J-35 carrier fighter (PLAN) thread

[Zichan]

They are just foolish guys who are carried away by prejudice. They stick to the stereotype of China's military technology in their own cognition, and deepen this impression under the influence of the funded instigators mixed in. Of course, there are a large number of ostriches who practice double standards and always bury their heads in the ground, unwilling to believe the facts they can't accept,ready to laugh with the attacks of the instigators mentioned above at any time.(I'm just used to discussing problems with fools.)

They are no bigger fools than the people who claim that Ford cannot launch an F-35C, just because there was no video showing it and assuming it is some inherent deficiency of EMALS. While at the same time EMALS has no problem launching 30t F-18s and is capable of launching aircraft up to 45t in weight.

There are plenty of loud netizens on both sides who lack even the most basic understanding of military technology.

 

[Nevermore]

They are no bigger fools than the people who clam that Ford cannot launch an F-35C, just because there was no video showing it and assuming it is some inherent deficiency of EMALS. While at the same time EMALS has no problem launching 30t F-18s.

There are plenty of loud netizens on both sides who lack even the most basic understanding of military technology.

I understand what you're trying to say, but in terms of actual results, the USS Ford has never conducted an electromagnetic catapult launch of the F-35C. The Americans have only performed electromagnetic launches of the F-35C on land.

 

[Zichan]

I understand what you're trying to say, but in terms of actual results, the USS Ford has never conducted an electromagnetic catapult launch of the F-35C. The Americans have only performed electromagnetic launches of the F-35C on land.

That may very well be true. At least we don’t have any evidence to claim otherwise.

But it does not imply that it cannot launch an F-35C. Especially since an F-35C was launched by EMALS on land and the Ford routinely launches aircraft in the similar weight category as the F-35C.

The reasons why it does not currently operate F-35Cs are well known and have nothing to do with EMALS. Yet legions of netizens keep making claims that it’s the EMALS fault.

 

[Syrida2887]

They are no bigger fools than the people who claim that Ford cannot launch an F-35C, just because there was no video showing it and assuming it is some inherent deficiency of EMALS. While at the same time EMALS has no problem launching 30t F-18s and is capable of launching aircraft up to 45t in weight.

There are plenty of loud netizens on both sides who lack even the most basic understanding of military technology.

What you said is not wrong in principle, but it needs to be reminded that up to now, the Ford did not eject the F-35C by his EMALS, so the first electromagnetic ejection of the fifth-generation aircraft on board is not wrong. The land test shows that it has this capability, but it is obviously the same as people questioning whether EMALS in Fujian can work normally before September 22nd. The only difference is that people generally believe that Ford has done this kind of thing and do not believe that Fujian can do it.

 

[Syrida2887]

这很可能是真的。至少我们没有任何证据可以证明其他情况。

但这并不意味着它不能发射F-35C。特别是因为 EMALS 在陆地上发射了一架 F-35C，而福特经常发射与 F-35C 重量相似的飞机。

它目前不运营 F-35C 的原因众所周知，与 EMALS 无关。然而，大批网民不断声称这是 EMALS 的错。

This is one of the "double standards" I mentioned, that is, the statement of the PLAN is usually regarded as a means of propaganda and deception, and the statement of the US Navy, which also lacks video evidence, will be trusted.(The lack of evidence I mentioned refers to the video of Ford's ship-borne ejection of F-35C.)

 

[Zichan]

This is one of the "double standards" I mentioned, that is, the statement of the PLAN is usually regarded as a means of propaganda and deception, and the statement of the US Navy, which also lacks video evidence, will be trusted.(The lack of evidence I mentioned refers to the video of Ford's ship-borne ejection of F-35C.)

I don’t think the US Navy ever made such a statement? That they actually launched one from Ford?

The issue here is: netizens claiming that the J-35 cannot fold its wings, because we haven’t seen video evidence. Netizens claiming that Ford cannot launch an F-35C because we haven’t seen video evidence, and blaming it on EMALS. Both claims seem equally implausible.

 

[Syrida2887]

I don’t think the US Navy ever made such a statement? That they actually launched one from Ford?

The issue here is: netizens claiming that the J-35 cannot fold its wings, because we haven’t seen video evidence. Netizens claiming that Ford cannot launch an F-35C because we haven’t seen video evidence. Both claims seem equally implausible.

If there is a picture that can clearly show that the F-35C was released from the Ford, it can be compared, but in fact, the previous image of J-35 clearly shows the joint of its folded hinge structure, but we have not got the evidence that the F-35C took off from the Ford, so it is actually two things.

 

[Zichan]

If there is a picture that can clearly show that the F-35C was released from the Ford, it can be compared, but in fact, the previous image of J-35 clearly shows the joint of its folded hinge structure, but we have not got the evidence that the F-35C took off from the Ford, so it is actually two things.

No. It’s an equally stupid argument. Especially since we know why it does not operate F-35Cs and how it has nothing to do with EMALS.

If said people would point out it is due to deflectors and hangar facilities, then it would be fine. But no. They keep making misguided and frankly ignorant statements about EMALS.

 

[Syrida2887]

No. It’s an equally stupid argument. Especially since we know why it does not operate F-35Cs and how it has nothing to do with EMALS.

If said people would point out it is due to deflectors and hangar facilities, then it would be fine. But no. They keep making misguided and frankly ignorant statements about EMALS.

This is correct. After all, there is indeed a video of ejecting a heavier E-2D early warning aircraft, and it is unreasonable to blame the catapult.

 

[siegecrossbow]

I knew that there had to be folding wings for a CV jet-thanks to all for pics BTW -actually its hidden nature is a testament to China's thinking/planning/manufacturing prowess as from old articles on stealth aircraft says even a 2mm protruding/misaligned screwhead/bolt can totally compromise a stealth jet's RCS.

Why the hell would there be a split in the flap for naval J-35 missing in the Air Force version if there is no foldable wings?

With regards to RCS performance we can use simple process of deductive reasoning.

1) In 2016 Zhuhai Airshow Yankee and ShiLao revealed during live recording that vanilla J-20 with AL-31 engines can achieve RCS “several decimal points behind zero) at optimal angles in X-band.
2) Chief Designer Sang Jianhua (responsible for aerodynamic design and stealth) wrote in a memoir that a bird landing on J-20’s wing during a static RCS test outside completely threw off the data.
3) Vanilla J-20 with WS-10C made many visible improvements compared with J-20 AL-31 (for instance jagged engine nozzles).
4) Recent vice chief designer interview with China Daily reveals that J-20 could “penetrate enemy air defense network with ease”. Unlike with certain other countries Chinese engineers do not make tall claims unless they have something backing it up. Up to you to decide what that is.
5)J-35, as revealed in a CCTV interview with vice Chief Designer, was designed with “higher stealth requirements from customers”.

If people insist on underestimating the capabilities of Chinese fifth and sixth gen, do so at their peril. Remember that PL-15E only has a maximum range of 145KM but managed to kill maneuverable targets at 190KM.