J-35 carrier fighter (PLAN) thread
- Thread starter Deino
- Start date
SinoSoldier
Colonel
No, I think he stated that there will be "multiple naval variants" of the J-XX, implying (somewhat) that other PLAN branches will be purchasing it too. I don't think anyone expects 8 carriers.
2+2+4 means two STOBAR, two CATOBAR and 4 nuclear CATOBAR? One thing we can't ignore is the pressure from Japan's F35B+Izumo class
SinoSoldier
Colonel
It's interesting to note that the timelines of the US F-35C and the Chinese J-XY (aka FC-31 derivative) are very similar, albeit separated by a decade.
F-35A made its maiden flight in December 2006
FC-31v2 made its maiden flight in December 2016
F-35C design approval achieved in June 2007
FC-31 (J-XY) allegedly received funding in April 2017
Which can be used to extrapolate an approximate time for the appearance of the J-XY in prototype form. Note how this roughly correlates with that "pb19980515" rumored.
F-35C prototype rollout in July 2009
FC-31 (J-XY) to roll out in mid-early 2019?
F-35C maiden flight in June 2010
FC-31 (J-XY) rumored to fly within 1st half of 2020 (latest estimated date)
F-35A made its maiden flight in December 2006
FC-31v2 made its maiden flight in December 2016
F-35C design approval achieved in June 2007
FC-31 (J-XY) allegedly received funding in April 2017
Which can be used to extrapolate an approximate time for the appearance of the J-XY in prototype form. Note how this roughly correlates with that "pb19980515" rumored.
F-35C prototype rollout in July 2009
FC-31 (J-XY) to roll out in mid-early 2019?
F-35C maiden flight in June 2010
FC-31 (J-XY) rumored to fly within 1st half of 2020 (latest estimated date)
This leads to a full redesign, talking about just a version of j-31/j-20 at this point becomes unlikely(or they are as related as S-32 to T-10 family, or NATF to ATF).
Sounds interesting. While keeping weights down is essential for any naval fighter, not allowing higher weights per se?
Thrust-to-weight ratio as a way to keep interoperability with first STOBAR pair?
Sounds interesting. While keeping weights down is essential for any naval fighter, not allowing higher weights per se?
Thrust-to-weight ratio as a way to keep interoperability with first STOBAR pair?
SinoSoldier
Colonel
Does not sound like a full redesign to me; its weapons configurations are exactly that of the FC-31. Its weight category, engines, etc., are all in accordance with the FC-31's general configuration right now. Moreover nobody would expect a fully-redesigned fighter to fly in just 2019-2020 if funding was approved less than a year ago.
Pb makes it sound as if the weight of the aircraft is constrained by the availability of engines. Maintaining a thrust-to-weight ratio that allows the FC-31XX (J-XX) to achieve kinematic capabilities similar to the J-20 and F-22 are noted as a key requirement.
Within same weight, naval aircraft has to withstand carrier-associated loads and stresses, folfing capability, provide better lift and low-speed handling , etc.
Basically it's either adding a lot of weight or going back to the drawing board with variable degree of success.
Lockheed went with weight (well, commonality was a requirement), and still is fighting with troubles it brought.
Other examples of 5th gen carrier fighter projects with any stated connection to their land-based prototypes essentially were "all new". These included:
Overall - well, may be, I see nothing wrong with this approach (Rafale M seems to be fully successful). Let's wait for the reveal.
SinoSoldier
Colonel
Within same weight, naval aircraft has to withstand carrier-associated loads and stresses, folfing capability, provide better lift and low-speed handling , etc.
Basically it's either adding a lot of weight or going back to the drawing board with variable degree of success.
Lockheed went with weight (well, commonality was a requirement), and still is fighting with troubles it brought.
Other examples of 5th gen carrier fighter projects with any stated connection to their land-based prototypes essentially were "all new". These included:
Others(A/F-XX) had no land-based parallel projects at all.
Overall - well, may be, I see nothing wrong with this approach (Rafale M seems to be fully successful). Let's wait for the reveal.
I don't think the situation is so dire when it comes to the J-XY. The initial FC-31 #31001 tech demonstrator had a MTOW of ~25 tons (far lower than any F-35 variant), while the V2 prototype had a MTOW of 28000 kg. The design team has a leeway of roughly two tons to make modifications such as enlarged wings, reinforced landing gear, and tailhook.