Shenyang FC-31 / J-31 Fighter Demonstrator

Well, JSM/NSM is only 410kg, with a much smaller diameter than say a 1000 kg JDAM.

JSF sized weapon bays might be excessive, but my point was more that they should look into expanding weapons bay volume a little. At least enough to carry a pair of MRAAMs and a pair of realistically sized small diameter stand off weapons internally.

Of course, any expansion in weapon bay volume would probably make the weapon bay protrude outwards (i.e. become more bulbous) rather than seek to consume current "fixed" internal space. That would have some impact on drag and aerodynamics, but it only has to be a little bigger. If they can develop a stand off weapon for its current weapon bay that would be the optimal solution, but I'm not sure about its likelihood.

why do you think the current weapon bay isn't already large enough to house some decent weaponry? JSM should already be within j31's weapon bay limits. Schematics of it in f-35's bay show missile with folded wings and fins, providing a compact package.

Though Konsberg's document on jsm says stowed width is 0.48 meters, height (diameter plus non folding fins) is 0.52 meters, length is 4 meters. It is peculiar images in that document (link: ) show jsm packed inside f35 with fixed, non folded fins.

While 0.52 meters might be too much depth for any weapon bay (including j20's) i really don't see why a chinese variant of similar weapon could not sacrifice some added weight and some RCS to use foldable fins. Plenty of antiship missile feature foldeable fins and seem to be performing just fine)

We know the weapon bay is easely 0.4 m deep, since it is going to house pl-15. And if for some reason it's made to house sd-10, then it's even deeper, possibly 0,5 meters.

In a sense, one could say that chinese "oversized" air to air missiles have enabled the planes to carry large bombs as well. Though, realistically, that's a sacrifice that isn't very much welcome but a necessity. For a smaller plane like 31001 it may have more dire implications than for a j20.

Well, if 31001/J-31 has a weapon bay large enough to accompany a stand off missile with 250-300km range then I'd see no need to expand its volume.
I'm just not sure its bay is quite deep enough... but I'm sure the many ordnance and munition contractors can rustle something up. Even if it only has a 230km range like the newest YJ-83KH, so long as it can fit in the internal carraige of a stealth fighter.

I think J-31's bay would be large enough to house Pakistan's Raad ALCM.

Issue shouldn't be with the bay but with weapons themselves, in my opinion. Sizing the bay today for the weapons of today might be the wrong way to go about it. Sizing the bay for tomorrow's weapons seems better. So maybe chinese stand off missiles can't pack 250+ km range in a small form, like jsm can. But in 10-15 years time they might. And that's when j31 will be relevant anyway, not before.

Even a 150 km range missile that can fit inside a bay would be tremendously useful, really. No need to further compromise on aircraft perfomance because of one or two types of weapons that may be carried on just a few percent of total number of plane's missions. And on remaining 95% of missions the added large bay and compromises that go with it would be a burden on the design and its performance.

if raad is indeed a 4.85 m long and 1,1 ton weapon - there's no way it would fit inside j31. Nor j20, nor f35, nor pakfa or any other fighter of today. It's simply too big, a weapon made for external carriage.

Deino said:

Click to expand...

Airport food is expensive and distasteful. Zhuhai is not an exception.

ladioussupp said:

Airport food is expensive and distasteful. Zhuhai is not an exception.

Click to expand...

I can tell what happened to that panda in your avatar after eating that food

Equation said:

Hmmm...does this mean I will need to use those old fashion paper 3D glasses to see this?

Click to expand...

I'm looking for a pair of those for quite some time now. Actually you know in the past I've taken pics of ships in dock or aircraft on a flyby from slightly diffent angles, put them next to each other and looked at them through prisma type 3D glasses I still had somewhere. I got a basic 3D effect out of it I really wish to try that with the anaglyph method (the coloured paper glasses)

Aeronaut said:

Gents, the 31001 is not a prototype, its just a tech demonstrator at this stage. The serial prototype will be built if and when the program is given a go ahead and appropriate funding is made available. Just to refresh your memories of how the F-35 tech demonstrators looked like.

Decide for yourself.

Click to expand...

At least the planfrom of the airframe hasn't really changed from X-35 to F-35, although the plane did indeed become a little more visibly corpulent in some places
The J-31 on the other hand is IMO more streamlined than both of the aforementioned. Greater sweep, narrower / as narrow as the X-35, but already a bit longer.
Contrary to the JSF concept, and even more so the production model, it might be more of a Joint Multirole Fighter, with less emphasis on strike as the primary job.
If it was indeed ment for export from early on, that trait might serve it pretty well here, as there is less (percieved) compromise made on the air-air role. In fact, 31001 seems to have almost the same sweep as the F-22.
Now if the J-31 should really be a carrier aspirant, than the higher sweep / smaller wing may be an issue for STOBAR ops, for CATOBAR probably not so much. We shall see, I guess ...



If there is indeed a follow up with a major rework on the body layout, then all what I just said may well be maculation really quick.

IMO predicting the trajectory of J-31s development will be judged by the thrust output of the engines. The airframe is robustly designed and i think can handle a multi role configuration. Its also suitable for carrier ops. Once we get to know for a fact the total power output of the engines in an operational J-31, we would be able to work out what the real design philosophy was behind the jet.