Shenyang FC-31 / J-31 Fighter Demonstrator

jobjed said:

Not really, the translation for his post is something like: "f*ck me, the PLAAF is also supposedly.... those horrid SACers".

And then in the comments he says "if true, it must be an SACer pulling strings to pressure the PLAAF" followed by a doge.

All in all, he's being strongly sarcastic.

Click to expand...

Thanks, I appreciate the translation.

To be honest I didn't expect the PLAAF to place any orders (assuming that this is true) despite having a lot of faith in the PLAN doing so. I wouldn't be surprised if someone was pulling some strings behind the scenes but I also have a feeling that the decision may have had something to do with keeping SAC afloat and having a "backup" aircraft in case the J-20 ran into production bottlenecks or problems.

SinoSoldier said:

Thanks, I appreciate the translation.

To be honest I didn't expect the PLAAF to place any orders (assuming that this is true) despite having a lot of faith in the PLAN doing so. I wouldn't be surprised if someone was pulling some strings behind the scenes but I also have a feeling that the decision may have had something to do with keeping SAC afloat and having a "backup" aircraft in case the J-20 ran into production bottlenecks or problems.

Click to expand...

Or, alternatively, the PLAAF decided that they needed a larger fleet of stealth fighters after performing some exercises with the J-20.

latenlazy said:

Or, alternatively, the PLAAF decided that they needed a larger fleet of stealth fighters after performing some exercises with the J-20.

Click to expand...

Perhaps, but that role would be better filled by a single-engined medium/light-weight fighter centered around the WS-15 or WS-10X, in terms of logistics.

SinoSoldier said:

Perhaps, but that role would be better filled by a single-engined medium/light-weight fighter centered around the WS-15 or WS-10X, in terms of logistics.

Click to expand...

IMO I don't think so ... I'm always in the opinion, that a proper developed FC-321 with a decent engine could be what the F-35 was always meant to be. So that a medium sized twin engined FC-31 alias J-21 or J-31 would be a better choice than a smaller single engined one.

SinoSoldier said:

Perhaps, but that role would be better filled by a single-engined medium/light-weight fighter centered around the WS-15 or WS-10X, in terms of logistics.

Click to expand...

1) Why spend extra effort and time developing yet another design?
2) The PLAAF already has to handle logistics for multiple types of engines. Not sure including a medium thrust engine in that mix is a problem.

latenlazy said:

Or, alternatively, the PLAAF decided that they needed a larger fleet of stealth fighters after performing some exercises with the J-20.

Click to expand...

Then they could just order more J-20s. If they wanted to diversify their inventory of stealth fighters, they could have done this but it does not guarantee similar levels of satisfaction seeing as the product is different to J-20 in many ways. So to order J-31 because they are satisfied with J-20 does not necessarily make sense. If this is true, they could have done it because they have a specific requirement to fill such as a cheaper to operate stealth fighter that sacrifices some range for versatility and faster production rates (speculating).

ougoah said:

Then they could just order more J-20s. If they wanted to diversify their inventory of stealth fighters, they could have done this but it does not guarantee similar levels of satisfaction seeing as the product is different to J-20 in many ways. So to order J-31 because they are satisfied with J-20 does not necessarily make sense. If this is true, they could have done it because they have a specific requirement to fill such as a cheaper to operate stealth fighter that sacrifices some range for versatility and faster production rates (speculating).

Click to expand...

Cost management is a very big part of force planning.

Indeed. This could explain why they are committing to two platforms with no common engines. J-31 is probably plenty good enough for all potential conflicts except against the US. Developing the fighter could also mean potential export profits.

ougoah said:

Indeed. This could explain why they are committing to two platforms with no common engines. J-31 is probably plenty good enough for all potential conflicts except against the US. Developing the fighter could also mean potential export profits.

Click to expand...

If you could get 125 J-31s for the same cost as 100 J-20s, it may just be that even if each individual J-31 is inferior to a J-20 125 J-31s presents a superior force compared to 100 J-20s. This may be particularly true in the context of network centric warfare, where each additional node may add more capability than what that node brings alone. I suspect the PLAAF originally had this in mind with their 4.5 generation fighters playing the role of mainstay network multipliers to counteract other stealth fighters, but with the exercises they’re now conducting with the J-20 they might have found that there’s just no getting around the necessity of having your mainstay also be stealth fighters when fighting other stealth fighters operating in a network.

It isn't just a number game, nor is it just the cost per aircraft, or what value for money that sets apart the procurement of J-31 for China. I think J-31s, if applied in the correct strategic terms by China, is what will make a difference.

Whether anyone agrees or doesn't, I believe China's military posturing is predominantly defensive in nature. The offensive capability build-up, is born out of its defensive nature. What separates a naturally occurring offensive/aggressive posture of any military, from that of a defensive one. Is that it's primary role is the defence of the homeland. You can look at Russia or China, and you can see a mere handful or less, military bases outside of its territory. That signifies the posture which the respective countries military has. Whereas America, well it has more than 300 military bases around the world. Or Britain for that matter, has entire territories outside of its homeland (Diego Garcia, Falklands, Gibraltar) thousands of miles away.

So J-31s, for China will only make a difference when China applies the appropriate training, tech evolutionary modifications, tactical deployments, network links between the various strategic elements of the military. Carrierborne or not, J-31s will allow China a greater flexibility in a constantly changing dynamics of the geo-political and military world.

J-31s and J-20s will experience a great deal of upgrades and modifications in the coming years. Making them more lethal, agile and potent than they already are. In my opinion, China ought to persevere with further development of J-31s and should not only induct these aircraft for the Navy, but also the air force.