J-35A fighter (PLAAF) + FC-31 thread

[latenlazy]

The whole reason of J-35 reduced parts is because of 3D printing, so J-20A would get the same result if it uses or switches to 3D printing.

The last part is relevant to the first part. Off topic or not, it is neccessary.

It’s not necessarily about 3D printing itself but structural geometries. If you change the structural geometry of the airframe you will need to do more structural testing. Usually you are not changing main load bearing structures in a revision unless you’re willing to redo the whole structural test and then certification process.

 

[tphuang]

You can of course do some retooling on a design revision but you are always going to be constrained by how much revision to the structures you can do unless you’re willing to completely redo structural testing, which is a multi year project. Differences in degrees matter here. Keep in mind that making drastic changes to your manufacturing design would also force drastic changes down your supply chain, which can come with its own time and cost penalties.

Yes, there is a lot of unknowns here.
But what we do know is that they are adding new factory floor (like for J-20A), which in itself is a pretty large project. I see the change from J-20 to J-20A similar to the change from J-10A to J-10B/C.

Since this is not a J-20 thread, I will just try to tie this back to J-35.

It seems like PLAAF has made the decision to take a dip with J-35. This is not something I personally would've advised, but they have different considerations and data point that I don't have access to.

I think the bigger question is just how big J-35 with PLAAF will look like. I think we will have to see how quickly SAC can ramp up production.

I'd rather have 100-110x J-20s and 50-80x J-35As from both Chengdu and Shenyang ACs, rather than having 130-160x J-20s from Chengdu AC alone.

Don't underestimate CAC or SAC's ability to ramp up production.

Have you not looked at the major ramp up in orders for meta material and carbon fiber for PLAAF related projects?

 

[SinoSoldier]

I am not implying you do
I just think we shouldn't dismiss that this indeed may be the intended shape of this aircraft.

I do think that this will be the final configuration, but it seems that a few subsystems (at least from appearance) haven't been installed. It doesn't seem logical to dress up a production airframe for an airshow prior to it being fully assembled.

EODAS openings are there if you look carefully, painted over like nose EOTS, doesn't need any airframe change to install.

Also I don't think you can assume first observation = first flight, especially for a J-31 derived airframe that first flew >10 years ago with an intermediate variant >5 years ago. J-20 type public first flights are also the outlier, not the norm.

There would've been plenty of documentation had the J-35 flown prior to the observed date.

Again, I'm not saying that this doesn't represent the final configuration but rather that it's odd to present an airframe before all of the sensors have been installed.

 

[sunnymaxi]

I think we will have to see how quickly SAC can ramp up production.

SAC did massive factory expansion in 2022.

i think full scale production depends on Engines. which machine they are going to select. what i have seen recently, AECC Guiyang did huge investment in summer this year for Engine parts and components. WS-19 production could start next year..

 

[SinoSoldier]

I'm surprised that people are surprised at the PLAAF's decision to opt for the J-35.

J-20A alone will be insufficient to counter the expanding fleet of F-22s and F-35s. The PLAAF saw a need to have a cheaper and equally-mass-producible platform that has VLO characteristics. Their precious exercises have demonstrated that legacy 4G airframes are not survivable in an environment where 5G aircraft is present.

 

[Gloire_bb]

I do think that this will be the final configuration, but it seems that a few subsystems (at least from appearance) haven't been installed. It doesn't seem logical to dress up a production airframe for an airshow prior to it being fully assembled.

It isn't, and that's the point. PLAAF isn't really in need to rush airframes to the exhibition.
Moreover, while there are spots that can potentially house DAS, the problem is that they have:
(1)other explanations, as those are known from both J-35 and J-20;
(2)some of the most crucial positions lack apertures or signs of installations. Just smooth skin.

 

[iewgnem]

It isn't, and that's the point. PLAAF isn't really in need to rush airframes to the exhibition.
Moreover, while there are spots that can potentially house DAS, the problem is that they have:
(1)other explanations, as those are known from both J-35 and J-20;
(2)some of the most crucial positions lack apertures or signs of installations. Just smooth skin.

Hard to see but DAS aperture is there, not many other apertures has the same size, shape and location.

 

[Aval]

What are the predicted combat roles for the J-35, and how does it reconcile with the existing J-20? This question is specifically for the PLAAF J-35A and not the (expected) carrier-based PLAN J-35, since the J-20 (all variants) cannot be carrier-based.

The US F-35 was designed and currently serves as the multi-role 5th-gen fighter jet of the USAF. As they could not restart production of the F-22, leaving it as a limited and legacy resource that will inevitably attrit into nothingness, the F-35 (any variant) does not really overstep onto the F-22's role as an air superiority fighter in the long-term.

The situation is not the same for the J-35A and the J-20, since both are in production. There was speculation that the J-20 was a long-range striker or interceptor rather than air superiority fighter, but that was proved incorrect by the Chinese military itself which has classed it as a multi-role fighter. So what combat role does J-35A play? Having multiple same-generation multi-role fighters in production seems like an inefficient allocation of resources and priorities.

Or perhaps it does not have any difference in combat role, with the only reasons for its existence being non-combat related such as economical (cheaper units, "might as well" derivative project of original carrier-capable J-35 plan), industrial (experience for SAC, insulation if CAC becomes immobilised during conflict) and geopolitical (military export)?

 

[iBBz]

Anyone notice how the edges of this fighter have these smooth edges like the ones found on the F-22 and F-35 as opposed to the bevelled edges found on the J-20? Baked panels?

Considering USAF wants to reduce NGAD cost to below F-35, floated a "light fighter" concept, and wants to heavily integrate with CCA, there's a chance their new NGAD will be similar to NG's Model 437, which would be hilarious, but also means they can claim it already flew

View attachment 138406

Unless they found a way to keep air pressure high on top of the plane to prevent the engines from stalling during high gs, these planes won't work as fighters.

 

[latenlazy]

You know thinking about it a bit it actually makes sense for the Air Force variant to be production ready from the get go, since most of its development process has already been covered by the FC-31 and naval F-35.