Shenyang FC-31 / J-31 Fighter Demonstrator

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

  1. SinoSoldier
    Offline

    SinoSoldier Major

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2009
    Messages:
    3,429
    Likes Received:
    5,195
    AVIC supplied the specifications in 2012 and also in 2016.

    2016-12-07-Un-premier-J-20-enfin-immatriculé-08.jpg

    The decision to go ahead with the FC-31 design for the J-XY allegedly wasn't made until the end of 2017, while funding for a next-generation carrier-borne fighter proposal was just awarded in May 2017. It will take some time before a new prototype would show up, just like how it took several years for the J-20 to show up following design completion.
     
  2. Totoro
    Offline

    Totoro Captain
    VIP Professional

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2005
    Messages:
    2,030
    Likes Received:
    769
    1250 km combat radius (under logical assumption they're touting the air to air role as most likely here) is nothing to write home about. LM markets F35 for air to air mission with combat radius of 1400 km, and F35 is far from being a pinnacle of long range aircraft.

    Again, for export customers that have small territory to cover, that might be just fine. But for Chinese needs, especially with lack of aerial tankers in mind (which F35 users don't lack), those figures aren't that good. Plus, we don't really have any context to them. More useful would be the ferry range figure, it'd be easier to compare to other planes' ferry ranges. Sadly, no official source has disclosed the ferry range. (LM didn't either for F35, which is telling)

    Anyway, I fully expect that if we see a FC-31 descendant in Chinese use, it will be a beefier looking design.
     
    N00813 and Air Force Brat like this.
  3. ougoah
    Offline

    ougoah Junior Member
    Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2008
    Messages:
    924
    Likes Received:
    892
    That range is about the same as J-20 though. You're forgetting that China may have much room to cover and protect, but they also have more bases spread throughout the country and more fighters to cover this. It's not a linear comparison of range here. Tankers can be built and bought. Beefier will also mean more expensive, complex, and lower kinematic performance. If the cost is twice as much, may as well buy two times as many to cover the distance. Beefier will also mean money and time spent redesigning. J-20 takes care of PLAAF needs anyway. At most, J-31 will be a navalised stealth fighter.
     
  4. SinoSoldier
    Offline

    SinoSoldier Major

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2009
    Messages:
    3,429
    Likes Received:
    5,195
    May I see an authoritative source regarding the F-35's 1400 km combat radius?

    Keep in mind that these carrier-based fighters are likely to see action far from the Chinese coastline, meaning that the size of China's airspace does not necessarily matter when accounting for the range and combat radius of the fighters. Additionally, and I'd like to stress this point, we simply DO NOT KNOW what the range requirements of the PLANAF are; saying that FC-31 is "deficient" because other aircraft have larger combat radii doesn't cut the argument.
     
    mr.bean likes this.
  5. Hyperwarp
    Offline

    Hyperwarp Captain

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2007
    Messages:
    2,132
    Likes Received:
    3,764
    probably refering to this - http://www.fisher.org.il/2016/Adir Powepoint/GaryNorth.pdf
     
    Air Force Brat likes this.
  6. SinoSoldier
    Offline

    SinoSoldier Major

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2009
    Messages:
    3,429
    Likes Received:
    5,195
    Better translation needed, but it seems that one FC-31 v2.0 prototype was sent for static destruction tests, and the results were quite disappointing:

    (Link here)

    a014311dly1fqgthpalpdj20u00v2q9r.jpg

    Also reported by "angadow" and a few others.
     
    N00813 likes this.
  7. kyanges
    Offline

    kyanges Junior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2006
    Messages:
    709
    Likes Received:
    106
    What are static destruction tests?
     
  8. Julio Ramos
    Offline

    Julio Ramos New Member
    Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2016
    Messages:
    81
    Likes Received:
    114
    Tests made to know how the structure affronts the loads of a service life.
    Usually, buy not only, the tests consist in exceeding the parameters of the design with the objective of knowing where the real limits are.
    Weights are loaded from the wings, for example, to find out where the breaking point is.
     
    LawLeadsToPeace, N00813 and kyanges like this.
  9. jobjed
    Online

    jobjed Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2011
    Messages:
    1,978
    Likes Received:
    5,130
    A lot of things were disappointing, apparently. Apart from frontal 60 degrees aspect, the RCS returns of the FC-31 under perfectly still conditions are actually higher than the J-10C. If any manoeuvring is involved, all-aspect RCS jumps past the J-10C.

    The aircraft is also seriously overweight and understrengthed. Structural endurance tests were deemed failed after less than 24 hours.
     
    N00813 and ougoah like this.
  10. SinoSoldier
    Offline

    SinoSoldier Major

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2009
    Messages:
    3,429
    Likes Received:
    5,195
    Does OP have a credible history of posts? I'm quite astonished that the massive RCS increases were not ironed out during CAD-design phase but rather during static airframe testing, assuming that this claim is true.
     
    N00813 and ougoah like this.

Share This Page