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

[Gloire_bb]

I don't think land-variants need a folding wing which adds weight, complexity, and cost. It's not hard to retool to add folding wings, launch bar, and tailhooks, but it's much harder to add production lines and scale fast enough in times of war. Both J-35A and J-35 complement each in terms of economy of scale and high parts interchangeablility.

They don't, but they, together with removal of reinforced structure and gear add significant development price, and this optimization reduces that very pool you've mentioned.
I.e. should airforce just subsidize the navy, they would've ordered more 35s. Which also could doubled as spares.
The very existence of A is a sign that air force itself wanted this plane.

 

[Phead128]

They don't, but they, together with removal of reinforced structure and gear add significant development price, and this optimization reduces that very pool you've mentioned.
I.e. should airforce just subsidize the navy, they would've ordered more 35s. Which also could doubled as spares.
The very existence of A is a sign that air force itself wanted this plane.

As @AndrewS alluded to, carriers are not sufficient numbers to justify going 'all-in' on J-35 alone, so carriers will operate closer to coastal mainland within land-based asset shorter range coverage. J-35A can play a key role in providing coverage within 1st island chain and as a numbers filler. The very existence of J-35A will help fill in the numbers of high/low 5th gen complement within 1st island chain, while also having a side benefit of providing loss replacement capacity for J-35 if and when carriers do a become more numerous. AndrewS is basically saying the number of carriers is the rate limiting step to justify greater capacity for loss replacement.

Nobody said PLAAF doesn't want J-35A or it's sole purpose alone is to charity J-35. I am pointing out the synergy and commonality between the two platforms that helps achieve economy of scale and rapid loss replacement.

 

[tphuang]

Oh god... not more of the "muh J-20 is much superior, J-35A is sh1te, PLAAF should/must/will only go with J-20, PLAAF don't need the J-35A" type of people...

There are many considerations in procurement decisions. I don’t think people here are saying j35a is bad.

The next immediate year of 5th gens alone isn't important, rather it is the sustained/average rate that CAC and SAC can combined produce over the next decade, while both CAC and SAC have upcoming next gen fighter projects and various likely UCAVs in the works as well that all need to be produced.

Overall the thrust of the argument is that CAC's ability to expand and produce an increased number of J-20s is not able meet the PLA's 5th gen appetite, if they also want to maintain robust R&D and testing/moving to LRIP for next gen fighter and UCAV projects, while also not burning out large chunks of CAC's workforce.
Whether that means sustaining 100, 110, 120 or 130 J-20s a year for 5 years or 10 years, doesn't really matter to the conversation -- the point is that the PLA wants both CAC and SAC up and running at a healthy and sustainable pace for a long period that allows them to meet PLA 5th gen demands over the course of this decade and into the 2030s, while simultaneously letting both develop their next gen fighter and UCAV projects competently, while also doing R&D into more future projects beyond the 2030s, and also allowing both organizations to remain healthy from a human resources perspective.

that is fine. I am not making long term projections on how many of each aircraft will be procured. Just poking holes on this assertion that CAC cannot go over 100 per year because guancha folks they were overworked last year.

And I think if production is already at 150, then both J35 & J20 production will be higher than we previously projected.

 

[Blitzo]

that is fine. I am not making long term projections on how many of each aircraft will be procured. Just poking holes on this assertion that CAC cannot go over 100 per year because guancha folks they were overworked last year.

In that case I think it is important to contextualize that the overall discussion was specifically about longer term procurement of aircraft and CAC's ability to sustain high rates of production to meet PLA 5th gen demands while preserving their own organizational health and other project commitments.


I don't think anyone would challenge the idea that CAC could have a year or two where they build significantly more than 100 J-20 airframes in a year. 140 sure, or even 150.
But what matters isn't one off production peaks, but sustained production rate averages over a decade or so.

 

[Andy1974]

J-35 production only for 3-4 carriers (up to 6) at 30-40 per carrier will be a huge problem when it comes to high attrition, replacing lossed J-35s, and limited production lines. You won't be able to replace J-35 fast enough in a high intensity war in the Pacific.

That's where PLAAF's J-35A can effectively subsidize or support J-35 production with J-35A production lines (high parts interchangeablility and commonality) which are expected to keep high levels of production into the next decade and longer. Also helps J-35 gain the economy of scale , but most importantly, rapid replacements of J-35 units with huge adjacent capacity.

This makes sense considering F-35 is expected to be fielded in thousand and with hundreds per year annual production capacity. In a Pacific conflict, the ability to replace or replenish loss units quickly may is quite important.

F35 can also be deployed to unsinkable aircraft carriers such as islands in the SCS or coastal bases as well as Type 076s.

If deployed on land they still need the folding wings and tail hooks so they can land on carriers if they have too.

 

[Tomboy]

F35 can also be deployed to unsinkable aircraft carriers such as islands in the SCS or coastal bases as well as Type 076s.

If deployed on land they still need the folding wings and tail hooks so they can land on carriers if they have too.

IMO, I don't think the production run of the J-35 will be that limited due to carriers. PLAN is known to operate it's own land based fixed wing fighter fleet, it could still operate such a fleet except with J-35s. PLAN could have ~100 J-35 based on land bases like SCS islands, coastal bases and generally in reserve and with 100 J-35 on active on carriers for the near future(After 004 is comissioned in the late 2020s)

 

[Andy1974]

IMO, I don't think the production run of the J-35 will be that limited due to carriers. PLAN is known to operate it's own land based fixed wing fighter fleet, it could still operate such a fleet except with J-35s. PLAN could have ~100 J-35 based on land bases like SCS islands, coastal bases and generally in reserve and with 100 J-35 on active on carriers for the near future(After 004 is comissioned in the late 2020s)

What do you think about 076 deployments? I think there could be a good number of 076s, maybe 4-8 in total.

 

[Black Wolf]

So, in a nutshell are we projecting the following in next 5-10years?

~500 J-35
~ 1000 J-35A

 

[Aval]

The J-20 is supposed to be a lot more expensive so price could have something to do with it too.


Given how much newer the J-35 is and how it has access to much more advanced design tools, it would have been very surprising if it has a higher RCS than the J-20.

On a different note, it's weird to see all those people who say, without the slightest hestitation, that the F-22 is by far the best fighter plane in the world. The F-22 was designed in the '90s, and largely with '80s technology. Unless military technology has been at a standstill for decades, how can it possibly still be the best? It still has early generation RAM coatings, it didn't have all the advanced design tools we have now, and it doesn't have the advanced avionics or even the space for the advanced avionics modern planes have. It's a plane that isn't ideal for the modern battlefield, and it was good for the US that its production lines were shut down early.

I'd say things are now reaching the question the Americans have been been pondering for a decade - Is the F-22 really sufficiently superior to the F-35 to form a proper Hi/Lo mix in both its procurement and combat doctrine? The F-22 is an old plane, and unlike the J-20 it didn't get a significant MLU (J-20 -> J-20A) to keep it apace with the next fighter in the same generation that benefits from at least 10 years of technological progression (both F-35 and J-35). The legendary status of the F-22 from which it derives its superiority over the F-35 in popular perception is the same kind of illogical belief that the J-20 is intrinsically superior to the J-35 by virtue of being the first and an air-superiority design even when they are a decade apart in technology. And I say this as someone who is very biased towards the J-20.

For the US, the decision was easy because its wasn't even a decision. F-22 procurement ended very early, and before the F-35 debuted, which means it didn't need/couldn't to be considered in terms of Hi/Lo procurement. And in terms of combat doctrine, the US military generally only refers to the F-35 in its future plans, which does suggest how they view even the F-22 units they have in existence.

But since the J-20 is still being produced and production is at max/ramping up while J-35 production is starting, clearly the J-20 is not any worse (in the PLA's perception) than the J-35 even if its stealth is inferior. There must be qualities that still justifies the J-20's higher price yet worse stealth (other than simply filling up numbers when there is sufficient funds and existing J-20 production lines). Although I doubt we'll ever get an official source on why the PLA thinks the J-20 is better (or at least equal) to the J-35. Perhaps they just know that stealth isn't the be-all-end-all, even for 5th-gens, and that the J-20s greater range and (possibly?) maneuverability and speed makes is superior overall. I think we should speculate on this platforms comparison, as it may impact procurement numbers of J-20/A vs J-35/A in the coming decades.

Primary question: Is the J-20/A superior to the J-35/A?
Secondary question: If so, or if not: Why?

 

[vincent]

I'd say things are now reaching the question the Americans have been been pondering for a decade - Is the F-22 really sufficiently superior to the F-35 to form a proper Hi/Lo mix in both its procurement and combat doctrine? The F-22 is an old plane, and unlike the J-20 it didn't get a significant MLU (J-20 -> J-20A) to keep it apace with the next fighter in the same generation that benefits from at least 10 years of technological progression (both F-35 and J-35). The legendary status of the F-22 from which it derives its superiority over the F-35 in popular perception is the same kind of illogical belief that the J-20 is intrinsically superior to the J-35 by virtue of being the first and an air-superiority design even when they are a decade apart in technology. And I say this as someone who is very biased towards the J-20.

For the US, the decision was easy because its wasn't even a decision. F-22 procurement ended very early, and before the F-35 debuted, which means it didn't need/couldn't to be considered in terms of Hi/Lo procurement. And in terms of combat doctrine, the US military generally only refers to the F-35 in its future plans, which does suggest how they view even the F-22 units they have in existence.

But since the J-20 is still being produced and production is at max/ramping up while J-35 production is starting, clearly the J-20 is not any worse (in the PLA's perception) than the J-35 even if its stealth is inferior. There must be qualities that still justifies the J-20's higher price yet worse stealth (other than simply filling up numbers when there is sufficient funds and existing J-20 production lines). Although I doubt we'll ever get an official source on why the PLA thinks the J-20 is better (or at least equal) to the J-35. Perhaps they just know that stealth isn't the be-all-end-all, even for 5th-gens, and that the J-20s greater range and (possibly?) maneuverability and speed makes is superior overall. I think we should speculate on this platforms comparison, as it may impact procurement numbers of J-20/A vs J-35/A in the coming decades.

Primary question: Is the J-20/A superior to the J-35/A?
Secondary question: If so, or if not: Why?

J-20 is superior in the PLAAF air tactics due to its superior transonic and supersonic performances