SAC FC-31 Stealth Fighter: News & Discussions

[ptldM3]

F 35 uses a 2 piece canopy

One piece, what you see is an internal brace.

 

[Esc8781]

One piece, what you see is an internal brace.

He probably have gotten confused with the X-35

 

[tanlixiang28776]

If your talking to to me you're talking to the wrong person. A two piece canopy offers some advantages over a once piece by offering weight savings, ease of manufacturing, less distortion, good bird strike protection, cost savings?

The draw back, less visibility. And the RCS argument regarding the two piece canopy is silly, i have already explained as why it is so.

China uses both in their due to their respective advantages. Two piece primarily for its naval bird protection, and 1 piece for air force visibility.

A curved metal brace reflects radar. How much it affects RCS in total is the question. From a front on angle though that would be significant and less so from other angles. Appraising too much or to little to its effect on RCS has to do with personal agenda on this forum.

No one here actually has the 3d model for either design or a anechoic chamber to test it in.

 

[ptldM3]

China uses both in their due to their respective advantages. Two piece primarily for its naval bird protection, and 1 piece for air force visibility.

A curved metal brace reflects radar. How much it affects RCS in total is the question. From a front on angle though that would be significant and less so from other angles. Appraising too much or to little to its effect on RCS has to do with personal agenda on this forum.

Technically a metal brace wouldn’t reflect any more than any other surface of an aircraft. It’s not the metal but the fact that there is a discontinuity, than again, an airbrake qualifies as a discontinuity, as does an access panel, internal refueling probe, weapons bay, bay door ect.

Ever notice why the F-117 and B-2 has its frames positioned at an angle? There is a very good reason for it. The most important things to consider with a brace or any other surface that presents I discontinuity is how plush and tight it is, after that it would be the shape/angle.

 

[Ibr0kEmYrAz0r]

In a manner of speaking -- yes.

This is where you failed to understand the issue of defense. Not every country can afford to have dedicated platforms. Back in the Cold War, an era I lived and served in the USAF when probably you were not even borned, the most feared aircraft was not the B-52 or the F-15 but the SR-71. Technologically speaking, it was inferior to the F-15 and -16 in many ways. Even its mighty engines, the J58, was not that advanced. But what its mission was, it performed extremely well, and to this day, no country could afford such an aircraft.

Stop trolling Gambit. It's you who failed to understand that it was one of your americans (or some korean who lives in USA) who said F-35 is basically A-35, needs protection from F-22 and F-15. I quoted his text to indicate F-35 is more than just a mere attack aircraft. You should explain that non-affordability of hi-lo combination to him.

Not every country could afford the F-15 and -16 combination. Those who could not must make do with the -16, which is a formidable jack-of-all-trades adversary for anyone. We realize the expense of maintaining a diverse fleet of highly dedicated platforms a long time ago. Look at the US Navy for example. During the Cold War, an aircraft carrier can deploy with about five or six different aircrafts. Now we are down to two, three if we count the helo. The F-18 does everything, from fleet defense to air refuel to EW. Next is the AWACS E-2 Hawkeye. Can we say that the US Navy screwed itself?

Well, in a manner of speaking -- yes.

US Navy 'screwed' itself back in the early '90s, and your politician 'screwed' it twice when your 'Dick' (Cheney) cut the whole program, by not giving any fundings to further develop F-14s, and destroying the tooling and machinery to construct F-14s; therefore no new Tomcats were built later, which led to increased maintenance cost for the old airframes. They also dropped the upgrade plans like Quickstrike, Tomcat 21, AST 21 and ASF-14, etc. in favour of F-18E/F which turned out to be more expensive. They abandoned a fantastic "cat" for a mediocre "bug".

That leaves the future US navy operating missions with "A-35" as attack planes - which is suggested by one of your own americans (go on, convince him that it has more than an attack role, and deserve the "F" bit in F-35), and these "A-35" planes are protected by jack-of-all-trades-master-of-none "air-superiority" Fighter F/A-18.

They are indeed 'screwed' as they will probably be facing new threats such as J-15/J-31 Hi-Lo combo from the sea, and J-10/J-20 from land.

The F-35 partners know exactly what they are getting into. If the word 'screwed' is to be used, it would be each who screwed himself because he could not afford anything more, not because the US did something nefarious to them.

Yes, I see from your sentence US allies 'screwed' themselves big-time by relying too much on US, and hoping US will not 'screwing-up'.

 

[Kiss_of_the_Dragon]

Sometime I just want to grab SAC desginer and make him answer to all your questions: why he did like this or like that, why not single or double canopy, why bird sign instead 8-1...why a gab between engines??

is SAc try to design a cheap stealth version...remember F-15 was too expensive in 1970, one of the reason that F-16 & F-17 were created, is for the same reason that J-31 was created? speculation and debate are fun...but we need more than 3 pictures to judge this aircraft.

 

[gambit]

Stop trolling Gambit. It's you who failed to understand that it was one of your americans (or some korean who lives in USA) who said F-35 is basically A-35, needs protection from F-22 and F-15. I quoted his text to indicate F-35 is more than just a mere attack aircraft. You should explain that non-affordability of hi-lo combination to him.



Well, in a manner of speaking -- yes.

US Navy 'screwed' itself back in the early '90s, and your politician 'screwed' it twice when your 'Dick' (Cheney) cut the whole program, by not giving any fundings to further develop F-14s, and destroying the tooling and machinery to construct F-14s; therefore no new Tomcats were built later, which led to increased maintenance cost for the old airframes. They also dropped the upgrade plans like Quickstrike, Tomcat 21, AST 21 and ASF-14, etc. in favour of F-18E/F which turned out to be more expensive. They abandoned a fantastic "cat" for a mediocre "bug".

That leaves the future US navy operating missions with "A-35" as attack planes - which is suggested by one of your own americans (go on, convince him that it has more than an attack role, and deserve the "F" bit in F-35), and these "A-35" planes are protected by jack-of-all-trades-master-of-none "air-superiority" Fighter F/A-18.

They are indeed 'screwed' as they will probably be facing new threats such as J-15/J-31 Hi-Lo combo from the sea, and J-10/J-20 from land.



Yes, I see from your sentence US allies 'screwed' themselves big-time by relying too much on US, and hoping US will not 'screwing-up'.

Now this is a troll post. Not worth responding.

 

[gambit]

A curved metal brace reflects radar.

The F-35 has a one-piece canopy. If the canopy reduces radar signal entry into the cockpit, that single canopy frame may not be a statistically significant contributor to total RCS.

How much it affects RCS in total is the question.

It is the concept called 'threshold' that the Chinese members here seems to have a difficult time understanding.

No one here actually has the 3d model for either design or a anechoic chamber to test it in.

But your friend does. He has full scale models of the J-20, F-22, and F-35 to eyeball, and his eyeballs are superior to any test equipments and facilities out there.

 

[Viper0011.]

Stop trolling Gambit. It's you who failed to understand that it was one of your americans (or some korean who lives in USA) who said F-35 is basically A-35, needs protection from F-22 and F-15. I quoted his text to indicate F-35 is more than just a mere attack aircraft. You should explain that non-affordability of hi-lo combination to him.

US Navy 'screwed' itself back in the early '90s, and your politician 'screwed' it twice when your 'Dick' (Cheney) cut the whole program, by not giving any fundings to further develop F-14s, and destroying the tooling and machinery to construct F-14s; therefore no new Tomcats were built later, which led to increased maintenance cost for the old airframes. They also dropped the upgrade plans like Quickstrike, Tomcat 21, AST 21 and ASF-14, etc. in favour of F-18E/F which turned out to be more expensive. They abandoned a fantastic "cat" for a mediocre "bug".

That leaves the future US navy operating missions with "A-35" as attack planes - which is suggested by one of your own americans (go on, convince him that it has more than an attack role, and deserve the "F" bit in F-35), and these "A-35" planes are protected by jack-of-all-trades-master-of-none "air-superiority" Fighter F/A-18.

They are indeed 'screwed' as they will probably be facing new threats such as J-15/J-31 Hi-Lo combo from the sea, and J-10/J-20 from land.

Yes, I see from your sentence US allies 'screwed' themselves big-time by relying too much on US, and hoping US will not 'screwing-up'.

No offense...I try to stay as neutral as I can but sometime you come across this crazy as* posts and you find yourself just scratching your head on how to respond.
Out of the book that you wrote here, I got two things out of it. 1: That USN apparently screwed itself over by going to F/A 18 from Tomcat. 2: The USN will be facing J-15 and J-31 and J-10 and J-20 from the mainland.
Are you going to war with us? If that's the case, you may never get to see your J-10's or J-20's airborne as they may be taken out on the ground. I understand that it'll be a massive war and both the countries are big. BUT....you conveniently forgot that US does the military better than ANYONE ELSE on the planet.
You also conveniently forgot F-15's, F/A 18's, F-16's, B1's, B2's, F117's, F-22's, Navy's Stealth Drones, and then F-35 (not procured in numbers yet).....there are layers of different types of aircraft for all purposes that you'll have to encounter vs. just using a hi lo of J-10, J-20 and J-15, J-31.
I am not trying to put a light under this threads as*. I am just explaining. Your post doesn't make any sense. The USN has ALWAYS met it's objectives successfully. F/A 18 until recently and outside of Stealthy fighters had the most advanced tech. The same or similar advanced tech was retro-fitted to F-15's and F-16's. So I am not sure what your point was that you were trying to post......may want to gather your thoughts and actually make a point next time!

And the F-35 DOES use the single canopy. I'll try to post a picture if Gambit hasn't already somewhere.

 

[Beast]

No offense...I try to stay as neutral as I can but sometime you come across this crazy as* posts and you find yourself just scratching your head on how to respond.
Out of the book that you wrote here, I got two things out of it. 1: That USN apparently screwed itself over by going to F/A 18 from Tomcat. 2: The USN will be facing J-15 and J-31 and J-10 and J-20 from the mainland.
Are you going to war with us? If that's the case, you may never get to see your J-10's or J-20's airborne as they may be taken out on the ground. I understand that it'll be a massive war and both the countries are big. BUT....you conveniently forgot that US does the military better than ANYONE ELSE on the planet.
You also conveniently forgot F-15's, F/A 18's, F-16's, B1's, B2's, F117's, F-22's, Navy's Stealth Drones, and then F-35 (not procured in numbers yet).....there are layers of different types of aircraft for all purposes that you'll have to encounter vs. just using a hi lo of J-10, J-20 and J-15, J-31.
I am not trying to put a light under this threads as*. I am just explaining. Your post doesn't make any sense. The USN has ALWAYS met it's objectives successfully. F/A 18 until recently and outside of Stealthy fighters had the most advanced tech. The same or similar advanced tech was retro-fitted to F-15's and F-16's. So I am not sure what your point was that you were trying to post......may want to gather your thoughts and actually make a point next time!

And the F-35 DOES use the single canopy. I'll try to post a picture if Gambit hasn't already somewhere.

US does war better than anybody else? Didn't just a few Taliban cave man use simple machine and RPG Taken out the harrier on the ground? Lol..

J-10 and J-20 will never airborne and taken care easily? Lol.. U think china is Iraq? U are talking a country who has GPS, anti satelite ability. China and US are only both the countries who conduct ABM in outside atmosphere. Not even Russia done it yet.
I think u must have play too many American cowboy games...

 

[conworldus]

No offense...I try to stay as neutral as I can but sometime you come across this crazy as* posts and you find yourself just scratching your head on how to respond.
Out of the book that you wrote here, I got two things out of it. 1: That USN apparently screwed itself over by going to F/A 18 from Tomcat. 2: The USN will be facing J-15 and J-31 and J-10 and J-20 from the mainland.
Are you going to war with us? If that's the case, you may never get to see your J-10's or J-20's airborne as they may be taken out on the ground. I understand that it'll be a massive war and both the countries are big. BUT....you conveniently forgot that US does the military better than ANYONE ELSE on the planet.
You also conveniently forgot F-15's, F/A 18's, F-16's, B1's, B2's, F117's, F-22's, Navy's Stealth Drones, and then F-35 (not procured in numbers yet).....there are layers of different types of aircraft for all purposes that you'll have to encounter vs. just using a hi lo of J-10, J-20 and J-15, J-31.
I am not trying to put a light under this threads as*. I am just explaining. Your post doesn't make any sense. The USN has ALWAYS met it's objectives successfully. F/A 18 until recently and outside of Stealthy fighters had the most advanced tech. The same or similar advanced tech was retro-fitted to F-15's and F-16's. So I am not sure what your point was that you were trying to post......may want to gather your thoughts and actually make a point next time!

And the F-35 DOES use the single canopy. I'll try to post a picture if Gambit hasn't already somewhere.

Err I think the plane to plane matching is quite valid. The chest thumping is unnecessary. If you talk about an all out war, it is also quite possible that none of the US aircraft will be able to airborne before they get destroyed, either. Remember China is in a peace time economy where the defense production capability is limited at 15% of its max potential. A result of such war will sure go nuclear and can only be mutual destruction of both countries, which means the US Navy will be obliterated along with everything else. Please stay on topic next time.

 

[pluto]

whatever, i can see china is making progress.
with great power, comes great responsibility.
now, China has to take the responsibility again to fight Nazi Japan for Asia. grasp the chance to solve it for good.
no one will abuse china for what weapon they will be using, like U.S Nuke japan during WWII. it's fine.

 

[EagleEyes]

 

[Beast]

Can we have new angle? It's always the angle and the same man inside the plane....zzzz

 

[S10]

People are still debate about that cockpit glass? The insiders have already stated there will be changes when the 3rd prototype rolls out. Prototype 1 and 2 are for basic and advanced flight testing, while 3rd is for avionics and new engine.