I mean if you look at 4th gen+ aircrafts then only rafale, mig 29k, f-18s and f-35 are the only medium weight aircrafts that are heavily used as carrier fighters, which is just one more than the three heavy fighters you mentioned. So I would say that saying at as an anomaly is a bit of a stretch, they are in the minority but not that unusual.
J-35 carrier fighter (PLAN) thread
- Thread starter Deino
- Start date
I think I explained 'behind' is vis a vis a conventional land based aircraft. I compared it to the J-20 in this case.
I was simply admiring that SAC were able to time the development of the J-35 pretty well with the development of the 003.
I think you are reading too much into what I've said. This will be the last from me on this topic.
I'll reply to this for the purposes of anyone reading this exchange, to understand how aircraft in development can be compared.
So, the reason why I specified what "behind" meant in this case, is because the use of that word implies it is lagging in progress relative to either where one expected it to be, or lagging relative to a different project in this case. Merely having further development to go isn't enough -- it has to be quantified to either one's own expectation, or to a different project.
In the case of J-XY/35, it is absolutely true that as a carrier based fighter, different from a land based fighter (like J-20), it will have carrier based trials to be done which it has yet to start because the carrier itself of course has to be ready for receiving and operating aircraft to begin with.
However, for those carrier based trials to be considered sufficient for deem the project as "relatively behind," one needs to still describe how long they anticipate the carrier based trials to take, and to compare the total J-XY/35 developmental/trials duration to their own personal anticipated total J-XY/35 developmental/trials duration or their perceived developmental/trials duration for an equivalent land based aircraft.
.... all of which is to say, my own view is that I also agree that J-XY/35 of course still has carrier based trials left to do, but compared to my own previous/current expectations for how long J-XY/35's developmental/trials will take I do not think there is enough grounds to call it "relatively behind," nor do I think there are grounds to suggest it is "relatively behind" for a land based equivalent aircraft either.
My own expectation is that the first LRIP J-XY/35 airframes will be handed over to PLANAF for IOT&E equivalent sometime during 2025 at the earliest, and currently I do not see them as having reached a state where they are unable to meet that schedule, thus I do not view them as being "relatively behind".
Lethe
Captain
The F-4 Phantom II was the heavy interceptor and multirole air superiority/attack aircraft of its era. The sources I can find online place the empty weight of USN F-4B/J variants in the range of 12,700-13,500kg, somewhat less than today's "medium" F/A-18E/F Super Hornet at 13,700-14,500kg. Super Hornet is heavier despite the Phantom's two J-79 engines weighing 1300kg(!) more than Super Hornet's two F414s. If the F-4 Phantom II were re-engined with F414, this "heavy" aircraft would weigh 11,400-12,200kg empty. Incorporate the half-century of materials and manufacturing advancements that Super Hornet benefits from and one could undoubtedly reduce the weight of a notional reborn Phantom by a further several hundred kilograms.
The F-14 is indeed an outlier. But that outlier should not distract from the clear record of carrier-based aircraft becoming heavier and heavier over time. The "light" carrier-based aircraft of the past have disappeared while the "medium" aircraft of today are the heavyweight aircraft of yesteryear. I don't know if USN's NGAD program will deliver an aircraft of equal or even greater weight than the F-14, but it is very likely to come in well above the 15,700kg of F-35C. Boeing's own 2009 NGAD concept had a notional empty weight of 18,000kg.
As such I think it is entirely reasonable to question the wisdom of PLAN investing in J-35 as the centerpiece of its future carrier air wing. My own view is that I think it makes sense for PLAN to take this relatively modest, low-risk approach to delivering a modern, VLO carrier-based combat aircraft and that such an aircraft, paired with upgraded J-15, will suffice in the medium-term, but that it will ultimately need to be augmented by a probably larger, higher-performance platform to debut by the late 2030s.
Last edited:
Is there an estimate for the empty weight of J-35? Considering that the J-35 is a twin engine aircraft, it'd be surprising if the J-35 is significantly lighter than the F-35C.
Just because it has two engines does not mean those will be heavier than the single engine. It depends on engine thrust to weight ratio. If it does have 5th generation engines then the J-35's engines might have similar thrust to weight ratio than the F-35's engine.
Don't confuse the weight with number of engines. Engines are not solid piece of metal, large part of it is empty. It isn't more denser than airframe structures or electronics. The overall size and volume of the aircraft is a better indicator to judge the weight.
Also need to keep in mind is that F-35 is "exceptionally" heavier than it should have been if it is not designed to fit all 3 service branches. When you try to make the structure somehow universal, there is redundancy, there is something in the structure that you wouldn't need for the airforce, but has to have it for the marine. It means dead weight. J-35 doesn't suffer this.
According to the slides from earlier this year, the WS-19 engineering prototype has a thrust of about 9750 kgf, and a thrust-to-weight ratio of about 9.5. We can derive from those numbers an estimated weight of 2050 kg for a pair of WS-19 engines. Twin prototype WS-19 engines provide the same 19500 kgf thrust as a single F135 engine, but weighs about 350 kg more.
The thrust and the weight of the WS-19 prototype engine is more comparable to those of the F414 and EJ200 engines. I think it was clear from those slides that the WS-19 is targeting the performance level of those two engines. The F135 is on a different level.
The thrust and the weight of the WS-19 prototype engine is more comparable to those of the F414 and EJ200 engines. I think it was clear from those slides that the WS-19 is targeting the performance level of those two engines. The F135 is on a different level.