I agree, this aircraft most likely will be priced "less expensive" compare to J20, but by no means cheap. Although air frame are considered cheap in China, avionics and engine will consume the bulk of the price. Speaking of engines, that's probably the biggest uncertainty of this project. We know development for the 9500kg class medium thrust engine (WS13A variant) at least started in 2009, so it probably will be another couple of years before it's ready for prime time. The prototypes most likely will fly with RD93s.
Shenyang FC-31 / J-31 Fighter Demonstrator
- Thread starter RedSky
- Start date
I agree, this aircraft most likely will be priced "less expensive" compare to J20, but by no means cheap. Although air frame are considered cheap in China, avionics and engine will consume the bulk of the price. Speaking of engines, that's probably the biggest uncertainty of this project. We know development for the 9500kg class medium thrust engine (WS13A variant) at least started in 2009, so it probably will be another couple of years before it's ready for prime time. The prototypes most likely will fly with RD93s.
MwRYum
Major
F-35A/C have no VSTOL capability...
There's no such thing as "lightweight" when comes to 5th gen fighter aircraft, due to the reliance on internal weapon bays in order to satisfy the requirement to lower the RCS; to satisfy the requirement for an effective payload, competing for internal space with fuel stores, avionics and engines, it'll have to be big like the T-50, F-22 and Project 718, or as small as the F-35 but at the cost of certain performance aspects.
In short, full-on 5th gen have to be big, the smaller you go the more things you got to forfeit.
That said, even this "Shenkhoi" design might be of F-35A in terms of size and weight class, sporting twin engines means its internal stores and/or fuel tanks will very likely be smaller as well, then you couple with the inferior performance of Chinese engines...it's still a medium weight design; but sure it'd be cheaper than F-35, as what make the F-35 now so expensive is because the massive delays the project encounters, along with the "economy of scale" effects when several principle buyers scaled back their purchase.
Last edited:
This is one of those aircraft that absolutely needs TVC in order to function. The F-60 looks as though it simply won't have the wing-loading to be a fully-competitive fighter, and unlike the F-35, it makes minimal compromises to rear and side stealth for aerodynamics.
With TVC, the aircraft will probably be able to outperform the F-35, without it, it will be outclassed.
With TVC, the aircraft will probably be able to outperform the F-35, without it, it will be outclassed.
The only valid statement I see there is that its rear will not be stealthy. (from what pictures of the model and plane under tarpaulin gives the impression its side stealth will be compromised??)
I suppose one should also ask if F-35 has the wing loading to be a "full competitive" fighter, and if that's the end for judging a plane's kinematic potential
The F-35 has a bunch of stealth-compromising bumps and shapings designed to increase its aerodynamic performance at the cost of stealth. This is one of the things people complain about regarding the F-35. These bumps are absent on the F-60, suggesting the F-60, in comparison to the F-35, will have inferior aerodynamic performance.
Wing loading, ignoring other factors, is one of the key determinants of aerodynamic performance. Compared to the F-22, the aircraft's wing area is significantly smaller, suggesting that the aircraft will be less maneuverable.
In any case, let's wait and see what the aircraft's measurements are. On an eyeball, the wing area is comparable to the F-35, but is less than the F-22.
Wing loading, ignoring other factors, is one of the key determinants of aerodynamic performance. Compared to the F-22, the aircraft's wing area is significantly smaller, suggesting that the aircraft will be less maneuverable.
In any case, let's wait and see what the aircraft's measurements are. On an eyeball, the wing area is comparable to the F-35, but is less than the F-22.
Of course it has a smaller wing area compared to F-22, it's a smaller aircraft altogether just like how F-35 has a smaller wing area than F-2...
And I think there was a discussion many months which went on for pages and pages regarding how we can't use one dimension like wing area/loading to try and estimate a plane's (even relative) kinematics. Lifting body could completely throw your estimate off for instance.
As for the F-35's bumps... first, I was under the impression that the majority of the bumps are there to facilitate larger weapon bays (for larger diameter bombs) and ESM equipment, rather than increasing aerodynamic performance. That's like saying that if we added bumps to any plane it would have better aerodynamics than if it did not? (For example, X-35 vs F-35?)
and this is certainly one of the first times where I've seen someone favouarbly measure F-35's manouverability...
---
In fact if I had to make a comparison between F-35 and J-21/F-60 from what we've seen of the latter, it would be that the F-35 should probably have a greater internal payload capacity because at this point it appears J-21 is a far sleeker aircraft (and the model did not sure distinctive bumps indicative of large diameter payload space).
Any judgement of manouverability is beyond premature at this point.
And I think there was a discussion many months which went on for pages and pages regarding how we can't use one dimension like wing area/loading to try and estimate a plane's (even relative) kinematics. Lifting body could completely throw your estimate off for instance.
As for the F-35's bumps... first, I was under the impression that the majority of the bumps are there to facilitate larger weapon bays (for larger diameter bombs) and ESM equipment, rather than increasing aerodynamic performance. That's like saying that if we added bumps to any plane it would have better aerodynamics than if it did not? (For example, X-35 vs F-35?)
and this is certainly one of the first times where I've seen someone favouarbly measure F-35's manouverability...
---
In fact if I had to make a comparison between F-35 and J-21/F-60 from what we've seen of the latter, it would be that the F-35 should probably have a greater internal payload capacity because at this point it appears J-21 is a far sleeker aircraft (and the model did not sure distinctive bumps indicative of large diameter payload space).
Any judgement of manouverability is beyond premature at this point.
The bumps and lumps are added to accommodate for the weapons load and are hardly considered aerodynamically beneficial.
vesicles
Colonel
May I ask how you can tell the bumps and the humps from the "zong zi" that is plane is...