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

Klon said:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

:

Click to expand...

Man... machine translations' got a lonnnnnnng way to go.

Translation:

A lot of people are asking why choose FC-31? I feel many have misunderstood the priorities. Firstly, it's not just a matter of "J-20 vs FC-31," the carrier's requirements are for a medium aircraft; every time I've mentioned 4th-gen carrier-based fighter, I've always said "medium aircraft." I don't know how the J-20 and FC-31 will be modified but whichever is modified better to fit the criteria will be adopted. It's a competition between how well the modifications are implemented; the merits of the existing J-20 and FC-31 are of secondary concern. Secondly, how are you guys able to immediately jump to conclusions that the FC-31 modifications have already succeeded? Yes, SAC is working double time on the modifications but that is no guarantor of adoption. The ultimate decider is whether the PLAN is satisfied.

jobjed said:

Man... machine translations' got a lonnnnnnng way to go.

Translation:

A lot of people are asking why choose FC-31? I feel many have misunderstood the priorities. Firstly, it's not just a matter of "J-20 vs FC-31," the carrier's requirements are for a medium aircraft; every time I've mentioned 4th-gen carrier-based fighter, I've always said "medium aircraft." I don't know how the J-20 and FC-31 will be modified but whichever is modified better to fit the criteria will be adopted. It's a competition between how well the modifications are implemented; the merits of the existing J-20 and FC-31 are of secondary concern. Secondly, how are you guys able to immediately jump to conclusions that the FC-31 modifications have already succeeded? Yes, SAC is working double time on the modifications but that is no guarantor of adoption. The ultimate decider is whether the PLAN is satisfied.

Click to expand...

I think fzgfzy is a bit late on the rumors. I don't think there has ever been an example in which the PLAAF or PLANAF has adopted or rejected a design only after the prototypes have been built. PB19980515 made it pretty clear that the configuration of the J-XY has been settled, and that it'll be a conventional design, and that all specifications and dimensions are highly suggestive of a modified FC-31 variant.

jobjed said:

Firstly, it's not just a matter of "J-20 vs FC-31," the carrier's requirements are for a medium aircraft; every time I've mentioned 4th-gen carrier-based fighter, I've always said "medium aircraft."

Click to expand...

Is (or can it be made to be) the J-20 a "medium aircraft"? Maybe in terms of weight, but unlikely in size (or engines), which seems like the relevant criterion in this case.

Klon said:

Is (or can it be made to be) the J-20 a "medium aircraft"?

Click to expand...

No. But we're talking about new aircraft anyways. Sharing traits of a previous one or not.

Gloire_bb said:

No. But we're talking about new aircraft anyways. Sharing traits of a previous one or not.

Click to expand...

"Downsizing" the J-20 would essentially be designing a new fighter from the ground up, which would take far longer than the projected navalized variant of the FC-31.

Experience tells us what "simple" navalizations just end up as a necessity to redesign plane later on once again.
Most important readily interchangeable parts are electronic ones.

Gloire_bb said:

Experience tells us what "simple" navalizations just end up as a necessity to redesign plane later on once again.
Most important readily interchangeable parts are electronic ones.

Click to expand...

Not necessarily; all that the current FC-31 design requires in order to fit the PLAN's requirements would be enlarged wingspan and landing gear upgrades.

SinoSoldier said:

Not necessarily; all that the current FC-31 design requires in order to fit the PLAN's requirements would be enlarged wingspan and landing gear upgrades.

Click to expand...

0.requirements. I highly doubt j-31/fc-31 fullfills demands of a new customer, quite demanding one at that.
1.whole structure needs complete revision. Considering vertical speeds involved, deck landing is kind of a controlled crush, which shall be repeated for decades.
It isn't just a landing gear, it's the whole plane.
Same with longtitudal loads(hook)
2.lots of components have to bereviewed, redesigned or replaced. Sea is salty.
3.wing folding
4. different operating standarts at sea
5. so on, so on

To put it bluntly - among current generation of fighters, su-33 isn't considered to be fully successful from navalization point of view(now dead su-33ub changed half of the plane from the basic su-33), mig went through whole second iteration("old" mig-29k, 9-31, and a new one, 9-41, areclearly different evenon the outside);
f-35c(with carrier compatibility right from scratch) required extensive redesigns in the middle of the road.

Gloire_bb said:

0.requirements. I highly doubt j-31/fc-31 fullfills demands of a new customer, quite demanding one at that.
1.whole structure needs complete revision. Considering vertical speeds involved, deck landing is kind of a controlled crush, which shall be repeated for decades.
It isn't just a landing gear, it's the whole plane.
Same with longtitudal loads(hook)
2.lots of components have to bereviewed, redesigned or replaced. Sea is salty.
3.wing folding
4. different operating standarts at sea
5. so on, so on

To put it bluntly - among current generation of fighters, su-33 isn't considered to be fully successful from navalization point of view(now dead su-33ub changed half of the plane from the basic su-33), mig went through whole second iteration("old" mig-29k, 9-31, and a new one, 9-41, areclearly different evenon the outside);
f-35c(with carrier compatibility right from scratch) required extensive redesigns in the middle of the road.

Click to expand...

All this is true, *but* this assumes SAC didn't develop the J-31 with the possibility of navalization from inception. I find that idea that they didn't difficult to buy, given that SAC both has first hand experience with building carrier fighters and effectively developed the J-31 to fish for any potential buyers they could so that they wouldn't be locked out of the next generation fighter game.

I don't mean to malign anyone with this comment, but I do feel like a lot of the popular resistance against the J-31 becoming the next naval fighter comes more from a dislike of SAC than any basis on objective reasoning.

Gloire_bb said:

0.requirements. I highly doubt j-31/fc-31 fullfills demands of a new customer, quite demanding one at that.
1.whole structure needs complete revision. Considering vertical speeds involved, deck landing is kind of a controlled crush, which shall be repeated for decades.
It isn't just a landing gear, it's the whole plane.
Same with longtitudal loads(hook)
2.lots of components have to bereviewed, redesigned or replaced. Sea is salty.
3.wing folding
4. different operating standarts at sea
5. so on, so on

To put it bluntly - among current generation of fighters, su-33 isn't considered to be fully successful from navalization point of view(now dead su-33ub changed half of the plane from the basic su-33), mig went through whole second iteration("old" mig-29k, 9-31, and a new one, 9-41, areclearly different evenon the outside);
f-35c(with carrier compatibility right from scratch) required extensive redesigns in the middle of the road.

Click to expand...

1. And you know exactly what the requirements of the PLAN are? From both "fzgfzy" and a few other "big shrimps", it seems that the PLANAF wants a medium-sized heavyweight fighter i.e. FC-31 or F-35-sized. I don't see how carrier landing forces are affected by the dimensions of a plane, especially when they have specially designed landing gear to take just that.
2. No, redesigning the FC-31 for carrier operations does not require a complete change in the blueprints. Take a look at how the F-35A was adapted into the F-35C despite using the same common fuselage design. All that need to be done are (1) an increase in wingspan, (2) addition of a tailhook, (3) changing landing gears to those compatible with CATOBAR vessels, and (4) using rust-resistant engine nozzles. The central fuselage of the FC-31 can stay exactly the same. If you're concerned about saline-induced corrosion, that is more of an issue with the coating and the engine nozzles, not the actual design of the plane itself.
3. Again, requires no fuselage redesign.
4. That doesn't explain why you think the FC-31 requires a complete redesign for naval use.

If you think that adapting the FC-31 for carrier use is difficult, then the task becomes practically impossible for the J-20's design which would require not only a redesign but essentially a new-sheet fighter.