It looks pretty comfortable in the (seemingly) relatively slow airspeed it was good at too, so that's nice.
Being a requirement for carrier fighters aside, it'll probably have pretty nice low speed performance.
J-35 carrier fighter (PLAN) thread
- Thread starter Deino
- Start date
Being a requirement for carrier fighters aside, it'll probably have pretty nice low speed performance.
It has the same wing area as the F-35C (and Flanker). See it as a twin engined F35C with better L/D ratio for better supersonic/transonic performance with most likely equal (combat) range.
J-35 only carry A2A munition internally if I'm not mistaken, meaning air superiority focus compare to F35C strike focus.
It's two very different approach for VLO platform and doctrine.
IMO, in the era of stealth, mid-sizes jet due to space constraint can't do both in highly contested environment.
That's why I'm don't see J-35 "as a twin engined F35C with better L/D ratio for better supersonic/transonic performance" but more like F-22 not only in roles(air superiority) but given 93% of the length, same general layout and advancement in manufacture, material, engine; it could somewhat match the performance too.
Say 14000kg empty weight and 11 ton thrust for WS-19 then T/W ratio is close to F-22.
If that's the case, land version of J-35, say J-31 with reduce weight could be as potent as F-22 not to mention better sensor & avionics.
It is rumored to have the same main weapon bay dimension as the J-20. This would mean that 2*1000lb+2*PL-15, 8*250lb+2*PL-15, 2*HARM+2*PL-15 should all be viable loadouts.
Probably it's hiding the center of the engine plume to reduce IR from the side too, beside housing actuators. Not a lot but could help.
It could carry more once the PL-15 folding wing variant is in service, no?
We don't know whether the PL-15 with folding wings is still in active development or not, so that's a blank.
However, we do know from Yankee & Co. that a new type MRAAMs (which I hope to have comparable performances to the AIM-120C-6/7 if not D) has already entered service sometime ago, and that each J-20 can carry 6 of them inside its main weapons bay:
Hence, if the J-35 does have a similar main weapons bay as the J-20 (which seems likely to be the case), then the J-35 should be able to carry 6 of the new type MRAAMs as well.
Last edited:
It is an almost impossible combination within the same size.
You want to be slimmer, while carrying more engines (2 smaller engines>1 bigger one volume-wise), yet retain the same range.
Either your engines are a good generation ahead of F135 in performance, or something will have to give.
(1)There are no special reasons to assume that J-35 isn't multirole, as explained above; if it is less D-P - it's because it's probably a worse oversized payload carrier than J-15 series. For everything else, it's still perfectly fine. You may check Su-57 as an example of range of payloads one can fit into nominal 4.2x0.4x0.4 bay, if that's the goal. Basically everything other than emitting pods, heavy theater ASCMs and AsBMs.
(2)For some reason, air superiority often has a more prestigious vibe. For a deck fighter, it's a tertiary role, not even secondary.
It's also longer
Where's the J-35? All I see is the vertical tail and folded wings of a J-15.