Shenyang FC-31 / J-31 Fighter Demonstrator

Status
Not open for further replies.

Yorkie

New Member
If you can provide some examples of where I shoved facts down your throat I will glad refrain from that type of conduct. Fair enough?

How about this one: you tried to tell me that US SSN had S8G reactor core , which runs on natural circulation and therefore could turn off its pumps and be as quiet as an SSK on battery. But did you know that:

1) S8G is only used on the Ohio class, SSBN (some later got converted to CM shooters like the lead ship Ohio itself);
2) natural circulation requires Thermal Driving Head, which means a high temperature difference between heat source and heat sink. So NC can work in the primary coolant loop, but not the secondary loop (condensate pumps), and not the sea water loop that cools the secondary loop! So no, a nuke boat cannot turn off all the pumps or it goes Three Mile Island on you!

I chose to ignore tiil now because I knew i would be wasting my time to respond back to someone who couldn't conceive a point but throw BS at people as if he knew. Sorry for the off topic post, but I hope this shows you that there are people here know much more than you do on various topics, and we all engage in fun discussions!
 

Engineer

Major
haha look you just say ilogic things, Simonov was the head designer of Su-27 in the 1980s, he was the dead designer of Su-47/S-37 in the 1990s, same head engineer, same brain, as most of personal of Sukhoi.
The mistake you are making is that you equate Soviet Union with Russia, so you incorrectly assume Soviet's achievements translate to Russia's accomplishments. The reality is that Russia simply inherits technologies and talents from the Soviet Union, which you implicitly admit to be the case in your statement above.

The S-37 is one example of technologies inherited from Soviet Union. Sukhoi is an example of inherited talents. Unlike technologies that are fixed on paper, talents can erode. In other words, what Sukhoi did under Soviet Union does not automatically mean Sukhoi can repeat them today. There is nothing illogical about this.

S ducts are not new, what happens is you simply think they are new, S ducts are even found in aircraft like F4D Skyray of 1950s, they are not new at all, even in fighters like Saab Drakken

So they are not new at all, S-37 have them too, PAKFA uses straight ducts because it reduces weight and the air provided to the engine is of better quality with less turbulances and with better pressure recovery.


Stealth aircraft can us S ducts like the Chinese jets like J-20 or J-31 or straight ducts like X-32 and PAKFA, you simply follow internet myths without even care about if S ducts have some troubles, and they do, however aircraft design is a compromise and up to a level a gamble, according to Russian statements PAKFA is doing well in performance.
No one claimed S-duct to be a new concept, so your statement is nothing more than a
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
.

The claim that PAKFA choice of straight inlets is due to weight and performance reasons can be applied to every single aircraft out there. As an example "F-22's use of short S-ducts is to reduce weight and enhance performance". Hence, your claim is completely meaningless.

While it is true that there are difficulties associated with use of S-ducts, the difficulties can be solved with careful design. However, careful design requires a lot of efforts and researches. F-22, F-35 and J-20 all use S-duct because their designers have the capabilities to overcome the challenges posed by S-ducts. Sukhoi went with straight duct because the designers lack the capabilities to overcome those same challenges, and the lack of capabilities is reflected by the extensive reuse of elements from the Su-27.
 
Last edited:

rhino123

Pencil Pusher
VIP Professional
The S-37 project started in 1983, meaning it is not a Russian design but a Soviet one. The original plan called for the prototype to be built in 1991, but by that time Soviet Union collapsed. Russia merely wrapped out what Soviet didn't finish, which doesn't alter the fact that most of the work was done by the Soviet Union.

Soviet having the ability to design and implement S-ducts does not mean Russia is able to do the same. The use of straight inlet with variable geometry ramps shows Sukhoi simply adopted the design on the Su-27. This is the simplest method for Sukhoi to put an aircraft in the air in the least amount of time possible. A sophisticated design such as an S-duct requires a lot more work, and the modern day Sukhoi neither have the resources or capabilities to overcome such challenge.

Sorry... I think I am missing something here... what does Soviet technology and Russian technology means anything here. So what if the Russian now are using something that is based on Soviet era technology? As long as that technology can be used, it is a good technology and will be used fully.

You mean that a wheel where everyone is using doesn't belong to that particular nation or any nation at all, means that anything basing or had the wheel or gears inside are essentially other people's technology?

Seriously I do not know what is the argument about who's who technology that are being used. True the Russian are using lots of old Soviet tech, but it is not because they cannot come up with something new, it is just the same old question, "Why do you want to re-invent the wheel?"

The Russian (or Soviet) had attain a very high level of technology (almost enough to challenge the Americans during Cold War) and that technology base is still useful, there is no need to keep coming up with new things or toys... Look to the Americans... their F-15 and F-16 is still flying, and these aircrafts are essentially from the 60s, with upgrades along the way, they don't come up with entirely new systems all of a sudden, and after decades, the F-15 and F-16 of today is essentially a new aircrafts as compared to the F-15 and F-16 of the 60s. So this can be translated to the Soviet era weapons... that after decades, and upgrades along the way, will essentially become 'new' systems altogether.
 

Engineer

Major
Sorry... I think I am missing something here... what does Soviet technology and Russian technology means anything here. So what if the Russian now are using something that is based on Soviet era technology? As long as that technology can be used, it is a good technology and will be used fully.

You mean that a wheel where everyone is using doesn't belong to that particular nation or any nation at all, means that anything basing or had the wheel or gears inside are essentially other people's technology?

Seriously I do not know what is the argument about who's who technology that are being used. True the Russian are using lots of old Soviet tech, but it is not because they cannot come up with something new, it is just the same old question, "Why do you want to re-invent the wheel?"

The Russian (or Soviet) had attain a very high level of technology (almost enough to challenge the Americans during Cold War) and that technology base is still useful, there is no need to keep coming up with new things or toys... Look to the Americans... their F-15 and F-16 is still flying, and these aircrafts are essentially from the 60s, with upgrades along the way, they don't come up with entirely new systems all of a sudden, and after decades, the F-15 and F-16 of today is essentially a new aircrafts as compared to the F-15 and F-16 of the 60s. So this can be translated to the Soviet era weapons... that after decades, and upgrades along the way, will essentially become 'new' systems altogether.

The problem boils down to some body being confused with ownership versus capabilities. Using your analogy, somebody claimed that country A owning a wheel being a sign that the country is ahead of country B in inventing the wheel. The person forgot that A was handed the wheel and associated engineering documents while B is actually reinventing the wheel.
 

latenlazy

Brigadier
Sorry... I think I am missing something here... what does Soviet technology and Russian technology means anything here. So what if the Russian now are using something that is based on Soviet era technology? As long as that technology can be used, it is a good technology and will be used fully.

You mean that a wheel where everyone is using doesn't belong to that particular nation or any nation at all, means that anything basing or had the wheel or gears inside are essentially other people's technology?

Seriously I do not know what is the argument about who's who technology that are being used. True the Russian are using lots of old Soviet tech, but it is not because they cannot come up with something new, it is just the same old question, "Why do you want to re-invent the wheel?"

The Russian (or Soviet) had attain a very high level of technology (almost enough to challenge the Americans during Cold War) and that technology base is still useful, there is no need to keep coming up with new things or toys... Look to the Americans... their F-15 and F-16 is still flying, and these aircrafts are essentially from the 60s, with upgrades along the way, they don't come up with entirely new systems all of a sudden, and after decades, the F-15 and F-16 of today is essentially a new aircrafts as compared to the F-15 and F-16 of the 60s. So this can be translated to the Soviet era weapons... that after decades, and upgrades along the way, will essentially become 'new' systems altogether.

I think what Engineer is trying to argue is that the Soviet Union's capabilities and Russia's capabilities are often equated to each other, but they are in fact not the same. A more nuanced way of arguing this point would be to point out brain drain and loss of major manufacturing and research facilities to the other soviet blocs (like the Ukraine) and abroad after the collapse of the Soviet Union. I myself am not sure how good that argument is, but I do believe that's what's at the root of his point.
 

Air Force Brat

Brigadier
Super Moderator
Providing factual information is something I appreciate. With your contribution in addition to Mig-29, I've googled a lot of different military related topics. I want to comment however that providing facts is one thing, and shoving it down our throats is another.

As informative as Mig-29 is, I've had to put him on my Ignore list as a result of his consistent and repetitive off-topic postings. I heed you not to do the same.

Well and that is a shame, as I can appreciatte much of what Mig has to offer, but it is occasionally difficult to pick out of that smoke screen of factoids he lays down with that smoke generator, so Mig try to stick to one or two points per post, I know I ramble on as well, but I'm OLD. Nike does present the opposite side of the coin, I think we can all play fair, some times things are presented in a slanted way, its important that we all present our arguements in a truthfull straightforward manner, and I for one have learned a great deal from the Sino Defense team, I very seldom feel the need to go elsewhere, I think its also important to conduct ourselves as gentlemen, I have rarely been insulted on this forum, I wish I could say the same for our sister forum, now my intelligence, sometimes the half--truths or out right fibs do stretch beyond the breaking point, and I will say that I have never asked a question but that someone has given me a reasonable cogent polite answer, Thanks guys.
 

MiG-29

Banned Idiot
The mistake you are making is that you equate Soviet Union with Russia, so you incorrectly assume Soviet's achievements translate to Russia's accomplishments. The reality is that Russia simply inherits technologies and talents from the Soviet Union, which you implicitly admit to be the case in your statement above.


The claim that PAKFA choice of straight inlets is due to weight and performance reasons can be applied to every single aircraft out there. As an example "F-22's use of short S-ducts is to reduce weight and enhance performance". Hence, your claim is completely meaningless.

.

If you know History, you know that before 1917, there was the Russian Empire, and if you know after the Soviet Union collalpsed, Russia inherited all the ICBMs and nuclear forces and all the major industry.

With exception of Antonov and Lotarev engines, most of the major industry is located in Russia.


Now by simple Euclidean math in Euclidean geometry, the shortest distance between two points is a straight line you know tha an S duct can not be the lightest solution.


Now you claim Russia did not innovate?
true? not true, at all, 117 is lighter than Al-31 and smaller and lighter than Al-41F, with electronic control systems.

Basicly is a new design, what about airframe? LEVCONs are a unique solution developed in Russia, not the Soviet Union, You thesis is basicly a nationalistic thesis that China catch up with Russia.


In our days, all nations and all industries are globalized.

The fact J-20 and J-31 look to much like F-22 means simply that knowledge passed by legal and illegal ways, the americans are claiming the F-35 technology went to China illegally in airframe as the Russian claim Al-31 went to China in the same ways.

Now that is a strategy to catch up, regardless of the fact DSIs are an american invention or faceting was first tested on F-22 and F-117, to the Chinese is not important as long as they can design by their own a stealth fighter with their own engines.

Russia is no exception, Russia also copies, and also is making trade and industrial links with France and Italy for Superjet 100 or PAKFA with India, as it is re-linking its industry with Antonov of Ukraine.


Not even the US is capable to stop globalizing its industry, Boeing aircraft is build by many nations, in fact now Boeing is as American as Airbus is French.


China is like any other nation, needs trade partners and commercial and technological exchanges.

What is pure chinese on the J-31 must be skin deep, but basicly by just pure looks the jets benefited a lot from american and Russian tech, you like it or not.
 

Air Force Brat

Brigadier
Super Moderator
How about this one: you tried to tell me that US SSN had S8G reactor core , which runs on natural circulation and therefore could turn off its pumps and be as quiet as an SSK on battery. But did you know that:

1) S8G is only used on the Ohio class, SSBN (some later got converted to CM shooters like the lead ship Ohio itself);
2) natural circulation requires Thermal Driving Head, which means a high temperature difference between heat source and heat sink. So NC can work in the primary coolant loop, but not the secondary loop (condensate pumps), and not the sea water loop that cools the secondary loop! So no, a nuke boat cannot turn off all the pumps or it goes Three Mile Island on you!

I chose to ignore tiil now because I knew i would be wasting my time to respond back to someone who couldn't conceive a point but throw BS at people as if he knew. Sorry for the off topic post, but I hope this shows you that there are people here know much more than you do on various topics, and we all engage in fun discussions!

Thats true Yorkie, but I don't think Nike X was intentionally trying to mislead you, but nuke boats do have to run the coolant pumps in order to cool the reactor, Nike's point about the Pershing II could also be well taken, while you are technically accurate, but this thread is dedicated to the J-31, so lets try to stick to a cogent gentlemanly discussion without the name calling, not a single person has responded to Editor John Tirpaks assessment of the J-31 in the Air Force Magazines Daily report as posted by Mig 29 at my request. Thats something I was hoping would elicit at least a grudging bit of respect for? As for all this who's smarter than who, and why? who cares? I grew up believing that Respect is an important attribute in the Asian culture, also in ours, but I have found it often has to be earned, and it is much easier to respect someone you TRUST!
 

Hyperwarp

Captain
Some possible variable vane blockers :

7b683a80-9a5c-41c1-bb68-2a5e5b25854a.Full.jpg

3a4cd98adc01.jpg

[video=youtube;SvarEU9oEIY]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SvarEU9oEIY&feature=player_embedded[/video]
 

Engineer

Major
If you know History, you know that before 1917, there was the Russian Empire, and if you know after the Soviet Union collalpsed, Russia inherited all the ICBMs and nuclear forces and all the major industry.

With exception of Antonov and Lotarev engines, most of the major industry is located in Russia.
It was the Soviet Union which created the technologies that Russia inherited. Russia's ownership of those technologies do not automatically mean Russia's has capabilities of developing those technologies again. As an example, Russia inherited Mig1.44's AL-41 engine which is the pinnacle of Soviet aviation technologies, and it is natural that Russia lacks the capability to reproduce such an engine. In other words, just because Russia owns a Soviet designed S-37 with S-ducts, that doesn't mean Russia has the capabilities to overcome challenges of designing S-ducts for high performance fighter aircraft.

Now by simple Euclidean math in Euclidean geometry, the shortest distance between two points is a straight line you know tha an S duct can not be the lightest solution.
This is nothing but a
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
, since I never claimed the shortest distance between two point is not a straight line.

Every aircraft is designed to have as high performance and be as light as possible, regardless of whether they are F-22, J-20 or PAKFA. Lockheed Martin designed serpentine inlets with weight and performance in mind, just as Sukhoi's designed straight inlets with the same considerations. Thus, your statement about weight and performance is a totally meaningless. The statement is nothing other than an attempt to deny reality that Sukhoi is unable to design a serpentine inlet for the PAKFA.

Now you claim Russia did not innovate?
true? not true, at all
Of course it is not true, since I never claimed Russia does not innovate. My argument concerns with design capabilities, not innovation. Russia lacks the capabilities that Soviet had. It is that simple.

117 is lighter than Al-31 and smaller and lighter than Al-41F, with electronic control systems.
The 117S is not a new engine, but an evolution of AL-31 using technologies from AL-41. So, what you have mentioned here is an example of Russia integrating two pieces of Soviet technologies, as both AL-31 and AL-41 were designed by the Soviet Union. Putting together something using existing technologies is a lot simpler and quicker than developing a true F-119 equivalent as China is doing.

Basicly is a new design, what about airframe? LEVCONs are a unique solution developed in Russia, not the Soviet Union, You thesis is basicly a nationalistic thesis that China catch up with Russia.
You are now
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
on to me. Fantasy cannot make Russia stay a leader as though it was twenty years ago. Russia just reuses Soviet designs and technologies, and is still stuck with using them. Meanwhile, China is developing similar technologies and is about to achieve breakthrough. One is stuck in the same position for two decades, while the other is moving up quickly in all areas of aviation. Thus, it is a simple fact that China is in the process of overtaking Russia in aviation technologies.


In our days, all nations and all industries are globalized.

The fact J-20 and J-31 look to much like F-22 means simply that knowledge passed by legal and illegal ways, the americans are claiming the F-35 technology went to China illegally in airframe as the Russian claim Al-31 went to China in the same ways.

Now that is a strategy to catch up, regardless of the fact DSIs are an american invention or faceting was first tested on F-22 and F-117, to the Chinese is not important as long as they can design by their own a stealth fighter with their own engines.

Russia is no exception, Russia also copies, and also is making trade and industrial links with France and Italy for Superjet 100 or PAKFA with India, as it is re-linking its industry with Antonov of Ukraine.


Not even the US is capable to stop globalizing its industry, Boeing aircraft is build by many nations, in fact now Boeing is as American as Airbus is French.


China is like any other nation, needs trade partners and commercial and technological exchanges.

What is pure chinese on the J-31 must be skin deep, but basicly by just pure looks the jets benefited a lot from american and Russian tech, you like it or not.
Globalization, innovation, and copying are not points that conflict with my arguments. Copying technologies is not like copying homework. Copying is merely a shortcut to bypass the time consuming innovation process, but in the end resources and efforts must be spent in research to understand those technologies. Research is what gives China the capabilities to implement the ideas of others so quickly, such as the F-22 style airframe, DSI, and serpentine inlets. Russia lacks the capabilities to implement ideas that do not originate from the Soviet Union.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top