J-21/J-31 Chinese 5th Generation Stealth Fighter

[p2prada]

You' seem to be over-looking two things:

1. AVIC, like any other company in the world would not invest billions of dollars into developing a stealth aircraft without concrete agreements with potential customers. You're basically sugesting that they developed this jet in the faith that a customer would come up somewhere.

Not necessary. For all we know this could only be an initial prototype which will now be marketed to potential clients. Based on client interest the program may continue.

Even when developing the JF17, AVIC was assured of a substantial order from the PAF.

It is an aircraft primarily meant for PAF. This has little to do with the J-31, which seems to be a much wider gamble at the export market.

The only customer AVIC can look to, to order this aircraft in numbers high enough to make a profit is the PLA(whether its the PLAN or PLAAF).

Is there any indication that this aircraft will definitely go to PLAN or PLAAF? If there is, then fine. As of now it looks like SAC built it out of their own funds. This seems to have been mentioned in the media. If you can confirm it is not the case then I am fine with your arguments.

For a fact, if you look at any aircraft program in the world, the project will ALWAYS have a user defined requirement. Outside of the export market, there is no country in the world which will buy a product simply because the company decided to build one by themselves. The only aircraft programs that companies design on their own is either for export or for experimental use.

I hope you get the point I am making here. It is simple. If the state is not interested and if the PLAAF or PLAN did not provide their inputs to the jet, then it is either meant for export or for experimental tests. Since media reports mentioned it is meant for export, let's just accept it as an export aircraft until further news comes out.

2. AVIC is an ENORMOUS corporation, of which Chengdu and 601 institute are just fractions of.

And considering that both Chengdu and Shengyang are arms of AVIC, the RAM on the J20 could easily be used as input in designing the J31's RAM, there's no need to re-invent the wheel within the same corporation on products that are separated by 6 years.

It is like saying the Mig-35s RAM will be used on the MKI simply because both Mig and Sukhoi come under UAC. There are somethings that the PLAAF would not allow and there are something that it can, maybe spinoffs. Experimentals, yes data can be shared since it is all for internal R&D. But a product meant for PLAAF being used on export aircraft of a competitor, do you think PLAAF will allow it let along the company developing it?

There will be no competition if both SAC and CAC start sharing their most confidential technologies. CAC using SAC technologies and vice versa. Not happening.

It is like saying HAL will transfer PAKFA technologies to ADA for use on AMCA. Won't happen.

Also, I doubt the countries who can afford the J-31 will actually be able to buy an aircraft that is at the level of a F-22 or F-35. Look, my perception is completely hinging on the assumption that this aircraft will not see govt funding or PLA customers. If this is the case, SAC won't try to make a white elephant, instead SAC will try to make an aircraft that an export customer can afford to buy without having to take exorbitant loans on it.

Very similar to what the Koreans and Japanese are trying. They are not looking at moving mountains with their own projects. So, if you want to sell an aircraft to North Korea, then you will be building something they can afford. The same with countries like Egypt, Syria, African and South American countries too. Not something so expensive that they will have to sell their next of kin just to get a squadron working.

In case you are able to prove that the J-31 is an aircraft generated for PLAAF/PLAN along with the export market, then I will join you in saying the things we can estimate are better than what can be estimated for the F-35. Like Bill Sweetman did.

PS. The J10 is there to replace the J7 of which there are hundreds of examples.. Even the first J10's are no where near 20 years old. remember that they entered service in only in circa 2004 2005. Add to that the J10B and they wont need replacing until the 2030's.

It is fine. My main point was that you have a heavy and medium 4th gen aircraft followed by a heavy and a medium 5th gen aircraft. By the time J-31 is operational, your J-10s will have finished enough life for it to be removed from service. Your J-7 is still very new, some as old as 2003. So, in the same perspective you can say J-10 is not a replacement for the J-7.

Again, J-20 is expected to be in service by 2018-19. J-31, maybe longer. With your economy you have the option of replacing your oldest J-10As with J-31s without having to send the J-10As to MLUs. It is something the USAF and the USN has done with their aircraft. Namely the F-14 and the F-117. Relatively new airframes were stored because new capability was added by the time.

I don't know how far it is true, but I have heard that the J-10A does not have a particularly strong future when it comes to growth potential. Engine limitations probably. I wonder if you will keep flying the J-10As with the same old AL-31FNs forever. J-10B with the WS-10, maybe, has a better future in comparison. It would be prudent you dump the J-10A for a fifth gen option, at least you will have experienced and top notch pilots moving in from better regiments.

 

[J20!]

Not necessary. For all we know this could only be an initial prototype which will now be marketed to potential clients. Based on client interest the program may continue.



It is an aircraft primarily meant for PAF. This has little to do with the J-31, which seems to be a much wider gamble at the export market.



Is there any indication that this aircraft will definitely go to PLAN or PLAAF? If there is, then fine. As of now it looks like SAC built it out of their own funds. This seems to have been mentioned in the media. If you can confirm it is not the case then I am fine with your arguments.

For a fact, if you look at any aircraft program in the world, the project will ALWAYS have a user defined requirement. Outside of the export market, there is no country in the world which will buy a product simply because the company decided to build one by themselves. The only aircraft programs that companies design on their own is either for export or for experimental use.

I hope you get the point I am making here. It is simple. If the state is not interested and if the PLAAF or PLAN did not provide their inputs to the jet, then it is either meant for export or for experimental tests. Since media reports mentioned it is meant for export, let's just accept it as an export aircraft until further news comes out.

You really are hell bent on this export fighter theory. 2 simple questions:

1.Place yourself in AVIC's position. What "export market" are you reffering to, what market is there for medium weight 5th gen fighters that hasn't already been exploited by the F35 or KFX or the Japanese programme?

2. Would said "export market" be large enough to offset the billions of CNY already invested in this project and the billions yet to be invested in order for AVIC to make a profit?

Even if and that's a big IF, Brazil, Venezuela, Pakistan and Indonesia all placed orders, we both know that the total order wouldn't exceed 100 fighters. The JF17, cheap as it is, still hasn't gotten any export orders to date... How are you going to invest billions in a project that has no market? The only market large enough to make the J31 profitable to AVIC is the Chinese market ie the PLA. Without PLA orders, this bird is dead from the get go. Would AVIC invest all it has and will in the J31 if this was the case?

WRT the JF17, my point was how can a stealth fighter be developed with no firm orders in place, if even the JF17 had firm agreements on its purchase before development commenced?

My point is: There may be no definite indication as to which service the J31 will serve or even if it will serve at all (same applies to the J20), but you cant claim that it will not serve the PLA simply because it's AVIC funded(something we're basing on the J31 having an AVIC logo to the J20's PLA star, with no actual official info) considering that AVIC being a business entity will always act in the interest of profitability, and would never initialize such an expensive project with no firm agreements and in the faith that some foreign country will place a few orders(orders that would still be insufficient for AVIC to break even)...

You still haven't countered this argument. I realize that you're hoping the J31 is some cheap "export fighter" that wont pose any threat to the IAF, but the reality is there's little chance the PLA wouldn't use this bird to its full potential. PS. Don't forget that AVIC and thus SAC is government owned, why would they offer other airforces a platform which the PLA itself does not have and has an active requirement for? Let's be realistic here...

If the state is not interested and if the " PLAAF or PLAN did not provide their inputs to the jet", then pray tell, why does the J31 feature a twin nose wheel arrangement? Did they add them because they felt like it? Because no other PLA fighter but the carrier-borne J15 features twin nose wheels, and the PLAAF/PLANAF have never had a requirement for rough airfield operations ala the Russians. Is AVIC setting its own design criterea now?

Furthermore there is no evidence that the state isn't interested. You just based all that on a logo, and are prepared to disregard basic business logic because the J31 has an AVIC logo. If the state is not interested in it, then why would the CCP leak photos of it? Advertising to all the "export customers"?

And if we are going to believe that the J31 is solely export fighter because some media outlets say so, then why don't we believe that its a carrier-borne fighter as most J31 articles say?

 

[p2prada]

You really are hell bent on this export fighter theory. 2 simple questions:

1.Place yourself in AVIC's position. What "export market" are you reffering to, what market is there for medium weight 5th gen fighters that hasn't already been exploited by the F35 or KFX or the Japanese programme?

It does not have to be a very big market. Also, more importantly and the basis for my point, it does not have to be advanced because it needs to be cheap.

2. Would said "export market" be large enough to offset the billions of CNY already invested in this project and the billions yet to be invested in order for AVIC to make a profit?

We don't know the size of the market in 2020 or 2025 or even 2030. Think about it, Sukhoi wants to export 400-500 FGFA. Maybe they think there will be countries in the future who will have the economy to make such big buys. Africa, South America, ASEAN etc.

You still haven't countered this argument. I realize that you're hoping the J31 is some cheap "export fighter" that wont pose any threat to the IAF, but the reality is there's little chance the PLA wouldn't use this bird to its full potential. PS. Don't forget that AVIC and thus SAC is government owned, why would they offer other airforces a platform which the PLA itself does not have and has an active requirement for? Let's be realistic here...

Actually, no. In my opinion there could be another program specifically for PLA. Something like the JF-17 to the J-31 and J-10 to the yet unknown J-xx.

If the state is not interested and if the " PLAAF or PLAN did not provide their inputs to the jet", then pray tell, why does the J31 feature a twin nose wheel arrangement? Did they add them because they felt like it? Because no other PLA fighter but the carrier-borne J15 features twin nose wheels, and the PLAAF/PLANAF have never had a requirement for rough airfield operations ala the Russians. Is AVIC setting its own design criterea now?

Furthermore there is no evidence that the state isn't interested. You just based all that on a logo, and are prepared to disregard basic business logic because the J31 has an AVIC logo. If the state is not interested in it, then why would the CCP leak photos of it? Advertising to all the "export customers"?

I based my opinion on media reports that it is SAC's personal project and not funded by the state, nothing to do with superficial proof like pictures and images. The same for the twin wheel arrangement.

And if we are going to believe that the J31 is solely export fighter because some media outlets say so, then why don't we believe that its a carrier-borne fighter as most J31 articles say?

Like I said, both our opinions are valid. We are simply riding on very little information. If this is for export, it won't be a particularly great aircraft because the export market isn't as big as PLA. If we say this aircraft is for PLA, regardless of export or not, then it is the bee's knees. So, this has been my point all along. They just go along two extremes because of the current information on it.

This could be an aircraft meant to strike a relationship with smaller countries while providing them a cheaper alternative to a more advanced aircraft as compared to aircraft like Rafale/EF/F-16/SH(which already cost upwards of $100Million) while at the same time not as advanced as the F-22/F-35, PAKFA/AMCA/LMFI or J-20/J-xx.

So if you can deliver this aircraft at $50 or $60Million, without all the bells and whistles going into the more advanced and expensive $100Million+ aircraft, then this could be a bigger export success than most other aircraft out there. There are so many air forces out there who are not looking for the best of the best. Only minimum requirements need to be fulfilled at a decent cost.

 

[vishwaprasad]

i know what you are doing, still beta Rusi have all the experience in making aircraft, long before you guys started using their aircraft, they have perfected the art in every aspect, unlike you guys who are struggling with aircraft engine. Just having air frame with engine does not prove much, if this is not the case why are you guys still buying engines from them.

Yeah...still they are not able to provide engine for basic Thunder of PAF.

 

[huaxia rox]

This part is wrong,

the initial su-35 was with canard and TVC but along with the engine upgrade the final su-35 is using TVC only without canard design

There is no "initial" and "final" Su-35 design. They were both wholly different designs evolved from different aircraft and a different history.

i cant believe i would actually talk about su-35 that much in a j-31 thread but i have to show u some simple facts which come from wiki which is the most handy starter for 1 to check out some basic knowledge (i already showed u the link Sukhoi Su-35 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia).

A Russian Knights Su-35 accompanied by Russian Airborne Troops. The Su-35 is distinguished by its flat-topped fin. Behind the jet is an Avion MAI F-1 biplane.

Su-35BM (Bort 902) at the 2009 MAKS Airshow. The aircraft made its first flight on 2 October 2008.

can u see the differences here......experts may be able to find a lot......i m not 1 but at least can find the 1st variant is with canard and the top of its vertical tail is flat while the 2nd variant has no canard and the top of its vertical tail is not flat just similar to mki........

and check this out Does latest Su-35 with TVC but no canard proves... - Key Publishing Ltd Aviation Forums although just a forum but people there debating if the canard design is useful or can increase RCS........but no1 is saying su-35 has 'no "initial" and "final" design'......

 

[p2prada]

Look, I will repeat this again.

Su-27M came with canards, the picture you posted is the final version of the Su-35/37. Different aircraft. It is an experimental aircraft.

Su-27M2 came without canards and was developed as a Su-27 replacement for the Russian air force. Production aircraft.

Both are "Final" versions. The Su-27M is not the initial version of the Su-27M2. As a matter of fact both aircraft have nothing to do with each other.

There is no such thing as initial version with canards and final version without canards. They are both different aircraft.

Su-35 (Su-27M)

The Su-27M (Su-35) never entered service, and should not be confused with the entirely distinct (Bolshaya Modernizatsiya - Big Modernization) which emerged nearly two decades later.

SU-35BM (Bolshaya Modernizatsiya - Big Modernization)

The Su-35BM is a new project, and not a Su-27M.

I hope this makes it clear.

 

[huaxia rox]

i dont know if uhave read my post clearly which obviously shows the photos of 2 types of su-35 (and pics from wiki not other places i found)... actually the way i see it is u basically wanna say su-35BM is not su-35???? if thats the case i dont know what more i can add.......

 

[nefory]

Look, I will repeat this again.

Su-27M came with canards, the picture you posted is the final version of the Su-35/37. Different aircraft. It is an experimental aircraft.

Su-27M2 came without canards and was developed as a Su-27 replacement for the Russian air force. Production aircraft.

Both are "Final" versions. The Su-27M is not the initial version of the Su-27M2. As a matter of fact both aircraft have nothing to do with each other.

There is no such thing as initial version with canards and final version without canards. They are both different aircraft.

Su-35 (Su-27M)


SU-35BM (Bolshaya Modernizatsiya - Big Modernization)


I hope this makes it clear.

You guys are just arguing on minor subject which doesn't matter at all. The truth is, the number Su-35 has been used for multiple times on different aircraft in Flanker families in different period of time. It's just Russian way to name their aircrafts.

 

[p2prada]

actually the way i see it is u basically wanna say su-35BM is not su-35????

This is my point. Different aircraft, different objectives.

The Russians decided LERX is better on the Su-35BM instead of canards. That's why the BM does not have canards. Nothing to do with the Su-35 program that happened 20 years ago.

This is a good example that can be used in the J-31 too. Looks aren't everything. Just because the J-31's front half looks like the F-35 and the rear end looks like the F-22, does not mean anything. It is an independent design and the designers have used existing designs rather than something new, perhaps as a safe bet. It does not affect the outcome since it is meant to be a gen 5 aircraft. If it is better than the F-35 or not, that can only be decided by EM tests and not by simply eye balling the airframe. In terms of forum knowledge or declassified information, we still don't know many things about existing aircraft let alone the ones in development. For eg: We still don't know whether EF is more stealthy or Rafale.

By eyeballing the frame all we can tell is it is optimised to have a low RCS.

 

[AprilLyrics]

so su27 went into two direction,lerx and canards?
i'm interesting about lerx.and i first heard about it from a Taiwan forum mod.he said mig29ovt and T50 use it for stability of high alpha.any introduction about lerx will be appreciate.

 

[J20!]

Only if there is confirmation that it is a state funded project and not a company funded project.

Looking at all the facts we have thus far, there's nothing cheap or low end about this jet. It's a medium weight option to the J20's heavy weight, and a possible Carrier fighter for the PLAN..

Seems I was right Prada... I knew there was a reason for that rugged-looking undercarriage..

A recessed tail hook under the J31's tail sting

 

[p2prada]

so su27 went into two direction,lerx and canards?

Different aircraft went for different design options.

Su-33, Su-34, Su-37 and MKI went for canards.

All the other versions have LERX.

i'm interesting about lerx.and i first heard about it from a Taiwan forum mod.he said mig29ovt and T50 use it for stability of high alpha.any introduction about lerx will be appreciate.

LERX, like canards are high lift devices. What it does it it helps push air over the wings and increases speed of the air. If you consider an AoA of 30degrees, when the aircraft is using a normal surface, the air that is moving over the wing becomes turbulent. This forces the aircraft to stall because no lift is generated.

To avoid this we use LERX ( or Canards or LEVCONS or Chines) to stabilize airflow over the wing at high AoA.

This is a picture of the F/A-18.

Powerful swirls or vortices are generated when the aircraft is at both low and high speeds. You can see the circular pattern there. This helps increase the speed of the airflow when it goes over the wing and passes the tail. Thus gives much better control.

During landing the aircraft faces reduced air speed over the wing. If the speed of the air is low, then lift is not generated. LERX helps increase the speed of the air, the same way as it is during high AoA maneuvers.

So, LERX have two major uses for maneuvering. One is at low speeds when you want to perform CAS, strike etc and the other during dog fights to maintain high AoA.

Btw, what you see on the T-50 is a LEVCON, because it can move on it's own. The only other aircraft to have it is N-LCA. The Russians call it the movable LERX while we call it LEVCON(Leading Edge Vortex Controller).

Canards, LERX, LEVCONS and Chines produce varied vortices and is all a design decision. There is nothing to indicate which is superior to the other when it comes to aerodynamics.

J-20 has both Canards and LERX. you can see the small "swollen" part between the wing and the canard.

The same with T-50, it has LEVCON and LERX. It is very tiny and is between the canopy and the LEVCON.

F-22 has chines.

This is a bad picture, but the only one I found with the Chines marked in black. But it tells you where to look.

 

[p2prada]

Seems I was right Prada... I knew there was a reason for that rugged-looking undercarriage..

A recessed tail hook under the J31's tail sting

I am not interested in you being right or me being wrong. The point I made was just an opinion. What I am interested in is whether there is actual PLAAF/PLAN interest in the aircraft.

With your picture I am beginning to think this is a PLAN project and "maybe" not for export unless there is a "lighter" air force version planned.

In that case there may be an actual competition for PLAAF version between CAC and SAC. So, we may yet see another J-xx prototype. The reason why it is interesting for me is because it can affect our design plans for AMCA.

If you think about it, it is quite logical that SAC is given the naval aircraft version because of their experiences with J-15.

 

[J20!]

PACAF Chief: China is closing the stealth gap | Killer Apps

Posted By John Reed Wednesday, September 19, 2012 - 6:29 PM Share

In the wake of China's rollout of its second stealthy-looking fighter, the J-31, earlier this week, the chief of all U.S. Air Force operations in the Pacific acknowledged that China is closing the stealth technology gap that has existed between the U.S. military and its "potential adversaries."

"They're behind us [but] they are making gains, they are improving in technology," Gen. Herbert Carlisle said today during a press conference at the Air Force Association's annual conference just outside of Washington. "We've had an advantage in stealth for a number of years. That kind of time [gap] will not occur again.... I think whatever advantages we have technologically will still be there, but they won't last as long."

Pictures emerged on Chinese military Internet forums over the weekend showing the J-31, a jet that blatantly borrows designs from the United States premier stealth fighters, the Lockheed Martin-made F-22 Raptor and F-35 Joint Strike Fighter.

"The PRC with respect to stealth capability, they are behind us, but they will develop and they will get better, and we certainly can't rest on our position. We have to continue to get better," he added.

While this may seem obvious, it's important because U.S. defense officials have until recently downplayed China's new stealthy-looking jets (while pointing to the PRC's investment in new air defense system, ballistic and anti-satellite missiles and cyber capabilities as helping to prompt the Air Sea Battle concept and things like the Air Force's new bomber). After China unveiled its first stealthy-looking fighter, the J-20, in late 2010, then-Defense Secretary Robert Gates was quick to point out that Chinese military technology remained several decades behind that of the United States.

Still, it should be noted that simply having a stealthy shape does not mean the Chinese planes are truly stealth planes. Modern stealth aircraft involves the sues of special radar absorbent coatings, along with heat and electronic signature masking technology.

Carlisle also reiterated that the Pentagon's biggest question is what China wants to do with all of the advanced military technology that it is developing -- from aircraft carriers and stealthy fighter jets, to ballistic missiles and anti-satellite and cyber weapons.

"That's the question that we continually ask. Obviously [in the] PRC the Great Wall of China is figuratively and literally there. It's been a closed culture and a closed society. They are opening up obviously, but it's hard to get that information from them," said Carlisle. "They clearly have an approach that is more closed and more secretive than ours is, as a general rule. They have a tendency to deflect those questions with, 'Well, what about you guys?'"

Carlisle noted that "China considers itself a regional power and a rising world power" and that this will affect how it interacts with the United States.

Carlisle agreed with comments made earlier in the day by Air Force Maj. Gen. Steven Kwast, director of requirements for the service's Air Combat Command, warning against a needless arms race between the United States and China.

"That is the intent," evolving with China and other Asian nations instead of competing with them, added Carlisle. "But you generally have to do it from a position where you can continue your influence."

 

[p2prada]

This place is gone all quiet...

 

[Rangefinder]

for those who can afford it.

Rather for those who got kinked by the F35.

 

[J20!]

A new J31 pic, looks like its from very far away, so it isn't very clear..*smh*

 

[LurkerBaba]

J-31 maiden flight Oct. 30

J-31 to make maiden flight on Oct. 30

-via twitter

 

[shiphone]

it might take off for the first time tomorrow...and a new pics here (by CDer)

 

[LurkerBaba]

^
Any updates ?