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

[taxiya]

Can anyone explain to me why J-35 gets green primer while J-20 gets yellow? I know the F35 gets green primer as well.

F-35 can be in brown too. From the skin there are multiple layers of paints and coatings applied, each layer has different colors. Even the same layer may have different colors because of using different paint. So what color you see depends on not only which producer it is but also at what production stage the photo is taken.

 

[tphuang]

Not sure where you heard that "producing 250x 5th-gens per year" goal from, since that's kinda ridiculous.

However, sometime last year, Adorable Whale did mention of the expectation that China being able to match and even surpass (by a small/marginal degree) the F-35's annual production rate (~150-160) in the coming years.

I think the limitation to introduction of 5th gen aircraft is more pilots and training related than anything else. 200 5th gen aircraft a year is a reasonable near term goal. And that’s a large market if we also consider exports on top of it.

 

[dingyibvs]

Apparently everything that I've already explained totally flew over your head.

Also, I should remind that for the many years prior to today, i.e. before and during when the J-20 was the only 5th-gen fighter procured by the PLAAF - China (and the PLA as a whole, including the PLAAF) isn't as wealthy and sophisticated as it is today. The PLAAF had to make every penny count - And the Chengdu AC's J-20 entry (which beat Shenyang AC's entry) is the best thing they could get their hands on, especially when much of their fighter fleet is made of 3rd-gens and early/mid-4th-gens. What they faced were the F-22s, the upcoming F-35s, and many advanced 4th-gen fighters on the opposing side, with the "8x J-8IIs versus 1x F-22" dilemma being a notable footnote of that period.

They had no choice, even when the J-20 costs hefty amounts of the PLA treasuries to procure and operate - And that not everything requires the J-20 to do, and that not everything else can be done with the J-16 and other post-upgrade 4th-gens.

Yes, Shenyang AC joined the PLAAF 5th-gen game rather late. But that certainly doesn't equate to the PLAAF "not being enthusiastic with the J-35A". If the PLAAF really aren't happy with the J-35A, then they should forget about making such grand announcements about the J-35A and having the J-35As joining the flight performances during last year's Zhuhai Expo - Which clearly, they didn't.

View attachment 152861
View attachment 152862

This is in addition to the fact where both the J-20/A/S and J-35A have their respective roles and occupy their respective niches in the PLAAF, with one being overly focused in A2A and they other having a nice balance between A2A and A2G (with a slight tilt towards the former). These two are complimentary to each other, just like how the J-36 and J-XDS are meant to be in the future.

Let's just say that if China and the PLA had the money, resources and J-35A in production back then, then the PLAAF would've procured both the J-20 and J-35A simultaneously, instead of having to wait until today.

Last-but-not-least - Just as I've already clarified before, Shenyang AC is already well devoted to the scaled production runs of the J-35 and J-35A RIGHT NOW, with the J-35AE being a nice addition. They DON'T NEED a new yet non-native J-20 production line - That line can go to Guizhou AC, should Chengdu AC wish.

So how about sticking to the grounds of reality instead of being stubborn about ideas that don't pass the smell test?

The reality is that the J-35A doesn't really offer anything more than the J-20. It's more geared toward A2G? Based on what exactly? The only advantage it can possibly add is cost, but due to its medium sized 2 engine design and likely much smaller production run compared to the J-20 it's hard to see it costing much less, unless it's subsidized by exports.

 

[FriedRiceNSpice]

However, sometime last year, Adorable Whale did mention of the expectation that China being able to match and even surpass (by a small/marginal degree) the F-35's annual production rate (~150-160) in the coming years.

What's with these names? First Cute Orca, and now there's an Adorable Whale!?!?

 

[ZeEa5KPul]

What's with these names? First Cute Orca, and now there's an Adorable Whale!?!?

It's the same guy. His name auto-translates to "Adorable Whale."

 

[Blitzo]

The reality is that the J-35A doesn't really offer anything more than the J-20. It's more geared toward A2G? Based on what exactly? The only advantage it can possibly add is cost, but due to its medium sized 2 engine design and likely much smaller production run compared to the J-20 it's hard to see it costing much less, unless it's subsidized by exports.

As previously written, there are quite feasible explanations for why J-35A may be beneficial and why scaling up J-20 production is more difficult than building J-35A.
- J-35A may offer lower operating costs than J-20/A, due to integration of some more slightly more modern technologies/production techniques, even leaving aside likely lower unit cost.
- J-35A may also being able to leverage a more easily up-scalable production line and industry preparedness, due to SAC already having developed J-35 and thus sharing subsystems, while also having the manpower more easily convertable to J-35/J-35A production on an acceptable timescale as they scale down their overall Flanker production, while CAC would struggle to scale up J-20/A production further in an acceptable timescale given it sounds like they are already working at capacity.
- Asking SAC to build J-20/A may also not make sense, if the benefits of a lower operating cost J-35A and the benefits of J-35 and J-35A sharing a common subsystem supply chain are not worth the capability of J-20/A -- not to mention whether SAC would be able to develop the expertise to produce J-20/A on a timely fashion either.


This discussion is reminiscent of how years ago there was a debate over whether a navalized J-20 or navalized FC-31 would make more sense for the PLANAF -- and ultimately they went with the navalized FC-31 as J-35. From there, everyone should have shifted gears to try and make sense of why it would make sense for them to go that way.
Similarly, for J-35A, we've had a few years of debate over how the PLA would want to upscale their 5th gen procurement further, either scaling up J-20/A production, or introducing a land based J-35 variant -- and ultimately it seems they've gone with both options. From here, we should be shifting gears to make sense of why it would make sense to go that way.

And we have enough credible rumours (upscaling J-20/A production not that easy or timely, J-35A may offer some benefits in cost/logistics/common subsystems), and some common sense ("subsidized by exports" just doesn't cut it considering the PLA has not really let exports of big ticket projects like advanced combat aircraft dictate or influence domestic procurement) imo to have a decent foundation.


I don't see why there's still so much support to advocating for the idea of upscaling J-20/A production as if it is a preferred option -- if it was preferred or benefitted the PLA as their best option, then their AoA would've done so and we wouldn't be seeing J-35A.



To address your argument that "J-35A doesn't really offer anything more than the J-20" -- I sort of agree, but you are only saying half the position.
The full position should be "J-35A doesn't offer anything more than the J-20 in terms of capability, and in many aspects has lower capability, but it offer its capability at lower operating and procurement cost, while being able to offer more timely and credible unit procurement than expanding J-20/A production, all while leveraging existing developmental costs/work of J-35 and FC-31V1/2 before it".

 

[siegecrossbow]

Keep in mind that there are three primary uses for the J-35 series —

1) Naval use
2) Air Force use
3) Export use

One reason that JF-17’s export didn’t take off earlier was because PLAAF didn’t even induct a token number of aircraft. Inducting J-35A will also convince foreign customers that it is a quality platform PLAAF is investing in.

 

[dingyibvs]

As previously written, there are quite feasible explanations for why J-35A may be beneficial and why scaling up J-20 production is more difficult than building J-35A.
- J-35A may offer lower operating costs than J-20/A, due to integration of some more slightly more modern technologies/production techniques, even leaving aside likely lower unit cost.
- J-35A may also being able to leverage a more easily up-scalable production line and industry preparedness, due to SAC already having developed J-35 and thus sharing subsystems, while also having the manpower more easily convertable to J-35/J-35A production on an acceptable timescale as they scale down their overall Flanker production, while CAC would struggle to scale up J-20/A production further in an acceptable timescale given it sounds like they are already working at capacity.
- Asking SAC to build J-20/A may also not make sense, if the benefits of a lower operating cost J-35A and the benefits of J-35 and J-35A sharing a common subsystem supply chain are not worth the capability of J-20/A -- not to mention whether SAC would be able to develop the expertise to produce J-20/A on a timely fashion either.


This discussion is reminiscent of how years ago there was a debate over whether a navalized J-20 or navalized FC-31 would make more sense for the PLANAF -- and ultimately they went with the navalized FC-31 as J-35. From there, everyone should have shifted gears to try and make sense of why it would make sense for them to go that way.
Similarly, for J-35A, we've had a few years of debate over how the PLA would want to upscale their 5th gen procurement further, either scaling up J-20/A production, or introducing a land based J-35 variant -- and ultimately it seems they've gone with both options. From here, we should be shifting gears to make sense of why it would make sense to go that way.

And we have enough credible rumours (upscaling J-20/A production not that easy or timely, J-35A may offer some benefits in cost/logistics/common subsystems), and some common sense ("subsidized by exports" just doesn't cut it considering the PLA has not really let exports of big ticket projects like advanced combat aircraft dictate or influence domestic procurement) imo to have a decent foundation.


I don't see why there's still so much support to advocating for the idea of upscaling J-20/A production as if it is a preferred option -- if it was preferred or benefitted the PLA as their best option, then their AoA would've done so and we wouldn't be seeing J-35A.



To address your argument that "J-35A doesn't really offer anything more than the J-20" -- I sort of agree, but you are only saying half the position.
The full position should be "J-35A doesn't offer anything more than the J-20 in terms of capability, and in many aspects has lower capability, but it offer its capability at lower operating and procurement cost, while being able to offer more timely and credible unit procurement than expanding J-20/A production, all while leveraging existing developmental costs/work of J-35 and FC-31V1/2 before it".

First, there's no reason why advances in manufacturing techniques are not applicable to the J-20. In fact, it'd be expected that it is, as that's the norm and not the exception. As such, I don't see how manufacturing techniques can give the J-35A a significant advantage. Sure, somethings probably can't be changed, but certainly many things can.

Secondly, how many big ticket items have the PLA exported before? The PLA has in the past been constrained in many well known ways when it comes to exporting big ticket items. My suspicion is that it's about to change. The geopolitical situation, product quality, and manufacturing capacity are all conducive to doing so now. The PLA has shown that it can adapt to the times. The first batch of the massive 055 was 8 ships, a break from the previous norm of a few 054s before 054As, or a few each of 052/052B/052Cs before 052Ds.

I think the export potential of the J-35A is an important milestone for the Chinese MIC, and with it there'll be paradigm changes that requires flexibility in thinking rather than just following the old ways.

 

[Alfa_Particle]

First, there's no reason why advances in manufacturing techniques are not applicable to the J-20. In fact, it'd be expected that it is, as that's the norm and not the exception. As such, I don't see how manufacturing techniques can give the J-35A a significant advantage. Sure, somethings probably can't be changed, but certainly many things can.

Actually, maybe not. It's not that straightforward. For one, (to my understanding) the additive forging machines that manufactures the J-35/A's largely integrated wing-fuselage forgings are simply not big enough to support the same scale of design for the J-20, and they're already very large.

 

[valysre]

there's no reason why advances in manufacturing techniques are not applicable to the J-20

One might imagine that retooling the entire CAC j20 line to make use of the additive manufacturing, etc., that SAC has apparently made great use of in the J35 lines could be somewhat difficult.

As such, I don't see how manufacturing techniques can give the J-35A a significant advantage.

Strongly recommend perusing this thread a little more. There has been lots of conversation around the advantages in airframe weight, stress distribution, manufacturing ease, etc. from aforementioned additive manufacturing (and other things that I am probably missing).