Shenyang FC-31 / J-31 Fighter Demonstrator

Status
Not open for further replies.
G

gelgoog

Lieutenant General
Registered Member
Barring the Taiwan conflict Chinese aircraft would need to operate at much longer distances than the Warsaw Pact vs NATO did.
In a lot of those conflicts Chinese aircraft would also need to fly over water. So having a medium dual engine aircraft might make more sense for China than it ever did for Russia.
 
TK3600

TK3600

Major
Registered Member
ougoah said:
Okay another personal attack. I won't spare much effort in replying this time then.

Using your examples to emphasise the validity of my core arguments - F18 is a USN (navy only) fighter. Just like J-31 ought to be a PLAN only fighter... in my humble worthless opinion (if that wasn't clear enough on an internet forum filled with armchair generals incl Markoz).

Mig-29 was a massive blunder in how the VKS split its available resources. This too is actually surprisingly well discussed in military circles both in east and west. It offered no real capability advantage over Su-27, did not save the VKS any more in operational costs (gotta walk on eggshells so with the caveat of correct me if I'm wrong and by this I mean a significant enough margin comparable to F-16 vs F-15 costs), did not have superior readiness (same caveats etc etc), did not perform critical tasks the Su-27 was incapable of (wasn't designed to either). Basically a "low cost" Su-27 that didn't have the performance of the Flanker and after decades of operating it, also did not save them much money over just having more flankers. In fact having more flankers at the expense of the fulcrums may have even served them better. There is a reason why Flanker continued receiving domestic and export success through to the 21st century and why even the Russian more or abandoned the Fulcrum in the modern era (beyond Sukhoi throwing political weight around... after all Mig-29 was nearly as much an export success until the 21st century). This is not to say the Fulcrum still isn't one of the most impressive fighters to ever fly.
Click to expand...
Mig-29 was a platform made sense in cold war. It had excellent manoeuvrability, excellent R-73 for close combat. Back when radar missiles were not popuplar and thousands of fighters were brawling in Europe, it was reasonable.

F-16 had radical redesign which led it to age better. Technically Mig-29 could have done the same, but I would argue neither was good solution. The endless F-16 upgrade only made sense for penny pinching, the platform as a whole is outdated despite the endless upgrades.
 
tphuang

tphuang

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
VIP Professional
Registered Member
gelgoog said:
Barring the Taiwan conflict Chinese aircraft would need to operate at much longer distances than the Warsaw Pact vs NATO did.
In a lot of those conflicts Chinese aircraft would also need to fly over water. So having a medium dual engine aircraft might make more sense for China than it ever did for Russia.
Click to expand...
Well, what really makes sense is for them to only purchase heavy aircraft. J20 is conceptually a great westpac aircraft. Fc31 just won’t have the same range and payload.
 
O

ougoah

Brigadier
Registered Member
TK3600 said:
Mig-29 was a platform made sense in cold war. It had excellent manoeuvrability, excellent R-73 for close combat. Back when radar missiles were not popuplar and thousands of fighters were brawling in Europe, it was reasonable.

F-16 had radical redesign which led it to age better. Technically Mig-29 could have done the same, but I would argue neither was good solution. The endless F-16 upgrade only made sense for penny pinching, the platform as a whole is outdated despite the endless upgrades.
Click to expand...

Mig-29 was justified for a late 20th century planner looking at the history of regional air combat and the wider context.

Now for China, a similar "hi-lo" doesn't make quite as much sense.

It isn't correct to use that to make a case for something entirely different. The mig-29 is and was a good fighter. Air combat and expectations and needs just evolved to a point the VKS itself picked Flankers over Fulcrums. There is no such Su-27 Mi-29 hi-lo combination with VKS in modern era.
 
A

ACuriousPLAFan

Brigadier
Registered Member
A hi-lo mix definitely make sense for China.

In fact, the same goes for any air force around the world that can afford the "hi" part yet doesn't have unlimited budget to boost (which includes even the US). Nobody can afford to operate a solely heavy-weight fighter fleet, especially a fleet that is considered massive in size.

The key here is how we define the "hi" and "lo" parts respectively. This depends on the a lot of factors, which are unique for every country.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: jwt
T

test1979

Junior Member
Registered Member
tphuang said:
Well, what really makes sense is for them to only purchase heavy aircraft. J20 is conceptually a great westpac aircraft. Fc31 just won’t have the same range and payload.
Click to expand...
It may be more than that. In terms of aerodynamic configuration, the J-20 has many characteristics that are consistent with long-term supersonic flight. This may mean that some tasks require quick response and have strict time requirements on reaching the target area, such as interception or pursuit, can only be performed by the J-20.
Even if the J-31's range and payload meet mission requirements, it may not be up to the task in time.
 
R

rcrmj

New Member
Registered Member
one mis-conception about J-35 is that it is technologically inferior to the J-20```````but in reality it is other way around.
it is much harder to develop a fighter with confined size which will have similar efficiency as bigger ones, and even more harder when this platform will be operating in both air-force and navy`````

J-35's high technology availability and readiness is much much much in favor over the J-20's, their biggest challenge is to mould them all together to make an efficient platform.....
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top