J-XY next generation carrier-borne fighter

Discussion in 'Navy' started by Deino, Sep 19, 2017.

  1. gelgoog
    Offline

    gelgoog Senior Member
    Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2017
    Messages:
    1,125
    Likes Received:
    1,192
    Like I said before I think a dual engine like the FC-31 does not make sense for the PLAAF. Especially once the WS-15 engine becomes available. It would overlap with the J-20.
    I do not discount the idea of the PLANAF operating some version of it from land bases however. There are advantages to dual engine aircraft in terms of engine reliability. One of the reasons why the MiG-29 had two engines was precisely because of those reasons. At that time their engine industry could not ensure engine reliability at those performance levels. In an aircraft which is expected to conduct patrols close to the shore, over the sea, having more engine reliability certainly wouldn't hurt. This also might be the case in certain mountainous areas at high altitude. But as a J-10/J-7 replacement? Too expensive. See the experience of the Russians with the MiG-29 after the fall of the Soviet Union. The MiG-35 costs almost as much as a Su-30M with much less capabilities because both are dual engine aircraft.

    The WS-15 engine is supposed to have 160+ kN thrust and the RD-93 has like 80 kN thrust. Add to that the fact that the WS-15 will be common with the J-20 and that it will result in an aircraft with much less parts and it just does not make sense on mass production aircraft. Especially when the other side has the single engine F-35 in places like South Korea.

    With regards to the low production rate a naval only FC-31 would have. Over the next decade two more carriers, at least will become operational. That means four carriers. Add spare aircraft to replace broken ones, and aircraft for land-based trainers and the production numbers will be quite respectable. Especially if you use 3D printing the production costs won't be that high since you won't be using expensive die cast molds and things like that.
     
    #241 gelgoog, Nov 23, 2018
    Last edited: Nov 23, 2018
  2. AndrewS
    Offline

    AndrewS Senior Member
    Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2015
    Messages:
    1,664
    Likes Received:
    2,515
    We have a number of J-15 already in service. So how many more naval JC-31 will be required, given the impending introduction of drones as well?

    And I'm not quibbling over the cost of a J-31.

    I'm pointing out that the Air Force has a requirement for fighter jets for CAP / counter-air over Mainland China.

    So they will have a choice between the J-20 and the J-31, both of which will be in service.

    And it is likely that a J-31 derivative will be cheaper whilst bringing similar endurance and loiter time.

    China would also be able to offer the air force version of the J-31 as a competitor to the F-35.

    Hence my view that the Air Force version of the J-31 is a high priority after the carrier version, as it would likely built in greater numbers.

    NB. The estimated development cost of the J-20 is estimated as 4.4 Billion USD+, which gives us an idea of how much a new programme will cost.
     
    Air Force Brat and Equation like this.
  3. gelgoog
    Offline

    gelgoog Senior Member
    Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2017
    Messages:
    1,125
    Likes Received:
    1,192
    There is more to costs than R&D costs. It would simply maintenance a lot if both the high and low end of the PLAAF combo used the same or similar family of engines.
     
  4. latenlazy
    Offline

    latenlazy Colonel

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2008
    Messages:
    4,229
    Likes Received:
    3,354
    Even if we ignore continued development costs, since it’s unlikely the current plane meets the needs and requirements of a production model, setting up production also costs money.
     
    Air Force Brat likes this.
  5. kurutoga
    Offline

    kurutoga Junior Member
    Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2011
    Messages:
    647
    Likes Received:
    943
    AF-1 likes this.
  6. SinoSoldier
    Offline

    SinoSoldier Colonel

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2009
    Messages:
    4,054
    Likes Received:
    6,762
    New rumor from 草根设计师-CAD: https://www.weibo.com/3762825331/HnJRp9L10

    I provided a summary, but a detailed translation would be much appreciated:
    • Work is being done on the J-35 (believed to be a carrier-borne fighter based on the FC-31)
    • There will be no more than a 10% increase in its mass
    • Its internal fuel exceeds 8 (tons?)
    • Estimated to be 2 years (away from reveal/debut?)
    • The PLAAF might also purchase the plane, and the air force variant might come out sooner than the naval variant (translation of the last part is needed)
     
    #246 SinoSoldier, Apr 1, 2019
    Last edited: Apr 1, 2019
  7. danielchin
    Offline

    danielchin Junior Member

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2009
    Messages:
    404
    Likes Received:
    970
    「关键是又有耍流氓的,又要玩截胡,还说我急我先来。」
    "key issue (problem) is that some rogue (Air Force?) might cut in, saying they can't wait and need it first."
     
    Lama likes this.
  8. SinoSoldier
    Offline

    SinoSoldier Colonel

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2009
    Messages:
    4,054
    Likes Received:
    6,762
    Implying that the PLAAF already has purchased it or might do so?
     
  9. latenlazy
    Offline

    latenlazy Colonel

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2008
    Messages:
    4,229
    Likes Received:
    3,354
    Might.
     
    SinoSoldier likes this.
  10. Xsizor
    Offline

    Xsizor Junior Member
    Registered Member

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2019
    Messages:
    152
    Likes Received:
    151
    Thank goodness the FC-31 is being redefined/ redesigned. It is slated to use the WS-19 (Huangshan?) probably( i hope). Also, to the members here - Is Globalsecurity.org an authentic source for military info? They have pages still up on certain "dodgy" topics like the "J-18" fighter. Veteran members in this forum may have came to a consensus on the said fighter project & its authenticity but i want some members to remark on that as well as the authenticity of the Globalsecurity.org website. Thank you .
     
    bruceb1959 likes this.
Loading...

Share This Page