J-35 carrier fighter (PLAN) thread

[ACuriousPLAFan]

Not obsolete in the sense they are no longer competitive but obsolete in the sense there isn't much sense to procure them further, once J-XDS hits the LRIP phase why would the navy keep buying J-35s? The navy unlike the air force doesn't operate thousands of fighters so it doesn't take forever to replace old ones nor do they really need a hi-lo mix of fighters, at best by 2030 PLAN would be operating approx. 132 fighters on carriers plus a dozen or two extras for spare and training. As Cute Orca said, the navy only have so little fighters that they are willing to spend more money on the latest and greatest so IMO once J-XDS hits the market no more J-35 would be procured. So, if 2D TVC J-35 are ready the same time has J-XDS why would the navy buy 2D TVC J-35 and not just straight up the much better J-XDS?

Because:

#1 - Unless the development works of the J-XDS and its carrier-based variant (let's name it J-XDSH) are conducted simultaneously and progresses at the same rates from-start-to-end, the J-XDSH will enter service with the PLAN after the J-XDS with the PLAAF. This means delay of one or a couple years is to be expected, thanks to the more stringent and challenging technical requirements for carrier-based fighters than their land-based counterparts.

#2 - The J-XDS is expected to be more expensive than the J-35 by a not-insignificant margin, from procurement to operation and maintenance expenses. There's also the key factor where the PLAN is already being weighed down by many other concurrent projects which are money-eating monsters (mainly CVNs, next-gen surface combatants and next-gen SSNs/SSBNs).

#3 - The PLAN isn't aiming for all-J-XDSH carrier-based fighter air wings (CVWs), similarly to how the USN isn't aiming for all-F-35C carrier-based fighter CVWs. The F-35Cs replace the Hornets and complement the Super Hornets, whereas the upcoming F/A-XXs will replace the Super Hornets and complement the F-35Cs. In retrospect, the J-XDSHs will eventually do the same to the J-15s (on CATOBAR carriers) and complement the J-35s.

#4 - Not every mission requires the J-XDSHs. Generally, for low to moderate-intensity/risk missions (e.g. CAP, plus anti-ship and/or land-attack missions where aerial supremacy has been obtained), the J-35s are pretty sufficient. Therefore, the J-XDSHs will be the "high-end" combat units that go toe-to-toe with the main/vanguard enemy aerial forces, whereas the J-35s will become the "low-end" aerial combat workhorse of the PLAN.

#5 - With #2 and #4 in mind, having a mixed carrier-based fighter CVW of J-35s and J-XDSHs is also a much more cost-effective solution to the PLAN's demands for the foreseeable future.

TL; DR - Yes, the PLAN demands the best for their fighters, thanks to them being the first to face the enemy forces head-on in the WestPac. But that should be done reasonably and within budgetary constrains.

 

[Atomicfrog]

Because:

#5 - With #2 and #4 in mind, having a mixed carrier-based fighter CVW of J-35s and J-XDSHs is also a much more cost-effective solution to the PLAN's demands for the foreseeable future.

TL; DR - Yes, the PLAN demands the best for their fighters, thanks to them being the first to face the enemy forces head-on in the WestPac. But that should be done reasonably and within budgetary constrains.

If it's done reasonably and within budgetary constrains, why building catapult variants for J-15 ??? Beside testing before J-35 arrival, it will be sidelined very fast ? Maybe they will build a small batch as stop gap solution for pilot training and replacement of STOBAR J-15. The J-15D bring some new capabilities in electronic warfare but for how long.

In less than ten years, the deck will have 4 fighter types(j-15T, J-15D, J-35, J-XDSHs) available, probably a loyal wingman drone, KJ-600 AWAC, maybe a cargo variant of KJ-600 ? That's a lot of engine types on and below deck (WS-10, al-31, WS-19/21, WS-15/35?, ...).

We are going off track but the carrier deck is becoming crowded.

 

[Blitzo]

If it's done reasonably and within budgetary constrains, why building catapult variants for J-15 ??? Beside testing before J-35 arrival, it will be sidelined very fast ? Maybe they will build a small batch as stop gap solution for pilot training and replacement of STOBAR J-15. The J-15D bring some new capabilities in electronic warfare but for how long.

In less than ten years, the deck will have 4 fighter types(j-15T, J-15D, J-35, J-XDSHs) available, probably a loyal wingman drone, KJ-600 AWAC, maybe a cargo variant of KJ-600 ? That's a lot of engine types on and below deck (WS-10, al-31, WS-19/21, WS-15/35?, ...).

We are going off track but the carrier deck is becoming crowded.

The PLA and PLAN are conservative and like to reduce risk, both in terms of technology and in terms of being able to contend with certain conflict scenarios in given timespans.

If a conflict were to occur in the mid-late 2020s, the maturity of J-35 would simply be inadequate to be considered credibly operational, while J-15T offers a credible stopgap that is more capable than baseline J-15 and taking far less time/risk to become credibly operational than J-35.


If they did not have J-15T, then if a conflict occurred in the mid to late 2020s, then they would only be left with baseline J-15s (that can only operate from the STOBAR carriers), and a relatively small number of very early IOC status J-35s.

 

[siegecrossbow]

CHAD’s Christmas flight seriously spoiled you guys. Developing a sixth gen is no walk in the park and I highly doubt that we’ll have LRIP in five years unless significant performance compromises are made. J-20A’s best days are still ahead, as with J-35.

 

[Blitzo]

CHAD’s Christmas flight seriously spoiled you guys. Developing a sixth gen is no walk in the park and I highly doubt that we’ll have LRIP in five years unless significant performance compromises are made. J-20A’s best days are still ahead, as with J-35.

You really gotta stop referring to it as "CHAD" man.

We all have its J-designation now, and "CHAD" is both a joke and only works as a joke because it's an acronym with an English language basis as a meme.

 

[siegecrossbow]

You really gotta stop referring to it as "CHAD" man.

We all have its J-designation now, and "CHAD" is both a joke and only works as a joke because it's an acronym with an English language basis as a meme.

I get it and will only refer it to as this in the funny thread.

But I stand my point. Unlike with Fifth Gen where there is an expectation on what the final result should look like there is a much greater leap with sixth gen design, or the “free kingdom” as referred to by Designer Yang Wei. Even by some miracle we get LRIP of J-36 in five years there will be challenges getting pilots to create and adjust to such a revolutionary aircraft.

 

[Blitzo]

I get it and will only refer it to as this in the funny thread.

That would be appreciated.

But I stand my point. Unlike with Fifth Gen where there is an expectation on what the final result should look like there is a much greater leap with sixth gen design, or the “free kingdom” as referred to by Designer Yang Wei. Even by some miracle we get LRIP of J-36 in five years there will be challenges getting pilots to create and adjust to such a revolutionary aircraft.

I agree with this.

@Tomboy, in your post #9082 you wrote:

That's interesting since we have not seen a single J-35 with a 2D nozzle yet. Hopefully they don't pull another J-20A and we have to wait until J-35 is nearly obsolescence to finally see the originally intended product. Since if such a J-35 variant takes another 3-4 years to develop it might actually be DOA since J-XDS might be entering LRIP/IOC phase by then

It's unlikely that J-XDS will enter LRIP/IOC in 3-4 years time -- and certainly at this stage we have no evidence that the J-XDS we currently see is even carrier compatible, meaning that if they want a carrier based variant of J-XDS it may well be until the mid 2030s until such a variant is ready, if at all.

 

[latenlazy]

The PLA and PLAN are conservative and like to reduce risk, both in terms of technology and in terms of being able to contend with certain conflict scenarios in given timespans.

If a conflict were to occur in the mid-late 2020s, the maturity of J-35 would simply be inadequate to be considered credibly operational, while J-15T offers a credible stopgap that is more capable than baseline J-15 and taking far less time/risk to become credibly operational than J-35.


If they did not have J-15T, then if a conflict occurred in the mid to late 2020s, then they would only be left with baseline J-15s (that can only operate from the STOBAR carriers), and a relatively small number of very early IOC status J-35s.

Maybe this fork in the discussion should be relocated to the J-35 thread.

 

[ACuriousPLAFan]

If it's done reasonably and within budgetary constrains, why building catapult variants for J-15 ??? Beside testing before J-35 arrival, it will be sidelined very fast ? Maybe they will build a small batch as stop gap solution for pilot training and replacement of STOBAR J-15. The J-15D bring some new capabilities in electronic warfare but for how long.

The question on the J-15T's necessity has been explained by @Blitzo above, so I'll not dive any further.

As for the J-15D - The J-15D isn't just "bringing some new capabilities in electronic warfare". The J-15D is the primary airborne EW component for the PLAN.

Moreover, when fighting in the "true blue" regions of the WestPac where the availability of land-based EW aircrafts (GX-11, GX-13, CX-17?) drops substantially with distance, the J-15D will become the only airborne EW platform that is readily available to the PLAN.

Plus, given how contemporary fighter-based EW platforms require a two-pilot crew in order to avoid work overloading, this means only the twin-seater J-15S is available for development into a dedicated EW platform for the PLAN.

In less than ten years, the deck will have 4 fighter types(j-15T, J-15D, J-35, J-XDSHs) available, probably a loyal wingman drone, KJ-600 AWAC, maybe a cargo variant of KJ-600 ? That's a lot of engine types on and below deck (WS-10, al-31, WS-19/21, WS-15/35?, ...).

Firstly, there is no definite information on what the WS-35 is supposed to be, so let's leave it out of the discussion.

As for the number of warplanes onboard carriers - The carrier air wings (CVW) onboard USN CVs and CVNs are actually more varied in terms of aircraft composition than today. Here's what a CVW looks like during the 2003 Iraq War:
- F-14 (with AB F110 turbofan engines);
- F-18 and F/A-18 (with AB F404 turbofan engines);
- EA-6 (with J-52-P turbojet engines);
- S-3 (with non-AB TF34-GE turbofan engines);
- E-2 and C-2 (with T56-A turboprop engines); and
- Helicopters with their associated turboshaft engines.

And if the N-ATF and A-12 projects weren't victims of the end-of-Cold-War shutdowns, then the CVWs of today's USN CVNs will likely consist of the following:
- F-22/23 or F/A-22/23 (with AB F119/F120 turbofan engines);
- A-12 (with non-AB F404 turbofan engines);
- F/A-18 and E/A-18 (with AB F404 turbofan engines);
- E-2 (with T56-A turboprop engines);
- CMV-22 (with T-406-AD turboshaft engines); and
- Helicopters with their associated turboshaft engines.

*AB = Afterburning

As you can see, dealing with multiple types of aircraft engines has been the norm for fully-fledged CVNs for decades. Yes, logistics and maintenance are indeed headaches - But so are fighting wars. That's just how things work.

For China's case, the CVWs of future PLAN CVs and CVNs are expected to consist of the following:
- J-XDSH (with AB WS-15 turbofan engines or WS-XX ACE engines);
- J-35 (with AB WS-21/19 turbofan engines);
- J-15D (with AB WS-10 turbofan engines);
- KJ-600 and (notional) KY-200 (with WJ-6 or WJ-10 turboprop engines);
- GJ-11/21 (with non-AB WS-13/21 turbofan engines); and
- Helicopters with their associated turboshaft engines.

We are going off track but the carrier deck is becoming crowded.

The number of aircraft parking slots on aircraft carriers are set and fixed before the carrier enters service. Except during certain perculiar/emergency situations, you won't see CVs and CVNs getting jam-packed.

 

[Gloire_bb]

If it's done reasonably and within budgetary constrains, why building catapult variants for J-15 ??? Beside testing before J-35 arrival, it will be sidelined very fast ? Maybe they will build a small batch as stop gap solution for pilot training and replacement of STOBAR J-15. The J-15D bring some new capabilities in electronic warfare but for how long.

Naval warfare by default involves:
-significant attention to stand off weapons, which tend to be oversized.
-primacy of def-ca, which benefits strongly from a larger, more powerful sensors and heavier weapon setups.
-advantage of longer ranges and loiter.

In addition to that, naval flankers fold quite well, so their heavier weight class translates very efficiently into deck space use.

If j-15t solved initial flanker inadequacies on the deck(from bad adaptation to insufficient rigidity), it will stay on decks based on merits, not just as a stop gap.