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

siegecrossbow said:
Luneburg lens attached. It is very close to production.

View attachment 722005
Click to expand...


But why is his a sign for production soon? I suspect this item is installed as a standard feature at least for the later prototypes and surely on the test schedule at this stage, but I don’t think it is a hint on how far it is away from production .
 
Deino said:
But why is his a sign for production soon? I suspect this item is installed as a standard feature at least for the later prototypes and surely on the test schedule at this stage, but I don’t think it is a hint on how far it is away from production .
Click to expand...

It means that the design has progressed far enough for them to be comfortable enough to take internal RCS optimization measures. Not having a luneburg could be a safety liability for ground control.

In fact we can compare when J-20 prototype 2011 received luneburg and when the type entered service. That could give us a rough estimate for when J-35 is ready.
 
siegecrossbow said:
It means that the design has progressed far enough for them to be comfortable enough to take internal RCS optimization measures. Not having a luneburg could be a safety liability for ground control.

In fact we can compare when J-20 prototype 2011 received luneburg and when the type entered service. That could give us a rough estimate for when J-35 is ready.
Click to expand...


Good pint, but I thought we have seen J-20s already quite early in their flight test phase with Luneburg-lenses?!
 
siegecrossbow said:
It means that the design has progressed far enough for them to be comfortable enough to take internal RCS optimization measures. Not having a luneburg could be a safety liability for ground control.
Click to expand...
Or just that they've decided to add it now. There's nothing to prevent it being added at any stage from first flight on.
 
FighterJock said:
I wonder what would happen if Pakistan did buy the land based J-31 what would happen in regards to the Radar Absorbent Material or rather the treatment of it? Would Pakistan have to purchase the RAM from China or some how make it themselves?
Click to expand...
If I were China, I'd "forget" to add the RAM to the skin panels and any putties they "need" to use.
 
Elysium said:
I'd say once the physical design is frozen it would make sense to start using it, as it would prevent adversaries on building up info on the aircraft's return signature.
Click to expand...

Physical design is only part of the equation. There are also a lot of measures taken under the skin to reduce RCS as well such as honeycombed radar absorbent structure.
 
I had forgotten about the radar absorbent structure plays an important part in the design and development of modern stealth aircraft, it amazes me that the PAF are even considering buying the J-31 with all its complexities about RAS and RAM. But I suppose it is up to them if they want to keep up with India.
 
helmutkohl said:
AMCA has not been built, Checkmate is a mock up at this stage.
Boramae isnt a 5th gen plane.
Click to expand...
the CDR of AMCA has been finished, Checkmate is to fly relatively soon and the current Boramae is clearly intended to be a 5th gen later down the road.
 
helmutkohl said:
Try taking a look at the empty weights of the F-35 variants and the F-15 variants?
Click to expand...
Seems to really depend on the variants being compared. The empty weight of the Strike Eagle family is a is higher than that of the F-35A while the original Eagles are a bit lighter.

As for the J-35 any weight estimates that currently exist for it are just guesswork, considering the dimensions of the aircraft I wouldn't be surprised if the final aircraft has a similar empty weight to the F-35A.

The standards for fighter weight classes have changed with time. You can even just look at the weight growth long-serving designs like the F-16 have seen and the F-16 isn't even trying to carry weapons internally. Ultimately the F-35A/B is still medium weight when compared to something like the F-22, Su-57, or J-20.
 
helmutkohl said:
Try taking a look at the empty weights of the F-35 variants and the F-15 variants?
Click to expand...

You can’t rank fighters cross generations based on empty weight. Fighter have only gotten larger and heavier over time due to advances in engine technology. An F-15, for instance, weighted as much if not more than a B-17.
 
Is it the type of fuel that they are using? The EJ-200s do not produce that amount of smoke.
 
FighterJock said:
Is it the type of fuel that they are using? The EJ-200s do not produce that amount of smoke.
Click to expand...

What if I tell you that it has nothing to do with the type of fuel or necessarily the engine, but excess fuel that’s not completely combusted after the after burner has been shut off?
 
Thanks seigecrosbow, I did not know that about the excess fuel not being combusted.
 
All jet engines can produce some smoke occasionally, but the hotter they run, the less smoke is produced typically, so modern engines with higher max temperatures produce less smoke than, say, a J79.

RD-33 smokes a lot in military thrust, but not in afterburner.

33101b4247f4b3f94c617ee653ddaf11.jpg
 
Hello everyone. My first time here.

Shenyang is confusing. I understand that the F-22 is designed how it is to essentially enjoy the good flight dynamics of a delta wing and the usual dual planform design. They do this with larger than usual horizontal stab and large main wing area. It allows them to use a 2d thrust vectoring solution as well. Shenyang still went with an F-15-like small horizontal stab but took some from the F-22 large main wing. Makes sense because it is going to be a carrier aircraft.

Maybe it is because they do not have the trust to manage large service areas on stuff like that. Either way, the point is, unless they have some kind of super-powerful system to compare with the US or, unless they plan to use it as an export platform for their allies to create a comparable coalition, then I do not understand.
 
siegecrossbow said:
It means that the design has progressed far enough for them to be comfortable enough to take internal RCS optimization measures. Not having a luneburg could be a safety liability for ground control.
Click to expand...
I expect them to switch to a retractable lens like the J-20's later on, assuming there's enough space available...

J20zhuhai4.jpg


w8r74zps1kn91.jpg
 
Back from vacation means back at work!
1f61d.png


So, any news I missed concerning the question of "J-31 or not?" since my return from France?
1f1eb_1f1f7.png
1f914.png


I found these three & added the J-35 on my own, even if indeed not the same angle like the other three, it looks indeed at least "different" to a J-35 and both FC-31 demonstrators!

What do you think? So there is maybe indeed a true J-31 ...

1716999471280.png


Here the mentioned relevant "maybe-J-31" aka the land-based version ... I'm actually still not entirely sure, but it seems indeed to have only one wheel on the front landing gear and the gap between the horizontal tail and wing is different.

1716999575437.png
 
Deino said:
What do you think? So there is maybe indeed a true J-31 ...
Click to expand...


:)

More to the point, it appears that the FC-31 v2 was a sort of hybrid demonstrator combining the fuselage (including landing gear) of the J-35 with the flying surfaces of the land-based variant. Hard to tell, but the J-35 seems to have larger stabilators too.

Whether this is indicative of serious PLAAF interest or a renewed SAC company initiative angling for export orders (Pakistan), who knows.
 
Trident said:

:)

More to the point, it appears that the FC-31 v2 was a sort of hybrid demonstrator combining the fuselage (including landing gear) of the J-35 with the flying surfaces of the land-based variant. Hard to tell, but the J-35 seems to have larger stabilators too.

Whether this is indicative of serious PLAAF interest or a renewed SAC company initiative angling for export orders (Pakistan), who knows.
Click to expand...


I totally missed that one ... here maybe a bit clearer:

FC-31 V1 + V2 vs maybe J-31 - 恒苏Actline - 1 + J-35 - 4+.jpg
 
Grey Havoc said:
asia.nikkei.com

China develops new stealth aircraft likely to be deployed on carriers

J-31B expected to raise People's Liberation Army's fighting capabilities
asia.nikkei.com asia.nikkei.com
Click to expand...


In fact at best a strange - IMO a plain stupid - report once again based on the typical BS spread by the SCMP!

First, from all we know, this new carrier-borne multirole stealth fighter is the well-known J-35 and not the J-31B and even more so this CG is so much wrong including the alleged bigger size and new side-weapons bays that I can only say it was either done intentionally to spread false claims and initiate exactly this PR Stund or in ignorance since the CG-makes did not care about details.
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom