J-35 carrier fighter (PLAN) thread

[Blitzo]

The reasons FC-31 fans deny J-20 for the carrier-borne fighter aircraft competition are:

• J-20 is difficult to take off and land in an aircraft carrier with canards.
• J-20 is too large for the Chinese aircraft carriers.
• CAC can't produce sufficient J-20s needed for the Navy because the orders from the Air Force has taken up its production capacity for the next 20 years.

Is that for real and reasonable?

As far as we can see, French Navy has been operating Rafales for 15 years, they never complained on the canard layout of Rafales even when they were operating in a carrier with smaller deck.

J-15 is longer, wider-spanned and higher than J-20, but PLAN-AF never complained on their size and weight. And the upcoming 018 and future vessles will be even larger than Liaoning and Shandong.

CAC is not a private company, and its contract with the Air Force is not tied by commercial terms that are irrevocable, but determined by the Central Military Commission. There is no reason for the CMC to deny the navy orders for J-20.

So why the cannards, size, weight and production capacity could be the obstacles that J-20 cannot pass to be a carrier-borne fighter? Even the Air Force variant of J-20 just entered service in 2018. Maybe the PLAN is waiting for the new WS15 and the new CATOBAR carriers to enter service.

On the other hand, the performance of FC-31 has been modified by fans magically. The WS-19 engineer, being a upgrade product of WS-13 the localization solution of RD-93, was bragged to have 12 tons thrust (means thrust-to-weight ratio 12!). The MTOW of FC-31 was bragged to 29 tons. With such MTOW, it will still keep a significantly smaller dimensions of 20-ton fighter. That's not science, it's creating miracles.

Unlike the Air Force facing different level opponents, the PLAN-AF will defnitely confront the F-35s of US Navy, JASDF and RoKAF. So would they accept a mediocre medium weight, medium range fighter? I don't think so.

Can you please put a pin in it for a year or two?
You'll get your high quality pictures by then, and it will be much easier for you to just stop wasting our time now and to accept reality by then, instead of trying to continue to make unsubstantiated arguments and then end up having to revert your decision once even you have to accept the proof of its existence.

Just make it easier for yourself -- and more importantly, make it easier for us -- and take your skepticism and persistence somewhere else.

J-XY/J-35 is real, and it is the PLAN's 5th generation carrier fighter.
Give it a rest.

 

[gelgoog]

I think the J-XY was picked over the J-20 for a multitude of factors. First one is probably that Shenyang had experience with building aircraft for the Navy and Chengdu did not. Second is Shenyang had the spare production capacity and design teams to accommodate changes while Chengdu did not being busy with the J-20 and upgrades. Also if it was not for the J-XY Shenyang would be left without a product once Flanker production inevitably ends. In addition exporting the Flanker design is problematic, it means competing directly with Russia for exports which might lead to friction, and this way they have their own indigenous design to export. I think the state made a decision to grant them this contract to keep both industrial talents in top shape.

 

[latenlazy]

Can you please put a pin in it for a year or two?
You'll get your high quality pictures by then, and it will be much easier for you to just stop wasting our time now and to accept reality by then, instead of trying to continue to make unsubstantiated arguments and then end up having to revert your decision once even you have to accept the proof of its existence.

Just make it easier for yourself -- and more importantly, make it easier for us -- and take your skepticism and persistence somewhere else.

J-XY/J-35 is real, and it is the PLAN's 5th generation carrier fighter.
Give it a rest.

I think he’s just upset that the carrier borne fighter isn’t going to be the J-20 and is looking for reasons to reject confirmation that it will indeed be derived from the FC-31.

 

[latenlazy]

I think the FC-31 was picked over the J-20 for a multitude of factors. First one is probably that Shenyang had experience with building aircraft for the Navy and Chengdu did not. Second is Shenyang had the spare production capacity and design teams to accommodate changes while Chengdu did not being busy with the J-20 and upgrades. Also if it was not for the FC-31 Shenyang would be left without a product once Flanker production inevitably ends. I think the state made a decision to grant them this contract to keep both industrial talents in top shape.

I think a few other factors came into play. I think that numbers do in fact matter in full intensity military engagements, and a mid sized fighter was probably seen as more desirable to head off against the USN than a large sized fighter if you could field more of them on your carriers, especially if the only main advantage of the large sized fighter would be side bays for short range missiles. I also suspect that SAC’s work on making an FC-31 based design lower cost and more efficient to produce might have played a role too. I’ve suspected for a few years now that actually testing the capabilities of J-20 against their 4th gen fighter fleet has fundamentally altered the PLA’s thinking about how to deal with other stealth fighters, and that might have shaped interests towards inducting a cheaper “low” stealth fighter that they can produce much more quickly, and the FC-31, if not fully intended to slot into such a purpose, might be being trialed for it.

 

[Temstar]

I think a few other factors came into play. I think that numbers do in fact matter in full intensity military engagements, and a mid sized fighter was probably seen as more desirable to head off against the USN than a large sized fighter if you could field more of them on your carriers, especially if the only main advantage of the large sized fighter would be side bays for short range missiles. I also suspect that SAC’s work on making an FC-31 based design lower cost and more efficient to produce might have played a role too. I’ve suspected for a few years now that actually testing the capabilities of J-20 against their 4th gen fighter fleet has fundamentally altered the PLA’s thinking about how to deal with other stealth fighters, and that might have shaped interests towards inducting a cheaper “low” stealth fighter that they can produce much more quickly, and the FC-31, if not fully intended to slot into such a purpose, might be being trialed for it.

You raise some interesting point. I wonder when J-35 is in service would PLAAF and PLAN do dissimilar air combat training and pit them against each other and see who comes out on top.

Does USAF do any F-22 vs F-35A exercises?

 

[Blitzo]

You raise some interesting point. I wonder when J-35 is in service would PLAAF and PLAN do dissimilar air combat training and pit them against each other and see who comes out on top.

Does USAF do any F-22 vs F-35A exercises?

Yes.
For most proper air forces, DACT is part and parcel of their training, exercises, and force scenarios.


Taking any realistic composition of an aircraft type or multiple aircraft types, and pitting them against another realistic composition of an aircraft type, or multiple aircraft types, with well defined exercise parameters and rules of engagement, makes up anything from 1 vs 1 free form air combat exercises, all the way up to theater scale large force vs large force exercises.

J-XY, once it enters service, will naturally be an aircraft type that will be at the disposal of those exercises.

 

[iantsai]

I just don't think the FC-31 variant, which is a medium weight fighter based on a pair of medium thrust engines, could fulfill the request of PLAN-AF to confront F-35s. And I don't think the development progress shown by its current exposure frequency is a national-invested fighter jet should be showing.

Well, time will prove everything. Let's wait and see.

 

[Blitzo]

I just don't think the FC-31 variant, which is a medium weight fighter based on a pair of medium thrust engines, could fulfill the request of PLAN-AF to confront F-35s. And I don't think the development progress shown by its current exposure frequency is a national-invested fighter jet should be showing.

Well, time will prove everything. Let's wait and see.

Your doubts and questions are like... 5 years behind the curve.

When we get the high quality pictures you unreasonably demand for proof of this aircraft's existence and PLA commitment, I hope that you will reflect on and reconsider the way in which you conduct your PLA watching, because right now what you're doing is just wasting time and effort of everyone, including yourself.

 

[siegecrossbow]

You raise some interesting point. I wonder when J-35 is in service would PLAAF and PLAN do dissimilar air combat training and pit them against each other and see who comes out on top.

Does USAF do any F-22 vs F-35A exercises?

The USAF very much do F-22 vs F-35 trainings. Results are kept secret, however.

 

[Schwerter_]

The reasons FC-31 fans deny J-20 for the carrier-borne fighter aircraft competition are:

• J-20 is difficult to take off and land in an aircraft carrier with canards.
• J-20 is too large for the Chinese aircraft carriers.
• CAC can't produce sufficient J-20s needed for the Navy because the orders from the Air Force has taken up its production capacity for the next 20 years.

Is that for real and reasonable?

As far as we can see, French Navy has been operating Rafales for 15 years, they never complained on the canard layout of Rafales even when they were operating in a carrier with smaller deck.

J-15 is longer, wider-spanned and higher than J-20, but PLAN-AF never complained on their size and weight. And the upcoming 018 and future vessles will be even larger than Liaoning and Shandong.

CAC is not a private company, and its contract with the Air Force is not tied by commercial terms that are irrevocable, but determined by the Central Military Commission. There is no reason for the CMC to deny the navy orders for J-20.

So why the cannards, size, weight and production capacity could be the obstacles that J-20 cannot pass to be a carrier-borne fighter? Even the Air Force variant of J-20 just entered service in 2018. Maybe the PLAN is waiting for the new WS15 and the new CATOBAR carriers to enter service.

On the other hand, the performance of FC-31 has been modified by fans magically. The WS-19 engineer, being a upgrade product of WS-13 the localization solution of RD-93, was bragged to have 12 tons thrust (means thrust-to-weight ratio 12!). The MTOW of FC-31 was bragged to 29 tons. With such MTOW, it will still keep a significantly smaller dimensions of 20-ton fighter. That's not science, it's creating miracles.

Unlike the Air Force facing different level opponents, the PLAN-AF will defnitely confront the F-35s of US Navy, JASDF and RoKAF. So would they accept a mediocre medium weight, medium range fighter? I don't think so.

Drop it. The current situation is that we have a FC-31 derived (more or less) carrier-borne fighter jet that made its maiden flight last octover, a number of papers published by SAC and/or 601th institution that has a link both with said jet and with carrier-borne jets as a whole. Meanwhile CAC has been absolutely silent on the subject of carrier-borne jets.

Come on, this isn't about what "fans" of either side claim, it's a series of facts and information that adds up to a quite likely conclusion. If a J-20 variant with noticable changes aiming at carrier operations shows up, or papers (credible information of any kind, really) is made public, then it's possible or even likely that a navalized J-20 will come into service. However currently nothing suggests this possibility, and talking about what "could" and "should" happen doesn't change anything.