SAC FC-31 Stealth Fighter: News & Discussions

[Deino]

J-16s don't have V-tails...?

Indeed ... but, but, but ... if he cannot even remmber correctly the colour I'm not sure if I woud bet, if he then was able to differ V-tails from to two parallel tails !??

I would be glad if I'm wrongg ... but I'm very much sceptical.

Deino

 

[Akasa]

Indeed ... but, but, but ... if he cannot even remmber correctly the colour I'm not sure if I woud bet, if he then was able to differ V-tails from to two parallel tails !??

I would be glad if I'm wrongg ... but I'm very much sceptical.

Deino

If he specifically mentioned "V-tails", I would presume he could distinguish between parallel and canted tails. But again, we would know soon if there is indeed a new prototype.

 

[Deino]

Via SDF:

The user officially recanted today. The other pair of Vs belong to 1.0, not 2.0 No.2. He took a closer look today and the other V was very clearly trapezoidal and black.

Deino

 

[Figaro]

 

[JSCh]

https://twitter.com/x/status/901243042371325952

 

[Rank]

https://twitter.com/x/status/901243042371325952

Raptor in the skies....

 

[Kiss_of_the_Dragon]

Raptor in the skies....

Chini Raptorski

 

[Figaro]

Chini Raptorski

The J-20 is China's Raptor; not the FC-31. Not to splash some cold water here but the FC-31 is mostly a failed project currently unless they can persuade the PLAN to be its next carrier fighter (which is unlikely). Shenyang, as usual, is inferior to Chengdu and used to rely exclusively on producing copies. In fact, their J-16 AESA radar had to be completely redesigned after quality issues ... something that the 14th institute has never experienced. The fact is Shenyang has never produced any "genuine" fighter; the FC-31 is a weird mixture of stolen F-35 blueprints with a twin engine configuration whose engines are still smoky. Thank god SAC did not win the fifth generation tender in 2007 otherwise there would be nothing remotely close to the J-20. It's gotten much better in recent years with its J-16, J-15, and J-11 variants but the truth is they're all based on Russian flanker designs. Compare that with Chengdu, whose jets are constantly undergoing innovation and being upgraded. The PLAAF, to many's disbelief, had to buy 24 Su-35 jets just to cover for the J-11D's many failures in 2015 (although the program still hasn't been cancelled yet ... oddly). I have always been surprised (and frustrated) by Shenyang's lack of innovation ... maybe it's because of CPC patronage? So for the people who compare the FC-31 to the F-22; it's not even close. If the rumors are true that the 611 institute has submitted a bid for China's 5th generation carrier-fighter, the FC-31 is dead ... completely.

 

[Akasa]

The J-20 is China's Raptor; not the FC-31. Not to splash some cold water here but the FC-31 is mostly a failed project currently unless they can persuade the PLAN to be its next carrier fighter (which is unlikely). Shenyang, as usual, is inferior to Chengdu and used to rely exclusively on producing copies. In fact, their J-16 AESA radar had to be completely redesigned after quality issues ... something that the 14th institute has never experienced. The fact is Shenyang has never produced any "genuine" fighter; the FC-31 is a weird mixture of stolen F-35 blueprints with a twin engine configuration whose engines are still smoky. Thank god SAC did not win the fifth generation tender in 2007 otherwise there would be nothing remotely close to the J-20. It's gotten much better in recent years with its J-16, J-15, and J-11 variants but the truth is they're all based on Russian flanker designs. Compare that with Chengdu, whose jets are constantly undergoing innovation and being upgraded. The PLAAF, to many's disbelief, had to buy 24 Su-35 jets just to cover for the J-11D's many failures in 2015 (although the program still hasn't been cancelled yet ... oddly). I have always been surprised (and frustrated) by Shenyang's lack of innovation ... maybe it's because of CPC patronage? So for the people who compare the FC-31 to the F-22; it's not even close. If the rumors are true that the 611 institute has submitted a bid for China's 5th generation carrier-fighter, the FC-31 is dead ... completely.

I'm sure you've read the ongoing discussion at SDF, so I'll tack on a few points:

1. SAC's bid for the PLAAF's heavy fighter program was a tri-plane design and not the FC-31. The FC-31 was a private venture pushed by the firm following its loss and was designed to give SAC headway into both the export market and the PLAAF/PLANAF doctrine. So far, the PLAAF has not pursued the FC-31 although that may very well change in the future, if we are to go by historical precedents.

2. SAC actually has a leg up over CAC when it comes to naval and particularly catapult-capable fighters due to its experience on the J-15 project. As for J-20 vs FC-31, we can't really make a worthwhile judgment until the latter completes its developmental cycle.

The FC-31 program is reminiscent of the Russian MiG-35 project; both are capable but inherently redundant jets that are expendable but nevertheless with the potential of being adopted by the air force or navy if the need arises.

 

[Figaro]

I'm sure you've read the ongoing discussion at SDF, so I'll tack on a few points:

1. SAC's bid for the PLAAF's heavy fighter program was a tri-plane design and not the FC-31. The FC-31 was a private venture pushed by the firm following its loss and was designed to give SAC headway into both the export market and the PLAAF/PLANAF doctrine. So far, the PLAAF has not pursued the FC-31 although that may very well change in the future, if we are to go by historical precedents.

2. SAC actually has a leg up over CAC when it comes to naval and particularly catapult-capable fighters due to its experience on the J-15 project. As for J-20 vs FC-31, we can't really make a worthwhile judgment until the latter completes its developmental cycle.

The FC-31 program is reminiscent of the Russian MiG-35 project; both are capable but inherently redundant jets that are expendable but nevertheless with the potential of being adopted by the air force or navy if the need arises.

I actually haven't read the discussion because I don't really follow the FC-31. Anyways ... how are you so confident that this "may very well change in the future" given SAC's poor track record and its mediocre performance (where's your historical precedent?). I seriously doubt the PLA will ever purchase the FC-31; it would be a dumb choice monetarily and militarily. It's true that SAC has a leg up versus the J-20 when it comes to carrier aviation; the former's design is ideal for naval aviation while the latter is a heavy-air superiority fighter. But it does not mean the PLA has even considered the FC-31's prospects. Regarding the Mig-35, that's the problem because the Russian airforce doesn't want it and Mig is trying to sell it to "poorer" countries in need of 4++ fighter. The FC-31 is a rushed and cheap attempt to export "5th generation" to developing countries; as such it would never meet the high requirements (technological and design) set forth by the PLAAF in recent years, especially if it does not receive state funding. Even with the much improved V2, the PLAAF has not shown any more interest and probably will not in the future either ...

 

[Akasa]

I actually haven't read the discussion because I don't really follow the FC-31. Anyways ... how are you so confident that this "may very well change in the future" given SAC's poor track record and its mediocre performance (where's your historical precedent?). I seriously doubt the PLA will ever purchase the FC-31; it would be a dumb choice monetarily and militarily. It's true that SAC has a leg up versus the J-20 when it comes to carrier aviation; the former's design is ideal for naval aviation while the latter is a heavy-air superiority fighter. But it does not mean the PLA has even considered the FC-31's prospects. Regarding the Mig-35, that's the problem because the Russian airforce doesn't want it and Mig is trying to sell it to "poorer" countries in need of 4++ fighter. The FC-31 is a rushed and cheap attempt to export "5th generation" to developing countries; as such it would never meet the high requirements (technological and design) set forth by the PLAAF in recent years, especially if it does not receive state funding. Even with the much improved V2, the PLAAF has not shown any more interest and probably will not in the future either ...

The historical precedent I was referring to is the Q-5, a jet that was initially rejected by the PLAAF but later inducted in large numbers following careful evaluation of its performance in the Pakistani Air Force. Additionally, it is actually not uncommon to see the PLA (or any other military for that matter) induct weapons that were initially slated for the export market.

If you wish to refer to SAC's track record, it has done fairly well when it comes to supplying the PLAAF and PLAN with heavyweight platforms, although innovation is lacking. I'd also like to mention that the J-16 AESA fiasco may very well be the fault of the AESA radar's manufacturer rather than SAC itself.

It's also important to make a distinction between the PLAAF and PLANAF; while the former has not shown any tentative interest in the FC-31, the same cannot be said of the PLANAF which is rumored to be evaluating between the FC-31 and J-20 for its next-generation naval fighter.

 

[Figaro]

The historical precedent I was referring to is the Q-5, a jet that was initially rejected by the PLAAF but later inducted in large numbers following careful evaluation of its performance in the Pakistani Air Force. Additionally, it is actually not uncommon to see the PLA (or any other military for that matter) induct weapons that were initially slated for the export market.

If you wish to refer to SAC's track record, it has done fairly well when it comes to supplying the PLAAF and PLAN with heavyweight platforms, although innovation is lacking. I'd also like to mention that the J-16 AESA fiasco may very well be the fault of the AESA radar's manufacturer rather than SAC itself.

It's also important to make a distinction between the PLAAF and PLANAF; while the former has not shown any tentative interest in the FC-31, the same cannot be said of the PLANAF which is rumored to be evaluating between the FC-31 and J-20 for its next-generation naval fighter.

But that is only one precedent. And the Q-5 and FC-31 are completely different aircraft in their role, specifications, and avionics. Are we just going to take it for granted that the PLAAF wants a substandard product for the future of naval aviation? The problem is the PLAAF has not shown any interest whatsoever in the FC-31; they're more interested in a navalized J-20 which is not an ideal plane for CATOBAR.

As I've said, Shenyang has done much better in recent years ... but its gap with Chengdu has not shrunk. If SAC cannot even adequately enforce QA within its own supply chain, how do we expect it to do so with a fifth generation fighter (remember the WS-10 fiasco in 2009?). Quality control is one of the many problems of SAC.

Exactly my point. The FC-31 is definitely suited in terms of design to be China's next generation naval fighter whereas the J-20 is most certainly not (needing substantial redesign on all fronts). Then why's there even competition given SAC's "experience" in naval aviation and CAC's lack thereof? It's obvious that the PLANAF is concerned about Shenyang's poor track record ... and they ought to be as the naval fighter program is just as significant as the J-20 ground based program.

 

[Akasa]

But that is only one precedent. And the Q-5 and FC-31 are completely different aircraft in their role, specifications, and avionics. Are we just going to take it for granted that the PLAAF wants a substandard product for the future of naval aviation? The problem is the PLAAF has not shown any interest whatsoever in the FC-31; they're more interested in a navalized J-20 which is not an ideal plane for CATOBAR.

As I've said, Shenyang has done much better in recent years ... but its gap with Chengdu has not shrunk. If SAC cannot even adequately enforce QA within its own supply chain, how do we expect it to do so with a fifth generation fighter (remember the WS-10 fiasco in 2009?). Quality control is one of the many problems of SAC.

Exactly my point. The FC-31 is definitely suited in terms of design to be China's next generation naval fighter whereas the J-20 is most certainly not (needing substantial redesign on all fronts). Then why's there even competition given SAC's "experience" in naval aviation and CAC's lack thereof? It's obvious that the PLANAF is concerned about Shenyang's poor track record ... and they ought to be as the naval fighter program is just as significant as the J-20 ground based program.

The Q-5 is an example in which the PLAAF rejected a type of platform only to return to it years later. Other examples exist as well, such as the Wing Loong drone and a few others. The Q-5 vs FC-31 argument is irrelevant as the former is used as an example for the latter's case.

Let's not jump ahead now; there is no indication that the PLAN is more interested in a naval J-20. The only rumor regarding its next-generation fighter tender is that it requires a "medium-sized, heavyweight" aircraft. Both designs could fit that requirement with a redesign. A lot of observers erroneously claim that the PLAN prefers the J-20 due to its range, but fail to consider that a scaled-down naval J-20 would likely forfeit its range advantage over an enlarged FC-31 design.

Lastly, I highly doubt that the FC-31 vs J-20 competition exists because the PLAN had concerns regarding SAC's quality control. The two designs, simply put, provide the PLAN more options than merely one. That isn't to say, of course, that the PLAN doesn't have its qualms about Shenyang.

 

[cnleio]

 

[grey boy 2]

Latest rumors: the so-called V3 model is actually a new FC-31 version that is going to compete with J-20 as the next generation aircraft carrier borne fighter (歼-31舰载型方案细节曝光 未来或与歼-20展开竞争)
Credits to

angadow 2017-09-03 09:49:30