Shenyang FC-31 / J-31 Fighter Demonstrator

Air Force Brat

Air Force Brat

Brigadier
Super Moderator
SinoSoldier said:
It seems like J-XY has already settled on a FC-31 based design. Which is another reason I have my doubts, but the best thing is to wait and see.
Click to expand...

Gentlemen, this is pure old "horse pucky",, likely posted by a SAC hater, of which we own a few of those ourselves!

They hate SAC for building the Fab Flanker! and the FC-31 that looks so much like a LockMart Bird!

SAC is NOT afraid to enhance existing designs, in fact they have an awesome ability to replicate accurately and functionally,, now, could it have structural issues?? possibly??, all very, very high performance airplanes do in the intial design phase,, we know the F-22, F-35, and T-50 have had structural issues and required "fixes"! that's why they try to break them, and if indeed they are subjecting this aircraft to "destruction testing" it points to a rather advanced program moving ahead, nothing more, nothing less!
 
T

taxiya

Brigadier
Registered Member
The post
upload_2018-4-18_20-27-22.png
The author said "according to a netizen". == "according to NOBODY".

The author's account.
A "tech manager of a media company" located in Chengdu. A self-media (single person blogger media) who is "contracted" by Weibo. He graduated in Southwest Financial Institute located in Chengdu. A local Sichuan person who is overly proud of his heritage? Who looks down upon everybody outside of his "village" perhaps.
upload_2018-4-18_20-26-51.png

Searching through the internet, one can find many posts by this person. If the person is who he said he is (a military, intel nobody), then he is just a big mouth trying to get attention. This is very common nowadays.

There is no web site belongs to this supposed company either. And there are numerous companies of the same name but with Regional prefix (sounds like branch).

Somebody who has real internal connections won't act in this high key.

My take, it is a BS. Nowadays, it plays like "I make up a story, claim to be a fact according to anonymous source, and attack somebody according to that "fact"".
 
Last edited:
Air Force Brat

Air Force Brat

Brigadier
Super Moderator
taxiya said:
The post
View attachment 46335
The author said "according to a netizen". == "according to NOBODY".

The author's account.
A "tech manager of a media company" located in Chengdu. A self-media (single person blogger media) who is "contracted" by Weibo. He graduated in Southwest Financial Institute located in Chengdu. A local Sichuan person who is overly proud of his heritage? Who looks down upon everybody outside of his "village" perhaps.
View attachment 46334

Searching through the internet, one can find many posts by this person. If the person is who he said he is (a military, intel nobody), then he is just a big mouth trying to get attention. This is very common nowadays.

There is no web site belongs to this supposed company either. And there are numerous companies of the same name but with Regional prefix (sounds like branch).

Somebody who has real internal connections won't act in this high key.

My take, it is a BS. Nowadays, it plays like "I make up a story, claim to be a fact according to anonymous source, and attack somebody according to that "fact"".
Click to expand...
Yes Sir
 
S

Skywatcher

Captain
ougoah said:
Probably an exaggeration. I find it hard to believe this story because they claim the RCS is greater than J-10C. Even a clean J-10C doesn't have shaping optimised for stealth. At the very least (assuming materials are same between the two), J-31 has shaping that's supposedly more conducive to reducing RCS. It also has more of less equal worksmanship. Considering this, how could the J-31 have higher RCS than a 4th gen fighter unless they intentionally sabotaged the design and material selection.

Assuming it is true, there is no chance it will win any tenders. Nor should a sub par product be given any attention. If proven true, it would seem that there is some high accountability in Chinese procurement procedures which would likely indicate that J-20 is indeed quite the satisfactory product, as the recent literature is suggesting. Since the source of claim is unknown and unsubstantiated, don't see good reason to believe it until more evidence comes out.
Click to expand...
I'm trying to wrap my head around the physics of the J-10C somehow having a smaller RCS (especially since it's fuselage has a lot of curves) than the FC-31's angled construction (unless SAC for some reason built the FC-31 out of metamaterials that actually increase RCS).
 
O

ougoah

Brigadier
Registered Member
Air Force Brat said:
Gentlemen, this is pure old "horse pucky",, likely posted by a SAC hater, of which we own a few of those ourselves!

They hate SAC for building the Fab Flanker! and the FC-31 that looks so much like a LockMart Bird!

SAC is NOT afraid to enhance existing designs, in fact they have an awesome ability to replicate accurately and functionally,, now, could it have structural issues?? possibly??, all very, very high performance airplanes do in the intial design phase,, we know the F-22, F-35, and T-50 have had structural issues and required "fixes"! that's why they try to break them, and if indeed they are subjecting this aircraft to "destruction testing" it points to a rather advanced program moving ahead, nothing more, nothing less!
Click to expand...

You're sounding like an SAC salesman. If SAC was indeed as competent as this, they would have delivered a satisfactory J-11D which PLAAF would have ordered. They'd also be able to come up with more original solutions for current and future platforms. So far just more flanker copies (nothing wrong with them like Israelis copied Mirages because the Mirage was a fantastic fighter then) and Lockmart copies.

Admittedly, this rumor probably isn't true and either started by haters or intentional disinfo.
 
SinoSoldier

SinoSoldier

Colonel
ougoah said:
You're sounding like an SAC salesman. If SAC was indeed as competent as this, they would have delivered a satisfactory J-11D which PLAAF would have ordered. They'd also be able to come up with more original solutions for current and future platforms. So far just more flanker copies (nothing wrong with them like Israelis copied Mirages because the Mirage was a fantastic fighter then) and Lockmart copies.

Admittedly, this rumor probably isn't true and either started by haters or intentional disinfo.
Click to expand...

J-11D is still being tested, and there is no indication that it is being delayed (despite my earlier assessments). It takes approximately four years for Sino-Flankers to enter service after making a maiden flight, so it's a bit too early to judge both the performance and the management of the J-11D.
 
O

ougoah

Brigadier
Registered Member
Skywatcher said:
I'm trying to wrap my head around the physics of the J-10C somehow having a smaller RCS (especially since it's fuselage has a lot of curves) than the FC-31's angled construction (unless SAC for some reason built the FC-31 out of metamaterials that actually increase RCS).
Click to expand...

The more we think about it, the more it smells like bs. Having said that, J-31 is in desperate need of better worksmanship to match J-20 and do justice to the shaping Lockheed Martin engineers so kindly surrendered :p
 
O

ougoah

Brigadier
Registered Member
SinoSoldier said:
J-11D is still being tested, and there is no indication that it is being delayed (despite my earlier assessments). It takes approximately four years for Sino-Flankers to enter service after making a maiden flight, so it's a bit too early to judge both the performance and the management of the J-11D.
Click to expand...

Was going off last year's updates on J-11D being supposedly unsatisfactory and further program delays because the radar being designed for this fighter was underwhelming and/or problematic. Buying 24 su-35s almost negates the need for a sino-flanker of J-11D's level. Either make the version a step above or don't bother.
 
SinoSoldier

SinoSoldier

Colonel
ougoah said:
Was going off last year's updates on J-11D being supposedly unsatisfactory and further program delays because the radar being designed for this fighter was underwhelming and/or problematic. Buying 24 su-35s almost negates the need for a sino-flanker of J-11D's level. Either make the version a step above or don't bother.
Click to expand...

The radar fiasco was related to the J-16 not 11D, and the other rumors about unsatisfactory performance have yet to be confirmed. 24 Su-35s does not supplant the J-11D of which a much larger quantity will likely be pursued.
 
O

ougoah

Brigadier
Registered Member
SinoSoldier said:
The radar fiasco was related to the J-16 not 11D, and the other rumors about unsatisfactory performance have yet to be confirmed. 24 Su-35s does not supplant the J-11D of which a much larger quantity will likely be pursued.
Click to expand...

Okay I think I confused the radars of those two. Still seems like J-11D is delayed and buying Su-35s may not supplant the J-11D but either J-11D will come out as a superior, more advanced fighter than Su-35 or it won't. If it won't, it's nothing to be proud of. If it does, well it's nowhere to be seen yet. Also I don't believe PLAAF will place huge flanker orders now they've got J-20 platform to work on and ever improving UAVs.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top