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

[iewgnem]

Unless they found a way to keep air pressure high on top of the plane to prevent the engines from stalling during high gs, these planes won't work as fighters.

Or they remove high-g requirement because how else are you going to make NGAD cost less than F-35.

 

[tankphobia]

What are the predicted combat roles for the J-35, and how does it reconcile with the existing J-20? This question is specifically for the PLAAF J-35A and not the (expected) carrier-based PLAN J-35, since the J-20 (all variants) cannot be carrier-based.

The US F-35 was designed and currently serves as the multi-role 5th-gen fighter jet of the USAF. As they could not restart production of the F-22, leaving it as a limited and legacy resource that will inevitably attrit into nothingness, the F-35 (any variant) does not really overstep onto the F-22's role as an air superiority fighter in the long-term.

The situation is not the same for the J-35A and the J-20, since both are in production. There was speculation that the J-20 was a long-range striker or interceptor rather than air superiority fighter, but that was proved incorrect by the Chinese military itself which has classed it as a multi-role fighter. So what combat role does J-35A play? Having multiple same-generation multi-role fighters in production seems like an inefficient allocation of resources and priorities.

Or perhaps it does not have any difference in combat role, with the only reasons for its existence being non-combat related such as economical (cheaper units, "might as well" derivative project of original carrier-capable J-35 plan), industrial (experience for SAC, insulation if CAC becomes immobilised during conflict) and geopolitical (military export)?

As others have suggested in this thread, the main concern is probably cost and numbers. They want a order big enough such that economy of scale would also benefit naval version as there are currently only 3 carriers (imo only Fujian will actually get J-35s, seems like a hassle to make a cat and non-cat version).

It should also be substantially cheaper than J-20, with less range as the core drawback, which is not as much of a concern if it's main purpose is homeland defense as a land based fighter.

I think they will eventually settle on those 3 fighter types being the most numerous and complimenting each other in their roles in a Hi-Lo mix.

J-20 - top of the line, deep strike strategic assets
J-35 - cheaper, more numerous general air superiority
J-16 - missile truck, CAS, EW

As an aside, what was wrong with recycling the fc-31 designation and changing it to J-31?

 

[iBBz]

Or they remove high-g requirement because how else are you going to make NGAD cost less than F-35.

Then it would be a tactical bomber, not a fighter. It is still possible to overcome this problem by introducing an auxiliary intake on the bottom that opens up when needed, but I don't know if anyone has thought of developing a solution like that before.

 

[SinoAmericanCW]

As others have suggested in this thread, the main concern is probably cost and numbers. They want a order big enough such that economy of scale would also benefit naval version as there are currently only 3 carriers (imo only Fujian will actually get J-35s, seems like a hassle to make a cat and non-cat version).

It should also be substantially cheaper than J-20, with less range as the core drawback, which is not as much of a concern if it's main purpose is homeland defense as a land based fighter.

I think they will eventually settle on those 3 fighter types being the most numerous and complimenting each other in their roles in a Hi-Lo mix.

J-20 - top of the line, deep strike strategic assets
J-35 - cheaper, more numerous general air superiority
J-16 - missile truck, CAS, EW

As an aside, what was wrong with recycling the fc-31 designation and changing it to J-31?

Do we know for a fact that J-20 has meaningful A2G capabilities? My impression has long been that, akin to the F-22, it's an air superiority fighter (but not an interceptor!).

 

[jnd85]

I am quite surprised by this one. Still not sure why we really need to have a PLAAF version of J-35A.

The best reasoning I can come up with are:
1) Supports industrial base with Shenyang AC and keep cost down for both air force and navy
2) Helps provide support for medium sized aeroengine that would both both J-35A and UCAVs
3) Helps with export when your own air force is also buying it.

All very valid reasons. From a parts availability and knowledge sharing standpoint, the single best way to keep costs down is to recycle the same technology as much as possible in all the branches of service. Not only for hardware availability but also in terms of spreading skills needed for maintainance.

 

[plawolf]

As others have suggested in this thread, the main concern is probably cost and numbers. They want a order big enough such that economy of scale would also benefit naval version as there are currently only 3 carriers (imo only Fujian will actually get J-35s, seems like a hassle to make a cat and non-cat version).

It should also be substantially cheaper than J-20, with less range as the core drawback, which is not as much of a concern if it's main purpose is homeland defense as a land based fighter.

I think they will eventually settle on those 3 fighter types being the most numerous and complimenting each other in their roles in a Hi-Lo mix.

J-20 - top of the line, deep strike strategic assets
J-35 - cheaper, more numerous general air superiority
J-16 - missile truck, CAS, EW

As an aside, what was wrong with recycling the fc-31 designation and changing it to J-31?

Your suggestion doesn’t make sense. If they wanted to just boost J35 production numbers for EoS benefits, they can just buy more J35s for the air force. The bigger wings should actually make up for a decent part of the range deficit against the J20. You get maximum EoS benefit since you won’t run into the same kind of issues as the F35 programme where there isn’t anywhere close to as much commonalities between the different versions as hoped; and you save yourself a heap of money on development costs since you don’t need to develop a whole new version. You also get the added benefit of being able to literally redeploy air force planes on carriers if needed for rapid spin up of new carriers and/or combat attrition replacements.

The only reason for the air force to invest the time and money into getting its own different version is if they are going to buy these in big numbers.

With the already impressive and increasing J20 production rates, the only two scenarios where these additional J35As makes sense is if a) China wants to have more 5th gen fighters than the US and NATO combined within as short a time frame as possible, which means it’s on its final countdown for Taiwan; and/or b) China expects to sell a boat load of J35As abroad to eat the F35s lunch. Pakistan wanted it before it was even made. Many of the gulf states might bite; SEA and Africa hold many potential buyers. Turkey would be tempted like never before. Hell, throw in ToT and a production line and even the Russians might buy it. China might buy a modest number of Su57s in return to help maintain Russian pride.

Personally I think it’s both. China will use export orders or even potential export orders as excuse and cover for the massive production increase, but the main objective is to build up the ability to do 200+ stealth manned fighters a year eventually. And that eventually will probably be a lot sooner than most would think.

 

[tphuang]

You know thinking about it a bit it actually makes sense for the Air Force variant to be production ready from the get go, since most of its development process has already been covered by the FC-31 and naval F-35.

I can assure that the Air Force has forked out plenty of funding for the entire project since day 1.

 

[CasualObserver]

Turkey would be tempted like never before

China might buy a modest number of Su57s in return to help maintain Russian pride.

That train has long left the station

b) China expects to sell a boat load of J35As abroad to eat the F35s lunch

Only a number of countries are capable of handling 5th gen operations and most of them are on the US' side and have been equipped with the F-35 already. You're only left with a couple of SEA and Gulf countries. SEA would prolly avoid both aircraft due to either the likelihood of a confrontation with China or not having to choose a side in a possible armed conflict between China and the US.

On the other hand, the truth is that the Gulf has always used their alternatives expertly to get a better deal from their main ally and guarantor, the US, and I don't think they'd want to cross that line yet since they've entrusted the stability of their regime to US Military for so long by now.

 

[plawolf]

View attachment 138439

View attachment 138440

View attachment 138441

That train has long left the station

By that yardstick Iran also has a 5th gen programme. The Turks can take a number and get in line once they are done playing with hollow models.

 

[CasualObserver]

Who's gonna tell him folks? XD

@plawolf

I've literally attached a picture of the jet landing for you; contrary to Iran's "programme", Turkey's Kaan can actually fly.

Tens of thousands of people have literallyspent their days and nights doing overtime on a regular basis just for a guy on the internet to call it a "hollow model"...

Y'know what, with that kind of behaviour, you don't seem that different from your friendly neighbourhood NAFO idiots who shit on CAC & SAC for "copying" American jets.