J-35 carrier fighter (PLAN) thread

[Blitzo]

Can it jettison the luneberg lens if it needs to switch from non-stealth to stealth mode, or is it stuck on for the whole sortie?

Depends on whether it is designed for it.

I see no reason why detachable ventral luneberg lenses would be unable to be jettisoned in the same way any other external store is.

Before retractable luneburg lens became a thing I think that Yankeesama hinted that J-20 had detachable luneburg. However, I wonder if the same technical challenges apply for carrier borne assets. If rust buildup could prevent the mechanism from properly detaching, that is.

Removable luneberg lenses, if able to be jettisoned in flight, would be treated no differently to any other external store, and of course naval aircraft are quite able to have their external stores jettisoned/launched.

The difference between a retractable luneberg lens and a detachable luneberg lens (if the latter is indeed able to be jettisoned in flight), is that the detachable luneberg lens is not a long term fixed mount on the aircraft, but only equipped on an as needed basis.

A retractable luneberg lens OTOH is always there on the aircraft whether it is deployed or not, so in a naval environment the additional maintenance task could produce an unnecessary greater relative risk than simply having it detachable.

In other words, the risk of a retractable luneberg lens on a naval aircraft malfunctioning and being unable to go into "stealth mode" is probably much much higher than a naval aircraft being unable to jettison a store (in this case the detachable luneberg lens).

To be honest I am somewhat impressed that J-20 family and J-35A have retractable luneberg lenses as standard, given even though they are land based aircraft, it still presents an additional mechanical risk and maintenance task for a rather key component that you don't want to malfunction in sortie.

 

[siegecrossbow]

Depends on whether it is designed for it.

I see no reason why detachable ventral luneberg lenses would be unable to be jettisoned in the same way any other external store is.



Removable luneberg lenses, if able to be jettisoned in flight, would be treated no differently to any other external store, and of course naval aircraft are quite able to have their external stores jettisoned/launched.

The difference between a retractable luneberg lens and a detachable luneberg lens (if the latter is indeed able to be jettisoned in flight), is that the detachable luneberg lens is not a long term fixed mount on the aircraft, but only equipped on an as needed basis.

A retractable luneberg lens OTOH is always there on the aircraft whether it is deployed or not, so in a naval environment the additional maintenance task could produce an unnecessary greater relative risk than simply having it detachable.

In other words, the risk of a retractable luneberg lens on a naval aircraft malfunctioning and being unable to go into "stealth mode" is probably much much higher than a naval aircraft being unable to jettison a store (in this case the detachable luneberg lens).

To be honest I am somewhat impressed that J-20 family and J-35A have retractable luneberg lenses as standard, given even though they are land based aircraft, it still presents an additional mechanical risk and maintenance task for a rather key component that you don't want to malfunction in sortie.

I mean if you can get the main/side bays to work retractable luneburg is pretty trivial in comparison. It does make you wonder why USAF hasn’t adapted it. There are pretty interesting air combat tactics you can employ with retractable luneburg.

 

[Blitzo]

I mean if you can get the main/side bays to work retractable luneburg is pretty trivial in comparison. It does make you wonder why USAF hasn’t adapted it. There are pretty interesting air combat tactics you can employ with retractable luneburg.

I suspect the extent of RCS increase that the luneberg lens causes in a deployed position is a fair bit greater than a malfunctioning weapons bay.

A weapons bay is also something which a 5th generation aircraft absolutely requires (no other way to signature reduced weapons carriage), while a luneberg lens in theory can be achieved by having jettisoned lenses which reduces an extra point of built in decisive mechanical failure.

 

[taxiya]

Before retractable luneburg lens became a thing I think that Yankeesama hinted that J-20 had detachable luneburg. However, I wonder if the same technical challenges apply for carrier borne assets. If rust buildup could prevent the mechanism from properly detaching, that is.

Rust building up isn't even the concern as salt crystals can build up in matter of hours. A retractable device on a sea based aircraft is looking for troubles with no gains. CV aircraft take off and land on a ship far out of one's own territory where there is no civilian nearby to be confused with. Only land based stealthy aircraft can benefit from retractable luneburg because it regularly going along civilan traffics.

 

[taxiya]

I mean if you can get the main/side bays to work retractable luneburg is pretty trivial in comparison. It does make you wonder why USAF hasn’t adapted it. There are pretty interesting air combat tactics you can employ with retractable luneburg.

The difference is that the weapons bays are closed most of time, there is not much salt buildup in the seals to clog. They can be cleaned once on deck. Retractable lubeburg has its mechanics always exposed to the salt rich air. It has a high risk of not able to be fully retracted due to the salt in the gaps.

 

[no_name]

The difference is that the weapons bays are closed most of time, there is not much salt buildup in the seals to clog. They can be cleaned once on deck. Retractable lubeburg has its mechanics always exposed to the salt rich air. It has a high risk of not able to be fully retracted due to the salt in the gaps.

If only they have a mechanism where they can slide open a panel behind a transparent cover to change RCS without lowering/retracting an actual lense.

 

[ACuriousPLAFan]

A fresh J-35 in flight. Posted by @缘枫辰 on Weibo.

 

[DaTang cavalry]

A fresh J-35 in flight. Posted by @缘枫辰 on Weibo.

View attachment 173249

This is the video from the Weibo

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

 

[ACuriousPLAFan]

Discussion continued here to avoid derailing the original thread.

In fact, this has been my primary concern with the J-35 programme. Certainly, its J-35A derivative will likely be very fruitful for the PLAAF given the cost of J-20 and the expected costs of J-36 and J-XDS (land variant) along with the potentially limitless air fleet cap, but the limited space on carriers pushes for a smaller production volume and higher investment per individual airframe; ergo, there's no point in having a few J-XDS lead an only slightly larger amount of J-35, might as well make the entire CAP carrier fighter allocation J-XDS. Its possible J-XDS (naval variant) will reach mass production before "Type-005" (the 5th carrier) is completed and commissioned, meaning that only 4 carriers-worth of J-35 (+ reserves and training) would be produced. Given the expected production rate of >100x J-35 family airframes per year from SAC due to their new factory, this could be achieved within just a few years (possibly before 2030) even with the majority of production being for the J-35A variant. We could be looking at a very short production run for the J-35.

J-15 can carry more than J-35. This is something the J-35 can probably never match due to limits on engine size.

But basically everything J-35 can do, the J-XDS is expected to do better. The only difference is in cost, but that problem is resolved by scaling production.

Such discussions often return to the similar types of arguments regarding the need to procure J-35As, especially with the relatively young fleet of the 4.5th-gen fighter (J-16) fleets available to the PLAAF and the incoming 6th-gen warplanes (J-36 + J-XDS) in mind.

Some factors to consider:

#1: Same as the debate for retaining J-16s (if not also J-10Cs, let alone J-11BGs) versus procuring large numbers of J-35A for the case of the PLAAF:
- Can 5th-gen fighters do everything that 4.5th-gen fighters do? Absolutely.
- Can 4.5th-gen fighters do everything that 5th-gen fighters do? Absolutely not.
The same also applies to the J-15T versus the J-35 for the case of the PLAN.

#2: Sure, the limited number of parking slots on PLAN CVs certainly is a significant factor for the PLAN to consider which carrier-based fighters (and how many of each model) could be deployed onboard.

However, this is also similar (in a sense, at least) to the resources, budgetary, and manpower constraints faced by the PLAAF (albeit dialed to a higher number for the PLAN). Also, take #1 in mind.

#3: Of course, the J-15 has a greater payload capacity (in terms of number of weapon pylons) than the J-35 (similar to how the J-16 has a larger payload capacity than the J-20+ J-35A). However, nobody said that the J-35 couldn't carry YJ-15s (of which one academic paper seems to indicate this to be the case).

In addition, the J-35 is able to carry munitions inside its IWB and maintain an LO profile, which is something that the J-15T will never be able to do. And once again, refer back to #1.

#4: Yes, the carrier-based J-XDS (let's call it J-XDSH for the sake of this discussion) will be better and superior than the J-35 in a lot of ways. However, at this stage (if not for quite some time going forward), we have no confirmation that the J-XDSH is in a similar stage of development progress as the J-36 and (the land-based variant of) the J-XDS right now.

Hell, are we even sure that the J-XDS will have a carrier-based variant developed for the PLAN CVs (i.e. J-XDSH), instead of a completely separate, clean-sheet carrier-based 6th-gen fighter design (J-XDH) to begin with?

#5: Continuing from #4 - Could we even guarantee that there won't be unforeseen delays or hiccups to the development of the J-XDSH (or some other clean-sheet design (J-XDH)) that would negatively impact the timelines of when they can be deployed on PLAN CVs? The rather tumultuous development of the WS-10H/H2 alone is a primary example of this.

With this in mind, procuring a large number of J-35s certainly makes a lot of sense to serve as a useful hedge against such uncertainties and potential deficiencies, especially when considering the increasingly turbulent geopolitical and geosecurity developments in the WestPac and around the world.

 

[Andy1974]

Discussion continued here to avoid derailing the original thread.



Such discussions often return to the similar types of arguments regarding the need to procure J-35As, especially with the relatively young fleet of the 4.5th-gen fighter (J-16) fleets available to the PLAAF and the incoming 6th-gen warplanes (J-36 + J-XDS) in mind.

Some factors to consider:

#1: Same as the debate for retaining J-16s (if not also J-10Cs, let alone J-11BGs) versus procuring large numbers of J-35A for the case of the PLAAF:
- Can 5th-gen fighters do everything that 4.5th-gen fighters do? Absolutely.
- Can 4.5th-gen fighters do everything that 5th-gen fighters do? Absolutely not.
The same also applies to the J-15T versus the J-35 for the case of the PLAN.

#2: Sure, the limited number of parking slots on PLAN CVs certainly is a significant factor for the PLAN to consider which carrier-based fighters (and how many of each model) could be deployed onboard.

However, this is also similar (in a sense, at least) to the resources, budgetary, and manpower constraints faced by the PLAAF (albeit dialed to a higher number for the PLAN). Also, take #1 in mind.

#3: Of course, the J-15 has a greater payload capacity (in terms of number of weapon pylons) than the J-35 (similar to how the J-16 has a larger payload capacity than the J-20+ J-35A). However, nobody said that the J-35 couldn't carry YJ-15s (of which one academic paper seems to indicate this to be the case).

In addition, the J-35 is able to carry munitions inside its IWB and maintain an LO profile, which is something that the J-15T will never be able to do. And once again, refer back to #1.

#4: Yes, the carrier-based J-XDS (let's call it J-XDSH for the sake of this discussion) will be better and superior than the J-35 in a lot of ways. However, at this stage (if not for quite some time going forward), we have no confirmation that the J-XDSH is in a similar stage of development progress as the J-36 and (the land-based variant of) the J-XDS right now.

Hell, are we even sure that the J-XDS will have a carrier-based variant developed for the PLAN CVs (i.e. J-XDSH), instead of a completely separate, clean-sheet carrier-based 6th-gen fighter design (J-XDH) to begin with?

#5: Continuing from #4 - Could we even guarantee that there won't be unforeseen delays or hiccups to the development of the J-XDSH (or some other clean-sheet design (J-XDH)) that would negatively impact the timelines of when they can be deployed on PLAN CVs? The rather tumultuous development of the WS-10H/H2 alone is a primary example of this.

With this in mind, procuring a large number of J-35s certainly makes a lot of sense to serve as a useful hedge against such uncertainties and potential deficiencies, especially when considering the increasingly turbulent geopolitical and geosecurity developments in the WestPac and around the world.

Can J-35 carry PL-17? We know J-16 can carry 1 while also carrying a lot of PL-15’s.

I suspect J-15T will be able carry 2 PL-17’s once it has it’s WS-10 engines, I am not sure we can say the same for J-35, so we could have a very compelling reason to want to keep J-15T around.

If J-15 can shoot further than J-35 they will make a wonderful combination. J-35 detects, J-15 shoots without using its own radar.