escobar
Brigadier
Even china can't afford all those fighter.
i think there is only one new project: it is either a two engine stealth or a single engine stealth multirole aircraft.
And it will also suit PLAN future need.
Shenyang FC-31 / J-31 Fighter Demonstrator
- Thread starter RedSky
- Start date
- Status
Even china can't afford all those fighter.
i think there is only one new project: it is either a two engine stealth or a single engine stealth multirole aircraft.
And it will also suit PLAN future need.
Of course the potential existence of these programs doesn't rule out the fact they could've been cancelled or could be cancelled. I will say that if J-19 is the heavy 5th gen striker we've been hearing about it would make no sense for it to go into a competition with single engined J-2X, for they would cover completely different roles.
a project for naval variant is way way far into the future, i'd say
the single engined J-2X will have to wait for J-20 to ramp up, and WS-15 to mature first, if it to reap benefit from commonality
JH-7B, somewhat of a toss, feels a bit redundant to have along with J-19, same level of stealth, same role, or the fans got it wrong with CG, if its more of a bomber (F-117) rather than a fighter, it would make more sense
the single engined J-2X will have to wait for J-20 to ramp up, and WS-15 to mature first, if it to reap benefit from commonality
JH-7B, somewhat of a toss, feels a bit redundant to have along with J-19, same level of stealth, same role, or the fans got it wrong with CG, if its more of a bomber (F-117) rather than a fighter, it would make more sense
plawolf
Lieutenant General
Twin engined doesn't have to be J20 sized. Up to now, a lot of the rumors have put the new stealth striker at something in the weight class of the Typhoon/Rafale with twin engines. I was thinking more like Mig29 v F16, so instead of twin medium thrust engines for the new striker, it could use a single heavy thrust engine, preferably the same as what the J20 will ultimately be using.
Why is supercruise so critical for a striker? Unlike an air dominance fighter, a striker does not need to fly high and fast to maximise range and energy for their AAMs, and the targets they will be going after will generally be traveling far slower than the jet even if it was cruising subsonically (unlike a J20, which will be hunting other fighters which generally travel a lot faster than tanks or ships).
In terms of penetrating enemy air defences, a stealth striker should be relying on it's stealth first and foremost. Being able to supercruise offers little advantage that I can see if the enemy could not see you.
For really well defended targets, where even stealth may not be enough, you may well have to resort back to good old fashioned nap of the earth flying, where again, supercruise is useless.
Maybe I am just being thick, but I honestly cannot see who it would be so critical to have supercruise on a stealth striker.
After all, if it was so important, why wasn't it a design requirement for the F35?
The only benefit I could see for a very large weapons bay is for anti-shipping. However, you need to get very very close to a ship if you want your missile to have a good chance of striking it before it's defences could react. At those ranges, the striker itself will be well within range on the ship's weapons, and it will pop up on radar as soon as it opens it's weapons bay.
It just doesn't seem like a very good idea to risk pilots and very expensive planes like that when you could just saturate the target with a swarm of longer ranged AShMs from a safe distance instead. Especially when you consider the other performance limitations you will force upon yourself in order to accomidate the extra large internal bay.
If you really want to catch ships off guard, it would just be cheaper, easier and safer to develop stealthy long range AShMs instead.
Fair point, but economies of scale may well kick in after you get enough planes. After all, if the US can afford a few thousand 5th gens and maintain them, I'm sure a few hundred more will not be too much for China to support.
None of what I suggested should have much of an impact on the survivability of the planes. Not against ground to air weapons anyways. If such a striker ran into conventional enemy fighters, it will still have all the advantages of stealth to help it win in BVR, or at least try and stay out of WVR (and supercruise will be helpful here, but it is not essential).
And as I already pointed out, would a heavy stealth striker stand much more of a chance compared to a medium weight one if it had the bad luck of running into an enemy 5th gen air dominance fighter or some of the best eurocanards/superflankers in WVR?
Fair points and I can see where you are coming from. However, if I was in charge at SAC, my main concern would be, what happens if we (SAC) spends a lot of time and effort convincing the PLAAF that they need a heavy stealth striker. Finally the PLAAF top brass agress, but turns around and ask us, 'why should we choose your modified XXJ proposal instead of asking CAC to modifiy their own, successful (and thus superior) XXJ proposal into a stealth striker instead?
If the J20 makes a better fighter than SAC's J19, there is a good chance it will make a better fighter bomber as well. And since the PLAAF is already buying the J20, a striker based on it will have far better commonality and great economies of scale and logistical savings compared to anything SAC could reasonably cook up.
Saying CAC is too busy is hardly a convincing argument that SAC should get the project instead.
Fair enough if there is political support for SAC to get a big project to keep them going and provide a competitor to CAC, but SAC can't really take the mick with their proposal either. If they come up with something half-arsed like recycling already rejected proposals, the PLAAF could easily tell them where to stick it no matter what the political desires.
As I alluded to above, what happens if you were SAC, and went to the PLAAF with that. They say, 'Great! We love it! But why should it be your modified failed XXJ proposal instead of CAC's successful XXJ proposal? What? CAC is too busy to do both designs? No problem, they can take the lead, and SAC can subcontract. We (the PLAAF) get the best plane, and both companies gets work.'
While your proposal does indeed make a lot of sense in terms of performance, I am not sure it makes the best business sense for SAC to pitch that to the PLAAF.
What more, such a heavy striker will also have the same size issues as the J20 in terms of navalising it, and could well again be too sensitive to export just like the J20.
A single engined medium stealth striker would be a better fit for carriers (so the PLAN can have a stealth carrier plane without needed China to have yet another stealth design), and could be a hot seller internationally. Export sales and naval contracts = more units built = lower unit price.
So while the single engined stealth striker will not be as good as a twin engined heavy, if SAC does it right and it sells well, the PLAAF and PLAN could well build a far better air force with the same amount of money.
You like big, heavy birds, whereas I like lighter, smaller builds. It would be interesting to see which the PLA ultimately prefers. Maybe we will both be right, and they develop a twin seat strike version of the J20 and also induct a single engined medium stealth for the navy and to make up numbers. Or maybe we will both be wrong and the PLA doesn't even bother with another stealth striker and builds a stealth bomber for strike missions instead.
Oh the possibilities. if SAC's new bird is a low cost solution to PLAAF needs, at what price tag do you people envision it to be?
say 80 mil a pop versus 100-120 mil for J-20?
a slightly toned down avionics spec, mature WS-10 engine family line, considerable payload and stealth with an interesting price range between 80-100 million will be a hot export item
say 80 mil a pop versus 100-120 mil for J-20?
a slightly toned down avionics spec, mature WS-10 engine family line, considerable payload and stealth with an interesting price range between 80-100 million will be a hot export item
Exactly, I don't believe there is an active carrier fighter project, if there is it's still in a very early stage of brainstorming within 601/611.
Quickie
Colonel
The modification from JH-7A to the JH-7B could just be the stealth shaping to the fuselage. I seem to recall seeing a CG of something similar quite a while ago.
Sorry, but this "just stealth shaping to the fuselage" would be de facto a new aircraft !
plawolf
Lieutenant General
Any stealth shaping added to the JH7A design would have superficial benefits at most. Full stealth is about much much more than mere surface shaping and special coatings. The internal structure of the aircraft must also be designed with signiture management in mind to maximize the benefit.
In addition, the best stealth shaping, coating and internal structural allignment would all mean nothing if you are carring weapons externally.
It would probably be easier to start from scratch to redesign the JH7A to be stealthy clean. To do that and add in usefully big internal weapons bays? Just not going to happen.
The JH7A may get some RCS reduction measures applied, but the most that will do is something similar to the RCS reduction achieved on the J11B compared to the Su27SK.
The JH7 will never be a stealth striker no matter how much you mod it.
If China wants a stealth striker, they need to design one from scratch or mod the the J20 or J19 into one.
escobar
Brigadier
as we don't even know the prices for J-10, J-11 or JH-7A
it will be difficult to estimate the prices for 5th generation aircrafts- Status