Shenyang FC-31 / J-31 Fighter Demonstrator

Discussion in 'Air Force' started by RedSky, Aug 21, 2011.

  1. SinoSoldier
    Offline

    SinoSoldier Captain

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2009
    Messages:
    2,834
    Likes Received:
    3,990
    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.
     
    Equation and FORBIN like this.
  2. FORBIN
    Offline

    FORBIN Lieutenant General
    Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2013
    Messages:
    13,662
    Likes Received:
    22,973
    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
     
    #5292 FORBIN, Jan 12, 2018
    Last edited: Jan 12, 2018
    Air Force Brat likes this.
  3. SinoSoldier
    Offline

    SinoSoldier Captain

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2009
    Messages:
    2,834
    Likes Received:
    3,990
    Do we have measurements confirming that the FC-31 can't hold 1000 kg weapons?
     
    mr.bean and Equation like this.
  4. Gloire_bb
    Offline

    Gloire_bb Junior Member
    Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2014
    Messages:
    348
    Likes Received:
    426
    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.
     
    ougoah likes this.
  5. Totoro
    Offline

    Totoro Senior Member
    VIP Professional

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2005
    Messages:
    1,842
    Likes Received:
    577
    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.
     
  6. ougoah
    Offline

    ougoah Junior Member
    Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2008
    Messages:
    486
    Likes Received:
    392
    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.
     
  7. SinoSoldier
    Offline

    SinoSoldier Captain

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2009
    Messages:
    2,834
    Likes Received:
    3,990
    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?
     
  8. Viktor Jav
    Offline

    Viktor Jav Junior Member
    Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2017
    Messages:
    194
    Likes Received:
    159
    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.
     
    ougoah likes this.
  9. Jura
    Offline

    Jura Lieutenant General

    Top Poster Of Month

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2013
    Messages:
    14,027
    Likes Received:
    19,370
    after I had noticed:
    I recalled the question from
    Aug 26, 2017
    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/
     
    Equation likes this.
  10. kurutoga
    Offline

    kurutoga Junior Member
    Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2011
    Messages:
    583
    Likes Received:
    836
    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.
     
    #5300 kurutoga, Jan 13, 2018
    Last edited: Jan 13, 2018
    kwaigonegin, latenlazy and Deino like this.

Share This Page