FC-31 stealth fighter thread.

[Corsair1963]

The J-35 is likely just a Naval Version of the land based J-31.

[inst]

Claims were made from insiders that if the FC-31 is navalized, it'd be enlarged at the very least to improve its take-off performance from carrier landing strips.

See the changes from YF-17 to F-18 Hornet. Carrier aviation requires shorter take-off distances, which means an enlarged wing, and also requires weight increases.

The FC-31 to begin with is roughly a 17.3 x 11.5m fighter, putting it as clearly larger than the F-35. The YF-17 to F-18 Hornet transition saw the addition of about 0.2m in length and 2m in wingspan. The J-15 it's likely going to replace is 21.9 x 14.7m, which is about 25% larger in length and span, or 56% larger in total volume.

The Super Hornet adds about 1.2 meters to length and 1 meter to wingspan, as a comparison point.

===

My taste in carrier aircraft, anyways, tends toward heavyweights like the F-14 or J-15, as opposed to mediumweights like the F-18A or F-35. A carrier, after all, is an extremely expensive mobile airfield, and when you're paying so much for the airfield, you want the best fighters you can get for the airfield.

[weasel1962]

The prototype hasn't been spotted so no one really knows what will be the final configuration.

What has been suggested = new engines (WS-19 vs RD-93s). That's possibly a 20% jump in thrust. Like the F-35C vs A/B, the wing area may need to be larger for carrier ops. Simply put, with a new engine + wing redesign, that's basically a new plane. It may notionally look like the FC-31 but from an aeronautical design perspective, it will be a different plane.

[inst]

The prototype hasn't been spotted so no one really knows what will be the final configuration.

What has been suggested = new engines (WS-19 vs RD-93s). That's possibly a 20% jump in thrust. Like the F-35C vs A/B, the wing area may need to be larger for carrier ops. Simply put, with a new engine + wing redesign, that's basically a new plane. It may notionally look like the FC-31 but from an aeronautical design perspective, it will be a different plane.

YF-17 vs F-18 Hornet.

On a Chinat / Chinazi site (SDF), they're discussing claims that there's going to be 4 variants of the FC-31. That makes a lot of sense, considering that from a strategic perspective, it makes little sense for the PLAAF to buy a lot of FC-31s, so Shenyang will want different markets (naval, export, aviation) to keep their factories running. The FC-31s are large and heavy enough that they're not a sufficient low a la the MiG-29s, and consider that the Russians ditched the MiG-29 and went to Su-27s with Flanker and Flanker derivative inventories outnumbering the MiG-29 by a factor of 1.

The most important thing is that they don't repeat the F-35's mistakes with concurrency and simultaneous variant production. The F-35's development was so tortured because all three variants were intended to go IOC about the same time. A sane approach, which the Chinese, Russians, and Americans have used in the past, is simply to get the original edition up, put it into mass production, then produce variants off the original version instead. If the F-35B had been focused on and put up, with the F-35A and F-35C being built off the platform, the F-35 would never have been an international joke.

For that matter, this is what the US is planning to do with the Digital Century Series.

[Corsair1963]

The prototype hasn't been spotted so no one really knows what will be the final configuration.

What has been suggested = new engines (WS-19 vs RD-93s). That's possibly a 20% jump in thrust. Like the F-35C vs A/B, the wing area may need to be larger for carrier ops. Simply put, with a new engine + wing redesign, that's basically a new plane. It may notionally look like the FC-31 but from an aeronautical design perspective, it will be a different plane.

YF-17 vs F-18 Hornet.

On a Chinat / Chinazi site (SDF), they're discussing claims that there's going to be 4 variants of the FC-31. That makes a lot of sense, considering that from a strategic perspective, it makes little sense for the PLAAF to buy a lot of FC-31s, so Shenyang will want different markets (naval, export, aviation) to keep their factories running. The FC-31s are large and heavy enough that they're not a sufficient low a la the MiG-29s, and consider that the Russians ditched the MiG-29 and went to Su-27s with Flanker and Flanker derivative inventories outnumbering the MiG-29 by a factor of 1.

The most important thing is that they don't repeat the F-35's mistakes with concurrency and simultaneous variant production. The F-35's development was so tortured because all three variants were intended to go IOC about the same time. A sane approach, which the Chinese, Russians, and Americans have used in the past, is simply to get the original edition up, put it into mass production, then produce variants off the original version instead. If the F-35B had been focused on and put up, with the F-35A and F-35C being built off the platform, the F-35 would never have been an international joke.

For that matter, this is what the US is planning to do with the Digital Century Series.

There is no STOVL Version (aka F-35B) of the J-31. So, I see only two versions as being likely. Which, would be a land based J-31 and Carrier Based (CV) J-35. With the latter being heavily based on the former with a larger wing and a strengthen airframe/landing gear. Which, shouldn't surprise anyone...

Also, the F-35 is hardly a "joke" as a matter of fact it is nothing short of a "Game Changer" and will rule the sky for the next 20 years at least....

[inst]

The prototype hasn't been spotted so no one really knows what will be the final configuration.

What has been suggested = new engines (WS-19 vs RD-93s). That's possibly a 20% jump in thrust. Like the F-35C vs A/B, the wing area may need to be larger for carrier ops. Simply put, with a new engine + wing redesign, that's basically a new plane. It may notionally look like the FC-31 but from an aeronautical design perspective, it will be a different plane.

YF-17 vs F-18 Hornet.

On a Chinat / Chinazi site (SDF), they're discussing claims that there's going to be 4 variants of the FC-31. That makes a lot of sense, considering that from a strategic perspective, it makes little sense for the PLAAF to buy a lot of FC-31s, so Shenyang will want different markets (naval, export, aviation) to keep their factories running. The FC-31s are large and heavy enough that they're not a sufficient low a la the MiG-29s, and consider that the Russians ditched the MiG-29 and went to Su-27s with Flanker and Flanker derivative inventories outnumbering the MiG-29 by a factor of 1.

The most important thing is that they don't repeat the F-35's mistakes with concurrency and simultaneous variant production. The F-35's development was so tortured because all three variants were intended to go IOC about the same time. A sane approach, which the Chinese, Russians, and Americans have used in the past, is simply to get the original edition up, put it into mass production, then produce variants off the original version instead. If the F-35B had been focused on and put up, with the F-35A and F-35C being built off the platform, the F-35 would never have been an international joke.

For that matter, this is what the US is planning to do with the Digital Century Series.

There is no STOVL Version (aka F-35B) of the J-31. So, I see only two versions as being likely. Which, would be a land based J-31 and Carrier Based (CV) J-35. With the latter being heavily based on the former with a larger wing and a strengthen airframe/landing gear. Which, shouldn't surprise anyone...

Also, the F-35 is hardly a "joke" as a matter of fact it is nothing short of a "Game Changer" and will rule the sky for the next 20 years at least....

Speculated J-31 versions:

-Land-based
-Carrier-based
-Dual-seat for Trainer / EW / Drone Controller
-Export

As for the F-35 being a joke, I don't think anyone can deny the development process was a shitshow. I'm referring to that, not the F-35's capabilities.

[Corsair1963]

Speculated J-31 versions:

-Land-based
-Carrier-based
-Dual-seat for Trainer / EW / Drone Controller
-Export

As for the F-35 being a joke, I don't think anyone can deny the development process was a shitshow. I'm referring to that, not the F-35's capabilities.

I've heard nothing to suggest China is developing a twin seat J-31. While, the export version is just the standard PLAAF Model.

Also, while the development wasn't easy. That is hardly uncommon.......Plus, the JSF Program (F-35) was actually three programs in one. While, being the most advantaged fighter ever developed. So, good luck to anyone. Who would expect such a program to run smoothly and on budget.

[inst]

Speculated J-31 versions:

-Land-based
-Carrier-based
-Dual-seat for Trainer / EW / Drone Controller
-Export

As for the F-35 being a joke, I don't think anyone can deny the development process was a shitshow. I'm referring to that, not the F-35's capabilities.

I've heard nothing to suggest China is developing a twin seat J-31. While, the export version is just the standard PLAAF Model.

Also, while the development wasn't easy. That is hardly uncommon.......Plus, the JSF Program (F-35) was actually three programs in one. While, being the most advantaged fighter ever developed. So, good luck to anyone. Who would expect such a program to run smoothly and on budget.

Digital Century Series, like the Flankers and the purported family development of the J-20 and J-21, is intended to use rapid prototyping and a similar "main model, then variants" approach. The F-35 program was a mess because of how it was handled; if the US had gone with the F-35B first, had the Air Force and Navy play around with it, before working on USAF F-35As etc, then have the F-35Bs sent as hand-me-downs for the Marines, well, it'd be typical Marine aviation, no? But it'd have worked.

[hornetfinn]

Also, while the development wasn't easy. That is hardly uncommon.......Plus, the JSF Program (F-35) was actually three programs in one. While, being the most advantaged fighter ever developed. So, good luck to anyone. Who would expect such a program to run smoothly and on budget.

Digital Century Series, like the Flankers and the purported family development of the J-20 and J-21, is intended to use rapid prototyping and a similar "main model, then variants" approach. The F-35 program was a mess because of how it was handled; if the US had gone with the F-35B first, had the Air Force and Navy play around with it, before working on USAF F-35As etc, then have the F-35Bs sent as hand-me-downs for the Marines, well, it'd be typical Marine aviation, no? But it'd have worked.

How was Flanker development a good model for developing a new fighter? It first flew in 1977 after almost decade long development process and had to be very extensively redesigned couple of times while having several deadly crashes. Then it entered service in 1985 but still had many problems and it took all the way to 1990 to be officially adopted. Even then it had rather simple avionics and systems and was really only capable of air-to-air operations. Then it took over a decade to develop a multi-role variant from the same aircraft. I think compared to that F-35 development was a incredible success story in every way.

[inst]

Also, while the development wasn't easy. That is hardly uncommon.......Plus, the JSF Program (F-35) was actually three programs in one. While, being the most advantaged fighter ever developed. So, good luck to anyone. Who would expect such a program to run smoothly and on budget.

Digital Century Series, like the Flankers and the purported family development of the J-20 and J-21, is intended to use rapid prototyping and a similar "main model, then variants" approach. The F-35 program was a mess because of how it was handled; if the US had gone with the F-35B first, had the Air Force and Navy play around with it, before working on USAF F-35As etc, then have the F-35Bs sent as hand-me-downs for the Marines, well, it'd be typical Marine aviation, no? But it'd have worked.

How was Flanker development a good model for developing a new fighter? It first flew in 1977 after almost decade long development process and had to be very extensively redesigned couple of times while having several deadly crashes. Then it entered service in 1985 but still had many problems and it took all the way to 1990 to be officially adopted. Even then it had rather simple avionics and systems and was really only capable of air-to-air operations. Then it took over a decade to develop a multi-role variant from the same aircraft. I think compared to that F-35 development was a incredible success story in every way.

So, if the Soviets had tried to design everything at the same time a la the F-35, would it have worked out better? The Flanker required 8 years to go from first flight to operational status, and that was with the Soviets navigating FBW technology. Likewise, afterwards, the Russians had to deal with the chaos of the Soviet collapse. Su-30 took its first flight in 1989, which was 5 years after operational status. The Su-33 and 34 took their first flight around the same time.

[milosh]

How was Flanker development a good model for developing a new fighter? It first flew in 1977 after almost decade long development process and had to be very extensively redesigned couple of times while having several deadly crashes. Then it entered service in 1985 but still had many problems and it took all the way to 1990 to be officially adopted. Even then it had rather simple avionics and systems and was really only capable of air-to-air operations. Then it took over a decade to develop a multi-role variant from the same aircraft. I think compared to that F-35 development was a incredible success story in every way.

Not that simple.

T-10 had first flight in 1977 but it didn't mean requirements so Siminov designed quite different T-10S which had first flight in 1981 and that is why T-10S had lot of problems in early years it was crash course design against which were almost all other important folks in USSR. In fact Sukhoi had problem with super computer access because TsAGI director was agianst T-10S design to they only used TsAGI super computer during night when he wasn't there

So if you look chronology Su-27 development was only four years, T-10S took of in 1981 and airforce start reciving Su-27 in 1985 of course it had problems, what new fighter don't have them? And non multi role design wasn't big downside if you look equipment it had, I mean EF2000 and even first Rafale had poor multirole capabilities and they have far newer avionics then analog-digital Su-27 avionics.

Why is Su-27 consider successful design?

Not just because for only four years they build fighter which was superb but because what happen later with Flanker, how many versions were done. You have Su-30 (two versions: with and without canards) Su-33, Su-34 and Su-35. Also you have fighters with TVC and without.

[sprstdlyscottsmn]

I admire the Flankers "let's just get the airframe built and then figure out how best to use it" history about as much as I admire the Super Hornets "Let's put old Hornet avionics in a new Hornet like airframe, we'll give it better electronic guts later"

The process is not without merit, but it is not without flaws either.

[hornetfinn]

I admire the Flankers "let's just get the airframe built and then figure out how best to use it" history about as much as I admire the Super Hornets "Let's put old Hornet avionics in a new Hornet like airframe, we'll give it better electronic guts later"

The process is not without merit, but it is not without flaws either.

Exactly. I was not saying that the Flanker approach was poor choice for the Soviets and later Russians but it (or Super Hornet approach) would not work well these days with 5th generation fighters with VLO requirements (RCS, thermal signature and RF signatures). It's just impossible to develop an airframe and then just bolt on avionics components while a being VLO 5th generation fighter.

I see concurrent development of three versions the only way of getting a VLO 5th generation fighter to replace AV-8B and Hornets/Super Hornets. There is no way there would've been enough money to develop F-35B level fighter. I also doubt that F-35C level aircraft could've been developed without sharing development and costs with F-35A which is acquired in far larger numbers by a lot of countries. I think F-35A might've been in service slightly faster if not for concurrency, but I doubt it would've been any better.

[inst]

I admire the Flankers "let's just get the airframe built and then figure out how best to use it" history about as much as I admire the Super Hornets "Let's put old Hornet avionics in a new Hornet like airframe, we'll give it better electronic guts later"

The process is not without merit, but it is not without flaws either.

Exactly. I was not saying that the Flanker approach was poor choice for the Soviets and later Russians but it (or Super Hornet approach) would not work well these days with 5th generation fighters with VLO requirements (RCS, thermal signature and RF signatures). It's just impossible to develop an airframe and then just bolt on avionics components while a being VLO 5th generation fighter.

I see concurrent development of three versions the only way of getting a VLO 5th generation fighter to replace AV-8B and Hornets/Super Hornets. There is no way there would've been enough money to develop F-35B level fighter. I also doubt that F-35C level aircraft could've been developed without sharing development and costs with F-35A which is acquired in far larger numbers by a lot of countries. I think F-35A might've been in service slightly faster if not for concurrency, but I doubt it would've been any better.

I wouldn't see it as that difficult; the primary difficulty with 5th gens is that 5th gens are only stealthy in angles, and that the flight computer has to be programmed for emitters. The transition from F-35B to F-35A would have been relatively easy considering the primary difference would be lift fan and weapons bay length.

Another major plus is that if the F-35B had been enlarged, as opposed to keeping roughly the same size as the X-35, the weapons bay issue might never have popped up. The F-35 had a set size and the F-35B was crippled (lower fuel capacity, shorter weapons bays) simply because the F-35 design was baked it for all three variants. Once you had the F-35B done, the F-35A would simply have been a problem of removing the lift fan, replacing the empty space with fuel tanks, and adding a gun, alongside FCS programming for the different weight distribution.

[sprstdlyscottsmn]

The F-35 had a set size and the F-35B was crippled (lower fuel capacity, shorter weapons bays) simply because the F-35 design was baked it for all three variants.

The F-35 had a set size BECAUSE of the F-35B. It was required to fit on the smaller LHA elevators.