Take-off and run-lengths do not yet allow the J-31 fighter to become deck

The other day, Chinese media (as reported in the news story "Military Review") talked about choosing a color scheme for J-31 fighters. These aircraft in China belong to a new generation.

The gray color of the J-31, as was noted, suggests that these fighters may soon appear in service, with the main focus being the Chinese naval forces. The authors in the Chinese media wrote that the J-31 is considered as the basis of the wing for the Type 003 aircraft carrier, which is already being built at a shipyard in China.

However, there is one caveat that so far does not give rise to particular optimism by the Chinese Navy regarding the use of J-31 fighters as a means of deck aviation. We are talking about the fact that there have not yet been any official reports on the successful testing of the J-31, not only on board the aircraft carriers available in the Chinese Navy (Liaoning and Shandong), but also on the ground training complex for carrier-based aviation. And the words that the aircraft will be intended for aircraft carriers with a flat deck, can hardly be called decisive here.

According to the latest information, experiments with the engines of this fighter are not allowed to be fully implemented on deck. The take-off run of the J-31 is still too long to be called primarily decked. In 2016, the take-off run was (according to open sources - more than 400 meters), in 2019 there were statements that they could reduce it to about 325 m.This could be more than the total length of the aircraft carrier. With mileage, things are even more complicated. For the J-31 to land, Chinese aircraft carriers today would have to "drive in the hitch" - two decks as a landing pad ...

In this regard, at this stage, the J-31, if it turns out to be placed in the troops, will be operated from ground airfields - until the problem with engines is solved. True, in such a situation, questions arise for its use so that it does not become an internal competitor to another fighter of the "new generation" - the J-20, which is already being mass-produced.

Comments

[Errr]

Strange article. Take-off - run on the flight deck without the use of a catapult (springboard) and an aerofinisher?

[zlinn]

even stranger is that the take-off run is usually longer than the run-off, and if you solve the problem with take-offs, the second will be decided by itself

[Errr]

I rummaged a bit on the Internet and dug:

The advantage of the device is a short take-off take-off run, which is only 400 meters, run for landing is 600 meters. All this makes the aircraft very convenient and versatile in combat.
Read more at: http://avia.pro/blog/istrebitel-j-31

It turns out that the J-31 doesn’t have any problems with take-off run ... Unless, of course, believe what is written.

[venik]

Quote: zlinn

even stranger is that the take-off run is usually longer than the run-off, and if you solve the problem with take-offs, the second will be decided by itself

=========
Hello to you! Just with accuracy, but vice versa! Usually just the run length on landing - more than the take-off run! And - significantly!

[figwam]

Quote: Herrr

Strange article. Take-off - run on the flight deck without the use of a catapult (springboard) and an aerofinisher?

Su-33 take off from 105 meters from a springboard and about 100 meters run with an aerofinisher. I think the deck version of the Su-57, with the engines of the second stage, takeoff and landing characteristics would be half as much.

[Errr]

Given that the wing area of ​​the Su-57 is about 82 m², and for the Su-33 this figure is about 68 m², the first God himself ordered to wet.

[figwam]

Quote: Herrr

Given that the wing area of ​​the Su-57 is about 82 m², and for the Su-33 this figure is about 68 m², the first God himself ordered to wet.

Yes, he has a backlog, powerful chassis racks are also noteworthy.

[Errr]

Stands, it was a matter, we have already discussed here, but, even if it is necessary to strengthen them, I do not think that this will become an insurmountable obstacle. Only now, as before, I don’t quite understand where to attach the brake hook to it. At the same time, the rear armament compartment and the rear-view radar (everything that is behind this same rear compartment) interfere.

[figwam]

Quote: Herrr

Only now, as before, I don’t quite understand where to attach the brake hook to it.

Well, it will already be a ship’s modification of the aircraft, the rear part will be redone, strengthened, it may be extended

[Errr]

I do not think that the idea of ​​lengthening the tail of the deck is good, but otherwise I completely agree with you.
After some thought, I began to incline to the idea of ​​some telescopic construction of the landing hook, so suitable for a compact arrangement thereof in a relatively small container between the weapons compartment and the rear radar.

[figwam]

Quote: Herrr

its location in a relatively small container between the weapons compartment and the rear radar.

I quite imagine such an option, there is such a container on the F-35C.

[Errr]

Yes, the designers of the flying penguin had to prettyly scramble their bald spots over this problem. But, it seems that in the end they nevertheless coped with the inconvenience of hooking the wire rope in view of the unprecedentedly small distance between it and the main landing gear. In this case, apparently, had to sacrifice a little EPR.

[Grigory_45]

Quote: Herrr

Considering that the wing area of ​​the Su-57 is about 82 m², and for the Su-33 this figure is about 68 m², the first God himself ordered to wet

only this indicator is not at all self-sufficient and decisive. More importantly: reinforced glider design
- even if the takeoff is springboard, then at the landing with the finisher, the loads are very unfunded on the glider. And given that the machine has internal weapon compartments, which are weakened zones, the alteration can be very serious. You need a reinforced landing gear with a big stroke - they literally hit the deck with planes because of the steeper glide path of the approach. Somewhere you need to screw a hook - there is no place in the tail of the Su-57. We need a new avionics, refinement of the airframe for operation in marine conditions. Etc...

[NN52]

Gregory_45 (Gregory)
Not because of a "steeper" glide path, but landing without leveling, practically.

[NN52]

And how do you like this option?)

Found on the Internet .. cool "photoshop" of course))))))

[Errr]

Quote: Gregory_45

... Somewhere you need to screw a hook - there is no place in the tail of the Su-57. We need a new avionics, refinement of the airframe for operation in marine conditions. Etc...

I suddenly remembered:

Sister, maybe better in intensive care?

Don't argue, patient. If the doctor said: “To the morgue!”, Then to the morgue!

It is clear that all this is not as simple as we would like, but I think, however, it is better to try.

[Grigory_45]

Quote: figvam

Su-33 take off from 105 meters from a springboard and about 100 meters run with an aerofinisher.

the take-off length from the starting positions No. 1 and No. 2 on Kuznetsovo is 90 meters, from a distant position - 180 meters, the path length - 90 meters.

Quote: figvam

I think the deck version of the Su-57, with the engines of the second stage, takeoff and landing characteristics would be half as much.

If you believe the open information, then the Su-57 and in the land configuration take-off and landing is much better. than the Su-27/35 family. The take-off / run length is almost halved - up to 350 meters.

[Cyril G ...]

Illiterate article.

[Errr]

A quick meal is not given to everyone. It is important that the hand is full.

[knn54]

Will have to operate the J-15.

[Courier]

Heh. Before F / A 18, as the moon is shorter.

[svoit]

Quote: Courier

Heh. Before F / A 18, as the moon is shorter.

they
Take-off run from ground runway, m 430

[KCA]

Looking at the looks of beautiful Chinese cars, the question arises - are they not made of the same aluminum as beer cans, by analogy with canned cars? if, suddenly, their plane hooks on the finisher cable hook, he won’t fly away with a crumpled beer can, leaving the hook on the cable?

[Pandiurin]

Type003 aircraft carrier with a flat deck and an electromagnetic catapult was planned under j20.

The new J31 is still the first option, there will be new engines will be equipped with aircraft carriers, the Chinese have a long program.

What is the disaster?

[Indifferent]

Motor Sich sold to the Chinese all the documentation it found, including old cabinets. So the time is not far off when the Chinese will have a great engine. the Americans did not have time to hurry up here. So we are waiting. In a couple of years everything will be!

[Cyril G ...]

They will not appear, you will not copy the engine, you will have to go through a long evolution if you have not been sold a full package of technologies. The Chinese do not want to buy ....
What dimension should be for the 31st? I think something like Snekma for Raphael ...

[Junior Private]

Quote: KCA

if, suddenly, their plane hooks on the finisher cable hook, he won’t fly away with a crumpled beer can, leaving the hook on the cable?

It is unlikely. The Chinese are not the same. The glider itself can be strengthened under the hook. But the engines they have not yet learned to do much. Fast and the furious take-off is especially fatal for the resource of turbines, in which every hour counts. And the article is somehow strange.

[Grigory_45]

Quote: Junior Private

Fast and furious take-off is especially fatal for a turbine resource

from the deck of an aircraft carrier take off in afterburner, even when using a catapult

. Not only will you be surprised, but they also come in for landing, also turning on the afterburner - if the pilot missed and didn’t catch the finisher’s cable, he can then go to the second round
In general, planes often use fast and furious take-offs to take off - to reduce the take-off run and a more intensive set of speed and altitude, and for some types of planes the inclusion of afterburner is generally mandatory.

[Pavel57]

The wrong engines were taken.

[Cyril G ...]

In the photo there are different engines. Have a hike

[Maks1995]

Should he? All the same, this is a stealth fighter, not a carrier-based one. Deck has its own significant features, and in the article there is not a word about it.

[Grigory_45]

Quote: Max1995

Should he? All the same, this is a stealth fighter, not a deck

why do you think stealth and deck are mutually exclusive concepts?

[Maks1995]

I don’t think so.
you attribute it to me.

[Grigory_45]

Quote: Max1995

I do not think

then how to perceive your words:

Quote: Max1995

Should he? All the same, this is a stealth fighter, not a carrier-based one. Deck has its own significant features

Yes, a deck aircraft differs from a land one (with a reinforced structure, folding planes, anti-corrosion treatment, special avionics, etc.), but this does not prevent it from being a stealth. The shape of the fuselage and special coatings do not affect the take-off and landing characteristics

[Maks1995]

So usually they launch the aircraft first, and only then, if necessary, make its deck modification.

And then there’s no plane, but give them the deck model.

[Grigory_45]

Quote: Max1995

So usually they launch the aircraft first, and only then, if necessary, make its deck modification

not necessary. F-14, F / A-18 Hornet were originally designed as deck-mounted, Rafal - with the possibility of basing both on land and on a floating airfield, F-35 - the same.

[Maks1995]

I will not argue.
But it seems, if not "initially as deck-mounted", like the Su-33s, MiG-29s presented, then the land variant is the first, and it is more massive.

But 5 generations do not enter here at all, only the F35 was preoccupied. And then the land option like the first one went.

[Grigory_45]

Quote: Max1995

the land option comes first and it is more massive

in most cases, yes. And in most countries. They try to numb the land machine, to make the most unified version.
But if we take the United States, with its developed aircraft carrier fleet and the peculiarities of ordering equipment (the ILC, the Air Force and the Navy are different structures, each with its own command and budget, with "its own" firms, with its own requirements for weapons), then initially deck-based vehicles appear. Like Phantoms (both the first and the second were originally decks, and then came to the Air Force), Tomets, Hornets (there is only a deck version), etc. The fleet had a lot of money and could afford it. After all, it’s not good that the beauty and pride of the United States, the Navy, had not a specially created aircraft for it, but some kind of converted grimy land one!
By the way, the F-15 Eagles were not allowed on deck, although McDonnell-Douglas offered the sailors this option.

Quote: Max1995

F35 pre-attended. And then the land option like the first one went.

there are two things. The company reasonably decided to make the easiest option first - the F-35A. Well, and secondly, the fleet (unlike the KPM and the Air Force) still does not have a great desire to host this aircraft. It is imposed on them, and admirals, accustomed to the fact that their whims were satisfied, are forced to endure. They wanted their development, but they cut the budget. Yes, and does not fully satisfy a single-engine car requirements for deck aircraft.

[Maks1995]

You are right.
However, for a single-engine, the F35 machine is quite.
In fact, at the level of a 2 engine average weight.
It was analyzed here in articles, and in the news, and in the comments

[Grigory_45]

Quote: Max1995

However, for a single-engine, the F35 machine is very

navy ships are very skeptical of single-engine vehicles, due to their potentially greater insecurity and vulnerability. In particular, due to the presence of only one engine, the competition for a new air combat fighter for the Navy (NACF, Navy Air Combat Fighter) YF-16 did not pass, losing to the twin-engine YF-17 - the future Hornet

[Maks1995]

That is yes. However, many people also desire single-engine engines .. Purely cheaper to operate.

And in terms of reliability, they seem to have reached the optimum. They wrote that the engine serves for a long time, it keeps the afterburner for a long time.

[APASUS]

Chinese industry is unable to provide the J-31 with an engine with acceptable traction for a short take-off.

[PilotS37]

Strange article!
If the plane takes off after a run of 400 m, then whatever you do with its engines will not work much better.
And it’s possible to say that it doesn’t affect the engine’s mileage when landing (except - following the example of Wiggen. - Thrust reverse thrust ...).
The problem with J-31 is the high wing load and / or poor mechanization of the trailing edge of the wing. And this is not treated: you need to completely redo the plane!
When T-10K (Su-27) was made from T-10S (Su-33), then:
1. Increased wing area (by increasing its scope, which required the redesign of the power set).
2. Completely redid the mechanization of the trailing edge (double-slotted flaps + flaperons). Again, the wing set had to be redesigned.
3. The neutral plane was made unstable in the longitudinal channel, which reduced balancing losses (including on the take-off / run) and reduced the speed of the nose wheel separation (the Su-27 had problems with this). As a result, more powerful actuators and hydraulic system pumps were required (low performance of the backup hydraulic system led to the loss of the first prototype T-10K and severe injury to the pilot Sadovnikov).
Yes! And there was a folding wing, but something is not visible on the J-31 ...

Of course, on take-off, OVT can greatly help, but it is not on the J-31 either. And - again - there is little sense in landing from OVT ...

In short - initially all this is utter nonsense! And here is also the author of the article, apparently, doesn’t know any sense in aviation.

[bang]

1. Increased wing area (by increasing its scope, which required the redesign of the power set).
By the way, the F-35C version for the US Navy is characterized by an increased wing area.

[Hog]

I don’t understand how laterally the mileage refers to the decks?
See the aerofinisher on aircraft carriers for beauty.
Su-27 - The run-up and mileage are somewhere around 650 meters, and the Su-33 has 105 and 90 meters, respectively (yes, the 33rd has more plumage and mechanization is better, but it’s heavier) on the Kuz, and when basing at the airfield everything will be + /- also.
The article is generally strange.

[Pavel57]

Mig-29K must be bought, though not Stealth.

[Grigory_45]

do not allow to realize the deck component fully experiments with the engines of this fighter. In 2016, the take-off run was (according to open sources - more than 400 meters), in 2019 there were statements that they could reduce it to about 325 m.This could be more than the total length of the aircraft carrier. The mileage is even more complicated. For the J-31 to land, Chinese aircraft carriers today would have to "drive in the hitch"

Chinese authors are aware that for a long time there are such things as a catapult, which can significantly reduce the take-off run, as well as aerofinishers, many times reducing mileage after landing?
For example, a 20-ton Su-33 after landing on the TAVKR deck has a mileage of only 90 meters, despite the fact that when landing on a land airfield, the mileage can be up to 700 meters.

[Zaurbek]

ATS no, no short run ...

[Grigory_45]

Quote: Zaurbek

ATS no, no short run

or mechanization of the wing and reverse engines.
The Americans planted and lifted a transport C-59 Hercules from the deck of the Forrestal (CV-130). Without the use of catapults and finishers)

there is a video:
[media = https: //ok.ru/video/311616604714? fromTime = 76]

[Zaurbek]

The fighter did not notice the reverse

[Grigory_45]

Quote: Zaurbek

The fighter did not notice the reverse

Swedes have, on Wiggen Saab 37

And in the English-German Tornado

however, the deck aircraft stops with the finisher

[Zaurbek]

Confused .... did not know. Grippen, in general, certified according to civil standards.