Shenyang FC-31 / J-31 Fighter Demonstrator

Status
Not open for further replies.
A

AndrewS

Brigadier
Registered Member
stannislas said:
this is funny, China is ahead of US in high-speed missile for like ten years, and its the US who will solved the issue with their hypersonic missile... ok if you say so....whatever you like to say...


intersting, so first island chain extened to 3000km... ok... emmm....

also, DF-26 is able to reach Guam, so you think DF-26 is more costly than 10 carrier fleets...... interesting

I have to say, it's amazing how much china can achieve with its 1.7% of GDP...
Click to expand...

If you look at the literature, Guam is clearly defined as the 2nd Island Chain.

Think about it, how would you target ships with a DF-26 from over 3000km away?
You may get some indications, but you would have to spam a very large number of DF-26s to cover the likely locations.

And how does the DF-26 help with maintaining sea control beyond 3000km, so that Chinese merchant ships can sail safely?

If you want to maintain a reconnaissance-strike complex / battle network and also protect your merchant ships, you need local air control.
 
A

AndrewS

Brigadier
Registered Member
stannislas said:
just because US did something, does not means China need to do the same, otherwise China won't do:
DF-17/21/26/etc.
belt and road initiative
asia-euro train
...

China has state multiple times it has no interest to compete with US in the role of 'international police', so china won't do exactly what US does just to match its influnce, there is more than one way in the eye of China.
Click to expand...

The key point is that China wants to protect its overseas trade and you can't get around how the vast majority of that trade is seaborne, despite overland diversification .

So unless China builds a blue water navy with a comparable fleet of aircraft carriers, you can't credibly protect that overseas trade from interdiction.
But this is a longer term goal because carriers are expensive, take a long time to build and China doesn't have a mature carrier design yet.

I used to think they planned on a measured carrier development programme before starting serial production of nuclear carriers after 2030 or so. But given the Cold War, this may have triggered an increase in Chinese military spending from the 1.7% of GDP level which has been maintained over the past 20+ years. So if the EMALS on the conventionally-powered Type-003 supercarrier works out, then they might decide to start serial production of this design in 2025. At the same time, the original development/construction programme for a nuclear-powered carrier continues.

---

My guess is that conventionally-powered Type-003 carrier costs about $4.5 Bn and the associated airwing another $4.5 Bn.
Then there is another $2 Bn in annual operating costs (the US is at $2.1 Bn annually per CVN+CAW)

If China maintains a production cadence of 1 conventional carrier assembled every 3 years, that's only $3 Bn extra per year plus those operating costs. Note there is available shipyard capacity, spare airframe capacity for the Flankers/J-31 plus the carrier escorts already exist.

So you end up with Chinese military spending increasing from 1.7% to 1.73% of GDP. That's almost a rounding error, but the Chinese carrier deployment programme is sped up by 5 years. In comparison, the US routinely spends 3.5%+ of GDP on the military, which is twice the Chinese level.

---

Conventional carriers do require more resupply, but are cheaper to operate.
The 1998 GAO report below has the total lifecycle cost of a conventional carrier as only 63% of a nuclear carrier.
Yet there was no appreciable difference in sortie rates or operations.
Conventionally powered carriers in the Persian Gulf replenished fuel every 2.7 to 3 days, whilst nuclear carriers replenished every 3.3days.
And given that Chinese carriers will primarily be tasked with operations in the Western Pacific relatively near to Chinese ports, more frequent resupply should be manageable.

GAO Report below.
gao.gov/products/nsiad-98-1
 
F

FangYuan

Junior Member
Registered Member
Manufacturing 10 carriers and 1000 J-XY is reasonable, if China has infinite resources and money. But that doesn't happen

Dozens of carriers and hundreds of military base, it is a huge burden. That's why the United States has a larger military budget, but they are inferior to China and Russia in some fields of weapons technology.

China should not repeat America's mistake.

Effective solutions are reasonable spending and non-symmetrical wars.
 
Blitzo

Blitzo

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Registered Member
stannislas said:
well, he stated that in order to have 1000 J-XY/XZ by 2035, China will built 10 CATOBAR carriers... I just don't know where to start...
Click to expand...

When did I say that they need 1000 J-XY/XZ by 2035?

I said "late 2030s". I.e.: 2038-39.

Yes, I absolutely consider 10 CATOBAR carriers to be a plausible number by then.


stannislas said:
ok, I get it, China has no CATOBAR carriers in the water by early 2022, but 10 by 2035? same time as you believe J-XY/XZ could reach the number of 1000? that's 10 in 13 years, 1.3 years per carrier, and not including training and everything, I know you are hyper on Chinese ship building industry, but this is just ridiculars... it's not even wishful thinking, this is day dream...


no you didn't, state something does not make the argument valid unless you prove it or make proper derivation


non sense
of course size matter, remember people keep critisis F-35 been fat? why USAF found so hard to add anything on F-22? why J-20 has side weapon bay and FC-31 doesn't? for the 5th gen figher, with internal weapon bay, size carry more weight than previous generations.

J-20 has space to add one more pilot, but given the size of FC-31, I doubted it. so at this stage FC-31 based jet, J-XY or XZ whatever, is lack of ability of commading UAV efficiently, and these is no way to add this ability unless it increase size


so your solution for this is that since CAC is using WS-15 and SAC is using WS-19, so for the sake of jobs, SAC need to build 1000 jets???
... China is not in1960s, please learn at least a little bit about China in 21st century please...

like I mentioned before, there will be definately competation for 6th gen fighters, the chance for SAC winning is not slim, why you keep assume the 6th gen is going to come from CAS like it has already won the contract?
oh, btw, I repeated what I said before, sorry to say, this is called respect.

to simply answer you question, China is producing flanker and J-10 and J-20 with WS-10, so your arguement again make no sense.

also, since you like to ask question, I have one for you as well.
why China need to equip something weaker or potentially weaker than the existing J-20?

- maintain SAC production?
hi, flanker has more potential to produce as the work house, and heavy weapon carrier, so SAC can produce 5th gen fighter and flanker to maintain its production line, while CAC can only produce J-20 and move J-10 to Guizhou

- cheaper?
your logic is China want to spents tones of money to build 10 new CATOBARs in the next 10 years, I don't think China will care the small gap between these two

- better capacity?
no way, J-20 has larger airframe, as a 5th gen fighter, it has larger potential of impovement.

so what else?


why?? just because someone make a rumor doesnot means it make sense, and does not means we need to take this assumption like it is something. seriously, who made that rumor? what's his credibility? why no other souce in China, like Yankeesama, Shilao, Xiyazhou mentioned about this?

Also, there is a long distance between China develop J-XY/XZ and produce 1000 unit of these variants in the future. if the rumor contain this part, ask yourself who is this person to know the secertive information of production number of a non exist jet? Xi Jinping? what's his base to make this up?

no matter how many time you repeat your argument, if you don't answer people's question directly, that's just wishful thinking
also thinking people will get the same conclusion without proper derivation makes people question about your critical thinking and logic skill
Click to expand...

Everything you've written here would either require me to articulate literally my entire worldview as to PLA strategic procurement priorities, or would require me to regurgitate things I've already talked about.
I don't have the time for either of those things, and it's not my job to convince you.

I've said my part already, you can take it or leave it.
 
S

stannislas

Junior Member
Registered Member
Bltizo said:
When did I say that they need 1000 J-XY/XZ by 2035?

I said "late 2030s". I.e.: 2038-39.

Yes, I absolutely consider 10 CATOBAR carriers to be a plausible number by then.




Everything you've written here would either require me to articulate literally my entire worldview as to PLA strategic procurement priorities, or would require me to regurgitate things I've already talked about.
I don't have the time for either of those things, and it's not my job to convince you.

I've said my part already, you can take it or leave it.
Click to expand...
lol, whatever, I'm not the preson who try to argue that 1000 J-XY/XZ, and 10 CATOBAR carriers in 2030s,

I just publicly demonstrate the absurdity of your argument to everyone, you can take whatever you like as well.
 
Deino

Deino

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Registered Member
Guys ... can we stop this discussion on 10 carriers or not in this thread??!!

We have a dedicated thread in the naval section where you can discuss future PLAN carrier battle groups, their size and air wings, but here it is simply off-topic and most of all a political discussion!

So leave it.
 
G

gelgoog

Lieutenant General
Registered Member
Bltizo said:
For the USN, I think its F-35C procurement scale has to be balanced against their 6th gen/F/A-XX desires, because at the moment they are still hoping F/A-XX will enter service sometime in the 2030s to replace Super Hornet.
An optimistic timescale to be sure, but it is also one which would very much explain why their F-35C procurement intentions at this stage are so relatively small.
I suspect that if/when F/A-XX is delayed, then they will increase the number of F-35Cs that the eventually buy.

In the case of the PLAN, I would be surprised if they have a naval 6th gen fighter ready to enter service in the 2030s (maybe very late 2030s/early 2040s).
Given there will likely lack of a 6th generation fighter until late 30s/early 40s, along with a notional 10 CATOBAR carrier fleet by that time, I think would very much see 300-400 J-XYs built until the end of their production run.
(Heck even if it wasn't 10 CATOBAR carriers and if it was 8 CATOBAR carriers and the 2 current STOBAR carriers instead, the point still stands, especially if J-XY is STOBAR compatible).

I would agree with the idea of under 300 J-XYs being built in total, if the PLAN had a 6th gen naval fighter ready to go sometime in the mid 2030s, but I consider that to be very unlikely.
Click to expand...

I think you are being too pessimistic with regards to the date of introduction of a 6th generation Chinese naval fighter.
2030 is in 8 years which is more than enough to develop a new engine and fighter aircraft family. While China is supposedly behind the US with regards to a 6th generation engine the J-31 development shows they can iterate on new airframe design a lot faster than they used to. It did not take that long between V1 and V2 and there were substantial changes in those designs. The 6th generation fighter might also start with 5th generation or improved 5th generation engines similar to how the J-20 started with 4th generation engines instead of 5th.

Let us say they decide to add TVC to some version of their 5th generation engines and that they boost their performance somewhat. The J-31 and J-XY airframes do not seem to have been designed with TVC in mind at all. They might design a new 6th generation airframe with TVC in mind and more advanced electronics. Nearly a decade after J-XY introduction there is bound to be enough of a performance difference in several systems to make a new aircraft model viable.

Thus I doubt J-XY will ever attain that high production amount.

The first FC-31 prototype flew even before the J-15 entered actual service. I suspect once viable 5th generation engines with TVC become available China might develop yet another prototype to go head on against the F/A-XX or whatever the US comes out with. I think we should expect the time between introduction of new generation aircraft in the US and China to decrease with time.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top