Shenyang FC-31 / J-31 Fighter Demonstrator

Schwerter_

Schwerter_

Junior Member
Registered Member
Helius said:
Or they could originally be envisioning 2 separate naval variants i.e. STOBAR and CATOBAR a la J-15 as distinct from one another, distinguished by whether it has the launch bar on the nose gear and perhaps other modifications especially to make it STOBAR-capable.

Either that or an EW variant a la J-15/-16D or the Growler.
Click to expand...
Not a lot of point in distinguishing between STOBAR and CATOBAR in my opinion... In all likelihood CATOBAR jets can operate on STOBAR carriers, and the possible weight reduction advantage by not having the launch bar and some other equipments are offset by the time and effort taken to redesign these aspects, as well as the fact that most likely there will only be 2 STOBAR carriers for the navy, meaning a very limited number of these STOBAR aircrafts needed.
 
Helius

Helius

Senior Member
Registered Member
Schwerter_ said:
Not a lot of point in distinguishing between STOBAR and CATOBAR in my opinion... In all likelihood CATOBAR jets can operate on STOBAR carriers, and the possible weight reduction advantage by not having the launch bar and some other equipments are offset by the time and effort taken to redesign these aspects, as well as the fact that most likely there will only be 2 STOBAR carriers for the navy, meaning a very limited number of these STOBAR aircrafts needed.
Click to expand...
Hence what I assume to be the revision from 4 variants to 3 with presumably only 1 naval variant doing double duty as STOBAR and CATOBAR.

But ofc that's just pure speculation on my part as to what the 4th might have possibly been when taking into account the considerations at the time of FC-31's development during late 2000s/early 2010s, when CV-16 was just finishing reconstruction, and 17 had just been approved and wasn't even laid down yet. So we're talking about an eventual CATOBAR carrier that was at least 15 years away at the time, which turns out to be the case.

Now I don't know what timeline SAC had projected for the J-XY back then and how early in the conversation was the PLAN on the aircraft's potential procurement. Did they think it would take another 12-13 years to finalise a naval variant, CATOBAR or otherwise, for a CATOBAR carrier that won't come for another 15 years, meanwhile the PLAN already has 1 STOBAR carrier nearing completion and another one on the way? Just something to consider.

Still, while having 2 carrier wings of J-35 of a bespoken design to STOBAR standards may not sound like a lot, 24-36 initial airframes and maybe up to 60 or more in the years to come as the J-15s slated for 16 and 17 begin to retire isn't exactly non-trivial either, which I think a case could be made for a STOBAR-optimised J-35 and the value such a variant could bring to these 2 carriers, chief amongst which, of course, the weight savings from these optimised airframes thus affording better range/endurance, larger payload etc., especially as the boats remain in service with decades more yet to go, and the associated air wings along with them.
 
Maikeru

Maikeru

Captain
Registered Member
Helius said:
Hence what I assume to be the revision from 4 variants to 3 with presumably only 1 naval variant doing double duty as STOBAR and CATOBAR.

But ofc that's just pure speculation on my part as to what the 4th might have possibly been when taking into account the considerations at the time of FC-31's development during late 2000s/early 2010s, when CV-16 was just finishing reconstruction, and 17 had just been approved and wasn't even laid down yet. So we're talking about an eventual CATOBAR carrier that was at least 15 years away at the time, which turns out to be the case.

Now I don't know what timeline SAC had projected for the J-XY back then and how early in the conversation was the PLAN on the aircraft's potential procurement. Did they think it would take another 12-13 years to finalise a naval variant, CATOBAR or otherwise, for a CATOBAR carrier that won't come for another 15 years, meanwhile the PLAN already has 1 STOBAR carrier nearing completion and another one on the way? Just something to consider.

Still, while having 2 carrier wings of J-35 of a bespoken design to STOBAR standards may not sound like a lot, 24-36 initial airframes and maybe up to 60 or more in the years to come as the J-15s slated for 16 and 17 begin to retire isn't exactly non-trivial either, which I think a case could be made for a STOBAR-optimised J-35 and the value such a variant could bring to these 2 carriers, chief amongst which, of course, the weight savings from these optimised airframes thus affording better range/endurance, larger payload etc., especially as the boats remain in service with decades more yet to go, and the associated air wings along with them.
Click to expand...
I don't think there will be a special STOBAR version of J35 but I do wonder if the current upgrades being made to CV16 are to facilitate J35 operations.
 
N

Ndla2

Junior Member
Registered Member
Helius said:
Or they could originally be envisioning 2 separate naval variants i.e. STOBAR and CATOBAR a la J-15 as distinct from one another, distinguished by whether it has the launch bar on the nose gear and perhaps other modifications especially to make it STOBAR-capable.

Either that or an EW variant a la J-15/-16D or the Growler.
Click to expand...
Moving forward the CATOBAR carriers will be the norm. So i think it is highly unlikely for them to go through such hassle for the variant that would only serve the two STOBAR carriers. Even the so-called helicopter carriers are rumours to come with catapult.
 
M

Michaelsinodef

Senior Member
Registered Member
Ndla2 said:
Moving forward the CATOBAR carriers will be the norm. So i think it is highly unlikely for them to go through such hassle for the variant that would only serve the two STOBAR carriers. Even the so-called helicopter carriers are rumours to come with catapult.
Click to expand...
I don't think it be that hard to just reinforce the J-XY/J-31/J-35 to be STOBAR capable though, I think earlier in this thread or another, even @Blitzo has come out and said it could very much be a possiblity that it will be STOBAR capable or only some small modifications would be needed to make it STOBAR capable.

So to currently count it out as not gonna fly from the STOBAR carriers, is too early of a call.
 
Maikeru

Maikeru

Captain
Registered Member
Michaelsinodef said:
I don't think it be that hard to just reinforce the J-XY/J-31/J-35 to be STOBAR capable though, I think earlier in this thread or another, even @Blitzo has come out and said it could very much be a possiblity that it will be STOBAR capable or only some small modifications would be needed to make it STOBAR capable.

So to currently count it out as not gonna fly from the STOBAR carriers, is too early of a call.
Click to expand...
India is looking at using Rafale M and SuperBug from its STOBAR CVs so it is certainly possible for CATOBAR aircraft to be used in such a way.
 
BoraTas

BoraTas

Captain
Registered Member
Michaelsinodef said:
I don't think it be that hard to just reinforce the J-XY/J-31/J-35 to be STOBAR capable though, I think earlier in this thread or another, even @Blitzo has come out and said it could very much be a possiblity that it will be STOBAR capable or only some small modifications would be needed to make it STOBAR capable.

So to currently count it out as not gonna fly from the STOBAR carriers, is too early of a call.
Click to expand...
Boeing tested F/A-18 Super Hornets with ramps for exports. The tests were successful. And mind you, the Super Hornet is an aircraft with relatively high wing loading and just 19 tons of thrust. We expect ~23 tons of thrust from the J-XY. I would be surprised if it was not capable of STOBAR operations.
 
daifo

daifo

Captain
Registered Member
My understanding is that different parts of the aircraft would need to be "harden" for stobar and catobar flight. The question is if a stobar version was created or if they decided to make one aircraft with the complete structural enhancement to work on both platforms.
 
Gloire_bb

Gloire_bb

Captain
Registered Member
Michaelsinodef said:
I don't think it be that hard to just reinforce the J-XY/J-31/J-35 to be STOBAR capable though, I think earlier in this thread or another, even @Blitzo has come out and said it could very much be a possiblity that it will be STOBAR capable or only some small modifications would be needed to make it STOBAR capable.

So to currently count it out as not gonna fly from the STOBAR carriers, is too early of a call.
Click to expand...
STOBAR capability doesn't require any special reinforcement.
If anything, the STOBAR requirement set early enough in the design stage may significantly lower weight penalties of STOBAR.
Was it done? I don't know. But it is doable.
 
MwRYum

MwRYum

Major
Reinforcement goes to landing which is essentially a "controlled crash" due to the high landing speed. Thus a carrier-borne aircraft has substantial "dead weight" should its service life spent as a land-based aircraft.

CATOBAR most obvious external feature is the rod from front landing gear that latch onto the catapult, STOBAR doesn't have one (a pair of retractable wheelbrake that catch the main gear). Ski take off will have different characteristics (i.e. restrictions) than compare with that of CATOBAR or conventional take off from runway on land.

Presuming the "J-35" also operate from STOBAR (CV-16 and CV-17) in the future in STOBAR profile, the most obvious part would be its takeoff configuration - less loadout than that when launch from CV-18.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top