Shenyang FC-31 / J-31 Fighter Demonstrator

Status
Not open for further replies.
rhino123

rhino123

Pencil Pusher
VIP Professional
mack8 said:
Ignoring the (most likely) american trolls spewing their ultranationalist and racist crap around, is there anything new about SAC J-31, pics, info, anything ? Do you think they will show it at Zhuhai this year ?!
Click to expand...

I would suggest that you lay off mentioning particular nations. You accused of someone being a racist a in Chinese forum, what about looking back at yourself being a racist against that particular nation.

A troll is a troll, there really is no need to state which country he/she was from... or you think it is alright if that troll is from another nation?
 
L

latenlazy

Brigadier
Seriously guys, quit it with the ad hominems. If you want to be different attack a person's arguments, not their character or intentions.
 
broadsword

broadsword

Brigadier
NikeX said:
The pace of the creation of new technology depends on the system allowing the creation. In a free-to-create system you can have unrelated conditions coming together to create new technologies where those technologies formerly did not exist. The examples are the Wright Brothers creating an aircraft in their bicycle shop, or Hewlett-Packard being founded in a one-car garage in Palo Alto by William (Bill) Redington Hewlett and Dave Packard to create a personal computer market where one did not exist before. Or even Apple computer being started by founders Steve Jobs and Steve Wozniak in a garage to go on to create an industry that did not exist before.

The point is that China is not set up like that. China is not set up to allow seemly unrelated technologies to come together in a manner that gives birth to a completely new direction.

And this is why the constant cry in China is to innovate. Innovation is the weak spot in the Chinese system. And to state that pushing the fringe of new technologies goes at a slower rate than those trying to catch up fails to take into account the creative energies flowing in cultures that make it possible for somebody in a garage to come with something that can spawn a completely new industry seemly out of nowhere.

There will always be innovation flowing that will maintain the creative edge for those countries with the lead. They realize that their lead is maintained by out the box thinking. Its literally in the DNA. And that out the box thinking makes it very difficult for those countries with a step by step incremental approach to development of technology to ever gain a lead. The more they become dependent upon following the more they will be followers
Click to expand...


The idea that innovation is determined by the political system of the country is an idea born in west which stubborn tries to denigrate the commie system. Westerners and some western oriented asians took to it as the bible of truth. China, since the start of its civilization, never had democracy, yet was able to invent many things. Joseph Needham documented them. Innovation arises out of necessity, to tackle a solution. In the west, where consumerism is more advanced, there are always new challenges, how to make the skateboard ride better, how to make my portable device more nimble, etc. China is now happily churning all these products for the world and there is really no urgent need to innovate to make a decent living. For China to be as innovative as the west, its standard of living has to rise. Even if there is no big prizes, like a Nobel, people will still innovate, so long as they are not penalized for their efforts.
 
Air Force Brat

Air Force Brat

Brigadier
Super Moderator
MiG-29 said:
Air Force Magazine Daily Report 9/25/12

China's second stealthy-looking fighter design emerged on the Internet as Defense Secretary Leon Panetta kicked off his diplomatic visit to Beijing last week. The Shenyang F-60—also called the J-21 or J-31—resembles the F-22, but with the intakes of an F-35 strike fighter. The F-60 appears to lack the Raptor's stealthy thrust-vectoring engines, and there appear to be no attempts at a reduced radar cross section with the engines currently installed in the airplane. The F-60's canopy, nose, and planform seem to be nearly identical to that of the F-22, and the airplane appears to be not too much different in size from the F-22. The photos seem to show internal weapon bays arranged similarly to the F-22's, as well as a ruggedized undercarriage potentially suited to carrier-deck operations. Photos earlier this year of a heavily shrouded F-60, partially disassembled en route to testing, revealed that the aircraft is smaller than the Chengdu J-20, which the Chinese unveiled at the end of 2010, but little else. While the larger J-20 is likely designed for longer range strike, the F-60 may be optimized for an air superiority role similar to the F-22's

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
Click to expand...

Thank you so much Mig, Editor Tirpak has mirrored my own thinking concerning the J-20 and the J-31, so now its not just our opinion, it the opinion of someone who is an Editor at the Air Force Magazine, if it was an off the mark comment he would catch it in letters to the ed, but I think he nailed it. I should add that the Air Force Magazine has been publishing honest one-one assessments for well over a half century, and were I'm came by my own sense of military hardware.
 
J

J-XX

Banned Idiot
how in the world has NikeX not been banned yet?

the guy has completely ruined every single thread and mods have done nothing.

well if he can troll every thread, then we will all start to troll, it sets a precendent.

if its good for him, its good for all of us.
 
Last edited:
Air Force Brat

Air Force Brat

Brigadier
Super Moderator
Engineer said:
Radar blocker will help, but it isn't an elegant solution. Here is a picture of the radar blocker on an F/A-18E/F, and one can still see the fan blades behind the blocker:
2NrUo.jpg


The problem with a blocker is that it is an obstacle in a region that requires smooth air flow, lowering the efficiency of the inlets thus decreasing the efficiency of the engines. Even with variable vanes on blocker like that of X-32, the pilot can only choose between low RCS and good engine performance. He cannot have both as an F-22 pilot could.
Click to expand...

True Dat my man, thats what you would really rather not put in front of you air pump, an obstruction, it will reduce efficiency.
 
Air Force Brat

Air Force Brat

Brigadier
Super Moderator
hardware said:
what is the main topic,J-31 or political discussion?
Click to expand...

Yes guys really, enough of the double speak on all sides, the fact is this is a thread to discuss the J-31, and nobody built the F-22 in their garage Nike X, lighten up on these guys. Everybody on here knows what truth is, lets try to stick to that, and your honest opinions about the J-31, if you wanta talk politics, theres a place for that, but its not here. I do believe I suggested as well as several others that the J-31 might be well suited as Naval Fighter. Can anybody make an educated guess as to what powerplants they will use in the prototype for its first flight? To the engineer, it does look like the opening around the nozzles is not flush and the embeded nacelles look larger, is it possible they are hoping to re-engine later with the WS-15 or a similar more powerfull engine? Editor Tirpack noted no TVC, it seems as if there is move away from TVC nozzles, particularly Eurofighter, J-20, F-35, and I'm beginning to believe you're right, and it seems that more and more weapons are moving to helmet mounted sights, etc and trying to avoid the furball and resultant "energy blowout"
 
Air Force Brat

Air Force Brat

Brigadier
Super Moderator
hardware said:
what is the main topic,J-31 or political discussion?
Click to expand...

Yes guys really, enough of the double speak on all sides, the fact is this is a thread to discuss the J-31, and nobody built the F-22 in their garage Nike X, lighten up on these guys. Everybody on here knows what truth is, lets try to stick to that, and your honest opinions about the J-31, if you wanta talk politics, theres a place for that, but its not here. I do believe I suggested as well as several others that the J-31 might be well suited as a Naval Fighter. Can anybody make an educated guess as to what powerplants they will use in the prototype for its first flight? To the engineer, it does look like the opening around the nozzles is not flush and the embeded nacelles look larger, is it possible they are hoping to re-engine later with the WS-15 or a similar more powerfull engine? Editor Tirpack noted no TVC, it seems as if there is move away from TVC nozzles, particularly Eurofighter, J-20, F-35, and I'm beginning to believe you're right, and it seems that more and more weapons are moving to helmet mounted sights, etc and trying to avoid the furball and resultant "energy blowout".

It would appear the landing gear are indeed capable of handling a Catobar system, possibly on Chinese indigenous Carrier?
 
M

montyp165

Senior Member
Air Force Brat said:
Yes guys really, enough of the double speak on all sides, the fact is this is a thread to discuss the J-31, and nobody built the F-22 in their garage Nike X, lighten up on these guys. Everybody on here knows what truth is, lets try to stick to that, and your honest opinions about the J-31, if you wanta talk politics, theres a place for that, but its not here. I do believe I suggested as well as several others that the J-31 might be well suited as a Naval Fighter. Can anybody make an educated guess as to what powerplants they will use in the prototype for its first flight? To the engineer, it does look like the opening around the nozzles is not flush and the embeded nacelles look larger, is it possible they are hoping to re-engine later with the WS-15 or a similar more powerfull engine? Editor Tirpack noted no TVC, it seems as if there is move away from TVC nozzles, particularly Eurofighter, J-20, F-35, and I'm beginning to believe you're right, and it seems that more and more weapons are moving to helmet mounted sights, etc and trying to avoid the furball and resultant "energy blowout".

It would appear the landing gear are indeed capable of handling a Catobar system, possibly on Chinese indigenous Carrier?
Click to expand...

It has to be either WS-13s or RD-93s based on the size of the airframe, my guess is probably WS-13 considering that JF-17s have already flown with them.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top