Can't it complement the j20 instead of competing with it? I know china is rich but there is a limit to how much she can spend in this current economic climate. This plane seems like it will cost quite abit lower than the j20. So instead of buying all j20s, they can have a fleet combined with this 2 planes.
Shenyang FC-31 / J-31 Fighter Demonstrator
- Thread starter RedSky
- Start date
- Status
Can't it complement the j20 instead of competing with it? I know china is rich but there is a limit to how much she can spend in this current economic climate. This plane seems like it will cost quite abit lower than the j20. So instead of buying all j20s, they can have a fleet combined with this 2 planes.
...I don't think he got my point.
MiG-29
Banned Idiot
A VSTOL jet always gives you the ability of more adaptability in deployment from smaller aircraft carriers or ships
[video=youtube;JBY2qQ1soRw]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JBY2qQ1soRw&feature=related[/video]
It is obvious that China has not a F135 type of engine at least we have not seen that jet engine, adding two WS-13 equals one F135, but here the similarties end, while two WS-13 or RD-93 can give 17 tonnes, they can not give you VSTOL, VSTOL allows you to fly more sorties from damaged air strips or even smaller runways.
Here is where the survibility is different the twin engine is better for long ranges and the extra engine gives you safety if one engine fails.
However the J-31 needs at least two engines of 11 tonnes each to supercruise with the size of the EJ-200.
Last edited:
MiG-29
Banned Idiot
in the history of air combat, VSTOL was always considered, from the German NATTER in 1944, to the Harrier, the F-35B has a very important logic, it can be deployed from places where there are not runways allowing attacks closer to the battle ground and better close air support, plus the ability to skip sophisticated runways.
However the capability of flying fast and the ability to carry a large payload is limited on VSTOL aircraft, so most air forces use conventional aircraft like F-35A but in 1967, Israel showed the air force that destroys the enemy`s air bases basicly wins the war.
F-35A is the aircraft to be deployed from farther air bases.
You essentially made a categorical claim that the lack of VSTOL was a "great disadvantage" for the F-31, except that's one "disadvantage" that's basically shared by every major fighter except for a handful of examples. I guess you must think every fighter except the F-35B is greatly disadvantaged.
MiG-29
Banned Idiot
is not what i think, it is a reality that in any major war attacking the air bases makes the difference, Germany when was attacked and bombed by the allies, they deviced aircraft like natter, in the 1950s several aircraft were designed with VSTOL, the only succesful aircraft of those was the harrier, since J-31 has DSI its ability to fly faster than F-35 is none, the F-35B has no disadvantage over J-31.
If you navalize J-31 it will need larger aircraft carriers, this means once the aircraft carrier is lost, you lose its base.
[video=youtube;BD4oiBSXGDM]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BD4oiBSXGDM[/video]
F-35B is a great advancement since it can get supersonic speeds, and yes ideally the best fighter should had VSTOL if not STOL but for that you need TVC nozzles like F-22
Here in China, big shrimps all say that China's indigenous carriers will all be CATOBAR... the debate is only on whether they will start with the traditional steam powered one or the all new electromagnetic driven one...
I think, by now we should all have figured it out that the Chinese are the most pragmatic bunch. They would always go for the best that they can afford. But they won't worry themselves to death just because they don't have the best yet. They'll settle for the second best just as comfortably until their time comes. ...If not because they don't have an engine as good as the one used on the F-22, I'm pretty sure the J-20 would have had a pair of flat nozzles. And since they don't feel they have too big a problem with the CATOBAR technology, why wouldn't they go for it?
Last edited:
...Yep. You still didn't get my point. Don't worry about it.
Now now the J-31/J-21/F-60 gets WSJ's attention:
I actually picked this up from Bharak Rakshak
and to my dismay, those oversees Chinese guys went back to that house of mental masturbators again (after a brief absense for a couple of weeks). Why oh why would they want to do that??? When they are absent, the Indians started their littlle infight and inward looking, which was much more effective and fun to watch than these Chinese guys' meddling there.
Again, I plead to these God-knows-what-motivated-them guys, Leave that place! Please, please, please...
Now something from the article: "Even the J-31’s unveiling just prior to Secretary Panetta’s visit this time may be driven by such internal dynamics as programmatic timelines and the positioning of SAC, the PLA and bureaucrats prior to the upcoming 18th Party Congress and final working-out of succession issues. Not everything Beijing does, even militarily, revolves around Washington or its representatives."
Very sensible observation from an American. By contrast, the Indians tend to think (aloud) that every military move by the Chinese revolves around them.
I actually picked this up from Bharak Rakshak
and to my dismay, those oversees Chinese guys went back to that house of mental masturbators again (after a brief absense for a couple of weeks). Why oh why would they want to do that??? When they are absent, the Indians started their littlle infight and inward looking, which was much more effective and fun to watch than these Chinese guys' meddling there. Again, I plead to these God-knows-what-motivated-them guys, Leave that place! Please, please, please...
Now something from the article: "Even the J-31’s unveiling just prior to Secretary Panetta’s visit this time may be driven by such internal dynamics as programmatic timelines and the positioning of SAC, the PLA and bureaucrats prior to the upcoming 18th Party Congress and final working-out of succession issues. Not everything Beijing does, even militarily, revolves around Washington or its representatives."
Very sensible observation from an American. By contrast, the Indians tend to think (aloud) that every military move by the Chinese revolves around them.
Last edited:
- Status