Shenyang FC-31 / J-31 Fighter Demonstrator

stannislas said:

are you sure about that?

Click to expand...

Of course I'm not "sure" -- this is all speculating about a future procurement rationale.

stannislas said:

how much would you estimate J-20 production number? min 500 to ~1000?
how much would you estimate J-XZ production number? 2?3 hundards?

ok let's assume J-XY could be produced as much as 500, then the unit cost need to be less than half of J-20 to make it cheaper, and that is after the money inflation

I'm not sure how advance SAC need to be in order to produce J-XY that cheap...
also, if certain technologies do exist, why CAC can't use it to improve their further batch of J-20 and reduce its cost, unlike Boeing and Lockhead Martin, CAC and SAC are all under AVIC and they are in fact sharing technologies

Click to expand...

I personally envision a total J-20 production run of about 600 fighters (to end by 2035).

For J-XY and J-XZ, they are both fighters of the same variant, and I envision a total production run of about 1000 fighters, 300-400 carrier based J-XY, and over 600 land based J-XZ, keeping in mind both J-XY and J-XZ would share substantial common subsystems and parts with each other as well.

The total procurement size of each fighter type (J-20 vs J-XY/XZ) of course matters for cost, but technology matters as well.

I am arguing that J-XY/XZ, being a newer aircraft developed nearly a decade after J-20, and having been able to enjoy the benefits of China's pace of aerospace development in that time, would have incorporated more advanced and "built in" production and stealth technologies than J-20 does, which makes the procurement cost and operating cost of J-XY/XZ to be lower than J-20.

Those technologies in turn, cannot easily be integrated into the J-20 without developing something that approaches a clean sheet variant of J-20. The fact that SAC and CAC both come under AVIC doesn't change the fact that developing such a variant would require time, aerospace resources, and money, which would be better spent by CAC to develop a 6th generation fighter instead.




At the end of the day, we only have rumours to guide us, and the rumours are saying that a land based J-XY/35 variant will emerge in the near future for the PLAAF.
Our job is to assess the likelihood and veracity of rumours and try to make sense of them.

I doubt a twin engine light/medium fighter like the J-XY/XZ will get built in those numbers.
The emergence of the Su-75 Checkmate will make the case for a single engine aircraft powered with the WS-15 all the more relevant.
China needs just way too many aircraft and has too many old single engine models to replace them all with twin engine aircraft.

The debate of J-XZ/land based J-XY, versus clean sheet single engine fighter powered by WS-15, versus more J-20s, has already been debated multiple times, and my position on it has already been made clear, I'm not going to constantly repeat my arguments every few months.


For PLA watching, our ability to predict future outcomes is somewhat limited. The best we can do is to try to track rumours and to in turn rationalize them within a base of knowledge and common sense.

So I would suggest to people to not ask "is a J-XZ/land based J-XY better, or a clean sheet single engine fighter powered by WS-15 better, or is more J-20s better, for the PLAAF as a mainstream land based 5th generation fighter" -- and instead ask:
"Based on rumours suggesting the PLAAF is pursuing J-XZ/land based J-XY, and based on the fact there are no rumours of a single engine fighter powered by WS-15, what are the likely factors, conditions that could have caused the PLA to pursue J-XZ/land based J-XY as a possible mainstream land based 5th generation fighter?"

I think 1000 fighters of this type is not realistic. There are not even that many J-10 in service. I think 200-300 is more likely. If the amount of carriers increases it could go up to double that.

gelgoog said:

I think 1000 fighters of this type is not realistic. There are not even that many J-10 in service. I think 200-300 is more likely. If the amount of carriers increases it could go up to double that.

Click to expand...

I said 1000 aircraft of the type between carrier based variants (J-XY/J-35) and land based variants (J-XZ).

Not 1000 aircraft of only the carrier based variant.

My guesstimate includes naval and land based versions in China. Does not count exports.

gelgoog said:

My guesstimate includes naval and land based versions in China. Does not count exports.

Click to expand...

My projection for the 300-300 J-XY is for a 10 CATOBAR carrier fleet, and for the 600+ J-XZ is where it makes up the PLAAF's mainline land based 5th generation fighter (500-600 J-20s, no single engine 5th gen fighter).


The J-XZ would partially replace a combination of J-10 variants, Flanker variants, and JH-7/As. The totality of those types of course would be replaced by a combination of J-XZ, J-20, and UCAVs, and possibly a new future regional bomber.

~600 land based J-XZ seems quite possible when compared to current J10/11/16 numbers and considering the retirement of JH-7, but 3-400 carrier versions seems a bit high to me. I personally don't think China will spend so much cash on 10 carriers for worldwide power projection especially before the Taiwan issue is resolved. Probably the 2 STOBAR ones plus 2 or 3 CATOBAR carriers

I also don't think a new single engine fighter is going to happen. The production cost savings are probably not big enough to justify a new fighter development especially considering the time cost needed for design and prototyping

Bltizo said:

My projection for the 300-300 J-XY is for a 10 CATOBAR carrier fleet, and for the 600+ J-XZ is where it makes up the PLAAF's mainline land based 5th generation fighter (500-600 J-20s, no single engine 5th gen fighter).


The J-XZ would partially replace a combination of J-10 variants, Flanker variants, and JH-7/As. The totality of those types of course would be replaced by a combination of J-XZ, J-20, and UCAVs, and possibly a new future regional bomber.

Click to expand...

When would you expect a J-XZ prototype to emerge?

sndef888 said:

~600 land based J-XZ seems quite possible when compared to current J10/11/16 numbers and considering the retirement of JH-7, but 3-400 carrier versions seems a bit high to me. I personally don't think China will spend so much cash on 10 carriers for worldwide power projection especially before the Taiwan issue is resolved. Probably the 2 STOBAR ones plus 2 or 3 CATOBAR carriers

I also don't think a new single engine fighter is going to happen. The production cost savings are probably not big enough to justify a new fighter development especially considering the time cost needed for design and prototyping

Click to expand...

Those 10 Chinese carriers aren't required for worldwide power projection.

Their job is maritime control of the waters in the Western Pacific, including the 2nd Island Chain.
That would mean the US military is unable to reach Asia (which includes Taiwan, Korea, Japan, Philippines).

The Chinese Air Force can already obtain air supremacy over Taiwan well within a week, and there is a stated goal of 2027 to build the forces necessary for a forced invasion and conquest of Taiwan.

But this 2027 goal is dependent on whether the US can/will intervene.