Shenyang FC-31 / J-31 Fighter Demonstrator

Maggern · Sep 17, 2012

A couple of 0.01$:
The way SAC is parading this around, coupled with the circumstances around stealth fighters in PLAAF today, i.e. the already blessing towards J-20, indicates that SAC is fishing in the international market. This might result in SAC parading some sort of more standardized model of J-31.

What they have rather done in regards to the Chinese market is bet on PLANAF in regards to carrier-based aviation. For that they have strengthened landing gear and canopy. I guess they could employ folding wings and tail hook in a later prototype. Perhaps they're seeing how much interest there would be in PLANAF before making an all-out carrier-based model (that would in effect be exclusively for China, as few other export destinations have carriers), before tailoring the plane for this mission. Until that time, they're opening the door for a cheaper air superiority fighter for export, and as such keeping carrier-focus to a minimum.

Just like F-35, they might have several different blueprints ready for construction. One model purely carrier-based, one purely land-based ASF. Perhaps they threw the best marketing model together and drove it around to fish for contracts before proceeding.

How much structural change would be demanded to implement a tail hook and folding wings? (The latter kinda ironic, as much of the debate after the first pics was the prototype's inability to fold its wings)

I don't know...reflections...

Maggern · Sep 17, 2012

In any case, IF China was to move towards a carrier-based stealth fighter, SAC would undoubtedly be the one to lead on. They made both land-based flankers and carrier-based flankers, so they know better than anyone else in China how to restructure a plane for maritime service

MiG-29 · Sep 17, 2012

asif iqbal said:
If this aircraft is for export then it is a good thing but I hope Chinese aircraft exports don't become the new Soviet style exports

Because if a country takes delivery of such a aircraft and it is lost in combat it will be very bad advertisement for Chinese aircraft, China should put in place a training regime with the aircraft export that requires the country's to send thier pilots to China for a few years for training to establish a few hundred hours of flight time and get proficient with the fighter

The package should include simulators etc and full infrastructure to operate these aircraft, the emphasis should be on training, training and more training

Bet if a Pakistani pilot downed a Indian Sukhoi or Mirage 2000 with JF17 there would be a line of international countrys want it for export, so same for any new aircraft

Also China should not sell to any 3rd world country's only good developing country's like for example Brazil, who would have the ability to maximum this aircrafts potential

This is a great development but also needs to come with a great package so not to let down Chinese aircraft manufacturing capabilitys

the possibility Brazil buys chinese fighters is remote, Brazil is a western country, what i mean by it, it is its culture comes from Portugal (European immigration too) and Africa mainly, basicly is a latin speaking US of South America.

Buying French is a more logic option due to the economic and cultural relations and the fact Europe still has a powerful grip on brazilian affairs

In south America, only Venezuela could become a export market, but still Venezuela will think it thoroughly, crossing the USA is not an something they really want.

Argentina is the same like Brazil.

This jet most likely market is in Asia and middle east

plawolf · Sep 17, 2012

Maggern said:
A couple of 0.01$:
The way SAC is parading this around, coupled with the circumstances around stealth fighters in PLAAF today, i.e. the already blessing towards J-20, indicates that SAC is fishing in the international market. This might result in SAC parading some sort of more standardized model of J-31.

What they have rather done in regards to the Chinese market is bet on PLANAF in regards to carrier-based aviation. For that they have strengthened landing gear and canopy. I guess they could employ folding wings and tail hook in a later prototype. Perhaps they're seeing how much interest there would be in PLANAF before making an all-out carrier-based model (that would in effect be exclusively for China, as few other export destinations have carriers), before tailoring the plane for this mission. Until that time, they're opening the door for a cheaper air superiority fighter for export, and as such keeping carrier-focus to a minimum.

Just like F-35, they might have several different blueprints ready for construction. One model purely carrier-based, one purely land-based ASF. Perhaps they threw the best marketing model together and drove it around to fish for contracts before proceeding.

How much structural change would be demanded to implement a tail hook and folding wings? (The latter kinda ironic, as much of the debate after the first pics was the prototype's inability to fold its wings)

I don't know...reflections...

Good points that I generally agree with. However, in order to design a carrier capable fighter, you pretty much have to start from the get-go and design it as such, since carrier fighters would require significant structural strengthening on top of all the obvious things like folding wings, tail hooks and strengthened landing gears.

It is certainly possible to re-engineer a land based fighter into a carrier based one, the F17 turned into the F18,, the Mig29 and Su27 werr also both successfully navalized so it can be done. However, we know from open source material that the F18 team pretty much had to redesign the F17 from the ground up to make it into the F18 (hence the new designation), and the modifications required on the Mig29 and Su27 were very extensive and expensive in terms of both time and money, as such, if you were intending to design a naval fighter, it is better to design it as such from the start to save yourself all sorts of problems, delays and cost increases further down the line.

It is far easier to modify a carrier fighter to operate from a land base than the other way round, just look at all the F18 uses who don't have any carriers, and the Rafale is another good example of a carrier fighter that was made into a very capable and competitive land based fighter.

Having said all that, I do not think it would be wise or necessary to add the extra complications of incorporating operational details like tail hooks and folding wings on the first prototype, just like there is no need for things like IFR probes, mission avionics/radar or any other operational feature.

The first prototype is all about testing the flight characteristics and performance of the basic airframe. So long as the big things like strengthened internal structure and landing gears, ballast to simulate the weight of radar and avionics etc are featured, you can get a good realistic projection of the flight envelope and test it with that prototype. Small things like tail hooks and folding wings and IFR etc can added to later prototypes easily enough at a much later date after they have sorted out much of the important issues and have some spare time to spend on the details. After all, you won't start putting in the carpets before you have installed a roof on a new house would you? You need to make sure you got the basics right first and foremost.

MiG-29 · Sep 17, 2012

Air Force Brat said:
, Shenyang rolls an underpowered prototype out the door and you dudes sound like bloodthirsty killers, are you guys 13, or just angry young men? Really guys, and people should trust you guys, and I am not picking on you ASIF, but really shoot down an Indian Sukhoi, looking forward to WWIII kids? Ya know, really, lets act our age, yes I'm excited, but come on, really? Sounds like some 7 year olds with a new BB gun. Air Force Brat is not happy?

F-35 surely will do that Brat, fighters are machines of war, not toy, and to be honest these days ICBM are more important than aviation.

F-35 is just to fight conventional wars, are used on Proxy wars, or as export oriented products, the reality is while a nation has ICBM, SLBM has the real deterrent.

These jet like any othe future aircraft could fight in future conventional wars, perhaps win or lose battles, who knows, but beyond that is not a real game changer like any modern fighter can not change the outcome of a real WWIII.

Maggern · Sep 17, 2012

plawolf said:
Good points that I generally agree with. However, in order to design a carrier capable fighter, you pretty much have to start from the get-go and design it as such, since carrier fighters would require significant structural strengthening on top of all the obvious things like folding wings, tail hooks and strengthened landing gears.

It is certainly possible to re-engineer a land based fighter into a carrier based one, the F17 turned into the F18,, the Mig29 and Su27 werr also both successfully navalized so it can be done. However, we know from open source material that the F18 team pretty much had to redesign the F17 from the ground up to make it into the F18 (hence the new designation), and the modifications required on the Mig29 and Su27 were very extensive and expensive in terms of both time and money, as such, if you were intending to design a naval fighter, it is better to design it as such from the start to save yourself all sorts of problems, delays and cost increases further down the line.

It is far easier to modify a carrier fighter to operate from a land base than the other way round, just look at all the F18 uses who don't have any carriers, and the Rafale is another good example of a carrier fighter that was made into a very capable and competitive land based fighter.

Having said all that, I do not think it would be wise or necessary to add the extra complications of incorporating operational details like tail hooks and folding wings on the first prototype, just like there is no need for things like IFR probes, mission avionics/radar or any other operational feature.

The first prototype is all about testing the flight characteristics and performance of the basic airframe. So long as the big things like strengthened internal structure and landing gears, ballast to simulate the weight of radar and avionics etc are featured, you can get a good realistic projection of the flight envelope and test it with that prototype. Small things like tail hooks and folding wings and IFR etc can added to later prototypes easily enough at a much later date after they have sorted out much of the important issues and have some spare time to spend on the details. After all, you won't start putting in the carpets before you have installed a roof on a new house would you? You need to make sure you got the basics right first and foremost.

Thanks for the pointers

Of course, we have seen examples of land-based air forces making good use of fighters originally planned for carrier-based warfare. IIRC, Finland still employs F/A-18s as their mainstay fighter...perhaps SAC can still ship these babies off while it being purely an intended carrier fighter

latenlazy · Sep 17, 2012

If SAC intends to market a J-31 for both land and carrier based operations, I don't think they would need to worry about optimizing carrier capable features on their first prototype. The PLAN is a much less ready buyer than the PLAAF and may not need fighters for carrier operations nearly as quickly, which would give SAC plenty of time to optimize the features of the plane in later prototypes.

Engineer · Sep 17, 2012

SAC could market the 310 to PLAAF as aggressor units. As it stands, the plane is a miniature F-22 already and would be suited for the role as aggressors. SAC could also modify the 310 to use those all moving tail planes found on the J-20, then market the resulting product as another aggressor version -- the F-35. May be PLAAF would be willing to equip two regiments that way, which would be plenty of orders already.

latenlazy · Sep 17, 2012

Engineer said:
SAC could market the 310 to PLAAF as aggressor units. As it stands, the plane is a miniature F-22 already and would be suited for the role as aggressors. SAC could also modify the 310 to use those all moving tail planes found on the J-20, then market the resulting product as another aggressor version -- the F-35. May be PLAAF would be willing to equip two regiments that way, which would be plenty of orders already.

I don't doubt the PLAAF could find a use for a J-31. It would seem the natural conclusion to replace aging J-10s with J-31s for a 5th generation hi-lo mix (any such turnover would of course by years away). However, I think the "rumour" that this project is entirely self funded by SAC is indicative of the PLAAF's current interests. I'm not entirely sure the PLAAF is ready to commit to two fifth generation platforms. At the same time, the PLAN is fully expected to have a growing appetite for new fighters as it develops a carrier capable force. Given the ambiguity of potential buyers, it would simply be good business practice for SAC to mitigate risk and appeal to as broad an audience as possible.

siegecrossbow · Sep 17, 2012

Actually what Engineer said got me thinking. We know for a fact that neither the J-20 nor the J-31 will enter service in significant numbers until 2017-2019. When the first batch of planes enter service, I think that it would be better for them to be used as aggressor planes in exercises against 4th gen. aircraft. I believe that the J-10A/B and Flankers will serve as PLAAF's backbone for decades to come. Why not develop tactics against stealth aircraft using the elite force of PLAAF?

Shenyang FC-31 / J-31 Fighter Demonstrator

Maggern

Junior Member

Maggern

Junior Member

MiG-29

Banned Idiot

plawolf

Lieutenant General

MiG-29

Banned Idiot

Maggern

Junior Member

latenlazy

Brigadier

Engineer

Major

latenlazy

Brigadier

siegecrossbow

General