Again, the PLAAF already sources many different types of engines for different planes. Flankers fly on WS-10s while J-10s fly on AL-31s. JH-7s use the WS-9. Etc etc. Clearly sourcing engines is not something prohibitive to the PLAAF’s operations.
Shenyang FC-31 / J-31 Fighter Demonstrator
- Thread starter RedSky
- Start date
- Status
China needs a carrier-based stealth fighter, or else it's meaningless to even build aircraft carriers. J-20 looks too big for carrier operations, esp too heavy for non-catapulted CATOBAR carriers. FC-31 must be introduced as J-31 immediately, just do it!
Equation
Lieutenant General
No, "everyone" does not realize that; you have "everyone" confused with yourself. We realize that the US military being 10,000 miles away from home and in Asia has been and remains the largest provocation in the region.
If Trump's response is strong, then so is Obama's; if Obama's response was weak, then so is Trump's, because they're doing the exact same thing sailing ships in circles to try to look like they're doing something and they've achieved the exact same result of China continuing to build and militarize its own islands. This isn't your private imagination land where everything done by the president you have an irrational liking for is strong/respectable and everything done by the president who you have an irrational dislike towards is weak/incompetent even though they did the same things and achieved the same results.
plawolf
Lieutenant General
Just regurgitating what the western media endlessly repeat on the subject (see how little the likes of CNN and Fox differ on foreign reporting compared to their usually diametrically opposit positions on domestic policy should be settle off alarm bells in your head that western media reporting is nowhere near as ‘free and independent’ on foreign affairs as you would think) does not make it true.
Western reporting is blantantly biased and suffers from amazingly similar selective memory and false logic.
China was not the ones to start seizing islands in the SCS. It’s claims are the only ones based on discovery - the only true non-aggressive way a nation could legitimately gain territory. All the other claimants have zero historical claims and all of their claims are based entirely on the fact that they have recently seized islands, sometimes removing historical Chinese markers to do so.
Chinese island building was a result of all the lawless land grabbing by the others, which had been happening for decades but kicked into high gear after Obama and Hillary jumped in to purposely sabotage Chinese efforts to reach a negotiated settlement with the other claimants on matter.
Far from destabilising the region as the western media groundlessly endlessly drones on about, if you compare and contrast the level of conflict in the region before and after the Chinese built those islands, you will see that while there were a string of clashes between ships of all the different claimants, including incidents where coast guard ships (never from China) have opened fire on civilian ships with fatalities; since China has built those islands, there have been zero reported clashes between the claimants, with the only source of conflict the continuing US led foreign military gunboat diplomaticy known as FONOPs.
It is pure propaganda warfare to encourage your allies and friends to slap China in the face first, and they paint the Chinese reaction to that as aggression and provocation.
But all of those is off topic. So I will not say any more on the topic here.
Can't talk reason with those who want to be selective about how they look at things. US presence around the world is to keep the peace don't you know? Ditto with its illegal and immoral invasions.
Russia is not working with China on any military engines. This is pretty much undisputed. Russia DOES supply Chinese airforce fighters with engines. AL-31 for J-10s because WS-10 production rates are not ideal and can so far only keep up with flanker production which has really intensified with the addition of J-15 and J-16 sub-variants. Manufacturing engineering is the more difficult problem to solve and the materials science and fabrication techniques may not be matured or developed enough to allow for mass production like they want. On top of this, PLAAF may just not trust WS-10 enough yet for their single engined J-10. Whether this mistrust is just extra caution (risk of losing valuable fighter and pilot) or otherwise is up for speculation. RD-93 are for Pakistan's JF-17s and Su-35s came with AL-41. There are no cooperations between the two because there is no trust. Russians think their IZD xx for Su-57 will be the bee's knees. China probably really wants to take a good look at it but of course the Russians are protective. China's got a record of copying good ideas. WS-15 is their own project and we'll see how well that turns out. For now WS-10 variants are providing about as much thrust as 117 and approaches F119 in thrust. Not western level of reliability, overhaul schedule, thermo efficiency etc.
If PLAAF orders J-31, hopefully we will start seeing more prototypes being tested and photographed like a public spectacle. I'd like to see SAC improve the worksmanship on the surfaces. Get WS-19 on it and then offer it at attractive prices to Pak, Iran, Turkey, and anyone else interested but not directly aligned with USA. The more pressure USA puts on China's head, the more China should respond by assisting nations unfriendly to the USA. If war is actually coming, hedge everything by giving Iran nuclear assistance and destabilise the American order of the world as much as possible. All within the capabilities of China.
Russia is not working with China on any military engines. This is pretty much undisputed. Russia DOES supply Chinese airforce fighters with engines. AL-31 for J-10s because WS-10 production rates are not ideal and can so far only keep up with flanker production which has really intensified with the addition of J-15 and J-16 sub-variants. Manufacturing engineering is the more difficult problem to solve and the materials science and fabrication techniques may not be matured or developed enough to allow for mass production like they want. On top of this, PLAAF may just not trust WS-10 enough yet for their single engined J-10. Whether this mistrust is just extra caution (risk of losing valuable fighter and pilot) or otherwise is up for speculation. RD-93 are for Pakistan's JF-17s and Su-35s came with AL-41. There are no cooperations between the two because there is no trust. Russians think their IZD xx for Su-57 will be the bee's knees. China probably really wants to take a good look at it but of course the Russians are protective. China's got a record of copying good ideas. WS-15 is their own project and we'll see how well that turns out. For now WS-10 variants are providing about as much thrust as 117 and approaches F119 in thrust. Not western level of reliability, overhaul schedule, thermo efficiency etc.
If PLAAF orders J-31, hopefully we will start seeing more prototypes being tested and photographed like a public spectacle. I'd like to see SAC improve the worksmanship on the surfaces. Get WS-19 on it and then offer it at attractive prices to Pak, Iran, Turkey, and anyone else interested but not directly aligned with USA. The more pressure USA puts on China's head, the more China should respond by assisting nations unfriendly to the USA. If war is actually coming, hedge everything by giving Iran nuclear assistance and destabilise the American order of the world as much as possible. All within the capabilities of China.
SinoSoldier
Colonel
In light of Dragon Boat Festival, a new photo of the FC-31 v2.0 (not sure if flight is recent though):
P.S. Back in January 2018, the user "DS大彪" made a post implying that there are four variants of the FC-31 in total: a carrier-based variant, a land-based naval variant, an air force variant, and an export variant. Link here:
P.S. Back in January 2018, the user "DS大彪" made a post implying that there are four variants of the FC-31 in total: a carrier-based variant, a land-based naval variant, an air force variant, and an export variant. Link here:
This variant makes absolutely zero sense.
Maybe the land based naval variant is the same as the air force variant with sensors optimised for naval warfare especially littoral. Same electronics as carrier type but without the landing demands.
Skywatcher
Captain
Land based variant could be optimized for strike missions.
- Status