J-20 goes operational again

I never said the J-31 was lighter. In fact I suggested it would have lower Thrust to Weight Numbers than the F-35.

The J-20 is similar to the F-22 as the J-31 is similar to the F-35. One dedicated Air Superiority Fighter. While, the other is a Multi-Role Strike Fighter. Honestly, not a hard concept....

J-31 weapon bays doesn't look as design for multirole. It is similar to J-20 bay which is F-22 bay copy, design to carry amraamski missiles or some smaller bombs:
https://defense-update.com/wp-content/u ... ns-bay.jpg

Multirole weapons bays:

https://qph.fs.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-0 ... 81e4a.webp

http://sh.uploads.ru/yIq3U.gif

Btw I think you need to wait production of J-31, because for now you are writing about plane which final design isn't done, fly with 1980s RD-33 variant, while you are bashing Su-57 which is in production without final engine.

We hardly have accurate data on the exact weights and thrust of the J-31.

There is good enough information at present to get a pretty good idea of where it slots in, and it's not impressive. What is above is a guesstimated best-case of what it'll be able to do with the current indications, claims, estimates and the implications.

It's unlikely that an upgraded RD33 = WS-13E will exceed 20,000 lb AB (probably a bit less) and is predicted to suffer in the area of longevity.

The other thing is it's not going to be a light and it's under-powered, meaning the engines will have to work harder to supply the required thrust, with an associated increase in fuel burn, reduction in TBO, reduction in specific-consumption, and implied attenuated range.

It may be a low-drag clean design but frankly, the range and cruise speed is unlikely to reflect it like the F-35 does due to the under-powered engines. It's always going to be taking-off near to MTOW.

Plus what's it's max-landing weight if stores payload left with full-fuel is in the region of just 5,400 lb? And with larger wings/surface and weight for a carrier? Looks a bit marginal to me.

This in turn would provide "adequate" performance....Remember, biggest advantage for Stealth Fighters are their low RCS and Sensor Fusion. Not extremely low speed performance!

Agree but do we believe we're looking at competitive all-aspect RCS and IR reductions, compared to F-35A? Same for the sensors, fusion-integration and datalinks? In the end even if those were all competitive it still needs range, acceleration and exceptional agility. With tanker support it would be excellent against 4th-gens in a defensive role.

Nonetheless, the type will become the backbone of both the PLAAF and PLAN. If, for no other reason is they (China) have no alternative.... "IMHO"

I don't see that, I think they do have an alternative. The J-20 provides so much more potential for both defense and offense. Plus both will be quite expensive jets to acquire and operate. The PLAAF may just decide it's better off with buying evolved J-20s for the foreseeable, mixed with 4th-gens, until it can develop a credible F135-ski to produce something a bit closer to an F-35C. So they proceed with FC-31 for PLAN in the interim, but I see it as a bit of a dead-end design without a substantially better engine and major re-design to provide more VLO A2G.

2 cents worth

There is good enough information at present to get a pretty good idea of where it slots in, and it's not impressive. What is above is a guesstimated best-case of what it'll be able to do with the current indications, claims, estimates and the implications.

Actually, very little data available and the Chinese aren't talking.......(hardly surprising)

It's unlikely that an upgraded RD33 = WS-13E will exceed 20,000 lb AB (probably a bit less) and is predicted to suffer in the area of longevity.

The RD-93's should make ~ 19,000 lbs and the WS-13E ~ 22,000 lbs. Yet, again questionable how accurate that information is. That said, nobody would believe either engine is close in most respects to Western Designs. Especially, in overall reliability, availability and serviceability (RAS).

The other thing is it's not going to be a light and it's under-powered, meaning the engines will have to work harder to supply the required thrust, with an associated increase in fuel burn, reduction in TBO, reduction in specific-consumption, and implied attenuated range.

Underpowered is a relative term...The F-14A was very underpowered. Yet, still was "adequate" in general terms.

It may be a low-drag clean design but frankly, the range and cruise speed is unlikely to reflect it like the F-35 does due to the under-powered engines. It's always going to be taking-off near to MTOW.

How is it going to "always" take off near MTOW??? Especially, considering we don't know the exact Weight or Thrust of the aircraft under various conditions??? Nor, in any of my remarks did I say the J-31 was superior to the F-35 in
any respect. Just pointed out it likely will exceed the capabilities of any 4/4.5 Generation Fighter.

Plus what's it's max-landing weight if stores payload left with full-fuel is in the region of just 5,400 lb? And with larger wings/surface and weight for a carrier? Looks a bit marginal to me.

Again keyword is "adequate" not making a direct comparison with F-35.

Agree but do we believe we're looking at competitive all-aspect RCS and IR reductions, compared to F-35A? Same for the sensors, fusion-integration and datalinks? In the end even if those were all competitive it still needs range, acceleration and exceptional agility. With tanker support it would be excellent against 4th-gens in a defensive role.

Sure I doubt the J-31 could match let alone exceed the F-35 is any respect. (i.e. Performance, Stealth, Sensor Fusion, etc.) Yet, the real question is how close can it come. While, how would it compare to existing 4/4.5 Generation Fighters???

I don't see that, I think they do have an alternative. The J-20 provides so much more potential for both defense and offense. Plus both will be quite expensive jets to acquire and operate. The PLAAF may just decide it's better off with buying evolved J-20s for the foreseeable, mixed with 4th-gens, until it can develop a credible F135-ski to produce something a bit closer to an F-35C. So they proceed with FC-31 for PLAN in the interim, but I see it as a bit of a dead-end design without a substantially better engine and major re-design to provide more VLO A2G.

I've seen nothing to suggest China is planning on developing the J-20 into a Multi-Role Strike Fighter. It clearly has been designed for various Air Superiority Missions. (Yet, may have some type of secondary deep interdiction role?) In addition the PLAAF needs a middle weight multi-role Strike Fighter the same as the US and the rest of the World. Which, can be produced in "vast" numbers. While, also being adaptable to the Naval Mission and Export. This is frankly exactly what the J-31 is.....aka Chinese F-35.

Honestly, don't see what some have such a hard time understanding???

J-31 weapon bays doesn't look as design for multirole. It is similar to J-20 bay which is F-22 bay copy, design to carry amraamski missiles or some smaller bombs:

https://defense-update.com/wp-content/u ... ns-bay.jpg

This link won't open.........can you attach the picture instead????

Btw I think you need to wait production of J-31, because for now you are writing about plane which final design isn't done, fly with 1980s RD-33 variant, while you are bashing Su-57 which is in production without final engine.

I have "never" bashed the Su-57 over it's current engine. As a matter of fact like the RD-93 in the J-31. I have in fact said it was adequate until more powerful engines become available. My criticism over the Su-57 is mainly over it's poor RCS (i.e. Stealth) and questionable Sensor Fusion.

I've seen nothing to suggest China is planning on developing the J-20 into a Multi-Role Strike Fighter. It clearly has been designed for various Air Superiority Missions. (Yet, may have some type of secondary deep interdiction role?) In addition the PLAAF needs a middle weight multi-role Strike Fighter the same as the US and the rest of the World. Which, can be produced in "vast" numbers. While, also being adaptable to the Naval Mission and Export. This is frankly exactly what the J-31 is.....aka Chinese F-35.

Honestly, don't see what some have such a hard time understanding???

Maybe you should try to understand China does not operate like we do or have the same goals and doesn't need an aircraft like F-35. Honestly it looks like you keep promoting FC-31 because it looks like an F-35 so it backs your belief that the F-35 is end all be all.

Maybe you should try to understand China does not operate like we do or have the same goals and doesn't need an aircraft like F-35. Honestly it looks like you keep promoting FC-31 because it looks like an F-35 so it backs your belief that the F-35 is end all be all.

Really, so China doesn't need a multi-role strike fighter. Which, it can produce in volume (affordable) for the PLAAF, PLAN, and Export.

Then odd they're developing it for those very reasons.....

Why I think PLAAF is probably not going to want it as an A2A fighter and little to no air to ground? ... nah. PLAN only, and export unlikely.

Speaking of Fuel and Power........

QUOTE:

A model of China’s FC-31 stealth fighter jet displayed at the Paris Air Show features new designs behind the cockpit and at the engines compared to previous prototypes. The airshow runs from June 17 to 23, 2019. Photo: screenshot of China Central Television

China’s fifth generation stealth fighter jet FC-31 showcased its latest upgrades at the ongoing Paris Air Show, and analysts noted on Wednesday that the displayed model shows noteworthy changes in design that could significantly improve its capabilities.

A scaled model of the FC-31 is being displayed by the state-owned Aviation Industry Corporation of China (AVIC) at the company’s stand at the 53rd Paris Air Show, which is scheduled to run from Monday to Sunday.

Chinese military observers and media said the model on display appears to have undergone many changes compared to the aircraft’s past designs.

The area behind the cockpit and the areas where the two engines are housed are now bulkier, Weihutang, a military column affiliated with China Central Television, reported on Wednesday.

The optimized aerodynamic design further reduces wind resistance, the report said.

Wang Ya’nan, chief editor of Aerospace Knowledge magazine, told the Global Times on Wednesday that these changes could mean the aircraft has been made more agile and is capable of carrying more fuel, which will give it a larger operational range.

It might also carry additional electronic devices for communication or satellite links, Wang said.

The upgraded FC-31 might even feature a pair of new engines, reported Ordnance Industry Science Technology, a Xi’an-based periodical on the national defense industry.

The nozzles of the engines on the FC-31 model displayed in Paris are very different in structure and shape than the ones previously used, the periodical said, noting that this means the warplane will become more competitive on the international market, giving it a better chance of joining the People’s Liberation Army if it gets new and more powerful engines.

Wang said that the warplane will continue to boost its capabilities.

For countries looking to buy an advanced stealth fighter jet, the FC-31 is similar to the US F-35 but much cheaper, and China does not attach political conditions to arms sales as the US does, Wang said.

https://chinanews.worldtimes.news/china ... -air-show/

Maybe you should try to understand China does not operate like we do or have the same goals and doesn't need an aircraft like F-35. Honestly it looks like you keep promoting FC-31 because it looks like an F-35 so it backs your belief that the F-35 is end all be all.

Really, so China doesn't need a multi-role strike fighter. Which, it can produce in volume (affordable) for the PLAAF, PLAN, and Export. Then odd they're developing it for those very reasons.....

What China wants to do and what China can do are not equal.

They have multirole strikefighters now. Combine those with an evolving J-20 air-dominance force and high standoff PGM weapons on the 4th-gens and they have a powerful air force with no clear "need" for an FC-31 which has only an A2A optimized weapons bay. And whether you want to face it or not, the implied stuff-all available payload with full fuel.

Until now the highest 'wild-ass' claim I have seen for WS-13E thrust is 20,000 lb. The Tomcat was adequate due to variable wing sweep angle, while the FC-31 with the claimed max weight (60,927 lb) and claimed thrust (optimistically 40,000 lb) is questionable due the cost and complexity involved. It's more-or-less just an expensive shorter-range J-20, which might be able to operate from a carrier deck one day.

PLAAF may as well save the money outlay and operate just one expensive 5th-gen A2A fighter, and buy evolving versions of the J-20 until China can master a high-powered reliable high-TBO singles that will actually be worth acquiring on merit.

What China wants to do and what China can do are not equal.

They have multirole strikefighters now. Combine those with an evolving J-20 air-dominance force and high standoff PGM weapons on the 4th-gens and they have a powerful air force with no clear "need" for an FC-31 which has only an A2A optimized weapons bay. And whether you want to face it or not, the implied stuff-all available payload with full fuel.

Until now the highest 'wild-ass' claim I have seen for WS-13E thrust is 20,000 lb. The Tomcat was adequate due to variable wing sweep angle, while the FC-31 with the claimed max weight (60,927 lb) and claimed thrust (optimistically 40,000 lb) is questionable due the cost and complexity involved. It's more-or-less just an expensive shorter-range J-20, which might be able to operate from a carrier deck one day.

PLAAF may as well save the money outlay and operate just one expensive 5th-gen A2A fighter, and buy evolving versions of the J-20 until China can master a high-powered reliable high-TBO singles that will actually be worth acquiring on merit.

So, you believe China is going to build several hundred Multi-Role J-20's in the next 10-20 years. While, the J-31 will just become a Naval Fighter for the PLAN???

Please, elaborate....

Why I think PLAAF is probably not going to want it as an A2A fighter and little to no air to ground? ... nah. PLAN only, and export unlikely.

Speaking of Fuel and Power........

More powerful engines plus more than 18,000 lb of fuel (which I think was a stretch already btw) just means a significant weight increase for little if any payload gain. That could potentially make it a more useful A2A fighter, but for PLAAF needs the J-20 will already do that better.

So, you believe China is going to build several hundred Multi-Role J-20's in the next 10-20 years. While, the J-31 will just become a Naval Fighter for the PLAN???

That's what I've said a couple of times already and also explained.

Just to be 100% clear my personal opinion is the J-31 will become the backbone of both PLAAF and PLAN. While, it may even have some success in the export market. As the Su-57 appears to be of little threat....


Which, means the J-31 will be built in far greater numbers than the J-20. Of course I am just expressing my personal opinion. If, I am wrong I will be happy to "apologize".

More powerful engines plus more than 18,000 lb of fuel (which I think was a stretch already btw) just means a significant weight increase for little if any payload gain. That could potentially make it a more useful A2A fighter, but for PLAAF needs the J-20 will already do that better

.

So, I guess you believe the USAF should have just purchased the F-22A and canceled the F-35A???

That's what I've said a couple of times already and also explained.

I doubt very much that China will produce more J-20's than J-31's long-term. Yet, your entitled to your opinion...

Just to be 100% clear my personal opinion is the J-31 will become the backbone of both PLAAF and PLAN. ... Which, means the J-31 will be built in far greater numbers than the J-20.

What you're forgetting is the presumption that the FC-31 would be "cheaper" and more affordable is predicated on the numbers being built. But if the performance is not recommending the jet on its merits then why even spend so much building it at all? Except where the PLAN's essential needs are concerned (which then makes it their problem and budget issue).

In which case the J-20 program grows quantitatively into a larger PLAAF acquisition, and thus becomes the cheaper aircraft to acquire. One which already has superior baseline performance margin and more potential for development, with an available payload of just over 10,000 lb (implied) with full-fuel. And the cost of the one program delivering the same thing (but less of it) again costs the PLAAF less, which then allows them to focus resources and manpower on maximizing an evolved J-20 fleet.

" ... We don't need no stankin' FC-31s! ... "

I doubt very much that China will produce more J-20's than J-31's long-term. Yet, your entitled to your opinion...

They may produce as few as 100 FC-31 mixed with J-15s for A2G.

I doubt very much that China will produce more J-20's than J-31's long-term. Yet, your entitled to your opinion...

They may produce as few as 100 FC-31 mixed with J-15s for A2G.