Shenyang FC-31 prototype to J-XY / J-35 naval fighter

Sundog

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 2, 2006
Messages
2,947
Reaction score
510
It's always been known this was being developed for the Navy. That's why even the prototype had a nose gear designed for CATOBAR use.
 

Anduriel

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Mar 4, 2020
Messages
104
Reaction score
161
on a related note, I've felt the same way with the yak-141 and mig-29K over the Su-33. The latter being maybe a bit too big for that size of carrier
Only in length.
Su-33 wings and stabilizer fold much closer to the fuselage, so with folded wings Su-33 IIRC even narrower than MiG-29K.
 

Deino

Moderator
Staff member
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 2, 2006
Messages
3,041
Reaction score
1,322
It's always been known this was being developed for the Navy. That's why even the prototype had a nose gear designed for CATOBAR use.


Pardon, but which prototype had a "nose gear designed for CATOBAR use"?? So far none had the launch/catapult bar!

Not the V2 ....

1623217431598.png

... and also not V1:

1623217546177.png
 

Hood

ACCESS: Top Secret
Staff member
Senior Member
Joined
Sep 6, 2006
Messages
2,689
Reaction score
3,244
Why wouldn't they ditch the FC-31 and just design a new naval fighter?
Given the amount of structural changes, re-stressing for CATOBAR and using maritime-environment compatible materials that would make far more sense. Whatever the end result will be, it will not be a stock FC-31.
 

yasotay

ACCESS: Top Secret
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2006
Messages
2,906
Reaction score
1,653
Last edited:

Trident

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
May 8, 2006
Messages
1,289
Reaction score
791
Pardon, but which prototype had a "nose gear designed for CATOBAR use"?? So far none had the launch/catapult bar!

I think Sundog is referring to the fact that it is configured with a rear mounted tension brace which lends itself particularly well to transmitting catapult loads into the centre fuselage.
 

Blitzo

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Jun 9, 2011
Messages
438
Reaction score
165
Why wouldn't they ditch the FC-31 and just design a new naval fighter?
Given the amount of structural changes, re-stressing for CATOBAR and using maritime-environment compatible materials that would make far more sense. Whatever the end result will be, it will not be a stock FC-31.

Probably because a 5th gen carrierborne fighter would end up being quite similar to what an FC-31 derivative would look like in the first place.

More importantly, they've already had years of flight testing of the land based FC-31 airframes that would likely help to expedite the overall development and testing phase of the carrierborne fighter compared to starting off fully from scratch.

There's a rather successful family of carrierborne fighters that the USN has been using for decades (and will also be using into the foreseeable future) that was derived from a land based demonstrator aircraft that was not originally intended for carrierborne application either, after all. Why would a similar developmental path be unreasonable or suboptimal here either?


It's always been known this was being developed for the Navy. That's why even the prototype had a nose gear designed for CATOBAR use.

Tbh that's not accurate.
The nose gear certianly looked sturdier than J-20's nose gear, but it didn't have catapult launch bar or hold back bar attachment point if it was designed to be a carrierborne fighter from the outset.

Instead, what happened was that FC-31 was developed as a demonstrator program -- likely designed with some capacity to be derived as a carrierborne fighter if wanted -- however the aircraft itself from the start was not carrier compatible.
Then, the PLAN held a tender for a 5th gen carrierborne fighter, and SAC submitted a derivative of FC-31 (not FC-31 itself), and was chosen.

Think about the relationship between YF-17 and F/A-18. It's somewhat similar.


See https://www.navalnews.com/naval-new...th-fighter-for-chinese-navy-aircraft-carrier/

I think that a lot of people may be disappointed that it's not the J-20, but the decision probably makes good sense. There's no credible export market for a carrier borne FC-31 so must be PLAN.

Just FYI, "FC-31 now favourite for Chinese Navy Carrier fighter" is a bit tenuous.

More accurate would be "new photo confirms long held expectations for Chinese carrierborne 5th gen being FC-31 derived".
 

Deino

Moderator
Staff member
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 2, 2006
Messages
3,041
Reaction score
1,322
Oh well ... it is not even a fighter, but a model, mock up or whatever you call it!

1623421391168.png

And NO it will NOT; simply since the FC-31 Gyrfalcon is a demonstrator and not an operational fighter! ... and before the next generation carrierborne fighter could be deployed to the SCS it first must perform its maiden flight, be finalise the test-phase and enter serial production. Only THEN it will be part of "China'S growing"

OMG ... these countless stupid reports all hyped reports assuming as if China is just militarising the SCS with its new fighter tomorrow.
 

Archibald

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2006
Messages
7,336
Reaction score
6,325
Well Deino, it's the Daily Telegraph... a british tabloid (synonym of: ass wipe, not newspaper). Own by Murdoch (or not, can't remember) - doesn't change that basic fact: except for fish-and-ships, it is essentially a waste of paper and, what's more annoying: a waste of trees and forrests.
 

Cy-27

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 28, 2008
Messages
602
Reaction score
324
Quick fact check: The Daily Telegraph is not a tabloid - it was a broadsheet last Sarurday. It is owned by the Barclay brothers and before you use it to wrap up your fish and chips, check out the excellent sports section. A bit right wing politically though, it sits just behind The Times in UK newspaper standards.
 

overscan (PaulMM)

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Dec 27, 2005
Messages
13,688
Reaction score
7,999
Yes, at least when I was in the UK it was a reasonably serious right-wing newspaper. Stereotypically, the Telegraph reader was an educated, retired (white, male) army colonel.
 

Maro.Kyo

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
May 8, 2017
Messages
169
Reaction score
317
I guess there were some confusion between The Daily Telegraph and The Daily Express or The Daily Mirror. In terms of quality, Daily Mail would be the closest to what's described above.
 

helmutkohl

ACCESS: Top Secret
Staff member
Senior Member
Joined
Nov 29, 2010
Messages
957
Reaction score
1,659
I guess there were some confusion between The Daily Telegraph and The Daily Express or The Daily Mirror. In terms of quality, Daily Mail would be the closest to what's described above.
theres just way too many Dailys in the UK.
Clark Kent may have trouble arriving to the right office
 

Archibald

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2006
Messages
7,336
Reaction score
6,325
I guess there were some confusion between The Daily Telegraph and The Daily Express or The Daily Mirror. In terms of quality, Daily Mail would be the closest to what's described above.
theres just way too many Dailys in the UK.
Clark Kent may have trouble arriving to the right office

Sorry for the non-deserved hatred then. You guys above hit the nail on the head: too many "Daily-something" newspapers. :p

And of course we should not confuse them with the Dairies. Cheese ! ... sorry, I mean, cheers !
(runs for cover)
 

Sineva

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Apr 29, 2010
Messages
102
Reaction score
241
China's FC-31 stealth fighter on public display, 'indicates development milestone'
edcc732c-28fa-4b11-9515-f995c57c34b1.jpeg
 

TMA1

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Feb 6, 2021
Messages
170
Reaction score
236
The vertical stabilizer flaps look off for some reason in many of the pictures.
 

helmutkohl

ACCESS: Top Secret
Staff member
Senior Member
Joined
Nov 29, 2010
Messages
957
Reaction score
1,659
anyone else find the bay doors a bit strange? it looks like there might not be enough clearance for weapons separation, like on the F-22 or J-20
 

TomcatViP

Hellcat
Joined
Feb 12, 2017
Messages
4,806
Reaction score
4,320
@helmutkohl : Seems the bays have two positions: one open on the ground with the edge section folded inward for ground clearance, another for air launch where the edge is either aligned with the main door section or folded in a more appropriate angle for weapons release.

The metal bar linking the outer edge to the inside bay looks solid and might be something added on the ground by ground crew. But if it is not, it will only have to extend to fold open that section. Hard to tell with the picture quality.
 
Last edited:

DWG

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Feb 11, 2007
Messages
1,504
Reaction score
1,716
Google translates those characters on that actuator as “Main landing gear rear door actuator”

What's been puzzling me is where the front landing gear actuator is. I've been presuming behind the gear leg and pushing through that hole in the rear bulkhead.
 

Hydroman

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Jan 28, 2008
Messages
104
Reaction score
170
This looks like a mock-up to me? NLG bay seems void of controls (hydro lines, valves, actuators, etc), MLG bays probably the same. Landing gears are mock-up type gears.
 

Deino

Moderator
Staff member
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 2, 2006
Messages
3,041
Reaction score
1,322
This looks like a mock-up to me? NLG bay seems void of controls (hydro lines, valves, actuators, etc), MLG bays probably the same. Landing gears are mock-up type gears.


From what we know it is an actual static test airframe - eventually the often mentioned second one (31002 ?) that was later pimped up for display with some landing-gear-look alikes.
 

Deino

Moderator
Staff member
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 2, 2006
Messages
3,041
Reaction score
1,322
when you say PS not sure you mean PS or Photoshop :p

anyways im surprised about the engine plates since they were painted over in earlier versions

Chinese_FC-31_Stealth_Fighter_to_possibly_enter_service_in_the_PLA_Navy_925_001.jpg


No, I just meant it in the meaning of "post scriptum", as a supplemental or addendum.
 

Sundog

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 2, 2006
Messages
2,947
Reaction score
510
2 tires on the front? If one tire blows does the 2nd tires prevent an incident with these setups?
It has two nose wheels set far apart from each other because it's designed for the Navy and the wheels have to clear the launch shuttle. On other aircraft, such as the mirage F-1, by going with two smaller wheels as opposed to one large nose wheel, that can help with storing the retracted gear within the fuselage.
 

Blitzo

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Jun 9, 2011
Messages
438
Reaction score
165
How topical. A recent paper, posted via by78 over on SDF.

Jeez, I wonder what this paper from Shenyang about a carrier based stealth fighter depicting "before" and "after" modifications might refer to.
How interesting, it has DSIs but it doesn't have canards behind the intakes... I wonder what aircraft from Shenyang exists, that is stealthy, has DSIs, lacks canards behind the DSIs, and might be appropriate for modification to a carrier based variant.

I mean, it's not like we've had overwhelming rumours over the last 2-3 years about an aircraft that specifically fills the above criteria that has been resoundingly stated as the PLAN's choice for its 5th generation carrier based fighter.
And it's definitely not like we've recently had a mock up of such an aircraft visibly seen on the PLAN's dedicated land based carrier mock up facility...


Yes, it's totally reasonable for any military aviation enthusiast to talk about the forthcoming PLAN 5th generation fighter as if its overall characteristics are still a valid topic to debate.



A Brief Analysis on the Key Technologies of Aerodynamic Design of a Stealth Carrier-based Aircraft
Abstract
: Several key technologies and engineering approaches in the aerodynamic design of a stealth carrier-based aircraft are introduced in this paper. Based on three requirments – enhanced lift at take-off and landing, refined drag reduction for supersonic flow, and the balanced design of load reduction – the concepts of extreme narrow-range aerodynamic design under multi-specialty constraints such as performance, stability, weight and stealth are laid out. Research shows that enhanced lift at take-off and landing can be achieved by flap design and optimization of three-dimensional bending of wings. The drag of the aircraft can be reduced by optimizing the cockpit shape and the compressible/expansion waves at the fuselage and the directions of the overflow suction. Moreover, the load reduction of the horizontal stabilizers can be achieved by the reverse bending design of the lower fuselage and the arresting hook hatch.


oh jeez 1.jpg oh jeez 2.jpg oh jeez 3.jpg oh jeez 4.jpg oh jeez 5.jpg
oh jeez 6.jpg
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Archibald

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2006
Messages
7,336
Reaction score
6,325
Just asking in passing (no intend of starting a flame war) does this mean that Chinese carrier fast-jet wings will be a mix of J-15 and FC-31 ? big non stealth bird and smaller stealth one ?
Would make it similar to the Superbug / F-35 mix presently found on US decks.
Or did I missed a third Chinese naval combat jet ?
 

Similar threads

Top