J-35 carrier fighter (PLAN) thread

[weig2000]

Export approved avionics and networking and RAM and perhaps being tailored to a customer, imo, would all be very reasonable definitions for an export "variant" even if it is structurally identical to the air force variant.

Some customization, downgrades/upgrades and adaptations are all reasonable and likely. But fundamentally, it's not a redesign/modification of the airframe or rewrite of the avionics (some limitations or modifications notwithstanding). At least it should not be, because otherwise the additional cost would not justify it.

I guess what I'm saying is that the differences between carrier-based, land-based and twin-seat variants are much more significant in terms of airframe and avionics than, say, the those between the land-based variant and the export version; the latter is more likely a downgraded version in this case.

 

[Schwerter_]

because I don’t think any foreign buyer is going to demand a career based aircraft …

Ahem F/A-18 ahem

 

[Blitzo]

Some customization, downgrades/upgrades and adaptations are all reasonable and likely. But fundamentally, it's not a redesign/modification of the airframe or rewrite of the avionics (some limitations or modifications notwithstanding). At least it should not be, because otherwise the additional cost would not justify it.

I guess what I'm saying is that the differences between carrier-based, land-based and twin-seat variants are much more significant in terms of airframe and avionics than, say, the those between the land-based variant and the export version; the latter is more likely a downgraded version in this case.

Right, I'm saying that if we are trying to consider what the "three variants" means, I think the idea of "carrier based, land based, and export land based" is still quite reasonable.

An export land based variant with substantially modified avionics and RAM, would definitely constitute a major new variant even if it lacked structural modifications from the domestic land based variant.

Given how much time and money is spent on avionics integration and testing and signature reduction materials, I would not underrate the significance of such changes.


Of course the "third variant, could also possibly mean a twin seat J-XY/35, which we shouldn't rule out at this stage. (Though I admit I'm skeptical if they will develop a twin seat J-XY/35 variant at all. A twin seat variant of J-20 is partly manageable because of its large existing size meaning the addition of a second cockpit probably won't adversely affect its range and endurance as much as the smaller J-XY/35 airframe.)


But the third variant being an "export cleared" variant definitely sounds reasonable to me too.

 

[tphuang]

Keep in mind that export variant could also mean that a particular Middle Eastern client that proudly walked around Zhuhai Airshow has already committed to a large order. And more importantly, they may have certain requirements that is different than the standard land based version.

I do think there is a good possibility that SAC may also consider the two seat version to be sufficiently different from single seater to be considered a 3rd version.

 

[stannislas]

Of course the "third variant, could also possibly mean a twin seat J-XY/35, which we shouldn't rule out at this stage. (Though I admit I'm skeptical if they will develop a twin seat J-XY/35 variant at all. A twin seat variant of J-20 is partly manageable because of its large existing size meaning the addition of a second cockpit probably won't adversely affect its range and endurance as much as the smaller J-XY/35 airframe.)

Well… j-35 is about 17m which is roughly the same length as super hornet, so it’s not entirely impossible…

 

[Blitzo]

Well… j-35 is about 17m which is roughly the same length as super hornet, so it’s not entirely impossible…

Yes, I'm not saying it's a small aircraft by any means -- but I am saying whether it makes sense to put in a second cockpit for a medium weight 5th generation fighter (where internal volume for internal fuel is a key parameter). The same reduction/effect on internal fuel capacity may be relatively greater in a J-XY/35 than for J-20.

Again, I'm not saying that a twin seat J-XY/35 is impossible or illogical, but I am saying that I don't think it's necessarily as clear cut as some people have made it out to be.


Putting it another way, I think it is as equally possible that they do not develop a twin seat J-XY/35 as it is that they do.

 

[ACuriousPLAFan]

What is role of J-31 air force variant vs j-20? Assuming J-31 air exists.

Perhaps it will be like the J-10 + Sino Flankers pairing in the PLAAF.

First note, J-10s are medium-weight fighters with medium combat radius while Sino Flankers (J-11s and J-16s) are heavy-weight fighters with large combat radius.

While Sino Flankers have longer operational ranges and could engage enemy warplanes further away from China's home soil, that is not always the case. There would be instances where the PLAAF would have to defend China's territorial airspace or airspaces in + around theaters of war, which does not necessarily justify the usage of J-11s or J-16s in these scenarios as much as J-10 do. This is also in conjunction the necessary costs and manpower required for the operation and maintainence of these fighter jets.

This means J-10 is suitable for homefront defense against enemy incursions in regions that are closer to China's border, or right within China's own territorial airspace. The J-10s can also be utilized to support J-11s and J-16s when needed.

Therefore, the J-31s could fulfill the same requirements as the J-10s in similar roles.

 

[stannislas]

Yes, I'm not saying it's a small aircraft by any means -- but I am saying whether it makes sense to put in a second cockpit for a medium weight 5th generation fighter (where internal volume for internal fuel is a key parameter). The same reduction/effect on internal fuel capacity may be relatively greater in a J-XY/35 than for J-20.

Again, I'm not saying that a twin seat J-XY/35 is impossible or illogical, but I am saying that I don't think it's necessarily as clear cut as some people have made it out to be.


Putting it another way, I think it is as equally possible that they do not develop a twin seat J-XY/35 as it is that they do.

I agree, i feel whether there will be a twin seater j-35 will pretty much depends on how good plaaf feels about j-20s, PLA may just having an idea of twin seated fifth gen fighter, and there are still a lot that is open for examination

this should also goes the same to PLAAF acquisition of land based J-35, since PLAAF is massively producing J-20 now, they have few years to evaluate the J-35 performance in PLANAF's hand, and make the decision then.

 

[by78]

Yes, I'm not saying it's a small aircraft by any means -- but I am saying whether it makes sense to put in a second cockpit for a medium weight 5th generation fighter (where internal volume for internal fuel is a key parameter). The same reduction/effect on internal fuel capacity may be relatively greater in a J-XY/35 than for J-20.

Again, I'm not saying that a twin seat J-XY/35 is impossible or illogical, but I am saying that I don't think it's necessarily as clear cut as some people have made it out to be.


Putting it another way, I think it is as equally possible that they do not develop a twin seat J-XY/35 as it is that they do.

An export twin seater is far more likely. If a certain cash-rich Middle Eastern customer fancies a stealthy platform for controlling UAVs (i.e. distributed/cooperative air combat model), then China certainly will hardly pass up the opportunity to develop a twin-seater as a means to sell more UAVs and vice versa. Of course, for China's own needs, that role is expected to be fulfilled by the J-20S.

 

[weig2000]

J-35/J-31/J-XY will be the first world-class military aircraft China offers to the world. It will be technologically advanced and relatively expensive too. It would also represent a milestone of sort in China's arms export.

It's the first aircraft that has been conceived and designed from start for both Chinese military and export market. It will be at the cutting-edge of what China needs and what much of the world militaries desire.

We've seen that China has steadily exported more advanced defense platforms these days, many of them currently in service with PLA, including 054A, 039, J-10C, as well as a whole suite of missiles and munitions. J-35/J-31/J-XY would be yet another step up. It would significantly raise the profile of China as a major arms exporter.

But the sales of an advanced stealth aircraft would have strategic and geopolitical implications. The potential customers and market are therefore rather limited. China's traditional arms clients are mostly third-world developing countries, such as Pakistan, Algeria, Egypt, Thailand etc. For more advanced and expensive equipment such as J-35/J-31/J-XY, you need relatively wealthy clients. Take into account all the international politics, Middle East countries are probably the most likely and promising targets. We know UAE has suspended the purchase of F-35 from the US due to the latter's intervention into UAE's relationship with China. Saudi Arabia is yet another traditional customer for Chinese arms (missiles, drones etc.) and appears to expand the scope of their arms import from China lately. Saudi Arabia and other Middle East countries, are also in the process of rebalancing their relationship with the US/West and starting to tilt more towards China and the East. It's not difficult to imagine they would consider more advanced arms purchase from China to strengthen the relationship. Finally, Iran might also be a customer in the longer term.

Meanwhile, the ongoing Russia-Ukraine war and the relatively poor performance of Russia military may also have negative impact on the prospect of future Russian military export with some of its traditional client countries.

All these bode well for the prospect of future J-35/J-31/J-XY export and it would be wise for China to invest more efforts to developing and cultivating these relationships.