Lancer bombers grounded again.

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/usaf-grounds-entire-b-1b-lancer-bomber-fleet-again-457016/

The F-15 EX will feature a –

– Advanced Display Core Processor II Mission Computer
– AN/APG-82 radar
– EPAWSS Electronic Warfare Suite
– USAF ONLY NCTR and ID capabilities

The F-15SA’s at Red Flag have none of these. So as I said, what will you test against the modern simulated air-defenses?

I don’t think we are talking about the same things. My main point is that since they F-15 does not have stealth it will be vulnerable on the future battlespace. Now that by itself is not a reason to not pursue the X. Vulnerabilities can (meaning possible but no guarantee) be mitigated. So what I had hoped from Red Flag was that the aggressors would get a chance to take what we know of Russian and Chinese new weaponry (including stealth assets and A2AD systems) and simulate their capabilities and tactics while having license to “tear them up”.

The extra systems you cite won’t make much of a difference over what the F-15X can do. But evaluating the SA under such conditions would show both whether we can protect such assets and whether the SA’s (and also X’s) extra load capacity is worth it.

That I wouldn’t be so sure about. You essentially have different scenarios in every RF. Some are limited to US/NATO, others like Red Flag 19-2 have more diverse participation. In RF with NATO or US only, the simulated threat environment can be ramped up. I’m not necessarily saying that F-22/35 have served as red air, as the focus is integration, but just as they simulate high end IADS, they can do similar with Red air.

[USER=”40269″]FBW[/USER] – I would hope they did. Especially since it is looking like the USAF is going down that road.

Izdeliye 30 is probably a variable bypass engine, although there is no solid proof. The designer’s comments don’t seem clear to me but four points to keep in mind…

1) The Russians began the development in the mid to late 00s. And by the late 00s they were aware that the US was undertaking research on advanced engine architectures. That’s early enough in their design (still in conceptual phase) so that the decision could be made to go with a VCE.

2) It’s not an entirely new architecture for them. They gained an uncertain amount of knowledge from Al-41. This would have given their ideas on how to go about implementing such an architecture.

3) The designer mentioned that the flight test will wrap up in the mid 2020s. Given that it first flew in late 2017, that is an extraordinarily long flight test evaluation. And that is a strong implication that they are trying a new architecture/technology that they are unexperienced with. (If the engine was unsafe/uncontrollable they would not be flying it at all; it would remain in the bench evaluation phase. So the reason for the long eval is something else.)

4) A VCE actually makes a ton of sense for the Su-57 design. And it has little to do with fuel consumption. The Su-57 is clearly designed for future energy based attack/disruption capability with its multiple arrays and DIRCM mounts. This means its electrical power requirements are very high relative to legacy craft. Well, in a turbofan engine, the turbine section is what receives work from the airstream to turn the shaft to drive the compressor and also operate the accessory motor through its gearbox. With a VCE, you can keep the bypass ratio ‘high’ not just when you want better fuel consumption, but also for when you want to direct air away from the engine core so that your compressor doesn’t have to perform as much work (less air to compress) so that your accessory drive has more potential shaft energy available to it for electrical power generation. And you can then still lower the bypass ratio for high supersonic flight. Since the Russians designed a warplane with a high electrical demand it makes sense they also developed an engine with high electrical potential.

I don’t believe there is solid proof either way. But people shouldn’t be shocked it does turn out this way.

Honestly, I don’t know anywhere near enough about the J-20 to make a judgment on it for comparison purposes. Like I said, the Chinese developments are a black hole. The only serious doubt I have with Chinese industry pertains to their engines. Because their civilian programs are mostly transparent and their modern civil airline engine (CJ-1000) is…a long work in progress. But the FC-31 is obviously not ready. And all it takes to know that is a cursory look to see it is missing all kinds of things.

As for your point about the numbers that the Russians might field, well, there are two things wrong with it. 1) Neither of us knows as that is their choice and 2) They are building a drone for the strike role and so don’t need a manned 5th gen craft for that. So they don’t need to match theater F-22s and F-35s with the Su-57.

BTW The Chinese Government is fully vested in the J-31. Which, as I said before will become the “cornerstone” of the PLAAF/PLAN. So, it won’t be long before it blows by the Su-57. As China continues to pump vast sums into it’s development.

Won’t happen, because it wouldn’t make sense to. There are only two flying FC-31 prototypes. How long has it been since the 2nd J-20 prototype flew? And that aircraft is still in development! It’s mostly done, sure, but they are still working on the engines and maybe a bit more. By the time the Chinese could get the FC-31 fully up to speed the 6th gens will be right around the corner. So the PLAAF will move on to a 6th gen design. The PLAN might build a J-31 in limited numbers as the better than nothing option. Otherwise, assuming Shenyang finishes the bird, they will just float it on the market as an almost 5th gen aircraft. And if it sells then that is good enough for them.

The cornerstone of the RuAF will be the Su-57 and the cornerstone of the PLAAF will be the J-20. You couldn’t possibly be more wrong.

[USER=”1416″]Scooter[/USER] – LOL! You fall back on a simple ‘I believe’

Which, means they have learned many things from the J-20 and built upon them. Just like the F-35 did over the earlier F-22…(hardly a surprise)

Yes, LOCKHEED learned a lot from when LOCKHEED built the F-22 which helped with LOCKHEED building the F-35. That don’t mean that SHENYANG learned much from CHENGDU’s J-20 program.

So, you don’t believe that Stealth, Avionics, and Engine Technology improved during that time frame between the J-20 and second series J-31 or you think China said nope. We aren’t going to use any advancement in technology or lesson learned. We’ll just stick with the old technology!

The Chinese defense industry as a whole certainly learned a lot. The real question is whether that knowledge, and the technology developed, has filtered over to Shenyang’s program. And, China’s development is a black box. There is no guarantee either way. But there is good reason to doubt it – such as the lack of a dedicated 5th gen engine being assigned to the FC-31 program. And stop with the emojis. They are always a poor substitute for intelligence.

Now to your question the majority of the improvement made to the J-31 vs the J-20. For the most part aren’t visual from the outside at least in layman terms. The major areas are Stealth (Shape and Materials) and Sensor Fusion.

What improvement in shape? It doesn’t have an engine dedicated to stealth assigned to it! And we have no idea how well it fares in other aspects such as the cockpit. And the same goes to materials. And these two things go together and so we really, really have no idea. And what sensor fusion? It’s not even flying with an IRST/EODAS!! (Look at the photo you gave for goodness) There’s nothing fused because there is nothing to fuse!

The Su-57 and J-20 are genuine 5th gen designs which will wrap up in the mid 20s. The FC-31 isn’t and can never be without a lot of love put into it.

So, can you please take this nonsense to the PLAAF airpower thread and leave this to legitimate RuAF discussion?

Sorry, the J-20 and J-31 were designed to be all aspect stealth from the very beginning.

I would agree with you on the J-20, not the FC-31. The J-20 program has the backing of the Chinese government. It’s getting any and all needed resources thrown into it. The FC-31 is only being developed by Shenyang. The WS-13 engine is actually intended for the JF-17 (It is NOT part of a stealth program!!). The engine just marked as the FC-31’s domestic engine because that is all that is available, and the FC-31 isn’t flying with it either. And, given the troubles the Chinese engine manufacturers are having just producing reliable engines, the idea of them producing an updated version for signature reduction (and without the full backing of the Chinese state) in the near term is quite far fetched. But then again, the FC-31 design is not even close to ready as it’s not even flying with it’s electro-optical systems and who knows what else.

The FC-31 was a good learning opportunity for Shenyang, but it is not intended to be an all aspect stealth fighter and hasn’t had the resources put into it to make it so. I know you like to troll, Scooter, but you have become ridiculous. The Russians will use the Su-57 because it is the more advanced fighter. By no small amount either.

If you want to pimp a Chinese fighter, go with the J-20. It actually has potential for full development within the next 5 yrs.

As I said a “Russian J-31” would use the RD-93.

That doesn’t afford stealth either. You seem to be intentionally avoiding this point. To build an all aspect stealth aircraft you have to design the entire exposed surface for it – including the exposed engine sections and the exhaust nozzle. Ws-13 and RD-93 are fine for a design intended for directional stealth. But that’s it.