Shenyang FC-31 / J-31 Fighter Demonstrator

Status
Not open for further replies.
B

banjex

Junior Member
Registered Member
ougoah said:
Every deliverable nuke is worth more than 100 J-20s. J-20s and whatnot are great and necessary to close the conventional gap let alone consideration for advancing your own industry and technology. It's also good for smaller skirmish level stuff and of course most useful against lower military adversaries that do not pose existential threats. A higher military power does NOT want to escalate to nuclear. It's up to the inferior military power to ensure it has the ultimate answer to superior firepower. It makes it that much less possible to approach with intentions of attack.

The Americans would only want to keep any hypothetical US China war totally conventional. Tactical nukes may be considered by them unless China makes it abundantly clear it has enough to retaliate many times over and will do so just like Russia said to them, if you attack with tactical yields, I retaliate with megaton dildos. US scurries away like a mouse to work on the next thing where they will come back with that counters what you've got. They won't take risks but they will work hard to make sure they have a sure win before acting and they sure won't tell you when and if. Upping China's own stockpile is a start and probably long been done. These days I would imagine the actual levels of existential weapons are things of wonder and terror beyond what's been discussed in the open. F-22s, F-35s, J-20s, and Su-57s while the leading edge in respective industries and certainly represent the best they can do, are the lowest tiers of the escalation ladder and do not represent an accurate measure of military capability. Russia can defend herself much better from the US than China could even without a single fighter and this is just taking into account what we know about existential level weapons. Hopefully China's got plenty there as well.
Click to expand...
yeah nuclear weapons stronk
 
daifo

daifo

Major
Registered Member
Tiberium said:
The real issue is that this is not something "added" to the navy version, is that SAC need to take additional steps to "delete" these features from naval version considering the naval version would be the default. That means you need to R&D two different model, establish different production line, build different parts, etc. All of these cost additional money.
Take the R&D, procurement and manufacture process into consideration, it is hard to say which is cheaper, to produce a slightly less expensive and slightly more kinetic land based model, or just produce a single model in a much larger quantity? I don't know, I don't think anyone on this forum know.
Click to expand...

Take it as a positive thing, this will be China's first indigenous aircraft with naval / land variants. There is prob a good amount of design and manufacturing process that was develop or improve to achieve this or make the process more efficent.
 
Blitzo

Blitzo

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Registered Member
ougoah said:
Every deliverable nuke is worth more than 100 J-20s. J-20s and whatnot are great and necessary to close the conventional gap let alone consideration for advancing your own industry and technology. It's also good for smaller skirmish level stuff and of course most useful against lower military adversaries that do not pose existential threats. A higher military power does NOT want to escalate to nuclear. It's up to the inferior military power to ensure it has the ultimate answer to superior firepower. It makes it that much less possible to approach with intentions of attack.

The Americans would only want to keep any hypothetical US China war totally conventional. Tactical nukes may be considered by them unless China makes it abundantly clear it has enough to retaliate many times over and will do so just like Russia said to them, if you attack with tactical yields, I retaliate with megaton dildos. US scurries away like a mouse to work on the next thing where they will come back with that counters what you've got. They won't take risks but they will work hard to make sure they have a sure win before acting and they sure won't tell you when and if. Upping China's own stockpile is a start and probably long been done. These days I would imagine the actual levels of existential weapons are things of wonder and terror beyond what's been discussed in the open. F-22s, F-35s, J-20s, and Su-57s while the leading edge in respective industries and certainly represent the best they can do, are the lowest tiers of the escalation ladder and do not represent an accurate measure of military capability. Russia can defend herself much better from the US than China could even without a single fighter and this is just taking into account what we know about existential level weapons. Hopefully China's got plenty there as well.
Click to expand...

No one has ever suggested that a survivable and capable nuclear deterrent is also a requirement for strategic arms procurement strategies. I think most people here would agree with you that is a very important necessity.

But that doesn't mean advancement of conventional weapons and seeking more capable conventional capabilities is not also necessary.

This is not a formal warning, take it as a friendly reminder. In future please read the tone of the room a little bit.
 
Blitzo

Blitzo

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Registered Member
siegecrossbow said:
No these are new photos. I don’t know the type of plane under the tarp. I’m posting it here because they remind me of the FC-31 photos.
Click to expand...


Do we have context?

It's clearly the aft section for a twin engine aircraft of some sort (twin tail booms, no engines), and the size and configuration of it is not dissimilar to what we would expect for an FC-31 sized or FC-31 derived aircraft.
 
siegecrossbow

siegecrossbow

General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Bltizo said:
Do we have context?

It's clearly the aft section for a twin engine aircraft of some sort (twin tail booms, no engines), and the size and configuration of it is not dissimilar to what we would expect for an FC-31 sized or FC-31 derived aircraft.
Click to expand...

I would think it is FC-31 but it is strange that the aft portion is transported separately. I was under the impression that the way the airframe is constructed prevents this.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top