J-35 carrier fighter (PLAN) thread

Temstar

Temstar

Brigadier
Registered Member
Xi Yazhou's latest video and his analysis on this aircraft, throughout the video he refers to it as Gyrfalcon 3.0 (as opposed to the black 1.0 and the grey 2.0 prototypes)

Things that he noticed that we also have:
  • the main change is the area around and behind the cockpit. It's much thicker now around that area yet this is an aerodynamic feature that should result in lower supersonic drag
  • the enlarged nose and forward fuselage should result in both long range as well as a sensor suite comparable to J-20
  • with the above, 3.0 is approaching F-35 in size and weight, the main difference being F-35 using a powerful but absurdly high by pass ratio turbofan for a fighter, while 3.0's engines are optimised for speed

Rumours that he heard that he seem to believe:
  • Gyrfalcon 2.0's supposed advantage in structural weight as proportion of full weight (world record apparently) should be taken with a grain of salt because it wasn't designed as a real fighter, so it doesn't take into account electrical and cooling needs of a big AESA radar for example. The actual production 3.0 though would still be quite light for its size though.
  • AVIC staff at Zhuhai told him should there be customers interested in buying this plane they will not be buying 3.0 but rather, 2.0 will be further developed and offered up for sale. This is so that foreign sales can proceed without endangering PLA secrets, similar to the export orientated VT-4 tank.
  • rumour says 3.0 has same weapon bay dimension as J-20 and much bigger than than the small weapon bays of 1.0 and 2.0. This would mean should hypersonic missile ala Kh-47M2 Kinzhal be developed for J-20 they should also be usable on 3.0, which would give PLAN naval aviation tremendous firepower
  • when powered by WS-19, 3.0 will reach a top speed of over mach 2.2 and have superior supercruise capability than WS-15 equipped J-20, although its top speed would still be inferior by a little bit
  • even with the current WS-13E engines 3.0 has very good performance around the transonic region and excellent in high speed high altitude as that's the engine's strong point. The downside is this engine is quite fuel thirsty
  • the price paid in all the above strong points is very complex aerodynamics which took a long time and a lot of money to optimise
  • as with F-35B and C, when uses at sea 3.0 will face the same maintenance nightmares. As such it will remain the "spearhead" force while the bulk of the carrier's plane will still be made up of J-15, same as on the other side of the pacific with F/A-18.
 
Temstar

Temstar

Brigadier
Registered Member
Close up of Shilao's J-31 model:
420ab2d0318452a8d4e02e8ac8f5ac4fd29a741f.jpg
78fbde3ad99a08d60f62375b746f4a21f8354b90.jpg
He posted 6 photos of the J-15 for two photos of the J-31... I really wanted to see the front end. Only interesting feature is the serrated engine nozzle. I'm guessing this is actually a model of FC-31 2.0.
 
M

Mischa

New Member
Registered Member
KevinG said:
The stealth coating material against erosion and maintenance can be easily verified at component level. Really no need to build a X aircraft to verify that. This should be production version. For China, all key technologies for aircraft based 5th generation fighter are there, China just needs to assemble them together and hope they can work as designed.
Click to expand...
The component level is a thing, while the aircraft scale is another thing. The erosion to coating may happen much easier in some specific parts, instead of a uniformed corrosion model. This kind of information is hard to figure out by simulation or smaller-scale experiment unless we really put a real aircraft out and try to test it in a real environment for a long enough time.

But I also agree that this version is highly possible to be the prototype for the final production, as it's really a well-designed aircraft. It has every element as a capable fighter, more like a *YF-* than *X-*. Besides, It is the first 5th gen shipboard fighter spotted in China, quite different from FC-31. Why I suppose that it may be a validation model is just because there are problems that really confuse me. First is the engine. The large thrust type WS-10 is mature, and WS-15 is of good progress. While for the current aircraft, only WS-13E, and hard to believe WS-19 could be applied soon. The second one is the capability for CAP mission for PLAN's carriers. Maybe PLAN has some consideration and bargain in their 5th gen fighter, anyway, we will know in the next few years.
 
L

latenlazy

Brigadier
Mischa said:
The component level is a thing, while the aircraft scale is another thing. The erosion to coating may happen much easier in some specific parts, instead of a uniformed corrosion model. This kind of information is hard to figure out by simulation or smaller-scale experiment unless we really put a real aircraft out and try to test it in a real environment for a long enough time.

But I also agree that this version is highly possible to be the prototype for the final production, as it's really a well-designed aircraft. It has every element as a capable fighter, more like a *YF-* than *X-*. Besides, It is the first 5th gen shipboard fighter spotted in China, quite different from FC-31. Why I suppose that it may be a validation model is just because there are problems that really confuse me. First is the engine. The large thrust type WS-10 is mature, and WS-15 is of good progress. While for the current aircraft, only WS-13E, and hard to believe WS-19 could be applied soon. The second one is the capability for CAP mission for PLAN's carriers. Maybe PLAN has some consideration and bargain in their 5th gen fighter, anyway, we will know in the next few years.
Click to expand...
WS-10 and WS-13 are different engine classes. There was never a scenario where an FC-31 derived design would use a WS-10 sized engine, because that would basically mean redesigning the whole airframe, especially the intakes (different engine classes have different mass flows which then impacts required intake frontal area). Any J-XY that emerged sooner rather than later was going to use the WS-13. This was already well known from chatter about this project going 4-5 years back. Meanwhile, the template design for the J-XY, the FC-31, has been testing with WS-13s for almost a decade now, and a lot of the advances that were incorporated into the WS-10's iterations should have also made its way to the WS-13. At this point the WS-13 is probably a mature engine, so I don't see why using the WS-13 should present an inhibiting factor to being a verification prototype.

I don't think cost was the primary driver for the PLAN choosing a mid sized fighter over a heavy weight fighter. The most likely decision driving factor was fleet size objectives relative to hangar space and deck space constraints. With carriers, fielding "better" fighters needs to be balanced with fielding a sufficient number of fighters to cover effective tactical combat situation requirements. Also don't see how being a mid sized fighter prevents effective CAP capabilities.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top