Page 4 of 194 FirstFirst 12345678914344454104 ... LastLast
Results 46 to 60 of 2899
Like Tree5145Likes

Shenyang J-31 Fighter

This is a discussion on Shenyang J-31 Fighter within the Air Force forums, part of the China Defense & Military category; Originally Posted by Bltizo Why a no-no? -- anyway here are the rest of the pictures. Pretty consistent differences from ...

  1. #46
    siegecrossbow's Avatar
    siegecrossbow is online now Super Moderator
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Cedar Park, Texas
    Posts
    2,812

    re: Shenyang J-31 Fighter

    Quote Originally Posted by Bltizo View Post
    Why a no-no?

    --

    anyway here are the rest of the pictures. Pretty consistent differences from the T-50, but meh I dunno..



    Looks like a T-50 with its belly flattened out...

    Did they really have to imitate the paintwork... really?
    Equation likes this.
    Please visit http://www.chinesedefence.com/forums/f17/thread-translated-articles-658/ for translated Chinese military articles, news, and forum posts.

  2. #47
    Bltizo's Avatar
    Bltizo is online now Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    The People's Republic of Socialist Romanticism
    Posts
    5,205

    re: Shenyang J-31 Fighter

    Quote Originally Posted by siegecrossbow View Post
    Looks like a T-50 with its belly flattened out...

    Did they really have to imitate the paintwork... really?
    As hyperwarp showed and as I said before, these were drawings of the t-50 before it first flew, so it's not sac's 5th gen. The resemblance to t-50 is because it IS the t-50
    CARRIER HAS ARRIVED! ^^

  3. #48
    Schumacher is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    1,201

    re: Shenyang J-31 Fighter

    Quote Originally Posted by Centrist View Post
    .........
    I still don't understand why they would develop a JH-7B and J-16 simultaneously. The J-16 would be far superior and would be quick and easy to develop since it is just a modified J-11B.
    ..........
    Perhaps their fighter will be carrier-ready as well? Otherwise it is a complete overlap over the J-20 and makes no sense.
    Why would there be overlap ? J20 is air superiority, SAC's J-XX is multi-role.
    JH-7B may have some stealth but if it's still derived from the old strike JH-7, then it should be somewhere, in terms of generation, between, J20, SAC-JXX and the J16/J11BHS which don't seem to have any stealth and derived from a heavy fighter.
    So there are obvious differences in roles/capabilities of these jets.

    If you look at USAF which have F22, if they can fix it, F35, F15E, F16s/15s/18s coexisting, PLAAF with J20, J-XX, JH7-B, J10B, J16/J11BHS, J15 is not too much at all especially considering PLAAF don't share USAF's enthusiasm for common services platform like F35.

  4. #49
    latenlazy is online now Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    2,092

    re: Shenyang J-31 Fighter

    Quote Originally Posted by Schumacher View Post
    Why would there be overlap ? J20 is air superiority, SAC's J-XX is multi-role.
    JH-7B may have some stealth but if it's still derived from the old strike JH-7, then it should be somewhere, in terms of generation, between, J20, SAC-JXX and the J16/J11BHS which don't seem to have any stealth and derived from a heavy fighter.
    So there are obvious differences in roles/capabilities of these jets.

    If you look at USAF which have F22, if they can fix it, F35, F15E, F16s/15s/18s coexisting, PLAAF with J20, J-XX, JH7-B, J10B, J16/J11BHS, J15 is not too much at all especially considering PLAAF don't share USAF's enthusiasm for common services platform like F35.
    Technically all modern day fighters are "multirole" to some extent or another. In the case of the J-20, multirole capabilities probably lean more towards air superiority, interdictor/interceptor, and tactical strike, leaving an opening for a more general strike/attack/fighter-bomber plane. The question is with a plane like the J-20, will they be better off with a generalist (J-16, 19 etc) or would they be better off with something a bit more specialized in the other way, like a JH-7B.

    The reason why this is significant is because running multiple platforms is expensive in terms of maintenance and supply. You only have a situation like the US because 1) You have two separate branches of the military with different requirements in their planes (The F-35 is a good example of how even with different branch requirements the costs are a problem), and 2) you're watching an air force in transition and phasing out legacy fighters. This is vastly different than a discussion about introducing both a J-16/19 and a JH-7B, where both are newly being introduced at the same time, guaranteeing twice the maintenance burden for half the number of each plane type. Unless there is a significant advantage to having both (for example, one being specialized for carriers), it seems unlikely from a logistics and operations point of view.

    The PLAAF may not have an enthusiasm for common service platforms, but keep in mind the USAF and USN didn't either, and had to be strongarmed by the ballooning costs of increasingly advanced air frames.
    airsuperiority likes this.

  5. #50
    clone7803 is offline New Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    43

    re: Shenyang J-31 Fighter

    Quote Originally Posted by Bltizo View Post
    We're told all of those things you said, and it's sounding similar like how people all believed J-XX was a canard delta that was being funded by the PLAAF.
    It's not impossible for SAC to be funding this project "themselves" -- they might have some people in the government and PLAAF funding going to it as R&D but the sound of things suggest this project is one which the PLAAF has no interest in as of yet.
    PLAAF is the boss,I don't buy the rumor that the SAC tried to collect the R&D money by its own connection in the AVIC since if the boss won't buy its product,it's useless to spend money and energy on such a project.And on the contrary,I believe that the SAC J-XX project has a high priority in the PLAAF's future plan if it's not more important than the J-20 due to the reasons:
    1.The PLAAF intended to buid a both defensive and offensive force(by recent PLAAF publictions),the SAC J-XX fighter/bomber will be the backbone to project the air to ground firepower in an offensive mission.
    2.If the SAC J-XX is cheaper enough(at least it seems so from current leaked information) than the J-20,mostlikely the PLAAF will buy more of it than the J-20.That means the PLAAF will form a high/low combination by the J-20/SAC J-XX.
    3.I can smell the distrust from the PLAAF to the CAC.The SAC J-XX has a role to be the plan B that if the J-20 failed,the PLAAF still has another project to ensure the sucess.
    Overall,the SAC J-XX services the PLAAF's future offensive plan and it's important to the PLAAF,the SAC project could not to be a self-funded one.It's important,if not more important than the J-20.
    Red Moon and justin like this.

  6. #51
    Bltizo's Avatar
    Bltizo is online now Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    The People's Republic of Socialist Romanticism
    Posts
    5,205

    re: Shenyang J-31 Fighter

    Quote Originally Posted by clone7803 View Post
    PLAAF is the boss,I don't buy the rumor that the SAC tried to collect the R&D money by its own connection in the AVIC since if the boss won't buy its product,it's useless to spend money and energy on such a project.And on the contrary,I believe that the SAC J-XX project has a high priority in the PLAAF's future plan if it's not more important than the J-20 due to the reasons:
    1.The PLAAF intended to buid a both defensive and offensive force(by recent PLAAF publictions),the SAC J-XX fighter/bomber will be the backbone to project the air to ground firepower in an offensive mission.
    2.If the SAC J-XX is cheaper enough(at least it seems so from current leaked information) than the J-20,mostlikely the PLAAF will buy more of it than the J-20.That means the PLAAF will form a high/low combination by the J-20/SAC J-XX.
    3.I can smell the distrust from the PLAAF to the CAC.The SAC J-XX has a role to be the plan B that if the J-20 failed,the PLAAF still has another project to ensure the sucess.
    Overall,the SAC J-XX services the PLAAF's future offensive plan and it's important to the PLAAF,the SAC project could not to be a self-funded one.It's important,if not more important than the J-20.
    The F-15E was developed privately before the USAF issued the ETF tender. The MQ-9 was developed privately by General atomics before they anticipated the USAF's desire for an improved MQ-1.

    Privately developing a new aircraft in the early stages and then having the military become interested is not new at all.
    I agree with your points 1 and 2. SAC's J-XX could certainly be used in those roles but that does not support the idea their "J-19" is being privately or government funded.
    Point 3 is ridiculous -- if there's any distrust it's PLAAF towards SAC. The fact that they've only recently picked up J-11B/S and J-15 production is probably because PLAAF were commited to the platform as the current mainstay of their heavy fighter force. The same way they are commited to the J-20 as their future heavy fighter force.
    SAC's J-XX proposal lost for a reason, and CAC has shown themselves more than capable to take on the task of developing multiple new fighters in recent years.

    SAC's J-19 is probably not being funded by the air force.
    rolking likes this.
    CARRIER HAS ARRIVED! ^^

  7. #52
    SinoSoldier's Avatar
    SinoSoldier is offline Junior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Somewhere in the void between the concept of conclusion and hypothesis
    Posts
    1,019
    Quote Originally Posted by Centrist View Post
    Well let's look at the big picture. Here are the upcoming fighters:

    JF-17B-WS-13 engine, improved electronics, frontal stealth
    ---Very possible since it could be a very strong export product.

    J-10B/S
    ---We know this fighter is being developed, it makes sense to improve the J-10 platform.

    J-2X-Rumored single engine stealth fighter. Possible since it would be a long term replacement for the J-10.

    J-15
    ---In development, derived from the J-11B. Fills near term need for a carrier fighter.

    J-20-Stealth air superiority fighter.
    ---China's F-22 equivalent.

    That's a lot of planes to be developing simultaneously, but we also have these.....

    __________________________________________________

    J-16-J-11BS/Su-30 derived fighter bomber.

    JH-7B-Another fighter bomber....

    J-17-Stealthy Flanker....possibly similar to the Su-35?

    J-18-Next generation naval fighter

    J-19-5th generation SAC multirole fighter.


    This is far too many new fighters. There isn't enough money or enough slots to fill in China's air force.

    I still don't understand why they would develop a JH-7B and J-16 simultaneously. The J-16 would be far superior and would be quick and easy to develop since it is just a modified J-11B.

    But then there is talk of the J-17, J-18, and J-19....

    I am going to suggest that these may be the same fighters. If you remember huitongs post about the J-15 before he learned that it was to be just another flanker variant....he thought that it was a semi stealth design based on SAC's failed design bid against the J-20.

    But now 70092 is suggesting that the J-19 is also derived from this failed design. I am thinking that maybe, after SAC lost the bid against the J-20, they continued the project on their own but retooled it for multiple roles. Perhaps their fighter will be carrier-ready as well? Otherwise it is a complete overlap over the J-20 and makes no sense.
    I compared some multiple sources and here are what they have in common:
    This is mostly educated speculation. The PLAAF does not confirm anything in advance.


    J-16: this will apparently be simply an upgrade of the J-11BS, perhaps with some more emphasis on ground strike. First flight expected 2011-2012.

    J-18: this is in early development, so don't be surprised if you are not going to hear about it for a few years. It is supposedly a naval fighter follow on to the J-15.

    J-19: this is the Shenyang's J-XX.

    J-2X (or J-21/J-12?): this is supposedly a F-35 type fighter developed from the J-20. It may be for export.

    JH-7B: this will be a stealthy variant of the JH-7A with AESA radar and upgraded engines. First flight expected very soon.

    JF-17 Block II: stealthy JF-17 with AESA, more composites, etc. First flight may already been completed.


    The J-17 is supposedly a cancelled copy of the Su-34.



    As you see, many of them are simply upgrades of existing fighters, and many are export oriented. This implies that not all of them will enter service or enter service in significant numbers.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jeff Head View Post
    The low observable is interesting. Just looks real close to the USAF low observable.




    Nice fighter too...but I would not call it a true 5th gen stealth fighter. I am sure it is much better than the standard flanker...but not up to speed IMHO with true fifth gen stealth fighters. Here's the side and front compared to the F-22:





    The plane you are viewing is probably not the Shenyang J-XX. It is more likely the J-16. The J-16 is an upgraded J-11B variant with probable RCS reducing design and AESA radar. It's a strike fighter, probably on par with the F-15SE in terms of stealth and avionics.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jeff Head View Post
    Be a nice aircraft to upgrade and make a naval variant for the carriers. A few years from now, if they bring out a carrier variant to upgrade the J-15s. Depends on the perfromance and charactoeristics...but a naval variant would be an option I would think.
    China is believed to be developing a follow on fighter to the J-15. It has been temporarily named the J-18, and it is supposedly a stealthier variant. Judging from what few information we have about it, I think of it as a downgraded T-50K.

    Quote Originally Posted by 70092 View Post
    However, the guy also mentioned that SAC's mutli-role stealth fighter will like to face tough competition from another AVIC's design insistute, 603th insistute, which is expected to develop a stealth heavy fighter-bomber, place more emphasis on stealth, low-cost, and larger internal weapon bay size, at the expense of inferior dog-fight performance.
    That sounds like the JH-7B.

    The picture comes from an article written by an ex AVIC employee.

    In the article the ex employee says that there are three major variants of the J-11 being developed.

    Two of these variants will have some stealthy features while the last variant will essentially be a 5th generation fighter.

  8. #53
    Bltizo's Avatar
    Bltizo is online now Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    The People's Republic of Socialist Romanticism
    Posts
    5,205

    re: Shenyang J-31 Fighter

    ^ Edit your posts instead of posting five consecutive please... makes reading it much easier.
    CARRIER HAS ARRIVED! ^^

  9. #54
    Schumacher is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    1,201

    re: Shenyang J-31 Fighter

    Quote Originally Posted by clone7803 View Post
    PLAAF is the boss,I don't buy the rumor that the SAC tried to collect the R&D money by its own connection in the AVIC since if the boss won't buy its product,it's useless to spend money and energy on such a project.And on the contrary,I believe that the SAC J-XX project has a high priority in the PLAAF's future plan if it's not more important than the J-20 due to the reasons:
    1.The PLAAF intended to buid a both defensive and offensive force(by recent PLAAF publictions),the SAC J-XX fighter/bomber will be the backbone to project the air to ground firepower in an offensive mission.
    2.If the SAC J-XX is cheaper enough(at least it seems so from current leaked information) than the J-20,mostlikely the PLAAF will buy more of it than the J-20.That means the PLAAF will form a high/low combination by the J-20/SAC J-XX.
    3.I can smell the distrust from the PLAAF to the CAC.The SAC J-XX has a role to be the plan B that if the J-20 failed,the PLAAF still has another project to ensure the sucess.
    Overall,the SAC J-XX services the PLAAF's future offensive plan and it's important to the PLAAF,the SAC project could not to be a self-funded one.It's important,if not more important than the J-20.
    Well said, a multi-role jet meeting more of the PLA 4th gen 4S criteria than F35, T50, of one the SAC J-XX is claimed to be, will play an important role in any air force including PLAAF, with or without J20 which is likely an air-superiority jet despite certain "every jet is considered multi-role these days" claim.
    But it's too strong a word to talk of distrust. It's just sound planning to have a SAC J-XX using more mature tech than J20, which is more radical, available just in case.
    We see from F22 how when you push to the edge of tech, you're taking big risks. And J20 is definitely pushing the edge.

  10. #55
    latenlazy is online now Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    2,092

    re: Shenyang J-31 Fighter

    Quote Originally Posted by Schumacher View Post
    Well said, a multi-role jet meeting more of the PLA 4th gen 4S criteria than F35, T50, of one the SAC J-XX is claimed to be, will play an important role in any air force including PLAAF, with or without J20 which is likely an air-superiority jet despite certain "every jet is considered multi-role these days" claim.
    But it's too strong a word to talk of distrust. It's just sound planning to have a SAC J-XX using more mature tech than J20, which is more radical, available just in case.
    We see from F22 how when you push to the edge of tech, you're taking big risks. And J20 is definitely pushing the edge.
    *rollseyes* Go two generations back if you want to find fighters dedicated to only one role. These days it's often more common to find one air frame modified and adapted for different roles. F-15C-->F-15E, F-18C/D-->F-18E/F, countless variations of the Su-27, etc. One design is not limited to one role.

    This isn't to say that there won't be another 5th generation air frame. It's just unlikely for so many of them (I count 3-4 potential unique air frames) to be pursued and adopted in parallel.

    In any case, it doesn't matter what any of us think. It depends on whether the PLAAF has any requests for new designs.
    Last edited by latenlazy; 08-23-2011 at 08:34 PM.
    Equation likes this.

  11. #56
    challenge is offline Banned Idiot
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    1,668

    re: Shenyang J-31 Fighter

    you failed to include F-4 phantom jet.
    Mcdonnel dougles F-4 started out as a company funded fighter.
    Equation likes this.

  12. #57
    70092 is offline Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    138

    re: Shenyang J-31 Fighter

    SAC's J-1X is not funded by SAC itself, it is funded by AVIC, and SAC has lots connections with the managements in AVIC, the current CEO of AVIC come from Shenyang, the big academic bully at AVIC, Dr. Gu, is from SAC.

    And AVIC is a fortune 500 company, and it is a mega corporation that own most aircraft design insistute and manufacturing factories in China, and thanks to its CEO's un-professionalness, the company now has expending to other areas like investment firms and real-estate building agency, and they have indeed risen lots money by doing these.

    The overall market cap. of AVIC, given tha if it it is allowed to be listed in stock market, should be around in 150-200 billion USD (currrently only 20% or so of its small sub-companies (e.g. no SAC/CAC/XAC/HAC) are allowed to be listed in market, the total market of these 20% has already exceeding 30 billion USD.

    So of cause it is not impossible for AVIC to fund some stealth fighter projects all by themselves, especially if they believe they can eventually find market to sell their fighters,be it PLAAF, PLAN or oversea (considering the fact J-20 is completely funded by PLAAF and it is highly regarded in PLAAF so the likelihood of PLAAF allow CAC to export J-20 in the near future is slim).
    Bltizo, Equation and justin like this.

  13. #58
    Centrist is offline Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    442

    re: Shenyang J-31 Fighter

    Quote Originally Posted by latenlazy View Post
    Technically all modern day fighters are "multirole" to some extent or another. In the case of the J-20, multirole capabilities probably lean more towards air superiority, interdictor/interceptor, and tactical strike, leaving an opening for a more general strike/attack/fighter-bomber plane. The question is with a plane like the J-20, will they be better off with a generalist (J-16, 19 etc) or would they be better off with something a bit more specialized in the other way, like a JH-7B.

    The reason why this is significant is because running multiple platforms is expensive in terms of maintenance and supply. You only have a situation like the US because 1) You have two separate branches of the military with different requirements in their planes (The F-35 is a good example of how even with different branch requirements the costs are a problem), and 2) you're watching an air force in transition and phasing out legacy fighters. This is vastly different than a discussion about introducing both a J-16/19 and a JH-7B, where both are newly being introduced at the same time, guaranteeing twice the maintenance burden for half the number of each plane type. Unless there is a significant advantage to having both (for example, one being specialized for carriers), it seems unlikely from a logistics and operations point of view.

    The PLAAF may not have an enthusiasm for common service platforms, but keep in mind the USAF and USN didn't either, and had to be strongarmed by the ballooning costs of increasingly advanced air frames.
    Agreed. Having a bunch of platforms is different than developing redundant platforms simultaneously. There is simply no reason to expend so much resources into a bunch of planes that do the same thing.

    PAST FIGHTERS-----------

    J-5=Mig 17
    J-6=Mig 19
    J-7A=Mig 21

    FIGHTERS IN SERVICE-----

    J-7E/G=Improved Mig 21
    J-8=Interceptor
    J-8IIB/D/=Improved J-8 Interceptor
    J-8IIH/F=Further Improved J-8II Multirole
    J-10/A/S=Lo Fighter In Hi-Lo Mix.
    Su-27=Imported From Russia
    J-11/A=Domestically Assembled Su-27
    J-11B/S=Domestically Built and Improved Su-27
    JH-7/A=Strike Fighter
    Su-30=Imported Strike Fighter

    FIGHTERS CONCLUSIVELY IN DEVELOPMENT-----

    J-10B=Improved J-10
    J-15=Carrier Variant of J-11B
    J-20=5th Generation Air Superiority Fighter

    CANCELED OR UNAPPROVED---------------------

    J-9=Single Engine Light Fighter
    J-11=(Original Shenyang Project)
    J-12=Nanchang (Hongdu) Light Fighter
    J-13=Shenyang Fighter
    J-14=Proposed Twin Engine J-10 Heavy Fighter (Redundant as the J-11B was already being built)

    RUMORED PROJECTS-----------------------------

    J-16=J-11BS Derived Strike Fighter
    J-17=Silent Flanker
    J-18=Semi-Stealth Naval J-15 Follow-Up
    J-19=Shenyang Heavy Stealth Fighter
    JH-7B=Improved JH-7A
    J-2X=Single Engine Stealth Fighter
    JF-17B=Improved JF-17

    ---------------------------------------------------

    The problem here is that China already has about 16 fighter variants in service, not counting bombers, transports, "S" versions, awacs, tankers, the Q-5.

    Now we know they are developing at least 3 new aircraft definitively, but rumors suggest...on top of that 7 more fighters. Again, not including bombers, transports, "S" versions, awacs, tankers, the Q-5....etc.

    This would mean that China would have 20 different fighter platforms in service in 2020, even after taking into account the retirement of the six oldest aircraft platforms in service.

    Compare that to the US, which will have a total of just 9 different platforms in service that same year. Again, excluding bombers and the like.

    I do not see how China can be developing 10 new aircraft simultaneously guys. Some of these aircraft must be figments of our imaginations.
    Equation likes this.

  14. #59
    RedSky's Avatar
    RedSky is offline New Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    68

    re: Shenyang J-31 Fighter

    I think it's the shadow of vertical tail~!^

  15. #60
    airsuperiority's Avatar
    airsuperiority is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Vancouver, Hong Kong
    Posts
    1,622

    re: Shenyang J-31 Fighter

    I seriously don't think there's the need of that. It is inefficient use of logistics and resources. I hope and do believe, lots of these are rumors. J-16,17, 18 are essentially the same thing! And what's the point of J-2X? And why invest in JF-17B anyways? if it were me, I'd shave off the 16-18 into one thing, and attempt to retire the sub-J-10 stuffs into second line or use it in ways that are meant to be sacrificed but getting the most out of them.

Similar Threads

  1. JQ-X Fighter
    By planeman in forum Air Force
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 08-31-2013, 04:26 AM
  2. First photos of Shenyang J-21!!??? Take a look
    By siegecrossbow in forum Members' Club Room
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: 04-07-2012, 03:25 AM
  3. what fighter is it ?
    By Yang Yang in forum Air Force
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 11-12-2006, 08:23 PM
  4. old fighter
    By ahho in forum Air Force
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 10-26-2005, 12:59 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •