Shenyang FC-31 / J-31 Fighter Demonstrator

SinoSoldier said:

The AW&ST article sources its info from SCMP and an "unnamed source"; does that sound like a well-researched & knowing piece to you? So far, the most authoritative non-Chinese source on PLA matters is The War Zone (at The Drive) since they actually put in effort to conduct research & sift facts from BS.

I don't think there will ever be an announcement on this matter. Why would they, given that the J-XY will not be an exportable fighter and that all major PLA projects are kept under tight OPSEC?

Click to expand...

I think the J-31/FC-31 appears to be coming along nicely, I am surprised to hear that people think the J-15 has a big problem with its FCS, now its a hot 4+ Generation aircraft, and it does not fly itself aboard the boat? So its not really surprising that as the operational envelope opens up that they are running into physics, trying to fly that big bird down a glideslope, catch a wire and park it on said boat, it ain't easy for anybody... the USN usually makes it look easy, but they are very, very good at what they do....

China is no doubt getting much better at that everyday, but I want to remind people that FCS systems take a lot of trial and error, to engineer, the J-15 has canards that figure into that equation as well...

so if somebody has a source to back up that claim, I'd love to read it.....

Klon said:

It hinges on the source, which remains anonymous. I don't care about the article either way, but the designation used cannot mean what you said. I'm not a fan of the occasional trolling.

Click to expand...

There is no "J-31" designation; anyone who still uses it to refer to the FC-31 has not done their research into this matter.

Air Force Brat said:

I think the J-31/FC-31 appears to be coming along nicely, I am surprised to hear that people think the J-15 has a big problem with its FCS, now its a hot 4+ Generation aircraft, and it does not fly itself aboard the boat? So its not really surprising that as the operational envelope opens up that they are running into physics, trying to fly that big bird down a glideslope, catch a wire and park it on said boat, it ain't easy for anybody... the USN usually makes it look easy, but they are very, very good at what they do....

China is no doubt getting much better at that everyday, but I want to remind people that FCS systems take a lot of trial and error, to engineer, the J-15 has canards that figure into that equation as well...

so if somebody has a source to back up that claim, I'd love to read it.....

Click to expand...

The J-15 stuff is from a poorly received (here and here) SCMP .

That article contains several factual errors. For example China has offered the J-10 as an export product a couple of times in the past including to Argentina. But it also makes a lot of plausible statements. So it is a bit of a mixed bag really. If there are issues with fly-by-wire in the J-15 in the sea environment that would hardly be a new issue. I mean any of us who follow the aviation sector have heard of the issues Airbus had with civilian airliner fly-by-wire over the years in untested atmospheric conditions especially where cross-winds are involved. Fly-by-wire issues can typically be fixed with software patches and changes to flight rules. Not by throwing the airplane away.

I think the main issue with the FC-31 is that there is no available domestic engine source for it. Even once the JF-17 Chinese engine is available in numbers for that airplane it is not expected to have a thrust-to-weight ratio good enough to compete with 5th generation aircraft engines. It also means it will be a relatively expensive twin-engine aircraft. I think this disqualifies the design for use by the Air Force as a J-10 replacement but still makes sense for the Naval Air Force. I think it will be a lot more viable, once the WS-15 engine becomes available, to design a single engine aircraft around that powerplant as the J-10 replacement.

SinoSoldier said:

The AW&ST article sources its info from SCMP and an "unnamed source"; does that sound like a well-researched & knowing piece to you? So far, the most authoritative non-Chinese source on PLA matters is The War Zone (at The Drive) since they actually put in effort to conduct research & sift facts from BS.

I don't think there will ever be an announcement on this matter. Why would they, given that the J-XY will not be an exportable fighter and that all major PLA projects are kept under tight OPSEC?

Click to expand...

There are some things in the Avweek article which I do find credible and others which I do not, and there are also mistakes it makes which are inconsequential.

I think calling the aircraft J-31 is a relatively inconsequential mistake, as only PLA watchers in the know consistently call it FC-31. The Avweek article does also acknowledge that the aircraft does go by FC-31 as well.

Citing SCMP about their past articles regarding J-15 and so on is of course a definitive mistake, but it doesn't necessarily take away from the important part of the article where they quote the unnamed aerospace official.

In this case, if the official source is actually someone credible that the Avweek reporter asked themselves, then I'm willing to give the direct quotes themselves some credence.

That is to say, the only useful parts of the article are here:
"The J-31 is being developed for domestic military service under government contract, an official source says. The type is now intended to serve with the navy, says the source, confirming rumors and speculative news reports that have appeared over the past few years. The air force also wants to put the J-31 into service, says the source, declining to provide more information."

And even from that part of the article, it doesn't necessarily "confirm" anything but rather adds further weight to the idea that the PLAN and PLAAF may be looking to adopt FC-31.

The parts where Avweek quotes Sina and SCMP, or where they try to link information from the "official source" with past news, can be ignored. That said I wonder what Sina news web portal they're referring to when they quote FC-31's new specifications -- obviously I don't trust Sina as far as I can throw it, but sometimes articles from actual more credible places (like some Chinese state news agencies) are directly reposted on Sina as well.

The War Zone does a decent job of reporting on Chinese military developments sometimes but they've made their fair share of mistakes as well. They're better than average, but they have their fair share of weaknesses.
The good thing about places like AvWeek and Flight Global is that they actually send reporters to arms expos and have opportunities to get direct quotes from representatives and officials, and it is those quotes which we should be interested in. Whether Avweek and Flight Global incorrectly interpret those quotes or not and whether they

supercat said:

The navy evidently needs the J-31 as a shipboard fighter to replace the J-15, which reportedly suffers from unstable flight control—a severe problem for carrier landings.

Click to expand...

Doesn't make sense to me either.

All indications are that the basic Su-33 is docile - *remarkably* docile, in fact - at low speed. There are at least two videos showing pilots ham-fisting bolters on the Kuznetsov that are pretty instructive. In both cases they end up in rather wild flight attitudes that would likely qualify them for a ride in the bang seat in most other aircraft, but actually recover quite easily.

It is possible that SAC bungled the switch to an indigenous digital FBW system (if that was done), but in that case why not revert to the apparently robust and mature analogue original? If it comes to that, what makes the PLAN think the same outfit would then do any better with the J-31's (digital) FCS?

If the rumour of the the J-31 being adopted for carrier-based service is accurate, I'd rather think of it as an indication that the next carriers will indeed be catapult-fitted. An aircraft smaller than the Su-33 won't be able to provide worthwhile payload/range from a STOBAR carrier (especially when it is penalized further by stealth considerations), but with catapult support the J-31 should do very well.

Tirdent said:

Doesn't make sense to me either.

Click to expand...

It doesn't make sense because the original articles behind that claim were illogical to begin with.

https://www.sinodefenceforum.com/j-15-carrier-multirole-fighter-thread.t6768/page-256#post-515290

I wonder if some think Sina is an official website/source because their domain name is mil.news.sina.com.cn (). Do they even produce any content or just repost things from around the web?

Bltizo said:

That said I wonder what Sina news web portal they're referring to when they quote FC-31's new specifications -- obviously I don't trust Sina as far as I can throw it, but sometimes articles from actual more credible places (like some Chinese state news agencies) are directly reposted on Sina as well.

Click to expand...

30 tonnes were mentioned (or disclosed) by pb, which could be the source for Sina's article.

Klon said:

I wonder if some think Sina is an official website/source because their domain name is mil.news.sina.com.cn (

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

). Do they even produce any content or just repost things from around the web?

Click to expand...

reposts + independent blogger type stuff (some of which may be credible) but it's definitely not a state or pla affiliated news site

Tirdent said:

An aircraft smaller than the Su-33 won't be able to provide worthwhile payload/range from a STOBAR carrier (especially when it is penalized further by stealth considerations), but with catapult support the J-31 should do very well.

Click to expand...

While catapult carriers are almost certainly happening, I don’t think it’s a given that a navalized J-31 won’t be able to operate on a STOBAR, either in a partial or full load capacity. It depends on the engines. If the supposed WS-19 is real and meets or exceeds the thrust performance of say the Eurojet, and/or has TVC, then I can see it operating effectively off a STOBAR even with smaller size.