Shenyang FC-31 / J-31 Fighter Demonstrator

Status
Not open for further replies.
tphuang

tphuang

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
VIP Professional
Registered Member
SinoSoldier said:
Bad news for the FC-31: the PLAN is leaning towards the J-20 for their next-generation naval fighter. Of course, the final decision has not yet been made, and the recent rumors of additional FC-31 prototypes seem to suggest that at least one customer has purchased it.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
Click to expand...
it seems like they have been leaning that way for a while now. Bad news for SAC all around.
 
SinoSoldier

SinoSoldier

Colonel
tphuang said:
it seems like they have been leaning that way for a while now. Bad news for SAC all around.
Click to expand...

But what for? Both the Russian and US navies are ditching heavyweights (Su-33 & F-14, respectively) for lighter, versatile platforms (MiG-29K & F-18/F-35).

Additionally, we simply don't know whether such rumors are true. A large number of higher-ups are leaning towards the FC-31, including Admiral Yin Zhuo (although we don't know how much influence he has over PLAN procurement).
 
TerraN_EmpirE

TerraN_EmpirE

Tyrant King
SinoSoldier said:
But what for? Both the Russian and US navies are ditching heavyweights (Su-33 & F-14, respectively)
Click to expand...
Correction F14 retired 11 years ago.
for lighter, versatile platforms (MiG-29K & F-18/F-35).
Click to expand...
F/A18E/F
The Move for the Russians I think was more of a practical issue. The Russians originally were offered both the Mig 29K and SU33 at the same time back in the 70s and 80s.
They decided against the Mig in favor of the Su33.
Mig kept the program active in the background, then in 2004 the Indians ordered Mig 29K with the Referbed Russian Carrier. This opened a production line for new Naval capable fighters in Russia. With this The Russians jumped in and bought units.
 
SinoSoldier

SinoSoldier

Colonel
TerraN_EmpirE said:
Correction F14 retired 11 years ago.
F/A18E/F
The Move for the Russians I think was more of a practical issue. The Russians originally were offered both the Mig 29K and SU33 at the same time back in the 70s and 80s.
They decided against the Mig in favor of the Su33.
Mig kept the program active in the background, then in 2004 the Indians ordered Mig 29K with the Referbed Russian Carrier. This opened a production line for new Naval capable fighters in Russia. With this The Russians jumped in and bought units.
Click to expand...

Are you sure? The Chinese once considered purchasing the Su-33, which would've financed Russia's interest in the program, but the Russians refused on the basis that restarting Su-33 production was too much of a hassle. Another factor, of course, was that India's purchase of the MiG-29K allowed the fighter to be procured at far lower costs.

Interestingly, the reason why the Indian Navy chose the MiG-29K over the Su-33 was the former's smaller size and increased capacity to operate aboard limited-sized aircraft carriers.
 
TerraN_EmpirE

TerraN_EmpirE

Tyrant King
Pretty sure, The Russians showed no real interest on their own they only jumped in after the Indians placed orders. despite the Rhetoric The Russian Carrier program has suffered a lot and I highly doubt they would have gotten new fighters had it not been for the Indian order.
Both Mig29 K and what became SU33 started back in the 70's. Mig lost the contract but kept working on it. eventually it paid off.
 
SinoSoldier

SinoSoldier

Colonel
TerraN_EmpirE said:
Pretty sure, The Russians showed no real interest on their own they only jumped in after the Indians placed orders. despite the Rhetoric The Russian Carrier program has suffered a lot and I highly doubt they would have gotten new fighters had it not been for the Indian order.
Both Mig29 K and what became SU33 started back in the 70's. Mig lost the contract but kept working on it. eventually it paid off.
Click to expand...

It's likely that the Russians purchased the 29Ks following India's order, but the MiG-29K's lower servicing cost, flyaway cost, & smaller size likely played a major role in determining the course of Russian Naval Aviation. Such advantages exhibited by the MiG-29K (over the Su-33) are likely applicable to the FC-31 as well.

The point is that all major navies are transitioning (or have transitioned) to lower-weight, versatile platforms, and it's likely that the PLAN would follow suit. Unless CAC has another single-engined carrier-borne design under development, the FC-31 is pretty much the only option that fills that category.
 
Blitzo

Blitzo

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Registered Member
SinoSoldier said:
But what for? Both the Russian and US navies are ditching heavyweights (Su-33 & F-14, respectively) for lighter, versatile platforms (MiG-29K & F-18/F-35).

Additionally, we simply don't know whether such rumors are true. A large number of higher-ups are leaning towards the FC-31, including Admiral Yin Zhuo (although we don't know how much influence he has over PLAN procurement).
Click to expand...

To be fair, the CSBA's recent study about US Naval power have judged that they need a stealthy, long range fighter with high air to air capabilities for the near future, that F-35 and Super Hornets simply cannot do. And the USN of course has goals of replacing the Super Hornet with a new "FA-XX" as well, but that probably won't pan out as a 5th generation fighter and probably won't enter service for more than a decade, however the characteristics of such an aircraft seems to resemble more of a stealthy, large fighter than a medium weight one.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


from page 93:
Counter-air operations will require low observable manned fighters with an unrefueled
combat radius of more than 500 nm. These characteristics will keep refueling aircraft out
of range of enemy air defenses while enabling the fighters to reach and engage bombers in a
dynamic environment inside the enemy’s air defense envelope. In contrast to today’s multi-
mission strike-fighters, such as the F-35C, the design of these aircraft would need to focus
mostly on the fighter mission rather than strike, so that they would have the speed, endur
-ance, maneuverability, and air-to-air sensor capability needed for counter-air operations.
Click to expand...

I think many of the demands facing the USN's carrier airwing of the future will be ones that China's future carriers will face too.

So if the Navy really is leaning towards a J-20 variant rather than FC-31, I would approve of such a decision so long as the J-20 variant is able to carry some sort of stand off strike weapon like JSM.
The range/endurance of a naval J-20 would be the primary benefit over a naval FC-31 imo.
 
SinoSoldier

SinoSoldier

Colonel
Bltizo said:
To be fair, the CSBA's recent study about US Naval power have judged that they need a stealthy, long range fighter with high air to air capabilities for the near future, that F-35 and Super Hornets simply cannot do. And the USN of course has goals of replacing the Super Hornet with a new "FA-XX" as well, but that probably won't pan out as a 5th generation fighter and probably won't enter service for more than a decade, however the characteristics of such an aircraft seems to resemble more of a stealthy, large fighter than a medium weight one.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


from page 93:


I think many of the demands facing the USN's carrier airwing of the future will be ones that China's future carriers will face too.

So if the Navy really is leaning towards a J-20 variant rather than FC-31, I would approve of such a decision so long as the J-20 variant is able to carry some sort of stand off strike weapon like JSM.
The range/endurance of a naval J-20 would be the primary benefit over a naval FC-31 imo.
Click to expand...

That's odd, since the F-35 has a combat radius (unrefueled) of 615 nautical miles for the "C" variant. I'd also argue that its air-to-air sensor capability exceeds that of the F-22 with its larger AESA radar, newer transceivers and software, and overall situational awareness augmented by its EODAS.

The main advantages of the J-20 would be its greater payload (we do not know if it's capable of carrying A2G weaponry) and endurance. The FC-31 has a clear edge in terms of size & weight (and possibly operating costs), allowing China's smaller carriers to retain some tactical flexibility by carrying more aircraft onboard, the value of which I would argue might even offset the J-20's ~800 range advantage.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top