Shenyang FC-31 / J-31 Fighter Demonstrator

t2contra said:

@vesicles, that is not what he meant.

But going by his reasoing, anyone here can beat Mohammad Ali or Alexander the Great.

Click to expand...

Vesicles is correct about the main points I made vis-a-vis the J-31, and they are:

1. We don't actually know just how "5th Gen" the J-31 is. Beyond some low observable features, what else? And just how LO is the J-31? We public don't know
   
2. Unlike the J-20, the J-31 isn't fully supported by Beijing, so funding is iffy
3. The J-31 has only two demo models that have taken to the sky, nothing beyond that. Ergo it could be descrobed as "vaperware" at this point in time
4. The PLAAF and PLANAF have thus far shown little interest in the plane, casting doubt on its success
5. No foreign country has offered to share the cost and co-develop the plane
   
6. No foreign country has publicly committed to purchasing the J-31, casting doubt on its market demand

Finally, I used an obsolete fighter plane, the J-7/F-7, as illustration to show one can't beat something with nothing. At this point, the J-31 is little more than flying models.

Blackstone said:

Vesicles is correct about the main points I made vis-a-vis the J-31, and they are:

1. We don't actually know just how "5th Gen" the J-31 is. Beyond some low observable features, what else? And just how LO is the J-31? We public don't know
   
2. Unlike the J-20, the J-31 isn't fully supported by Beijing, so funding is iffy
3. The J-31 has only two demo models that have taken to the sky, nothing beyond that. Ergo it could be descrobed as "vaperware" at this point in time
4. The PLAAF and PLANAF have thus far shown little interest in the plane, casting doubt on its success
5. No foreign country has offered to share the cost and co-develop the plane
   
6. No foreign country has publicly committed to purchasing the J-31, casting doubt on its market demand

Click to expand...

You did not mention those points.

Finally, I used an obsolete fighter plane, the J-7/F-7, as illustration to show one can't beat something with nothing. At this point, the J-31 is little more than flying models.

Click to expand...

Bad analogy.

t2contra said:

You did not mention those points.



Bad analogy.

Click to expand...

He actually did mention those points but those are stupid points with a broken analogy. No one here is saying that there is certainty that J-31 will be inducted; as a matter of fact, I'm leaning pretty heavily towards not. But, everyone here is saying that IF inducted, it would obviously, without any point in comparison, be far superior to an aircraft like the J-7. However, because we did not walk him through each word (which I actually did, but he didn't read it cus he didn't like the tone I use to talk to people whose stupidity could only be rivaled by thier stubborness) and he has no natural common sense to fill in the blanks, Blackstone is perpetually stuck on the part where it is not yet inducted so we have to assume that it doesn't exist and cannot use any common sense to deduce even the most basic information such as a 5th gen aircraft design should be superior to a 3rd gen. Because, once again, a prototype is "nothing," and if he ran out into the landing strip and a J-31 touching down crushed him like an insect, he would say that he was killed by nothing because you need to be inducted to be something. Get it? LOL

And to prove it, Blackstone will likely continue this conversation by providing more evidence for why the J-31 may not enter service or what tests we've not seen it do yet, thus missing the point of the argument over and over again until everyone can no longer be bothered to try to explain it to him further at which point he will think that he has had the last word and thus won everyone over with his "reason" and "evidence."

Agreed ... and therefore is the best to stop this useless debate and hope for new images.

Because there was some discussion of why US carriers are so big, here is a very informative lecture about why the Ford class was designed the way it is:
edit: it begins shortly after the 2 min mark.

Yes, I remember that video. The take-home message is that making the carrier smaller doesn't save much money but does reduce sortie rate significantly. And then, towards the end of the video, he talks about how sortie rate is becoming less important anyway. In short it doesn't do much to establish the idea that 100,000 tons (rather than e.g. 85,000 tons or 120,000 tons) is some ideal figure even for USN, let alone China which has different roles and ambitions for its carriers.

There is an insane rumor that Saudi Arabia has inquired about the FC-31's specifications and could possibly even co-produce it. Has anyone heard similar (tall) tales?

SinoSoldier said:

There is an insane rumor that Saudi Arabia has inquired about the FC-31's specifications and could possibly even co-produce it. Has anyone heard similar (tall) tales?

Click to expand...

We know that FC-31 has received foreign interest.

It wouldn't be a surprise to me if Saudi Arabia had inquired about it -- inquiring is merely an expression of interest. Not exactly a tall tale.

Bltizo said:

We know that FC-31 has received foreign interest.

It wouldn't be a surprise to me if Saudi Arabia had inquired about it -- inquiring is merely an expression of interest. Not exactly a tall tale.

Click to expand...

A formal inquiry is usually a step beyond peripheral interest. It signals that the KSA has done prep work on comparing different platforms and outlining its needs when it comes to air platforms.