SAC FC-31 Stealth Fighter: News & Discussions

[帅的一匹]

Never ever ! It is plain impossible - even if they would manage to fly an alleged V3 before Paris (what I also highly doubt) - to bring that bird to Paris.

From all reports we've heard it will be a model of V3 but we have to remember that also several of these reports say that the current bird we call V2 is already V3.

Deino

The current one looks cool enough.

 

[WarFariX]

Never ever ! It is plain impossible - even if they would manage to fly an alleged V3 before Paris (what I also highly doubt) - to bring that bird to Paris.

From all reports we've heard it will be a model of V3 but we have to remember that also several of these reports say that the current bird we call V2 is already V3.

Deino

when did i say fly :-/ , even i doubt this situation. Model expectations are realistic but a new machine....however , we must not ignore the timeframe between v1 and v2 so it is also possible that another prototype might have been built simultaneously and finishing has been done in the past 5-6 months

If design was frozen it is possible Sir I think it will be quite possible that v 3.0 model will be shown in coming Paris airshow but that for sure this is not a v3.0 but a a second v2.0

The current v2.0 we have been seeing is not a pure form of v2.0 either , Some noticeable differences between pure v2.0 on paper and the one we saw are : ◇Pure has single cockpit canopy but the one flying has dual canopy. ◇ Lacks EOTS but true v2.0 has EOTS. Could be possible that we might finally see a pure v2.0

 

[Deino]

when did i say fly :-/ , even i doubt this situation. Model expectations are realistic but a new machine....however , we must not ignore the timeframe between v1 and v2 so it is also possible that another prototype might have been built simultaneously and finishing has been done in the past 5-6 months

Indeed, You did not say "fly", but I only wanted to precise since in order to "appear" at the Air Show (the real prototype) it must have been flown. A model of V3 however is always possible.

FC-31v3.0 to make appearance in Paris Air show , June 2017

Ergo again: I only wanted to make that clear that a real "appearance" of a true V3-prototype at Paris is impossible.

How much the program otherwise progressed in the meantime is completely unknown and not dependent on the time between the appearance of V1 and V2. They could - with proper founding - well build two prototypes simultaneously (aka a V2 and a V3) similar to the J-20 prototypes 2011/12, 2013/15 and 2016/17 were built in batches of two.

How much however this V3 differs to the recently flown V2 differs is unclear IMO.

So let's wait and see ... and hope.
Deino

 

[WarFariX]

Indeed, You did not say "fly", but I only wanted to precise since in order to "appear" at the Air Show (the real prototype) it must have been flown. A model of V3 however is always possible.



Ergo again: I only wanted to make that clear that a real "appearance" of a true V3-prototype at Paris is impossible.

How much the program otherwise progressed in the meantime is completely unknown and not dependent on the time between the appearance of V1 and V2. They could - with proper founding - well build two prototypes simultaneously (aka a V2 and a V3) similar to the J-20 prototypes 2011/12, 2013/15 and 2016/17 were built in batches of two.

How much however this V3 differs to the recently flown V2 differs is unclear IMO.

So let's wait and see ... and hope.
Deino

Btw i just had a name change from MarvellousThunder to WarfariX , @The Accountant @Deino

 

[The Accountant]

Btw i just had a name change from MarvellousThunder to WarfariX , @The Accountant @Deino

Your previous name was also good ... why change that ?

 

[WarFariX]

Your previous name was also good ... why change that ?

Too large plus WarFariX will be the name of my new military graphics page..i am inspired from battlespaceX and RadioActiveFriends and also iForceWarfare...so dreaming to become like them

 

[Ultima Thule]

That depends on the progress of the project.
The most important thing is to find a suitable engine with thrust huge enough to provide the capability of supersonic cruise.
Then comes the stealth ability which is the key trait for a fifth gen fighter jet ,which has given an overwhelming superiority proved by US's drill and China's internal air combat exercise.

As for the aviation, it is not a big deal for SOC ，cause they could get the tech with the same level of J-20's from the same supplier of J-20.

But bro i don't like plan-form alignment of J-20 with carnad and ventral fins which gives extra surfaces to radars, but design of FC-31 is more mature than J-20 as for engines upgraded WS-13E with a thrust of 22000+ should fit the bill

when did i say fly :-/ , even i doubt this situation. Model expectations are realistic but a new machine....however , we must not ignore the timeframe between v1 and v2 so it is also possible that another prototype might have been built simultaneously and finishing has been done in the past 5-6 months

What is the time duration b/w v1 and v2, as far as i remember it was almost 3 years

 

[Blue Marlin]

the final frozen prototype will fly in 2019, it will have a 6 bay wide internal bay with the ability to hold 12, 250kg smart bombs. and if a buyer/partner arrives on time, it will can begin deliveries in 2023/4.

 

[UKBengali]

the final frozen prototype will fly in 2019, it will have a 6 bay wide internal bay with the ability to hold 12, 250kg smart bombs. and if a buyer/partner arrives on time, it will can begin deliveries in 2023/4.

Where did you get this information from?

 

[Ultima Thule]

Where did you get this information from?

He is just speculating sir

 

[Stuttgart001]

But bro i don't like plan-form alignment of J-20 with carnad and ventral fins which gives extra surfaces to radars, but design of FC-31 is more mature than J-20 as for engines upgraded WS-13E with a thrust of 22000+ should fit the bill

I can understand.
FC-31 is more like F-22 than J-20 in aerodynamic configuration.
But only the PLAAF and CAC know the real RCS of J-20.
Since PLAAF put all his bet on J-20 for countering the F-22&F-35, i think, the level of stealth of J-20 is acceptable as the counterpart of US's 5th get fighter.

BYB, what ventral fins do you mention ?

 

[Ultima Thule]

I can understand.
FC-31 is more like F-22 than J-20 in aerodynamic configuration.
But only the PLAAF and CAC know the real RCS of J-20.
Since PLAAF put all his bet on J-20 for countering the F-22&F-35, i think, the level of stealth of J-20 is acceptable as the counterpart of US's 5th get fighter.

BYB, what ventral fins do you mention ?

I think J-20 is more like a interceptor rather than a AD jet using shoot and scoot tactics rather than a dog fighter, it has a more RCS from head-on and sideways compare to FC-31
This ones

 

[Stuttgart001]

I think J-20 is more like a interceptor rather than a AD jet using shoot and scoot tactics rather than a dog fighter, it has a more RCS from head-on and sideways compare to FC-31
This ones
View attachment 398871

It is not vertical.

Dog fighter is a outdated tactic.
The history of war has indicated that the range of combat is larger and larger ,since the improvement of tech.

It is hard to say whose RCS is less between J-20 and J-35.

You know, F-22 as a bigger plane has a less RCS than F-35 a relatively small aircraft.

 

[gambit]

Dog fighter is a outdated tactic.

No, it is not.

There will always be situations where BVR engagements are not possible, such as ROE that requires visual IDs of the target(s).

The history of war has indicated that the range of combat is larger and larger ,since the improvement of tech.

True, but take the infantryman for example.

Did the advent of the rifle, which increase the range of lethality he can deliver, do away with close quarters combat ? Urban situations is where both visual IDs of the target negate the rifle's long reach.

It is hard to say whose RCS is less between J-20 and J-35.

You know, F-22 as a bigger plane has a less RCS than F-35 a relatively small aircraft.

There are three major rules in designing a low radar observable body:

- Control of quantity of radiators
- Control of array of radiators
- Control of modes of radiation

These are not rules that you can break, rather, they are more like guidelines where you have degrees of obedience to them.

Why is the sphere the ideal body for radar calibration ?

The reason the sphere is the ideal 'stealth' body is because the sphere is the most obedient to the three rules.

- Control of quantity of radiators

The sphere have only one radiating body -- itself.

- Control of array of radiators

The sphere have none. It has no protrusions where each structure is a radiator and whose radiation can interact with radiation from other structures.

- Control of modes of radiation

The sphere have only two modes of radiation: specular and surface waves.

http://www.centurymetalspinning.com/radar-calibration-spheres/

There is one in orbit...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lincoln_Calibration_Sphere_1

When we put all three rules together and apply it to the sphere, there can be a sphere that is visually large but electromagnetically small or 'stealthy'. In other words, you can see the sphere with your own eyes but your radar will not see the sphere with its own EM radiation.

A structure like a fin have at least three modes of radiation: specular, edge diffraction, surface waves.

For example...

This means you want to minimize the QUANTITY of these structures as much as possible. Unfortunately, today's aircrafts still needs structures like the fin to have controlled flight. So if you must have these structures, you move to rule Two: Control of ARRAY of radiators.

Since these structures are in proximity to each other, interactions from their radiation are inevitable. Each mode of radiation have different levels of strength and power. Each interaction, aka 'interference', can be destructive ( good ) or constructive ( bad ). Destructive interference cancels each other out. Constructive interference amplifies. This is what rule two means by 'array of radiators'. Whether a fin is vertical or not, depending on your viewing angle, is not the point. What is that fin's physical relationships to nearby structures -- is the point.

The bottom line is that the greater the quantity of radiators, the more difficult it is to predict interference incidents and to compensate for them.

This is why the J-20 is suspect regarding comparison to the F-22 in terms of all aspects RCS. Suspect as in having a higher total RCS.

 

[Ultima Thule]

It is not vertical.

Dog fighter is a outdated tactic.
The history of war has indicated that the range of combat is larger and larger ,since the improvement of tech.

It is hard to say whose RCS is less between J-20 and J-35.

You know, F-22 as a bigger plane has a less RCS than F-35 a relatively small aircraft.

but its still increases J-20 RCS from sides and head on RCS is larger than side one
as for F-22, its uses broad band stealth whereas F-35 uses narrow band stealth for specific radars, and also they are difference in role F-22 role is AD jet, its jobs to enter enemy territory and clean sweep its opponents where JSF is mainly a multirole jet with more emphasis on CAS, SEAD and DEAD missions
no sir dog fight is not a oudated tactics, its still has a worth

Since these structures are in proximity to each other, interactions from their radiation are inevitable. Each mode of radiation have different levels of strength and power. Each interaction, aka 'interference', can be destructive ( good ) or constructive ( bad ). Destructive interference cancels each other out. Constructive interference amplifies. This is what rule two means by 'array of radiators'. Whether a fin is vertical or not, depending on your viewing angle, is not the point. What is that fin's physical relationships to nearby structures -- is the point.

The bottom line is that the greater the quantity of radiators, the more difficult it is to predict interference incidents and to compensate for them.

you stole my words sir thank you for explaining him and me