SAC FC-31 Stealth Fighter: News & Discussions

[gambit]

Where is Martian and his "one piece canopy is imperative for stealth" rants? I'd love to see him explain this one

Other then that, it looks good.

If we take two pyramids of different sizes and put them under radar bombardment, both will have statistically similar EM radiation signatures, only their intensities differs with the physically larger one producing the higher intensity.

Now...If we begins to smooth/round out the larger pyramid's sharp edges and points, we will have a progressively declining RCS.

If we continue to work on the larger pyramid's surface flaws, perhaps even introducing slight curvatures on its sides to induce surface wave behaviors, while keeping the general pyramid shape, it is possible that we can match the smaller pyramid's RCS. Or even lower. Keep in mind that the B-2 is electromagnetically as small as a bird at most operational radar detection distance, so we know this method works.

Let us assume that for now, this latest from China looks like it copied most of the F-22's general shaping arrangement, and probably would have a similar RCS signature. The question then is intensity, as in its physical dimensions and assorted surface 'roughness' that will contribute to a section's reflective power.

What our man will do is to refer back to what I tried to teach him a long time ago about the concept of threshold, which he seems to be incapable of digesting.

 

[Ibr0kEmYrAz0r]

The F-35 is basically an A-35, an attack jet that flies under the protection of F-22 and F-15 Golden Eagle(An upgraded F-15 with latest AESA radar and avionics).

A-35, Really? Then what happens to those partner countries who bought the plane for their navies, but don't have air superiority fighter to cover your so-called "A-35"'s back? they are screwed? namely UK, Italy, Netherlands, Canada, Turkey, Australia, Norway, Denmark, etc. etc.

Don't say that USA will send F-15 to cover for its allies in every instance. Let's say UK's Royal Navy is at war with Argentina in South America again, so no Euro-fighter's cover, only carrier based F-35B, are you saying F-35B needs air cover? Then why the heck UK need these planes for?

 

[tanlixiang28776]

It seems that with the stocky two wheeled front landing gear that the J 31 was meant for naval or carrier operations. A single piece canopy is not sufficient to withstand the larger impact forces of larger seabirds. This is the same reason the F 35 uses a two piece canopy.

China already has one piece canopy implemented on the J 20 so there isn't a technological reason it couldn't be implemented on the J 31.

 

[Esc8781]

It seems that with the stocky two wheeled front landing gear that the J 31 was meant for naval or carrier operations. A single piece canopy is not sufficient to withstand the larger impact forces of larger seabirds. This is the same reason the F 35 uses a two piece canopy.

China already has one piece canopy implemented on the J 20 so there isn't a technological reason it couldn't be implemented on the J 31.

It might be the reason that kind of canopy is more structural resistant to birds than the one on the j-20, watch this test.

http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/Birdstrike%20Impact%20Studies.pdf

The F-35C has a ONE PIECE canopy not a two.

 

[Viper0011.]

1. F-35-U.S. is using as well to replace F16
2. There isn't enough info if it is going to be exported or not.
3. If it is exported it won't be the most lethal version. For example.. China/Pakistan's Jf-17's will be more advanced then lets say Azerbaijan.

1) The F-35 isn't just to replace the F-16's. F-16's will remain here for a while. F-35 is to create the low-middle tier that's advanced and stealthy. These jets can operate anywhere without too much interference due to being stealthy.

2) To share with Partners the matured tech from F-22 but NOT share all sensitive tech from F 22. As it supersedes any jet in 4th or 5th gen out there.

3) A common standard between NATO countries that will buy it and have partnered up to share the cost. That way, the US MIT will remain in business by supporting these jets to other nation. This will ALSO take many countries off different development platforms to one standardized NATO platform.

 

[gambit]

A-35, Really? Then what happens to those partner countries who bought the plane for their navies, but don't have air superiority fighter to cover your so-called "A-35"'s back? they are screwed? namely UK, Italy, Netherlands, Canada, Turkey, Australia, Norway, Denmark, etc. etc.

Don't say that USA will send F-15 to cover for its allies in every instance. Let's say UK's Royal Navy is at war with Argentina in South America again, so no Euro-fighter's cover, only carrier based F-35B, are you saying F-35B needs air cover? Then why the heck UK need these planes for?

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.

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?

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.

 

[Pak47]

1) The F-35 isn't just to replace the F-16's. F-16's will remain here for a while. F-35 is to create the low-middle tier that's advanced and stealthy. These jets can operate anywhere without too much interference due to being stealthy.

2) To share with Partners the matured tech from F-22 but NOT share all sensitive tech from F 22. As it supersedes any jet in 4th or 5th gen out there.

3) A common standard between NATO countries that will buy it and have partnered up to share the cost. That way, the US MIT will remain in business by supporting these jets to other nation. This will ALSO take many countries off different development platforms to one standardized NATO platform.

The F-35 will replace the F-16, F/A-18, EA-6B, F-111, A-10, AV-8B, Harrier GR.7, Sea Harrier, AMX and Tornado. The F-35 can operate autonomously or alongside these 4th generation aircraft and the 5th generation F-22 Raptor as allies transition to 5th generation fighter fleets to enable coalition operations.

https://f35.com/the-f-35/faqs.aspx#faq3

I didn't say F16 will be the only platform replaced. Other points agreed.

 

[kurutoga]

Lol,

Bill Sweetman: F-35 sucks. I will prove my point by praising every other new jet fighter out there.

China's New Stealth Fighter. Not a repeat from December 2010.

Some people didn't like it.

 

[krash]

Chinese hired soviet engineers and even MKI here is produced under license from Russia and india even rejected the chinese helicopter which they offered us as backward tech

and after enjoying 50 yrs with U.S,you are bashing them.

Reason is smthing else...

Chinese are under weapons embargo from decades and there are not exposed to western tech so thhey have to go with local production in watever manner they can produce.

so dont look at the shine of the toys..see wats in side it

Whom better to judge what metal the Chinese weapons are made of than us? Western weapons; our bread and butter. You've only just tasted the candy, better not get too excited. When we acknowledge the Chinese weapons you should take our word for it. The rest of the world does.

 

[Viper0011.]

The F-35 will replace the F-16, F/A-18, EA-6B, F-111, A-10, AV-8B, Harrier GR.7, Sea Harrier, AMX and Tornado. The F-35 can operate autonomously or alongside these 4th generation aircraft and the 5th generation F-22 Raptor as allies transition to 5th generation fighter fleets to enable coalition operations.

I didn't say F16 will be the only platform replaced. Other points agreed.

Yes, the F-35 WILL replace the platforms mentioned above. BUT, it's not a jet by jet replacement. It'll be how and what makes sense. The MAIN purpose is to standardize the whole fleet across NATO and still maintain the edge (F-22 just for the US). F-35 in theory will be cost effective so more countries can afford it. Plus, it does give very advance capability.

 

[ptldM3]

Where is Martian and his "one piece canopy is imperative for stealth" rants? I'd love to see him explain this one

Other then that, it looks good.

Yes, he thrashed the pak-fa for a two piece canopy, he thrashed the pak-fa because it's temporary rear bays did not have serration, he thrashed the pak-fa because it had a so called 'gap' between the intakes. Funny now the J-31 has a two piece canopy, it does not appear to have serration in its rear bays, and it has a gap between the engines.

Before anyone even seen the J-31 Martian proclaimed it to be stealthier than the F-35 and if I’m not mistaken F-22 as well. He than bashed the F-35 for being very cheap and ‘not so stealthy’ ironically the J-31 bares an uncanny resemblance to the F-35.

 

[tanlixiang28776]

Thought I already cleared up the the topic of a two piece canopy being structurally necessary on a naval and carrier platform.

Beating on a dead end argument won't help make you any more credible. China has already demonstrated one piece canopies and if the J 31 was meant for the air force it would have one due to the less stringent requirements.

Where do you even see the bays at such detail?

The intakes on the J 31 appear to be flush just like on the J 20. No gaps.

Your own personal bias has you seeing things that are simply not there.

 

[Esc8781]

Thought I already cleared up the the topic of a two piece canopy being structurally necessary on a naval and carrier platform.

Beating on a dead end argument won't help make you any more credible.

I was just telling you that the F-35 uses a ONE PIECE canopy not a two!

 

[tanlixiang28776]

F 35 uses a 2 piece canopy

It has a bracing support unlike the one on the F 22

It may operate like a one piece but the effect on radar reflectivity is definitely different and hence the entire point

 

[ptldM3]

Thought I already cleared up the the topic of a two piece canopy being structurally necessary on a naval and carrier platform.

Beating on a dead end argument won't help make you any more credible.

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.