Personally I would take everything on Chinese military talk shows with a grain of salt.
Shenyang FC-31 / J-31 Fighter Demonstrator
- Thread starter RedSky
- Start date
- Status
What connection those people on that tv show have with the j31/j20 programmes?
Are they active duty PLA personnel?
Even if they are, is what they said on that show their personal opinion? Is it something they were told by some PLA information office? Or have they been informed by shenyang itself?
To be honest, it looks they are more or less guessing on their own, with perhaps a pinch of the second option - divulging information that was processed by the PLA.
I don't know where they got 27-28 ton (yes, that has got to be mtow, there is no other option) figure from, but for a modern plane of those dimensions that is on the low end. That being said, with rd93 engines nothing better can really be expected. I guess only a generation better engines could yield significantly better figures.
Are they active duty PLA personnel?
Even if they are, is what they said on that show their personal opinion? Is it something they were told by some PLA information office? Or have they been informed by shenyang itself?
To be honest, it looks they are more or less guessing on their own, with perhaps a pinch of the second option - divulging information that was processed by the PLA.
I don't know where they got 27-28 ton (yes, that has got to be mtow, there is no other option) figure from, but for a modern plane of those dimensions that is on the low end. That being said, with rd93 engines nothing better can really be expected. I guess only a generation better engines could yield significantly better figures.
cn_habs
Junior Member
That type of security would be pretty loose IMHO. What if there's some spy at SAC?
I see the information/opinion disclosed fairly interesting and important. I gave some reasons in my post. Parsing through the public sources to gain some understanding of PLA weaponry is both an art and "training," due to the limited official information.
But at least this show tells us one thing about J-31. It is that J-31 is a very likely candidate for PLAN carrier-base aircraft.
It is widely known that J-31 is an AVIC-funded project, not PLA-funded. Although AVIC makes the excuse that they're targeting export market, we all know realistically they have to have PLAN and PLAAF in mind in order to make this project viable. Between PLAN and PLAAF, the former is the more likely customer because Shenyang's experience with J-15 in particular and their familiarity with the requirements for carrier-base aircraft in general. J-31 may not be the ideal carrier-based aircraft and it does have to make tradeoffs between range and payload due to the available engine performance, but then again PLAN does not really have a wide choice. I personally believe J-31 is a good, realistic though not perfect candidate aircraft for PLAN, assuming of course Shenyang can successfully meet other main requirements from PLAN.
I don't think PLAN has committed to J-31, and Yes, I do believe General Yin is expressing his personal opinion. But considering General Yin's status and his track record - He is a PLAN insider and is associated with the agency responsible for evaluating and planning of PLAN weaponry, his endorsement carries a lot of weights even though that might not be the consensus opinion within PLAN nor their decision at this point.
But at least this show tells us one thing about J-31. It is that J-31 is a very likely candidate for PLAN carrier-base aircraft.
It is widely known that J-31 is an AVIC-funded project, not PLA-funded. Although AVIC makes the excuse that they're targeting export market, we all know realistically they have to have PLAN and PLAAF in mind in order to make this project viable. Between PLAN and PLAAF, the former is the more likely customer because Shenyang's experience with J-15 in particular and their familiarity with the requirements for carrier-base aircraft in general. J-31 may not be the ideal carrier-based aircraft and it does have to make tradeoffs between range and payload due to the available engine performance, but then again PLAN does not really have a wide choice. I personally believe J-31 is a good, realistic though not perfect candidate aircraft for PLAN, assuming of course Shenyang can successfully meet other main requirements from PLAN.
I don't think PLAN has committed to J-31, and Yes, I do believe General Yin is expressing his personal opinion. But considering General Yin's status and his track record - He is a PLAN insider and is associated with the agency responsible for evaluating and planning of PLAN weaponry, his endorsement carries a lot of weights even though that might not be the consensus opinion within PLAN nor their decision at this point.
Vini_Vidi_Vici
Junior Member
thats appears to be a mig-29
Maybe that's just result incomplete combustion of aviation fuel? It's a common sense when engines are running at almost stalling speeds, the burning of fuel is very inefficient and will cause large amount of smoke.
Looking at the pictures, they all seem to be landing or fly-by at very low speeds.
The result of a rich mixture gentlemen, we here in the OLDE country used to call the military high speed low altitude routes "Oil Burner Routes", as our airstrip was right under the Howard MOA here in central Illinois, low flying smoking F-4s would usually fly over as two ship, often doing the scissors manuever, to see who could get the drop on whom? They were often followed minutes later by another two ship of smokers, I just love it. Then the F-16s replaced the F-4s and they burned a lot cleaner and were much quieter as they approaced, but once past your could hear the air being ripped to shreds by those F-100s powering the F-16. I lived in dread of looking up at the last minute and realizing I was about to be a bug on the front of an f-16. but honestly vini was already on this one! Brat
You shouldn't when he's telling you things the olde Air Force Brat had said already, IE, lightweight Naval Fighter with an emphasis on A2A, the engines will also likely be upgraded and if TVC is to be used on any Chinese aircraft it will likely be on the J-31, IMHO. Brat
Subedei
Banned Idiot
Subedei
Banned Idiot
precisely the same lines as my own conjecture. but, isn't this somewhat of a waste of stealth capabilities, which, i thought, are to exploit sensory limitations of opposing iads?
Last edited:
Physical Theory of Diffraction (PTD) is the study of behaviors. Radar Cross Section (RCS) control oversees PTD, as in how to exploit those behaviors to a goal and/or benefits. I have Ufimtsev's text book on my shelf, by the way, and his work in this subject was never some sort of a cookbook for 'stealth'. In fact, neither Ufimtsev nor the Soviet ever gave his work the military significance the way Overholser (Lockheed) did.
What is 'stealth' is correctly known as 'low radar observable' because in radar detection, nothing is really invisible. Stay out of the beam and you are 'stealthy' and this make the F-111 flying low level quite 'stealthy'. I know this is true because I was once in the right (WSO) seat of an F-111E in a four-ship flying at 50ft over the Channel. The French with their new air defense radar supposedly better at dealing with water reflections never seen us coming.
The F-22 and the J-20 are not from RCS reduction but from RCS control. The F-15 Silent Eagle is from RCS reduction because the F-15 is an existing platform when RCS values were not important figures in design. The F-18 Super Hornet is a blend of both because although the SH copied the basic F-18 layout, the SH is a larger aircraft that incorporated some RCS control methods from the beginning.
Yes, this is an informal and anonymous forum, but if we are to enter into a highly technical subject, it would be helpful to learn and use language related to that subject.
I used the corner reflector as an example that EVERYTHING on a finite body is a problem. Not a 'supposed' problem as you opined.
Do note that the names on that paper are Chinese names.
Absorber is an option, and if the design calls for canards, the canards are not options and are problematic for RCS and even the Chinese found this out. Get rid of this structure and the problem goes away. But most likely flight capability would go away as well.
The issue and flaw that I want to point out is that many, based upon their flawed understanding of the subject in the first place, declared that this flight control structure do not contribute to final RCS or that its contributorship is irrelevant. The canard is a structure protruding into the beam's path and as a finite body, it is a radiation generator. Its contributorship and therefore a real problem is not irrelevant. Absorber installation is not a solution but a compromise or tolerant RCS control method to this problem.
So if you have an issue with the contributorship of the canard to final RCS, turn to those who declared it does not and ask them for hard data. I know better from experience, in and out of the military, to make claims about this subject without hard data. In EM warfare, and radar detection falls under this subject, a radar hit is just as good as a bullet/missile hit and no one is going to reveal how vulnerable he is via hard data. It is only out of sheer nationalistic passion and emotional investment into these aircrafts that motivated people to make claims that often defied the laws of physics.
- Status