They cried wolf so many times that frankly I'm tired of it.
Shenyang FC-31 / J-31 Fighter Demonstrator
- Thread starter RedSky
- Start date
- Status
They cried wolf so many times that frankly I'm tired of it.
Well, that's how I feel, J-31 is not ready to fly yet, they are still working on it.
Any idea how to rate this rumour?
According to this rumour there might be a possible PLAAF version of FC-31 called J-21 without arresting hook and folded wings and its first flight is speculated to be by the end of this year, which could be eventually even before the J-35's maiden flight!?? .
(Via @柳絮纷飞竟不是雪 from Weibo and Huitong's CMA-Blog)
via
But how reliable is @ ?
According to this rumour there might be a possible PLAAF version of FC-31 called J-21 without arresting hook and folded wings and its first flight is speculated to be by the end of this year, which could be eventually even before the J-35's maiden flight!?? .
(Via @柳絮纷飞竟不是雪 from Weibo and Huitong's CMA-Blog)
via
But how reliable is @ ?
Not sure about the specifics regarding whether the land based or carrier based version will emerge first (personally I expect the carrier version to).
But I must say, it will be very, very amusing and poetic if the real, PLA commissioned, in service aircraft is designated J-21.
I remember when FC-31 first emerged, "J-21" was one of the earliest designations we went with for it, before switching to "J-31" and then to FC-31 which was the formal real name for the export proposal/AVIC project. Then we went to "J-35" for the carrier based variant.
If J-21 ends up being the designation -- either for the carrier based version, or the land based version, or both -- it would be hilarious.
And I must say that J-21 makes much more sense than "J-35" as a designation.
Going from J-20 to J-21 is pretty sensible.
Going from J-20 to J-35 not skips all of the "20s" directly to the "30s," as well as is farcically the same number as F-35 which just seems too odd.
Indeed, as such J-21 for a PLAAF variant would make sense, however the no. 35 is always explained with two versions: First to mock LM and the F-35 and second, since it combines the stealth characteristics of the J-20 in a J-15 successor; as such J-20 + J-15 = J-35.
But my point is: Who is @柳絮纷飞竟不是雪 and how reliable/credible is he/she?
The J-35 number never really made sense to me.
1. I don't think the PLA would choose a designation just to mock LM and F-35
2. If they wanted a "J-15" successor while having "J-20 charcteristics (i.e.: 5th gen), wouldn't "J-25" make more sense
3. Choosing a 5th generation in the "30s" is weird because the "30s" would likely be reserved for their 6th generation fighter(s)
That user is worth our time to listen to.
But I don't think he's written anything about the land based variant flying this year.
In the past he (or perhaps someone else) wrote that the naval variant would fly this year, and the land based variant next year.
It is weird/news to me to think that the land based variant would fly this year and naval variant next year.
But @huitong, clarification would of course be appreciated.
Agreed ... by the way maybe someone can contact SAC; if if they want to achieve a major PR-stunt, they shall make a roll-out on April 8th one day before the South Korean KFX will be unveiled on Friday.
I think the fact that we thought for the longest time the J-XX would be designated J-13 or J-14 and instead we got J-20 should tell us just how mercurial these interim rumor mill designations are.
I think it certainly demonstrated how wrong we were about guessing designations back in the 2000s.... but now we have their 4th gen pattern to go off and their initial 5th gen designation as well.
Certainly I think there's enough reason for us to be doubtful if they'd be willing to use a "30s" designation for a 5th generation fighter rather than a 6th generation fighter, or a sudden leap from J-20 to J-35.
- Status