What's new

SAC - FC-31 Grey Falcon Stealth aircraft for PAF : Updates & Debate

Bhai
I do not have the contacts or the capacity/ tolerance for cavity exploration to ask PAF what the suggestions were. Suffice it to say if Shahid Lateef says so, unless you can bring evidence to the fore to contradict him, then you will not be accepted as a counter source. If you can ask and are well enough afterwards to convey us the changes suggested, please feel free to do so.
Can you care to highlight how many prototypes of J31/35 are currently flying. I can bet you will be able to count them on the fingers of your hand. I have no qualms against the platform and actually love it. However, It is not yet complete and certainly not in use with the PLAN/PLAAF, contrary to the hype created with our Chinese brothers. As a platform unless PLAN/ PLAAF inducts it on their own, PAF will not be inducting it. I cannot say what the House of Saud will do, but the cost sink is too much for PAF to bear on an untested platform which needs to attain operational maturity. The rest I am fine with.
Regards
A

Your logic doesn't hold any weight. Try to count on your fingers how many TFX are flying. Did the PAF wait for the JF-17 to gain "operational maturity"? Yet, the PAF is more than willing to lay down "sunk costs" for project Azm, without having to wait for "operational maturity". You don't get it, the PAF has no options, but to fork out the cash, for whatever option it chooses, to get an FGFA. Otherwise, using your logic, basically the PAF has no option whatsoever for a fifth gen type.

As other people have pointed out, unless the Chinese are secretly developing yet another fifth gen type that will mature within the next 5-10 years for their CATOBAR carriers, they have only the option of the J-31/35, even if they haven't "officially" stated it as such, so it's extremely likely the J-31/35 will be inducted in sizeable numbers, otherwise SAC wouldn't waste energy further developing the type.

As for the J-10, @credence has explained it. The PAF "input", if you can call it that, was on MMI and operational performance, based on its experience with the Viper (the closest western analogue) rather than any changes to the fundamental design of the aircraft.
 
.
Just relax, and J-35 has nothing to do with PAF.
SAC just foucs on the needs of PLAN and PLAAF.

There would be no projects likes FC-1/JF-17 any more.
I would agree with you. The world of aviation is bitterly fought out and China has spent a lot of blood and sweat. It would not jist hand over its hard won prize to another nation. Especially one with no money! I have maintained that for the next generation fighter Turkey and Pakistan are more natural allies as China has crossed that threshold where it would embark on joint ventures (the reasons are many and I will not insult your intelligence by explaining it to you)
In the 5th gen domain PAF has nothing to offer it in any case. Iam fully aware of the Turkish engine problems and restrictions that puts on Turkiye. However to me it seems a more likely joint venture than the J31/35.
Interestingly the PAF ex officers have always talked of J20 as a possible acquisition rather than j31. Dont ask me how or why but this is what has been said. Since we are potentially talking about mid of next decade it may become a possibility as China would have progressed much beyond J20. So what is sacrosanct now will not remain so.
Project Azm may just end up rebranding a product bought from st elsewhere. We are no where near the technological state to make even a 4.5+ generation fighter than venture into 5th generation sphere

Funding is not an issue for J31/35. Chinese Navy wants a carrier based stealthy fighter badly. Chinese Air Force also wants another type of stealthy fighter to balance the high cost of J20, to fill in the role like J10. China always keeps things secret, there is no desire and no need to disclose the number of prototypes of J31/35. in previous days, you didn't know how many J10, J20 prototypes either.
It may not be an issue now but it remained so for quite a few years. I agree there is some news of PLAN'S interest in J35 as a naval platform, and the international media is bringing out news of money being poured in to the project. J35 will be a navalized version but J31 for the moment remains dead in the water.
A
 
.
There two FC-31 flying prototypes:

31001
Funding is not an issue for J31/35. Chinese Navy wants a carrier based stealthy fighter badly. Chinese Air Force also wants another type of stealthy fighter to balance the high cost of J20, to fill in the role like J10. China always keeps things secret, there is no desire and no need to disclose the number of prototypes of J31/35. in previous days, you didn't know how many J10, J20 prototypes either.

There are at least two flying prototypes of the FC-31 and at least two of the J-35:

31001
81FC56B8-D32E-470E-BCC4-CAF7EF0E1A30.jpeg

31003
49073A8E-D999-43E1-9DF9-17C9A6524536.jpeg


350003 and 350001
853109FD-B03C-4CDD-8EB9-FD287AF4891F.jpeg
 
.
Your logic doesn't hold any weight. Try to count on your fingers how many TFX are flying. Did the PAF wait for the JF-17 to gain "operational maturity"? Yet, the PAF is more than willing to lay down "sunk costs" for project Azm, without having to wait for "operational maturity". You don't get it, the PAF has no options, but to fork out the cash, for whatever option it chooses, to get an FGFA. Otherwise, using your logic, basically the PAF has no option whatsoever for a fifth gen type.

As other people have pointed out, unless the Chinese are secretly developing yet another fifth gen type that will mature within the next 5-10 years for their CATOBAR carriers, they have only the option of the J-31/35, even if they haven't "officially" stated it as such, so it's extremely likely the J-31/35 will be inducted in sizeable numbers, otherwise SAC wouldn't waste energy further developing the type.

As for the J-10, @credence has explained it. The PAF "input", if you can call it that, was on MMI and operational performance, based on its experience with the Viper (the closest western analogue) rather than any changes to the fundamental design of the aircraft.
 
. . . . . .
Should have gotten these instead of J-10s.
I mean, they're still under development, and I doubt PAF would even receive them before the PLAAF/PLANAF fill their own requirements first.
 
.
Hi,

Really---kindly share your reasoning please---.

Even in small numbers, they would've made an excellent tip of the spear asset for (a) nuclear role (b) air dominance vis a via Rafale. The J-10C fills the gap for the F-16s we didn't get. They maybe somewhat at par with Rafale but certainly does not give a wildcard advantage a low observable platform such as J-35 would have.
 
. .
I mean, they're still under development, and I doubt PAF would even receive them before the PLAAF/PLANAF fill their own requirements first.

If we had committed to the platform early on in 2011, we would be receiving them just about now. That's where strategic planning comes in.

PAF is excellent but it suffers from 'reactionary planning syndrome'. The PAF lacks a robust strategic thought culture. That is why their planning always reflects reaction not pre-emption.

They've committed a bunch of money to J-10C because they failed to forsee a proper role for JF-17 which ideally should've been planned as a medium class fighter like the F-16 or J-10s, way back in 1997. Now that they have committed to the J-10 instead of investing in an above the horizon next generation platform 10 years ago, they'll have to invest in NGFA all over again. In other words the PAF for the next 30 years will continue to suffer the logistical nightmare of managing 4 different platforms with just as many suppliers.
 
.
If we had committed to the platform early on in 2011, we would be receiving them just about now. That's where strategic planning comes in.

PAF is excellent but it suffers from 'reactionary planning syndrome'. The PAF lacks a robust strategic thought culture. That is why their planning always reflects reaction not pre-emption.

They've committed a bunch of money to J-10C because they failed to forsee a proper role for JF-17 which ideally should've been planned as a medium class fighter like the F-16 or J-10s, way back in 1997. Now that they have committed to the J-10 instead of investing in an above the horizon next generation platform 10 years ago, they'll have to invest in NGFA all over again. In other words the PAF for the next 30 years will continue to suffer the logistical nightmare of managing 4 different platforms with just as many suppliers.
Well the idea of a stealth platform has been around for a while especially considering project Azm.

They foresaw a valid reason to procure the J-10C rather than jumping to a 5th gen platform for whatever reason they thought was right
 
Last edited:
. .

Country Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom