Shenyang FC-31 / J-31 Fighter Demonstrator
- Thread starter RedSky
- Start date
- Status
The J-15 is actually a very fine aircraft, incorporating canards on a conventional aircraft does add to FCS complexity, and Dr. Song remarked that the J-20 FCS was incredibly difficult to get right... recall that the F-22 had several FCS issues resulting in damage and loss of aircraft.. so I wouldn't make to much of this, but with J-20 numbers presently hovering around 20, the FC-31 is going to be necessary for the PLAN in my honest assessment...
I don't think they decided on J-31 (if true) only because J-20 production is currently slow. They could always work towards building up more production facilities around the country for J-20. It's slow at the moment because it only started last year so the facilities and procedures still have some improvements to go through before reaching optimal rates. Sure China is hopelessly outgunned in 5th gen numbers when compared to US + Allies. That doesn't matter quite as much because any actual war will be either very limited or escalate all the way to armageddon. As long as they have significant enough numbers, it does the job. J-31 playing into this doesn't make sense at all. The time and money required to get J-31 production started and matured will be greater than expanding J-20 production. By the time they can get 100 J-31s completed, China could have had 200 J-20s (as an example). Instead of building one or more factories for J-31, they could have used those resources to build one or several more J-20 factories and the manufacturing procedures for J-20 are definitely more matured than J-31's non-existent final production. Therefore your theories are incorrect.
The only reasonable assumptions to make behind such a move by PLAN would be to say that the decision comes either at some consideration for SAC (which again is not all that sensible because all are AVIC) or J-31 has certain attributes that makes it more suitable. It has nothing to do with pure numbers. Although it could have a lot to do with variety. If we assume J-31 is so much simpler, quicker, and cheaper to build than J-20, maybe they can come out with far greater numbers at a faster pace than J-20. Maybe they calculated the overall effectiveness of J-31 to be satisfactory for the numbers expected. Who knows. It certainly isn't as simple as saying two platform therefore more planes duh. Wrong.
China's moves in coming out with cutting edge technologies aimed at destabilising how the west plans for and makes war is the only military instrument they have in effectively defending themselves. Trying to match technologically similar or superior industrial nations allied with a head start was never going to work. Catch up enough to offer decent deterrence and explore these technologies is enough for China, remaining effort is cleverly invested in alternative leap frog technologies.
The only reasonable assumptions to make behind such a move by PLAN would be to say that the decision comes either at some consideration for SAC (which again is not all that sensible because all are AVIC) or J-31 has certain attributes that makes it more suitable. It has nothing to do with pure numbers. Although it could have a lot to do with variety. If we assume J-31 is so much simpler, quicker, and cheaper to build than J-20, maybe they can come out with far greater numbers at a faster pace than J-20. Maybe they calculated the overall effectiveness of J-31 to be satisfactory for the numbers expected. Who knows. It certainly isn't as simple as saying two platform therefore more planes duh. Wrong.
China's moves in coming out with cutting edge technologies aimed at destabilising how the west plans for and makes war is the only military instrument they have in effectively defending themselves. Trying to match technologically similar or superior industrial nations allied with a head start was never going to work. Catch up enough to offer decent deterrence and explore these technologies is enough for China, remaining effort is cleverly invested in alternative leap frog technologies.
Last edited:
Original Source of SCMP from Minnie Chan none the less. Ignore and disregard. Carrier operations are inherently very dangerous and one fatal or even multiple accidents will not put the program "in question" certainly not to the point of abandoning the J-15 when multiple variants are being developed. Insiders indicate that the 5th gen carrier jet is still up in the air. How is SCMP coming up with this stuff.
D
Deleted member 13312
Guest
There is alot of inherent matters that were not touched upon in the article, the first being that the Type 001A is definitely not the final version of the carrier which China is wanting. Moreover, to simply dismiss the added capability that the 003 will bring because the weight of the J15 will negate it anyway ignores the fact that we have no idea how powerful the catapults will be, the F-14 is near equivalent in terms of size,weight and engine power yet I don't see the article making a huge fuzz about it. Plus in terms of power to weight ratio and size the J-15 will not be the one with the worse ratio on the carrier, the expected carrier AWECs plane will almost assure have worse flight performance as it is 1) prop driven and 2) carries a great deal more equipment and crew than the J-15.
Then again this is not the first poorly written article that this website has written regarding PLAN naval aviation. So I would hardly expect better.
If the J-31 is to be inducted into service, it will be for the added stealth capability and most assuredly not weight issues. Size might be an issue but if that is offset with added range and payload it will be a reasonable trade off.
asif iqbal
Lieutenant General
Operating naval aircraft from a ship is a very dangerous business
the best have failed at it
4 x J15 crashes over 5 years isn't a bad rate
Off course its unacceptable but there you go
CV-18 should have naval J31
the best have failed at it
4 x J15 crashes over 5 years isn't a bad rate
Off course its unacceptable but there you go
CV-18 should have naval J31
I know that the high accident rate for J-15 can at least be partially explained by the nature of carrier operations but wasn't there a suggestion years ago about J-15 canard and FCS problems in very rare and specific flight envelopes. The Russians understood the FCS and canard issue a long time ago while working with Su-33 and Su-27M (old Su-35), the claims went on to suggest that one reason the Russians have removed the canards from Su-35S was partly because of this? Can anyone confirm, deny or add detail?
Exactly, this whole article is nonsense, the only legitimate question is what is going on with J-20 production??? I thought that Chengdu had built additional production facilities just to expedite J-20 production, and I'm fairly sure that they have done this! So is J-20 production waiting on supply chain, or finishing touches on facilities, or are resources just being rolled into J-15/J-16 production, as well as building the carrier fleet??
Or as some are suggesting, is Chengdu Navalizing the J-20, preparing for a big reveal with a J-20B or C carrier aircraft?
Or are the waiting for WS-15 development???
Exactly, and even if FC-31/J-31 is rolled into production, the PLANAF is very happy with the J-15, and it will serve alongside the J-31, just as the USN is still buying Super Hornets to serve with the F-35B and F-35C..
These little "gotcha" articles are just teasers, to get people to question whatever in order for an author to build a "following", Twitter and Blog world have allowed practically anybody to write this kind of krap, and make no mistake, that's all it is...
take a legitimate known issue, often with a firm fix in place and hype the krap out of it in order to "look smart" and say "I told you so"......
- Status