J-35 carrier fighter (PLAN) thread

taxiya

Brigadier
Registered Member
Here's one photo taken by someone else present there, with greater clarity. Posted by @立马投投花 in the comment section of @Oneninety's quote-shared post on Weibo.

View attachment 119283

Has the pitot tube on the J-31/35 been removed? I'm not sure. @Deino
Not saying there is a pitot tube, but this photo is too low in resolution and too heavily compressed (only 19.4KB, compression artifact) to tell anything either way. The lengh of the chasing aircarft is 77 pixels. Flanker is about 22 meters (2200 cm). A pitot tube is about 3 cm at its base, that is 2200/3 = 733 times. 77 pixels translates to 0.1 pixel that won't be registered in the photo.

I think it is safe to ignore any photo of such quality (mobile phone camera) to draw any conclusion.
 

Deino

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Registered Member
You can bet the naval version will have changes like strengthened landing gear and foldable wings, which an air force version would not need to have.

Why „will have“ when it already has? Fact is, we know for sure there is a catapult-capable naval variant, while for an alleged AF version we have only rumours.
 

Deino

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Registered Member

Deino

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Registered Member
...

The person is 慕铭15. Someone stated that it is J-35 cat version. 慕铭15 argued that it is PLAAF version because the accompanying aircraft is PLAAF J-16 instead of PLANAF J-11BS as if he could see the difference from this blurry video from this distance.


I really do not want to defend the idea of this being the AF-prototype - IMO it is not and much more likely just (finally) a new J-35 (maybe no. 350005?) - but this is IMO clearly a J-16 and not a J-11BS since the PLAN NA BS all have a black radome and this one is clearly grey, so a J-16! But IMO it makes no difference and SAC surely will use any chase-plane available ... to think a naval fighter needs to campaign a naval fighter and an AF variant would be a hint of another AF-version is IMO ridiculous!

1695796094491.png
 

by78

General
A bigger version of the image in the post above + another one.

53217160338_c966ebe73a_h.jpg
53217240999_9aec88e1ab_k.jpg
 

Deino

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Registered Member
J-XY/35 made its first flight in October 2021, only nearly two years ago.

Everything is progressing about as expected for a PLA funded project like this.


Well, I must admit, I do not fully agree and even if more than clear - even to me ;) - both programs are running on different schedules and are barely comparable in terms of timeline, a comparison "just for fun" is anyway interesting since I indeed expected for such an important program a faster progress:

Anyway, if correct, this is actually the third known prototype even if I won't be surprised if there are already more out ... overall I expect a similar number of prototypes - in fact even more since SAC must expect losses during the trials - if not more than for the J-20 program, where CAC had altogether 6 true prototypes. So if we try to compare both programs and equal the J-20 demonstrators 2001 & 2002 to the FC-31 demonstrators V1 & V2 aka 31001 & 31003, then we could rate the first true program milestone for both the maiden flights of the individual prototypes, namely the first true prototype no. 2011 is comparable to the first J-35 prototype no. 350001 and all subsequent prototypes and so on.

Again, both programs are barely comparable since we do not know the PLAN's schedule, nor the budget, nor anything else and as you always remind me: SAC is different to CAC, namely much more secretive.

J-20:
no. 2011 - March 2014
no. 2012 - July 2014
no. 2013 - November 2014
no. 2015 - December 2014
no. 2016 - September 2015
no. 2017 - November 2015 = 6 prototypes within 20 months ---> service entry December 2016

J-35:
no. 35001 - October 2021
no. 35003 - July 2022 (?)
no. 35005 (?) - September 2023 = so far 3 prototypes within 24 months

Anyway, it will be excieting to see, what's next!
 

Interstellar

Junior Member
Registered Member
Indeed it seems so ...

View attachment 119286

However I do not understand why so often - in fact almost always whenever a new images is leaked - some think it should be a PLAAF version? From my understanding there is only the PLAN NA variant we know so far as J-35 and otherwise some rumours, but to think - from these blurry images - it is a new variant is beyond my understanding.
IMHO, if it were a carrier-based variant, its wings would be larger, and hence the wings and the horizontal stabilizers would be closer or even overlapping.
 
Top