Shenyang FC-31 / J-31 Fighter Demonstrator

Air Force Brat

Brigadier
Super Moderator
I'm not trying to counter your statements, but I am having a hard time understanding just what the problem is. I can't think of a single reason why there would be any more protrusions from a plane with a single engine than with two. Why would the single engine have to be reduced in size?

Maybe an image or something would help me understand. I apologize in advance if it's something terribly obvious that I'm missing. That's happened more than a few times...

I believe part of what they are referring to is the bulbous appearance of say the F-35, in comparison to the sleek almost winglike surface of the Raptor/J-20/T-50
 

stardave

Junior Member
Your right Quickie, stealth aircraft need to have two engines. Having only one engine compromises the F-35. But the Marines are forced to operate from flattops without cats or ski ramps and without traps. And designing an aircraft for them alone would result in planes that would cost much more than those for Air Force or Navy, perhaps even a little more than the F-35B will cost ( but perhaps a little less! ).

In 2011, Canadian politicians raised the issue of the safety of the F-35's reliance on a single engine (as opposed to a twin-engine configuration, which provides a backup in case of an engine failure). Canada had previous experience with a high-accident rate with the single-engine Lockheed CF-104 Starfighter with many accidents related to engine failures. Defence Minister Peter MacKay, when asked what would happen if the F-35’s single engine fails in the Far North, stated "It won’t".
 

Lion

Senior Member
In 2011, Canadian politicians raised the issue of the safety of the F-35's reliance on a single engine (as opposed to a twin-engine configuration, which provides a backup in case of an engine failure). Canada had previous experience with a high-accident rate with the single-engine Lockheed CF-104 Starfighter with many accidents related to engine failures. Defence Minister Peter MacKay, when asked what would happen if the F-35’s single engine fails in the Far North, stated "It won’t".
F-16 is also a single engine and a very popular fighter jet.
 

Quickie

Colonel
Do you think it'll be possible to fit weapon bays to the side of the engines and having nothing underneath it in order to make the airframe 'stealthy'? I think that could be a good compromise between armament, single-engine and aerodynamics.

What you're suggesting is something similar to how the F-35 does it but the design is basically concentrating the loads on the side of the engine making the airframe shorter (or too short for certain design requirement) if the overall airframe size is to remain the same in consideration of the required T/W ratio. The airframe could be lengthened somewhat if the engine is powerful enough, but this would always be at the expense of a lower T/W.

---------- Post added at 04:33 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:18 PM ----------

I'm not trying to counter your statements, but I am having a hard time understanding just what the problem is. I can't think of a single reason why there would be any more protrusions from a plane with a single engine than with two. Why would the single engine have to be reduced in size?

Maybe an image or something would help me understand. I apologize in advance if it's something terribly obvious that I'm missing. That's happened more than a few times...

Kyange, what I meant to say is also in my reply to JobJed and in Air force Brat's reply to you,
 
Last edited:

AssassinsMace

Lieutenant General
July 7, 2012

China: Doing it all yourself has its drawbacks

By Kathrin Hille


When, in January 2011, China publicised the first test flight of the stealth fighter it is developing, the fact that the J-20 was advanced enough to get off the ground surprised many in the aviation world.

Since then, the Chengdu-made aircraft has had more practice. According to Chinese state media the first prototype completed its 60th test flight late last year and the second of four prototypes started test flights this year.

In addition, military experts in China say the country is developing a second lighter-weight stealth fighter, the J-60.

Without doubt, these projects are powerful symbols of China’s emerging military might.

“It puts China in the company of very few nations that have the wealth and the determination to develop such a programme,” says Tim Huxley, head of the International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS) in Asia.

The only potential rivals for the J-20 are the Lockheed Martin-produced F-22 Raptor and a stealth fighter under joint development by Russia and India.

But, while the January 2011 surprise showed the risk of underestimating China’s military development programmes, experts now say they should not be overestimated either.

The Pentagon has said it expects the J-20 to be operational no sooner than 2018 – in line with an estimate given by the Chinese deputy air force chief in 2009.

Tai Ming Cheung, an expert on the Chinese military’s technological development at the University of California in San Diego, says: “Whether the Pentagon’s estimate that the J-20 will go into service by 2018 is accurate is anyone’s guess, but my sense is that is wildly optimistic.”

Pointing to the gap of more than a decade between the first flight of the US F-22 fighter and its coming into service, he argues the J-20 will have at least a decade of testing and evaluation before it is ready for production.

“Finding the right engines remains a major obstacle. The [domestically made] WS-10 is still plagued by problems, especially of high quality manufacturing, and there appears to be no quick fix in sight,” he says. “The J-20 is a leading priority in the 12th Five Year defence development plan, so will require plenty of funding and high leadership attention.”

Industry sources agree that engine development remains the soft spot in the Chinese military air power.

An executive at a western aerospace company says: “In missile and satellite technology, China has managed greatly to narrow the gap with the US. But aircraft engines are an area where, despite decades of reverse engineering of licensed technology, they are still far behind.”

Avic, the state-owned aerospace conglomerate, plans to invest Rmb10bn ($1.6bn) over the next five years in the development of the high-end turbofan engines needed in an aircraft of the J-20 type. Meanwhile, the People’s Liberation Army Air Force remains dependent on Russian and Ukrainian supplies.

The J-10 and J-11, China’s fourth-generation fighters, are powered by Russian Salyut AL-31 FN engines.

In July 2011, Beijing ordered another 123 of those engines, bringing total orders of this engine model since 2001 to more than 1,000.

Beijing this year requested 48 Sukhoi Su-35 fighters from Russia, a deal still being delayed because of Moscow’s concerns that China could copy its technology.

But the request could reflect China’s desire to insure itself against the risk of relying only on domestic development.

But, despite the challenges, China’s growing air power has already thrown its large shadow ahead.

James Hardy, Asia-Pacific editor at IHS Jane’s Defence Weekly, says: “China’s military modernisation over the past decade and its more assertive posture, for example in the South China Sea since 2008, has driven south-east Asian countries such as the Philippines to step up fighter procurement.

“US allies in the region, such as, Japan, South Korea, Singapore and Australia are buying – or thinking of buying – F-35s to maintain interoperability with US forces and stay at the cutting edge of combat aircraft technology.”


Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


This article reminds me of the John Carpenter movie They Live where aliens place subliminal messages everywhere to keep eveyone in line with their agenda.

But the request could reflect China’s desire to insure itself against the risk of relying only on domestic development.

That's sounds like some of the spin we hear in here. But that usually comes from people from allied countries dependent on independent countries. Not surprised. China's not really going it alone since the article notes how China buys engines from Russia. The journalist is contradicting. So how does a country not go it alone as suggested when said advice comes from people who have military embargoes on China? Oh I get it... China has to become a democracy overseen by them, embrace their values, and let them have free economic reign so said embargoes cease. All so Chinese stealth fighters can be the engine that could. This is just like teasing their version of "soft power" to China where it's about what you have has to be embraced by them meaning they like you which somehow translates to some sort of power. No the power lies with the people who get to decide what you have is worthy of being liked. And on top of that they make it out you're stupid if you don't pursue it but the irony is you would have to be even more stupid to fall for it.

Yes, the article could be just pointing out China can't go it alone as a swipe. But besides the US and Russia and maybe Europe, who else can do it on their own? Do they talk about Japan or South Korea or India? No, they talk about China because China is the only one more likely that can go independent just like them. That's what it's about.
 
Last edited:

kroko

Senior Member
“Finding the right engines remains a major obstacle. The [domestically made] WS-10 is still plagued by problems, especially of high quality manufacturing, and there appears to be no quick fix in sight,” he says. “The J-20 is a leading priority in the 12th Five Year defence development plan, so will require plenty of funding and high leadership attention.”

Industry sources agree that engine development remains the soft spot in the Chinese military air power.

An executive at a western aerospace company says: “In missile and satellite technology, China has managed greatly to narrow the gap with the US. But aircraft engines are an area where, despite decades of reverse engineering of licensed technology, they are still far behind.”

Avic, the state-owned aerospace conglomerate, plans to invest Rmb10bn ($1.6bn) over the next five years in the development of the high-end turbofan engines needed in an aircraft of the J-20 type. Meanwhile, the People’s Liberation Army Air Force remains dependent on Russian and Ukrainian supplies.

The J-10 and J-11, China’s fourth-generation fighters, are powered by Russian Salyut AL-31 FN engines.

In July 2011, Beijing ordered another 123 of those engines, bringing total orders of this engine model since 2001 to more than 1,000.

Beijing this year requested 48 Sukhoi Su-35 fighters from Russia, a deal still being delayed because of Moscow’s concerns that China could copy its technology.

But the request could reflect China’s desire to insure itself against the risk of relying only on domestic development.

Why do they say that WS-10 is still plagued by problems? J-20 will be propelled by WS-15 anyway.

j-10B and J-11B are propelled by WS-10, not russian engines.

I think that those 123 engines are for j-10A and J-11A

Wasnt the whole "Su-35 request" story debunked by PLA ?
 

Blitzo

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Registered Member
Why do they say that WS-10 is still plagued by problems? J-20 will be propelled by WS-15 anyway.

j-10B and J-11B are propelled by WS-10, not russian engines.

I think that those 123 engines are for j-10A and J-11A

Wasnt the whole "Su-35 request" story debunked by PLA ?

Clearly this is one of those articles which no one in the know is supposed to even consider as serious.
 

Air Force Brat

Brigadier
Super Moderator
In 2011, Canadian politicians raised the issue of the safety of the F-35's reliance on a single engine (as opposed to a twin-engine configuration, which provides a backup in case of an engine failure). Canada had previous experience with a high-accident rate with the single-engine Lockheed CF-104 Starfighter with many accidents related to engine failures. Defence Minister Peter MacKay, when asked what would happen if the F-35’s single engine fails in the Far North, stated "It won’t".

The USN, USAF, and Marines are commited to the F-35, they will lose engines, they will lose airplanes whether they are twin engine or single engine, I agree that the USN in particular will miss the second engine at night and overwater, but the USN early on rejected a Naval ATF and locked in on the Super Hornet, and later the JSF. Those decisions are more or less set in stone, the USN is big on an autonomuos UCAV to operate off their carriers and they have at least one at Patauxent River in testing right now and plan to operate it off the carrier in 2013, Naval Aviators may have to join the USAF. It does seem the the drive to an autonomous aircraft may be partly institutional, while everyone is playing with UCAVs or RPVs in my opinion this is another very poor management decision. All the wonder boys would like to get away from manned aircraft because of the expense, there is also some distrust of that much power in the hands of an individual airman, he or she is in command of and has a great deal of wherewithall in bringing his weapons to bear, and as the Air Force recently discovered, the U-2 is far more capable than unmanned aircraft and no more expensive than an unmanned drone. Right or wrong the decisions have been made and there is no turning back, and the USN has only the Super Hornet to fall back on if the F-35 falls short or encounters more developemental delays, the USAF has put themselves in a box with only 185 Raptors, and the Marines will be flying their Harriers and Hornets, those boys and girls are the facts of life! Brat Oh, yeah and our friends have decided to play with the same toys we do, and since the Raptor is dead, The JSF is the only US game in town, sad that, but here we are.

For those who will cite the F-16, their is a lot of difference in losing a 25 Million dollar airplane, as opposed to a 130-150 million dollar airplane. For what its worth Naval Aviators would prefer a second engine, but nobody really asked them, and most all of my flying is single engine, so yes I have thought a lot about it, and yes I have had an engine quit!
 
Last edited:
Top