J-XY/J-35 carrier-borne fighter thread

R

reservior dogs

Junior Member
Registered Member
Bltizo said:
Actually I would say the same logic does not apply to 4th gen and 3rd gen fighters to the same degree.

Flight hour costs of 4th and 3rd generation fighters relative to trainers were not as exorbitant as flight hours costs of 5th generation fighters are relative to trainers.
Furthermore, when 4th and 3rd generation fighters emerged, the sophistication of simulators was significantly below what we have now.




"If you can afford them" -- IMO is the key here.

Sure, I agree that every air force with 5th generation jets would love to have twin seater combat capable trainers for 5th generation fighters.
But even if they were willing to develop them, the money to actually fly proper 5th generation fighters for the purpose of training, when a 5th generation fighter includes all of the bells and whistles like RAM, internal weapons bays, advanced full sensor suites, advanced networking capability -- is a waste of time of a 5th generation aircraft's flight hours.
There's a reason why 5th generation aircraft fleets around the world do not have dedicated 5th generation twin seaters for training purposes, and there is a reason why the idea of J-20S being used as a trainer is also immensely unlikely -- it's just a poor use of an air force's finite resources, and the training for 5th generation jets can be better done through a combination of modern simulators and LIFT.

Or, putting it another way -- I think that having 5th generation combat capable trainer aircraft would be an active detriment to an air force's 5th generation fleet.
I would truly question the rationale of the PLA if they developed J-20S for the purpose of training, and doubly so if they chose to do so for J-XY as well.




The structural provisions for a second seat are not there, however.

The canopy/hump that we see externally is an external aerodynamic shape that internally likely carries fuel, but even if they wanted to potentially make it a two seater in the future, they would have to make substantial structural changes below the airframe's surface to accommodate a cockpit and the requisite life support system and enlarged canopy etc.

This isn't even starting to think about just how big (long especially) a second cockpit would make the canopy, which, even on cursory glance at the aircraft, would actually require an even more outward displacing and longer hump than what we see now.



All of this is to say -- I'm not ruling out the idea that maybe we might one day see a twin seater J-XY (with the caveat that if we see a twin seater, it would almost certainly be for the battle management/control role rather than for training).

However, I am saying that the nature of the airframe modifications -- including the canopy/fuselage hump -- we see on this J-XY prototype relative to the FC-31 airframes, can be best attributed to the requirement for greater internal fuel and any possible aerodynamic benefits as well.
Whether those modifications might make developing a twin seater variant of J-XY slightly easier in the future if they chose to do so -- maybe, it does. But the primary and most upfront benefits for them would be greater internal fuel + aerodynamic refinement.
Click to expand...
How difficult, in your opinion, would it be to make a naval variant of the J-20S? seems if they wanted a two seater, that might be an easier path. Just more structural reinforcement, folded wings and landing gear. The shape of the aircraft remains essentially unchanged. and you have the added benefit of longer range, more power etc. If you only need a few of these, that would not hurt the carrying capacity of the carrier.
 
Z

zyun8288

Junior Member
I will wait for more photos to judge J35’s true size and length width ratio. The current one and only photo does not look as good as J31 v2.0 to my eyes. Maybe it’s the angle of the shot, or a distortion by the printing software.
 
Blitzo

Blitzo

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Registered Member
reservior dogs said:
How difficult, in your opinion, would it be to make a naval variant of the J-20S? seems if they wanted a two seater, that might be an easier path. Just more structural reinforcement, folded wings and landing gear. The shape of the aircraft remains essentially unchanged. and you have the added benefit of longer range, more power etc. If you only need a few of these, that would not hurt the carrying capacity of the carrier.
Click to expand...

Imo the real questions are:
1. Why would they want a navalized J-20 in the first place?
2. Would a 5th gen navalized twin seater be worth it?
 
R

reservior dogs

Junior Member
Registered Member
Bltizo said:
Imo the real questions are:
1. Why would they want a navalized J-20 in the first place?
2. Would a 5th gen navalized twin seater be worth it?
Click to expand...
I think the training bit is not that important. You can find cheaper way to train. What is most important is the ability to control drones and communicate as a node to other assets. Maybe a single pilot can have a couple of drones, but a second can allow them to control 30. Electronic warfare may also require more bandwidth than is available from a single pilot which could devote a great deal of his time just flying the plane and doing evasive maneuvers and such.
 
Blitzo

Blitzo

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Registered Member
reservior dogs said:
I think the training bit is not that important. You can find cheaper way to train. What is most important is the ability to control drones and communicate as a node to other assets. Maybe a single pilot can have a couple of drones, but a second can allow them to control 30. Electronic warfare may also require more bandwidth than is available from a single pilot which could devote a great deal of his time just flying the plane and doing evasive maneuvers and such.
Click to expand...

Right, if the desire for a twin seater is the battle management/command and control capabilities, then that is reasonable... Though I must say I am not yet sure what the future of MUMT and loyal wingmen UAVs will look like for carrier aviation.

A big reason why MUMT/loyal wingmen make sense for land based air forces is the ability to employ and recover relatively large numbers of UAVs at conventional airbases.

I am not sure how that will translate for carrier aviation as I believe the carrier flight deck and hangar may produce lower limits for the scale/size of UAV formations they can generate.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top