Shenyang J-31 Stealth Fighter

nomadski wrote:Are the Aircraft carriers Stealth ? Then the Aircraft are not . If China can neutralize Carrier at sea , then America can do it too . But like having skyscrapers , they are the must have things or status symbols  . Useful perhaps for pushing around poor and weak nations . Otherwise against an opponent with parity , then they are a waste of money . Who are the Chinese building these to be used against  ?

It really is a dick measuring contest.

As you say, these would be sunk far before the jets onboard can do anything about. As you also said, its to power project against poor countries. But against Taiwan? Taiwan would sink these rather quickly.

It boils all down to saying "we got em too! and ours are bigger" or whatever.

I guess it could be a way for China to host temporary bases on costs of poor african nations.

miketheterrible wrote:

nomadski wrote:Are the Aircraft carriers Stealth ? Then the Aircraft are not . If China can neutralize Carrier at sea , then America can do it too . But like having skyscrapers , they are the must have things or status symbols  . Useful perhaps for pushing around poor and weak nations . Otherwise against an opponent with parity , then they are a waste of money . Who are the Chinese building these to be used against  ?

It really is a dick measuring contest.

As you say, these would be sunk far before the jets onboard can do anything about.  As you also said, its to power project against poor countries.  But against Taiwan? Taiwan would sink these rather quickly.

It boils all down to saying "we got em too! and ours are bigger" or whatever.

I guess it could be a way for China to host temporary bases on costs of poor african nations.

How would Taiwan sink a carrier surronded by a large numbers of escorts? Its not like they have any Zircon missiles.

Actually with all the cruise and ballistic missiles fired at them, taiwanese would loose all their conventional gorces in few hours and would do a guerilla type of war.

Taiwan it's only a few ships and 250 older jets like f-16, Mirage 2000 and fc-1 which is a hybrid between f-16 and f-18.

Their ships are former US ships from the 70s-80s. They even still operate 2 WW2 submarines...

Chinese air force would hunt their ships pretty easily and keep their planes out of fight. No smart man would fly a mirage toward su-35 and j-20.

The issue is China has to take Taiwan without severely damaging TSMC. No TSMC, and you basically end up with just reddit island. Rather not.

walle83 wrote:

miketheterrible wrote:

nomadski wrote:Are the Aircraft carriers Stealth ? Then the Aircraft are not . If China can neutralize Carrier at sea , then America can do it too . But like having skyscrapers , they are the must have things or status symbols  . Useful perhaps for pushing around poor and weak nations . Otherwise against an opponent with parity , then they are a waste of money . Who are the Chinese building these to be used against  ?

It really is a dick measuring contest.

As you say, these would be sunk far before the jets onboard can do anything about.  As you also said, its to power project against poor countries.  But against Taiwan? Taiwan would sink these rather quickly.

It boils all down to saying "we got em too! and ours are bigger" or whatever.

I guess it could be a way for China to host temporary bases on costs of poor african nations.

How would Taiwan sink a carrier surronded by a large numbers of escorts? Its not like they have any Zircon missiles.

In this regard, they don't need zircon. Supersonic missiles and a dozen of them and that's it.

This isn't fricking Bollywood, Chinawood or Hollywood. No such thing as 100% defense and big targets become easy targets.

Not like China wouldn't launch enough to decimate the island. But as Lyle said, TSMC is really only value to the island, besides maybe an additional unsinkable carrier. Oh, and to push US further back

lyle6 wrote:The issue is China has to take Taiwan without severely damaging TSMC. No TSMC, and you basically end up with just reddit island. Rather not.

This is something scumbag yanquis need to take into account. They will lose more than China from any nullification of TSMC.

In total, two somewhat different flight prototypes FC-31 have been built to date, the first of which (tail number "31001"in Shenyang on October 31, 2012, and the second (tail number "31003") - December 23, 2016. Both samples are still being tested, including at the Chinese State Flight Test Institute in Yanliang (Shaanxi). To date, the aircraft has not entered serial production and has not been accepted into service with the PLA. At the same time, already in 2014, publications appeared in the Chinese media about the possibility of creating a deck version of the FC-31.

Both FC-31 flight prototypes were equipped with Russian RD-93 engines (modification of the RD-33 engine). The type of engines now installed on the first prototype carrier-based fighter is not yet clear. The deck version of the FC-31 aircraft, as you can understand, is designed for catapular launch to be based on promising Chinese aircraft carriers. On the deck prototype that flew on October 29, the wing folding mechanism and the presence of the catapult attachment to the shuttle are noticeable on the nose landing gear. Unlike the two flight prototypes FC-31, this prototype is also equipped with an electro-optical station under the nose, similar to the EOTS station of the Lockheed Martin F-35 aircraft.

https://bmpd.livejournal.com/4420380.html

miketheterrible wrote:

In this regard, they don't need zircon. Supersonic missiles and a dozen of them and that's it.

This isn't fricking Bollywood, Chinawood or Hollywood. No such thing as 100% defense and big targets become easy targets.

Not like China wouldn't launch enough to decimate the island. But as Lyle said, TSMC is really only value to the island, besides maybe an additional unsinkable carrier.  Oh, and to push US further back

Unlikely that a dozen missiles would do the job. A modern Aegis-type system should be able to handle that. Having 2-3 055s and a few 052D those missiles will have a hard time reaching the carrier.

To compare with f-35 :



It's less bulky in the back half part.

PapaDragon wrote:

Isos wrote:It's less bulky in the back half part.

And practically identical in the front

Honestly if Chinese had more powerful engine so they didn't have to use two small ones it would have been 1:1 on F-35

They have the one they use on sukhois copies like on j-10.

2 engines is also safer for carrier use.

Well this is just evidence that two engines does not always mean less drag.

The slim shape of the Chinese aircraft is actually rather important... the F-35 is a brick and relies on raw engine power to be useful... I would say this Chinese fighter could probably run rings about the American aircraft, or it certainly has the potential to do so.

The engines might not be super powerful or super fuel efficient, but in a slimmer lower drag aircraft such things wont matter in a turning dogfight... which of course the Americans will try their best to avoid because high off boresight missiles with TVC make that dangerous and numbers become more important and I think China will be able to concentrate more fighters in the conflict than the US could most of the time... and when China gets its fighter drones working... look out US.

Isos wrote:

To compare with f-35 :



It's less bulky in the back half part.

I think J-31 has a more efficient tail due to the cant. Whereas F-35 has a less efficient tail because it is flat at the top.

Some really nice cgi of the J-31 also with the F-35.

No such thing as 100% defense and big targets become easy targets.

Tell that to Godzilla...

The point is that the best defended group of forces in any navy is a full sized aircraft carrier with AWACS and fighters, and supporting cruisers using some form of IADS network.

Bigger carriers are not easier targets, but do tend to be better equipped to defend themselves.

The difference between having organic air power with AWACS and fighters and not having airpower or AWACS or fighters is not like the difference between having a HATO ground force or having a HATO ground force and their air power.... simply because for air defence HATO relies on air power.

Russian and Chinese naval power should have reasonably good air defence systems, but air power improves situational awareness and reach with AWACS and interceptors to deal with air targets much faster and more efficiently than ground or surface based systems alone can.

I agree there is no 100% perfect defence, but the difference between having a carrier or not is massively important... it is like adding OTH radar and fighter aircraft to Russias ground based air defence... S-500, S-400, S-300V, S-350, BUK, TOR, Pantsir, 30mm and 57mm guns, plus air burst shells of larger calibre and Igla-S and Verba offer excellent layered defence, but that defence is only made much stronger by adding an A-100 and some Su-57s...

BTW it looks like the Chinese have cracked the F-35 design... and I bet their version is cheaper... and affordable...

Lets hope they didn't bother wasting money and time with a VSTOL version...

What is the cruise missile it is carrying on the pics ?

walle83 wrote:

The PRC copy might actually be more survivable than the original. Erdogan & co. will buy this.

Just imagine how many years and money they saved by hacking f-35 files...

Isos wrote:Just imagine how many years and money they saved by hacking f-35 files...

Both planes still look like massive flops. I'd take a Strike Eagle or a Flanker.. any day.

PS. Nice Harrier replacements.. that's it.

AZ-5 wrote:

Isos wrote:Just imagine how many years and money they saved by hacking f-35 files...

Both planes still look like massive flops. I'd take a Strike Eagle or a Flanker.. any day.

PS. Nice Harrier replacements.. that's it.

In a dogfight perhaps yes, but when it comes to electronics, sensors and stealth a 4th gen fighter just isnt good enough.

With R-77M, R-37M, pl-15/21, Meteor and new US aim 260 I wouldn't want to be in a old flanker or eagle.

Su-35 with very good EW ok but nothing less. Best is a very low RCS aircraft that helps a lot evading those missiles but keeps manoeuvrability like su-57 and f-22 or Rafale.

At close range su-27 would be better than a lot of newer jets. However getting in a dogfight against an enemy carrying new state of art missiles is not easy.

Isos wrote:With R-77M, R-37M, pl-15/21, Meteor and new US aim 260 I wouldn't want to be in a old flanker or eagle.

Su-35 with very good EW ok but nothing less. Best is a very low RCS aircraft that helps a lot evading those missiles but keeps manoeuvrability like su-57 and f-22 or Rafale.  

At close range su-27 would be better than a lot of newer jets. However getting in a dogfight against an enemy carrying new state of art missiles is not easy.

Sure, that assumes that you got all of them flying.
If you have 50-80% of your F-35 fleet in the hanger when SHTF, then possibly Flankers or Eagles will be the ones saving the day.

I'm just not sure of their oper. availability.

All the aircraft have pretty bad availability rates in peace time... in war time that changes.