J-20 5th Generation Fighter VII

Status
Not open for further replies.
A

Atomicfrog

Major
Registered Member
Bltizo said:
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.
Click to expand...

Bltizo said:
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.
Click to expand...
Maybe just not to put all eggs in the same basket and to keep Shenyang team fit.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top