Shenyang FC-31 / J-31 Fighter Demonstrator

[SinoSoldier]

And warhead size is the main one among them, with larger combatants being able to absorb, even while rapidly loosing combat capability, more than a few hits.

Against, say, carrier 500kg subsonic/supersonic ASCM will not justify losses to get it go the target, if there is anything else.

Tonot let offtop in, fc-31

1.range gives little, we don't know conditions. Say, 4000 km range suspiciously reminds somewhat improved(we know fc-31 carries more fuel inside, it isn't hard to guess) mig-29m2(mig-29k,mig-35). Latter does it with 5(!) external tanks, it obviously isn't combat relevant configuration. Same with combat radius(3 for MiG, though)
Given the same size and engines - FC-31 numbers are quite likely to also use drop tanks.

2.Special bombs or armament w/o names. Do we know them?
Are they developed for FC-31, or customer is shown what "everything can happen, just add some $"? Or are they are from J-20(about a2g of the latter we don't know much, btw)?

1. None of the images or presentations shown by SAC indicated that the figures were for a configuration with external tanks, but even if it were with drop tanks its combat radius still puts it somewhat ahead of the F-35C (keep in mind that a PLAN variant would be larger with more fuel storage in its wings).

2. I think the placeholder images show that weapons of that size and weight could be carried by it; modularity when it comes to subsystems and weapons seems to be a priority in the FC-31's overall configuration and layout.

 

[FORBIN]

You do realize that there are factors besides the size of the warhead that determines its chances of incapacitating a ship, right? Flight profile, its ability to strike the waterline, warhead composition, kinetic energy, etc., are all independent of how massive its warhead is. In fact, a NSM-sized missile would be a perfect fit for the FC-31 and would provide it with Harpoon-level AShM capabilities.

Additionally, note that the bay could carry four 500 kg-class weapons, which could potentially allow for two 1-ton missiles, not just 500 kg-class AShMs.

Right now he have weapons bay F-22 style as J-20 he can't host weapons of 2000 lbs sure diameter so big in general it is mainly a diameter than length problem
Only F-35A and C can host 2000 lbs really more capable vs difficult targets hardened / buried than a 1000 lbs it is an advantage and with all the US A2G weapons panoply the F-35 is a better bomber than J-31 for A2A combat the match is tigher but too early to be exact

The NSM have a warhead enough small 125 kg but in titanium after a YJ-12 with it's size for J-31 LOL

 

[SinoSoldier]

Right now he have weapons bay F-22 style as J-20 he can't host weapons of 2000 lbs sure diameter so big in general it is mainly a diameter than length problem
Only F-35A and C can host 2000 lbs really more capable vs difficult targets hardened / buried than a 1000 lbs it is an advantage and with all the US A2G weapons panoply the F-35 is a better bomber than J-31 for A2A combat the match is tigher but too early to be exact

The NSM have a warhead enough small 125 kg but in titanium after a YJ-12 with it's size for J-31 LOL

Do we have measurements confirming that the FC-31 can't hold 1000 kg weapons?

 

[Gloire_bb]

Do we have measurements confirming that the FC-31 can't hold 1000 kg weapons?

Well, strictly speaking no, but even 500kg ones are a specially developed tight fit.
While everyone compares FC-31 to F-35, which is logical, in planeform and general arrangement it's very simillar to scaled down F-22.
If there is no unexpected magic inside, this makes overly deep bays very unlikely.
They're scaled for mraams, everything else has to adjust.

 

[Totoro]

Yet the new PL-12 variant (PL-15 if you will) is larger in wingspan and length than AMRAAM, so bays MUST be at least a little deeper and longer.

 

[ougoah]

J-31 bays may be deeper and longer than F-22's if it indeed can place four pl-12/pl-15s. But it is still short on payload because it is not as wide as F-22's and does not have any side bays. i doubt the existing bays in prototypes can fit the newer MRAAMs despite the advertising. Russians also claimed their Su-57 can hold 6 MRAAMs and two SRAAMs. Sorry but no evidence of any of this yet. So the point about small payload stands however we look at it.

 

[SinoSoldier]

Well, strictly speaking no, but even 500kg ones are a specially developed tight fit.
While everyone compares FC-31 to F-35, which is logical, in planeform and general arrangement it's very simillar to scaled down F-22.
If there is no unexpected magic inside, this makes overly deep bays very unlikely.
They're scaled for mraams, everything else has to adjust.

Yes, the FC-31 is certainly "flatter" than the F-35. But the question still remains: do we have dimensions that definitely prove that the plane can't be fitted with internal 1000 kg weapons, even slimmer ones like the KEPD-350?

 

[Deleted member 13312]

So far the FC or J 31, which ever one you want to call it, still have no indication that it is receiving government funding. Even as of now the prototypes made seems more of a private venture then any actual serious development.
I would hold the notion of whether the J-31 can carry small diameter bombs in the weapons bay, or that it will be carrying any weapons at all, until we see some evidence that the plane is being taken up seriously.

 

[Jura The idiot]

after I had noticed:

kinetic energy if shaped properly and enough velocity is enough to take down even the biggest ships. no explosives needed. that's essentially what rail guns are.

I recalled the question from
Aug 26, 2017

what extent AND type of the damage do you expect to be inflicted upon a modern (=unarmored) warship by a single hit off a 32 OR 64 MJ railgun (presumably shooting around-5"-caliber metal rods)?

I now checked the kinetic energy of a hit by Mk 7 16" at its max. range had been

0.5*1225*514^2 (don't nitpick if I didn't read out at navweaps.com the striking speed correctly, if it's incorrectly quoted there, or anything)

which is about 162 MJ; I don't try to mix apples with oranges: the main point of hitting by a 16" shell of course wasn't its kinetic energy, but the main point was to deliver several tens of pounds of an explosive under the deck of an enemy ship, and blow up said explosive there (actually if the fuze wasn't set off, the damage made by a large-caliber shells wasn't much worse than just holes in the bottom, as it had been happening in the action of the Yamato against the Gambier Bay, an unarmored escort carrier)

which is obviously off topic here, so if you cared to react, please do so in the thread where I asked which is
Ask anything Thread
https://www.sinodefenceforum.com/ask-anything-thread.t7291/

 

[kurutoga]

So far the FC or J 31, which ever one you want to call it, still have no indication that it is receiving government funding.

No direct indication it receives military funding. But since SAC is a government owned company, the project has to be government funded, anyway. Since it has no military R&D funding, the explanation that it is purely for export makes sense. However, it has to be discussed with the military, to gain permission for export, so there has to be considerable military involvement. It is possible the underlying suppliers were military funded, and there could be military technology transfer or other sorts of support (such as the first prototype went to Yan Liang before to use the government facility for testing). So, we can only conclude "China" should be considered as one entity in terms of industrial military complex.

SAC along can't invest in all the parts, such as the new radar and the new engine, without extensive military (indirect) funding. The fact that the second prototype exists, means it is agreed upon in the higher-ups for some customers, domestic or not.