J-35 carrier fighter (PLAN) thread

[taxiya]

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.

thanks, now I see it.

 

[Alfa_Particle]

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

They did redesignate all the prototypes as 35XX afaik.

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

Holy she's packing for her size. Look at that IWB.

 

[Blitzo]

They did redesignate all the prototypes as 35XX afaik.


Holy she's packing for her size. Look at that IWB.

There were some speculation/rumours started a few years ago that the J-35 would have a ventral weapons bay that was near identical in dimensions to that of J-20. It was accompanied by some speculative comparisons at the time, like this one below





Certainly based on the pictures of J-35, it is very much within reason that its weapons bay may have similar or even identical dimensions to that of J-20 -- it's very believable in terms of length and width, and potentially depth as well.

It also makes a fair bit of sense in terms of integration/footprint -- it would mean that weapons developed for the IWB of one of the two aircraft would also be physically/dimensionally compatible with the other.
Important for A2A weapons of course, but also important for A2G weapons given both J-20 and J-35 will have some powered A2G and standoff weapons developed for internal carriage

 

[phrozenflame]

If it has no side bays, then, isnt it kind of 'smol' ?

The picture we saw of the deck, next to Sino Flanker, gave an impression it's quite a wider platform or atleast the body

 

[Wrought]

There were some speculation/rumours started a few years ago that the J-35 would have a ventral weapons bay that was near identical in dimensions to that of J-20. It was accompanied by some speculative comparisons at the time, like this one below

View attachment 136946



Certainly based on the pictures of J-35, it is very much within reason that its weapons bay may have similar or even identical dimensions to that of J-20 -- it's very believable in terms of length and width, and potentially depth as well.

It also makes a fair bit of sense in terms of integration/footprint -- it would mean that weapons developed for the IWB of one of the two aircraft would also be physically/dimensionally compatible with the other.
Important for A2A weapons of course, but also important for A2G weapons given both J-20 and J-35 will have some powered A2G and standoff weapons developed for internal carriage

I was under the impression that the J-20 internal bay was relatively shallow, and therefore poorly suited to carrying larger A2G munitions. Warhead size is obviously more important when it comes to strike profiles as opposed to air superiority; is such a bay suitable for something like a GBU-12 or even GBU-32 equivalent?

 

[Blitzo]

I was under the impression that the J-20 internal bay was relatively shallow, and therefore poorly suited to carrying larger A2G munitions. Warhead size is obviously more important when it comes to strike profiles as opposed to air superiority; is such a bay suitable for something like a GBU-12 or even GBU-32 equivalent?

J-20's internal weapons bay is indeed relatively shallow, and it is relatively less suited to carrying larger A2G munitions.
The key word is "relatively".

J-20 and J-35 by extension probably won't be able to carry 1000kg class PGMs or AARGM-ER diameter weapons internally.
However, that doesn't mean they cannot carry tailor developed weapons like JSM or Kh-69, which are still powered standoff range A2G weapons with credible payloads.
(500kg class PGMs and 100kg class SDB type weapons of course should be compatible with the likes of J-20 and J-35)

If it has no side bays, then, isnt it kind of 'smol' ?

The picture we saw of the deck, next to Sino Flanker, gave an impression it's quite a wider platform or atleast the body

It does have a wide fuselage for its size, and that's because it has a proper sized ventral IWB. The lack of side bays doesn't make it "kind of small".
5th generation fighters with IWBs will inevitably be larger than their 4th generation predecessors of an equal payload category, and have an appearance that looks "large" similar to heavier weight 4th generation aircraft.

 

[Wrought]

J-20's internal weapons bay is indeed relatively shallow, and it is relatively less suited to carrying larger A2G munitions.
The key word is "relatively".

J-20 and J-35 by extension probably won't be able to carry 1000kg class PGMs or AARGM-ER diameter weapons internally.
However, that doesn't mean they cannot carry tailor developed weapons like JSM or Kh-69, which are still powered standoff range A2G weapons with credible payloads.
(500kg class PGMs and 100kg class SDB type weapons of course should be compatible with the likes of J-20 and J-35)

Ok, something like JSM makes sense in this context.

 

[Alfa_Particle]

I don't think this picture has been posted before. Not in this quality at least.

 

[Wrought]

The recent spike in high quality J-35 photos certainly lends weight to the idea that it will make an appearance at Zhuhai.

 

[Gloire_bb]

It also makes a fair bit of sense in terms of integration/footprint -- it would mean that weapons developed for the IWB of one of the two aircraft would also be physically/dimensionally compatible with the other.

IMHO this part alone should be strong enough in order to not suspect they can be same, rather, doubt they can be different.