Jump to content

Talk:Shenyang J-35/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Eh?

"China became the second nation after the 1991 Advanced Tactical Fighter fly off, to have field-tested two stealth fighter designs."

Mig 1.44, Su-47 Berkut, PAK FA. That's more than two. We are talking about prototypes right? Quasarstrider (talk) 10:05, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Flying LO prototypes. Hcobb (talk) 17:06, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Similar to F-35 / F-22 or Pak-FA

This, to me, looks more like an amalgamation of the other, existing 5th generation aircraft than simply similar to the F-35 / F-22. Is there a source with anyone saying something along those lines? - Senor Freebie (talk) 05:32, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

The J-31 keeps racking up features that are pointed to as being cheap Chinese copies of the F-35, with little to point to other 5th gen fighters. Hcobb (talk) 18:04, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
Convergent evolution, anyone? - The Bushranger One ping only 18:14, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
I don't see how the obvious design compromises for VTOL would magically apply to an actually independent design. Hcobb (talk) 18:43, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
Good to see you're still around Hcobb ... arguing with conjecture, rather than sources, that every aircraft designed outside the USA is a blatant copy, even if they're in a different class, have the most fundamental differences in design (2 vs. 1 engine) and are produced to meet different strategic requirements. - Senor Freebie (talk) 03:26, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

http://www.aviationweek.com/Blogs.aspx?plckBlogId=blog:27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7&plckPostId=Blog:27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post:95449fed-12dd-49d2-8479-a6e20a1cb3e5 If you ever wondered what a JSF might look without those constraints, we now have a live, physical example.

There are two reasons that the F-35 is an ugly stubby aircraft.
  • VTOL

and

  • fits in carrier lifts
What's the J-31's excuse? Hcobb (talk) 12:59, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Excuse = rush job (18 months?) with private funding (AVIC selling assets). Essentially an allied effort of SAC and sub-con's who lost out to J-20 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.87.153.193 (talk) 05:45, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Move this article

This article has been taken over by the Shenyang J-31 "Falcon Eagle" so should be moved there. The J-21 "Snowy Owl" might not exist and the F60 could refer to either or neither. So the best course of action at this moment is to move this article to J-31 with a current redirect of F60 here and move the strictly J-21 refs back to the Chinese 5th gen article. Hcobb (talk) 18:01, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Done. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 02:51, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
"Snowy Owl" is actually a codename for another aircraft candidate that lost to now J-20, might be referred as "Shenyang J-21" by some media, but that "J-" prefix is only given to fighter jets that has been officially accepted by PLAAF, which means "J-21" and "J-60" are not even correct, same to "J-31". A recent revealed picture shows there is no similarity between "Snowy Owl" and "Gyrfalcon (aka now officially named 'FC-31')". --14.203.78.65 (talk) 07:11, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Future developments

Stopping myself from adding these bits:

http://www.aviationweek.com/Article.aspx?id=/article-xml/AW_09_24_2012_p28-497666.xml&p=2 The J-31 would be more adaptable to carrier operations than the bigger J-20—although it might still need enhancements such as a bigger wing, an improved high-lift and control system, and thrust vectoring.

As this seems to be just blue sky speculation, by industry experts who have no direct connection to the project. But I agree with them that (compared to the F-35C), the current design is lacking features needed for carrier operations. So I'll tone down the "It's a carrier plane", unless there's some objection? Hcobb (talk) 02:03, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

CNN in charge of finding quality analysts

New images of the J-31 have arisen, and there is this CNN report:

According to the CNN report: "According to the analysts, the two photographs obtained by CNN appear to have been leaked by officials in China." This is a load of complete bullshit, because in actual fact, the photographs were taken by a young university student from Tianjin with a DSLR camera, who took a batch of photos and sold some to Reuters. In fact, this student happens to be a friend of a friend that I know on Facebook. Just shows to tell how great CNN is in finding quality analysts. Just a warning to editors to be aware of potential false attribution. Over and out. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 08:47, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

J-31 intended for export?

China will not use Russian built engines for production J-31, since J-31 is intended for export to compete with the American F-35.

I find this statement very elusive and the source that has been provided, doesn't mention whatsoever about export possibilities of the J-31. I'm going to remove this sentence until being proved otherwise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xaveq (talk • contribs) 02:50, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Shenyang doesn't have firm orders from PLAAF or PLAN yet so..... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.119.175.234 (talk) 01:07, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Avic Promotes J-31 As An Export Fighter

That's the only ref we have that states the design goals of the manufacturer, rather than say the hopes of the designer or outside uninformed parties. So why revert it? Hcobb (talk) 21:19, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Because it's promotional fluff that doesn't actually say they are promoting it as an export fighter. Write that, in your own words, and perhaps we can keep it. - BilCat (talk) 21:36, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

"Avic Promotes J-31 As An Export Fighter" is the opinion of "Bradley Perrett, Robert Hewson, Reuben Johnson, Bill Sweetman", not me.

http://www.aviationweek.com/Article.aspx?id=/article-xml/AW_11_19_2012_p26-517474.xml

But I'll add the stats at least. Hcobb (talk) 15:22, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Chinese keep calling J-31 a fourth generation fighter

http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/90786/8381946.html

Is this false modesty or simple truth? Hcobb (talk) 22:56, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Fifth generation is primarily an American designation. There is no reason for every single other country to use the same system as ours, particularly if their fighter development had a very different timeline. Given that the article continually compares the J-31 to the F-35, it seems that China is considering that to be fourth generation, i.e. the Chinese fourth generation is equivalent to the American fifth generation. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 17:22, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
Do we have a source for that? If so does it indicate which "American" generations were skipped or combined? Hcobb (talk) 17:50, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
Your source is the one that says it is equivalent to the F-35. Our articles on jet fighter generations say it is an American system, though used somewhat by other countries. No, I don't have a source for which American generations were skipped or combined, but what does it matter? We aren't making an article on Chinese jet fighter generations. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 18:04, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Can we remove the poorly sourced "fifth generation" from this article and replace with "latest generation" or such as used by sources? Hcobb (talk) 15:39, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

J-31 based on stolen F-35 designs

It's emerged, thanks to Snowdon, that the Chinese stole the F-35 designs and that the J-31 is thought to be largely based on these. Shouldn't this information appear in the article?80.1.159.196 (talk) 11:49, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Not without verifiable reliable sources that make those actual claims. - BilCat (talk) 13:49, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
It was known that the Chinese had obtained the plans prior to Snowdon. The inlet research is also older than the F-35. Just because they had detailed knowledge about US R&D does not make it "largely based" on the plans of the F-35. --Moritzgedig (talk) 15:40, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
Yes, J-31 design is a copy of F-35 design, de-facto. The problem is there are nо "verifiable reliable sources that make those actual claims". But I think it could be worth just pointing to the fact of external similarity of these aircraft on the page. 95.30.184.121 (talk) 19:40, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
It may copy elements of the F-35's design, but it's certainly not a straight copy. For one, it has 2 engines, not one as with the F-35. It that sense, the J-31 is probably a better design. It doesn't have to satisfy the needs of 3 separate design requirements in one airframe, especially STOVL, as the F-35 does. - BilCat (talk)
As to "pointing to the fact of external similarity of these aircraft on the page", we can only cite reliable sources that already make such a comparison. Anything else is Original Research. - BilCat (talk) 19:52, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Rearrangement of article

The current state of the article is quite un-readable, with little pieces of information littering all over. I have been bold and rearranged the paragraphs, placing them into more appropriate sections. Suggestions are welcome. 86.146.25.19 (talk) 17:41, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

additive manufacturing ?

"Official from AVIC claimed that additive manufacturing was extensively used on the aircraft". ?? needs explanation for the layperson. Rcbutcher (talk) 04:27, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

It's another name for 3D printing, to which is linked at first mention. - BilCat (talk) 19:55, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
It's 3D printing of titanium metal using lasers.Rwat128 (talk) 02:56, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

FC-31 vs. J-31 names

In the Chinese nomenclature, the name J- indicates aircrafts that have been approved and financed by the Chinese air force, which is not the case for this aircraft, when the name FC- is the internal reference of the AVIC group that developed this model. As consequence the name J-31, even if widely used by occidental sources, is incorrect and has apparently never been used by the Chinese army itself, should be removed and avoided.

My source : http://www.eastpendulum.com/la-fin-du-programme-shenyang-fc-31 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ndiver (talk • contribs) 00:15, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. According to AVIC's official website, this airplane is only called "FC-31" on the English page and "鹘鹰" (Gyrfalcon) on the Chinese page, while the Chengdu J-10 is clearly labelled "歼-10" by contrast.
Sources: http://www.avic.com/en/forbusiness/militaryaviationanddefense/fighters/index.shtml and http://www.avic.com/cn/ywly/hkcp/zdj/index.shtml MS1337 (talk) 23:30, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
"FC-31" is also being used in Chinese official media such as http://www.xinhuanet.com/mil/2018-03/15/c_129830008.htm. MS1337 (talk) 23:57, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

FC-31 V2.0

The revised version (that flew this week) has enlarged swept back tails. Hcobb (talk) 16:45, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Do you want to provide a link? --OuroborosCobra (talk) 20:17, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/5869/video-shows-chinas-newly-constructed-and-enhanced-fc-31-stealth-fighter

And in the air: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ZFDuhCYgiE Hcobb (talk) 23:32, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 27 September 2018

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: (non-admin closure) MOVED. It's been a month, there are arguments for the move but no clear arguments against this move; I'm not sure what "AWST" is supposed to be but Jane's uses both J31 and FC31. power~enwiki (π, ν) 16:04, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Shenyang J-31 → Shenyang_FC-31 – According to AVIC's official website, this airplane is only called "FC-31" on the English page and "鹘鹰" (Gyrfalcon) on the Chinese page. There is no mention of the misnomer "歼-31" (see § FC-31 vs. J-31 names) on which "J-31" was based, whilst the Chengdu J-10 is clearly labelled "歼-10" by contrast. MS1337 (talk) 23:57, 27 September 2018 (UTC) --Relisting. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me | my contributions 10:15, 4 October 2018 (UTC) --Relisting. Iffy★Chat -- 13:58, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

@Power~enwiki: AWST = Aviation Week & Space Technology. - BilCat (talk) 05:41, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Separate article for Shenyang J-35

Shenyang J-35 is now frequently mentioned in news articles from reputable sources such as Asia Times, The Drive, and even Chinese state media. Two reasons to spit the article: 1. J-35 is different enough in dimension and capability (it's estimated as a naval fighter), akin to having two articles dedicated to Su-27/Su-33 or J-11/J-15. 2. The final fighter is different enough from its predecessor FC-31 prototype, to warrant a separate article, akin to X-35 and F-35. -Loned (talk) 03:31, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

It really depends on whether or not enough information is available in reliable, published sources to make a decent article at this time. I'd recommend you put together a draft, and see what you end up with, if you were intending to write it up. If that's not your intention, then it doesn't matter at this point until someone else is willing to try. The other way is to keep adding content on the J-35 to the Naval variant section of this article. When it get to be a sizable chunk of this article, then it can be split off on its own. Btw, that's how many variant articles were created, including the X-35 article. BilCat (talk) 04:13, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
Agree, it would be better to wait for more information on the aircraft. -Loned (talk) 05:26, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Shenyang_J-35/Archive_1&oldid=1256449166"