And the Netherlands contributed $1b to buy a chance for Dutch companies to make a profit on the project which is greatly being hindered by the reduction of the Dutch buy from 85 to now about(sic!) 38.
Shenyang FC-31 / J-31 Fighter Demonstrator
- Thread starter RedSky
- Start date
manqiangrexue
Brigadier
It doesn't "cut it" with you. The rational people all on the other side laughing. Facts and reason were all in the last post but you thought you could just focus on my tone (which is gonna sound like that when dealing with someone who has no common sense filter AND is stubborn about it) and ignore them. It's all still there for you to answer. I'll tell you the same thing I tell Ultra when he says the apocalypse is upon us: when you see everyone driving in the opposite direction of you, it's time to reconsider your argument. Chances are, it's not everyone else who's irrational.
I think there were two things under discussion regarding J-31, and it is about your "down" comparison of J-31 to J-7.
You are right, model 3 and F-35 have the technology prepared for them, so is J-31, J-31 is being developed by a branch of AVIC who produced J-20. So there is no substantial things missing for J-31 to be successfully produced.
The only difference between J-31 and model 3/F-35 is its lack of order/funding from customer as you also pointed out. Although that will prevent J-31 being produced eventually, BUT it is not equal to J-31 being technologically on par of J-7. It is your putting J-31 down to J-7 that I disagree.
My bring in model-3 and F-35 (past) was to make an analogy to your "not in the market, therefor nothing to beat". I wanted to emphasize that "not in the market" is irrelevant to being capable.
vesicles
Colonel
Common guys, comparing the J-31 to any existing and deplored fighters is like comparing apples to oranges. The J-31 is a demonstrator and is still unfinished, while the J-7 is a mature and deplored fighter.
It's unfair to compare the J-31 to the J-7. A good analogy would be to compare a child still in school to a mature grown person with a job. No matter how brilliant of a student the kid is, he is still in training. Most likely, he makes no money whatsoever and still depends on his parents for everything even though he may be a straight-A student. The grown man, on the other hand, may be a janitor and makes meager wages. However, he has been tested in the real world and has demonstrated that he can survive the real world and can support his own family (no matter how poor of a job that he has done). So one can make the argument that the grown janitor is more proven than the straight-A kid.
However, we can all see that it is a very unfair way to compare the kid to the janitor. The kid is still in training and is in the process of improving himself. In other words, the kid is still in the "design phase". The kid has so much more potential. The janitor on the other hand is pretty much done for his life.
Other similar examples come to mind: comparing a baby tiger to a grown cat; a baby lion to a mature gazelle, etc etc etc. You get my gist.
For a proper comparison, you should choose players in similar stages of their maturity. How would the J-31 compare to the J-7 during a similar developmental stage?
The J-31's weapons launch system hasn't even been tested. So if you pitch the J-31 against the J-7 now, the J-31 won't survive. But does that mean anything at all? It's like pitching a 2-day old baby lion against a mature gazelle. The baby lion doesn't even have teeth yet. The gazelle can kill the lion cub in a second. Can you then conclude that gazelles are tougher than lions and can kill lions with ease?
It's unfair to compare the J-31 to the J-7. A good analogy would be to compare a child still in school to a mature grown person with a job. No matter how brilliant of a student the kid is, he is still in training. Most likely, he makes no money whatsoever and still depends on his parents for everything even though he may be a straight-A student. The grown man, on the other hand, may be a janitor and makes meager wages. However, he has been tested in the real world and has demonstrated that he can survive the real world and can support his own family (no matter how poor of a job that he has done). So one can make the argument that the grown janitor is more proven than the straight-A kid.
However, we can all see that it is a very unfair way to compare the kid to the janitor. The kid is still in training and is in the process of improving himself. In other words, the kid is still in the "design phase". The kid has so much more potential. The janitor on the other hand is pretty much done for his life.
Other similar examples come to mind: comparing a baby tiger to a grown cat; a baby lion to a mature gazelle, etc etc etc. You get my gist.
For a proper comparison, you should choose players in similar stages of their maturity. How would the J-31 compare to the J-7 during a similar developmental stage?
The J-31's weapons launch system hasn't even been tested. So if you pitch the J-31 against the J-7 now, the J-31 won't survive. But does that mean anything at all? It's like pitching a 2-day old baby lion against a mature gazelle. The baby lion doesn't even have teeth yet. The gazelle can kill the lion cub in a second. Can you then conclude that gazelles are tougher than lions and can kill lions with ease?
manqiangrexue
Brigadier
Nobody is having trouble understanding this except Blackstone. Obviously, when people are comparing them, they are saying to invest resources into the baby so that it can grow into a full-sized beast ready for combat, superior to the already full-sized animal it's currently not able to fight due to not being fully developed yet. Everyone with common sense sees this but Stoney can't find a way to gracefully be wrong and shut up so we're still hearing, "It's a baby so it's nothing. And nothing is always less than something, so the baby loses. A rock is superior to J-31 right now cus it's vaporware and it's nothing. There is a 15 ton aircraft in front of me but I'm calling it nothing. But a rock is something. You can throw it at someone's head and knock him out! Rock wins over nothing!" LOL
kwaigonegin
Colonel
I think a better question is why are you guys even comparing a J7 to a J31 regardless of service life etc? Seems like a lot of wasted discussion that yields no useful info or even worth a topic of discussion.
There are 2 generations apart. One is soon to be retired and the other may not even have a bright future as it is.
There are 2 generations apart. One is soon to be retired and the other may not even have a bright future as it is.
vesicles
Colonel
My guess is that Blackstone was trying to emphasize the uselessness of the J-31. So he decided to mention the J-7.
I myself am not a big fan of the J-31. My layperson view is that it just looks kinda flimsy to me. It simply doesn't have the intimidating looks of the F-22 and the J-20. Then I was sorta happy to see that it's going nowhere... to be honest, I was wishing it to go away so that the CAC could get a chance to develop their own 5-gen light stealth fighter to go along with their J-20.
Then the second model came out. To say the least, I was disappointed... Then V2 looks a little better than the infamous V1... so I'm slowing getting used to the new J-31 now...
broadsword
Brigadier
Zool
Junior Member
These factors are always going to be critically important for carrier-borne aircraft no matter where they operate. Especially with a VLO 5th Gen that already has to make trade-offs on internal fuel due to weapon bays and the inability to launch with bags because of detection.
You want as large a combat radius as possible extending out from the battle group, and a medium weight fighter like J-31 would be restricted here versus current J-15's or a naval J-20 I suspect. And if China wants to continue operating J-15's in support of a 5th Gen Naval Fighter (due to cost, larger payload and a E/W variant) which I assume it does, J-31 would probably not be able to keep up, let alone lead in as would be expected.
Also you should look into the footprint of an F/A-18 Super Hornet (not exactly a medium class fighter in reality) versus estimated length and width of the J-20. Pretty similar.
Lethe
Captain
I think most of your post is more appropriately directed to plawolf, not me. Regarding sustained sortie rate, magazine size, aviation fuel capacity, these things are most important when the carrier is sitting off an adversary's coast waging a sustained strike campaign. Such has long been a major role for US carriers, but for China it is a secondary priority compared to air/sea control and more limited strike scenarios.