Shenyang FC-31 demonstrators / J-35 naval fighter / J-35A land-based version
- Thread starter Foxglove
- Start date
I
Ian33
Guest
Deino said:
What a beautiful aircraft. They really have pulled out all the stops for this one! Thanks for the great pics.
FighterJock
ACCESS: Above Top Secret
- Joined
- 29 October 2007
- Messages
- 5,030
- Reaction score
- 4,902
Deino said:
Any word on missile combination's for the internal weapons bay Deino? All the photo's that I have seen just show the standard layout for the FC-31.
- Joined
- 2 January 2006
- Messages
- 3,643
- Reaction score
- 3,811
FighterJock said:
To admit I don't know esp. since this current V2 is at best comparable with the J-20 '201X' prototypes. However it is clear that it has only the single belly weapon bay which sure can hold the PL-12, PL-15 (cropped wing PL-12 as seen on the J-20) and surely the PL-10.
Otherwise I think we need to wait.
"Avic’s J-31 Fighter Is a Winner After All"
Nov 9, 2018 Bradley Perrett and Steve Trimble | Aviation Week & Space Technology
Source:
aviationweek.com
Nov 9, 2018 Bradley Perrett and Steve Trimble | Aviation Week & Space Technology
Source:
Avic’s J-31 Fighter Is a Winner After All | Aviation Week Network
Shenyang Aircraft’s stealth fighter proposal has won official support. The air force, not just the navy, wants it.
aviationweek.com
Ainen
I really should change my personal text
- Joined
- 25 August 2011
- Messages
- 734
- Reaction score
- 835
FC-31 is hardly the right aircraft. For now it seems to be the most...mediocre and boring of 5th gens.sferrin said:
Many people for some reason see it as a "f-35 done right", even at lower tech level. But from what is known, it is more of an attempt to go the safe way, which ended up collecting the worst from both worlds.
But very little is really known about FC-31 to begin with. Even this aviation week article sounds fishy to me. There's been no official news on that front so far. So I am thinking the article simply took a recent rumor (just one of many we had over the years) and ran with it as if it was 100% true. I mean, what sort of line is "The J-31 is being developed for domestic military service under government contract, an official source says."? They could have at least said when and where and what sort of source it was, if they didn't want to give out their exact name.
Don't get me wrong, I do think chances of FC-31 finding its way to PLANAF is rather big, over 50%. But at this point we still lack an official confirmation. I don't think these sourceless articles help. (It's even worse when the article cites Sina, notorious for simply making stuff up)
And as for various actual specifications? Only the most basic stuff like dimensions, MTOW (not really very useful without empty weight as well) and combat radius (not useful without conditions of the mission) have been declared. For the V1 and V2 demonstrators. So actual figures for a serial standard plane would be different anyway.
On the other hand, to call it most mediocre of all 5th gen planes... well, that's a statement that might be true but one also needs context. We have 3 5th gen planes in service. (under a broad 5th gen definition that anything with internal weapons bay is a 5th gen) And another one (Su-57) that will likely enter service within several years. Out of those 4 planes, 3 are large ones, made to be the best they can be by their respective makers. Of course a J-31 shouldn't be able to compete with them on 1on1 basis. J-31 is a smaller class plane and was made to be exportable, meaning corners were cut and final pricetag probably had a limit.
F-35 is in similar weight class, also designed to be somewhat affordable and also sacrificing some capabilities to achieve that. To compare the two one would need to know what J-31 is going to be like in 2025 or whenever it enters active service. We don't even know much today. We don't know what F-35 can do today precisely, let alone in 2025. If avionics will be comparable, who's to say J-31 won't be able to hold its own?
Certainly the biggest issue will be the engines, as right now it's flying on almost ex-soviet tech placeholder engines. With very little data on possible new chinese made engines. Withat those, I'm willing to bet J-31 project won't go anywere. Which automatically means that once we do get an official confirmation that J-31 is going to get fielded, the chinese engine project is done. Which still doesn't tell us much about its quality. It may probably be better than the RD33 derived engines that it uses now, but by how much?
Way too many unknowns right now...
Don't get me wrong, I do think chances of FC-31 finding its way to PLANAF is rather big, over 50%. But at this point we still lack an official confirmation. I don't think these sourceless articles help. (It's even worse when the article cites Sina, notorious for simply making stuff up)
And as for various actual specifications? Only the most basic stuff like dimensions, MTOW (not really very useful without empty weight as well) and combat radius (not useful without conditions of the mission) have been declared. For the V1 and V2 demonstrators. So actual figures for a serial standard plane would be different anyway.
On the other hand, to call it most mediocre of all 5th gen planes... well, that's a statement that might be true but one also needs context. We have 3 5th gen planes in service. (under a broad 5th gen definition that anything with internal weapons bay is a 5th gen) And another one (Su-57) that will likely enter service within several years. Out of those 4 planes, 3 are large ones, made to be the best they can be by their respective makers. Of course a J-31 shouldn't be able to compete with them on 1on1 basis. J-31 is a smaller class plane and was made to be exportable, meaning corners were cut and final pricetag probably had a limit.
F-35 is in similar weight class, also designed to be somewhat affordable and also sacrificing some capabilities to achieve that. To compare the two one would need to know what J-31 is going to be like in 2025 or whenever it enters active service. We don't even know much today. We don't know what F-35 can do today precisely, let alone in 2025. If avionics will be comparable, who's to say J-31 won't be able to hold its own?
Certainly the biggest issue will be the engines, as right now it's flying on almost ex-soviet tech placeholder engines. With very little data on possible new chinese made engines. Withat those, I'm willing to bet J-31 project won't go anywere. Which automatically means that once we do get an official confirmation that J-31 is going to get fielded, the chinese engine project is done. Which still doesn't tell us much about its quality. It may probably be better than the RD33 derived engines that it uses now, but by how much?
Way too many unknowns right now...
Ainen
I really should change my personal text
- Joined
- 25 August 2011
- Messages
- 734
- Reaction score
- 835
Ok, let me elaborate. I will purposely speak in a buyers' way.
FC-31 initially is a purely export development. It takes conservative f-22-esque shape and squeeses it into the medium weight class fighter(dedicated by availible powerplant).
Compared to f-22, it looses almost everything: weapon storage( halved), possible radar size(no space!), kinematics and so on. Unlike f-35, it doesn't compensate with much improved strike: we still have one shallow bay, most suitable for a2a loadouts.
On the other hand, design nontheless has 2 engines, covered in a stealthy airframe. Combined, it brings infrastructure requirements, maintenance hurdles and costs, lowers sortie rates(i.e. how much your money will work).
Even mig-29 failed to be cheap and convenient enough to maintain with two engines, and fc-31 doesn't even try this down-to-earth, mudfighter approach.
Yet, having all 5th gen electronics and stealthy airframe, fly away price won't be cheap either.
End result: is it a good solution for a smallish single-type airforce of a developing country? No, unlikely: expensive, exhausting to operate, not universal enough. For a larger high/low airforce with a choice, it ain't high enough. For the PLAAF itself... it isn't separated well enough from its brighter brother, the j-20, yet brings new set of engines and electronics to the table.
It makes the best sense as a tailor-made proposal for Pakistan(especially with rd-33/93 series engines), but for now we haven't heard much from the official Pakistani side. And again: while desirable somewhere in the future, India has no clear scedule for a 5th gen for now.
On the other hand, replacing f-16s with FC-31s not only is a big political choice, it will hit PAF capability to drop bombs left and right, significantly. Not unsolvable, but undesireable.
Basically, i see existing FC-31 as "not enough of a plane for too much of a cost".
Eagerly awaiting for a much-speculated "J-XY"...
FC-31 initially is a purely export development. It takes conservative f-22-esque shape and squeeses it into the medium weight class fighter(dedicated by availible powerplant).
Compared to f-22, it looses almost everything: weapon storage( halved), possible radar size(no space!), kinematics and so on. Unlike f-35, it doesn't compensate with much improved strike: we still have one shallow bay, most suitable for a2a loadouts.
On the other hand, design nontheless has 2 engines, covered in a stealthy airframe. Combined, it brings infrastructure requirements, maintenance hurdles and costs, lowers sortie rates(i.e. how much your money will work).
Even mig-29 failed to be cheap and convenient enough to maintain with two engines, and fc-31 doesn't even try this down-to-earth, mudfighter approach.
Yet, having all 5th gen electronics and stealthy airframe, fly away price won't be cheap either.
End result: is it a good solution for a smallish single-type airforce of a developing country? No, unlikely: expensive, exhausting to operate, not universal enough. For a larger high/low airforce with a choice, it ain't high enough. For the PLAAF itself... it isn't separated well enough from its brighter brother, the j-20, yet brings new set of engines and electronics to the table.
It makes the best sense as a tailor-made proposal for Pakistan(especially with rd-33/93 series engines), but for now we haven't heard much from the official Pakistani side. And again: while desirable somewhere in the future, India has no clear scedule for a 5th gen for now.
On the other hand, replacing f-16s with FC-31s not only is a big political choice, it will hit PAF capability to drop bombs left and right, significantly. Not unsolvable, but undesireable.
Basically, i see existing FC-31 as "not enough of a plane for too much of a cost".
Eagerly awaiting for a much-speculated "J-XY"...
Ainen said:
FC-31 is, of course. But the whole idea behind the project design may not be. We can't know how much SAC hoped to get PLAAF/PLANAF onboard after the first demonstrator, and how much it was geared towards their needs, as opposed to how much it was geared to export needs.
No, not halved. F-22 has side bays for two WVR AAMs. FC-31 does not. F-22 has belly bays. FC-31 has belly bays which are slightly bigger than ones in F-22. Total volume wise, I'd wager FC-31 is perhaps 70% of F-22's weapons bay volume, if not more. Certainly not 50%.
While lagging behind the likes of F-22 and J-20 a little bit when it comes to nose size, it's still not a small nose. It can quite comfortably be compared to nose volume of F-35.
we don't know *anything* about its kinematics. What little we could guess can be surmised from its powerplant. Current demonstrator has something like 163 to 170 kn of thrust for mtow of 28 tons. F-35 has 191-ish kn for 32 tons. Empty weight of demonstrator is not disclosed so we don't really know much. Stuff like drag, lift etc is not something one can deduce from the images. So at least that one metric is similar. But any sort of final plane is likely to have different figures. Different engines and likely different weights. Possibly approaching 30 tons MTOW.
We don't know exact depth of fc-31 bays, but we do know it can pack pl-15 missiles, which require 40 cm. Plus some clearance. So the bays are at least a bit deeper than F-22. They may in fact be in between of F-22 and F-35, when it comes to volume.
compared to other variables like stealth maintenance, electronics maintenance, having two engines instead of one is not such big of a deal. Myriad of exported twin engine planes around the world would corroborate that. F15s, Rafales, Eurofighters, MiG29s, Flankers... Basically, only countries that do buy single engine planes are ones that have fairly basic requirements for their air force.
So i do agree FC-31 is not a plane for developing country. I do agree its opportunities outside china are not plentiful. What few countries might be interested in plane of said class either have their own domestic projects or are so aligned with the West that it's out of the question they'd buy Chinese. Which sort of begs the question: Was the whole project geared towards Chinese use at least as much as it was for export? Sure, AVIC touted it for export, but that's the only thing they could have done. Why not try that route as well? And with each new iteration, the design may be getting closer to what PLAAF/PLANAF wants.
Number of new engines and electronics within an air force is not SUCH an issue for large air forces. US operates currently at least 7 different tactical combat planes with different engines and avionics. China operates at least 6. US will likely draw down to 5-6 different planes by 2030s. China will lower their models to 5 or so, including FC-31 variant.
US basically already wrote Pakistan off. China has been selling so many weapon systems to Pakistan that selling FC31 on top of that would not be any sort of "big political choice". Now, replacing F-16s with FC-31 may not happen. FC-31 may prove to be too expensive. Perhaps J-10 would fit better. IF FC-31 is chosen, i don't see it impacting the ability to drop bombs around so much. In addition to the bomb bay which is not so modest, there are the external stores. Compared to F-16, it doesn't lose anything by using them.
One metric which may very well suffer is range. That's just my subjective view, as my calculations of FC-31 volume don't allow for a lot of fuel. If so, that'd also impact the strike missions. Compared to F-16 as well.
Oh, i agree. FC-31 in its current V2 form is unlikely to be chosen by China. I do expect that the plane, if chosen by China, will get another round of redesign. (Not as radical as V2 was to V1, but still noticeable. Perhaps more like J-20 2001 to J-20 2011.) I just hope to Odin it will NOT be named J-35. Nor J-31, for that matter.
- Joined
- 2 January 2006
- Messages
- 3,643
- Reaction score
- 3,811
- Joined
- 3 June 2011
- Messages
- 17,908
- Reaction score
- 11,012
Deino said:Latest image ...... and a news so far unconfirmed but Stephen Trimble seems to be quite sure.
https://twitter.com/AviationWeek/status/1062050652765925376
I find it difficult to believe China wouldn't want their own F-35 and this seems the obvious choice.
- Joined
- 24 November 2008
- Messages
- 1,418
- Reaction score
- 1,992
Well, the previous iterations were very evidently too slim. Demonstrators don't need much fuel. And it works nicely if weight saving and lift/weight thrust/weight is heavily accentuated, but leaves little room for fuel. This redesign may represent some compromise.
I somehow don't see two different variants of airframe itself going into production, though. Export oriented one and one for PLA. Which brings a question: does this mockup represent something closer to final shape that we'll see within PLAAF/PLANAF?
then again... we had this old model showing a somewhat similar upper fusalage lines.
I somehow don't see two different variants of airframe itself going into production, though. Export oriented one and one for PLA. Which brings a question: does this mockup represent something closer to final shape that we'll see within PLAAF/PLANAF?
then again... we had this old model showing a somewhat similar upper fusalage lines.
- Joined
- 24 January 2006
- Messages
- 1,300
- Reaction score
- 383
Or they've maybe rearranged the way the engines are mounted to better accommodate an S-curve or a longer weapons bay.
lastdingo
Blogger http://defense-and-freedom.blogspot.de/
- Joined
- 2 January 2006
- Messages
- 3,643
- Reaction score
- 3,811
Nope ... as I already noted, just the same misshaped wrong model mated with the V2's new fins and minor details ... otherwise it is the same and plain wrong.
Potentially off topic, but everytime I see these pics, it makes me say to myself that's what Superhornet should have been. Meaning that they started to design a truly stealthy aircraft and then took the easy way out and just blew up the hornets so called blueprints 10% and called it a day.
- Joined
- 2 January 2006
- Messages
- 3,643
- Reaction score
- 3,811
If true ... a major development:
It seems as if AVIC itself lifted the veil of secrecy about the future carrier-borne fighter giving a strong hint that a much redesigned variant has been selected by PLAN (already rumored as J-35) to be powered by the new WS-19.
(Image via AVIC Weibo account)
It seems as if AVIC itself lifted the veil of secrecy about the future carrier-borne fighter giving a strong hint that a much redesigned variant has been selected by PLAN (already rumored as J-35) to be powered by the new WS-19.
(Image via AVIC Weibo account)
- Joined
- 11 February 2010
- Messages
- 1,548
- Reaction score
- 2,326
So if true, China will have 2 tier of carrier based fighters, i guess.. the heavy J-15 and light/medium weight J-31 ?
- Joined
- 2 August 2006
- Messages
- 3,206
- Reaction score
- 1,322
Isn’t the J-31 being developed for CATOBAR operations? The J-15 doesn’t have that ability, which greatly limits it’s operational load carrying capability.
Dragon029
ACCESS: Top Secret
- Joined
- 17 March 2009
- Messages
- 881
- Reaction score
- 440
Modified versions of the J-15 have been used for land-based CATOBAR testing; I'm not sure if they intend to upgrade the nosegears of the entire J-15 fleet (assuming that's the only modification required), but they've at least demonstrated that they could have J-15s on the Type 003 if they wanted.
- Joined
- 3 June 2011
- Messages
- 17,908
- Reaction score
- 11,012
Are their any details available on the WS-19? The only source I can find lists 9500kg-98 kg thrust from an F414-sized engine. (21.5k)
- Joined
- 2 January 2006
- Messages
- 3,643
- Reaction score
- 3,811
Sorry, but unfortunately - and I think most likely we share the same single source - there is nothing known ...
- Joined
- 2 August 2006
- Messages
- 3,206
- Reaction score
- 1,322
Thanks for the update. I would assume they would be new build, since a lot of the fuselage structure has to be updated for those loads as well.That is unless they originally designed that into the earlier versions, knowing they would eventually be moving to CATOBAR.
- Joined
- 29 November 2010
- Messages
- 1,737
- Reaction score
- 3,375
what I find interesting is that it seems both Russia and China seem to be preferring these medium weight designs (the MiG-29K and J-31) over the larger Flankers
would certainly be much more space efficient.
although I know it might go against a lot of pride, but a naval J-31 would make sense on the Russian carrier.
would certainly be much more space efficient.
although I know it might go against a lot of pride, but a naval J-31 would make sense on the Russian carrier.
donnage99
ACCESS: Top Secret
- Joined
- 16 June 2008
- Messages
- 1,288
- Reaction score
- 640
well they don't have the kind of carriers the US has for both space, lift-off and carry back accomidation
kaiserd
I really should change my personal text
- Joined
- 25 October 2013
- Messages
- 1,665
- Reaction score
- 1,704
The Russians effectively had to go with the MIG-29K because the Indians had paid for its development and it was that or an additional fortune to build some kind of Su-33/Su-35 hybrid (for relatively small carriers with ski-jump only take-offs limiting max weights).
Re: the Chinese we’ll see what they actually do; they already have their next-generation Flanker naval fighter and we’ll see what actually happens (rather than being rumoured) re: a naval J-31.
- Joined
- 9 October 2009
- Messages
- 21,147
- Reaction score
- 12,256
Pity the 'original' MIG-29K didn't complete development.
- Joined
- 2 January 2006
- Messages
- 3,643
- Reaction score
- 3,811
Stick a pair of F414 EPEs in it.
I'm sure, neither SAC nor the PLAAF would refuse it in case the US would deliver.
Similar threads
-
-
-
-
Shenyang Jianjiji-11 / J-11 Lightweight Fighter- Started by Deino
- Replies: 11
-
