Shenyang FC-31 demonstrators / J-35 naval fighter / J-35A land-based version

[Anduriel]

on a related note, I've felt the same way with the yak-141 and mig-29K over the Su-33. The latter being maybe a bit too big for that size of carrier

Only in length.
Su-33 wings and stabilizer fold much closer to the fuselage, so with folded wings Su-33 IIRC even narrower than MiG-29K.

 

[Deino]

It's always been known this was being developed for the Navy. That's why even the prototype had a nose gear designed for CATOBAR use.

Pardon, but which prototype had a "nose gear designed for CATOBAR use"?? So far none had the launch/catapult bar!

Not the V2 ....



... and also not V1:

 

[Hood]

Why wouldn't they ditch the FC-31 and just design a new naval fighter?
Given the amount of structural changes, re-stressing for CATOBAR and using maritime-environment compatible materials that would make far more sense. Whatever the end result will be, it will not be a stock FC-31.

 

[yasotay]

I may be out in left field here, but the Chinese are not a people who take embarrassment well. It is a cultural thing. Better to completely redesign your own aircraft and stay with the story vice admitting it didn't work. Not that anyone else would do that...

Mockup Of China’s Stealthy FC-31 Fighter Appears On Full-Size Aircraft Carrier Testing Rig

Evidence mounts that the long-rumored navalized variant of the FC-31 is indeed in the works.

www.thedrive.com

 

[Trident]

Pardon, but which prototype had a "nose gear designed for CATOBAR use"?? So far none had the launch/catapult bar!

I think Sundog is referring to the fact that it is configured with a rear mounted tension brace which lends itself particularly well to transmitting catapult loads into the centre fuselage.

 

[Blitzo]

Why wouldn't they ditch the FC-31 and just design a new naval fighter?
Given the amount of structural changes, re-stressing for CATOBAR and using maritime-environment compatible materials that would make far more sense. Whatever the end result will be, it will not be a stock FC-31.

Probably because a 5th gen carrierborne fighter would end up being quite similar to what an FC-31 derivative would look like in the first place.

More importantly, they've already had years of flight testing of the land based FC-31 airframes that would likely help to expedite the overall development and testing phase of the carrierborne fighter compared to starting off fully from scratch.

There's a rather successful family of carrierborne fighters that the USN has been using for decades (and will also be using into the foreseeable future) that was derived from a land based demonstrator aircraft that was not originally intended for carrierborne application either, after all. Why would a similar developmental path be unreasonable or suboptimal here either?

It's always been known this was being developed for the Navy. That's why even the prototype had a nose gear designed for CATOBAR use.

Tbh that's not accurate.
The nose gear certianly looked sturdier than J-20's nose gear, but it didn't have catapult launch bar or hold back bar attachment point if it was designed to be a carrierborne fighter from the outset.

Instead, what happened was that FC-31 was developed as a demonstrator program -- likely designed with some capacity to be derived as a carrierborne fighter if wanted -- however the aircraft itself from the start was not carrier compatible.
Then, the PLAN held a tender for a 5th gen carrierborne fighter, and SAC submitted a derivative of FC-31 (not FC-31 itself), and was chosen.

Think about the relationship between YF-17 and F/A-18. It's somewhat similar.

See https://www.navalnews.com/naval-new...th-fighter-for-chinese-navy-aircraft-carrier/

I think that a lot of people may be disappointed that it's not the J-20, but the decision probably makes good sense. There's no credible export market for a carrier borne FC-31 so must be PLAN.

Just FYI, "FC-31 now favourite for Chinese Navy Carrier fighter" is a bit tenuous.

More accurate would be "new photo confirms long held expectations for Chinese carrierborne 5th gen being FC-31 derived".

 

[Grey Havoc]

Stealth fighter mock-up appears at China’s aircraft carrier testing facility

The emergence of a stealth fighter mock-up at a naval test facility suggests China intends to operate the type on its ships.

www.defensenews.com

 

[Grey Havoc]

New Chinese stealth fighter spotted as Beijing seeks to challenge power of US Navy

The FC-31 Gyrfalcon is likely to be deployed in the South China Sea as part of China's growing military presence there

www.telegraph.co.uk

 

[Grey Havoc]

New Chinese stealth fighter spotted as Beijing seeks to challenge power of US Navy

The FC-31 Gyrfalcon is likely to be deployed in the South China Sea as part of China's growing military presence there

www.telegraph.co.uk

 

[Deino]

Oh well ... it is not even a fighter, but a model, mock up or whatever you call it!



And NO it will NOT; simply since the FC-31 Gyrfalcon is a demonstrator and not an operational fighter! ... and before the next generation carrierborne fighter could be deployed to the SCS it first must perform its maiden flight, be finalise the test-phase and enter serial production. Only THEN it will be part of "China'S growing"

OMG ... these countless stupid reports all hyped reports assuming as if China is just militarising the SCS with its new fighter tomorrow.

 

[Archibald]

Well Deino, it's the Daily Telegraph... a british tabloid (synonym of: ass wipe, not newspaper). Own by Murdoch (or not, can't remember) - doesn't change that basic fact: except for fish-and-ships, it is essentially a waste of paper and, what's more annoying: a waste of trees and forrests.

 

[Cy-27]

Quick fact check: The Daily Telegraph is not a tabloid - it was a broadsheet last Sarurday. It is owned by the Barclay brothers and before you use it to wrap up your fish and chips, check out the excellent sports section. A bit right wing politically though, it sits just behind The Times in UK newspaper standards.

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

Yes, at least when I was in the UK it was a reasonably serious right-wing newspaper. Stereotypically, the Telegraph reader was an educated, retired (white, male) army colonel.

 

[Maro.Kyo]

I guess there were some confusion between The Daily Telegraph and The Daily Express or The Daily Mirror. In terms of quality, Daily Mail would be the closest to what's described above.

 

[helmutkohl]

I guess there were some confusion between The Daily Telegraph and The Daily Express or The Daily Mirror. In terms of quality, Daily Mail would be the closest to what's described above.

theres just way too many Dailys in the UK.
Clark Kent may have trouble arriving to the right office

 

[yasotay]

Clearly Clark worked at the New York Post...

 

[Archibald]

I guess there were some confusion between The Daily Telegraph and The Daily Express or The Daily Mirror. In terms of quality, Daily Mail would be the closest to what's described above.

theres just way too many Dailys in the UK.
Clark Kent may have trouble arriving to the right office

Sorry for the non-deserved hatred then. You guys above hit the nail on the head: too many "Daily-something" newspapers.

And of course we should not confuse them with the Dairies. Cheese ! ... sorry, I mean, cheers !
(runs for cover)

 

[Roland55]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1410284534772420615

View: https://twitter.com/RupprechtDeino/status/1410284534772420615?s=20

Looks...quite decent actually, maybe could do better in grey?

 

[helmutkohl]

video posted of that same FC-31 mock up? demonstrator
floating around various channels on weibo

skip to around the -31:00 mark

微博直播

 

[TMA1]

The vertical stabilizer flaps look off for some reason in many of the pictures.

 

[helmutkohl]

more pics that havent been posted

Source

 

[rooster]

2 tires on the front? If one tire blows does the 2nd tires prevent an incident with these setups?

 

[helmutkohl]

anyone else find the bay doors a bit strange? it looks like there might not be enough clearance for weapons separation, like on the F-22 or J-20

 

[TomcatViP]

@helmutkohl : Seems the bays have two positions: one open on the ground with the edge section folded inward for ground clearance, another for air launch where the edge is either aligned with the main door section or folded in a more appropriate angle for weapons release.

The metal bar linking the outer edge to the inside bay looks solid and might be something added on the ground by ground crew. But if it is not, it will only have to extend to fold open that section. Hard to tell with the picture quality.

 

[red admiral]

Intake is interesting too. A Diverter and then a bump on the outside of this. Hmm

 

[Helix88]

Google translates those characters on that actuator as “Main landing gear rear door actuator”

 

[DWG]

Google translates those characters on that actuator as “Main landing gear rear door actuator”

What's been puzzling me is where the front landing gear actuator is. I've been presuming behind the gear leg and pushing through that hole in the rear bulkhead.

 

[helmutkohl]

Intake is interesting too. A Diverter and then a bump on the outside of this. Hmm

i dont think thats a diverter. just a normal bump and a really bad sunlight and angle that makes it look like a diverer

 

[Hydroman]

This looks like a mock-up to me? NLG bay seems void of controls (hydro lines, valves, actuators, etc), MLG bays probably the same. Landing gears are mock-up type gears.

 

[Deino]

This looks like a mock-up to me? NLG bay seems void of controls (hydro lines, valves, actuators, etc), MLG bays probably the same. Landing gears are mock-up type gears.

From what we know it is an actual static test airframe - eventually the often mentioned second one (31002 ?) that was later pimped up for display with some landing-gear-look alikes.

 

[Hydroman]

Thanks Deino, I for got about structural load test airframes, the B-2 in the USAF museum is a former structural test bird as an example.

 

[Deino]

PS:

https://twitter.com/x/status/1415197720906813441

View: https://twitter.com/RupprechtDeino/status/1415197720906813441

 

[helmutkohl]

when you say PS not sure you mean PS or Photoshop

anyways im surprised about the engine plates since they were painted over in earlier versions

 

[Deino]

when you say PS not sure you mean PS or Photoshop

anyways im surprised about the engine plates since they were painted over in earlier versions

No, I just meant it in the meaning of "post scriptum", as a supplemental or addendum.

 

[Sundog]

2 tires on the front? If one tire blows does the 2nd tires prevent an incident with these setups?

It has two nose wheels set far apart from each other because it's designed for the Navy and the wheels have to clear the launch shuttle. On other aircraft, such as the mirage F-1, by going with two smaller wheels as opposed to one large nose wheel, that can help with storing the retracted gear within the fuselage.

 

[Blitzo]

How topical. A recent paper, posted via by78 over on SDF.

Jeez, I wonder what this paper from Shenyang about a carrier based stealth fighter depicting "before" and "after" modifications might refer to.
How interesting, it has DSIs but it doesn't have canards behind the intakes... I wonder what aircraft from Shenyang exists, that is stealthy, has DSIs, lacks canards behind the DSIs, and might be appropriate for modification to a carrier based variant.

I mean, it's not like we've had overwhelming rumours over the last 2-3 years about an aircraft that specifically fills the above criteria that has been resoundingly stated as the PLAN's choice for its 5th generation carrier based fighter.
And it's definitely not like we've recently had a mock up of such an aircraft visibly seen on the PLAN's dedicated land based carrier mock up facility...


Yes, it's totally reasonable for any military aviation enthusiast to talk about the forthcoming PLAN 5th generation fighter as if its overall characteristics are still a valid topic to debate.

A Brief Analysis on the Key Technologies of Aerodynamic Design of a Stealth Carrier-based Aircraft
Abstract: Several key technologies and engineering approaches in the aerodynamic design of a stealth carrier-based aircraft are introduced in this paper. Based on three requirments – enhanced lift at take-off and landing, refined drag reduction for supersonic flow, and the balanced design of load reduction – the concepts of extreme narrow-range aerodynamic design under multi-specialty constraints such as performance, stability, weight and stealth are laid out. Research shows that enhanced lift at take-off and landing can be achieved by flap design and optimization of three-dimensional bending of wings. The drag of the aircraft can be reduced by optimizing the cockpit shape and the compressible/expansion waves at the fuselage and the directions of the overflow suction. Moreover, the load reduction of the horizontal stabilizers can be achieved by the reverse bending design of the lower fuselage and the arresting hook hatch.

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

Deleted some fairly idiotic posts and the (increasingly exasperated) responses.

 

[Archibald]

Just asking in passing (no intend of starting a flame war) does this mean that Chinese carrier fast-jet wings will be a mix of J-15 and FC-31 ? big non stealth bird and smaller stealth one ?
Would make it similar to the Superbug / F-35 mix presently found on US decks.
Or did I missed a third Chinese naval combat jet ?

 

[helmutkohl]

Just asking in passing (no intend of starting a flame war) does this mean that Chinese carrier fast-jet wings will be a mix of J-15 and FC-31 ? big non stealth bird and smaller stealth one ?
Would make it similar to the Superbug / F-35 mix presently found on US decks.
Or did I missed a third Chinese naval combat jet ?

perhaps Deino would know more
but i havent heard of anything else besides the J-15 and FC-31
although some time ago there were murmurings of some kind of VTOL aircraft, I don't think anything more came out of that.

 

[Deino]

Just asking in passing (no intend of starting a flame war) does this mean that Chinese carrier fast-jet wings will be a mix of J-15 and FC-31 ? big non stealth bird and smaller stealth one ?
Would make it similar to the Superbug / F-35 mix presently found on US decks.
Or did I missed a third Chinese naval combat jet ?

Sorry for the late reply but indeed, it was always expected that the J-15 will remain the PLAN's workhorse for several years to come and I expect the first aircraft to operate off the 003 to be solely the J-15B (aka serial J-15T) until the J-35 and KJ-600 will enter service later in the decade.

But maybe @Blitzo can add more.

Just asking in passing (no intend of starting a flame war) does this mean that Chinese carrier fast-jet wings will be a mix of J-15 and FC-31 ? big non stealth bird and smaller stealth one ?
Would make it similar to the Superbug / F-35 mix presently found on US decks.
Or did I missed a third Chinese naval combat jet ?

perhaps Deino would know more
but i havent heard of anything else besides the J-15 and FC-31
although some time ago there were murmurings of some kind of VTOL aircraft, I don't think anything more came out of that.

Indeed and I don't think there will be a VSTOL type ever, at least in the near future. By my understanding the PLAN will prefer to add UCAVS - IMO first as a variant of the CAC Wind Shadow / Cloud Shadow UAV we've seen on the catapult track at Huangdicun or maybe the new CH-6 and later eventually a Dark Sword or CH-7.