China's J-31 Stealth Fighter Version 2

[Martian2]

China's J-31 (aka FC-31) medium-weight stealth fighter costs $70 million

Aviation Industry Corporation of China (AVIC) is the builder of the J-31 medium-weight stealth fighter.

AVIC has published a list of specifications for the J-31.

J-31 maximum takeoff weight: 25 metric tons
Combat Radius: 1,200 km (or 745 miles)
Top Speed: Mach 1.8 (or 2,205 km per hour)
Weapon Load: 8 metric tons
Service Life: up to 30 years
----------

China markets its FC-31 fighter jet at Paris air show | China Daily

"Lin said the FC-31 features high survivability, a low radar signature, supreme electronic countermeasures, strong information capacity, outstanding situation awareness and beyond-visual-range combat capability.

The aircraft has a large weapon bay and several external hard points that are capable of carrying Chinese-or foreign-made air-to-air missiles and air-to-surface weapons, he said.

Specifications from AVIC show the FC-31 has a maximum takeoff weight of 25 metric tons, a combat range of 1,200 km and a top speed of Mach 1.8, or 2,205 kilometers per hour. It can carry 8 metric tons of weapons and has a designed service life of up to 30 years.

Fu Qianshao, an aircraft expert with the PLA Air Force, expected that the plane's price will be around $70 million, about half that of the Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II from the United States, which is the only fifth-generation fighter jet available on the market from the US. The US only sells it to allies."

 

[Ultima Thule]

You're kidding, right?

Your citation is from a blog. A blog is some guy sitting in his room that speculates on military matters.

My citation is from a mainstream reputable source. Mainstream publications have reporters with access to military experts and government officials.

You should stop quoting a blog to contest my reputable citations from mainstream sources.

My citation from Armed Forces Weekly is consistent with my previous citation from AINonline (July 20, 2017 article) for a PL-15 300km range.

New Chinese Weapons Seen On J-10C Fighter | AINonline

"Developed by the 607 Institute, the PL-15 (Pi Li or Thunderbolt), is China’s latest beyond-visual-range air-to air missile (BVRAAM). It achieved a first firing in September 2015. Powered by a dual-pulse rocket motor, the PL-15 has a maximum speed of Mach 4 and is reported to achieve a standoff range of 300 km. In comparison, its predecessor PL-12 has a range of 100 km, similar to its Western counterpart, the AIM-120C AMRAAM. According to Chinese reports, the PL-15 will enable the PLAAF to down enemy high-value assets such as tankers and AEW aircraft, beyond the engagement range of their escorts."
----------

I think the confusion arises, because the blog is referring to old information.

The latest June 12, 2017 article from Popular Science mentions new ramjet engines for the PL-15 and PL-12 missiles to increase their range. I think the mainstream publications have accounted for the latest technological upgrade to China's PL-15 missile.

One final point, I don't think it's worth arguing whether the PL-15 has a 200km or 300km range. These are only best estimates until the Chinese government releases official performance specifications.

Reference:
This new ramjet engine could triple the range of Chinese missiles | Popular Science

what a reputable source you have sir the thread is already running about PL-X and PL-15 ranges here on PDF most Chinese senior Members on PDF is saying real AWACS killer is PL-X and PL-15 has a range of 200+ km

 

[maximuswarrior]

Sick and tired of these 'Muricans ruining every discussion related to China. It always has to be about them. The new Indian macaca's of this forum.

 

[gambit]

Sick and tired of these 'Muricans ruining every discussion related to China.

If you leave the forum, you will not be sick any more. Simple, eh ?

 

[Taygibay]

This is not an ad objectem attack on the FC-31 but ...

that mock-up isn't so stealthy with that load.
Just semantics, no biggie but not a stealth config pic!

A great day to all, Tay.

 

[Martian2]

Note: Thank you to Greyboy2 for the picture.

 

[LeGenD]

The first site is credible, the other two are complete garbage. You should really check that link; some of these articles quote those very posters. They are highly authoritative. Do not ever read National Interest, Business Insider, or NextBigFuture when it comes to Chinese military matters. They are inaccurate and only published for the likes of MSM.

Thanks for your input but I disagree with your point.

Consider this article for example: http://www.businessinsider.com/the-real-purpose-behind-chinas-mysterious-j-20-combat-jet-2017-1

Author is Alex Locke. However, is he telling you that J-20 is a fundamentally different design than F-22? No. He consulted some experts and pieced their input together to formulate his piece:-

CRITIC # 1

Malcolm Davis, a senior analyst at the Australia Strategic Policy Institute, told Business Insider that the J-20 is a "fundamentally different sort of aircraft than the F-35."

Davis characterized the J-20 as "high-speed, long-range, not quite as stealthy (as US fifth-gen aircraft), but [the Chinese] clearly don't see that as important." According to Davis, the J-20 is "not a fighter, but an interceptor and a strike aircraft" that doesn't seek to contend with US jets in air-to-air battles.

CRITIC # 2

Retired US Air Force Lt. Gen. David Deptula gave a similar assessment of the J-20 to Defense & Aerospace Report in November.

"The J-20, in particular, is different than the F-22 in the context that, if you take a look and analyze the design, it may have some significant low-observable capabilities on the front end, but not all aspects — nor is it built as a dogfighter," Deptula said. "But quite frankly, the biggest concern is its design to carry long-range weapons."

CRITIC # 3

A senior scientist at Lockheed Martin told Business Insider that the Chinese made serious missteps when trying to integrate stealth into the J-20.

"It's apparent from looking at many pictures of the aircraft that the designers don't fully understand all the concepts of LO design," the scientist said, referring to low-observable, or stealth, design.

Instead, the J-20's design makes for a plane that's somewhat stealthy from the front angle, as it uses its long range and long-range missiles to fly far out and hit tankers and radar planes that support platforms like the F-35 or F-22.

"They're moving into an era where they're designing aircraft not just as an evolution of what they used to have, but they're going into a new space," Deptula said of China's J-20 concept.

None of them is saying that J-20 is a bad aircraft. They are telling [us] that J-20 is a different design from F-22 and has its share of vulnerabilities accordingly.

Those are the guys whom we should pay attention to; not some (keyboard) wankers here who clearly failed to account for the differences in the design of J-20 and F-22 due to lack of relevant experience and education.

Following pieces will help you to understand the differences between J-20 and F-22 in a more precise manner:-

https://fightersweep.com/6230/analysis-chengdu-j-20-the-chinese-raptor/

http://aviationweek.com/site-files/...ploads/2015/01/asd_01_16_2015_dossier_j20.pdf

http://www.dept.aoe.vt.edu/~mason/Mason_f/J20Spr11.pdf

And what did I say?

I mentioned two points:-

1. "J-20 and F-22 are fundamentally different designs. Any (real) expert will tell you as much."

I stand correct on this.

2. "J-20 [is] more suited for long-range strike missions on the ground. However, it is expected to have a decent level of air-to-air engagement capability."

Again, not saying that J-20 is bad in air-to-air engagement capability. Just not F-22 level.

delta canards platforms are specially built for air superiority then secondary mission of multi role operations, you forget MIG-1.44 and EURO-CANARDS there main missions is deny RuAF in Europe then their secondary mission of strike and CAS


All DELTA CANARD's main mission is air superiority look at EURO CANARDS their main is deny RUAF in Europe then it will come to play secondary roles of Strike and CAS


Just some random blogs western news paper references post some articles from jane's, flight global, aviation week they are all saying that J-20 is a air superiority jet with a secondary strike and CAS missions

I am sorry but do you really think that Delta Canards is some sort of a magical solution for an aircraft in these matters? You should be asking why Delta Canards are being used in J-20 in the first place and why F-22 doesn't need them.

Please read this piece: https://fightersweep.com/6230/analysis-chengdu-j-20-the-chinese-raptor/

J-20 is way too big to match F-22 in the matters of speed, maneuverability and agility pound-for-pound. Not just the size but quality of engine, stealth, avionics, sensors and weapons - so many factors to consider.

J-20 is designed for a different purpose than F-22 and this distinction is clearly explained in the sources I have shared so far. Go through them and try to comprehend.

What are you talking about?

The J-20 is a stealth fighter. The F-22 is a stealth fighter. These are the two premier stealth fighters in the world.

So?

This is not a parameter to determine similarities in the design of an aircraft. See my response above.

The J-20 can fight in the South China Sea, because it has a 1,243 mile combat radius. The F-22 cannot fight in the South China Sea, because it has a combat radius of only 471 miles.

Thus, China's J-20 wins in any battlefield beyond 500 miles. The F-22 was designed only for a Cold War European battlefield and lacks range.

Do you understand what a combat radius is? Flight range.

Combat radius doesn't tells us which aircraft can engage the other first. Seriously now.

F-22 is designed to achieve sir superiority in the battlefield by exterminating airborne assets of an adversary during the initial phase of the war. Clearing the skies in lay terms.

And F-22 won't infiltrate the airspace of an adversary in isolated manner; USAF will dispatch F-22 and F-35 in large numbers, in the form of NETWORKS. One of the major reasons to invest in the F-35 platform was to achieve TRON warfare capability.

Do you understand what TRON warfare is? Google it.

And USAF is expected to deploy its aircraft refueling platforms in a major war.

The discussion on maneuverability was purely academic. In the real world, The J-20 and F-22 will fire BVR missiles at each other. WVR combat will virtually never happen.

Nobody can tell with absolute certainty what will happen in a war. There are too many situations to predict and piece together.

Combat aircraft fly very fast and there is always a chance of them coming very close to each other during engagements because the objective is to seek each other out and kill.

In the real world, China has stealth-detecting radars on land, naval ships, and on drones. Chinese AWACS are intentionally designed to emit in the L-band to detect American stealth fighters. This means China's dragnet anti-stealth radar coverage along the Chinese coast and the South China Sea conveys a huge advantage upon the Chinese military.

Futhermore, China's airpower is supported by ample surface-to-air missiles.

In any plausible scenario along China's coast or the South China Sea, China's J-20 stealth fighters and supporting aircraft (AWACS, drones, naval missiles, radars and missiles on South China Sea islands) have the upper hand against the US military.

Too many assumptions there.

Stealthy aircraft can be detected under the right circumstances with the right kind of tools but locking onto them and subsequently neutralizing them is another matter altogether. What is the point of investing so much in stealthy weapon systems if they can be easily neutralized? Why China bothering with them?

Go through this piece: http://www.businessinsider.com/f-35-russia-china-radar-counter-stealth-2017-5

Russians have a significant military presence in Syria (and a history of making tall claims about their anti-stealth capabilities and other stuff) but they turned out to be toothless against F-22 whenever they came into play in the region. Read this: https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/how-f-22-is-deconflicting-u-s-russia-operations-over-syria.503754/

All Vladimir Putin could do was issue (utterly useless) warnings as a measure of face-saving whenever tensions ran high over Syria due to questionable actions of USAF in the region.

No country can practically (and technically) neutralize entire NETWORKS of F-22 and F-35 in a war.

 

[Figaro]

Thanks for your input but I disagree with your point.

Consider this article for example: http://www.businessinsider.com/the-real-purpose-behind-chinas-mysterious-j-20-combat-jet-2017-1

Author is Alex Locke. However, is he telling you that J-20 is a fundamentally different design than F-22? No. He consulted some experts and pieced their input together to formulate his piece:-

CRITIC # 1

Malcolm Davis, a senior analyst at the Australia Strategic Policy Institute, told Business Insider that the J-20 is a "fundamentally different sort of aircraft than the F-35."

Davis characterized the J-20 as "high-speed, long-range, not quite as stealthy (as US fifth-gen aircraft), but [the Chinese] clearly don't see that as important." According to Davis, the J-20 is "not a fighter, but an interceptor and a strike aircraft" that doesn't seek to contend with US jets in air-to-air battles.

CRITIC # 2

Retired US Air Force Lt. Gen. David Deptula gave a similar assessment of the J-20 to Defense & Aerospace Report in November.

"The J-20, in particular, is different than the F-22 in the context that, if you take a look and analyze the design, it may have some significant low-observable capabilities on the front end, but not all aspects — nor is it built as a dogfighter," Deptula said. "But quite frankly, the biggest concern is its design to carry long-range weapons."

CRITIC # 3

A senior scientist at Lockheed Martin told Business Insider that the Chinese made serious missteps when trying to integrate stealth into the J-20.

"It's apparent from looking at many pictures of the aircraft that the designers don't fully understand all the concepts of LO design," the scientist said, referring to low-observable, or stealth, design.

Instead, the J-20's design makes for a plane that's somewhat stealthy from the front angle, as it uses its long range and long-range missiles to fly far out and hit tankers and radar planes that support platforms like the F-35 or F-22.

"They're moving into an era where they're designing aircraft not just as an evolution of what they used to have, but they're going into a new space," Deptula said of China's J-20 concept.

None of them is saying that J-20 is a bad aircraft. They are telling [us] that J-20 is a different design from F-22 and has its share of vulnerabilities accordingly.

Those are the guys whom we should pay attention to; not some (keyboard) wankers here who clearly failed to account for the differences in the design of J-20 and F-22 due to lack of relevant experience and education.

Following pieces will help you to understand the differences between J-20 and F-22 in a more precise manner:-

https://fightersweep.com/6230/analysis-chengdu-j-20-the-chinese-raptor/

http://aviationweek.com/site-files/...ploads/2015/01/asd_01_16_2015_dossier_j20.pdf

http://www.dept.aoe.vt.edu/~mason/Mason_f/J20Spr11.pdf

And what did I say?

I mentioned two points:-

1. "J-20 and F-22 are fundamentally different designs. Any (real) expert will tell you as much."

I stand correct on this.

2. "J-20 [is] more suited for long-range strike missions on the ground. However, it is expected to have a decent level of air-to-air engagement capability."

Again, not saying that J-20 is bad in air-to-air engagement capability. Just not F-22 level.


I am sorry but do you really think that Delta Canards is some sort of a magical solution for an aircraft in these matters? You should be asking why Delta Canards are being used in J-20 in the first place and why F-22 doesn't need them.

Please read this piece: https://fightersweep.com/6230/analysis-chengdu-j-20-the-chinese-raptor/

J-20 is way too big to match F-22 in the matters of speed, maneuverability and agility pound-for-pound. Not just the size but quality of engine, stealth, avionics, sensors and weapons - so many factors to consider.

J-20 is designed for a different purpose than F-22 and this distinction is clearly explained in the sources I have shared so far. Go through them and try to comprehend.


So?

This is not a parameter to determine similarities in the design of an aircraft. See my response above.


Do you understand what a combat radius is? Flight range.

Combat radius doesn't tells us which aircraft can engage the other first. Seriously now.

F-22 is designed to achieve sir superiority in the battlefield by exterminating airborne assets of an adversary during the initial phase of the war. Clearing the skies in lay terms.

And F-22 won't infiltrate the airspace of an adversary in isolated manner; USAF will dispatch F-22 and F-35 in large numbers, in the form of NETWORKS. One of the major reasons to invest in the F-35 platform was to achieve TRON warfare capability.

Do you understand what TRON warfare is? Google it.

And USAF is expected to deploy its aircraft refueling platforms in a major war.


Nobody can tell with absolute certainty what will happen in a war. There are too many situations to predict and piece together.

Combat aircraft fly very fast and there is always a chance of them coming very close to each other during engagements because the objective is to seek each other out and kill.


Too many assumptions there.

Stealthy aircraft can be detected under the right circumstances with the right kind of tools but locking onto them and subsequently neutralizing them is another matter altogether. What is the point of investing so much in stealthy weapon systems if they can be easily neutralized? Why China bothering with them?

Go through this piece: http://www.businessinsider.com/f-35-russia-china-radar-counter-stealth-2017-5

Russians have a significant military presence in Syria (and a history of making tall claims about their anti-stealth capabilities and other stuff) but they turned out to be toothless against F-22 whenever they came into play in the region. Read this: https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/how-f-22-is-deconflicting-u-s-russia-operations-over-syria.503754/

All Vladimir Putin could do was issue (utterly useless) warnings as a measure of face-saving whenever tensions ran high over Syria due to questionable actions of USAF in the region.

No country can practically (and technically) neutralize entire NETWORKS of F-22 and F-35 in a war.

Again, you are entitled to what you believe. Respected members such as @Deino and @pakistanipower all conclude that the J-20 is an air-superiority fighter with maneuverability as a key criteria ...

 

[gambit]

Again, you are entitled to what you believe. Respected members such as @Deino and @pakistanipower all conclude that the J-20 is an air-superiority fighter with maneuverability as a key criteria ...

The way it works is this...

You design a 'mission', essentially 'what do I want' type of question. Then you design the necessary hardware for that 'mission'.

http://www.airforcemag.com/MagazineArchive/Magazine Documents/2016/February 2016/0216supremacy.pdf

Air superiority is defined as being able to conduct air operations “without prohibitive interference by the opposing force.”

Note the highlighted, particularly the word 'prohibitive'. The entire phrase mean -- in the real world -- that if you meet resistance to your mission, that resistance, while may continue to exist, does not deter you from your mission.

But here is the problem...

What this mean is that you may encounter the enemy's own 'air superiority' fighters. So who is going to win ? Just because you label your hardware as 'superiority' it endows you with powers unknown ? I can label a tank as an 'air superiority' platform, if I wanted to.

An 'air superiority' platform must be able to work in coordination with other platforms, such as AWACS or even ground observers, WHEN NECESSARY. And be independent in seeking out opposition air WHEN NECESSARY. If an air superiority fighter is going to ignore supporting factors that WILL increases his odds of destroying opposition air, he is gambling the war on his ego.

The F-22 will enter the air war with full support in as many air combat situations as those support can move with the fighter. That does not mean a flight of F-22 will shy away from an aerial engagement because AWACS is not there. The F-22, just like its F-15 predecessor, is fully capable of mutual support in being independent in prosecuting its air superiority mission in any contested airspace. What it means is that the USAF will work its hardest to bring to bear as much support as possible behind that F-22 flight to increase the odds of winning despite meeting opposition air.

That is what the entire phrase 'without prohibitive interference' really means. You can TRY to interfere, but it will not mean much to me since I have all this 'stuff' behind me.

A lot of people -- particularly the Chinese -- in this forum dismissed the air campaign of Desert Storm as 'old news'. The US Army adopted the WW II Nazi Germany tank maneuver warfare in the ground campaign of Desert Storm. That 'old news' worked pretty damn good. Wiser heads were in shock when allied air forces ran over Iraqi air defenses, air and ground, in the first day. The timing between attacking elements were too precise.

Air superiority is no longer confined to the idea of having a fighter designed with high maneuverability, high thrust, large radar, and X amount of missiles. All those things do matter. But the US have redefined the idea to include supporting elements and not only that, we actually EXECUTED that new definition to the success level that no one has, and probably cannot match for a very long time.

At the risk of going out on a limb, I will say that while the J-20 may fit the definition of an 'air superiority' fighter, the PLAAF have no experience at executing the old definition of 'air superiority' where there was no or minimal supporting elements, but now you are trying to challenge US at the new definition ? You WILL lose.

 

[Ultima Thule]

I am sorry but do you really think that Delta Canards is some sort of a magical solution for an aircraft in these matters? You should be asking why Delta Canards are being used in J-20 in the first place and why F-22 doesn't need them.

Please read this piece: https://fightersweep.com/6230/analysis-chengdu-j-20-the-chinese-raptor/

J-20 is way too big to match F-22 in the matters of speed, maneuverability and agility pound-for-pound. Not just the size but quality of engine, stealth, avionics, sensors and weapons - so many factors to consider.

J-20 is designed for a different purpose than F-22 and this distinction is clearly explained in the sources I have shared so far. Go through them and try to comprehend.

just early personal assessment of someone and nothing else, and Delta Canard wing is build for maneuverability and agility here is some examples
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rockwell-MBB_X-31
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonnell_Douglas_X-36
these were build for examine extreme maneuverability and agility and both are Delta Canard wing platform and as for X-36 NASA was saying that it had a extreme LOW RCS , wait until WS-15 comes out who knows that WS-15 will comes with a similar flat nozzle like F-119, and you link is supported my others theory that main mission of J-20 is a Air superiority with a secondary strike and CAS capabilities and for the 5th generation jet maneuverability and agility are the last ditch efforts with IR missile and guns, they clean opponents in BVR arena first and here are advantages and disadvantages of Delta Canard
http://www.dept.aoe.vt.edu/~mason/Mason_f/canardsS03.pdf
look at the page of 29 and 30 its says canard enhance maneuverability and agility

 

[LeGenD]

Again, you are entitled to what you believe. Respected members such as @Deino and @pakistanipower all conclude that the J-20 is an air-superiority fighter with maneuverability as a key criteria ...

F-15 is an air-superiority fighter as well. Do you think it stands a chance against an F-22?

My contention is that J-20 is not a clone of F-22 in design and capabilities and should not be expected to be on par. Differences are very obvious to a number of experts who understand these matters better than most members here.

 

[Figaro]

F-15 is an air-superiority fighter as well. Do you think it stands a chance against an F-22?

My contention is that J-20 is not a clone of F-22 in design and capabilities and should not be expected to be on par. Differences are very obvious to a number of experts who understand these matters better than most members here.

I'm not suggesting that the J-20 Is better than the F-22 In dogfighting; I'm saying that the J-20 functions as the same role as F-22s or F-15s, a dedicated air superiority fighter. Feel free to believe what you want to ...

 

[LeGenD]

just early personal assessment of someone and nothing else, and Delta Canard wing is build for maneuverability and agility here is some examples
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rockwell-MBB_X-31
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonnell_Douglas_X-36
these were build for examine extreme maneuverability and agility and both are Delta Canard wing platform and as for X-36 NASA was saying that it had a extreme LOW RCS , wait until WS-15 comes out who knows that WS-15 will comes with a similar flat nozzle like F-119, and you link is supported my others theory that main mission of J-20 is a Air superiority with a secondary strike and CAS capabilities and for the 5th generation jet maneuverability and agility are the last ditch efforts with IR missile and guns, they clean opponents in BVR arena first and here are advantages and disadvantages of Delta Canard
http://www.dept.aoe.vt.edu/~mason/Mason_f/canardsS03.pdf
look at the page of 29 and 30 its says canard enhance maneuverability and agility

I am sorry but you offer nothing to challenge his points.

I understand the purpose of delta canards but you are expecting them to somehow make J-20 match F-22 in the matters of maneuverability and agility. This isn't a sound argument; J-20 is too large to match F-22 in these matters. You can expect J-20 to have decent maneuverability for its size at most.

Even in other aspects, J-20 is equipped with relatively weaker engines and stealth capabilities. We also have no idea how it fares against F-22 in the matters of avionics and sensor-suite.

 

[Figaro]

I am sorry but you offer nothing to challenge his points.

I understand the purpose of delta canards but you are expecting them to somehow make J-20 match F-22 in the matters of maneuverability and agility. This isn't a sound argument.

Just use your common sense ... Why would the J-20 use coupled canards if it wasn't meant to perform high alpha maneuvers ... you're suggesting that the J-20 is a striker or interceptor which is false. I never said maneuverability of the J-20 needs to exceed the F-22 ... so u can stop with these comparisons now

 

[LeGenD]

Just use your common sense ... Why would the J-20 use coupled canards if it wasn't meant to perform high alpha maneuvers ... you're suggesting that the J-20 is a striker or interceptor which is false. I never said maneuverability of the J-20 needs to exceed the F-22 ... so u can stop with these comparisons now

Why are you being impatient?

That response is not directed towards you and I have edited it.

J-20 cannot be as maneuverable as F-22 due to the reasons I pointed out, let alone exceed it in this aspect.