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

[Shotgunner51]

accelerated development of the “Medium Thrust” Engine

Exactly, you nail right on it.

the memory of PLAAF backing out of the FC-1/JF-17 procurement still stings in the minds of the PAF

Bro I think perhaps there is misunderstanding somewhere, but of course I wouldn't know what exactly happened back then. Apparently PLAAF has been procuring a full high-thrust engine fleet (two for heavy flankers, one for medium multi-role J-10) for quite sometime, everything revolves around AL-31 and its replacement WS-10 (and next gen WS-15 for J-20), and that's also why I don't think PLAAF will induct J-XY which employs medium engine config (twin) any time soon. J-XY from its 1st day on drawing board has always been a naval design eyeing PLAN as pilot user, perhaps similar story applies here that FC-1/JF-17 has always been a PAF-specific design to begin with. Just my opinion.

 

[FuturePAF]

For J-35 or FC-31, I will still reserve my choice since missing of side-bays especially for side-winders/AAMs. With only one bay under belly, somehow limits the utilization under environment that warrants stealth capability to the fullest.

Perhaps they will add it in, consider the input from everyone mentioning it, especially if the size of the plane has been increased to allow for a side bay. If it’s going to be a real fleet defense fighter, it’s have to be optimized for that role. The limitation maybe the size due to the underpowered engines. Once the engines are powerful enough, a slightly larger design with side bays is possible if it is desired.

 

[Scorpiooo]

 

[IblinI]

For J-35 or FC-31, I will still reserve my choice since missing of side-bays especially for side-winders/AAMs. With only one bay under belly, somehow limits the utilization under environment that warrants stealth capability to the fullest.

Side bay area is replaced with EW equipment, big shrimps suggest the plane is a combination of the best from our aviation industry at this stage with new craftmanship, ew system, materials etc.

 

[Brainsucker]

I'm curious about the engine. Is it a new medium trust or the bigger WS10? I remember someone said about replacing the engine with WS10. But who know. The aircraft looks smaller than Flanker. So I doubt that it is WS10.

 

[Shotgunner51]

I'm curious about the engine. Is it a new medium trust or the bigger WS10? I remember someone said about replacing the engine with WS10. But who know. The aircraft looks smaller than Flanker. So I doubt that it is WS10.

Obviously they can't be WS-10 high-thrust, it's a pair of medium-thrust. Conservatively speaking, likely to be WS-13E, same as the ones installed on FC-31 testbed #31003 (flown on 1st July 2016), 9.5 tons, thrust-to-weight ratio 8.6, or perhaps further improved version but unlikely to be WS-19 series.

 

[FuturePAF]

Obviously they can't be WS-10 high-thrust, it's a pair of medium-thrust. Conservatively speaking, likely to be WS-13E, same as the ones installed on FC-31 testbed #31003 (flown on 1st July 2016), 9.5 tons, thrust-to-weight ratio 8.6, or perhaps further improved version but unlikely to be WS-19 series.

Perhaps the 9500 kg engine has matured enough?

China completes construction of medium-thrust aeroengine production line - Global Times

www.globaltimes.cn

 

[Shotgunner51]

Perhaps the 9500 kg engine has matured enough?
View attachment 788987
View attachment 788988

China completes construction of medium-thrust aeroengine production line - Global Times

www.globaltimes.cn

Yes that's highly possible by now since its debut appearance 5 years ago, WS-13E should be the one used on J-XY.

 

[Deino]

Perhaps the 9500 kg engine has matured enough?
View attachment 788987
View attachment 788988

China completes construction of medium-thrust aeroengine production line - Global Times

www.globaltimes.cn

This medium thrust engine IS the WS-13 or in an improved form, it may be called WS-21; at least per Huitong!

Honestly, why shall we expect the WS-19 to appear sooner than the WS-15, which's development started earlier? Even more, we know one single grainy image of an alleged WS-19 at a test-stand and by all I know, they are never testing a new fighter for the first time during its maiden flight with an unproven engine.

 

[Brainsucker]

Obviously they can't be WS-10 high-thrust, it's a pair of medium-thrust. Conservatively speaking, likely to be WS-13E, same as the ones installed on FC-31 testbed #31003 (flown on 1st July 2016), 9.5 tons, thrust-to-weight ratio 8.6, or perhaps further improved version but unlikely to be WS-19 series.

It is interesting isn't it? I thought that we need stronger engine for an Carrier based Aircraft like J-35. So if they are confident that their medium trust Engine can be used as Carrier based Aircraft, then Chinese's Medium trust engine should be better than before / be good today.

 

[vi-va]

It is interesting isn't it? I thought that we need stronger engine for an Carrier based Aircraft like J-35. So if they are confident that their medium trust Engine can be used as Carrier based Aircraft, then Chinese's Medium trust engine should be better than before / be good today.

1. J-35 is designed for air supremacy, unlike F-35 designed for land attack. So J-35 is not as bulky as F-35. Dragging force reduced.
2. News pointed out that J-35 adopted new frame and skin technology, which significantly cut the empty weight. Power-to-weight ratio increased.
3. J-35 has a shallow weapon bay, deigned for air-air missile and precision land attack missiles. Dragging force reduced.
4. EMALS is much smoother, which decreased MAX acceleration. Smaller max acceleration decreased the need of structure enforcement, also cut weight, increase power-to-weight ratio.

I am not saying ws-21 is weaker than US one, but Chinese approach decreased the need of superior of engine, just like J-20.

 

[Shotgunner51]

1. J-35 is designed for air supremacy, unlike F-35 designed for land attack. So J-35 is not as bulky as F-35. Dragging force reduced.
2. News pointed out that J-35 adopted new frame and skin technology, which significantly cut the empty weight. Power-to-weight ratio increased.
3. J-35 has a shallow weapon bay, deigned for air-air missile and precision land attack missiles. Dragging force reduced.
4. EMALS is much smoother, which decreased MAX acceleration. Smaller max acceleration decreased the need of structure enforcement, also cut weight, increase power-to-weight ratio.

I am not saying ws-21 is weaker than US one, but Chinese approach decreased the need of superior of engine, just like J-20.

Good points!

 

[Bilal Khan (Quwa)]

And if the PLAN does order it - then there is a chance that it will win the heart of the PAF also - I am sure PAF is waiting for China to commit to it first before taking a look ... the memory of PLAAF backing out of the FC-1/JF-17 procurement still stings in the minds of the PAF.

The PAF would look at the status of the land-based version of the J-XY/J-35 -- i.e., J-21 or J-31.

I think the PLAAF could commit, but it'll be interesting to see how much urgency they put into it. IIRC the J-10B/C wasn't available for export until recently primarily because the PLAAF needed those fighters first. However, the technology gap between the J-10B/C and J-7 is way wider than that of the J-10B/C and early J-21/J-31 variants. Yes, the latter is technically a generation up, but the J-10B/C would still have many similar subsystems.

If the PLAAF says it needs a lot of J-21/J-31s quickly, and then other countries (e.g., Pakistan, Algeria, Egypt, etc) say they need J-21/J-31s soon, then I can see China actually investing in two big production lines. There's a chance the J-21/31 can become one of the most widely manufactured fighters in the world, second only to the F-35 IMHO.

However, I think the likelier scenario is the PLAAF buying J-21/J-31s in smaller increments (versus J-10B/C and J-20) so that there's enough room to support export orders. The export angle is super important because China will have a clear competitive edge in the market. The J-21/J-31 would literally be the only ITAR-free stealth fighter. It's simply one of those products that will attract a bigger customer base than strictly lightweight and medium-weight fighters like JF-17 and J-10, for which there are available alternatives.

Basically, I don't think the PLAAF will get in the way of AVIC getting the jump on Su-75 and TFX in those key markets. By the time the latter two are available, China would have had the chance to takeover most of the addressable market via the J-21/J-31 years ahead.

J-21/J-31 could be the Chinese industry's "F-16 moment" where they have a product most countries in a key market (i.e., ITAR-free) want. @Deino @JamD @kursed

 

[Scorpiooo]

The PAF would look at the status of the land-based version of the J-XY/J-35 -- i.e., J-21 or J-31.

I think the PLAAF could commit, but it'll be interesting to see how much urgency they put into it. IIRC the J-10B/C wasn't available for export until recently primarily because the PLAAF needed those fighters first. However, the technology gap between the J-10B/C and J-7 is way wider than that of the J-10B/C and early J-21/J-31 variants. Yes, the latter is technically a generation up, but the J-10B/C would still have many similar subsystems.

If the PLAAF says it needs a lot of J-21/J-31s quickly, and then other countries (e.g., Pakistan, Algeria, Egypt, etc) say they need J-21/J-31s soon, then I can see China actually investing in two big production lines. There's a chance the J-21/31 can become one of the most widely manufactured fighters in the world, second only to the F-35 IMHO.

However, I think the likelier scenario is the PLAAF buying J-21/J-31s in smaller increments (versus J-10B/C and J-20) so that there's enough room to support export orders. The export angle is super important because China will have a clear competitive edge in the market. The J-21/J-31 would literally be the only ITAR-free stealth fighter. It's simply one of those products that will attract a bigger customer base than strictly lightweight and medium-weight fighters like JF-17 and J-10, for which there are available alternatives.

Basically, I don't think the PLAAF will get in the way of AVIC getting the jump on Su-75 and TFX in those key markets. By the time the latter two are available, China would have had the chance to takeover most of the addressable market via the J-21/J-31 years ahead.

J-21/J-31 could be the Chinese industry's "F-16 moment" where they have a product most countries in a key market (i.e., ITAR-free) want. @Deino @JamD @kursed

Good point sir, but production variants efficiency and effectively still need to be proven to world before they think to invest in too much young jet

 

[Shotgunner51]

The PAF would look at the status of the land-based version of the J-XY/J-35 -- i.e., J-21 or J-31.

I think the PLAAF could commit, but it'll be interesting to see how much urgency they put into it. IIRC the J-10B/C wasn't available for export until recently primarily because the PLAAF needed those fighters first. However, the technology gap between the J-10B/C and J-7 is way wider than that of the J-10B/C and early J-21/J-31 variants. Yes, the latter is technically a generation up, but the J-10B/C would still have many similar subsystems.

If the PLAAF says it needs a lot of J-21/J-31s quickly, and then other countries (e.g., Pakistan, Algeria, Egypt, etc) say they need J-21/J-31s soon, then I can see China actually investing in two big production lines. There's a chance the J-21/31 can become one of the most widely manufactured fighters in the world, second only to the F-35 IMHO.

However, I think the likelier scenario is the PLAAF buying J-21/J-31s in smaller increments (versus J-10B/C and J-20) so that there's enough room to support export orders. The export angle is super important because China will have a clear competitive edge in the market. The J-21/J-31 would literally be the only ITAR-free stealth fighter. It's simply one of those products that will attract a bigger customer base than strictly lightweight and medium-weight fighters like JF-17 and J-10, for which there are available alternatives.

Basically, I don't think the PLAAF will get in the way of AVIC getting the jump on Su-75 and TFX in those key markets. By the time the latter two are available, China would have had the chance to takeover most of the addressable market via the J-21/J-31 years ahead.

J-21/J-31 could be the Chinese industry's "F-16 moment" where they have a product most countries in a key market (i.e., ITAR-free) want. @Deino @JamD @kursed

Agree mostly with you. J-XY could be a great weapon by itself though I'm more inclined to believe PLAAF can't put J-XY in front row seat of procurement any time soon. I suppose in PLAAF's tactical doctrine, MMRCA missions like forward basing/rapid response, low-altitude penetration through land terrain, light "bomb trucks" and such are already well served by J-10 series, which is easy to maintain/deploy (due to single-hi-thrust config), can go "beast mode" while still can be "stealthy enough" if some missions require so. There is no urgent need to add another MMRCA despite it being more stealthy, which is twin-medium-thrust config when PLAAF has almost vested the entire tactical fleet on hi-thrust for years.

I think J-XY has always been designed for PLAN doctrine from day one, while its land-based variant IF developed will be for exports only (or perhaps joint venture like JF-17, F-35, KFX/IFX, etc) in the immediate future. Land-based variants are by nature structurally simpler to build, and have better performance indicators, I believe SAC may customize it for exports after the original J-XY gets matured with PLAN.