SAC FC-31 Stealth Fighter: News & Discussions

[kawaraj]

I just like this super black color, cool bird.

Gyrfalcon

 

[manqiangrexue]

Man, Gambit, you just don't quit. You always wanna come out the winner, wanna make people think you're better... but you're just NOT.

I talk about the airframe of a prototype and you try to bring up the quality of PILOTS?? Viet logic. Way off topic, no points.

Next one, the propulsion may be inadequate. But, this has been discussed before; Vitchilo brought it up 2 posts before you. No way you can prove that China has sufficient engines and no way to prove they don't. I'm only making assumptions about the air frame, not the engine.

Then, you bring up the point that mashing up 2 jets together may be detrimental. You have half a point there, but that's assuming that the engineers don't know what they're doing and are just mashing stuff together randomly. A real team of engineers with testing equipment would probably intelligently use the strengths of each airframe to complement the weaknesses of the other. And since the F-35 and F-22 were made to complement each other in the first place, this seems like something Shenyang would do.

Finally, your burden of proof: there is none. This is not court. It is already a given that nothing can be proven now. Everything is a theory now. Korean's statements were all theories too, but I pointed out that they were highly illogical, although, since they cannot be disproven, they are not technically impossible. Everything you say is just a theory too. If it is against mine, they are competing theories, like evolution vs. creationism. There is no burden of proof because proof is impossible in this situation. You're gonna have to give this one up; you're not gonna come out on top.

 

[doidoi2]

Gambit, the truck driver may know more than me, but I know he doesn't know enough to tell me how the next Lamborghini should be designed. Understand this: just because you flew jets for 20 years doesn't mean you know how to design a stealth fighter. You may know more than the layman, but you still don't know anything compared to people who design these things and you don't know enough to explain them accurately.

I understand your concept of "Chinese physics" now. It means physics that are too complicated for you to understand. Any physics beyond your basic principles cartoon is considered "Chinese physics" by you. If you didn't learn it, it's considered Chinese.

Your founding principles google cartoon is trash. You heard it at orientation, googled up a pic, and thought this is the bible to making stealth jets. In all classes, we learn founding principles on the first day. If it was the third grade, those principles stood till the last day. In college, we learned exceptions as the class progressed. In a PhD level course, by the end of the course, the founding principles were shot so full of holes you'd fail the final for sure if you stuck by them because every test question was on how to solve an exception to the rule. The more complex, the less you can simply apply "founding principles" and you bring your google cartoon to discuss stealth jets like you know how things work. "Chinese physics" is all the exceptions and bypasses to your "founding principles".

Dude, I never saw the J-10 to F-35 video and even if I did see the title, I'd never click on it because I know the "vs." things by forum addicts are basically worth toenail clippings in terms of their ability to predict a real outcome. The jet you think would win is most highly probably the one your country made, no matter where you're from. (Iran: Our bootleg F-5 with 2 vertical stabilizers would totally kill the Raptor because this:..... LOL) Don't know why you brought it up at all, because a Chinese person once said it?

My points:
1. J-31 seems to look like a F-22/F-35 hybrid so it probably incorporates the best of both, because it doesn't make sense to incorporate the worst of both.
2. Change in design usually reflects improvement.
3. I might be wrong; the true indicator of the jet's performance (other than war, of course) is whether or not the PLAN and PLAAF choose to buy it.

Korean's points:
1. It's not flat enough to be a maneuverable fighter. (Oh, really! Someone quickly tell Shenyang to flatten it, cus they didn't know that!)
2. The nose/cockpit/air intakes look like F-35 so it's sluggish. (Sure, no need to compare wings, stabilizers or anything, cus those don't matter in terms of maneuvering the jet.)
3. It must have low range because it has 2 engines and is roughly similarly sized to the F-35. (Sure, all engines are exactly the same in terms of fuel consumption. Also, the space that held a VTOL fan in the F-35 is probably filled with foam and bubble wrap in the Chinese version. Couldn't possibly be used for extra fuel or weapons bays.)
4. The Chinese probably stole the F-35 design, didn't analyze it despite massive criticism, and copied it with all its flaws. (Yeah, sounds like a good plan to me, must sound like a great plan to military scientists; let's do that.)

Instead of slamming other people's stealth fighters with analyses that has more holes in it than Swiss cheese after a shoot-out with Al Pacino (probably not as clever a joke as I thought LOL), Korean should be praying (or working on it, if he's that great) that the KFX gets off paper in the next decade.

If you think my arguments and Korean's arguments are the same in terms of assumptions, then it's pretty clear why you relegated from Air Force to internet forums.

People like gambit are just really amateurs with a chip on their shoulder. They say things like you chinese boys and Chinese physics because they seek approval from others who hate China. They feel like they're not getting the recognition they deserve, so they attack and belittle others and their achievements. You really shouldn't argue with the poor man. The guys probably had a rough life, that's why he needs to feel important on an internet forum.

As for me, I could care less what people say about the capabilities of this bird on the web. It's pretty obvious that China has made huge strides in aerospace, and people are both jealous and fearful. I don't blame them. It's simply human nature.

 

[Banglar Lathial]

At this stage, there is little publicly available information to make reasonable judgements about the plane. Hope that more information will be released in the near future on this plane which looks like a great plane for potential export customers.

 

[gambit]

Man, Gambit, you just don't quit. You always wanna come out the winner, wanna make people think you're better... but you're just NOT.

And you do not?

I talk about the airframe of a prototype and you try to bring up the quality of PILOTS?? Viet logic. Way off topic, no points.

And for missing the point, that is a subtraction for you.

Next one, the propulsion may be inadequate. But, this has been discussed before; Vitchilo brought it up 2 posts before you. No way you can prove that China has sufficient engines and no way to prove they don't. I'm only making assumptions about the air frame, not the engine.

And if you have any experience at all or wise enough to listen, you would not make such an assumption.

Then, you bring up the point that mashing up 2 jets together may be detrimental. You have half a point there, but that's assuming that the engineers don't know what they're doing and are just mashing stuff together randomly. A real team of engineers with testing equipment would probably intelligently use the strengths of each airframe to complement the weaknesses of the other. And since the F-35 and F-22 were made to complement each other in the first place, this seems like something Shenyang would do.

That is where you are wrong and again missed the point, due to your non experience in aviation. When aviation engineers collaborate, especially when each of the team came from different projects or even different sub-disciplines, and the goal is to create a new design incorporating (hopefully) the best features of previous designs, they do not set out to create something that is better, even though that is the hope, and there is nothing with hoping that you will produce a superior product. With an airframe, they look at the RFP, they select the propulsion unit that is best match for that RFP, then they design the airframe around that engine.

For example...

The Lockheed F-104 "Star Fighter"

In particular, the new West German Luftwaffe was in need of a supersonic replacement for its Canadair Sabres and Republic F-84F Thunderstreak combat aircraft, and that service issued a request for proposals.

On October 31, 1952, Johnson presented the CL-246 proposal to Lockheed management. They were enthusiastic, and gave him the go-ahead to present it to the Air Force. Even though the USAF did not have a standing requirement for such a fighter, the USAF thought sufficiently highly of the general idea that they issued a General Operational Requirement on December 12, 1952 for a lightweight air-superiority fighter to replace the North American F-100 in the Tactical Air Command beginning in 1956. However, in order to be completely fair, the USAF had to request competitive bids for the project from the aviation industry.

In response to the request for proposals, Republic submitted its Model AP-55, based on its XF-91 Thunderceptor, but with a solid rounded nose and NASA-developed flush-type engine air intakes. North American submitted its Model NA-212, which was an advanced version of the Super Sabre which eventually emerged as the F-107. Northrop submitted its Model N-102 Fang, a proposal for a J79-powered aircraft fed by a ventral, bifurcated air intake.

The engine was to be the General Electric J79 engine, which was currently under development. It was an outgrowth of the J73 and was known at that time only as the J73-GE-X24A. The proposed J79 was to be capable of producing 9000 lb.s.t. dry and 15,000 lb.s.t. with afterburning. It was designed to be capable of Mach 2 performance. Since the advanced J79 would not be available for several years, the afterburning Wright J65-W-7 was selected as an interim propulsion system for the first few examples.

So what we have here are at least two RFPs from different governments and several competitors responded. I have no doubt, absolutely 100% confident, that the PLAAF works the same way. The PLAAF issued the Chinese equivalent of an RFP, and at least two Chinese aviation companies responded. The PLAAF is fully within rights to issue the same RFP to foreign manufacturers as well. The Chinese engineers then looked at what the PLAAF issued, what Chinese aviation is capable of, and what has been done before by other countries.

If they decided to cobble together a final design based upon foreign designs, and might as well admit that they did, then we can be assured that final design is based upon the best available propulsion that Chinese manufacturers can come up with, not with foreign sources because no Western government is going to allow its best engine to be in the aircraft of a potential adversary.

That mean I assumed nothing and that I speak from a base of relevant experience. More than you can say for yourself. The point is not to say definitively either way. The point is what I have always advocated since the J-20 was just a speculation: Wait.

But apparently that is too much to ask.

Finally, your burden of proof: there is none. This is not court. It is already a given that nothing can be proven now. Everything is a theory now. Korean's statements were all theories too, but I pointed out that they were highly illogical, although, since they cannot be disproven, they are not technically impossible. Everything you say is just a theory too. If it is against mine, they are competing theories, like evolution vs. creationism. There is no burden of proof because proof is impossible in this situation. You're gonna have to give this one up; you're not gonna come out on top.

Good. Then I claim that the F-22 is mind controlled by either the pilot or from a ground controller, that it has death rays with a thousand km distance, that it is nuclear powered, and that we have at least ten thousands of them hidden in underground hangars.

Now prove me wrong.

 

[gambit]

At this stage, there is little publicly available information to make reasonable judgements about the plane. Hope that more information will be released in the near future on this plane which looks like a great plane for potential export customers.

This is where you are wrong. Since this is a Chinese aircraft, only Chinese are allowed to make assumptions, no matter how wild they may be. And if anyone challenge those assumptions, even if credibly supported, the challenger is a racist troll.

 

[ptldM3]

This is where you are wrong. Since this is a Chinese aircraft, only Chinese are allowed to make assumptions, no matter how wild they may be. And if anyone challenge those assumptions, even if credibly supported, the challenger is a racist troll.

And make they do. The assmptions are more than just assumptions, most of the time they defy physics. In any case the typical assumptions have been: the pak-fa is garbage, the F-35 is cheap, the F-22 is outdated, the Rafale and Typhoon will be swiped from the sky by the might dragon.

 

[April.lyrics]

When aviation engineers collaborate, especially when each of the team came from different projects or even different sub-disciplines, and the goal is to create a new design incorporating (hopefully) the best features of previous designs, they do not set out to create something that is better, even though that is the hope, and there is nothing with hoping that you will produce a superior product. With an airframe, they look at the RFP, they select the propulsion unit that is best match for that RFP, then they design the airframe around that engine.

For example...

The Lockheed F-104 "Star Fighter"

So what we have here are at least two RFPs from different governments and several competitors responded. I have no doubt, absolutely 100% confident, that the PLAAF works the same way. The PLAAF issued the Chinese equivalent of an RFP, and at least two Chinese aviation companies responded. The PLAAF is fully within rights to issue the same RFP to foreign manufacturers as well. The Chinese engineers then looked at what the PLAAF issued, what Chinese aviation is capable of, and what has been done before by other countries.

If they decided to cobble together a final design based upon foreign designs, and might as well admit that they did, then we can be assured that final design is based upon the best available propulsion that Chinese manufacturers can come up with, not with foreign sources because no Western government is going to allow its best engine to be in the aircraft of a potential adversary.

mostly agreed.

since the J-20 was just a speculation

where i dont understand. do u mean J-20 is not to be a eligible 4th gen fighter?

 

[gambit]

where i dont understand. do u mean J-20 is not to be a eligible 4th gen fighter?

What I meant was that even when the J-20 was just a collection of 'fanboy' computer images, I advocated everyone to wait before making assumptions and I mocked those who did. And guess who usually did? And if a person is willing to put his reputation on the line and make assumptions, then do some research into basic aerodynamics and avionics and try to stay within reasonable orbit of those established fields. And guess who usually did not?

 

[conworldus]

the engine in the right looks bit bent to the ground is it TVC or both engines in different throttle position

If the western speculation of this jet using the Russian RD-93 is correct, then what you see is probably just heat distortion since the RD-93 is not TVC.

Anyways, I just glad to see that 601 is catching up with their own stealth jet. Even if the PLA doesn't buy it, this jet may find users in South America, Africa, Central and Southeast Asia, Middle East, and who knows maybe eastern European countries. It certainly looks like a very versatile and affordable fighter.

 

[cirr]

The PLAAF version of this “bird” is much more fun，not to mention the carrier borne variant。

The “basic” type we are seeing today is for export。

 

[conworldus]

The PLAAF version of this “bird” is much more fun，not to mention the carrier borne variant。

The “basic” type we are seeing today is for export。

I don't think there is a PLAAF version. A twin engine small jet like this will have very limited range. I am not sure what this is good for. The Air Force needs heavy jets like J-20 and single engine jets like J-10B...

 

[AZADPAKISTAN2009]

Some where in Pentegon a redneck must be having diarrhea

F-35 -> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diarrhea

 

[cirr]

I don't think there is a PLAAF version. A twin engine small jet like this will have very limited range. I am not sure what this is good for. The Air Force needs heavy jets like J-20 and single engine jets like J-10B...

That's how you think，which is nowhere near the truth。

There is no point in speculating at this stage。Time will tell everything。

 

[Manticore]

http://www.defence.pk/forums/milita...-5th-generation-j-20-j-31-pics-videos-15.html