J-XY - maybe J-35 - next generation carrier-borne fighter


AndrewS

Brigadier
Registered Member
10 years since a land-based FC-31 first showed up.

PLAAF showed no interest, but PLAN launched 2 aircraft carriers over those 10 years, so operational needs (i.e., circumstances) change over time? Plus, the SCS and Taiwan situation got really hot, so the security environment (i.e., circumstances) change over time?

Perhaps FC-31 with dual engines are costly to procure and maintain in meaningful numbers, defeating the purpose of "high-low" mix like F-22/F-35. WS-13E engines may not be mature then too. Therefore, the PLAAF showed no interest.

However, the PLAN only needs a handful of navalized FC-31 onboard their aircraft carriers, so the benefits outweighs the cost, as it would exponentially improve the airpower of carriers with a 5th gen onboard compared to J-15T.

Yes, this is true. However, I am MORE worried that China will soon have 3 aircraft carriers but not a single 5th gen prototype by now. J-15T is fine, don't get me wrong, but that's a lot of money spent on 3 aircraft carriers that doesn't have a potent 5th gen weapon to counter the US navy.

The J-20 development programme was supposed to cost $4.4 Billion. So we can expect a navalised FC-31 programme to approach this in costs.

That is probably the same cost as the Shandong carrier which just went into service.

But given that there are only 2 ski-jump carriers and that future carriers will be catapult versions, there was no point in developing a new naval 5th gen fighter earlier.
 

Phead128

Senior Member
Staff member
Moderator - World Affairs
The J-20 development programme was supposed to cost $4.4 Billion. So we can expect a navalised FC-31 programme to approach this in costs.
Rick Joe/Blitzo mentioned in an
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
that J-35 can share a lot of subsystems such as avionics, sensors, datalinks, and radar tech from J-20 since they enjoy overlapping testing and development, supply chain and parent company resources. Perhaps the cost will be substantially reduced if they end up using common subsystems. I suspect J-20's radar needs to be adapted to fit a medium fighter and power output requirements are different. I hope they can use as much J-20 tech as possible, go with a proven mature tech, save time and money. :)
That is probably the same cost as the Shandong carrier which just went into service.
Yea, that sounds correct.
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
for Type002+Type 003 according to this website. This price tag is pre-EMAL decision though, so costs may be bit higher after decision on EMAL.
But given that there are only 2 ski-jump carriers and that future carriers will be catapult versions, there was no point in developing a new naval 5th gen fighter earlier.
Yea, hard to design a navalized 5th gen when they haven't even decided on catapult launch system (EMAL vs. Steam) until fairly recently. Imagine designing a reinforced landing gear and chassis without knowing the stress parameters of your launching system (EMAL vs. Steam). It's probably worth waiting than rushing it.
 
Last edited:

KevinG

New Member
Registered Member
Yea, hard to design a navalized 5th gen when they haven't even decided on catapult launch system (EMAL vs. Steam) until fairly recently. Imagine designing a reinforced landing gear and chassis without knowing the stress parameters of your launching system (EMAL vs. Steam). It's probably worth waiting than rushing it.
It should not be that different, F18, F35 and E2 can all take off from a Ford class and a Nimitz class without any modification to the aircraft itself. So there should not be any drastic difference for the force curve between the 2 systems. F-18 can even take off from a ski-jump with light load.
 

Scchwerter_

Junior Member
Registered Member
It should not be that different, F18, F35 and E2 can all take off from a Ford class and a Nimitz class without any modification to the aircraft itself. So there should not be any drastic difference for the force curve between the 2 systems. F-18 can even take off from a ski-jump with light load.
I guess with the US it's the other way around: the aircrafts were there before EMAL was implemented, so it's the job of the catapault team to design around the requirements of the existing planes.
 

Richard Santos

Captain
Registered Member
I wonder if the J-xx will be offered for export. If it is it'll basically steal the entirety of the world's non-US sales and be a death blow to Russia's fighter exports
I don’t think so. A single engine fighter has a considerable logistic advantage over twin engine fighters that would be very important for for second and third tier buyers whose ability to afford must-have fancy toys is somewhat marginal.
 

taxiya

Brigadier
Registered Member
I don’t think so. A single engine fighter has a considerable logistic advantage over twin engine fighters that would be very important for for second and third tier buyers whose ability to afford must-have fancy toys is somewhat marginal.
Yet, Rafale, Euro Fighter and Sukhoi all have good sales to various countries. F-35 being the only option of stealth fighter from US doesn't necessarily mean its buyers actually preferred it in its current shape.
 

Richard Santos

Captain
Registered Member
The J-20 development programme was supposed to cost $4.4 Billion. So we can expect a navalised FC-31 programme to approach this in costs.

That is probably the same cost as the Shandong carrier which just went into service.

But given that there are only 2 ski-jump carriers and that future carriers will be catapult versions, there was no point in developing a new naval 5th gen fighter earlier.
I find it highly improbable the total cost of j-20 development was a mere $4.4B
 

Top