J-35 carrier fighter (PLAN) thread

Deino

Deino

General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Registered Member
Andy1974 said:
Can J-35 carry PL-17? We know J-16 can carry 1 while also carrying a lot of PL-15’s.

I suspect J-15T will be able carry 2 PL-17’s once it has it’s WS-10 engines, I am not sure we can say the same for J-35, so we could have a very compelling reason to want to keep J-15T around.

If J-15 can shoot further than J-35 they will make a wonderful combination. J-35 detects, J-15 shoots without using its own radar.
Click to expand...


Oh, come on and do at least a bit of research on your own at get the basic facts correct: We have seen J-16 carrying t20 PL-15 + a few PL-15 - not many or a lot of- and the J-35 so far hasn‘t seen with it, so why always speculating on such stuff and creating fancy stories about it?
 
plawolf

plawolf

Lieutenant General
siegecrossbow said:
I mean if you can get the main/side bays to work retractable luneburg is pretty trivial in comparison. It does make you wonder why USAF hasn’t adapted it. There are pretty interesting air combat tactics you can employ with retractable luneburg.
Click to expand...

Another consideration is operational use environment.

China has the geographical reality that it is ringed by American bases and allies. That means the likelihood of its stealth aircraft having close encounters with unfriendly foreign aircraft/ land/naval assets is fairly high such that having the ability to deploy a luneburg lense at short notice is a nice insurance and allows the PLAAF to use its stealths much more freely than with fixed lenses.

For a carrier fighter, the J35 is far less likely to encounter unfriendly enemy assets unexpectedly to need such a capability to warrant the cost and risk associated with having this feature.

In a way, this might be a similar risk assessment as what the US did to decide it doesn’t need a retractable lense on its stealths.
 
A

AndrewS

Brigadier
Registered Member
ACuriousPLAFan said:
Discussion continued here to avoid derailing the original thread.



Such discussions often return to the similar types of arguments regarding the need to procure J-35As, especially with the relatively young fleet of the 4.5th-gen fighter (J-16) fleets available to the PLAAF and the incoming 6th-gen warplanes (J-36 + J-XDS) in mind.

Some factors to consider:

#1: Same as the debate for retaining J-16s (if not also J-10Cs, let alone J-11BGs) versus procuring large numbers of J-35A for the case of the PLAAF:
- Can 5th-gen fighters do everything that 4.5th-gen fighters do? Absolutely.
- Can 4.5th-gen fighters do everything that 5th-gen fighters do? Absolutely not.
The same also applies to the J-15T versus the J-35 for the case of the PLAN.

#2: Sure, the limited number of parking slots on PLAN CVs certainly is a significant factor for the PLAN to consider which carrier-based fighters (and how many of each model) could be deployed onboard.

However, this is also similar (in a sense, at least) to the resources, budgetary, and manpower constraints faced by the PLAAF (albeit dialed to a higher number for the PLAN). Also, take #1 in mind.

#3: Of course, the J-15 has a greater payload capacity (in terms of number of weapon pylons) than the J-35 (similar to how the J-16 has a larger payload capacity than the J-20+ J-35A). However, nobody said that the J-35 couldn't carry YJ-15s (of which one academic paper seems to indicate this to be the case).

In addition, the J-35 is able to carry munitions inside its IWB and maintain an LO profile, which is something that the J-15T will never be able to do. And once again, refer back to #1.

#4: Yes, the carrier-based J-XDS (let's call it J-XDSH for the sake of this discussion) will be better and superior than the J-35 in a lot of ways. However, at this stage (if not for quite some time going forward), we have no confirmation that the J-XDSH is in a similar stage of development progress as the J-36 and (the land-based variant of) the J-XDS right now.

Hell, are we even sure that the J-XDS will have a carrier-based variant developed for the PLAN CVs (i.e. J-XDSH), instead of a completely separate, clean-sheet carrier-based 6th-gen fighter design (J-XDH) to begin with?

#5: Continuing from #4 - Could we even guarantee that there won't be unforeseen delays or hiccups to the development of the J-XDSH (or some other clean-sheet design (J-XDH)) that would negatively impact the timelines of when they can be deployed on PLAN CVs? The rather tumultuous development of the WS-10H/H2 alone is a primary example of this.

With this in mind, procuring a large number of J-35s certainly makes a lot of sense to serve as a useful hedge against such uncertainties and potential deficiencies, especially when considering the increasingly turbulent geopolitical and geosecurity developments in the WestPac and around the world.
Click to expand...

To add:

Let's say all the carrier-based J-35 only operate for 5-10 years, before they are replaced by J-XDS.

Those J-35s can still operate from land, alongside the Air Force J-35A variant.
 
A

Andy1974

Senior Member
Registered Member
Deino said:
Oh, come on and do at least a bit of research on your own at get the basic facts correct: We have seen J-16 carrying t20 PL-15 + a few PL-15 - not many or a lot of- and the J-35 so far hasn‘t seen with it, so why always speculating on such stuff and creating fancy stories about it?
Click to expand...
I don’t know what you are talking about.

I was replying to the idea that “J-35 can do everything a J-15 can do and hence the sensible thing is to replace J-15 with J-35.”

I was pointing out a possible case where this might not be true; if J-15 can carry PL-17x2 then you wouldn’t want to replace all the J-15’s with J-35.

It’s a perfectly reasonable point to make I think, not a fancy story at all. Given one has much more thrust and is bigger than the other.

P.S. I was referring to the picture of the J-16 carrying a single PL-17 AND a handful of PL-15’s, I don’t think we have seen evidence of it carrying 2 PL-17.
 

Attachments

  • IMG_0550.jpeg
    IMG_0550.jpeg
    38.7 KB · Views: 59
Last edited:
Blitzo

Blitzo

General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Registered Member
Andy1974 said:
I don’t know what you are talking about.

I was replying to the idea that “J-35 can do everything a J-15 can do and hence the sensible thing is to replace J-15 with J-35.”

I was pointing out a possible case where this might not be true; if J-15 can carry PL-17x2 then you wouldn’t want to replace all the J-15’s with J-35.

It’s a perfectly reasonable point to make I think, not a fancy story at all. Given one has much more thrust and is bigger than the other.

P.S. I was referring to the picture of the J-16 carrying a single PL-17 AND a handful of PL-15’s, I don’t think we have seen evidence of it carrying 2 PL-17.
Click to expand...

Your post was strange because it makes a conclusion based on a few strange premises

- we do not know how many PL-17s a J-16 or J-15T can carry. The picture of those J-16s carrying a PL-17 and multiple PL-15s/12s is useless because there is no reason to use it as a basis for "what is maximum loadout PL-17 based on the airframe". In fact, one would logically assume the actual number of PL-17s that a J-16/15T airframe can carry is more like 2 at minimum (remember the earliest image we had of PL-17 is a J-16 with two PL-17s -- one on each wing, see bottom of post), if not 4 (as well as multiple other hardpoints free for normal sized BVRAAMs) considering the mass we know the various hardpoints on the Flanker airframe are rated for.
- J-15T using WS-10 or Al-31 should not have any significant impact on it's payload
- J-15T using PL-17 has no huge bearing on J-35. We all know that obviously 5th/4.5th gen teaming has some utility, but in the future J-35 (and J-35A, and J-20 family) should also be able to carry PL-17 and other outsized payloads externally if needed. After all they have external hardpoints as well and we know in the case of J-20 at least those external stations can accommodate large EFTs which are likely heavier than a PL-17.



Old image of J-16 with two PL-17s; one under each wing.
rp3c7kwasnw91.jpg

Andy1974 said:
I don’t know what you are talking about.

I was replying to the idea that “J-35 can do everything a J-15 can do and hence the sensible thing is to replace J-15 with J-35.”

I was pointing out a possible case where this might not be true; if J-15 can carry PL-17x2 then you wouldn’t want to replace all the J-15’s with J-35.

It’s a perfectly reasonable point to make I think, not a fancy story at all. Given one has much more thrust and is bigger than the other.
Click to expand...

J-35 is likely able to carry at least 2x PL-17 externally, if not 4x PL-17, in addition to its main ventral IWB.

There are some reasons to keep J-15T in service for the moment (certain specific longer range missions with larger loadouts against lower intensity scenarios it may see some benefits compared to J-35), however if the question is "can J-35 carry PL-17 externally in a similar way to J-15T" -- the answer is J-35' four inboard wing stations likely are able to accommodate heavier payloads including (but not limited to) PL-17.
 
?

...........

Junior Member
Registered Member
Does anyone has a estimate on j35 radar range people talk about J20 radar range all the time but I don't see no discussions on j35 radar range
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top