J-35 carrier fighter (PLAN) thread

[Confusionism]

The WS-19 on top is darker, almost black and has different nozzle feathers ...

View attachment 177320

I don't know if this can be used as a basis for distinction; the deepness of a metal's surface color may vary depending on the angle of the light, and without another aircraft for comparison, it's hard to say whether it's actually darker or lighter...

 

[siegecrossbow]

Four SAC baddies.

 

[johncliu88]

View attachment 178182

Four SAC baddies.

Wow! Nice looking...girls.

 

[siegecrossbow]

Wow! Nice looking...girls.

The only one @Deino and I are into is the bombshell in the background.

 

[Deino]

The only one @Deino and I are into is the bombshell in the background.

Girls? I cannot see a construction number!

 

[siegecrossbow]

Girls? I cannot see a construction number!

It’s not polite to ask for a girl’s number without the parent’s (AVIC/SAC) permissions.

 

[votran]

Liaoning (Type 001) Capacity: Approximately 24 J-15 fighter jets
Shandong (Type 002) Capacity: Approximately 36 J-15 fighter jets

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Maths:
J-15occupies 21.2 m × 14.7 m ~312 m²
J‑35 occupies 17.3 m × 7.8 m ~136 m²

Theoratically you could replace1 x J-15 with 2 x J-35
As a PLAN officier, it's a privileged "Battleship Boardgame" scenario to pick and choose from between how many J-35s vs. J-15s.

i think PLAN carrier should have way more J-35 than J-15 ...because they are prime target for whole freaking US navy and their minions hundreds of F-35 fleets + any available 4th gen jet able to launch ASM

bombing taiwan or some remote japanese island near it can be done with land base PLA jet/bomber

and using J-15 to bomb okinawa , philipines or attack US carrier ...are very high risk

so at the moment with taiwan goal tbh J-15 are not very useful ...they can be use to bully around later once taiwan "come home" and US navy begin retreat from 1st island chain aka much less risk being ambush by F-35 or US AA missile

 

[Schwerter_]

i think PLAN carrier should have way more J-35 than J-15 ...because they are prime target for whole freaking US navy and their minions hundreds of F-35 fleets + any available 4th gen jet able to launch ASM

bombing taiwan or some remote japanese island near it can be done with land base PLA jet/bomber

and using J-15 to bomb okinawa , philipines or attack US carrier ...are very high risk

so at the moment with taiwan goal tbh J-15 are not very useful ...they can be use to bully around later once taiwan "come home" and US navy begin retreat from 1st island chain aka much less risk being ambush by F-35 or US AA missile

I agree with the notion in principle, not least because a stealth-capable fighter ideally would be able to fulfill much more roles than a non-stealth one, and because we now have newer ASMs like YJ-15 which seems small enough for J-35 to comfortably carry externally and can be fired at relatively long ranges.

That said, there are practicalities to consider: J35 is still in/only recently got out of LRIP so ramping up production and having frontline units receive & train with these aircrafts would take quite some time; stealth fighters on naval ships seems pretty problematic if F35B and C are anything to go by (service and maintenance, corrosion, etc.) to name but two. I suspect that in the near future J15T as a more mature platform would still be operated in large numbers while the number of J35 relatively slowly increase, as PLANAF figure out how to use and service stealth fighters at sea.

 

[Gloire_bb]

i think PLAN carrier should have way more J-35 than J-15 ...because they are prime target for whole freaking US navy and their minions hundreds of F-35 fleets + any available 4th gen jet able to launch ASM

Stand in/ air superiority role is inherently less useful in carrier air when compared to land. And part of stand in profile in maritime context (jamming) will soon switch to UCAVs.
Stand off/ intercept, on the other hand, is substantially more prominent - and J-15 is likely a substantially better "carrier" among the two.

I agree with the notion in principle, not least because a stealth-capable fighter ideally would be able to fulfill much more roles than a non-stealth one, and because we now have newer ASMs like YJ-15 which seems small enough for J-35 to comfortably carry externally and can be fired at relatively long ranges.

J-35 will likely carry anything flanker would lift; other than Su-34, flankers aren't exactly known for extreme single weights, and even much smaller aircraft can normally take heavier payloads. The problem isn't so much taking, it's likely higher negative impact to Cd(already imacted by bulkier airframe), less internal fuel, and lesser number of external stations.

 

[Schwerter_]

J-35 will likely carry anything flanker would lift; other than Su-34, flankers aren't exactly known for extreme single weights, and even much smaller aircraft can normally take heavier payloads. The problem isn't so much taking, it's likely higher negative impact to Cd(already imacted by bulkier airframe), less internal fuel, and lesser number of external stations.

True (brahmos notwithstanding but thats irrelevant anyways), the reference to yj15 was more along the lines of "its small enough that even the smaller-than-flanker J35 would be comfortable carrying and using".

wrt the negative impact to Cd, internal fuel and number of external stations I don't think there's a lot to worry about.

Cd: True in a vacuum, but we have to consider a few nuances.

1: The J35 is designed around nearly 40 years after the Flanker and the computational capacity has increased tremendously, allowing designers to make aerodynamic gains by more thoroughly optimizing the airframe. I would suspect that this alone offsets the Cd penalty to some extent.​

2: We also have to consider that modern fighters usually carry a few A2A missiles even in strike missions, and J35 carries these internally with no additional compromises to its aerodynamic shape. Overall I do not expect the drag coefficient increase to be overly worrying.​

​

Internal fuel: According to yankeesama the Air Force J35A has at least 7t internal fuel (source is one of the podcasts either this or last year, I'll have to look it up). If we assume the naval J35 has similar capacity then it should be plenty enough for any operations within reason. Remember that fuel quantity is not the only determining factor of range, you also need to consider aircraft weight (J35 would be lighter), as well as tsfc, and L/D, both of which I would assume J35 (having a newer engine design and having undergone better aerodynamic optimization) is at least comparable to the J15T.

External stations: Its safe to assume J35 has at least 4 wing hardpoints that have decent weight limits. imo 4 is more than adequate for any strike missions, seeing as even Chinese flankers seldom carry more than 4 anti ship missiles a la yj83 (yj91 yes, but thats lighter and smaller iirc).