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


supersnoop

Junior Member
Registered Member
Just being a Devil's advocate here...
Is there any possibility that both institutes could be working on a design derived from FC-31?
Perhaps the "J-20-based" is some sort of evolution of something like "taking knowledge/inspiration from..." or "changes based on..."
Or would this be more "crazy pill" stuff?
 

latenlazy

Brigadier
Yeah, maybe it is just the netizens playing drama in their head.
There’s been a whole lot of that in this hobby. Happens every time some new development doesn’t line up with the wishes of a particular group. I think some netizens, or maybe the people who feed them this stuff, believe they can gossip a particular outcome into existence. Early program and decisions making details get turned into games of telephone where the story gets distorted into a live and present situation. This rumor feels a lot like to me some group unhappy with an outcome trying to create last minute noise for grandstanding purposes.

People here are sometimes far too quick to conclude credibility when rumor aggregators with reputational standing decide to amplify some new bit of news or information, and this problem doesn’t just apply to Huitong but to all of us who’ve been doing this hobby for a long time. Those of us who collect fruit from the grapevine are not infallible, and this broader community would do well to remember that and exercise some critical reasoning before jumping up and down at every new rumor. A good record is not the same thing as a perfect one, and even our most venerated big shrimp have been far from perfect in their calls and predictions. This is ultimately a human intelligence gathering exercise, so we should all be mindful of the potential for human failures.
 

stannislas

Junior Member
Registered Member
Just being a Devil's advocate here...
Is there any possibility that both institutes could be working on a design derived from FC-31?
Perhaps the "J-20-based" is some sort of evolution of something like "taking knowledge/inspiration from..." or "changes based on..."
Or would this be more "crazy pill" stuff?
That is not a devil’s advocate at all, j-20 rear section and vertical tail is partially designed and finalized in sac, so I will expect the same happens again
 

PiSigma

"the engineer"
Don't think the single engine version of j20 will be developed for aircraft carrier usage. First of all, that design was discontinued years before j20 was finalized. Also, single engine for naval usage is not standard Chinese practice. So most likely still the 601 design
 

Deino

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Registered Member
That is not a devil’s advocate at all, j-20 rear section and vertical tail is partially designed and finalized in sac, so I will expect the same happens again


But is this true? I remember that rumour popped up when the 2001 demonstrator flew in 2011, but I never read any conclusive proof.
 

stannislas

Junior Member
Registered Member
But is this true? I remember that rumour popped up when the 2001 demonstrator flew in 2011, but I never read any conclusive proof.
Let’s say, I will not be surprised if it’s true. They both subsidiaries of AVIC, and CAC was SAC southwest division for significant period of time. So they are not like Boeing to Lockheed or Sukhoi to Mikoyan, SAC and CAC has a much closer relationship.

Also there is people like YangWei from CAC is in manager role at AVIC, who has control/influence over SAC design decisions, so it’s possible that there are similar personals during J-20 design that make this happened.

So it’s possible, and won’t make me surprise if it happened, but no, I don’t have concrete evidence beside some words suggested by some “informed sources” over the years…
 

longmarch

Junior Member
Registered Member
That is not a devil’s advocate at all, j-20 rear section and vertical tail is partially designed and finalized in sac, so I will expect the same happens again
How could this be true. Just look at the tail of J-31, they changed it in the second prototype.Do they know what they were doing, especially if they designed the J-20 tail? Not saying that design can't be changed but I was disgusted.
 

stannislas

Junior Member
Registered Member
How could this be true. Just look at the tail of J-31, they changed it in the second prototype.Do they know what they were doing, especially if they designed the J-20 tail? Not saying that design can't be changed but I was disgusted.
So you are saying, since sac once did full maneuverable tail they can’t do other tails?

Have you realize that vertical tails have another function to keep the aircraft horizontal stable, for j-20 to have the full maneuverable tail, it has to add a ventral fin to compensate, whereas fc-31 doesn’t have that.

Plus, this is a major design choice of overall aerodynamic in a whole, if SAC’s work is only in the rear areas of j-20, than it has no say in if j-20 should have a fully maneuverable tail + ventral fin at all, not even to the general shape of the tail and fin, but only detail up designs.

also have you ever think about if a carrier base aircraft should have ventral fins or not? if it can’t have that, than of course it’s had for fc-31 to have the fully maneuverable tails
 

longmarch

Junior Member
Registered Member
Plus, this is a major design choice of overall aerodynamic in a whole, if SAC’s work is only in the rear areas of j-20, than it has no say in if j-20 should have a fully maneuverable tail + ventral fin at all, not even to the general shape of the tail and fin, but only detail up designs.
That's exactly why I was disgusted! major design change between first prototype and second prototype...
 

Top