J-35 carrier fighter (PLAN) thread

T

taxiya

Brigadier
Registered Member
sutton999 said:
CGI maker has no reason to make up a new model No. even when he has misunderstood the purpose of side-bay.

I hypothesize that there are two configurations A&B for both J31 and J35. B variant is about to be shown.
Click to expand...

sutton999 said:
No idea about upscale, CG shows hold two short-ranged A2A, a new type half-sized I suppose.
Click to expand...

Shouldn't go any further before you know the CG and the whole video are not made by some random fanboy.
 
lcloo

lcloo

Captain
byhyew said:
CCTV is notorious for its lack of basic understanding of engineering. Watch one of their live reporting on Zhuhai Airshow or a Chinese rocket launch and you'd know.
Click to expand...
That is their given tasks, and probably done on purpose. Why should they make things easy for China military watchers, and giving away info for free. Their TV programs are entertaining for lay (Chinese) people who have little knowledge of PLA to instil national prides in them, not for (foreign) people with deep military knowledge. They have no obligation to us

We have to learn to filter what is and what is not through years of experience on watching China's military.
 
N

Nomi007

New Member
Registered Member
taxiya said:
Can you share the original link to the "SAC" video? I googled and baidued but found no where from SAC officially. Since this kind of media outlet is supposed to be for general public, I expect it being easy to be found. When I say official, I mean the video published on a weibo account certified as belonging to SAC, or a domain name owned by SAC.

The SAC media logo from your screen dump looks strikingly resembling to CCTV media logo. View attachment 131836 I am surprised that CCTV is ok with it.

I have also found the similar footage from Bilibili but without the logo here,
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

I can tell that it is easy to add a logo type on a video footage, but almost impossible to remove it cleanly without leaving noticable artifacts.
View attachment 131837

All these put together makes me wonder if the whole thing of "SAC media" is a fake news/hoax.
Click to expand...
please share video link
 
S

SeriousPLANLover

New Member
Registered Member
Today something interesting came to my mind:

Why did China leave some 50 J-11 under PLANAF instead of transfering them to PLAAF like other coastal aircraft? Might that be because PLANAF plans to procure J-35 at a level that exceeds the demand from Carrier fleets (and 076 perhaps)? By having more active J-35 in operation than carriers allow PLANAF will have reserves for airframe losses and still a ground based aviation squadron under their own discretion. Procuring J-35 for this instead of J-20 or J-16 will make those aircraft also viable as carrier reserves and help PLANAF focus on only one aircraft. And they are holding onto those J-11s so that pilots and support infrastructure stays intact until J-35 comes.

Does this make any sense? I also posted this on a thread under airforce but Im not sure which one will be seen earlier and which one is more appropriate so that is the reason for double post Im not spamming.
 
Deino

Deino

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Registered Member
SeriousPLANLover said:
Today something interesting came to my mind:

Why did China leave some 50 J-11 under PLANAF instead of transfering them to PLAAF like other coastal aircraft? Might that be because PLANAF plans to procure J-35 at a level that exceeds the demand from Carrier fleets (and 076 perhaps)? By having more active J-35 in operation than carriers allow PLANAF will have reserves for airframe losses and still a ground based aviation squadron under their own discretion. Procuring J-35 for this instead of J-20 or J-16 will make those aircraft also viable as carrier reserves and help PLANAF focus on only one aircraft. And they are holding onto those J-11s so that pilots and support infrastructure stays intact until J-35 comes.

Does this make any sense? I also posted this on a thread under airforce but Im not sure which one will be seen earlier and which one is more appropriate so that is the reason for double post Im not spamming.
Click to expand...

again as asked in the other thread, dis they indeed „leave some 50 J-11 under PLANAF instead of transfering them to PLAAF“?

Per my understanding they did not.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top