J-35 carrier fighter (PLAN) thread

[Blitzo]

Despite J-35 being more optimized for high speed performance than the F-35, the J-15B is probably a magnitude faster. For quick and dirty interception you need something like a flanker of F-15 for this reason.

That somewhat depends on whether J-35/XY can supercruise.

And in a loaded air to air interception role, I am not convinced if a loaded J-15 would actually have superior speed to a J-35/XY.


That said, the larger total/external payload of the J-15 airframe is probably beneficial for the "fleet interceptor role".


But the major rationales for procuring J-15B alongside J-XY/35, as others have touched on, is primarily due to:
- greater total (external) payload capacity and thus greater payload flexibility (including carrying outsize payloads)
- it is likely to have lower initial maintenance demands than the stealthy J-XY/35 (even accounting for modern RCS reduction measures)
- also it is a lower risk alternative and is likely to be able to reach operational status faster than J-XY/35 even if both ends up being "introduced" at the same time

 

[siegecrossbow]

That somewhat depends on whether J-35/XY can supercruise.

And in a loaded air to air interception role, I am not convinced if a loaded J-15 would actually have superior speed to a J-35/XY.


That said, the larger total/external payload of the J-15 airframe is probably beneficial for the "fleet interceptor role".


But the major rationales for procuring J-15B alongside J-XY/35, as others have touched on, is primarily due to:
- greater total (external) payload capacity and thus greater payload flexibility (including carrying outsize payloads)
- it is likely to have lower initial maintenance demands than the stealthy J-XY/35 (even accounting for modern RCS reduction measures)
- also it is a lower risk alternative and is likely to be able to reach operational status faster than J-XY/35 even if both ends up being "introduced" at the same time

In a recently released article by AVIC J-15 supposedly could go Mach 2.0 plus with combat load, which I assume to be two medium range/two close range missiles. J-35 is designed from outset to be super cruise capable, but I don’t think that it could match twin engined heavies in maximum speed.

 

[Blitzo]

In a recently released article by AVIC J-15 supposedly could go Mach 2.0 plus with combat load, which I assume to be two medium range/two close range missiles. J-35 is designed from outset to be super cruise capable, but I don’t think that it could match twin engined heavies in maximum speed.

Not sure about that; J-35/XY with intended WS-19 engines could very much have a competitive or even superior high speed to J-15 if both are carrying an equivalent A2A combat load where J-35/XY has it all internal.

After all, the "twin engine heavy" that J-15 is, does not automatically make it a faster aircraft.

If we are looking at the "fleet interceptor" role, at this stage I think the only clear cut advantage the J-15/B has over J-XY/35 is greater payload capacity.

 

[kwaigonegin]

Is it fair to expect the J-35 to have the ability to mount air-launched cruise missiles externally?

If so, then I'm having trouble understanding why the PLAN still needs the J-15B. I know a J-35 with external armaments wouldn't be stealthy, but neither is the J-15B. There are financial and logistical benefits to operating only one type of carrier-based aircraft instead of two. I also suspect that carriers will be able to carry more J-35 than J-15B.

J35 is not even in LRIP and you're already talking standardizing on it LOL.
At this point in time, the PLAN and honestly the entire PLA## are obviously quite comfortable with the Flanker platform and the J15B is no exception having gone through multiple iterations and becoming a highly capable state of the art 4++ fighter/interceptor.
We do not yet know the true specs of J35 to make a determination. Just being able to carry ALCMs externally is just one of 100 factors that are taken into consideration about wheater they should be sticking to just a single airframe type.
What is it's range, speed, maneuverability, ordnance load out, maintenance cycle, availability and countless other factors must be taken into consideration.
At sea, a squadron of J15Bs with high availability beats 2 squadrons of J35s that are mostly hangar queens.
I suspect the J15s will be around for quite a while.
If the J35 in the distant future does indeed prove superior to the J15B in almost every aspect including costs, then perhaps you have a point however that won't be realized anytime soon.

 

[Blitzo]

J35 is not even in LRIP and you're already talking standardizing on it LOL.
At this point in time, the PLAN and honestly the entire PLA## are obviously quite comfortable with the Flanker platform and the J15B is no exception having gone through multiple iterations and becoming a highly capable state of the art 4++ fighter/interceptor.
We do not yet know the true specs of J35 to make a determination. Just being able to carry ALCMs externally is just one of 100 factors that are taken into consideration about wheater they should be sticking to just a single airframe type.
What is it's range, speed, maneuverability, ordnance loadout, maintenance cycle, availability and countless other factors must be taken into consideration.
I suspect the J15s will be around for quite a while.
If the J35 in the distant future does indeed prove superior to the J15B in almost every aspect including costs, then perhaps you have a point however that won't be realized anytime soon.

Well, LRIP status shouldn't have a bearing to his question, because he is comparing the J-XY/35 to the J-15B specifically (the new, upgraded CATOBAR variant which is yet to enter service and whose development can be said to have only begun a little bit earlier than J-XY/35).
The J-15B is a case of an aircraft whose developmental and initial delivery is likely to be somewhat similar to that of J-XY/35, so it's not like the J-15B is an "incumbent" fighter platform -- we are not sure if J-15B has entered LRIP yet either (and if it has, chances are it is only at the very initial stages).
Meanwhile, J-XY/35 ultimately is more technologically advanced than J-15B, while likely to be able to retain external payload capacity as well, so the question about whether it makes sense to simply standardize to J-XY/35, is fair, because standardization can potentially offer significant reductions in cost (both operational and procurement) and logistics, as they mentioned in their post.


... but the issue of course as myself and others have mentioned, is more about the absolute differences between the two in terms of payload capacity/dimensions, novelty to the PLA, and overall risk, which likely explains why they will go with a mix of the two.

I personally suspect the PLA probably would have seriously considered an "all J-XY/35 fleet" as a decent contender as part of the analysis of alternatives, versus the "J-XY/35 and J-15B mix" option, before choosing the latter.

 

[kwaigonegin]

Well, LRIP status shouldn't have a bearing to his question, because he is comparing the J-XY/35 to the J-15B specifically (the new, upgraded CATOBAR variant which is yet to enter service and whose development can be said to have only begun a little bit earlier than J-XY/35).
The J-15B is a case of an aircraft whose developmental and initial delivery is likely to be somewhat similar to that of J-XY/35, so it's not like the J-15B is an "incumbent" fighter platform -- we are not sure if J-15B has entered LRIP yet either (and if it has, chances are it is only at the very initial stages).
Meanwhile, J-XY/35 ultimately is more technologically advanced than J-15B, while likely to be able to retain external payload capacity as well, so the question about whether it makes sense to simply standardize to J-XY/35, is fair, because standardization can potentially offer significant reductions in cost (both operational and procurement) and logistics, as they mentioned in their post.


... but the issue of course as myself and others have mentioned, is more about the absolute differences between the two in terms of payload capacity/dimensions, novelty to the PLA, and overall risk, which likely explains why they will go with a mix of the two.

I personally suspect the PLA probably would have seriously considered an "all J-XY/35 fleet" as a decent contender as part of the analysis of alternatives, versus the "J-XY/35 and J-15B mix" option, before choosing the latter.

Sure, no disagreement but whatever the decision is, it won't be happening anytime soon. Both types but obviously more so the J35 would have to be flying for a few years I presumed b4 PLAN would even consider making the determination about standardization.
Or will it be good enough or will PLAN be using J35/J15 mix until a 6th Gen comes along and replace both altogether.
I think we will be seeing a more rapid technological advancement in aeronautics in the nxt 10-20 years in China that a 6th Gen may be coming sooner than many think.

 

[Blitzo]

Sure, no disagreement but whatever the decision is, it won't be happening anytime soon. Both types but obviously more so the J35 would have to be flying for a few years I presumed b4 PLAN would even consider making the determination about standardization.

Well, no my point is that if the PLAN wanted to consider standardizing on J-XY/35, then the earliest point they could've decided to determine it is many years ago before J-XY/35 first flew and before J-15B first flew as well.

Standardizing to J-XY/35 technically wouldn't have needed for them to first operate the type for a number of years -- technically they could have quite competently only developed J-XY/35 and not developed J-15B at all, with the intent of only developing and only buying J-XY/35 at the outset, given the way the timeline for J-XY/35 and J-15B have both ended up being.


Putting it another way, I think THX's question isn't "when in the future will they standardize to J-XY/35 only?" but rather it is "why did they develop J-15B in the first place at all?"
(the answer to which is the three aforementioned factors; difference in capability, novelty, and risk)

Or will it be good enough or will PLAN be using J35/J15 mix until a 6th Gen comes along and replace both altogether.
I think we will be seeing a more rapid technological advancement in aeronautics in the nxt 10-20 years in China that a 6th Gen may be coming sooner than many think.

That is definitely a broader question that also will have to ask what the future PLAN carrier force will look like and what the nature of future air combat will look like (particularly in terms of UAVs/loyal wingman)

 

[AaronGTO]

During the National Day holiday, I visited the museum of Shenyang Aircraft Manufacturing Factory. There were many exhibits showcasing actual aircraft manufactured by Shenyang Aircraft Corporation. They even had a model of the upgraded FC-31. That's when I took this photo:

While watching the promotional videos of Shenyang Aircraft Corporation at the museum, I also saw footage of missile test launches from the weapons bay of the FC-31 prototype. It didn't look like CGI animation.

 

[siegecrossbow]

Luneburg lens spotted. We are getting close fellahs, really close.

 

[grulle]

is the J35 navy only or some will be made for the air force?