The bend just seems too great for a low viscosity fluid like air when you consider the flow speed. Could be just me
Shenyang FC-31 / J-31 Fighter Demonstrator
- Thread starter RedSky
- Start date
- Status
We don't know it. Somebody told us. We'll wait and perhaps see.
We're told all of those things you said, and it's sounding similar like how people all believed J-XX was a canard delta that was being funded by the PLAAF.
It's not impossible for SAC to be funding this project "themselves" -- they might have some people in the government and PLAAF funding going to it as R&D but the sound of things suggest this project is one which the PLAAF has no interest in as of yet.
AssassinsMace
Lieutenant General
Well anything less than something new, SAC fails getting its biggest monkey off its back. I like the "legion of losers" label. Sounds like a movie plot.
airsuperiority
Captain
Why a no-no?
--
anyway here are the rest of the pictures. Pretty consistent differences from the T-50, but meh I dunno..
For some reason, I'd think here at SDF, we can come up with a more original design that actually works than what SAC does..
Why a no-no?
--
anyway here are the rest of the pictures. Pretty consistent differences from the T-50, but meh I dunno..
Looks like a T-50 with its belly flattened out...
Did they really have to imitate the paintwork... really?
As hyperwarp showed and as I said before, these were drawings of the t-50 before it first flew, so it's not sac's 5th gen. The resemblance to t-50 is because it IS the t-50
Schumacher
Senior Member
Why would there be overlap ? J20 is air superiority, SAC's J-XX is multi-role.
JH-7B may have some stealth but if it's still derived from the old strike JH-7, then it should be somewhere, in terms of generation, between, J20, SAC-JXX and the J16/J11BHS which don't seem to have any stealth and derived from a heavy fighter.
So there are obvious differences in roles/capabilities of these jets.
If you look at USAF which have F22, if they can fix it, F35, F15E, F16s/15s/18s coexisting, PLAAF with J20, J-XX, JH7-B, J10B, J16/J11BHS, J15 is not too much at all especially considering PLAAF don't share USAF's enthusiasm for common services platform like F35.
Technically all modern day fighters are "multirole" to some extent or another. In the case of the J-20, multirole capabilities probably lean more towards air superiority, interdictor/interceptor, and tactical strike, leaving an opening for a more general strike/attack/fighter-bomber plane. The question is with a plane like the J-20, will they be better off with a generalist (J-16, 19 etc) or would they be better off with something a bit more specialized in the other way, like a JH-7B.
The reason why this is significant is because running multiple platforms is expensive in terms of maintenance and supply. You only have a situation like the US because 1) You have two separate branches of the military with different requirements in their planes (The F-35 is a good example of how even with different branch requirements the costs are a problem), and 2) you're watching an air force in transition and phasing out legacy fighters. This is vastly different than a discussion about introducing both a J-16/19 and a JH-7B, where both are newly being introduced at the same time, guaranteeing twice the maintenance burden for half the number of each plane type. Unless there is a significant advantage to having both (for example, one being specialized for carriers), it seems unlikely from a logistics and operations point of view.
The PLAAF may not have an enthusiasm for common service platforms, but keep in mind the USAF and USN didn't either, and had to be strongarmed by the ballooning costs of increasingly advanced air frames.
PLAAF is the boss,I don't buy the rumor that the SAC tried to collect the R&D money by its own connection in the AVIC since if the boss won't buy its product,it's useless to spend money and energy on such a project.And on the contrary,I believe that the SAC J-XX project has a high priority in the PLAAF's future plan if it's not more important than the J-20 due to the reasons:
1.The PLAAF intended to buid a both defensive and offensive force(by recent PLAAF publictions),the SAC J-XX fighter/bomber will be the backbone to project the air to ground firepower in an offensive mission.
2.If the SAC J-XX is cheaper enough(at least it seems so from current leaked information) than the J-20,mostlikely the PLAAF will buy more of it than the J-20.That means the PLAAF will form a high/low combination by the J-20/SAC J-XX.
3.I can smell the distrust from the PLAAF to the CAC.The SAC J-XX has a role to be the plan B that if the J-20 failed,the PLAAF still has another project to ensure the sucess.
Overall,the SAC J-XX services the PLAAF's future offensive plan and it's important to the PLAAF,the SAC project could not to be a self-funded one.It's important,if not more important than the J-20.
- Status