Shenyang FC-31 / J-31 Fighter Demonstrator

FarkTypeSoldier said:

I think "referencing" would be a more nicer term.

I personally do not think it is copy as the aircraft was built from scratch.

Click to expand...

I am happy to call it a Chinese Flanker, as China and Russia have long history together, and we all know the hassles of dealing with 12 layers of Russian stuff to finally get to the deal, not saying any of the rest of us are any better off. It is always better to be nice, and on some level I do absolutely agree with you, I do however find it maddening when people deny the Russian linage of this bird as that is just dishonest. I would have to agree that the upgrades to the J-15 appear to be very well done, and as I have stated all along, I really like the J-15, and I am impressed. I am really impressed that the Mig 21 is still in production, and seems to have nine lives in China, I admire those who are able to execute as well as plan, and the J-15 is very well executed, IMHO! AFB

One pic

FarkTypeSoldier said:

I think "referencing" would be a more nicer term.

I personally do not think it is copy as the aircraft was built from scratch.

Click to expand...

The PLAN did much more than simply reference the SU-33 in the development of the J-15. It was clearly used as the very basis for the aircraft which one can see by simply looking at it.

It's airframe, the basic avionics, the routing of the wiring, and harnesses I am sure, a well as the operation of and make-up of the landing ger and other mechanical operations.

Then they went and did a completely new build of it all, using eir own materials (no simple feat) and updated the Aircraft with new electronics, new radrs and sensors, new weapons systems, new engines nd better overall performance an capability.

It is now, IMHO, a far better or raft all round and will serve the PLAN very ably for many years to come...and the PRC can produce the themselves.

A very significant and very mop lex technical achievement all round.

And, coupled with the J-31 in a few years (probably 3-5 years) they ill have a very good, robust, mixed Irving or their carrier operations.

Jeff Head said:

The PLAN did much more than simply reference the SU-33 in the development of the J-15. It was clearly used as the very basis for the aircraft which one can see by simply looking at it.

It's airframe, the basic avionics, the routing of the wiring, and harnesses I am sure, a well as the operation of and make-up of the landing ger and other mechanical operations.

Then they went and did a completely new build of it all, using eir own materials (no simple feat) and updated the Aircraft with new electronics, new radrs and sensors, new weapons systems, new engines nd better overall performance an capability.

It is now, IMHO, a far better or raft all round and will serve the PLAN very ably for many years to come...and the PRC can produce the themselves.

A very significant and very mop lex technical achievement all round.

And, coupled with the J-31 in a few years (probably 3-5 years) they ill have a very good, robust, mixed Irving or their carrier operations.

Click to expand...

What I like to know is the things that cannot be seen as in the materials used in the J-15. Things like the airframe, body and the wings, screws etc... etc... are they made from the same exact materials as the SU-27/33 or are we talking more exotic combination and liberal use of alloys, composites, thermoplastics, titanium and so on.

If they do than I think we can give even more credence to the J-15 being a totally new plane despite having a similar shape to the original flanker design.
It's one thing to copy a shape but to make the same shape using different metals, carbon and/or composites is a monumentally more difficult task.

kwaigonegin said:

What I like to know is the things that cannot be seen as in the materials used in the J-15. Things like the airframe, body and the wings, screws etc... etc... are they made from the same exact materials as the SU-27/33 or are we talking more exotic combination and liberal use of alloys, composites, thermoplastics, titanium and so on.

If they do than I think we can give even more credence to the J-15 being a totally new plane despite having a similar shape to the original flanker design.
It's one thing to copy a shape but to make the same shape using different metals, carbon and/or composites is a monumentally more difficult task.

Click to expand...

Actually not, kwai, when you say new plane, yes the materials are new, but the airplane is NOT a new Design, it is an upgrade of an old design, and if I use a composite to fashion a section, yes I will have to engineer the change, but that does not imply design. AFB

kwaigonegin said:

What I like to know is the things that cannot be seen as in the materials used in the J-15. Things like the airframe, body and the wings, screws etc... etc... are they made from the same exact materials as the SU-27/33 or are we talking more exotic combination and liberal use of alloys, composites, thermoplastics, titanium and so on.

If they do than I think we can give even more credence to the J-15 being a totally new plane despite having a similar shape to the original flanker design.
It's one thing to copy a shape but to make the same shape using different metals, carbon and/or composites is a monumentally more difficult task.

Click to expand...

It's official that the J-15 uses composite materials so to make the plane much lighter than the Su-33. This is why this plane is better than the original in almost every aspects

airsuperiority said:

It's official that the J-15 uses composite materials so to make the plane much lighter than the Su-33. This is why this plane is better than the original in almost every aspects

Click to expand...

A composite part can usually be designed to be much lighter than an aluminum or even titanium part, and while they can be stronger, they sometimes lack shear strength, and are prone to sudden catasrophic faillures when they do let go as they will not stretch or deform as does wood or metal. In the bicylcle world carbon is very big, bikes can be built to be strong, but very light, but if they incur damage, it may not be visible until it fails suddenly.

Air Force Brat said:

Actually not, kwai, when you say new plane, yes the materials are new, but the airplane is NOT a new Design, it is an upgrade of an old design, and if I use a composite to fashion a section, yes I will have to engineer the change, but that does not imply design. AFB

Click to expand...

A little OT

With that said I'm curious as to know if modern technology and CAD systems and more efficient testing method, can a F-14 Tomcat fighter plane could be refit and re-engineer into a more efficient jet fighter?

Equation said:

A little OT

With that said I'm curious as to know if modern technology and CAD systems and more efficient testing method, can a F-14 Tomcat fighter plane could be refit and re-engineer into a more efficient jet fighter?

Click to expand...

This is a really good question, especially in this strapped for cash world. About bring life to older aircraft. Look at the Swiss and Brazilian F-5Es. They have been rebuilt to zero (or near zero) airframe hours and updated with new avionics. I’ve often wondered about the Mig-27 as an updated strike fighter. Another example is the new life breathed into the A-4M now the A-4AR.

Miragedriver said:

This is a really good question, especially in this strapped for cash world. About bring life to older aircraft. Look at the Swiss and Brazilian F-5Es. They have been rebuilt to zero (or near zero) airframe hours and updated with new avionics. I’ve often wondered about the Mig-27 as an updated strike fighter. Another example is the new life breathed into the A-4M now the A-4AR.

Click to expand...

Boeing is essentially proposing this with the F-15 SE (Silent Eagle) proposal for a new F-15E. They are taking the basic design and updating it with 5th gen stealth features (internal bays, composit materials, etc).

New build F-15SE Silent Eagles will be lighter and more fuel efficient than F-15E Strike Eagle conversions because of "canted tails, digital Fly-By-Wire and digital EW". This will allow them to mount two additional weapons stations on the wings.

Saudi Arabia, Israel, and Korea have all expressed interest in this lower cost 5th gen solution. Some of the same techniques are also being proposed for the Super Hornet.

[video=youtube;rlmSG3QU3C0]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rlmSG3QU3C0[/video]

So, in answer to Equations original question regarding the F-14, there is no doubt something like this "could" be done, but one expensive issue is that I believe when the F-14s were retired, in order to ensure that Iran could not get any upgrade or new parts, I believe they actually destroyed all of the tooling.