Shenyang FC-31 / J-31 Fighter Demonstrator

Tirdent said:

Doesn't make sense to me either.

All indications are that the basic Su-33 is docile - *remarkably* docile, in fact - at low speed. There are at least two videos showing pilots ham-fisting bolters on the Kuznetsov that are pretty instructive. In both cases they end up in rather wild flight attitudes that would likely qualify them for a ride in the bang seat in most other aircraft, but actually recover quite easily.

It is possible that SAC bungled the switch to an indigenous digital FBW system (if that was done), but in that case why not revert to the apparently robust and mature analogue original? If it comes to that, what makes the PLAN think the same outfit would then do any better with the J-31's (digital) FCS?
...

Click to expand...

You seem to assume that the Su-33 uses the exact same fly-by-wire system as the Su-27s they sold to China. When that might simply not be the case. Even if they use the same hardware, the software could have different tweaks in it for sea conditions which would result in a rougher ride quality on a land based aircraft but are necessary on a carrier aircraft.

The Su-33 could also have had further modifications from the prototype the Chinese got from Ukraine that we are not aware about. Remember that the Russians said back then that simply copying the prototype would not be as nearly as good as the Su-33. I am sure the Chinese probably improved the prototype with several of their own modifications but it still needs more testing in actual flight conditions. I think it is a matter of time until the issues are sorted out.

gelgoog said:

You seem to assume that the Su-33 uses the exact same fly-by-wire system as the Su-27s they sold to China. When that might simply not be the case. Even if they use the same hardware, the software could have different tweaks in it for sea conditions which would result in a rougher ride quality on a land based aircraft but are necessary on a carrier aircraft.

The Su-33 could also have had further modifications from the prototype the Chinese got from Ukraine that we are not aware about. Remember that the Russians said back then that simply copying the prototype would not be as nearly as good as the Su-33. I am sure the Chinese probably improved the prototype with several of their own modifications but it still needs more testing in actual flight conditions. I think it is a matter of time until the issues are sorted out.

Click to expand...

I don't think he's suggesting that Su-33/T-10K that China got from Ukraine (or Chinese J-15s) use the same exact flight control system as Su-27s, but rather that the standard Su-33/T-10K has relatively proven flight characteristics and it is unlikely that SAC would have inherently compromised it.

gelgoog said:

You seem to assume that the Su-33 uses the exact same fly-by-wire system as the Su-27s they sold to China. When that might simply not be the case. Even if they use the same hardware, the software could have different tweaks in it for sea conditions which would result in a rougher ride quality on a land based aircraft but are necessary on a carrier aircraft.

The Su-33 could also have had further modifications from the prototype the Chinese got from Ukraine that we are not aware about. Remember that the Russians said back then that simply copying the prototype would not be as nearly as good as the Su-33. I am sure the Chinese probably improved the prototype with several of their own modifications but it still needs more testing in actual flight conditions. I think it is a matter of time until the issues are sorted out.

Click to expand...

Not to be a smart alec Gentlemen, but here's a thought?? if China was able to build the FCS for the J-20 from scratch?? (a much more complex airframe, with huge canards that often deflect downward about 5 degrees when the J-20 is climbing/in level flight) and those rules for canard deflection likely change as airspeed, payload and fuel burn is factored in?? don't you honestly think they are able to manage the FCS on the J-15??

As Trident has pointed out, though big and heavy, the Flanker is a pussycat! its a very happy airplane! now on the other hand, operating the J-15 off the Liaoning?, not only requires a tremendous amount of situational awareness, basic flying ability, and just plain dumb luck at times?? it is inherently very dangerous, just ask the USN jockeys, the "pucker factor" is very high..... that does NOT imply the J-15 is dangerous aircraft, any more than an F-18? if it were, they would have had far more accidents, they have done very well for starting from NOTHING! think about it

Bltizo said:

There are some things in the Avweek article which I do find credible and others which I do not, and there are also mistakes it makes which are inconsequential.

I think calling the aircraft J-31 is a relatively inconsequential mistake, as only PLA watchers in the know consistently call it FC-31. The Avweek article does also acknowledge that the aircraft does go by FC-31 as well.

Click to expand...

Inconsequential if used in a casual sense or by someone using the FC-31 as a passing reference, but anyone with a basic understanding of the program rarely, if ever, uses this designation.

Bltizo said:

Citing SCMP about their past articles regarding J-15 and so on is of course a definitive mistake, but it doesn't necessarily take away from the important part of the article where they quote the unnamed aerospace official.

In this case, if the official source is actually someone credible that the Avweek reporter asked themselves, then I'm willing to give the direct quotes themselves some credence.

Click to expand...

Very big "if". They didn't even deign to describe what kind of "official source" it was.

Bltizo said:

That is to say, the only useful parts of the article are here:
"The J-31 is being developed for domestic military service under government contract, an official source says. The type is now intended to serve with the navy, says the source, confirming rumors and speculative news reports that have appeared over the past few years. The air force also wants to put the J-31 into service, says the source, declining to provide more information."

And even from that part of the article, it doesn't necessarily "confirm" anything but rather adds further weight to the idea that the PLAN and PLAAF may be looking to adopt FC-31.

Click to expand...

But how are we sure that this isn't simply a regurgitation of recent rumors rather than something that the author independently found out? Who is their "source" and what makes them so sure as to warrant the use of the term "confirm"?

Bltizo said:

The parts where Avweek quotes Sina and SCMP, or where they try to link information from the "official source" with past news, can be ignored. That said I wonder what Sina news web portal they're referring to when they quote FC-31's new specifications -- obviously I don't trust Sina as far as I can throw it, but sometimes articles from actual more credible places (like some Chinese state news agencies) are directly reposted on Sina as well.

Click to expand...

There were a couple of leaks from Zhuhai that was posted onto Sina, I think. I can't locate them now unfortunately.

Bltizo said:

The War Zone does a decent job of reporting on Chinese military developments sometimes but they've made their fair share of mistakes as well. They're better than average, but they have their fair share of weaknesses.
The good thing about places like AvWeek and Flight Global is that they actually send reporters to arms expos and have opportunities to get direct quotes from representatives and officials, and it is those quotes which we should be interested in. Whether Avweek and Flight Global incorrectly interpret those quotes or not and whether they

Click to expand...

I think The War Zone actually scours through forum posts and tries to get information from multiple sources, more than can be said of other sites like AviationWeek.

SinoSoldier said:

Inconsequential if used in a casual sense or by someone using the FC-31 as a passing reference, but anyone with a basic understanding of the program rarely, if ever, uses this designation.

Click to expand...

In this case it is inconsequential to the parts of the article that could be useful.

Very big "if". They didn't even deign to describe what kind of "official source" it was.


But how are we sure that this isn't simply a regurgitation of recent rumors rather than something that the author independently found out? Who is their "source" and what makes them so sure as to warrant the use of the term "confirm"?

Click to expand...

I agree with you, which is why I'm suggesting that the information from the "official source" should be considered as adding further weight to the idea that PLAAF and PLAN are looking to adopt FC-31, but not "confirmed" as the article suggests.

However I also strongly disagree with your suggestion in a previous post that it means that part of the article should be ignored altogether. As far as quoting "sources" go, I would place Aviation Week or Flight Global's ability to get representatives to give remarks at a defence expo to be one of their few strengths.

Everything else about their PLA related reporting might be complete rubbish and they might not be able to to differentiate a J-10B from a J-10C, but the one thing I'm willing to credit them with is occasionally getting PLA related information at airshows and defence expos.
That doesn't mean claims from officials or company representatives should be taken as truth, because there is always the risk that the reporters might not be able to recognize who is a proper official/representative, and/or unable to accurately translate the meaning of quotes (both in terms of language but also in terms of overall PLA context). But I do think reporters from establishments like Av week or Flight Global or sites like Army/Navy/Air recognition etc and have demonstrated some credibility in being able to quote new information from representatives and officials, in a manner that we as PLA watchers should acknowledge as useful (even if we don't have to 100% believe everythign).

I think The War Zone actually scours through forum posts and tries to get information from multiple sources, more than can be said of other sites like AviationWeek.

Click to expand...

I wouldn't give TWZ that much credit. They mostly rely on twitter and low barrier of entry sources like SCMP or other established English language defense media.

Aviation week aren't too much better but as an established aviation magazine they at least are able to send people to actual defense expos to get

Air Force Brat said:

I think the J-31/FC-31 appears to be coming along nicely, I am surprised to hear that people think the J-15 has a big problem with its FCS, now its a hot 4+ Generation aircraft, and it does not fly itself aboard the boat? So its not really surprising that as the operational envelope opens up that they are running into physics, trying to fly that big bird down a glideslope, catch a wire and park it on said boat, it ain't easy for anybody... the USN usually makes it look easy, but they are very, very good at what they do....

China is no doubt getting much better at that everyday, but I want to remind people that FCS systems take a lot of trial and error, to engineer, the J-15 has canards that figure into that equation as well...

so if somebody has a source to back up that claim, I'd love to read it.....

Click to expand...

A couple of J-15s have crashed unfortunately and the initial instances were rumoured to be due to FCS issues in very rare flight parameters. Some have also been due to bird strikes and the difficulty of practicing carrier landings/ takeoff (I think there was one). None of these were hidden from the Chinese public or the world mostly because there's nothing much to be embarrassed about. These things are insanely difficult like you said and practice makes perfect but PLANAF have not got the experience on more mature carrier operating navies. I think even Russia lost a few Mig-29k and Su-33 in training and operation as well as the USN in its own early days (with yesteryear's planes) before they got the carrier ops and procedures right. Learning curve is steep here for PLANAF as well but one must start somewhere.

However all that said, J-15's FCS issue that has caused at least one of these crashes may or may not have been resolved yet. The plane itself is awesome on paper. A CATOBAR ready J-15 is going to be akin to an F-14 with modern avionics. Payload, range, and flight performance are all going to be top shelf even if it runs into the huge problem of 5th gens in the pacific. I think those qualities will still have a place in the future despite 5th gen proliferation and further. Perhaps new developments can balance the playing field a bit and certainly made 4th gen fighters very much relevant into mid century. So PLAN will not abandon this beautiful resurrected Sino-Su-33 until clear superiors are cheaply and quickly available for PLANAF. This sort of forces SAC to address the FCS problem or lose PLANAF orders and at the moment, if not J-15, SAC don't really have concrete orders that we know of yet. I'll believe J-31 when I see solid confirmations.

All this means SAC will have been pouring a lot of energy into resolving the FCS and I'm sure they would have gotten it or reduced it to such a degree that PLANAF pilots are now intimately aware of how to use the J-15 if the problem persists. Was all probably a huge FCS oversight and one of those instances where only meeting the problem allows for awareness and then resolution while the solution is very straightforward and simple. Unfortunately there are many cases of this in the aerospace industry throughout the world as much as engineers put tremendous efforts in thinking of everything. Saving time and resources by copying a Su-27K prototype from Ukraine had consequences for PLANAF in this case. RIP and respect for the pilots that PLAN chose to take some shortcuts. Then again all of this is very new to SAC and PLAN. Hopefully a navalised J-31 is purpose built and draws from all the lessons learned from J-15. So far always rumours of PLAN order.

Bltizo said:

I agree with you, which is why I'm suggesting that the information from the "official source" should be considered as adding further weight to the idea that PLAAF and PLAN are looking to adopt FC-31, but not "confirmed" as the article suggests.

However I also strongly disagree with your suggestion in a previous post that it means that part of the article should be ignored altogether. As far as quoting "sources" go, I would place Aviation Week or Flight Global's ability to get representatives to give remarks at a defence expo to be one of their few strengths.

Everything else about their PLA related reporting might be complete rubbish and they might not be able to to differentiate a J-10B from a J-10C, but the one thing I'm willing to credit them with is occasionally getting PLA related information at airshows and defence expos.

Click to expand...

I very much doubt that they could've gotten anything substantial regarding the FC-31 program, even with press-related privileges.

Bltizo said:

That doesn't mean claims from officials or company representatives should be taken as truth, because there is always the risk that the reporters might not be able to recognize who is a proper official/representative, and/or unable to accurately translate the meaning of quotes (both in terms of language but also in terms of overall PLA context). But I do think reporters from establishments like Av week or Flight Global or sites like Army/Navy/Air recognition etc and have demonstrated some credibility in being able to quote new information from representatives and officials, in a manner that we as PLA watchers should acknowledge as useful (even if we don't have to 100% believe everythign).

Click to expand...

I'll admit that, after reading your post, I went onto the author's Twitter page and it does look like that he went to the 2018 Zhuhai airshow. So, in that sense, it is possible that he talked to some industry officials while he was there.

Nevertheless, I find it quite unbelievable that a magazine like Aviation Week has access to this sensitive information while much keener PLA observers and OSINT analysts do not. Furthermore, somebody directly asked Sun Cong (FC-31's chief designer) this question and it was obvious that he did not wish to divulge any information. Therefore I am almost certain that Aviation Week asked someone who really doesn't have any insider information or misinterpreted their answer altogether.

SinoSoldier said:

I very much doubt that they could've gotten anything substantial regarding the FC-31 program, even with press-related privileges.

I'll admit that, after reading your post, I went onto the author's Twitter page and it does look like that he went to the 2018 Zhuhai airshow. So, in that sense, it is possible that he talked to some industry officials while he was there.

Nevertheless, I find it quite unbelievable that a magazine like Aviation Week has access to this sensitive information while much keener PLA observers and OSINT analysts do not. Furthermore, somebody directly asked Sun Cong (FC-31's chief designer) this question and it was obvious that he did not wish to divulge any information. Therefore I am almost certain that Aviation Week asked someone who really doesn't have any insider information or misinterpreted their answer altogether.

Click to expand...

I think if there is a weak link in any of this, it is certainly at the source. I.e.: the source could either be lying, or it could have been misinterpreted, or it could be a mistranslation.

However, I wouldn't put it past lower level representatives or officials to accidentally slip up information. Furthermore, in this specific case, saying that the project now is under "government contract" and "intended to serve with the navy" and having "air force wanting to put it into service" doesn't necessarily mean a concrete service level decision for procurement has been made yet.

Bltizo said:

I think if there is a weak link in any of this, it is certainly at the source. I.e.: the source could either be lying, or it could have been misinterpreted, or it could be a mistranslation.

However, I wouldn't put it past lower level representatives or officials to accidentally slip up information. Furthermore, in this specific case, saying that the project now is under "government contract" and "intended to serve with the navy" and having "air force wanting to put it into service" doesn't necessarily mean a concrete service level decision for procurement has been made yet.

Click to expand...

Would lower-level representatives know about this, though, and if they did, wouldn't they have been briefed to not divulge any of this?

The AvWeek article puts it clearly & quite definitively that the FC-31 has been given a government contract and not merely that the FC-31 intends to win the PLA's favor.

SinoSoldier said:

Would lower-level representatives know about this, though, and if they did, wouldn't they have been briefed to not divulge any of this?

Click to expand...

I imagine it could trickle down. And yes I imagine they would be briefed, but the severity with which they are willing to abide to it is another matter.

The AvWeek article puts it clearly & quite definitively that the FC-31 has been given a government contract and not merely that the FC-31 intends to win the PLA's favor.

Click to expand...

A government contract doesn't necessarily mean it has been decided to be procured though, it could merely mean further PLA affiliated development has been funded.