The fifth-generation Chinese fighter FC-31 can be adopted by the PLA

The fifth-generation Chinese latest fighter Shenyang FC-31, designed for export, can be adopted by the PLA. As the portal zona-militar.com reported, the developers introduced the FC-31 in the traditional color of the Chinese combat aviation.

The publication of the FC-31 photograph in the PLA color caused fierce debate about the fate of the aircraft, which is predicted to be adopted by the PLA or the Air Force or Navy. Moreover, the Weihutang military program of the state channel China Televisión central (CCTV) reported that ultimately the aircraft, originally created for export, will go into service with the PLA.

The existence of another Chinese fifth-generation fighter project became known back in 2011, when a photograph of an unknown aircraft with the designation "F-60" was freely available. The aircraft was shown to the general public in 2012 at the AirShow China exhibition in Zhuhai. Then it became known that the project is being developed by Shenyang Aircraft Corporation under the name FC-31. The car was assigned to the fifth generation fighter, and it had to solve a wide range of combat missions to destroy air and ground targets.

The first prototype FC-31 took off in 2012, in 2016 the second prototype joined it. In 2018, information appeared that on the basis of the FC-31 a decked version of the fighter will be developed, but the land version will only be exported and will not be adopted by the PLA.

Currently, two flight prototypes and one for ground testing have been built.

In early 2019, military experts said that China managed to create a copy of the American F-35 fighter, which differs from the original only in the presence of two engines. At the same time, experts expressed doubt that the Chinese engineers managed to preserve all the qualities of the F-35 in their aircraft, including stealth technology. However, the opinion was expressed that this model of the aircraft may well suit the poor countries that do not have enough funds to buy the F-35.

You can read more about FC-31 in the material of the Military Review: "Fifth generation fighter Shenyang FC-31. Initiative development for the fleet and export"

Comments

[Pvi1206]

any copy is poorer than the original ...

[Voyager]

Is Buran poorer than the Shuttle? Is the Tu-160 poorer than the B-1?

[HAM]

Is this really a copy?

[Voyager]

In terms of concept, yes.

[Alexey Sommer]

From the point of view of the physiological concept, you are my copy.
From an intellectual point of view, I doubt it.

[Voyager]

Quote: Alexey Sommer

From an intellectual point of view, I doubt it.

Of course. It would be something to copy.

[Vasyan1971]

Quote: Voyager

Is Buran poorer than the Shuttle? Is the Tu-160 poorer than the B-1?

Buran is not a copy of the Shuttle.
Tu-160 is not a copy of the B-1.
Do not confuse convergent characters with blind cloning.

[svp67]

Quote: Vasyan1971

Buran is not a copy of the Shuttle.
Tu-160 is not a copy of the B-1.

FC-31 is an export modification of the Chinese J-31 and it is not a "copy", but a "Chinese analogue" of the American F-35.

[Jack O'Neill]

AK-12 poorer than Arisaki?

[Voyager]

It depends on what is meant by a copy. If viewed in the same vein as the FC-31 being a "blind copy", then yes - and these are also copies. But I hardly believe that you were holding the candle while the Chinese were "copying" the F-35. You can rip off the appearance as much as you like, but this will not help copying the main component.

[Voyager]

Quote: Vasyan1971

Buran is not a copy of the Shuttle.

"The chief designers of Buran have never denied that Buran was partially copied from the American Space Shuttle. In particular, General Designer Lozino-Lozinsky spoke about the copying as follows."

General Designer Glushko felt that by that time there were few materials that would confirm and guarantee success, while the Shuttle flights proved that such a Shuttle configuration worked successfully, and there is less risk when choosing a configuration. Therefore, despite the greater useful volume of the Spiral configuration, it was decided to perform the Buran in a configuration similar to the Shuttle configuration.

... Copying, as indicated in the previous answer, was, of course, completely conscious and justified in the process of those design developments that were carried out, and during which many changes were made, as was mentioned above, both to the configuration and to the design. The main political requirement was to ensure that the dimensions of the payload compartment were the same as the Shuttle payload compartment.

[bk0010]

The shuttle is a reusable system, took off on its engines plus two boosters. Buran - reusable ship, demanded a launch vehicle. Have you recorded the dimensions from the Shuttle in the TK? Quite possible. Buran copy of the shuttle? Of course not.

[Bad_gr]

Quote: bk0010

Buran copy of the shuttle?

I think we can talk about copying the shape of the Shuttle glider, but no more. Ours liked its option, but another decision was made from above.

[NEXUS]

Quote: Voyager

Is Buran poorer than the Shuttle? Is the Tu-160 poorer than the B-1?

With what fright Buran is a copy of the shuttle?
As one example, that Buran and the shuttle Matrassovsky are completely different systems ...-

Let's talk about both programs at once. The security system proposed by Soviet designers is much more serious. Ejection seats for two crew members who insured them at low altitudes, the possibility of separating the Buran from the launch vehicle, atmospheric flights that could save the system and people in case of landing.

The Americans did not have all of this, they flew in many ways "at random", as one of the Shuttle astronauts wrote, Michael Mullane.

B-1 Lancer with no side to the TU-160 from the word at all. To begin with, the air defense breakthrough at 160 was conceived at heights of 18-20 thousand meters, ... Lancer had the opposite tactic — a breakthrough at low altitudes. Second ... why do you even equate a ROCKET CARRIER with a strategic bomber who doesn't even have missiles in his arsenal?

[Voyager]

Quote: NEXUS

With what fright Buran is a copy of the shuttle?

With the fact that Buran is a logical answer to the Shuttle and conceptually created in its image and likeness. And the fact that he is in some nodes, moments and details much better and more thoughtful, this just exposes the myth that the copy must necessarily be worse than the original.

"The chief designers of Buran have never denied that Buran was partially copied from the American Space Shuttle. In particular, General Designer Lozino-Lozinsky spoke about the copying as follows":

General Designer Glushko felt that by that time there were few materials that would confirm and guarantee success, while the Shuttle flights proved that such a Shuttle configuration worked successfully, and there is less risk when choosing a configuration. Therefore, despite the greater useful volume of the Spiral configuration, it was decided to perform the Buran in a configuration similar to the Shuttle configuration.

... Copying, as indicated in the previous answer, was, of course, completely conscious and justified in the process of those design developments that were carried out, and during which many changes were made, as was mentioned above, both to the configuration and to the design. The main political requirement was to ensure that the dimensions of the payload compartment were the same as the Shuttle payload compartment.

Quote: NEXUS

Second ... why do you even equate a ROCKET CARRIER with a strategic bomber who doesn't even have missiles in his arsenal?

Since you don’t know the materiel badly. After the USSR became aware of the development in the USA of a strategic bomber with variable wing geometry, the CPSU Central Committee decided to develop the same for us. Both of them are strategic bombers, just one of them has a wider range of weapons in the form of missiles, because it is also a missile carrier, therefore it has a different tactic of use and also turned out to be much more effective.

[NEXUS]

Quote: Voyager

With the fact that Buran is a logical answer to the Shuttle and conceptually created in its image and likeness.

Seriously? There is even nothing near there and there wasn’t, starting with the carrier and ending with Buran himself. Before you write such nonsense, you would first familiarize yourself with this topic.

Quote: Voyager

Since you don’t know the materiel badly. After the USSR became aware of the development in the USA of a strategic bomber with variable wing geometry, the CPSU Central Committee decided to develop the same for us. They are both strategic bombers,

Do you understand what CROWD you are making? Swan and Lancer is a TOTALLY DIFFERENT BOMBER from the word at all. They were developed based on the strategy, tactics and nomenclature of weapons.
With the same success, you can blurt out that the Armata tank is a copy of Abrams.

[Voyager]

Quote: NEXUS

Swan and Lancer is a TOTALLY DIFFERENT BOMBER from the word at all.

Well, yes.

Quote: NEXUS

There is even nothing near there and there wasn’t, starting with the carrier and ending with Buran himself. Before you write such nonsense, you would first familiarize yourself with this topic.

It is not for you to advise me anything, given your ignorance, obstinacy, and inability to accept facts in front of your own nose. From the fact that you, as a mantra, will repeat your cries, this will not become true. They only confirm the weakness of your position. If the answer of the Civil Code does not mean anything to you, where it directly says that they chose the Shuttle scheme, because it is successful and well-established, what else can help you? With this approach, what are your words worth at all? I made conclusions, you are a waste of time, you can not continue. Farewell.

[Peter is not the first]

To supplement the comparison, only now spacecraft:

Outwardly, of course, "Buran" is almost a complete copy of the "Shuttle". But this is only an external copy based on the terms of reference and the uniform laws of aerodynamics and thermodynamics. And according to the principles of rocketry, they are completely different in the location of the propulsion engines, etc.

[Voyager]

Quote: Peter is not the first

Outwardly, of course, "Buran" is almost a complete copy of the "Shuttle". But this is only an external copy based on the terms of reference and the uniform laws of aerodynamics and thermodynamics. And according to the principles of rocketry, they are completely different in the location of the propulsion engines, etc.

I know. From the very beginning, he said this: conceptually created in the image and likeness. This does not mean that they have essentially the same nodes.

And, if you look at how the conversation started, the same conclusion suggests itself on the topic of discussion, namely: FC-31 is the same copy of the F-35, as far as the copy of the Shuttle is Buran. I will even take as a basis your successful and saying:

Outwardly, of course, the FC-31 is an almost complete copy of the F-35. But this is only an external copy based on the terms of reference and the unified laws of aerodynamics and thermodynamics. And according to the principles of aircraft manufacturing, they are completely different in terms of location / number of engines, etc.

[Leon68]

Do you catch the difference between the copy and the concept or layout?

[NEXUS]

Quote: Voyager

It is not for you to advise me anything, given your ignorance, obstinacy, and inability to accept facts in front of your own nose.

Dear, when the fool’s arguments run out, he begins to bubble up and not follow his tongue, for a fool does not own his tongue.
You are like that child who is sitting and looking at two pictures, it seems to be the same and looking for 10 differences.

Quote: Voyager

If the answer of the Civil Code does not mean anything to you, where it directly says that they chose the Shuttle scheme, because it is successful and well-established

This scheme was chosen for the simple reason that it was the most successful for a specific task, and not because our designers decided to stupidly copy everything and everything from the mattresses. I'm talking about the appearance now. As for the internal components, materials, performance characteristics are different aircraft in general.
About the Tu-160 and Lancer, I generally will not say anything, because you are in this matter, judging by your reasoning, not even an amateur.
Now I will explain to you what COPY is, since you studied at school the same way you wrote this post. A copy is for example the Soviet-made AK-74 and Chinese-made AK-74.
I'm not sure what will reach you now, but oh well ...

[Voyager]

Quote: NEXUS

Dear, when the fool’s arguments run out, he begins to bubble up and not follow his tongue, for a fool does not own his tongue.

So watch your tongue. I do not need your rudeness and caps. Either communicate with me politely, or be silent.

Quote: NEXUS

This scheme was chosen for the simple reason that it was the most successful for a specific task, and not because our designers decided to stupidly copy everything and everything from the mattresses.

Is it true? And where did I say that our designers "stupidly copied" the Shuttle? You give a quote about stupid copying.

Quote: NEXUS

With regards to internal components, materials, performance characteristics are different aircraft in general.

I know.

Quote: NEXUS

Now I will explain to you what COPY is, since you studied at school the same way you wrote this post. A copy is for example the Soviet-made AK-74 and Chinese-made AK-74.

You tell this to the author of the first comment in this thread, who suddenly decided that the outwardly similar FC-31 / J-31 is a copy F-35, which in principle is impossible in the aircraft industry and other related industries in the absence of the original design documentation.
Appearance / template can be taken as a basis - yes. Just as they did with Buran and Tu-160 - yes too. What I said is taken by con-chain-qi-i. And the insides of this Chinese are as copied from the F-35 as they were copied from the Buran from the Shuttle: in other words, they are original and I never claimed the opposite. Here they are the main moral and message that you, without thinking, attacked like a flock. It is very sad that I still had to chew it for you.

[Grits]

Quote: Pvi1206

any copy is poorer than the original ...

The Chinese are learning very fast. Most recently, they bought our aircraft carrier to learn how to make their own. Now you yourself can teach someone how to rivet aircraft carriers. They also learned how to make armored vehicles with us, which is now no worse, and maybe better than ours. I won’t be surprised that soon we will begin to learn from them how to make aircraft engines

[iouris]

Is there no Air Force in the PRC Armed Forces? And what does it mean "can be accepted" without specifying conditions (terms)?

[svp67]

Quote: iouris

Is there no Air Force in the PRC Armed Forces? And what does it mean "can be accepted" without specifying conditions (terms)?

FC-31 is one of the modifications of the J-31, designed for export and is unlikely to be accepted for service.

[silverwolf88]

engines remain the weak point of Chinese aviation ... copies are obtained slightly worse than the original (materials science for 5-10 years, I think they will be tightened) ... the purchased documentation (Wh and in Ukraine) is based on other materials and requires rethinking (the USSR also went through this before Great Patriotic War) ... and the rest of the resources help China to establish mass production of any type of weapons under different market niches ...

[Cyril G ...]

Engines are not 5-10 years old at all. WS-10 10 years ago had a designated resource of 300 hours. Today, the resource has finally been brought up to 900 hours. The claimed was 1200 hours until confirmed. Going for export to Pakistan, Thunder, by the way the only export model of the modern PRC fighter, is supplied with the Russian engine RD-93 so far (Unlike RD-33 in the location of control equipment)

[silverwolf88]

Cyril ... I'm not talking about engines (there are a lot of technologies bought from around the world) ... I'm talking about the school of materials science in general, which affects the quality and parameters ...
Schools like the Moscow Institute of Steel and Alloys cannot be created quickly ... China has been following this development path since the end of the 80s ... well, it will soon be pulled up ... 5-10 years, a good forecast ...
In the USSR there were such challenges before (for example, the report of SP Korolev on FAA ... 18 types of rubber and only 5 were mastered in the USSR, graphite rudders can be created at the ultimate strength), and the story with a titanium beam for TU-160 ... we ran into it when we announced the resumption of production ... but it seems (not confirmed exactly ???) solved the problem ...

[Cyril G ...]

I do not argue, I focus your attention on the fact that in spite of all the efforts of the USSR, we still have not caught up with the American engines to this day. We still have less resource. May we breathe in the back of his head. Similarly, I think it will be to the PRC. They will catch up for a very long time on material science ...

[alone]

The fifth-generation aircraft, created by the PRC for export deliveries, was adopted by the PLA ... There were no buyers? Or, as in the old joke:
The man decided to sell the old cow .. he gave the cow to the broker for 100 rubles .. The broker started selling the cow .. He praised him so powerfully that the owner happily bought his own cow for 150 ..

[Vasyan1971]

The fifth-generation Chinese fighter FC-31 can be adopted by the PLA

Why these fortunetelling: maybe - can not?
When they accept, then we will crack this topic ...

[knn54]

Vasily., The enterprise will not be closed. And no one wants to buy. Even at "junk" (twice cheaper than the Su-354) prices.

[Vasyan1971]

Quote: knn54

two times cheaper than Su-354

What kind of beast?

[The leader of the Redskins]

Key words in the article maybe...

[Maks1995]

Something does not look like a "copy of the American F-35 fighter".
The anonymous "experts" are kind of weird.
China, however, declared it as a light fighter, and it is obvious that it is achieving success gradually.

[TatarinSSSR]

What is it all plastic-glass, toy.

[Eug]

There is still a big question with engines ... it seems that there are two RD-93 on the experimental one, and the WS-13 intended for it are still being created. No success has yet been announced.

[APASUS]

FC-31 which lacks traction and will be adopted by the PLA? I doubt very much, and the news about the super engine from China has somehow subsided

[bars1]

Quote: Max1995

Something does not look like a "copy of the American F-35 fighter".

Looks like a smaller F-22 with air intakes similar to those of the F-35.

[Alexey from Perm]

Yes, it looks like F 22 .. like two drops, the Chinese have always been able to copy quite well.

[Zoomlion]

how awful he is

[vadimtt]

Voyager, this is a comparative photo that you provided, it just proves not your promise, but the fact that these machines are completely different

[zwlad]

Well done Chinese. Slowly but surely go forward.