Inferior workmanship could be a reason. Whereas the J-20 is CAC's most-cherished baby, the FC-31 is more of a side project for SAC. As long as it got airborne, I think SAC was satisfied with what is practically a flying export advertisement.
Shenyang FC-31 / J-31 Fighter Demonstrator
- Thread starter RedSky
- Start date
- Status
Until we can confirm the reliability of the source, I think we should maintain some degree of skepticism. This sounds unbelievable, even given SAC’s reputation.
SinoSoldier
Colonel
The source of my astonishment and, to some extent, disbelief, is the fact that these RCS and quality issues were discovered AFTER a second prototype had already been designed and built. Unless SAC went back to the drawing board and redesigned the V2.0 to the aircraft we know today, something just doesn't add up here.
Yes, I'm definitely classing this as a "to be verified" development.
Very strange if true, especially about the RCS.
1. They should have known reasonably well about the RCS with EM simulation alone.
2. How could a design with internal weapons bay (FC-31) has a higher RCS than another with external hardpoints (J-10C)?
3. They should also have known reasonably well about the structural strength with FEM simulation alone.
SAC couldn't be this incompetent, right? Let's wait and see........
1. They should have known reasonably well about the RCS with EM simulation alone.
2. How could a design with internal weapons bay (FC-31) has a higher RCS than another with external hardpoints (J-10C)?
3. They should also have known reasonably well about the structural strength with FEM simulation alone.
SAC couldn't be this incompetent, right? Let's wait and see........
If true, that is absolutely pathetic and should be unacceptable to both PLAAF and any potential customers. RCS is a particular disappointment if higher than even a J-10C (assuming totally clean). Adds fuel to those claiming China can't build real stealth fighters even in the J-20.
V2 did have pretty awful surface worksmanship and detail but shouldn't have been higher than J-10C.
If its true, I doubt the new improved design JXY by SAC will win, Naval J20 would be then confirmed.
Probably an exaggeration. I find it hard to believe this story because they claim the RCS is greater than J-10C. Even a clean J-10C doesn't have shaping optimised for stealth. At the very least (assuming materials are same between the two), J-31 has shaping that's supposedly more conducive to reducing RCS. It also has more of less equal worksmanship. Considering this, how could the J-31 have higher RCS than a 4th gen fighter unless they intentionally sabotaged the design and material selection.
Assuming it is true, there is no chance it will win any tenders. Nor should a sub par product be given any attention. If proven true, it would seem that there is some high accountability in Chinese procurement procedures which would likely indicate that J-20 is indeed quite the satisfactory product, as the recent literature is suggesting. Since the source of claim is unknown and unsubstantiated, don't see good reason to believe it until more evidence comes out.
Assuming it is true, there is no chance it will win any tenders. Nor should a sub par product be given any attention. If proven true, it would seem that there is some high accountability in Chinese procurement procedures which would likely indicate that J-20 is indeed quite the satisfactory product, as the recent literature is suggesting. Since the source of claim is unknown and unsubstantiated, don't see good reason to believe it until more evidence comes out.
Hyperwarp
Captain
SinoSoldier
Colonel
It seems like J-XY has already settled on a FC-31 based design. Which is another reason I have my doubts, but the best thing is to wait and see.
- Status