SAC FC-31 Stealth Fighter: News & Discussions

[kungfugymnast]

I guess FC-31 would basically end up as the tech demonstrator that leads to the J-35, but the J-35 (if it materializes) will be a very different fighter?

Foreign military experts said most likely the J31, FC31 or J35 will be enlarged by SAC to fit the already proven WS10 engines that could share common parts with existing J10, J11, J15, J16. Due to large border and requirements for fast long range fighter bomber by PLAN carrier fleet, most likely SAC will enlarge the J35 fitted with WS10 giving it more power and speed as answer to its air force counterpart J20.

Any updates on the WS19???? What is its current status???

Will be put on hold if J35 is to be enlarged to fit WS10 engines. WS19 engine development will resume after J35 won the project and with funding from J35 sales. WS19 engines will be perfected and new medium twin engine fighter will be designed later.

 

[Deino]

Foreign military experts said most likely the J31, FC31 or J35 will be enlarged by SAC to fit the already proven WS10 engines that could share common parts with existing J10, J11, J15, J16. Due to large border and requirements for fast long range fighter bomber by PLAN carrier fleet, most likely SAC will enlarge the J35 fitted with WS10 giving it more power and speed as answer to its air force counterpart J20.

Will be put on hold if J35 is to be enlarged to fit WS10 engines. WS19 engine development will resume after J35 won the project and with funding from J35 sales. WS19 engines will be perfected and new medium twin engine fighter will be designed later.

Pardon to contradict: NONE Foreign military expert says so! I really cannot understand why you are still claiming this?!

As I said so often - or as we say in Germany - this decision has been made most likely long ago. ("Dieser Zug ist längst abgefahren" ) ... it will use the WS-19.

 

[kungfugymnast]

Pardon to contradict: NONE Foreign military expert says so! I really cannot understand why you are still claiming this?!

As I said so often - or as we say in Germany - this decision has been made most likely long ago. ("Dieser Zug ist längst abgefahren" ) ... it will use the WS-19.

Danke. English speaking analyst & China folks said so based on feasibility and practicality factors. SAC is losing this project if they come up with navalized fighter with such short range and less payload that loses multirole capability.

That left SAC only option is to enlarge the J35 to fit WS10, bigger internal fuel tank, add 2 sidebay for IR guided air to air missiles to impress the ministry of defense and PLAN commanders.

 

[Deino]

Danke. English speaking analyst & China folks said so based on feasibility and practicality factors. SAC is losing this project if they come up with navalized fighter with such short range and less payload that loses multirole capability.

That left SAC only option is to enlarge the J35 to fit WS10, bigger internal fuel tank, add 2 sidebay for IR guided air to air missiles to impress the ministry of defense and PLAN commanders.

Hmm ... I know several "English speaking analysts" but none of them - at least none who is rated reliable - suggests this. May you mention a few names?

Thanks in advance,
Deino

 

[kungfugymnast]

Hmm ... I know several "English speaking analysts" but none of them - at least none who is rated reliable - suggests this. May you mention a few names?

Thanks in advance,
Deino

Just random military fans and writers that I came across from chat groups. The navalized enlarged stealth fighter will be likely named as different aircraft at the end.

 

[Deino]

Just random military fans and writers that I came across from chat groups. The navalized enlarged stealth fighter will be likely named as different aircraft at the end.

Pardon, but there is a difference to equal several "English speaking analysts" with "just random military fans and writers". At least to my knowledge NO TRUE "English speaking analyst" claims this, and therefore we shall put it to rest until we get new images of the alleged J-35.

Anyway, I would bet nearly anything, that it won't be WS-10-powered.

 

[LKJ86]

Anyway, I would bet nearly anything, that it won't be WS-10-powered.

Maybe he just has forgotten J-20, and if PLAN needs, there would be a carrier-based version of J-20.

 

[Deino]

Maybe he just has forgotten J-20, and if PLAN needs, there would be a carrier-based version of J-20.

maybe, but given the latest info, how likely is it that there will be also a navalised J-20 powered by WS-10? IMO there is none.

 

[kungfugymnast]

Pardon, but there is a difference to equal several "English speaking analysts" with "just random military fans and writers". At least to my knowledge NO TRUE "English speaking analyst" claims this, and therefore we shall put it to rest until we get new images of the alleged J-35.

Anyway, I would bet nearly anything, that it won't be WS-10-powered.

I left out the military magazines writeup experts. In fact there are from them. The answer is definitely question mark as the future navalized stealth fighter depends on whether there will be rail launch on carrier. If there's EMALS, then having large stealth fighter is feasible. Short combat radius would limit the role to just fleet defense operating within 200 Nm radius.

Maybe he just has forgotten J-20, and if PLAN needs, there would be a carrier-based version of J-20.

J20 wings aren't suitable for carrier based. Check F18E/F wings that are less swept for low speed stability and maneuverability when loaded especially. The F18 with fixed wing have to sacrifice aerodynamic and ferry range just for this reason.

Rather than total redesign the J20, it is easier to enlarge FC31 instead giving it larger wing area would improve lift and stability at low speed as well. The FC31 navalized version could easily take design cue from F35C and F22 since the layout similar help shortens the R&D time.

 

[Deino]

I left out the military magazines writeup experts. In fact there are from them. The answer is definitely question mark as the future navalized stealth fighter depends on whether there will be rail launch on carrier. If there's EMALS, then having large stealth fighter is feasible. Short combat radius would limit the role to just fleet defense operating within 200 Nm radius.

Pardon to step in again: As I already said so often. It is irrelevant to further discuss. The PLAN has already decided and against this option. Also I think it is safe to assume, the EMALS discussion is over too and also moot. The USN launched large and heavy bombers like the A-3, A-5 and others for decades with regular steam-catapults, so the question what launch system is irrelevant to the size of an aircraft. It all depends on what the PLAN wants ... and seems they want a medium-weight - even if a fighter in the calls of a F/A-18E/F Super Hornet is no longer a medium call type - fighter.

Again, I think we shall stop this useless discussion on what might eventually be better. The PLAN has spoken.

J20 wings aren't suitable for carrier based. Check F18E/F wings that are less swept for low speed stability and maneuverability when loaded especially. The F18 with fixed wing have to sacrifice aerodynamic and ferry range just for this reason.

Rather than total redesign the J20, it is easier to enlarge FC31 instead giving it larger wing area would improve lift and stability at low speed as well. The FC31 navalized version could easily take design cue from F35C and F22 since the layout similar help shortens the R&D time.

Here you are wrong too, just look at the Rafale and also it si a common mistake why some still think "simply enlarging an airplane's design" to add larger, bigger wider or whatever engines in is wrong, even plain naive. It does not work.

 

[kungfugymnast]

Pardon to step in again: As I already said so often. It is irrelevant to further discuss. The PLAN has already decided and against this option. Also I think it is safe to assume, the EMALS discussion is over too and also moot. The USN launched large and heavy bombers like the A-3, A-5 and others for decades with regular steam-catapults, so the question what launch system is irrelevant to the size of an aircraft. It all depends on what the PLAN wants ... and seems they want a medium-weight - even if a fighter in the calls of a F/A-18E/F Super Hornet is no longer a medium call type - fighter.

Again, I think we shall stop this useless discussion on what might eventually be better. The PLAN has spoken.



Here you are wrong too, just look at the Rafale and also it si a common mistake why some still think "simply enlarging an airplane's design" to add larger, bigger wider or whatever engines in is wrong, even plain naive. It does not work.

Whether catapult steam or EMALS, both are good enough to launch large aircraft from carriers. PLAN having catapult launch on their carriers would help much in getting J15 up in the air on full payload.

F/A-18C/D are medium fighters while enlarged F/A-18E/F are large fighters. Can see the huge improvement and advantages on the enlarged hornets. Large powerful, radar, more combat radius, more missiles & bombs able to take up more roles.

French aren't going to face world #1 military US therefore their rafale M design criteria is only up to taking on weaker countries military. If you notice, its delta wing angle more forward (less swept backward) compared to EF2000 for better low speed stability and maneuverability sacrificing top speed in drag-lift preference.

China naval fighters at the other hand expect toughest enemy such as US should war happens. Therefore speed, combat radius and multirole capabilities are main concern. Naval fleet defender role is to engage and destroy threats beyond 200Nm before they get into anti-ship missile effective range. E-2C/D AWACS support range 200/250Nm, E-3C support range 300Nm. China expects outnumbered scenario so they'll need navalized stealth fighters that are independent rather than dependant like F35C. F35C in air to air role will turn back and flee after launching all 4 AMRAAMs. In case of being pursued, F/A-18E/F nearby will assist by engaging enemy fighters on pursuit. This means F35C will always require air cover from F/A-18E/F as they are high asset value aircraft.

 

[waja2000]

Here you are wrong too, just look at the Rafale and also it si a common mistake why some still think "simply enlarging an airplane's design" to add larger, bigger wider or whatever engines in is wrong, even plain naive. It does not work.

Due to French aircraft carrier Charles de Gaulle shot take off runway (well know design issue) , limit size of Rafale and can't be enlarge. and france experiance in delta Wing fighter in pass, rafale continue follow this design.
Although F/A-18 EF look same to CD , but both only 15%~20% share parts, almost can consider F/A-18 EF new plane.

 

[kungfugymnast]

Due to French aircraft carrier Charles de Gaulle shot take off runway (well know design issue) , limit size of Rafale and can't be enlarge. and france experiance in delta Wing fighter in pass, rafale continue follow this design.
Although F/A-18 EF look same to CD , but both only 15%~20% share parts, almost can consider F/A-18 EF new plane.

French naval fighters aren't made to fight US, they'll stay as medium fighters providing air strikes or combat air patrol. At time of war, French will stay as peacekeeper taking on enemies with small to moderate military with US by their sides.

French Rafale customers are countries such as middle east, India that would limited to unfriendly neighbors conflict at most up against fighters and ground targets. They don't expect any scenario where they have to fight US having to intercept US bombers and fighters before they launch long range cruise missiles at their naval fleet, supplies, bases.

 

[Deino]

Can we please leave out politics and simply stick to the topic!

 

[LKJ86]

Interesting...