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

[SinoSoldier]

Likely it just undergoes more retooling after the airshow.

That it is a production unit from the air force is confirmed, but it doesn't have to mean it's a completed production unit.

That doesn't make a lot of sense. I don't think there was ever a case where an airframe was modified after an airshow prior to service.

And entering service after less than 2 years of flight testing is extremely hard to believe.

 

[SinoSoldier]

It can be meant to miss them. It is surprising, but not impossible.
For example, the fit is too clean to be just temporary, and I don't see this bird as rushed like Kaan to have something before election.

As all observers, while we evaluate reality and its likelihood, we should never deny what we see and dismiss it.
Ultimately, it's plaaf who decide what they need and want, not us.

I'm denying the claim that this is a production airframe, not what we are seeing on the airframe.

 

[Gloire_bb]

I'm denying the claim that this is a production airframe, not what we are seeing on the airframe.

I am not implying you do
I just think we shouldn't dismiss that this indeed may be the intended shape of this aircraft.

 

[iewgnem]

That doesn't make a lot of sense. I don't think there was ever a case where an airframe was modified after an airshow prior to service.

And entering service after less than 2 years of flight testing is extremely hard to believe.

EODAS openings are there if you look carefully, painted over like nose EOTS, doesn't need any airframe change to install.

Also I don't think you can assume first observation = first flight, especially for a J-31 derived airframe that first flew >10 years ago with an intermediate variant >5 years ago. J-20 type public first flights are also the outlier, not the norm.

 

[taxiya]

I'm sure they'll try to incorporate the lastest improvement as much as they could on the J20, but there are many things you can't simply rebuild from scratch at this stage of it's production. J35 was designed to have less parts in total (I'm sure the old thread has articles on this topic, such as producing the main frame and the wings as a single part and etc) thus easier and faster to produce than J20 which wasn't designed this way. You can improve the electronics and softwares for the new batches of J20 rather easily, but drastically changing how the aircraft is produced requires so much retooling on the manufactoring side and is simply not an option if they want to keep the current production rate.
I'm not saying it can't be done, but to ramp up the speed again takes time. Maybe they would wait till J35A's prodcution rate to mature before making this kind of change, or maybe they won't, as the current production rate is already quite impressive for a heavy weight.

And again, being easier to produce is only one of the possible reasons they chose the J35A. Back when CJDBY was still alive there was a great post on the importance of "frontline fighter jets". Just a quick summary of what I could remember: in a full scale war, you would want a kind of jet that's easier to maintain to place at bases closer to the frontline, both for the faster reaction time and for handling the (usually) less optimal conditions of these bases. I do believe J20 would still be the ACE for PLAAF, as it would have bigger range, faster speed and better supersonic maneuverability, but there's a reason why F16, MiG29 and J10 exist along side F15, Su27 and J11. J35A should be the 5th gen version of these. Maybe it has some other advantages compared to J20, such as better stealth (as the just came out interview says), but even if it doesn't, a jet like this still has its value.

J-20A is essetially a new aircraft from J-20 from construction perspective. Its production line is very different from J-20. So one can say that J-20A is equally new in every aspect as J-35A. Just give two examples here.

1. J-20A's DSI bump is differently constructed than J-20, see the following comparison. That is a large chunck of the airframe.
No middle ridge

Middle ridge probably metal


2. J-20A has the hump behind the cockpit, another large chunck of the airframe being different. That means that the bulkheads are different in shape, meaning all your forging press, molds are different IF J-20 used forging and J-20A contitue doing so. Or J-20A is switching from forging to 3D printing (big change). You have to do a big retooling if you kept old method unless J-20 always used 3D printing. This is to say that either J-20 is already up to the standard of J-35A long ago, or J-20A's new tooling has already paid.

Also keep in mind that J-20A is the real serial production variant (target), J-20 is the temparary solution with WS-10 being gap-filer. So J-20 production method should not be regarded as fixed/frozen J-20 program. Retooling of J-20A is part of the program, not something preventive.

In short, I see J-20A and J-35A equal in terms of latest production technology and method instead of J-35A being something much advanced which seems to be an opinion that many people held.

 

[Arienai]

As others have pointed out, this airframe seems to be missing a number of the sensors (e.g. Sino-EODAS) found on the J-20.

The type also flew for the first time in September 2023. It is quite unlikely that this is a production unit, at least one intended for combat service.

Again like I said, the only thing I can confirm is Yankee did say it's a production unit in the podcast, he's got good credibility but it's not like he can't wrong.

Although I would still wait for more photos and videos to say whether or not this could be a production unit. We only have one high qual close up at one angle for this one so far, and there will be tons of photos and videos coming in just a few days.

 

[siegecrossbow]

You people are beginning to sound like spoiled brats lol. Do you know how many air forces would kill just to induct one type of fifth gen fighter?

Rumors of the CAC sixth gen is the driving force behind this irrationality.

 

[Arienai]

J-20A is essetially a new aircraft from J-20 from construction perspective. Its production line is very different from J-20. So one can say that J-20A is equally new in every aspect as J-35A. Just give two examples here.

1. J-20A's DSI bump is differently constructed than J-20, see the following comparison. That is a large chunck of the airframe.
No middle ridge
View attachment 138418
Middle ridge probably metal
View attachment 138419

2. J-20A has the hump behind the cockpit, another large chunck of the airframe being different. That means that the bulkheads are different in shape, meaning all your forging press, molds are different IF J-20 used forging and J-20A contitue doing so. Or J-20A is switching from forging to 3D printing (big change). You have to do a big retooling if you kept old method unless J-20 always used 3D printing. This is to say that either J-20 is already up to the standard of J-35A long ago, or J-20A's new tooling has already paid.

Also keep in mind that J-20A is the real serial production variant (target), J-20 is the temparary solution with WS-10 being gap-filer. So J-20 production method should not be regarded as fixed/frozen J-20 program. Retooling of J-20A is part of the program, not something preventive.

In short, I see J-20A and J-35A equal in terms of latest production technology and method instead of J-35A being something much advanced which seems to be an opinion that many people held.

I know J20A has enough differences from the base unit, obiously if they want to change some parts to be 3D printed they can do that as well. But did it made such drastic change to its production that significantly reduced the number of parts (which is one of the major selling point for J35) was what I was talking about.

Anyway, I said those because I believe easier manufactoring could be a important reason for PLAAF to choose the J35A, how J20A's manufactoring process changed is off topic for this thread.

 

[taxiya]

I know J20A has enough differences from the base unit, obiously if they want to change some parts to be 3D printed they can do that as well. But did it made such drastic change to its production that significantly reduced the number of parts (which is one of the major selling point for J35) was what I was talking about.

The whole reason of J-35 reduced parts is because of 3D printing, so J-20A would get the same result if it uses or switches to 3D printing.

Anyway, I said those because I believe easier manufactoring could be a important reason for PLAAF to choose the J35A, how J20A's manufactoring process changed is off topic for this thread.

The last part is relevant to the first part. Off topic or not, it is neccessary.

 

[latenlazy]

Oh BTW, here's the interview that says it has better stealth.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

They just said this time they were given higher stealth requirements. That doesn’t necessarily mean it’s stealthier than the J-20. New version of the J-20 might also have higher stealth requirements.

you are obviously going to be retooling for J-20A. The procurement justifies it.

You are going to be using new RAM, new titanium alloy, new carbon fiber composite material. The entire plumbing of j-20A should also be changing due to the new power requirement.

You can of course do some retooling on a design revision but you are always going to be constrained by how much revision to the structures you can do unless you’re willing to completely redo structural testing, which is a multi year project. Differences in degrees matter here. Keep in mind that making drastic changes to your manufacturing design would also force drastic changes down your supply chain, which can come with its own time and cost penalties.

If you look at how things are produced in Chinese factories now. Being flexible and using latest production tool to improve efficiency is a must. I don't see why aerospace sector should be any different.

It depends on what you’re building. Not every kind of product is amenable to modular manufacturing processes, and whenever you do want to implement such a manufacturing scheme the entire product has to be designed from the ground up with that in mind.