I cannot help but think L-15/JL-10 will be the lead in for J-20. Both have the look of being modern.
J-10 really hits me as being a short timer. They needed numbers to retire J-8II, but its role is quickly reaching end of life as China has to pare down programs to fit their current economy.
I cannot help but think L-15/JL-10 will be the lead in for J-20. Both have the look of being modern.
J-10 really hits me as being a short timer. They needed numbers to retire J-8II, but its role is quickly reaching end of life as China has to pare down programs to fit their current economy.
For the moment, J-10C is still in production (100+ units?). There has been a rumor of a new J-10D but beyond that, there is nothig. So no word of its successor. No indication the PLAAF wants an FC-31 variant either. Wonder what the PLAAF planning.
By: ClanWarrior
- 11th March 2019 at 16:29Permalink
For the moment, J-10C is still in production (100+ units?). There has been a rumor of a new J-10D but beyond that, there is nothig. So no word of its successor. No indication the PLAAF wants an FC-31 variant either. Wonder what the PLAAF planning.
I can understand why the Chinese don't want the FC-31 variant, it lost out to the J-20. I don't know why Shenyang keep on trying to force the FC-31 onto the PLAAF.
LOL Really, the PLAAF doesn't want or has no interest in the J-31 (FC-31)??? Honestly, you guys need to leave "Fantasy Land" and move to the Real World. As the J-31 is going to be the cornerstone of both the PLAAF and PLAN. Unless you think they're going to build thousands of J-20's! :stupid:
Not thousands of J-20s instead but it's looking VERY likely that both J-16 and J-10 will be procured for some time to come, alongside J-20. Some half a decade for J-16 and probably over a decade for J-10, possibly even longer. FC-31 based plane for PLAAF might indeed happen, and if it does it does seem logical that it's build instead of any flanker variant that's made today. But that still will take years to come.
Looks like the PLAN will get an FC-31 based version (J-35?). There was a rumor about a radically modified semi-stealthy J-10 (J-10D?) for the PLAAF. I am wondering whether the PLAAF will completely skip an FC-31 type fighter and focus on the 6th gen programs. I think 2035 is targetted for the 1st flight of a new 6th gen fighter.
By: ClanWarrior
- 12th March 2019 at 11:56Permalink
So the PLAN are going to get the FC-31 or a variant of it called the J-35 after all, I take it the navalized variant will be suitably strengthened for the CTOL carriers that are going to be built soon. It will be interesting to see what happens in the next year or two.
So the PLAN are going to get the FC-31 or a variant of it called the J-35 after all, I take it the navalized variant will be suitably strengthened for the CTOL carriers that are going to be built soon. It will be interesting to see what happens in the next year or two.
Rumored to be based on the FC-31 but is enlarged and carrier (catapult) ready. Whether the difference is going to be like the F-35A v F-35C is unknown. It may look completely different. Nobody outside knows what it looks like or when a 1st flight might take place.
By: ClanWarrior
- 12th March 2019 at 16:05Permalink
Rumored to be based on the FC-31 but is enlarged and carrier (catapult) ready. Whether the difference is going to be like the F-35A v F-35C is unknown. It may look completely different. Nobody outside knows what it looks like or when a 1st flight might take place.
By: Deino
- 12th March 2019 at 16:52Permalink- Edited 2nd October 2019 at 14:50
I can understand why the Chinese don't want the FC-31 variant, it lost out to the J-20. I don't know why Shenyang keep on trying to force the FC-31 onto the PLAAF.
Just a minor correction ... the FC-31 is not the design that lost against the J-20, SAC's proposal was a much larger design allegedly looking like this CG:
[ATTACH=JSON]{"data-align":"none","data-size":"full","title":"SAC J-XX entry as naval version - Bai Wei - wind tunnel model.jpg","data-attachmentid":3855593}[/ATTACH]
By: ClanWarrior
- 12th March 2019 at 18:29Permalink
Just a minor correction ... the FC-31 is not the design that lost against the J-20, SAC's proposal was a much larger design allegedly looking like this CG:
[ATTACH=JSON]{"alt":"Click image for larger version Name:\tJ-20 + J-XX SAC contender.jpg Views:\t0 Size:\t77.4 KB ID:\t3855593","data-align":"none","data-attachmentid":"3855593","data-size":"full","title":"SAC J-XX entry as naval version - Bai Wei - wind tunnel model.jpg"}[/ATTACH]
You have got me confused now Deino, Why was it that the J-20 won when SAC's proposal was much better? Is this the Chinese equivalent of the ATF program where the better plane lost. :confused:
New
Posts: 550
By: St. John
- 12th March 2019 at 18:43Permalink- Edited 12th March 2019 at 18:43
You have got me confused now Deino, Why was it that the J-20 won when SAC's proposal was much better? Is this the Chinese equivalent of the ATF program where the better plane lost. :confused:
The YF-23 lost the ATF program because of McDonnell Douglas's performance on the A-12, just as Convair lost to the SR-71 because of the B-58.
You have got me confused now Deino, Why was it that the J-20 won when SAC's proposal was much better? Is this the Chinese equivalent of the ATF program where the better plane lost. :confused:
Sorry, but who said whwn and where that SAC's proposal was better?? At least and surely not me... I only said it was larger.
From what I know it was in nothing better except in dimensions - which might have helped in some fan-Forums for playing quartets game!? - and consequently CAC's proposal was Chosen.
By: TomcatViP
- 12th March 2019 at 20:34Permalink- Edited 12th March 2019 at 20:35
The BZK-007 looks like a drone to oversight civilian population center. There is no logical way this thing could be what it is otherwise (design wise).
You have got me confused now Deino, Why was it that the J-20 won when SAC's proposal was much better? Is this the Chinese equivalent of the ATF program where the better plane lost. :confused:
It was definitely not better. I believe it was much worse. It was slightly bigger and the tri-plane config ballooned the RCS. A later proposal removed the canards but that was at the expense of maneuverability. I am not sure whether it had an advantage in maneuverability even with the canards. CAC won over the PLAAF despite SAC having a lot of political clout. In fact, SAC managed to force their way into the J-20 program as a sub-contractor when it was selected. I am wondering whether this is the reason we got to see a big improvement when going from FC-31 V1 to V2, whether SAC actually managed to get some 'know-how' CAC.
ATF example might apply to PLAN. Navalized J-20 would probably be too big and too costly for the PLAN. And even if CAC came up with a technically superior alternative to SAC FC-31 based fighter, China might not have been too comfortable with giving CAC such huge monopoly.
Not thousands of J-20s instead but it's looking VERY likely that both J-16 and J-10 will be procured for some time to come, alongside J-20. Some half a decade for J-16 and probably over a decade for J-10, possibly even longer. FC-31 based plane for PLAAF might indeed happen, and if it does it does seem logical that it's build instead of any flanker variant that's made today. But that still will take years to come.
Actually, the J-20/J-31 are very much like the F-22/F-35. With the former two being dedicated to Air Superiority Type Missions. While, the latter two in the Strike Fighter Role. (Tactical)
In short the PLAAF and PLAN will need vast numbers of the latter to support both the Army (PLA) and Navy (PLAN). As without such a fleet it has no "hope" of even putting up a "credible defense" against the US and her Allies.
Unless, some think the Chinese are spending trillions on their military for nothing??? As without Air Superiority it's useless.......;)
China must produce the J-31 in large numbers to make the project viable. (cost effective) While, being competitive in the Export Market. Something China desperately wants.....
Which, is why I believe it will be produced in large numbers and even eclipse the J-20 in many respects.
Posts: 1,912
By: QuantumFX - 9th March 2019 at 06:52 Permalink
CETC Promo - https://twitter.com/OedoSoldier/status/1104185603506270208
J-10B nose close-up,
Larger-
Posts: 4,951
By: MadRat - 11th March 2019 at 02:09 Permalink
I cannot help but think L-15/JL-10 will be the lead in for J-20. Both have the look of being modern.
J-10 really hits me as being a short timer. They needed numbers to retire J-8II, but its role is quickly reaching end of life as China has to pare down programs to fit their current economy.
Posts: 1,912
By: QuantumFX - 11th March 2019 at 03:24 Permalink
For the moment, J-10C is still in production (100+ units?). There has been a rumor of a new J-10D but beyond that, there is nothig. So no word of its successor. No indication the PLAAF wants an FC-31 variant either. Wonder what the PLAAF planning.
Posts: 305
By: ClanWarrior - 11th March 2019 at 16:29 Permalink
I can understand why the Chinese don't want the FC-31 variant, it lost out to the J-20. I don't know why Shenyang keep on trying to force the FC-31 onto the PLAAF.
By: Anonymous - 12th March 2019 at 07:51 Permalink
LOL Really, the PLAAF doesn't want or has no interest in the J-31 (FC-31)??? Honestly, you guys need to leave "Fantasy Land" and move to the Real World. As the J-31 is going to be the cornerstone of both the PLAAF and PLAN. Unless you think they're going to build thousands of J-20's! :stupid:
[ATTACH=JSON]{"data-align":"none","data-size":"large","data-attachmentid":3855525}[/ATTACH]
Posts: 1,010
By: totoro - 12th March 2019 at 09:08 Permalink
Not thousands of J-20s instead but it's looking VERY likely that both J-16 and J-10 will be procured for some time to come, alongside J-20. Some half a decade for J-16 and probably over a decade for J-10, possibly even longer. FC-31 based plane for PLAAF might indeed happen, and if it does it does seem logical that it's build instead of any flanker variant that's made today. But that still will take years to come.
Posts: 1,912
By: QuantumFX - 12th March 2019 at 10:07 Permalink
Looks like the PLAN will get an FC-31 based version (J-35?). There was a rumor about a radically modified semi-stealthy J-10 (J-10D?) for the PLAAF. I am wondering whether the PLAAF will completely skip an FC-31 type fighter and focus on the 6th gen programs. I think 2035 is targetted for the 1st flight of a new 6th gen fighter.
Plus:
BZK-007 MALE UAV with the PLA
Posts: 305
By: ClanWarrior - 12th March 2019 at 11:56 Permalink
So the PLAN are going to get the FC-31 or a variant of it called the J-35 after all, I take it the navalized variant will be suitably strengthened for the CTOL carriers that are going to be built soon. It will be interesting to see what happens in the next year or two.
Posts: 1,912
By: QuantumFX - 12th March 2019 at 13:48 Permalink
Rumored to be based on the FC-31 but is enlarged and carrier (catapult) ready. Whether the difference is going to be like the F-35A v F-35C is unknown. It may look completely different. Nobody outside knows what it looks like or when a 1st flight might take place.
Posts: 305
By: ClanWarrior - 12th March 2019 at 16:05 Permalink
Thanks for the added info QuantumFX.
Posts: 4,082
By: Deino - 12th March 2019 at 16:52 Permalink - Edited 2nd October 2019 at 14:50
Just a minor correction ... the FC-31 is not the design that lost against the J-20, SAC's proposal was a much larger design allegedly looking like this CG:
[ATTACH=JSON]{"data-align":"none","data-size":"full","title":"SAC J-XX entry as naval version - Bai Wei - wind tunnel model.jpg","data-attachmentid":3855593}[/ATTACH]
Posts: 305
By: ClanWarrior - 12th March 2019 at 18:29 Permalink
You have got me confused now Deino, Why was it that the J-20 won when SAC's proposal was much better? Is this the Chinese equivalent of the ATF program where the better plane lost. :confused:
Posts: 550
By: St. John - 12th March 2019 at 18:43 Permalink - Edited 12th March 2019 at 18:43
The YF-23 lost the ATF program because of McDonnell Douglas's performance on the A-12, just as Convair lost to the SR-71 because of the B-58.
Posts: 4,082
By: Deino - 12th March 2019 at 20:04 Permalink
Sorry, but who said whwn and where that SAC's proposal was better?? At least and surely not me... I only said it was larger.
From what I know it was in nothing better except in dimensions - which might have helped in some fan-Forums for playing quartets game!? - and consequently CAC's proposal was Chosen.
Posts: 5,905
By: TomcatViP - 12th March 2019 at 20:34 Permalink - Edited 12th March 2019 at 20:35
The BZK-007 looks like a drone to oversight civilian population center. There is no logical way this thing could be what it is otherwise (design wise).
Posts: 1,912
By: QuantumFX - 13th March 2019 at 03:07 Permalink
It was definitely not better. I believe it was much worse. It was slightly bigger and the tri-plane config ballooned the RCS. A later proposal removed the canards but that was at the expense of maneuverability. I am not sure whether it had an advantage in maneuverability even with the canards. CAC won over the PLAAF despite SAC having a lot of political clout. In fact, SAC managed to force their way into the J-20 program as a sub-contractor when it was selected. I am wondering whether this is the reason we got to see a big improvement when going from FC-31 V1 to V2, whether SAC actually managed to get some 'know-how' CAC.
ATF example might apply to PLAN. Navalized J-20 would probably be too big and too costly for the PLAN. And even if CAC came up with a technically superior alternative to SAC FC-31 based fighter, China might not have been too comfortable with giving CAC such huge monopoly.
Posts: 1,912
By: QuantumFX - 13th March 2019 at 03:29 Permalink
...
Larger-
Larger-
By: Anonymous - 13th March 2019 at 05:48 Permalink
Actually, the J-20/J-31 are very much like the F-22/F-35. With the former two being dedicated to Air Superiority Type Missions. While, the latter two in the Strike Fighter Role. (Tactical)
In short the PLAAF and PLAN will need vast numbers of the latter to support both the Army (PLA) and Navy (PLAN). As without such a fleet it has no "hope" of even putting up a "credible defense" against the US and her Allies.
Unless, some think the Chinese are spending trillions on their military for nothing??? As without Air Superiority it's useless.......;)
By: Anonymous - 13th March 2019 at 05:56 Permalink
China must produce the J-31 in large numbers to make the project viable. (cost effective) While, being competitive in the Export Market. Something China desperately wants.....
Which, is why I believe it will be produced in large numbers and even eclipse the J-20 in many respects.
Mark my words I said it here first......;)
Posts: 1,912
By: QuantumFX - 13th March 2019 at 11:39 Permalink
:very_drunk:
Larger-