In fact this is exactly the situation why I like PLA and Chinese military watching so much, and even if now hurts so much and my impatience kills me, in the end we won't be disappointed!
J-XY/J-35 carrier-borne fighter thread
- Thread starter Deino
- Start date
In fact this is exactly the situation why I like PLA and Chinese military watching so much, and even if now hurts so much and my impatience kills me, in the end we won't be disappointed!
Derivative is a stretchable term.
That would be very bizarre considering what we've heard over the last few years was that the FC-31 derived aircraft has been confirmed to be the PLAN's pick for its carrier based 5th gen fighter, and also counter to how we've seen the FC-31 derived mockup on the Wuhan carrier mockup, and the last few years of people all expecting the FC-31 derived aircraft to make its flight within the next couple of years, with CAC out of the game.
If this was true, then it would suggest not only basically scrapping all of the above from the last 3-4 years, but it would also have the massive precedent changing factor that the mockup of the FC-31 derived fighter on the Wuhan mockup has being not reflective of an aircraft intended for the real thing (which would be counter to all of the other mockups we've seen on the carrier mockup so far). Not to mention of course, a fly off would basically set back the overall in service date of the naval 5th gen by at least 2-3 years because both aircraft would have to be assessed by the PLAN before being properly developed and go through more integrated testing and production lines prepared.
I am treating this with significant caution, multiple things don't add up.
There is one potential way which it would add up: the J-31 derivative program went off rails and the PLAN needs to start over again.
I don't have high confidence in 601 but how wrong could it be. Overweight?
Considering we only saw the mock-up of the FC-31 derived fighter be put on the carrier mockup a few months ago (which would indicate continued PLAN commitment to the project), things would have had to made a significant and sudden turn for us to get such a major reversal in course for us to hear about this now.
Something just doesn't smell right.
Overweight.
Structural issues (landing on a carrier is rough).
Progress is stupidly slow (re: USN A-12)
Costs too much and/or overpromised on what SAC could deliver.
Or...something else.
This is a complicated aircraft. There are numerous ways it could go wrong in development.
That said, IDK if this is remotely the case. This is a wild rumor and should be treated with extreme caution, as Blitzo is.
At that point SAC should just get taken over by CAC.
Don't disagree. I was just trying to put forward a possible scenario as to why the change might have happened.