Wouldn't a pair of non-AB WS-15-based baby-B21 makes more sense? How is this J-31++ better than the H-20?
Shenyang FC-31 / J-31 Fighter Demonstrator
- Thread starter RedSky
- Start date
- Status
Wouldn't a pair of non-AB WS-15-based baby-B21 makes more sense? How is this J-31++ better than the H-20?
Oh come on! Is this now a serious forum or just a modelling & what if chat group??
Fact 1: There is NO J-31 yet, only a few J-35 prototypes and two slightly different FC-31 demonstrators!
Fact 2: No-one - especially not the PLAAF - is interested in upscaling "your J-31" to fit two WS-15 engines only to field yet a second heavy fifth generation fighter!
Fact 3: This whatever you may call it type the won't be purchased yb the PLAAF, not by the PLAN and surely never ever - since in no way affordable - by any export customer!
As such, do us a favour and stop this here in this thread! It has almost reached the same level of stupidity like the discussions once with Inst, who constantly claimed CAC should develop a tail-less J-20!
And if some here really want to derail this thread with even more strange topics like mini-B-21 then just a kind reminder! STOP IT!
I’ll stop, but you have got it in for me, you are always misconstruing me and misunderstanding me, you are always attacking me, and turning whatever I say upsized down and into an insult, This is very clear and anyone can see it by looking at my history. You are an unfair, rude and dismissive ! And so is @by78.Oh come on! Is this now a serious forum or just a modelling & what if chat group??
Fact 1: There is NO J-31 yet, only a few J-35 prototypes and two slightly different FC-31 demonstrators!
Fact 2: No-one - especially not the PLAAF - is interested in upscaling "your J-31" to fit two WS-15 engines only to field yet a second heavy fifth generation fighter!
Fact 3: This whatever you may call it type the won't be purchased yb the PLAAF, not by the PLAN and surely never ever - since in no way affordable - by any export customer!
As such, do us a favour and stop this here in this thread! It has almost reached the same level of stupidity like the discussions once with Inst, who constantly claimed CAC should develop a tail-less J-20!
And what is your justification for dismissing me, it’s pathetic… “No one is interested in having a second 5th generation fighter!”, is that your REASON for dismissing me and your justification for stopping the discussion which you derailed with your miscomprehension? It’s WEAK.
As instructed, and promised, END OF DISCUSSION.
Last edited:
Pardon, but in which way - even more so "always"? - I am "misconstruing and misunderstanding" You?
You repeatedly try to propose a what-if like "upscaled" J-35 as a multirole heavy fifth generation fighter" besides the "interceptor" J-20B since the J-31 (in fact still non-existant) should be more modern and better and I repeatedly explained that this is first unlikely both in terms of technical and military requirements, second impossible to happen since it makes no sense and finally, third not feasible for export. So why then discussing something ridiculous in this thread?
In Germany we would call such a story "eine Milchmädchenrechnung"!
I see your J-36. I will call, and raise J-37.
Your move, Mr. Milkmaid.
Your move, Mr. Milkmaid.
I can’t believe you are still talking about the J-35, I have not mentioned it, only you have mentioned it, and maybe this is the crux of the misunderstanding, anyway I am tired of repeating this to you endlessly.
The airframe of the land based J-31 is 3D printed, this means that in the future you can print a bigger one, longer, wider and with bigger holes for a larger diameter engines. Is this ridiculous?
If this larger airframe has the same size appetures as the J-31 you could use the same components in both airframes. Is this ridiculous?
What would be the advantages of doing this? Well, you get more thrust, power, speed and height. Is this a justification for doing it? Well yeah, because it sounds quite easy to do and it’s better than all 4th Gen fighters in your fleet, and plenty of export potential.
That’s all, but once, once again I am not talking about J-35 at all. if you are going to reply to this, please don’t be incredibly rude and dismissive.
I know you said the J-31 doesn’t actually exist, but I am assuming it will.
Eh no the issue here is you think military fanfic writing is productive discussion. You’ve never clarified the basis for why you think the J-31 planform is better for air superiority than the J-20 planform. And following that you haven’t justified why it would be worthwhile to ditch the platform the PLA has already sunk significant time and resources into to hit the reset button for another. Throwing a tantrum when you’ve failed to situate your claims against serious and substantive analysis is not really helping your case here. You should probably get off this high horse and try to have more of a learning mindset if you want to be a productive contributor to this discourse.
I’m sorry but I have to point out that you have also not understood my point, I have never said that J-31 should be developed into an air superiority fighter, I was very clear that it would be multi role. So everything you said is null. I am not throwing a tantrum.
You are putting words in my mouth, I never said we should ditch the J-20. This contribution was completely useless. I do want to be a productive and good member, but I expect what I have written to be at least read carefully.
It is very frustrating to put an idea out there and to have two people misread it and attack me because of it. @Deino seems to think I am talking about the J-35 and you think I am putting an enlarged J-31 against J-20 when one is clearly multi role and one is air superiority.
Look, I think it’s a good idea to have two large fifth generation fighters, one focused on air superiority and one focused on multi-role. This is what I have been proposing, but for some reason some of you don’t understand my proposal.
So, clearly, my vision for 2 large fifth generation fighters is this.
1. A large air superiority fighter, namely the J-20.
2. A large multi role fighter, based off an enlarged J-31 airframe.
They will both be powered by WS-15.
The justification for this proposal is:
1. PLAAF should specialize these roles, like the PLAN does.
2. Having 2 independent platforms makes it more resilient, eg to hacking.
3. It shouldn’t cost too much, due to 3D printed airframe, shared components, training, maintenance etc, between J-31 and the enlarged version.
The assumption I am making is that the J-31 exists and is going to find success in the export market.
Regarding the possibility of an Interceptor, I made a post in the J-20 thread to show where this idea came from.
Last edited:
It is not better than the H-20, it would compliment it, and accompany it on long range missions as a bomber and fighter/bomber combo, protected by the air superiority J-20.
The problem is that you keep using the term "J-31" whereas its actual term is "FC-31".
Any aircraft designation with "J" means it is a PLA intended aircraft, and we do not have definitive proof that the PLA is interested in it yet.
For the sake of accurate terminology, you need to first acknowledge that "J-31" does not exist. Models being shown at airshows with "J-31" or occasional semi-official press statements using the term "J-31" does not count because their military literacy is not very good to begin with.
"J" designation means that it is intended for PLA service, which requires a high threshold of confirmation through official PLA channels, credible rumour grapevine, among others.
Do not use the "J" designation lightly.
So to clarify:
This below is a FC-31, NOT J-31.
This below is a FC-31, NOT J-31
This below, is a model again of FC-31, NOT J-31, despite the name given to it on the model because a sticker on the model is not indicative of being intended for PLA service or that a program of record exists to develop it for PLA service
This is "J-35" (also known as "J-XY") and it does have a "J" designation because it is known and accepted that J-35 is intended for PLA service and is being developed as such (in this case being for naval aviation).
====
In other words, here are the relevant aircraft which we can confirm to exist:
-FC-31 (v1 and v2 tech demonstrators): tech demonstrator airframes developed as an in house project with opportunities to be developed for export use or PLA use, but which itself is not being developed for the PLA
-J-35/XY: carrier/naval aviation variant developed based on the FC-31, developed intended for PLA navy use.
Note how "J-31" is not part of the above list.
So, if you want to talk about the idea of an "enlarged J-31," then what you are really trying to say is an "FC-31 developed for PLA use, and also enlarged" or alternatively "land based J-35/XY variant developed for PLA use, also enlarged".
But note how in both of those descriptors, the term "J-31" isn't used at all, because J-31 DOES NOT EXIST for our purposes.
..... Finally, your entire idea of adopting another heavyweight 5th generation fighter powered by two WS-15s, alongside J-20, is simply ridiculous.
Air superiority airframes are already capable of multirole missions in this day and age, there is no need to pursue an expensive heavy weight 5th generation airframe of a similar weight class to J-20 simply for a "heavyweight multirole 5th generation airframe".
If you want to have more stealthy long range strike capabilities, well we all know the PLA is developing H-20 and high performance UCAVs anyway.
There is also the 6th generation program which is in advanced stages of development which is likely to be a better investment in terms of aerospace resources, money, and time.
- Status