manqiangrexue
Brigadier
I bet you their plans are more knowledge-based than you think.
J-XY/J-35 carrier-borne fighter thread
- Thread starter Deino
- Start date
That's why one would design a carrier with dimensions to be able to accommodate reasonable dimensions of what a future aircraft may have, which in turns provides parameters for future aircraft to be designed around...
It is rare that an aircraft carrier and a new aircraft type are developed entirely concurrently.
TerraN_EmpirE
Tyrant King
First they didn’t. Congress pushed them to for the same thinking as F111. The Navy having lived though that took a serious look but deemed that the the costs for the changes needed would cost a fortune. This played out with F111, SU33, T45, F18, F35.
It takes a lot of work to convert a ground based fighter to a naval deck than a Naval fighter to a Ground fighter.
Only a small number of aircraft have the characteristics that allow easy transition and they are not generally fighters. STOL transports, Helicopters, Ground Attack turboprop and oddly the U2 spy plane.
Brumby
Major
Whilst every attempt will be factored in the carrier design to accommodate a range of options the issue of "fit" will inevitably surface. The limiting factor will fall on any navalized version be it the J-20 or J-31. That is the experience of the USN. In other words, the plane will have to fit the carrier.
Ummmm I personally aren't acquainted with this name, so would it be possible for you to elaborate on the point you're trying to make? (I gathered that U think this author's articles are not very credible)Just only read, who wrote this piece - Minnie Chan - and stopped reading.
Its not about size. The J-20 is both shorter and has a narrower wingspan than the J-15 (Su-33). The question about a new foot having to fit the shoe isn't the problem when the shoe is already meant to fit some pretty big feet. The Su-33 is also longer and wider than the F-14. You would really need to go out of your way to design a fighter bigger than an Su-33.
Not about wing loading either. The J-20 has similar wing loading to the Su-33.
The problem is the J-20's empty weight. Its a freaking dense plane for its size. On empty, its nearly 19,400 kg is a 1000kg heavier than an Su-33's 18,400kg. Well, its only a 1000kg right? After all, the F-14 is only "about" 19,838 kg empty.
The problem is that the J-20's empty weight is one that is not after modifications. The Su-27 is about 16,380kg, and all that navalization for it to become the Su-33 added about 2,000kg. So that base 19,391kg can still be subjected to extra weight penalties by as much as 2,000kg. If this reaches over 21,000 empty, this is one heavy beast of a plane smashing into the carrier surface every time it lands.
Weight exceptionally matters for a carrier planes. Its all because you need shorter take off and landing distances. You want maximum lift at the lowest airspeed for take off, and you want the plane to have the lowest landing speed possible. The effect of a heavy plane repeatedly slamming the carrier surface is going to wear out the aircraft quickly.
The other issue would be the J-20's take off and landing speeds. How high are they? What is the minimum length of road for the plane to take off and land? The Su-27 to Su-33 transformation came with an increase in wing area along with a change of the wing aspect area to a higher one. But they can also have added some more weight. The heavier a plane gets, the more strengthening it needs for the airframe and landing gear, which in turn, further increases weight. So weight is a catch 22 event that can end up spiraling.
The FC-31 is said to have an empty weight around 17,600kg. But this weight may already havei incorporated carrier adaptation and navalization early on and in the drawing board.
Last edited:
Personaly I don't think or hope anyone of J-20 and FC-31 become the next generation fighter of PLAN.Cause both of 'em was researched under a Air Force needs,but not a Navy needs.
both of 'em have a shallow bomb bay which can't carry any anti-ship missile.And when carring that useing hardpoints,both of 'em stealth
both of 'em have a shallow bomb bay which can't carry any anti-ship missile.And when carring that useing hardpoints,both of 'em stealth
I got much more hope with the FC-31. Because the guy behind that is also the one behind the J-15. Right from the start, the plane has things like dual front wheels, which you need for carrier use.
manqiangrexue
Brigadier
Where are you getting these numbers? They are much heavier than anything I've heard. As I recall, some reporter said that after interviewing someone from AVIC, the J-20 is a 16 ton class bird, lighter than the Su-27. Then, some big Shrimp said that the weight would increase to 17.5 tonnes. I've heard something like 12.5 tonnes for FC-31 but can't remember where. Didn't really pay much mind since at the time, it didn't seem like the project was going anywhere. I've never heard of the numbers you're giving. Where did you get them?
Weight needs to factored as a component of total lifting force to weight lifted (as well as thrust, obviously). If the J-20 can generate enough lift at takeoff speed that would counteract weight. I agree with your broader points but I don’t think we can definitively conclude the J-20 couldn’t converted to a carrier fighter, or even that this would be difficult.