of SAC to keep it in fighter business but IMO it is more a reason, that a slightly smaller fighter is better suitable than a J-20 of any form.
But isn't J-31 originally a land aircraft? So if you are re-design a land aircraft for naval purposes, why not save money and time with a proven and mature platform like navalized J-20 instead. It might be quicker turnaround and delivery.
True, SAC need business and we don't want Chengdu to gobble up SAC business like Sukhoi did to MiG. True ... Smaller footprint of J-35 make sense. Maybe more fighter jets can be accommodated with J-35 than J-20.
You wrote "it might be quicker" -- sure, it might be.
But let's assume that the PLAN has done an analysis of alternatives of both options, especially in the mid 2010s when there were rumours of a J-20 variant vs FC-31 variant being the carrier based 5th gen fighter.
They ended up choosing FC-31.
Use your imagination to think why they might have gone with a FC-31 derivative instead of a J-20 derivative.
Off the top of my head, in terms of airframe specific conditions, there are many possibilities, including but not limited to:
- J-20 derivative being too dimensionally large, and/or
- J-20 base airframe and aerodynamic configuration inferior to FC-31 airframe and aerodynamic configuration for carrier operations (low speed handling, etc), and/or
- J-20 derivative would not have offered better time from development to service than FC-31 derivative (for all we know it could have been inferior)... among others
So, to answer your previous post as to "Why can't China just make J-20 with reinforced landing gear and foldable wings and call it a day" -- because it's nowhere near as simple as you describe, and there's a good chance that a carrier based J-20 variant may have not met the PLAN's requirements, not to mention a carrier based J-20 variant might not have been any faster, simpler or cheaper than a FC-31 variant.
For all we know, it could have been slower, more complex, and more expensive.
Given the PLAN's final decision, I wouldn't be surprised if it were.
"It might be quicker"?
"It might be cheaper"?
"It might be simpler"?
My reply is, that chances are, it was probably slower, more expensive, and more expensive not to mention probably more difficult to reach the PLAN's requirements.
Thank you all for the good points and clear explanation. I am sure PLA did a thorough analysis and made the best choice given the circumstances. Also I realized EMAL CATOBAR is probably a recent technological breakthrough (2017 or 2018?) so the much heavier J-20 wouldn't be able to take-off organically from Liaoning or Shandong whereas a medium J-35 can do that. Maybe that's a big factor in chosing J-35 over J-20, esp. since J-20 lacks the available extra thrust of 2nd generation engines.
We do not yet know if the J-XY will be compatible with taking off from CV-16/17.
Furthermore, in the case of J-20 and J-XY, neither will receive their intended powerplants (WS-15 and WS-19) when they first enter service anyhow. J-20 entered service with Al-31 and WS-10, J-XY will enter service with a WS-13 variant most likely.
Both of those points aside -- I think it is important to emphasize the assumption that adopting a J-20 variant to a carrier based fighter being "easier" or "quicker" than adopting a FC-31 variant for that role, is not necessarily correct, and may very well in fact be the opposite of what you suggested.
Converting a land based airframe for carrier based operations is difficult, and if the airframe you are starting off with is poorly suited for the aerodynamic demands of carrier operations and the dimensional limits imposed by a carrier's flight deck, then it is even more difficult.
So I advise that you dispel the idea of J-20 somehow being easier or quicker to convert for carrier operations.
In fact, it might be more useful to think about how the FC-31 airframe might be easier and quicker to convert for carrier operations than the J-20 airframe.
Rumor has it that six J-20s will perform at Zhuhai and an additional aircraft will be present for static display.
- Status