Shenyang FC-31 / J-31 Fighter Demonstrator

There are 3 possibilities:

1. J-31 is severely deficient in some way, and the deficiency can not be rectified in any economic or timely manner. There is no evidence it is not severely deficient, so this possibility can't be excluded.

2. j-31 is not technical deficient per se, and PLAAF has a requirement for a lower end stealth fighter, but also already has a different low end stealth fighter project in progress that is superior to j-31, and see no need to fund a bridge design that complicates logistics.

2. J-31 is adaquate, but PLAAF has no requirement for a low end stealth fighter. PLAAF may not envision a numerically very large stealthy force composition that would require a hi-lo mix. It may see a numerically leaner force of all J-20s as its main stealth inventory

@Richard Santos Out of those three possible reasons that you gave, I think number three is the most likely one or maybe a combination of number one and three.

The FC-31 is probably decent enough to at least be part of a hi-lo mix for the PLAAF, but like you said the PLAAF probably has no requirement for the aircraft when they have so many new 4th generation fighters/multi-role aircraft currently in development and/or service such as the J-10B/C, J-11D, J-16, any potential hi-lo mix would involve the aforementioned aircraft along side the J-20.

Possible deficiencies could be that the FC-31 doesn't have a large enough payload, and a limited combat radius, as well as no apparent powerful enough engines to remedy this problem.

Good arguments indeed, but even if the PLAAF / PLANAF decides to go for a only J-20-sealthy fleet, it still has many J-7s and even more J-8s to replace. So even if the majority might in the end be replaced by a mix of J-10B/Cs and J-16s I don't think they will last for long.

By the way this recent hype about a Chinese 6. generation design is more a wet-dream than reality esp. in the short to mid term. So IMO a medium weight stealthy design about the size of the FC-31 is still more than required.

Just my 2 cents.
Deino

Richard Santos said:

There are 3 possibilities:

1. J-31 is severely deficient in some way, and the deficiency can not be rectified in any economic or timely manner. There is no evidence it is not severely deficient, so this possibility can't be excluded.

2. j-31 is not technical deficient per se, and PLAAF has a requirement for a lower end stealth fighter, but also already has a different low end stealth fighter project in progress that is superior to j-31, and see no need to fund a bridge design that complicates logistics.

2. J-31 is adaquate, but PLAAF has no requirement for a low end stealth fighter. PLAAF may not envision a numerically very large stealthy force composition that would require a hi-lo mix. It may see a numerically leaner force of all J-20s as its main stealth inventory

Click to expand...

When speaking on another thread about why the J-31 has not been considered or the carrier role, I indicated something similar

1. Either there is something wrong with the aircraft which we are unaware of, or.
2. Their are high level and high stakes internal politics going on behind the scenes.

There's a lot more to this story than we know.

Jeff Head said:

When speaking on another thread about why the J-31 has not been considered or the carrier role, I indicated something similar

1. Either there is something wrong with the aircraft which we are unaware of, or.
2. Their are high level and high stakes internal politics going on behind the scenes.

There's a lot more to this story than we know.

Click to expand...

There doesn't necessarily have to be something wrong with it. The FC-31 might simply be not good enough to justify funding. Like the YF-23 or X-32; there weren't anything wrong with them, they just weren't good enough to beat the competition.

jobjed said:

....; there weren't anything wrong with them, they just weren't good enough to beat the competition.

Click to expand...

Good pint but esp. interesting since it then rises the question: What exactly is this "better one" that won the competition ??

IMO it is surely NOT the J-20 since both play in quite different leagues; the J-20 a high-hind, heavy-weight while the FC-31 clearly a level below - at least in weight and range/weapons-load - since at least in the long-term a "lower-end" complementary type to the J-20 would be needed.

The same is IMO for the PLANAF: a possible naval J-20 might replace the J-15, but also here a second smaller & lighter type is necessary ..

So what is this "better one" ?

Deino

Deino said:

Good pint but esp. interesting since it then rises the question: What exactly is this "better one" that won the competition ??

IMO it is surely NOT the J-20 since both play in quite different leagues; the J-20 a high-hind, heavy-weight while the FC-31 clearly a level below - at least in weight and range/weapons-load - since at least in the long-term a "lower-end" complementary type to the J-20 would be needed.

The same is IMO for the PLANAF: a possible naval J-20 might replace the J-15, but also here a second smaller & lighter type is necessary ..

So what is this "better one" ?

Deino

Click to expand...

I remember a few months ago there was a piece of news about a lightweight fighter being developed by CAC using a single WS-15, delta-canard, and 2 x MRAAM capacity. That might be the 'low' fighter for which the PLAAF has opted.

Deino said:

Good arguments indeed, but even if the PLAAF / PLANAF decides to go for a only J-20-sealthy fleet, it still has many J-7s and even more J-8s to replace. So even if the majority might in the end be replaced by a mix of J-10B/Cs and J-16s I don't think they will last for long.

By the way this recent hype about a Chinese 6. generation design is more a wet-dream than reality esp. in the short to mid term. So IMO a medium weight stealthy design about the size of the FC-31 is still more than required.

Just my 2 cents.
Deino

Click to expand...

The current generation of j-10 and j-16s will probably remain serviceable until mid 2030s. By that time a 6th generation successor may well be much more than a wet dream. If j-31 goes into full development mode now, it probably won't be reach service in large numbers until mid 2020s. So j-31 may well be considered temporally out of step with the generational rotation of Chinese tactical airforce. It may not be seen as justified because It won't bring significant enough increase to the capabilities of Chinese airforce for long enough period compare to the alternative before itself becomes obsolescent.

delft said:

It has been done as in carrier versions of Flankers, Mig-29, Rafale and many more through the "ages", but many carrier fighters had no land based counterparts, think of F8 Crusader, F3D Skyray, F-14 Tomcat and many other American and some British carrier aircraft. The F-4 Phantom II was originally a carrier aircraft from which an Air Force branch of many members was derived.

Click to expand...

Technically, the Iranian Tomcat is completely land-based.

jobjed said:

There doesn't necessarily have to be something wrong with it. The FC-31 might simply be not good enough to justify funding. Like the YF-23 or X-32; there weren't anything wrong with them, they just weren't good enough to beat the competition.

Click to expand...

As I understand it, there was nt clearly announced or established competition between them.

They fit differing roles.

With the YF-23 vs YF-22 competition, there was a clear, several years long competition and one was chosen over the other. So, the fat that one did not beat out the other indicates that there were issues. But the YF-23 could easily have been modified for other roles, particularly when the competition made clear what areas it excelled in.

We do not know any such details here...except that the PRC has had the aircraft out there for some years and it apparently has been rejected by the PLAAF and the PLAN, and has not garnered the serious interest of another nation.

Therefore, I believe it either has deficiencies we are not aware of, and which have not been published but may well have not been adequately addressed in the intervening time, or there is internal politics going on at a level we will never hear of.

ut that is just my own opinion based on the little evidence we have.

We do know this...numerous J-20 have been built and it has had a lot of testing with continual improvement through the testing phase...and it apparently has now been turned over tho the PLAAF for official testing of a LRIP aircraft.

That tells a very lear stroy, and nothing similar has occurred with the J-31. The absence of those developments over the intervening time also tells a story.