Wasn't there the first flight this year?
Shenyang FC-31 / J-31 Fighter Demonstrator
- Thread starter RedSky
- Start date
- Status
by78
General
Before June I hope, or at least before the arrival of fall.
That was a first flight of demonstrator 31003 but not a maiden flight of the J-35.
Does anyone else have concerns that FC-31 avionics might not be on par with J-20 avionics?
Given J-20's technological maturity and rigorous testing, shouldn't FC-31 just copy-pasta all of J-20 sensors, avionics, datalinks, etc...?
I doubt Shenyang has as much dedicated resources to FC-31 that Chengdu has for J-20, why not just copy-pasta the sensors, avionics?
I say this because FC-31 is most likely to be carrier-based fighter, therefore the most likely opponent of F-35's over WestPac ocean.
Given J-20's technological maturity and rigorous testing, shouldn't FC-31 just copy-pasta all of J-20 sensors, avionics, datalinks, etc...?
I doubt Shenyang has as much dedicated resources to FC-31 that Chengdu has for J-20, why not just copy-pasta the sensors, avionics?
I say this because FC-31 is most likely to be carrier-based fighter, therefore the most likely opponent of F-35's over WestPac ocean.
Last edited:
Not really because the avionics on the J-20 would be specced for power availability from whatever powerpacks are used which would be specced by the engines. The FC-31 or whatever J fighter that comes will have much less power and offer less realestate for equipment.
This means while the J-35 or whatever might benefit from more modern technologies for avionics, they will have less room and power compared to the J-20's.
To what extent do you think the PLA will tell Chengdu to share it's sensors/avionics/codes to Shenyang, knowing J-20's technological maturity? I'm just very interested if there is cross-transfer of technology across the platforms. To me, Shenyang's FC-31 project isn't as well funded as Chengdu's J-20, so I don't know how the living hell they can develop so many of these sensors/avionics from scratch. Esp. when Chengdu did a lot of the heavy lifting...
Well, the J-XY/J-35 will be fully funded by the PLA, just like J-20 was.
FC-31 shouldn't be part of the conversation.
And the subsystems aren't developed by CAC or SAC themselves; there are subcontractors/institutes that develop them, and CAC or SAC should be the prime contractor/integrator.
That is to say, SAC will be able to fully leverage all of the advancements made by the various subcontractors and institutes involved in developing and producing J-20's avionics and sensor suite, to the benefit of J-XY/J-35.
Whether J-XY/J-35 will be using the same exact avionics as J-20 or not, is a more interesting matter.
Many of the F-35's subsystems and avionics originated as derivatives of subsystems that the F-22 already had. However, obviously by the time that F-35 started true serious production, the F-22 had been out of production for years. Who knows, if the F-22 had continued production, would the US have integrated some of the F-35's more capable avionics into subsequent F-22 production lots?
In the case of J-20 and J-XY/J-35, this problem won't likely exist. That is to say, we all expect J-20 production to continue to the early 2030s. In the case of J-XY/J-35, it will likely begin fully fledged production slightly after mid 2020s, so there's going to be a good 5+ year overlap at least where J-20 and J-XY/J-35 will both be in production at the same time.
Putting all of this together, I wouldn't be surprised if certain key subsystems on J-XY/J-35 are the same as what is used on J-20 (or what will be used in future J-20 production batches).
E.g.: I wouldn't be surprised if J-XY/J-35 featured same or similar: 360 degree EO PDS, chin EO IRST, datalink, ESM suite, EW suite.
Given J-XY/J-35's smaller nose and radome, it will almost certainly use a different radar to J-20 (which has a larger nose), but may be a variant of J-20's sensor.
The data architecture and mission computer I expect would also be similar or adapted from J-20's as well.
The key avionics I think that J-XY/J-35 could benefit from commonality with J-20 in (i.e.: where the PLA should actively seek to achieve commonality) is in the datalink as the first goal, but also having an identical or at least similar data architecture/mission computer, and ESM/EW suite would be beneficial too.
So yes, I think there are significant push factors for the PLA to actively try to achieve commonality.
There was also a post last year, verified/allowed by our Senior Forum Members, that spoke of a CAC team that had gone down to help SAC finish a project.
IIRC someone posted a picture where the teams were holding up a congratulatory banner (it was in Mandarin, but someone translated). I think they called themselves the “JJ” team (which I assumed was related to 2 different fighter design teams coming together?).
Does anyone remember this post (I’ve tried searching), perhaps CAC could’ve provided direct assistance?
I thought it was SAC helping out CAC as well. One hypothesis I had was that they were helping with production issues of the J20. I remember there was talk about how SAC had developed 3D printing technology for rapid prototyping of the FC31. So it might've been possible that they were helping apply this new tech for building J20 airframes.
- Status