Shenyang FC-31 / J-31 Fighter Demonstrator

Status
Not open for further replies.
N

nemo

Junior Member
I think this is probably exportable stealthy fighter, with no particular emphasis on airframe performance -- like F-35.
I would guess Shenyang license DSI side intake from Chengdu, and put in J-15 flight control system they are developing. The shaping the got from their design that lost to J-20. The rest of the component is taken from existing planes or planes under development.
In another word -- cheap.
Since the main selling point of this is stealth, airframe performance need not be emphasized -- as long as it is good enough. Even if this is equipped with only WS-13, this will sell like hotcakes.
I would not be surprised if Shengyang fund this on their own or in parts -- they are trying to turn the table on Chengdu.
 
S

Schumacher

Senior Member
Quickie said:
Assuming the J-21 is built for PLANAF, with carrier operation in mind, it's logical they would proceed with building a larger fighter rather than a medium sized one since a larger carrier fighter would better suit the requirement of better range and payload compared to a medium sized fighter.
Click to expand...

Yup, J21 may or may not go on carriers but there will be another design for PLAN carriers.
PLAN demands a heavy twin engined fighter and they'll get one.
 
SinoSoldier

SinoSoldier

Colonel
Quickie said:
Assuming the J-21 is built for PLANAF, with carrier operation in mind, it's logical they would proceed with building a larger fighter rather than a medium sized one since a larger carrier fighter would better suit the requirement of better range and payload compared to a medium sized fighter.
Click to expand...

So far such ships are able to carry a limited amount of fighters due to size.

---------- Post added at 05:07 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:06 PM ----------
nemo said:
I think this is probably exportable stealthy fighter, with no particular emphasis on airframe performance -- like F-35.
I would guess Shenyang license DSI side intake from Chengdu, and put in J-15 flight control system they are developing. The shaping the got from their design that lost to J-20. The rest of the component is taken from existing planes or planes under development.
In another word -- cheap.
Since the main selling point of this is stealth, airframe performance need not be emphasized -- as long as it is good enough. Even if this is equipped with only WS-13, this will sell like hotcakes.
I would not be surprised if Shengyang fund this on their own or in parts -- they are trying to turn the table on Chengdu.
Click to expand...

To be honest, I think the new fighter would be modified according to customers' requests. I have no doubt the domestic variant will be much more powerful than what is offered for export.

---------- Post added at 05:11 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:07 PM ----------

PLA carrier fighter bid

I'm not saying any of them will be on a carrier, but if we take a look at the options:

J-20
Strengths would be good range and payload
Weakness would be its size

SAC fighter
Strengths would be its size
Weakness might be its engines and its range

Single engine J-20 from 611
Strengths would be its size
Weaknesses would be its single engine and payload

There is also a possibility of the JH-7B slated for navy ops
 
I

i.e.

Senior Member
s002wjh said:
in that case whatever the US wipp out in their R&D is gonna be double superior than SAC ;)
Click to expand...

JSF suffers from requirement overload.

SAC doesn't have that problem.

If it is an internal developement then they can size it to target whatever most profitable segement.

PLAAF can level the requirements later. and SAC can modify accordingly.

but PLAN/PLAAF hasn't had the habit of leveling un-realistic and conflicting requirements lately.
 
S

s002wjh

Junior Member
i.e. said:
JSF suffers from requirement overload.

SAC doesn't have that problem.

If it is an internal developement then they can size it to target whatever most profitable segement.

PLAAF can level the requirements later. and SAC can modify accordingly.

but PLAN/PLAAF hasn't had the habit of leveling un-realistic and conflicting requirements lately.
Click to expand...

if you can't recognize sarcism then....

SAC is not even hatch yet. JSF is already here. i could say the samething for some secret US R&D project etc.
 
Blitzo

Blitzo

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Registered Member
^ Not quite a fair assessment. That would be like saying we should compare Su-27 to F-22 rather than the F-15. Or that J-20 and T-50 should be compared to a future USAF/N fighter.

Comparison only makes some sense when you're comparing planes of similar generations and weight classes, not the time in which they're exactly fielded or first flown.

And if SAC does unveil their new fighter sometime this year there's all the chance in the world it can get into service before 2020, which is not that off from when some F-35 teams will get their own planes.
 
I

i.e.

Senior Member
s002wjh said:
if you can't recognize sarcism then....

SAC is not even hatch yet. JSF is already here. i could say the samething for some secret US R&D project etc.
Click to expand...

I am comparing against developement process. not aircraft generation.

The argument is still valid if counter example is not JSF but let's say Messerschmitt Me 110. or the RLM's heavy bomber project. which various designs were doomed by the requirement for dive bombing!
 
S

Speeder

Junior Member
If SAC can make it (being bi-motor, multirole, supercruise, internal weapon bay, EO DAS, VLO, huge AESA), then wouldn't that make India's new $10b-$20b Rafale obsolete?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top