Akasa
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Aug 9, 2008
- Messages
- 7,227
- Reaction score
- 9
- Country
- Location
J-20's dimension is smaller than J-15.
A J-15, in my opinion, is already too large as a carrier-borne fighter, especially on Chinese vessels.
And I bet to design a navy version of J-20 is still quicker than design a navy version of J-31.
Says who? Downsizing a J-20 would require a redesign, as would enlarging the FC-31. SAC does, however, have more experience designing carrier-borne jets and its related subcomponents.
Also the combat radius of a navy fighter is even more important than a land-based fighter in this age of long-range anti-ship missiles, PLAN wont settle for less.
An F-35-sized fighter could provide a 1200-1300 km combat radius, which is roughly comparable to that of the current FC-31. Therefore, an enlarged FC-31 would have an even greater combat range.