Shenyang FC-31 / J-31 Fighter Demonstrator

latenlazy

Brigadier
that is possible but I think it is too early to call.

that's because path A can allow an air force to transition to path B as well.


the fact that they are developing ucavs, stealth bomber, and autonomy and networking, does not mean they will be moving closer to path B than A, because imo the difference between paths A and B, can be condensed to a few points, that we have yet to be able to see:
1: the presence of a mass produced medium weight stealth fighter in path A vs lack of a medium weight stealth fighter for path B
2: the differing number of J-20s, H-20s and stealthy ucavs that will be built in path A vs path B, with the latter featuring far more of them (larger scale etc)
3: the level of autonomy and networking maturity of stealthy ucavs in path A vs path B, with the latter having a much superior and reliable level of capability


At this stage, for each of the points...
1: it is too early to say that the air force has abandoned a medium weight stealth fighter. with every year, it seems less and less likely that they will be developing one, but for all we know maybe the air force is just being late and taking its time with a design that ticks their boxes
2: it will be many years until we know just how many J-20s and H-20s and ucavs are actually built (and the latter two of course have yet to be revealed in any meaningful capacity either)
3: and of course, this is something which we will not really get any glimpse of even in the more distant future, and we will likely have to indirectly infer it from points 1 and 2.



The problem with path B is that if one chooses to skip to path B without adopting path A, it means they leave themselves at a risk of adopting less mature, less proven technologies and subsystems that may not be ready, if a conflict with an opfor that has chosen path A, occurs, because that may mean path B's stealthy ucavs and networked forces might not be reliable and mature enough to adequately combat the less technologically radical but more mature path A.
A direct shot at path B could be smoothed out by leveraging legacy fighters with better multiplier and support systems, but it's less an either or than a matter of how quickly and aggressively China pursues path B. B happens sooner or later. It's really a question of whether they feel the need to purchase a cheap mainstay fighter along the way to tide over any capability gaps, or whether they think their developing network warfare capabilities will be more than adequate.
 

Blitzo

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Registered Member
A direct shot at path B could be smoothed out by leveraging legacy fighters with better multiplier and support systems, but it's less an either or than a matter of how quickly and aggressively China pursues path B. B happens sooner or later. It's really a question of whether they feel the need to purchase a cheap mainstay fighter along the way to tide over any capability gaps, or whether they think their developing network warfare capabilities will be more than adequate.

Yes, path B will happen sooner or later, but I think making the significant strategic long term procurement decision to go on path B sooner rather than later is very much a difficult one and risky one to make.
 

latenlazy

Brigadier
Yes, path B will happen sooner or later, but I think making the significant strategic long term procurement decision to go on path B sooner rather than later is very much a difficult one and risky one to make.
Indeed. I wouldn't expect the PLAAF to pursue it unless they were rather confident about these sorts of capabilities, but they do seem to be increasingly confident as of late.
 

Blitzo

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Registered Member
Indeed. I wouldn't expect the PLAAF to pursue it unless they were rather confident about these sorts of capabilities, but they do seem to be increasingly confident as of late.

I haven't observed any recent signs of confidence that they may be tending heavily towards path B rather than path A.

They've definitely been talking more about uavs, autonomy, swarming, datalinks, and suggestions that the new stealth bomber will be more than a traditional bomber, but those are all things we'd expect to hear if they were going for path A as well.
 

latenlazy

Brigadier
I haven't observed any recent signs of confidence that they may be tending heavily towards path B rather than path A.

They've definitely been talking more about uavs, autonomy, swarming, datalinks, and suggestions that the new stealth bomber will be more than a traditional bomber, but those are all things we'd expect to hear if they were going for path A as well.
And what about talks of using the J-20 as a control center for drones?
 

Blitzo

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Registered Member
And what about talks of using the J-20 as a control center for drones?

We would expect that to be discussed for path A as well, and it signifies they are thinking about path B in the future, but there is no indication that they are thinking about implementing it in the near future (path B) rather than more distant future (path A then path B).

The US has openly discussed F-35 as a drone controller as well, despite the fact that they are obviously going with path A first.
 

siegecrossbow

General
Staff member
Super Moderator
One thing we do know for a fact is that this beauty has a bay... that can be opened.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


OG2hrbi.jpg


8a3PIei.jpg
 

Lethe

Captain
The problem with J-31 as a smaller, cheaper complement to J-20 is that J-31 is still a large and expensive aircraft. If a complementary fighter is required, a smaller aircraft powered by a single WS-15 would be a better choice: smaller, cheaper, better logistics and maintenance efficiency (which translates to better combat efficiency and resilience).

Someone brought up the MiG-29. The MiG-29 was a response to specific strategic requirements, i.e. to generate large numbers of affordable, high-performance aircraft for the anticipated Armageddon over Germany. In that context, the fact that the MiG-29 had no legs and the engines had to be overhauled every second flight was irrelevant. Within its limited envelope it offered performance that challenged the F-15 for relative peanuts. Once that Cold War scenario disappeared, the MiG-29 no longer made sense, which is reflected both in its lack of export success and the fact that every subsequent future evolution of the platform has been towards turning it into a miniature Flanker (more internal fuel at the cost of aerodynamic performance, greater MBTO in exchange for higher acquisition costs).

There is no universal logic behind a hi-lo force structure, it is a response to specific strategic requirements, and it is questionable whether China has those requirements. For defensive operations within Chinese airspace, stealth is of only limited benefit and J-10C/D already offers a highly capable and affordable platform for such. For operations outside of Chinese airspace, larger platforms like J-20 are overwhelmingly superior.
 
Last edited:

kurutoga

Junior Member
Registered Member
The problem with J-31 as a smaller, cheaper complement to J-20 is that J-31 is still a large and expensive aircraft. If a complementary fighter is required, a smaller aircraft powered by a single WS-15 would be a better choice: smaller, cheaper, better logistics and maintenance efficiency (which translates to better combat efficiency and resilience).

A lot of smaller countries need to counter 3rd gen jets at its borders. For these, the J31 makes perfect sense as a defensive measure. Considering it is a weak form of nuclear weapon, once you have it, even at a much lower level in terms of absolute capabilities compared to a full fledged 4th gen jet, the others will think twice before attacking you. The world has not seen large scale fights between 4th gen fighter jets, nobody knows how it will work out.

Even for a country like the US, attacking a smaller air force with, say, 50 J-31, is still not that simple. The increased uncertainty adds anxiety in both military and nations. Some form of this scenario is being played out between North Korea and US right now.

IMO J-31/FC-31 will be equipped in Pakistan and some Arab countries eventually, just because they have no other choices.
 
Last edited:
Top