Shenyang FC-31 / J-31 Fighter Demonstrator
- Thread starter RedSky
- Start date
- Status
AssassinsMace
Lieutenant General
I've seen that missile before. Something probably with the last year on the internet. I remember it because the first time I saw it at first glance, I thought someone put a rocket pod on the tip of a missile.
Even then, I don't think it means much if you can't track and engage a stealth target at half that range.
plawolf
Lieutenant General
Those kinds of range figures are significantly higher than any other comparative system anyone else has put out.
In addition, I wonder where they got the F22 and B2 heat signatures to test these against?
If they actually managed to record F22 and B2 heat signatures, good on them, and if their system actually can achieve those kinds of ranges, I would be ecstatic, but until I see strong co-operative evidence or if the PLA comes out in support of those claimed figures, I am just going with my normal rule of thumb that if something looks too good to be true, it usually is.
Verum
Junior Member
Actually F22 has significantly better RCS than B2. Back in 2005, USAF revealed their rough RCS figures for F22, F35 and B2. F22 is equivalent is to a metal marble, F35 is equivalent to metal golf ball and B2 is much bigger, although they didn't say how much bigger.
It's actually not that hard. Stealth coatings and geometries are usually effective against very narrow spectrum of radar waves, that was also how the F117 was shot down in 97', by old radars with antiquated spectrum. There are two ways to overcome current stealth jets, either go with longer or shorter waves than what's currently used. Long waves are harder to utilize since they're not as precise with exact location. It's like saying target A is in Beijing, but can't pinpoint where in Beijing. Short waves are good with precision but can't travel far. But newer radars with higher outputs can overcome that issue. Chinese development in AESA designs are getting good results, with current progressions, it's not impossible to see onboard powerplants able to power a high energy radar, capable of using mm length waves to track stealth jets at 50-100km range.
It's actually not that hard. Stealth coatings and geometries are usually effective against very narrow spectrum of radar waves, that was also how the F117 was shot down in 97', by old radars with antiquated spectrum. There are two ways to overcome current stealth jets, either go with longer or shorter waves than what's currently used. Long waves are harder to utilize since they're not as precise with exact location. It's like saying target A is in Beijing, but can't pinpoint where in Beijing. Short waves are good with precision but can't travel far. But newer radars with higher outputs can overcome that issue. Chinese development in AESA designs are getting good results, with current progressions, it's not impossible to see onboard powerplants able to power a high energy radar, capable of using mm length waves to track stealth jets at 50-100km range.
An other way is to use use a huge antenna with the long waves, perhaps in a high flying unmanned airship, or by using a bi-static radar maybe using a pair of Divine Eagles.
Broccoli
Senior Member
My answer is a bit late but here is good pic what shows how large pieces they had to "bake". This was expensive technology in 90s but it could be cheaper nowadays.
The center section actually refers to the wing box structure or center section of the wing to which the right and left wings attach. May be referred to as the spar carry-through. This appears to be the upper wing skin, which would have to be bonded to the wing and center section structure. I would say its a good thing we picked the F-35, the X-32 is just a kinda weird/wonky bird, interesting for being different?
Broccoli
Senior Member
Boeing claimed it would have been cheaper and simpler to replace whole wing instead of starting to repair composite structures in a "normal wing" and supposedly manufacturing was going to be cheaper (probably not).
I'd like to know how much J-31 is going to use composites.
Actually Boeing is right, it is much, much simpler to deal with a larger carbon structure, than to bond pieces here and there. In the 90s early 2000s bicycle makers fabbed up "composite" structures and bonded them together, I rode a Lemond Chambray which was aluminum and carbon, just an amazing bike, I felt more connected to that in two minutes than I had before or since, and it was awesome. Now most frames of high end bikes are all carbon, they manage the ride and stiffness by controlling "lay-up".
So yes carbon composite is amazing, but when those bonds between aluminum carbon fail, then you are left in a quandary, so yes the one piece composite is simpler/cheaper to fabricate, and much simpler to bond repair a whole new piece that trying to manage small areas of damage and hope it "holds" and maintains the necessary strength and needed "properties?
So some bikes are Titanium, Steel, Aluminum, but carbon is now the material of choice, the lay-up making it much easier to "taylor" properties needed/wanted in a certain area. The same is no doubt true of aircraft and the J-31 could have a very high carbon fiber content.
- Status