Shenyang FC-31 / J-31 Fighter Demonstrator

Status
Not open for further replies.
SinoSoldier

SinoSoldier

Colonel
Dfangsaur said:
Do you have a source on that number? I still question the future of Fc-31 tbh. If it was really a desirable choice, why has there only been two prototypes?
Click to expand...

AVIC supplied the specifications in 2012 and also in 2016.

2016-12-07-Un-premier-J-20-enfin-immatriculé-08.jpg

The decision to go ahead with the FC-31 design for the J-XY allegedly wasn't made until the end of 2017, while funding for a next-generation carrier-borne fighter proposal was just awarded in May 2017. It will take some time before a new prototype would show up, just like how it took several years for the J-20 to show up following design completion.
 
T

Totoro

Major
VIP Professional
1250 km combat radius (under logical assumption they're touting the air to air role as most likely here) is nothing to write home about. LM markets F35 for air to air mission with combat radius of 1400 km, and F35 is far from being a pinnacle of long range aircraft.

Again, for export customers that have small territory to cover, that might be just fine. But for Chinese needs, especially with lack of aerial tankers in mind (which F35 users don't lack), those figures aren't that good. Plus, we don't really have any context to them. More useful would be the ferry range figure, it'd be easier to compare to other planes' ferry ranges. Sadly, no official source has disclosed the ferry range. (LM didn't either for F35, which is telling)

Anyway, I fully expect that if we see a FC-31 descendant in Chinese use, it will be a beefier looking design.
 
O

ougoah

Brigadier
Registered Member
That range is about the same as J-20 though. You're forgetting that China may have much room to cover and protect, but they also have more bases spread throughout the country and more fighters to cover this. It's not a linear comparison of range here. Tankers can be built and bought. Beefier will also mean more expensive, complex, and lower kinematic performance. If the cost is twice as much, may as well buy two times as many to cover the distance. Beefier will also mean money and time spent redesigning. J-20 takes care of PLAAF needs anyway. At most, J-31 will be a navalised stealth fighter.
 
SinoSoldier

SinoSoldier

Colonel
Totoro said:
1250 km combat radius (under logical assumption they're touting the air to air role as most likely here) is nothing to write home about. LM markets F35 for air to air mission with combat radius of 1400 km, and F35 is far from being a pinnacle of long range aircraft.

Again, for export customers that have small territory to cover, that might be just fine. But for Chinese needs, especially with lack of aerial tankers in mind (which F35 users don't lack), those figures aren't that good. Plus, we don't really have any context to them. More useful would be the ferry range figure, it'd be easier to compare to other planes' ferry ranges. Sadly, no official source has disclosed the ferry range. (LM didn't either for F35, which is telling)

Anyway, I fully expect that if we see a FC-31 descendant in Chinese use, it will be a beefier looking design.
Click to expand...

May I see an authoritative source regarding the F-35's 1400 km combat radius?

Keep in mind that these carrier-based fighters are likely to see action far from the Chinese coastline, meaning that the size of China's airspace does not necessarily matter when accounting for the range and combat radius of the fighters. Additionally, and I'd like to stress this point, we simply DO NOT KNOW what the range requirements of the PLANAF are; saying that FC-31 is "deficient" because other aircraft have larger combat radii doesn't cut the argument.
 
Hyperwarp

Hyperwarp

Captain
SinoSoldier said:
May I see an authoritative source regarding the F-35's 1400 km combat radius?

Keep in mind that these carrier-based fighters are likely to see action far from the Chinese coastline, meaning that the size of China's airspace does not necessarily matter when accounting for the range and combat radius of the fighters. Additionally, and I'd like to stress this point, we simply DO NOT KNOW what the range requirements of the PLANAF are; saying that FC-31 is "deficient" because other aircraft have larger combat radii doesn't cut the argument.
Click to expand...

probably refering to this -
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
 
SinoSoldier

SinoSoldier

Colonel
Better translation needed, but it seems that one FC-31 v2.0 prototype was sent for static destruction tests, and the results were quite disappointing:

网友:胡歌1.0电磁信号反射不如10C，静态下2.0正面大约60度圆锥角之外，依然比10C高，任意翼面动作下正面信号强度高于10C。此外胡歌2.0体重严重超标，结构强度不及格。静态破坏试验不到24小时就停止了。
Click to expand...
(
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
)

a014311dly1fqgthpalpdj20u00v2q9r.jpg

Also reported by "angadow" and a few others.
 
J

jobjed

Captain
SinoSoldier said:
Better translation needed, but it seems that one FC-31 v2.0 prototype was sent for static destruction tests, and the results were quite disappointing:

(
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
)

View attachment 46329

Also reported by "angadow" and a few others.
Click to expand...
A lot of things were disappointing, apparently. Apart from frontal 60 degrees aspect, the RCS returns of the FC-31 under perfectly still conditions are actually higher than the J-10C. If any manoeuvring is involved, all-aspect RCS jumps past the J-10C.

The aircraft is also seriously overweight and understrengthed. Structural endurance tests were deemed failed after less than 24 hours.
 
SinoSoldier

SinoSoldier

Colonel
jobjed said:
A lot of things were disappointing, apparently. Apart from frontal 60 degrees aspect, the RCS returns of the FC-31 under perfectly still conditions are actually higher than the J-10C. If any manoeuvring is involved, all-aspect RCS jumps past the J-10C.

The aircraft is also seriously overweight and understrengthed. Structural endurance tests were deemed failed after less than 24 hours.
Click to expand...

Does OP have a credible history of posts? I'm quite astonished that the massive RCS increases were not ironed out during CAD-design phase but rather during static airframe testing, assuming that this claim is true.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top