J-35 carrier fighter (PLAN) thread

[Blitzo]

Indeed, as it seems, also the PLAN Naval Aviation has finally revealed its first two operational (?) J-35 fighters.
And if I read their construction numbers correctly - namely 0011 & 0012 - they are LRIP aircraft!

(Image via @沙丘里的回声 from Weibo)

View attachment 156344

What's more interesting to me, is that this signals an indication that the PLAN probably also want to display their LRIP (?operational) J-35s at the parade rather than the prototypes -- i.e.: similar to how the PLAAF displaying their J-35As are LRIP/operational airframes.

So there's a good chance we will not be seeing the two J-35 prototypes from previous occasions on the day of the parade itself.

 

[laurenjia]

Indeed ... I was already preparing this!

View attachment 156349

1. Rudders: Though they looked the same at first glance now, the naval variant appears to be moveable up to the root of the rudder vs the Air Force variant. Previously, the naval variant had it moveable up to the tip.
2. Electronics suite?: The naval variants appear to have some square electronics suite between the engine the horizontal stabilisers. It might some distributed aperture systems, warning systems?

 

[GiantPanda]

Also unlikely for the navalized variant to enter service before regular variant.

Not if the carrier version was the initial order and the land and export orders came later.

J-35A might be de-navalized from the base naval J-35.

This had happened before with the F-4 which started off as an USN carrier fighter program before the USAF bought and had it changed for land operations.

 

[gelgoog]

It is easier to de-navalize an aircraft than to do the opposite.

 

[Samyan236]

My friend making some fan art of the little sharkie on tail.
Cuz he think the little sharkie look very fimilar with a Nestle snack called 脆脆鲨（Crispy Shark, a Chinese variant of KitKat if im not wrong)

 

[Blitzo]

View attachment 156375
View attachment 156376
View attachment 156377
My friend making some fan art of the little sharkie on tail.
Cuz he think the little sharkie look very fimilar with a Nestle snack called 脆脆鲨（Crispy Shark, a Chinese variant of KitKat if im not wrong)

I'm going to ask people to stop posting memes and jokes please.

I will allow this single one (I've deleted a couple already), but for goodness sake can people exert a bit more discipline and tasteful humour?

 

[zyklon]

J-35A might be de-navalized from the base naval J-35.

This had happened before with the F-4 which started off as an USN carrier fighter program before the USAF bought and had it changed for land operations.

It is easier to de-navalize an aircraft than to do the opposite.

From my understanding, de-navalization is generally speaking an optional process intended (1) to reduce costs, and/or (2) to incorporate or enhance capabilities, that were absent or limited, respectively, due to tradeoffs imposed by the requirements of carrier operations.

For example, the F-14 fighters delivered to Iran in the 1970s came with reinforced landing gear, tailhooks and the whole shebang necessary for carrier operations.

 

[subotai1]

No retractable luneburg lenses?

Rather than be retractable, they are probably removable, which may be much lower maintenance and easier for carrier crews (compared to maintaining the retracting assembly and motor). Simply remove them when you are doing combat ops.

 

[tonyget]

Why is the naval version bigger and heavier than airforce version？I thought airforce version should be bigger because airstrip on land is much longer than that of carrier. Also carrier deck has limited space compare to land，therefore carrier version should be smaller

 

[gelgoog]

My guess is the naval version has more wing area to facilitate control at low speeds for landing. Deck landings are much harder.

The same thing happened with the MiG-29K and the F-35C.