China's J-31 Stealth Fighter Version 2

[Martian2]

China's J-31 middle-weight stealth fighter is progressing nicely in development. There is a new prototype J-31 Version 2 (see photo below), which is larger than the original J-31 Version 1.

China has said the larger heavyweight J-20 stealth fighter will not be exported. The combat radius of the J-20 is 1,243 miles (see Global Security citation below). The J-20 has a large and powerful AESA radar.

In contrast, the J-31 has a shorter combat radius of 746 miles. The AESA radar on the J-31 should be comparable in size to the F-35.

The J-31 is designed to be China's main export stealth fighter aircraft.
----------

----------

J-20 - Chinese Stealth Fighter | Global Security

 

[Hassan Guy]

I'm guessing there are more prototypes of the j-31 to be built...

 

[Figaro]

China's J-31 middle-weight stealth fighter is progressing nicely in development. There is a new prototype J-31 Version 2 (see photo below), which is larger than the original J-31 Version 1.

China has said the larger heavyweight J-20 stealth fighter will not be exported. The combat radius of the J-20 is 1,243 miles (see Global Security citation below). The J-20 has a large and powerful AESA radar.

In contrast, the J-31 has a shorter combat radius of 746 miles. The AESA radar on the J-31 should be comparable in size to the F-35.

The J-31 is designed to be China's main export stealth fighter aircraft.
----------

----------

J-20 - Chinese Stealth Fighter | Global Security

Martian, the J-31's official designation is the FC-31 (can you change the thread name pleease?). And "Global Security" is hardly a reliable source as well (the J-20 is no way over 21 meters long and the wingspan is understated).

 

[Martian2]

Martian, the J-31's official designation is the FC-31 (can you change the thread name pleease?). And "Global Security" is hardly a reliable source as well (the J-20 is no way over 21 meters long and the wingspan is understated).

J-31 is instantly recognizable. Very few people know the designation FC-31.

Global Security is a well-funded and highly-regarded western think tank.

The J-20 length depends on whether Global Security was including the pitot tube length.

Global Security says the J-20 length is 69.75 feet. Subtract 2.75 feet for the J-20 pitot tube and you have the consensus 67 feet J-20 length.

 

[Martian2]

Figaro wants to know if Global Security is reputable.

The mainstream media has stated that Global Security is a trusted source of information. Read what U.S. News and World Report, The New York Times, CNN, The National Journal, and USA Today had to say about Global Security.
----------

Praise from Others | Global Security

"'Terry Atlas, assistant managing editor of U.S News and World Report, reads the Web sites of the Center for Strategic and International Studies (www.csis.org) and GlobalSecurity.org, which has detailed satellite photos.'
...
"With all the speculation about American intentions for Iraq, there has been one place where, to the chagrin of the administration, people can find a few hard facts." [The New York Times September 22, 2002]
...
CNN's Joie Chen "A lot of us have turned into news junkies by what happened on September 11, and since that time.... One that I particularly liked is GlobalSecurity.org."
...
The National Journal GlobalSecurity.org ranked among the five "Best of the Top Sites" among Defense Web Sites.

"The respected defense consultant GlobalSecurity.org serves up an online compendium of info about the war on terrorism." USA Today"

 

[Figaro]

J-31 is instantly recognizable. Very few people know the designation FC-31.

Global Security is a well-funded and highly-regarded western think tank.

The J-20 length depends on whether Global Security was including the pitot tube length.

Global Security says the J-20 length is 69.75 feet. Subtract 2.75 feet for the J-20 pitot tube and you have the consensus 67 feet J-20 length.

Are you sure about that, Martian? I'm pretty sure most in Chinese defense communities refer to the J-31 as FC-31 now. And Global Security is highly inaccurate and very unreliable

Figaro wants to know if Global Security is reputable.

The mainstream media has stated that Global Security is a trusted source of information. Read what U.S. News and World Report, The New York Times, CNN, The National Journal, and USA Today had to say about Global Security.
----------

Praise from Others | Global Security

"'Terry Atlas, assistant managing editor of U.S News and World Report, reads the Web sites of the Center for Strategic and International Studies (www.csis.org) and GlobalSecurity.org, which has detailed satellite photos.'
...
"With all the speculation about American intentions for Iraq, there has been one place where, to the chagrin of the administration, people can find a few hard facts." [The New York Times September 22, 2002]
...
CNN's Joie Chen "A lot of us have turned into news junkies by what happened on September 11, and since that time.... One that I particularly liked is GlobalSecurity.org."
...
The National Journal GlobalSecurity.org ranked among the five "Best of the Top Sites" among Defense Web Sites.

"The respected defense consultant GlobalSecurity.org serves up an online compendium of info about the war on terrorism." USA Today"

But there other information on PLA is inaccurate howerver ... But there other information on PLA is inaccurate howerver ... and why are you trusting Western media outlets over Chinese military info? Surely, these are the same ppl who bash China's military

 

[Martian2]

Are you sure about that, Martian? I'm pretty sure most in Chinese defense communities refer to the J-31 as FC-31 now. And Global Security is highly inaccurate and very unreliable

But there other information on PLA is inaccurate howerver ... But there other information on PLA is inaccurate howerver ... and why are you trusting Western media outlets over Chinese military info? Surely, these are the same ppl who bash China's military

Go ahead and refer to the J-31 as the FC-31. Either designation is acceptable. I prefer J-31.

Why cite western media? It eliminates the problem of potential China-bias. If I mostly cite Chinese sources, the average English-speaking western reader will say: "Of course, China is going to say good things about itself."

However, when I cite Global Security, IHS Jane's, Aviation Week, etc. There is no motive for a western publication to publish China-friendly articles. Thus, it is easier to discuss facts when I cite a western source.

 

[Figaro]

The mainstream media has stated that Global Security is a trusted source of information
Martian, are we counting on the MSM to give us technical information about the Chinese military? Aren't these the same guys who keep claiming that the J-20 is an interceptor or strike-fighter? Or how the J-20 is a copy of the F-22 while the FC-31 is a copy of the F-35? We should have higher standards ...

 

[Martian2]

The mainstream media has stated that Global Security is a trusted source of information
Martian, are we counting on the MSM to give us technical information about the Chinese military? Aren't these the same guys who keep claiming that the J-20 is an interceptor or strike-fighter? Or how the J-20 is a copy of the F-22 while the FC-31 is a copy of the F-35? We should have higher standards ...

The western media is right that the J-20 is also an interceptor or strike-fighter. The J-20 happens to be a multi-role fighter. The characterization may be misleading, but it is not wrong.

Here is the bottom line. If you don't like my thread title or sources, feel free to create your own. I have my own style and I'm sticking to it.

 

[Figaro]

The western media is right that the J-20 is also an interceptor or strike-fighter. The J-20 happens to be a multi-role fighter. The characterization may be misleading, but it is not wrong.

Martian, they are claiming that the J-20 is a dedicated interceptor or strike-fighter, meaning that it has little maneuverability and is not suited for air-air roles. This is nothing to be proud of; they are wrong indeed.

Go ahead and refer to the J-31 as the FC-31. Either designation is acceptable. I prefer J-31.

Why cite western media? It eliminates the problem of potential China-bias. If I mostly cite Chinese sources, the average English-speaking western reader will say: "Of course, China is going to say good things about itself."

However, when I cite Global Security, IHS Jane's, Aviation Week, etc. There is no motive for a western publication to publish China-friendly articles. Thus, it is easier to discuss facts when I cite a western source.

When you cite Western media, you give anti-Chinese bias as well. They constantly bash on Chinese military capabilities, regarding Chinese advances as cheap ripoffs of Russian or Western aircraft. In many ways, Western sources are quite dubious indeed ...

 

[Martian2]

Martian, they are claiming that the J-20 is a dedicated interceptor or strike-fighter, meaning that it has little maneuverability and is not suited for air-air roles. This is nothing to be proud of; they are wrong indeed.

That's debatable. The F-22 is clearly more maneuverable. If they want to exaggerate the lack of J-20 maneuverability then that is expected.

It is unrealistic to expect completely objectivity.

Martian, they are claiming that the J-20 is a dedicated interceptor or strike-fighter, meaning that it has little maneuverability and is not suited for air-air roles. This is nothing to be proud of; they are wrong indeed.


When you cite Western media, you give anti-Chinese bias as well. They constantly bash on Chinese military capabilities, regarding Chinese advances as cheap ripoffs of Russian or Western aircraft. In many ways, Western sources are quite dubious indeed ...

No, I don't.

I cite western media and then post my disagreement with them.

For a year, I was on The National Interest. I cited western media sources and when I thought they were wrong, I posted pictures of China's WS-10A turbofan engine to prove China manufactured turbofan engines.

It is not all or nothing. I cite western sources and correct them when I think they're wrong.

 

[Figaro]

That's debatable. The F-22 is clearly more maneuverable. If they want to exaggerate the lack of J-20 maneuverability then that is expected.

It is unrealistic to expect completely objectivity.

Martian, the J-20 with its WS-15 should be more maneuverable than the F-22. The F-22 only has its thrust vectoring to rely upon while the J-20 is designed for high alpha even without TVC. You're basically claiming that the J-20 is not maneuverable and conceding to the arguments of these MSM publications ... which is unfortunate. Based on its design, the J-20 should have higher ITR than the F-22 but lower STR (until the WS-15 comes through). This is what happens when China's military progresses so fast that we are scratching our heads and asking what the hell happened.

 

[Martian2]

Martian, the J-20 with its WS-15 should be more maneuverable than the F-22. The F-22 only has its thrust vectoring to rely upon while the J-20 is designed for high alpha even without TVC. You're basically claiming that the J-20 is not maneuverable and conceding to the arguments of these MSM publications ... which is unfortunate. Based on its design, the J-20 should have higher ITR than the F-22 but lower STR (until the WS-15 comes through)

No. The F-22 has a huge wingspan for a smaller fighter. With TVC, I think the F-22 is clearly more maneuverable than the J-20.

 

[Figaro]

No. The F-22 has a huge wingspan for a smaller fighter. With TVC, I think the F-22 is clearly more maneuverable than the J-20.

No it doesn't. The F-22 and J-20 are roughly the same size. The wingspan is also very close but the J-20 has canards too. To assume that the J-20 is optimized for maneuverability would belittle Dr.Song's publications. You're basically sticking to the fallacy that the J-20 is too long to be maneuverable, which is obviously not true. And how is the F-22 a small plane? I think you are referring to the F-35 Lighting II ...

That's debatable. The F-22 is clearly more maneuverable. If they want to exaggerate the lack of J-20 maneuverability then that is expected.

It is unrealistic to expect completely objectivity.


No, I don't.

I cite western media and then post my disagreement with them.

For a year, I was on The National Interest. I cited western media sources and when I thought they were wrong, I posted pictures of China's WS-10A turbofan engine to prove China manufactured turbofan engines.

It is not all or nothing. I cite western sources and correct them when I think they're wrong.

National Interest is a very poor website that has a very obvious anti-China bias. Other they post a lot about China, they seldom have good authors with adequate credentials ...

 

[Martian2]

No it doesn't. The F-22 and J-20 are roughly the same size. The wingspan is also very close but the J-20 has canards too. To assume that the J-20 is optimized for maneuverability would belittle Dr.Song's publications. You're basically sticking to the fallacy that the J-20 is too long to be maneuverable, which is obviously not true.

The canards are designed to balance the center of gravity of the plane. Canards improve fuel efficiency. Canards also help maneuverability in the up-and-down direction.

However, the F-22 has its entire wingspan area located near the center of the aircraft. The huge wingspan for a smaller-sized F-22 fighter enables extreme LATERAL maneuverability. The F-22 also has TVC to boost its maneuverability.

I've watched countless videos of the F-22 and J-20. The F-22 can go from a horizontal position and climb vertically in the blink of an eye.

Unless the J-20 can post comparable videos, the F-22 is clearly more maneuverable. (See F-22 vertical climb video below)

Every airplane design has its strengths and weaknesses. In my opinion, the F-22 is an incredibly maneuverable fighter. In contrast, the J-20 was designed for a much longer combat radius. However, I think it is incorrect to claim the J-20 is more maneuverable than the F-22.