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

1.I don't. But requirements rarely end at "medium-sized and stealthy" even for the least developed air forces.
2. It isn't about new dimensions, it's about commonality with the basic fc-31v2.
3. Please remember, how many parts are in common between f-35a and f-35c.
To be frank, for the result obtained, it was hardly worth it.
But f-35a is thousands of planes, any degree of commonality will at least keep the costs down.
While fc-31 has some export prospective, is it worth it? I frankly don't think so.
4. Everything mentioned requires fuselage redesign. Perhaps not in external shape(if you're a f-35 program director and try to use same tooling as much as possible), but internally - certainly.
Su-33/J-15 are essentially a new planes inside, distinctively separated from the rest of Flanker family. And even it(at least for su-33, but it's very unlikely for J-15 to be very different) was clearly not enough.
5.My point is, it will most likely require a new airframe, in both cases.
Maybe it will remind externally fc-31, why not. Raptor-like shape is great and proven.

Gloire_bb said:

1.I don't. But requirements rarely end at "medium-sized and stealthy" even for the least developed air forces.
2. It isn't about new dimensions, it's about commonality with the basic fc-31v2.
3. Please remember, how many parts are in common between f-35a and f-35c.
To be frank, for the result obtained, it was hardly worth it.
But f-35a is thousands of planes, any degree of commonality will at least keep the costs down.
While fc-31 has some export prospective, is it worth it? I frankly don't think so.
4. Everything mentioned requires fuselage redesign. Perhaps not in external shape(if you're a f-35 program director and try to use same tooling as much as possible), but internally - certainly.
Su-33/J-15 are essentially a new planes inside, distinctively separated from the rest of Flanker family. And even it(at least for su-33, but it's very unlikely for J-15 to be very different) was clearly not enough.
5.My point is, it will most likely require a new airframe, in both cases.
Maybe it will remind externally fc-31, why not. Raptor-like shape is great and proven.

Click to expand...

1. Designs are chosen on how close they fit the requirements. We may not know the full details of the PLANAF requirements but I'd bet that a FC-31 is a lot closer to being a "medium-sized heavyweight" platform than a J-20, not to mention that size & weight are perhaps the most critical factors during the selection process of a carrier-borne fighter.
2. The FC-31V2 is essentially an empty airframe at this point. The argument of "commonality" is moot because there's nothing to be in common with until the prototype J-XY is rolled out and retrofitted with all of the necessary subsystems for combat.
3. The F-35A and FC-31 share the same central fuselage; in fact this was a key selling point of the entire JSF proposal from Lockheed and makes the variants relatively easy to develop & manufacture. If you are wondering about keeping costs down, that'll be an issue with any fighter design, be it the J-15, J-20, or FC-31 (Pb19980515 mentioned that the J-15 costs $70M each because of this reason).
4. The J-15 & Su-33 may be completely different planes but they share the same fuselage design. The same way the Su-27M and Su-35 share the same design. The same way J-11B and Su-27SK share essentially the same fuselage design. You need to distinguish between airframe design and internal subcomponents.
5. There will be some changes to the airframe according to PB19980515, mostly in the wings and perhaps canopy, but everything else should stay relatively the same.

Is there a possibility that a naval J-31 being developed for STOBAR carrier and a naval J-20 being developed for CATOBAR carrier?

cloyce said:

Is there a possibility that a naval J-31 being developed for STOBAR carrier and a naval J-20 being developed for CATOBAR carrier?

Click to expand...

No, wouldn't be logical. Such an arrangement would pose frustrating logistical issues and doesn't make much sense in the first place.

Considering that the J-20 at the moment appears to have a MTOW of around 36-38 tons, a navalized J-20 could weight at least 40-42 tons, and that's before any future upgrades, which would make it the heaviest aircraft built for regular carrier operations ever, far as I can tell.

Skywatcher said:

Considering that the J-20 at the moment appears to have a MTOW of around 36-38 tons, a navalized J-20 could weight at least 40-42 tons, and that's before any future upgrades, which would make it the heaviest aircraft built for regular carrier operations ever, far as I can tell.

Click to expand...

MTOW is the ability of the jet to lift. Empty weight is the actual weight of the aircraft (not accounting for fuel and ammunition). The empty weight of J-20 has been pinned by 2 sources to be just under 16 up to 16.3 tonnes as it is said to be lighter than the of the Su-27 (empty weight 16.38T) by a source who worked on WS-10X.

Fresh claim from pb19980515

。。。。。。。。什么舰载版歼20都是幻想出来的 没这东西 也没这研制计划。为什么争论这么久，就因为歼20拥有很高的人气，并且是唯一服役的四代机。于是很多人开始幻想上舰并压制F35.现实始终要回归现实。。。。。。。。

Click to expand...

Translation (please correct if inaccurate);

• All carrier-borne J-20 types are fantasy; there is no such thing and there are no plans for such a thing
• People like to fantasize about it because the J-20 is highly popular (it's the only 5th-generation plane in Chinese service)
• Another reason why people fantasize about a carrier-borne J-20 is that they want China to effectively suppress the F-35
• The reality will remain a reality

So, in short, pb19980515 essentially refuted that a J-20 carrier version exists or is under development. It goes with his earlier claims that the naval carrier-borne jet will be a conventional-layout, medium-sized fighter. AKA FC-31 variant.

Can someone translate this new post from pb19980515? Seems to be talking about the J-XY program.

SinoSoldier said:

Can someone translate this new post from pb19980515? Seems to be talking about the J-XY program.

View attachment 47382

Click to expand...

This turned into a long with some from pb. It seems like he's saying the J-XY (i.e., the FC-31) is substantially more advanced than other Chinese fighters in some respects (the phrase "congenitally deficient" was also used), which apparently generated some controversy. Another about a related issue. A detailed translation/summary would be helpful.

Klon said:

This turned into a long

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

with some

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

from pb. It seems like he's saying the J-XY (i.e., the FC-31) is substantially more advanced than other Chinese fighters in some respects (the phrase "congenitally deficient" was also used), which apparently generated some controversy. Another

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

about a related issue. A detailed translation/summary would be helpful.

Click to expand...

The screenshot was of pb saying the next-gen carrier fighter will have the best maintainability and fatigue-resistance of any prior Chinese fighter, including the J-20. He also denies that any existing aircraft could be modified to possess similar improvements because these features are built into the fundamental structure.

其实也不是说3D打印一体成型，整个设计就是 可维护性 低易损性，从娘胎开始。。。所以其他现役战机没法比 也不可能改得出来。

Click to expand...

Doesn't really have anything to do with 3D printing, it's just its design was conceived from the very beginning to possess excellent maintainability and fatigue resistance. It's not something that other fighters can compare with, nor can it simply be modified into being.

Q: 机身机翼一体成型的好处和难点，对飞机整体性能的影响，3d技术现在应用的程度和发展，还存在哪些问题，雷达电子设备这几年又有什么新的进步，电子战现在对飞机作战的重要性有多大，多从技术的角度讨论讨论飞机的进步和发展

A:
翼身一体成型 主要好处在于减轻重量，减少工装数量 减少工时，为什么说某机国内工装数量 疲劳易损部位相对减少一半以上呢，就是从娘胎开始就考虑的事情，工装数量少 疲劳易损部位少 意味着可维护性 低易损性的设计基础，全新的设计思想。。。
精确的重量控制，从一堆设计参数到实体机，之间的重量差距只有区区几十公斤。、。。。。这在成为舰载机的事情上也是至关重要，发动机落后让整机重量控制显得更加必要。
新一代舰载机拥有两套被动探测系统 都可以覆盖360度全空域 在感知能力上绝对是国内所有战机的新高点。当然这些方面少不了某四代机前辈的功劳。
电子战不只是一种攻击手段 掩护手段，拥有分布式共形天线的电子战综合系统更是感知能力的重要组成部分。能够提供全空域的敌方态势被动感知。

Click to expand...

Q: Could you expand a bit on the benefits of having the wing and fuselage being a single structure and the usage of 3D printing? What other problems remain for the FC-31? What improvements have been made in the radar and avionics department? How important is EW for fighter operations?

A:
Having the wing and fuselage be a single piece allows for a decrease in weight, fasteners, and assembly time. There's a reason the FC-31 has half the typical number of fasteners and fatigue-prone areas. This is something that was considered from the very beginning of the aircraft's conception. Such a drastic reduction in fasteners and fatigue-prone areas results in better maintainability and robustness, representing a new way of thinking in aircraft design.

The aircraft weight was controlled carefully. The modelled weight and eventual weight of the aircraft only differed a few dozen kilograms. Such careful control of weight will be important for carrier-borne service. The lagging behind of our engines relative to world peers further accentuates the importance of weight reduction and weigh control.

The next-gen carrier fighter has two sets of passive sensors both capable of 360 degree observation. It most definitely sets a new high in situational awareness for a domestic fighter and was made possible by the precedent set by the J-20.

EW is not just an offensive or defensive fighter tactic. The EW system comprising distributed conformal antennae plays a more important role as a component of the sensor suite, capable of passively providing data on enemies in all aspects and altitudes.




Cjdby is down right now but I remember a post from pb further down that said there was no way J-20 is going to serve aboard carriers due to inherent limitations. 300 J-20s will be built and they will serve on land. If CAC is to compete for the carrier contract, they'll need a new, smaller design. I doubt they have the extra manufacturing capacity to spare for this hypothetical new design though.