The first digit more like which iterative cycle (I am trying to avoid using the word 'generational').
Shenyang FC-31 / J-31 Fighter Demonstrator
- Thread starter RedSky
- Start date
- Status
So J31 uses better tech compared to J20? Interesting.
Of course it does. The J-20 originally started development in the 90s. Technology has come a long way since then, and while they've obviously been upgraded there are limits to what you can do with an existing platform.
I think naming convention comes from when the induction of the system happens.
So, J-10 was inducted to service around 2008. J-20 was inducted near 2020, probably planned for 2020 but happened early in 2017. But overall full capability was reached around 2020.
J-31 was probably intended to be inducted around 2030, maybe slightly before that.
You also see this in other systems. YJ-18 was inducted around 2018 range. YJ-12 came earlier. YJ-21 came in 2021.
Type 99 tank came into service around late 1999 period. Type 96 tank came a few years earlier. type 15 light tank came in 2015. PCL 181 came in 2018.
Type 191 rifle was introduced in 2019.
Type 95 rifle was inducted in 1996.
Last edited:
My theory: First digit is Generation, followed by:
0 Top indigenous fighter (J-10, J-20)
1 Land based fighter (J-11, J-31)
5 Carrier based fighter (J-15, J-35)
6 Fighter/Bomber (J-6 J-16)
J-10 was the top Chinese indigenous fighter of the “1” generation and J-20 is Chinas top indigenous fighter of the “2” generation. This links the J-10 and J-20. By indigenous I mean that it’s legally based on Chinas IP, unlike the flanker derivatives which are not.
What do you think, @Deino?, @Blitzo?, @ACuriousPLAFan?, Is that correct?
0 Top indigenous fighter (J-10, J-20)
1 Land based fighter (J-11, J-31)
5 Carrier based fighter (J-15, J-35)
6 Fighter/Bomber (J-6 J-16)
J-10 was the top Chinese indigenous fighter of the “1” generation and J-20 is Chinas top indigenous fighter of the “2” generation. This links the J-10 and J-20. By indigenous I mean that it’s legally based on Chinas IP, unlike the flanker derivatives which are not.
What do you think, @Deino?, @Blitzo?, @ACuriousPLAFan?, Is that correct?
Last edited:
J-5 is not a carrier fighter. J-6 was never a bomber.
But we have to ignore the J-5, J-6, J-7, J-8, J-9 consecutive series. Generation nomenclature started after J-10.
I do not think it has much to do with year of introduction since Tamsen's theory is all over the place +/- 3 years at minimum. It appears they may align simply because timelines of development coincide somewhat.
I do not think it has much to do with year of introduction since Tamsen's theory is all over the place +/- 3 years at minimum. It appears they may align simply because timelines of development coincide somewhat.
It's an interesting theory but there are many exceptions, Like the type 055 destroyer for instance so probably not it
- Status