What's new

SAC - FC-31 Grey Falcon Stealth aircraft for PAF : Updates & Debate

The F-35 is the supposed low end of the Stealth range as well for the US.. even though that is a rather relative and ironic term. In addition, the costs take into account labour costs as well. the quiet and ignored revolution in the Chinese manufacturing industry is quality control whilst still maintaining its relatively cheaper labour costs. That revolution owes its existence to the surge in multi-national firms producing their products in China.

So the cost in man hours for say a single rivet on the J-20 is easily less than half that of the same on the F-22. A simple widespread example is that the same labour that makes the audio chips for Apple or Samsung also ends up taking that know how and making those chips for Chinese consumer electronic brands. So cost is a very sketchy term to try and judge a products quality these days from China.

The J-31 may be for export but that is not happening anytime soon. The aircraft has a LONG developmental process to go ahead with and I doubt that the Pakistan Air Force is looking at it for the time being. CATIC has its own product on the line for later and that may suit the PAF's budget and timeline requirements.
I have seen your posts about the J -31, and how often you say that it is not what Pakistan is looking for. Can you please elaborate a bit further, and tell us what platform you think PAF might be looking for, let us say we take out the J-10 and J-31 for now, we can add new F-16s to this list, and since we all know that JF-17 is the priority, that won't fit in the discussion either, so what other choices are there or being contemplated by PAF in your opinion? All is left are the J-20 and the SU-27 family of Chinese birds.
 
The J-20 design may have good stealth from the front.. so if it approaches a target it may have a small radar size. Which is why I have said again and again that the J-20 is more of an interceptor like the Russian Mig-31 rather than like the F-22. This does not mean that it is not stealthy, but that the J-20 is designed for a different type of combat. It is going to be a very effective strike aircraft along with an excellent interceptor.

The J-31 may have better stealth but not much can be said unless these aircraft go onto a Radar testing area where the values can be checked.
Some relatively pessimistic reports put the RCS of the J-20 and J-31 at the 0.1 square meter specter, and in my own opinion that is the least to say.
 
Even the AL-41 wouldn't be a good comparison to the F119. Russian engines are notoriously fickle and high maintenance, which was my main reason for surprise when it was announced that the export model of the J-31 would use such an engine. This would give the J-31 poor range and high maintenance costs due to the engines unsuitability. Too be fair no one is sure if these reports are true or not, but if they are it's a sign that China is trying to protect its own engine development by offering Russian engines instead of its own. Russian engines offer good performance, but poor reliability over the course of their lives. I'm in no position to offer an opinion or analysis on China's engine development, given the lack of public information, but historically Chinese engines have been even more unreliable than Russian ones. As China progresses this will probably reverse, but keep in mind the Russian's have been producing engines for far longer than China, almost as long as the US, and they still haven't quite got their designs to be reliable enough. Typically other Western designs are the best comparison for the F119, they offer good performance, reliability and cost. It will be interesting to see China's continued engine development and especially if they can overcome the issues that the Russians have yet to solve.

I am impressed with China new engines though. But I can't say if they are any good or not since nothing about them has been confirmed as far as performance. The WS-15 could come closest to the F119, but again we need to see some confirmed specifications.

Pure speculation at best.
 
Some relatively pessimistic reports put the RCS of the J-20 and J-31 at the 0.1 square meter specter, and in my own opinion that is the least to say.

Where is this data??
Don't just post random numbers here
 
Baidu encyclopedia says so

The knowledge came from our big shrimps, but based on the layout, WS-10 is pretty much different from AL-31.

Even that British guy @mike2000 has properly explained that you cannot copy the turbofan engine technology, which is considered as the diamond on the crown for the modern industry.

Inspired by its design yes, but copy no.
 
@he-man

IMO, If the J-31 is a true 5th generation fighter, it will have at least an RCS 0.01 (still pessimistic), if not 0.005 like the F-35, or even better due to its sleek design.

F-35 / JSF 0.005
F-117 0.003
F-22 0.0001
B-2 0.0001


The radar cross section (RCS) of a target is defined as the effective area intercepting an amount of incident power which, when scattered isotropically, produces a level of reflected power at the radar equal to that from the target. RCS calculations require broad and extensive technical knowledge, thus many scientists and scholars find the subject challenging and intellectually motivating. This is a very complex field that defies simple explanation, and any short treatment is only a very rough approximation.
The units of radar cross section are square meters; however, the radar cross section is NOT the same as the area of the target. Because of the wide range of amplitudes typically encountered on a target, RCS is frequently expressed in dBsm, or decibels relative to one square meter. The RCS is the projected area of a metal sphere that is large compared with the wavelength and that, if substituted for the object, would scatter identically the same power back to the radar. However, the RCS of all but the simplest scatterers fluctuates greatly with the orientation of the object, so the notion of an equivalent sphere is not very useful.



Different structures will exhibit different RCS dependence on frequency than a sphere. However, three frequency regimes are identifiable for most structures. In the Rayleigh region at low frequencies, target dimensions are much less than the radar wavelength. In this region RCS is proportional with the fourth power of the frequency. In the Resonance or Mie Region at medium frequencies, target dimensions and the radar wavelength are in the same order. The RCS oscillates in the resonance region. In the Optical Region of high frequencies, target dimensions are very large compared to the radar wavelength. In this region RCS is roughly the same size as the real area of target. The RCS behaves more simply in the high-frequency region. In this region, the RCS of a sphere is constant.

In general, codes based on the methods-of-moments (MOM) solution to the electrical field integral equation (EFIE) are used to calculate scattering in the Rayleigh and resonance regions. Codes based on physical optics (PO) and the physical theory of diffraction (PTD) are used in the optical or high-frequency region. The target's electrical size (which is proportional to frequency and inversely proportional to the radar wavelength) that determines the appropriate algorithm to calculate the scattering. When the target length is less than 5 to 10 wavelengths, the EFIE-MOM algorithm is used. Alternatively, if the target wavelength is above 5 to 10 wavelengths, the PO-PTD algorithm is used.

The RCS of a stealth aircraft is typically multiple orders of magnitude lower than a conventional plane and is often comparable to that of a small bird or large insect. "From the front, the F/A-22's signature is -40dBm2 (the size of a marble) while the F-35's is -30 dBm2 (the size of a golf ball). The F-35 is said to have a small area of vulnerability from the rear because engineers reduced cost by not designing a radar blocker for the engine exhaust." [Aviation Week & Space Technology; 11/14/2005, page 27] The F-35 stealthiness is a bit better than the B-2 bomber, which, in turn, was twice as good as that on the even older F-117. B-2 stealth bomber has a very small cross section. The RCS of a B-26 bomber exceeds 35 dBm2 (3100m2 ) from certain angles. In contrast, the RCS of the B-2 stealth bomber is widely reported to be about -40dBm2 .

A conventional fighter aircraft such as an F-4 has an RCS of about six square meters (m2), and the much larger but low-observable B-2 bomber, which incorporates advanced stealth technologies into its design, by some accounts has an RCS of approximately 0.75 m2 [this is four orders of magintude greater than the widely reported -40dBm2 ]. Some reports give the B-2 a head-on radar cross section no larger than a bird, 0.01 m2 or -20dBm2. A typical cruise missile with UAV-like characteristics has an RCS in the range of 1 m2; the Tomahawk ALCM, designed in the 1970s and utilizing the fairly simple low-observable technologies then available, has an RCS of less than 0.05 m2.

The impact of lowered observability can be dramatic because it reduces the maximum detection range from missile defenses, resulting in minimal time for intercept. The US airborne warning and control system (AWACS) radar system was designed to detect aircraft with an RCS of 7 m2 at a range of at least 370 km and typical nonstealthy cruise missiles at a range of at least 227 km; stealthy cruise missiles, however, could approach air defenses to within 108 km before being detected. If such missiles traveled at a speed of 805 km per hour (500 miles per hour), air defenses would have only eight minutes to engage and destroy the stealthy missile and 17 minutes for the nonstealthy missile. Furthermore, a low-observable LACM can be difficult to engage and destroy, even if detected. Cruise missiles with an RCS of 0.1 m2 or smaller are difficult for surface-to-air missile (SAM) fire-control radars to track. Consequently, even if a SAM battery detects the missile, it may not acquire a sufficient lock on the target to complete the intercept.

Radar scattering from any realistic target is a function of the body's material properties as well as its geometry. Once the specular reflections have been eliminated by radar absorbing materials, only nonspecular or diffractive sources are left. Non-specular scatterers are edges, creeping waves, and traveling waves. They often dominate backscattering patterns of realistic targets in the aspect ranges of most interest. The traveling wave is a high frequency phenomenon. Surface traveling waves are launched for horizontal polarization and grazing angles of incidence on targets with longs mooth surfaces. There is little attenuation from the flat smooth surface, so the wave builds up as it travels along the target. Upon reaching a surface discontinuity, for example an edge, the traveling wave is scattered and part of it propagates back toward the radar. The sum of the traveling waves propagating from the far end of the target toward the near end is the dominant source to the target radar cross section.

The radar cross section (RCS) of a target not only depends on the physical shape and its composite materials, but also on its subcomponents such as antennas and other sensors. These components on the platforms may be designed to meet low RCS requirements as well as their sensor system requirements. In some cases, the onboard sensors can be the predominant factor in determining a platform's total RCS. A typical example is a reciprocal high gain antenna on a low RCS platform. If the antenna beam is pointed toward the radarand the radar frequency is in the antenna operating band, theantenna scattering can be signi?cant.

The traditional measure of an object's scattering behavior is the RCS pattern which plots the scattered field magnitude as a function of aspect angle for a particular frequency and polarization. Although suitable to calculate the power received by a radar operating with those particular parameters, the RCS pattern is an incomplete descriptor of the object's scattering behavior. While the RCS pattern indicates the effect of the scattering mechanism, it does not reveal the physical processes which cause the observed effect. In contrast, imaging techniques, which exploit frequency and angle diversity to spatially resolve the reflectivity distribution of complex objects, allow the association of physical features with scattering mechanisms. These processes, therefore, indicate the causal components of the overall signature level observed in RCS patterns.
 
Last edited:
@he-man

IMO, If the J-31 is a true 5th generation fighter, it will have at least an RCS 0.01 (still pessimistic), if not 0.005 like the F-35, or even better due to its sleek design.

F-35 / JSF 0.005
F-117 0.003
F-22 0.0001
B-2 0.0001
j-31 have used RAM Coating and few design change in reducing Rcs Unlike US they have mastered the stealth design and aircraft's like f-35 and,f-22 are fully baked in Fiber-mat Stealth and their structural compositions are Classified .In first impressions of j-31 you can see it is created taking aspect of frontal RCS in A2A combat Typical common in Chinese designs and Russian. but in aerial engagement aircraft should have 360 degree coverage all depend on sensors and jammers used
 
The engine gap between perhaps much more than just 10 years.

Tell me when do you think that India could come up with an indigenous engine of over 125kN with 3000 hours of total lifespan?

Even you manage to achieve that by 2020, then you are still 15 years behind of China.

Not mention that Kaveri has some serious trouble, and I don't believe that you can come up with a new high thrust engine just in 5 years.
Achievement is not high thrust, but thrust to weight ratio (spec impulse, bypass ratio or super cruise ability etc etc are also must be accounted)is the real achievement.. You are just referring thrust class only.. That is a 2000 kg 100KN class turbofan is not a big achievement..
Your WS13( for j31) and kaveri are comparable.. Both have 7.8 thrust to weight ratio.. Did WS13 is fully developed yet??
WS10A is a bigger engine comparable to AL31F.. But AL31F is matured and has a thrust to weight ratio of 7.8 vs 7.5 of WS10A..
F119 in F22 has a thrust to weight ratio of ~10.. China is trying to achieve that with WS15( for j20) with the experience of WS10A development..
So China moving decades above India in engine development is unacceptable.. China now has more money.. But India has a chance to access foreign matured technology( if signed a jv for further kaveri development.. Things may turn upside down in next 10 years.. So wait and see..
 
Last edited:
Achievement is not high thrust, but thrust to weight ratio is the real achievement.. You are just referring thrust class only.. That is a 2000 kg 100KN class turbofan is not a big achievement..
Your WS13( for j31) and kaveri are comparable.. Both have 7.8 thrust to weight ratio.. Did WS13 is fully developed yet??
WS10A is a bigger engine comparable to AL31F.. But AL31F is matured and has a thrust to weight ratio of 7.8 vs 7.5 of WS10A..
F119 in F22 has a thrust to weight ratio of ~10.. China is trying to achieve that with WS15( for j20) with the experience of WS10A development..
So China moving decades above India in engine development is unacceptable.. China now has more money.. But India has a chance to access foreign matured technology( if signed a jv for further kaveri development.. Things may turn upside down in next 10 years.. So wait and see..

The TWR of the WS-10A is 8, and 9 for the WS-10G.

It is just stouter compared to the AL-31F, but also shorter.

The stouter engine is usually more powerful compared to the lankier one.

India's jet engine technology is nowhere near to that of China, you should take the reality instead of the delusion.
 
@wanglaokan
WS engine done ?if yes details ?
Pave pillar .. detail ? better than isreal and frech avionic ?
PL21 .. details ?better than r77 , Mica , meter .. ?
AESA ready .. details ? better than Russian tech ?
EW.. which one ? detail ? better than islareal l and french EW?
 
The TWR of the WS-10A is 8, and 9 for the WS-10G.

It is just stouter compared to the AL-31F, but also shorter.
Hi
The stouter engine is usually more powerful compared to the lankier one.

India's jet engine technology is nowhere near to that of China, you should take the reality instead of the delusion.
If China is such a good position in turbofan tech, why jf17 and j31 uses RD-93 instead of WS13???? ( kaveri, ws13, rd93 are all same thrust class)
New Chinese Stealth Fighter Relies on Russian Jet Engine - USNI News
Everywhere it is quoted that WS10A's thrust to weight ratio is 7.5.. If WS10A is so matured, why first 50 j10s uses AL31F engines???
Don't think China is in par with even Russian tech let alone western..you also should take the reality instead of the delusion.
 
It is not believable for India, but China is just in another category.

For example, your Kaveri engine has to pass its flight test in Russia?! What the heck is that? Why you need Russia to babysit you for everything?

Indigenous Kaveri Engine Clears Flight Tests in Russia
cause India doesn't have the ground infrastructure to undergo engine test, they don't have everything. the Russia will do the test for Indian for money although they know this very crap can't even work at the first beginning.
 
But our reply would be FGFA and perhaps naval F 35.
The J31 fighter, the j10.j11 fighter jet, which is created by ourselves, and we have the J20, there have been several aircraft in flight, you? We these aircraft are made in China , you made in India? Those of US aircraft not only their own use, but also the export, you? You as an importer, what qualifications and weapons manufacturing country put on a par with? Besides, I have never heard of India imported F35 fighter, is you gave money to India to buy? Ha-ha
 
Back
Top Bottom