Shenyang FC-31 / J-31 Fighter Demonstrator
- Thread starter RedSky
- Start date
- Status
If the implication is that J-21 is similar to supper hornet (which I think we can agree is suitable for a large country), I disagree with it -- with external fuel tanks it may have the range and endurance of SH but only on internal I think it will be quite a bit shorter legged.
BUT we need to put this plane in context (re: player99). Yes it does have small weapon bays most likely, with relatively shorter range than J-20, but that is the point. J-20 will have the reach and persistence and large payload whereas but J-21's smaller size and lower cost means more can be bought. I agree that if china only bought J-21 as their future fighter mainstay force its small size would be a problem (possible issues Australia and Canada may face with their lightnings), but there will be fleets of J-20s and flankers to back it up, and likely additional air refuelling assets as well by that time.
China has always been a big country and until the last few decades have they managed to induct large amounts of large igniters like flankers and JH-7s. Before then it was the likes of J-7s and J-8s. Some even argue J-10s are a bit short legged, a stance which does not lack merit. But no nation can buy all large fighters and J-21 will still likely feature a competitive range compared with similar sized fighters of previous generations given its internal weapon bays and more advanced aerodynamics. I will be perfectly happy with a 5th generation fleet of J-20s and J-21s, possibly more so than F-22 and F-35 given the lightning only has one engine (benefits for logistics given raptor and lightning share a semi common engine, but not good if your medium weight plane is intended to conduct long range patrols or missions which seems to be what F-35 is being geared towards, in addition to every other mission you can think of)
I agree, I really don't know a lot about the F-60, and to be frank not many others do either, but I do know a little bit about the long standing US Hi/Lo mix, and the F-60 would be a perfect partner in that mix and as I stated earlier a far more practical size for a carrier fighter. If it is smaller and lighter it will also likely be more agile, and that is also a plus.. Lets give them the benefit of the doubt and assume that they have a plan and intend to follow through on this bird, theres no reason to sell it short, and in any respect it may turn out to be far more capable than we realize.
Last edited:
As the rumor goes: The PLAN has been waiting to see how good this F-60 turns out to be. And the aircraft's initial flight will be in this coming September. So let's just be patient while at the same time it won't hurt for us to keep speculating just for fun...if nothing else.
@ Blitzo, Player99, AFB,
Many people don;t realize this but F-18E/F is about 14 ton empty and 30 ton MTOW. F-15C supposily the Hi in the USAF Hi/Low Mix has actually has a slightly lighter empty and same 30 ton MTOW.
if this thing is in the superhornet class... even if it is bit lighter in the EF Typhoon range then it is not even a short legged fighter bomber.... I will bet my pocket changes that this thing is about same in 13 ton empty close to 30 ton mtow range.
even JH-7/ Tornado class barely is 30 ton MTOW. are they heavy or "light" you would think JH-7 is a heavy bastard but it is actually lighter than SH on MTOW.
think about it. to get the range and staying power not only the internal fuel volumn but the wing design is also the key. , now the focus should be what kind of planeform, that will tell us what range and speed profile thus the mission profile the designer was thinking.
Many people don;t realize this but F-18E/F is about 14 ton empty and 30 ton MTOW. F-15C supposily the Hi in the USAF Hi/Low Mix has actually has a slightly lighter empty and same 30 ton MTOW.
if this thing is in the superhornet class... even if it is bit lighter in the EF Typhoon range then it is not even a short legged fighter bomber.... I will bet my pocket changes that this thing is about same in 13 ton empty close to 30 ton mtow range.
even JH-7/ Tornado class barely is 30 ton MTOW. are they heavy or "light" you would think JH-7 is a heavy bastard but it is actually lighter than SH on MTOW.
think about it. to get the range and staying power not only the internal fuel volumn but the wing design is also the key. , now the focus should be what kind of planeform, that will tell us what range and speed profile thus the mission profile the designer was thinking.
Last edited:
You people's lack of ability to stay on topic and follow a mod's order is quite disturbing. All WWII related discussions have been moved to
WWII World Armed Forces
Punishments will be handed out if I see any more WWII discussions in this Shenyang new generation fighter thread.
WWII World Armed Forces
Punishments will be handed out if I see any more WWII discussions in this Shenyang new generation fighter thread.
Actually the F-22 is the Hi in the Hi/Lo package, and the F-35 was to be the low. With the cancelation of the F-22, that has all been rendered "moot", and the F-35 is the bird of record going forward. Bad move, but not the Air Force choice, but the reality they will deal with. So much of my observations will reflect the old AF philosophy, to which they will hopefully return someday? I believe MTOW is somewhere in the 40 tonne regime? My comments are J-20/J-21 specific for the purpose of discussion, and let me restate, the Hi/Lo philosophy remain very sound in fighter world.
you missed my point.
F-15 was the high in the F15/F16 high low mix of that generation.
F-18 started out as a light fighter but super hornet's mtow and empty is near or even more than F-15.
there is a generational growth of fighter size. which the new light is actually close to the old medium heavy fighter. the new heavy is about 8-10 ton heavier than the old heavy which is about right.
actually the pattern is consistent. F-4 is about size of a regular hornet, which was the heavy fighter of its day. during F-4 fighter's hay day ithe lights were around 7 ton empty/9-10 ton mtow range (mig-21/Mirage III)
The generation after F-22/F-35 would see a further step up in growth of weight. I believe. with the light weights in 35 ton range and heavies in the 45 ton range. mtow.
as more and more range and capabilities are sought and new propulsion advances gives us bigger engines.
Last edited:
plawolf
Lieutenant General
What you have said is all perfectly good and valid, and fits in with my expectations for the internal payload and basic characteristics I would expect the F60 to be capable of.
However, the thing that bothers me the most about the F60, appears to be the thing you have not touched upon - it's purpose. More specifically, it's purpose and role within the PLAAF.
What you have described is a low-end 5th gen air superiority fighter. Why does the PLAAF need that when it has the J20?
Of course the PLAAF cannot just buy and operate J20s, that would be far too expensive and they would end up with too small a fleet. But why does the low end of the hi-low mix have to be a 5th gen? The J10B would be more than capable of forming the "lo" part of the PLAAF's hi-lo mix for the next 2 decades or so.
The F60 would be very useful to the PLANAF as it's carrier borne 5th gen air superiority fighter, and also as a far cheaper alternative to the F35. But, the PLANAF order is unlikely to be substantial, and few countries could afford to field a 5th gen for a single mission.
If SAC designed the F60 as purely a carrier air superiority fighter for the navy, it might turn out exactly as you and others have described, and it could become quite a decent bird.
However, I am not sure SAC will be content to just sell one or two hundred to the navy and massively limit the export potential of the F60 by making it a pure air superiority fighter.
The only way the PLAAF would have much interest for the F60 and the way to maximize it's appeal to potential foreign buyers is to make it a multi-role fighter with a very robust ground attack capability, which leads to internally carried air-surface weapons, which leads to a requirement for large and deep weapons bays and that is where I see this bird getting into trouble.
We don't know too much about the design of this bird, but we know it's generally in the same ball park as the F35 in terms of size, that it is twin engined and has cheek intakes. The F35's single engined design allows for more free internal space for fuel and weapons bays compared to the F60, but even that had to make serious concessions to stealth by allowing all those humps and bumps to accommodate bays bug enough for air-surface weapons and what not.
If the F60 is to be AA only, it might turn out as you hope, but if SAC tried to add in multi-role capabilities to try and grab a big PLAAF or foreign order, then they might have to make concessions and compromises and suddenly it's the same song and dance as the F35 show.
The PLANAF is growing with the Varyag and new domestic carriers to come in the future, but it will still be tiny next to the size and spending power of the PLAAF. It is a bit of a niche market and I do not see SAC content to being relegated and limited to such a domestic market.
I believe SAC will try to seize the 'grand prize' of large PLAAF orders, hell, they might even secretly hope the same thing that happened to the F22 happens to the J20, whereby the orders for the heavy stealth are drastically cut in favor of more lighter stealths that SAC makes.
- Status