J-35 carrier fighter (PLAN) thread

Blitzo

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Registered Member
Pretty much confirmed that J-35 or variant will show up in some capacity at Zhuhai this year.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Can we stop doing this?

I don't think saying this is "pretty much confirmed" is useful unless someone is actually able to hang their credibility on the line with consequence.

(Heck, I even think it is possible that J-35 may show up at Zhuhai, but there is nothing in the written text that actually presents new information which makes us think it is "pretty much confirmed")


====

I'm seeing people some people youtube and twitter now writing the idea that J-35 had flown from Liaoning, which is just the result of people playing telephone due to unconfirmed rumours and vague statements being stated overconfidently on places like SDF, permeating to twitter, and then exaggerating that to conclusions which are outright false or unconfirmed.


Given SDF is a place where some people are also on other sites/youtube/twitter, and we probably have a population of lurkers that post elsewhere, IMO it is very important that members here who have active social media or on other platforms, as well as senior posting members here, exert some restraint and ensure that claims are written with minimum exaggeration and maximal evidence base, and for all of us to be selective about what we actually post to other social media platforms.

If something is unconfirmed or if something seems a bit too tantalizing, IMO stop and just don't post it -- there is no benefit to be the "first" if the risk is that you make a mistake in the general public space and then it brings disrepute to PLA watching credibility. And even if it is asking questions widely to the general public on somewhere like twitter, asking questions too publicly and openly also damages PLA watching credibility if it is done so to a space where others do not know how to interpret it.
Sometimes things are better left in this forum and explicitly NOT posted elsewhere until we have a grasp or a degree of sufficient confidence about something.

@Deino, @5unrise
 

5unrise

Junior Member
Registered Member
What I post on social media reflects my true opinion, which may or may not align with any other individual or even the majority of PLA watchers. On social media, it is inevitable that people post what they believe in, for better or worse. If it is the case that they are posting stuff they don't believe in just to get clicks, that would be deceptive and irresponsible. However, it is reasonable for people to give their truely-held opinions, even if others disagree.

I am willing to listen to different views. If I find anyone else's reasoning to be persuasive, they will change my mind. However, you should understand that at times you won't be successful. What one person find vague and exaggerated might be viewed with higher credibility by another. Not agreeing on everything every single time is just a fact of life.

SDF has a lot of highly knowledgeable PLA watchers. However, I'd also acknowledge that there are more sources of information on the PLA than just this forum. I certainly pay attention to certain X accounts or media I find reliable.

I think what I've said is pretty reasonable, so I'll rest my case here. I'm open to further conversation on this, but only in a private offline setting (just PM me).
 
Last edited:

Blitzo

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Registered Member
What I post on social media reflects my true opinion, which may or may not align with any other individual or even the majority of PLA watchers. On social media, it is inevitable that people post what they believe in, for better or worse. If it is the case that they are posting stuff they don't believe in just to get clicks, that would be deceptive and irresponsible. However, it is reasonable for people to give their truely-held opinions, even if others disagree.

I am willing to listen to different views. If I find anyone else's reasoning to be persuasive, they will change my mind. However, you should understand that at times you won't be successful. What one person find vague and exaggerated might be viewed with higher credibility by another. Not agreeing on everything every single time is just a fact of life.

SDF has a lot of highly knowledgeable PLA watchers. However, I'd also acknowledge that there are more sources of information on the PLA than just this forum. I certainly pay attention to certain X accounts or media I find reliable.

I think what I've said is pretty reasonable, so I'll rest my case here. I'm open to further conversation on this, but only in a private offline setting (just PM me).

The above post is me making a statement for awareness of a trend I have observed, it is not necessarily intended to start a discussion on each individual person or post.

People, including yourself are free to ignore my statement.


But I will also continue to advocate for everyone to exert their right to be quiet and post less on other platforms, as that is one of the most useful lessons I've learned from doing this a while. The right to be quiet and to be cautious if I have to speak, is invaluable.
The worst thing we can do for PLA watching is to make an overreach or a mistake that then needs to be dialed back.
 

Alfa_Particle

Junior Member
Registered Member
As posted before in the J-31 thread:
Interesting that this, along with its naval twin, are rumored to be getting internal cannons.

The darker area is thought to be the cover door for the nozzle:
View attachment 136071

Said cover door drawn:
View attachment 136072View attachment 136073

Turns out, the J-35 getting an internal cannon could've been already hinted before, back in 2021/22. Below was from SAC's 2021 earnings call in 2022:
1728138608054.jpeg

Which is consistent with the study paper and this:
View attachment 136071

Said earnings call (around 9:56):
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
 

by78

General
This looks legit, but I'm always suspicious of grainy photos.

54044805064_dd7e815d6a_k.jpg
 

taxiya

Brigadier
Registered Member
This looks legit, but I'm always suspicious of grainy photos.

54044805064_dd7e815d6a_k.jpg
Looks like prototype 03 being painted 3503 on the hatch on the intake. It feels like 3503 is photoshopped on a real photo of real thing. Since 350003 is painted together with PLA symbol, 350003 should be official designation for the prototype, rebranding it to 3503 is unnecessary except mimicing the J-20 scheme 20xx. Someone has obsessive-compulsive disorder.

[addition]
The front landing gear bay seems to be lightened by lamp, that is strange.

Regarding the missing catapult bar, it is understandable, it is detachable and one time use only. The following photo seems to miss it too.
350003.jpeg
 

Deino

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Registered Member
Looks like prototype 03 being painted 3503 on the hatch on the intake. It feels like 3503 is photoshopped on a real photo of real thing. Since 350003 is painted together with PLA symbol, 350003 should be official designation for the prototype, rebranding it to 3503 is unnecessary except mimicing the J-20 scheme 20xx. Someone has obsessive-compulsive disorder.

[addition]
The front landing gear bay seems to be lightened by lamp, that is strange.

Regarding the missing catapult bar, it is understandable, it is detachable and one time use only. The following photo seems to miss it too.
View attachment 136942

Actually it is totally possible since the third flying one is numbered 3505
 

Blitzo

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Registered Member
Looks like prototype 03 being painted 3503 on the hatch on the intake. It feels like 3503 is photoshopped on a real photo of real thing. Since 350003 is painted together with PLA symbol, 350003 should be official designation for the prototype, rebranding it to 3503 is unnecessary except mimicing the J-20 scheme 20xx. Someone has obsessive-compulsive disorder.

[addition]
The front landing gear bay seems to be lightened by lamp, that is strange.

Regarding the missing catapult bar, it is understandable, it is detachable and one time use only. The following photo seems to miss it too.
View attachment 136942

The catapult launch bar is actually present in the image you posted, it's white in colour but dark brown near the tip.

The lack of the catapult bar is a bit odd on Deinos new picture. I'm not sure if it is due to it being physically removed in that particular flight, or if someone has doctored it out of the picture.
 
Last edited:
Top