J-35A fighter (PLAAF) + FC-31 thread

[00CuriousObserver]

The PLA needs the J-35 for carrier operations, and the navy won’t require nearly as many units as the air force would. Regardless of the eventual J-20 to J-35 ratio, the upfront development costs remain significant. The fact that a confirmed foreign customer is very good news, as it means those costs will be shared

 

[Blitzo]

I agree with this. The point I'm making is that the exports may be central to all these points as it would benefit economy of scale, offer more export opportunities, and make it cheaper to operate. As such, it wouldn't be out of question for exports to be prioritized than other platforms the PLA is only just inducting itself.

Uhh my point isn't that exports are the primary or main reason for why the PLA are buying J-35A rather than having SAC build J-20s, rather that likely all three of those reasons I listed (and possibly others, as described by Schewters post previously) are contributory.

I do not expect exports for this aircraft to be "prioritized" per se.

 

[ENTED64]

Also the Guancha trio mentioned in a podcast a few months ago that “if PLAAF doesn’t end up purchasing and fielding that many J35A’s don’t be surprised” and iirc they tossed the range of around 2-300 around, though don’t quote me on this.

I'd be somewhat surprised if the total run is fairly low at 200-300. If the goal is to build up PLAAF more quickly in the short term to retire all the early J-10/J-11 that are going to be of limited utility going forward then a production run of that size seems insufficient. This is particularly true if CAC is maxed out at 100ish J-20(A) a year and J-16 production starts to tail off as it gets closer to the end of its production run.

As I_H8_Y8s points out on

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

the PLAAF still has ~900 legacy airframes which at current rate would take ~7 years to replace and the adoption of J-35A seems to be an attempt to speed that up. A total run of 200-300 J-35A would still require 500+ J-20(A) assuming the remainder being made up of J-16 and a few J-10C. If CAC is maxed out at 100 J-20(A) a year this speeds up the timeline from ~7 years to ~6 years because if J-35A total run is only going to be 200-300 they probably won't be making 50 a year for 5 years and then slamming the breaks to 0.

I guess the main goal could be just to reduce costs for J-35 for PLAN and have J-35AE for export in the future but I'm not convinced that's enough to get PLAAF to adopt it. I think given we've already confirmed PLAAF is adopting it, it makes more sense for them to adopt it on a larger scale to realize more cost savings and retire older platforms faster.

 

[4Runner]

Hello experts, when J-35AE and J-10CE are ready for export along with PL-15E, who will buy new fighter jets other than F-35?

Hypothetically, J-35AE for USD 100m and J-10CE for USD 50m per naked plane, after 5/7 air battle, how can any government outside US/China justify purchase or convince people?

Should China also make KJ-500E available in a package?

 

[SteelBird]

My bet is on UAE.

The US suspended the sale of F-35s to the United Arab Emirates (UAE), a Gulf nation, after a deal to purchase 50 F-35A fighter jets was agreed upon following the normalization of relations with Israel through the Abraham Accords. The US also placed conditions on the sale that the UAE refused to meet, including ending cooperation with Huawei and limiting access to Israeli pilots.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Sep 14, 2024 — The United Arab Emirates does not expect to resume talks with the US about a multi-billion dollar deal for F-35 warplanes, irrespective of who is elected to ...

I won't hold my breath for that because the US would block such a deal from happening.

 

[ansy1968]

I won't hold my breath for that because the US would block such a deal from happening.

I do hope too bro, UAE might use it as a bargaining chip with the US. Here's my take UAE and Maybe the other Gulf Monarch like Saudi Arabia and Qatar have put an order and cash in front for 2 squadron each as an insurance policy. With the ongoing GAZA crisis that's the best investment they had ever made cause there is NO WAY the US will sell them F35 without the consent of their master the Israelis. Plus it may limit the US presence in the gulf as they have now the capability to defend themselves against Israel, why do you think they allowed the US to maintain bases in their country it's not about Iran its about maintaining THE ZIONIST hegemony in the region.

So in way China may have democratized the arm market, J10C may become the new AK47 for the airforce (I'm implying it for dramatic effect cause I know from historical event the MIG 21 hold that distinction). It will have a liberating effect just like the Trump tariff liberation day for the global south as they don't need the US to defend them and sell them those expensive and overhype weapons that cost them a leg and even their future.

 

[minime]

I'd be somewhat surprised if the total run is fairly low at 200-300. If the goal is to build up PLAAF more quickly in the short term to retire all the early J-10/J-11 that are going to be of limited utility going forward then a production run of that size seems insufficient. This is particularly true if CAC is maxed out at 100ish J-20(A) a year and J-16 production starts to tail off as it gets closer to the end of its production run.

As I_H8_Y8s points out on

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

the PLAAF still has ~900 legacy airframes which at current rate would take ~7 years to replace and the adoption of J-35A seems to be an attempt to speed that up.

Even PLAAF plan to replace legacy airframe 1 to 1, like you said, only need 7 years with current J-20 production rate.
Why you need to shorten it to 5 or less by adopt J-35A at larger scale? Are we in war time now?
What do you do with the production line and workers after 5 years?
Tech is advancing every year quickly and we're at the brink of CCA revolution not to mention 6th gen.
Ramping up production like no tomorrow is not a wise investment.
On the contrary, If CCA concept actually works this approach would be a disaster.

 

[doggydogdo]

Even PLAAF plan to replace legacy airframe 1 to 1, like you said, only need 7 years with current J-20 production rate.
Why you need to shorten it to 5 or less by adopt J-35 at larger scale? Are we in war time now?
What do you do with the production line and workers after 5 years?
Tech is advancing every year quickly and we're at the brink of CCA revolution not to mention 6th gen.
Ramping up production like no tomorrow is not a wise investment.
On the contrary, If CCA concept actually works this approach would be a disaster.

Since J-35 is used on carriers so it could be used for power projection unlike J-20s. China has the ability to ramp up carrier production very easily, but they can't do the same for fighters so it's better to prepare now than later when it's needed. Also, there's nothing stopping J-35 working with CCAs

 

[dingyibvs]

Uhh my point isn't that exports are the primary or main reason for why the PLA are buying J-35A rather than having SAC build J-20s, rather that likely all three of those reasons I listed (and possibly others, as described by Schewters post previously) are contributory.

I do not expect exports for this aircraft to be "prioritized" per se.

I did not say that that's your point, I'm saying that my point is supported by your point. To make it clearer, I agree with your points, but I would take it one step further and posit that because exports further those advantages of the J-35A you listed that it may cause exports to be prioritized.

The reason I posit so is because the advantages you listed are long known. What has changed since then? The export potential of high end Chinese military gear has. Both in terms of geopolitical developments and quality perception the attractiveness of Chinese gear has rapidly increased over the past few years.

The alternative argument by others is that the change is that the threat of war has become more real, to which I feel that scaling up the production of J-20s should be easier than building entirely new production lines with an entirely a new supply chain for another aircraft would. If the threat is so dire there shouldn't be enough technical or political resistance to SAC participating in the construction of the J-20 either.

 

[minime]

Since J-35 is used on carriers so it could be used for power projection unlike J-20s. China has the ability to ramp up carrier production very easily, but they can't do the same for fighters so it's better to prepare now than later when it's needed. Also, there's nothing stopping J-35 working with CCAs

Sorry, my bad, I mean J-35A land version at large scale. J-35 number is dictate by the carrier.