I would not equate rumours of a land based version being developed with it being developed for the PLAAF.
I'm not equating "rumours of a land based version being developed" with it "being developed for the PLAAF".
I'm saying that the "rumours we have of a land based version being developed, state or hint it is being developed for the PLAAF".
A few examples:
The writing is on the wall for the naval fighter.
www.sinodefenceforum.com
There is certainly plenty of historical precedent for China to fund the development of platforms for export over domestic use. Granted 5th gen development is inordinately expensive compared to earlier gens, but we are talking about a modification on an existing design already funded by the navy. So the extra costs associated from developing a land based variant is going to be quite a bit less.
Certainly they've funded development of platforms for export, but those are usually relatively minor avionics or internal subsystem changes for export, and nothing near the complexity of funding a full scale 5th generation fighter's development, where the system integrations cost and time and aerospace resources can be as expensive or moreso, than the airframe itself.
The main issue I see with the PLAAF procuring both the J20 and J35 is role. Since unlike the F35, the J35 is designed primarily for air combat over strike.
With already an established heavyweight air dominance 5th gen, why does the PLAAF want a medium weight air dominance 5th gen as well? Let’s not forget about the air combat focused loyal wingman programme as well.
That would be a hell of a lot of the PLAAF’s budget devoted to air combat primarily. With limited to no ground attack capability.
As the Ukraine war is showing, having control of the skies but limited ground attack capabilities is very suboptimal.
Given how much the PLAAF has and will continue to invest in J20s and loyal wingmen drones for air combat. If they really are to fork out the funds for a second manned stealth, one would think the primary role of that second stealth would be strike. But that’s not really on the cards for even the most radical redesign of the J35 on account of its twin engine design, which will significantly limit internal weapons bay volume and depth.
Maybe that’s what the rumoured JHXX is for. But that’s another major procurement commitment eating up the PLAAF budget and it would be quite something to suggest the PLAAF can fund the development and procurement of 3 manned 5th gens all at the same time!
And that’s before we even throw in other big ticket items like H20, Y20, AWACS, tankers, drones, helicopters, 6th gen development and next gen missiles and maybe even direct energy weapons etc.
All that is to say the PLAAF already have more than enough on its plate. Is it really going to commit to a second manned air dominance 5th gen fighter as well? Sure more is better, but not even China can escape the mundane realities of budget constraints and opportunity costs. Where is the PLAAF going to find the budget for all this? And if they are not going to get an additional vast budget increase (since we already know their announced future budget increase, and it’s modest), what will they be giving up for the J35?
Because if the Ukraine war has taught the world one thing, it’s that you cannot skimp on ‘consumables’ like PGMs to fund fixed asset acquisitions like the Russians did. I don’t think the PLAAF is guilty of that, but I’m pretty sure they will be looking at their existing PGM inventories with fresh eyes all the same in light of the VVS performance and may well decide the need a lot more PGMs just to be safe. Which will be more budgetary pressure.
I think these are all good points, in regards to the stealthy strike capability of the aircraft.
I do also agree that substantial stealthy strike capabilities is important -- though I think in terms of carrying "larger diameter" weapons, that role will be given to H-20, stealthy UCAVs, and/or a hypothetical JH-XX instead.
For J-XY/35 (both the confirmed carrier based variant and the rumoured/expected land based variant), it has been spoken of as having the same weapons bay dimensions as J-20, so both will feature common loadouts for their internal weapons bay, of which two strike weapon types have distinction:
- And both J-20 and the J-XY/35 in turn, have been rumoured to be capable of carrying four 500kg stand off air launched cruise missiles. This actually all intuitively makes sense, as such a weapon would be in a similar class to Kh-59MK2 or a slightly modified geometry JSM, which would be well within the dimensions of J-20's weapons bay dimensions. The ability to carry four standoff stealthy cruise missiles within the ventral bay is no small feat, and would match what Su-57 could carry (four Kh-59MK2s) and actually exceed the maximum load of standoff cruise missiles that F-35A/C can carry (two JSMs)
- Small diameter bomb type weapons for J-20 should be either actively being developed, if not actively being procured. Similarly, based on what we know of J-20's weapons bay dimensions (approximate estimates), it should be able to carry the same number of SDB type weapons as the F-22. That is to say, a maximum of 12 SDB type weapons if fully loaded, or alternatively a mix of SDBs and future BVRAAMs (the new BVRAAM which J-20 will be capable of carrying six internally with), trading two SDBs for one BVRAAM. For J-20 and J-XY/35, up to 12 SDB type weapons in the ventral bay, or a mixture of those with new gen BVRAAMs, is quite formidable as well
The types of weapons that J-20 and J-XY/35 will not be able to field, are larger diameter munitions -- that is to say, 1000kg class weapons. For the F-35, this mostly comes down to 1000kg class JDAMs (F-35 is actually unable to internally fit JASSM), and the geometry of F-35's weapons bay geometry means that the ability to fit larger diameter weapons is basically confined to relatively wide, and relatively short unpowered PGMs.
While it would be "desirable" for J-20 and J-XY/35 to be also capable of carrying such weapons, I think having the option to internally carry up to four standoff stealthy cruise missiles, OR up to twelve SDB type weapons, would provide both the aircraft types/families to have quite capable strike capabilities to begin with.
In short, I actually do not think the weapons bay geometry of J-20 and J-XY/35 to actually be
that limited, because they should be able to carry the most important types.
Other targets requiring larger munitions (either in payload or in range) would be serviced by H-20 or stealthy UCAVs.
