SAC FC-31 Stealth Fighter: News & Discussions

[Brainsucker]

Because SAC don't know what PLAN want, never design a product that your customer don't need.

WS10's thrust is not enough to power a fighter size of current FC31V2. We need WS15 to do it. I'm very excited if CAC can design a medium size single engine stealthy fighter based on WS15.

But it can power a J-10 perfectly. Which is bigger, FC-31 or J-10?

 

[Ultima Thule]

But it can power a J-10 perfectly. Which is bigger, FC-31 or J-10?

FC-31 V2 57 ft whereas J-10 50 ft long
Specifications (J-10A)


J-10SY of the August 1st aerobatics team

General characteristics

• Crew: 1[20]
• Length: 15.49 m (50.82 ft)
• Wingspan: 9.75 m (31.99 ft)
• Height: 5.43 m (17.81 ft)
• Wing area: 39 m² (356.3 ft²)
• Empty weight: 9,750 kg (21,495 lb[52])
• Useful load: 6,000 kg[52] (13,200lb)
• Loaded weight: 12,400 kg (28,600 lb)
• Max. takeoff weight: 19,277 kg [20][52] (42,500 lb)
• Powerplant: 1 × Saturn-Lyulka AL-31FN or WS-10A turbofan
  • Dry thrust: 79.43 kN / 89.17 kN (17,860 lbf / 19,000 lbf)
  • Thrust with afterburner: 125 kN / 130 kN (27,999 lbf / 29,000 lbf)

Performance

• Maximum speed: Mach 2.2 at altitude,[53][54] Mach 1.2 at sea level[52]
• Combat radius: 550 km[52] (342 mi)
• Ferry range: 1,850 km[52] (1,150 mi)
• Service ceiling: 18,000 m[52] (59,055 ft)
• Wing loading: 381 kg/m² (78 lb/ft²)
• Thrust/weight: 1.15 (with AL-31FN3); 1.16 (with WS-10B)
  
• Maximum g-load: +9/–3 g[52]
  
  
  
  
  
  
  

Specifications (estimated)
Because the aircraft is in development, these specifications — based on available imagery — are approximate and preliminary.

Data from Aviation Week[53] unless otherwise attributed

General characteristics

• Crew: one (pilot)
• Length: 17.3 m (56 ft 9 in) [54]
• Wingspan: 11.5 m (37 ft 9 in)
• Height: 4.8 m (15 ft 9 in)
• Wing area: 40 m2 (430 sq ft) [55]
• Max takeoff weight: 28,000 kg (61,729 lb) [54]
• Powerplant: 2 × RD-93 afterburning turbofans, 85 kN (19,000 lbf) thrust each
• Powerplant: 2 × WS-13 afterburning turbofans (projected upgrade)
• Maximum speed: 2,200 km/h (1,367 mph; 1,188 kn)
• Maximum speed: Mach 1.8
• Combat range: 1,250 km (777 mi; 675 nmi) on internal fuel, or 2,000 kilometres (1,200 mi) with external tanks

 

[帅的一匹]

Naval fighter should be twin-engines for safety reasons.

What about F35B? As long as the engine is very powerful and reliable, it doesn't matter.

But I believe due to combat range consideration, PLN prefers a naval version of J20. The single engine stealthy fighter is mainly for export.

Maybe a special design for Pakistan, who knows?

If FC31 want to pull it off, it must have new engine more powerful than F414.

 

[52051]

SAC's FC-31 wont be Navy's fighter, the best they can do is to abound this project and move on, maybe in the future they can set-up a few producation lines for J-20.

 

[gambit]

But I believe due to combat range consideration, PLN prefers a naval version of J20.

You do not know that. No one does.

You cannot 'navalize', in other words, make aircraft carrier worthy, an existing platform. Or to put it another way, you SHOULD NOT do so.

Given enough money and finances, technical and engineering obstacles can be overcome, but with that much 'given', you might as well design a naval version of that platform from paper.

I understand you guys plays fast and loose with the laws of physics, so this is more for the silent readers out there...

Just because the F-16 and F-18 have tailhooks, does that mean the F-16 can land on an aircraft carrier ? On an emergency and if the ship's captain is willing to commit career suicide -- then yes.

Physically speaking, despite similarity in appearance, the tailhooks on both jets are very different in usage.

Land runways have arresting cables...

http://www.aviationchatter.com/2009...arresting-cables-bring-you-to-an-abrupt-stop/

Runway arresting cables are usually located between 1,500 to 2,800 feet from the runway threshold and may be raised up to three inches above the runway surface. They are marked by yellow circles spanning the width of the runway.

Land runway arresting cables are actually not there to catch landing aircrafts but to catch aircrafts that somehow FAILED TO TAKE OFF. Assuming military aircrafts equipped with tailhooks for now.

Further, land runway arresting cables are design to produce gradual drag -- passive -- via increasing resistance tension.

For example...As the F-16 suddenly lost engine on a TO roll, the pilot will apply brakes and drop the tailhook. He cannot 'slam' on the brakes like the movies does it. He will overheat the brakes and probably they will literally explode. He will maintain constant pressure on the brakes ( rudder pedals toe action ) and at end-of-runway ( EOR ) the tailhook should catch the arresting cable. At that point, the cable will string out and the resistance spooling action begins. Drag increases on a curve and the F-16's airframe, just like most airframes designed for land basing, will experience structural stress on that curve.

But on an aircraft carrier, the arresing cable works on a totally different intention -- active arrest.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arresting_gear

The aircraft's weight is set by the arresting gear engine operator. The operator is given the weight of the aircraft by the air officer in Primary Flight Control. The operator then sets the Constant Runout Control Valve to the appropriate weight setting for that aircraft. The pressure setting for the arresting gear engine remains at a constant pressure of about 400 pounds per square inch. The constant runout valve (CROV) stops the aircraft (as opposed to hydraulic pressure).

In other words, the arresting cable system on an aircraft carrier will actually PULL on the aircraft and the arresting force is based upon aircraft's weight. This system is much more precise and complex than the land based system.

Going back to the laws of physics...

The airframe -- like the F-18 -- must be designed to take a much higher G load in an incredibly short amount of time. This means the F-18 was designed from the start to be an aircraft carrier based airframe. All the major stress members of this airframe must be designed -- from paper -- to transfer as much as possible that G load in the longitudinal axis and must be robust enough to withstand yrs of operation. Nearly everything on the F-18 was designed for that high G load.

What is the difference between 'tough' and 'strong'...

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/a23259/know-your-material-engineering-vocab/

The F-18's major landing gear structures must be both tough and strong, obviously, but they are more tough than strong.

My F-16 cannot do what the F-18 can. If an F-16 must take a cable, whether on a TO roll or on an emergency landing like from battle damage, the jet will be a hangar queen for various in-depth inspections and ops checks before being cleared to fly again.

Here is an example of a land runway arresting cable system, the jet is a Lakenheath F-15, timestamp 2:30...

Note how long did the jet continued down the runway AFTER it caught the cable. Completely different from what goes on the aircraft carrier.

So unless the J-20 was designed like the F-4, a fighter that was used by the USAF, USN, and USMC, there is no way anyone in the public sphere can declare with any degree of certainty what the PLAN want for that jet. Modifying the J-20 for carrier operations would probably involve so much money and design changes that it would reduce the jet's performance in all sectors.

 

[Deino]

SAC's FC-31 wont be Navy's fighter, the best they can do is to abound this project and move on, maybe in the future they can set-up a few producation lines for J-20.

Care to explain why you are so sure about that?

 

[Deino]

 

[cnleio]

View attachment 415971

PLAAF or PLAN Airforce should give a chance to FC-31 ... as the cheaper stealth version to support J-20 in airfight or a stealth anti-ship attacker to replace Navy JH-7A.

 

[Muhammad Omar]

Any news of PAF looking in to this ??

 

[Kiss_of_the_Dragon]

View attachment 415971

Very nice looking jet, I'm wondering what will be the role of this fighter, a low -high mix with J-20 or carrier fighter?

 

[52051]

Care to explain why you are so sure about that?

Well, actually there is not a single source from China suggesting PLAAF/PLAN even remotely interested in this project.

PLAAF or PLAN Airforce should give a chance to FC-31 ... as the cheaper stealth version to support J-20 in airfight or a stealth anti-ship attacker to replace Navy JH-7A.

First of all it may not be cheaper than mass production of J-20s, considering the extra development fees/times, and it is a well known fact that J-31 will not be as cost-efficient as J-20 (the former using close-door deal in favor of AVIC's own rather poor factories for its sub-systems, and thats one exact reason why AVIC try to push this failed project, whilst J-20 using open-bidding/competition to decide its sub-system suppiliers, and alot of suppilers are outside of AVIC).

Seconldy, even if we ignore the fact J-31 is a downgrade version of SAC's J-XX lost to J-20, just considering the range problem: the Eas Asia war threater is quite a bit different than these in West Europe, a combat radius of 1500 km is almost a must to conduct any meaningful missions, even if J-31 is 1/2 the cost of J-20 it is still meaning nothing, since in terms of mission-cost efficiency, it is still 0 against 1.

 

[Beast]

I think the major problem for FC-31 is many subsystem that require clearance from PLA for export cannot be granted.

 

[52051]

I think the major problem for FC-31 is many subsystem that require clearance from PLA for export cannot be granted.

Not to mention J-31 is a collection of losers, actually after losing to J-20 in its J-XX project and after Yang Wei decided to using open competition to decide the sub-system suppliers of J-20 instead of closed-door deals, the AVIC begin to push this J-31 project.

J-31 is a combination of losers, the design is a watered-down version of the losing J-XX proposal, and all sub-system suppliers are also from the losing side in AVIC.

I think J-31 is a DOA project, no wonder PLA show no interests here, I just wonder how long before AVIC give up.

 

[Akasa]

Not to mention J-31 is a collection of losers, actually after losing to J-20 in its J-XX project and after Yang Wei decided to using open competition to decide the sub-system suppliers of J-20 instead of closed-door deals, the AVIC begin to push this J-31 project.

J-31 is a combination of losers, the design is a watered-down version of the losing J-XX proposal, and all sub-system suppliers are also from the losing side in AVIC.

I think J-31 is a DOA project, no wonder PLA show no interests here, I just wonder how long before AVIC give up.

PLAN might be pursuing an enlarged fighter based on the FC-31. The issue with using J-20s as a carrier fighter is that its fuselage is quite large.

 

[52051]

PLAN might be pursuing an enlarged fighter based on the FC-31. The issue with using J-20s as a carrier fighter is that its fuselage is quite large.

J-20's dimension is smaller than J-15.

And I bet to design a navy version of J-20 is still quicker than design a navy version of J-31.

Also the combat radius of a navy fighter is even more important than a land-based fighter in this age of long-range anti-ship missiles, PLAN wont settle for less.