Shenyang FC-31 / J-31 Fighter Demonstrator
- Thread starter RedSky
- Start date
- Status
I don't think we have any basis yet to definitively say whether a fully developed J-XY would be of similar cost or cheaper than J-20.
This discussion has been had before in previous pages, and being powered by a single engine alone does not a more affordable aircraft make, especially in context of current and foreseeable future capacity of the Chinese aerospace industry.
The position I held, and I continue to hold, is that it is true in general principle that a single engine fighter of a given weight class would offer lower operating costs than a twin engine fighter of the same weight class, assuming we can hold all else equal.
But for the PLA, a "single engine medium weight 5th gen" versus a "twin engine medium weight 5th gen" is more complex than that, and not everything is held equal.
Things like development time, reduced costs in terms of commonality of systems and upgrades (given the PLAN will be procuring J-XY itself, and any "twin engine medium weight 5th gen" would be a land based derivative of J-XY), engine availability (how available would WS-15 be if it was asked to fulfill both J-20 production and a single engine medium weight 5th gen fighter), as well as distribution of aerospace resources.
This topic of "would a J-XY be a viable aircraft as a more affordable 5th generation aircraft relative to J-20" has been had before in some detail here in the past:
If anyone wants to continue this particular strain of discussion, move it to that thread please
This discussion has been had before in previous pages, and being powered by a single engine alone does not a more affordable aircraft make, especially in context of current and foreseeable future capacity of the Chinese aerospace industry.
The position I held, and I continue to hold, is that it is true in general principle that a single engine fighter of a given weight class would offer lower operating costs than a twin engine fighter of the same weight class, assuming we can hold all else equal.
But for the PLA, a "single engine medium weight 5th gen" versus a "twin engine medium weight 5th gen" is more complex than that, and not everything is held equal.
Things like development time, reduced costs in terms of commonality of systems and upgrades (given the PLAN will be procuring J-XY itself, and any "twin engine medium weight 5th gen" would be a land based derivative of J-XY), engine availability (how available would WS-15 be if it was asked to fulfill both J-20 production and a single engine medium weight 5th gen fighter), as well as distribution of aerospace resources.
This topic of "would a J-XY be a viable aircraft as a more affordable 5th generation aircraft relative to J-20" has been had before in some detail here in the past:
Future PLA combat aircraft composition
And yes, what you described -- a "worse" J-20, with commonality with the navy, and a larger production run, more maintainable stealth, more advanced production method -- sounds like a hell of an aircraft to me, especially as such an aircraft would not need the additional development time needed...
www.sinodefenceforum.com
If anyone wants to continue this particular strain of discussion, move it to that thread please
Lethe
Captain
To the extent practicable, PLANAF should be transitioning to mostly carrier-based aviation. Even if there are land-based squadrons, the aircraft themselves should be carrier capable. The additional flexibility would greatly outweigh the minor performance advantage of a land-based variant.
Indeed. Additionally, the larger numbers tends to decrease unit procurement cost and commonality in maintenance is also a good thing.
We also have examples of countries that bought carrier capable jet while having no carrier of their own (F/A-18 being a prime example). Assuming the performance difference between land and CV capable variant are not that significant, surely PLANAF would take the CV capable one if they need any J-XY, right?
The original FC-31 was a non-naval export prototype so it kinda make sense to have a FC/J-31 PLAAF and a Export FC/J-31 with downgraded tech. Enhance wings, structural hardening, landing gears, tail hooks , carrier avionics, sea proofing may add up to many millions per a plane.
It can save a lot of weight. For example,, Northrop have proposed non-naval f18 variants, they where saving more than a tons of empty weight for their F/a-18L and increased the payload and g limits with non folding wings and simplified landing gears. They offered also a land based simplified air superiority variant, saving 3 tons of weight with reduced parts tickness and non folding wings.
J-XY for the carrier based variant will almost certainly will have folding wings.
Rafale M is an outlier in that regard, partly as a reflection of its relatively smaller wingspan given its configuration of being more of a delta wing than J-XY is expected to be, but its lack of folding wings has proven to be a detriment for other carriers outside of CdG where folding wings could have allowed it to be stationed elsewhere, namely India's Vikrant carrier.
It would be a remarkably stupid decision to pursue a carrier based J-XY without folding wings.
Any difference between a carrier based J-XY and land based J-XY would likely only be the presence or lack of folding wings, catapult mode gear, reinforced landing gear and tailhook.
I expect virtually everything else to be the same.
A
And no special attention paid to corrosion resistance as well? - or would those weight and cost savings be negligible?
- Status