J-35A fighter (PLAAF) + FC-31 thread
- Thread starter ACuriousPLAFan
- Start date
Guys, can't we please carry this discussion to the dedicated Turkey thread?
Btw, as I've already explained in my previous answers (all of your points are already answered there), those F110s are only interim engines just like the AL-31Fs on early production J-20s.
Since this is a project of utmost importance and urgency, even if it ends up without an engine for a while (like the Altay MBT), Turkey will simply wait it out before the indigenous solution is ready.
It's not like Turkey is starting from where China had to start with their previous turbofan projects like when they had problems with initial WS-10s, Turkey is a well integrated OEM supplier to the West (with quite recent indigenous turbofan design experience) and they've accumulated specific technologies from participating a number of Western engine projects including a not-so-insignificant participation in the F135&F136 projects as a building block.
All they have to do now is take all those specific experiences, bring them together and enlarge the recently developed turbofan engines.
In fact, TEI has designed their latest engine so that it could be easily scaled up and it contains engine technologies that are demanded from 5th gen aircraft.
I'm aware that in engine design, you start to face more problems as your engine gets bigger and it's not quite "a linear experience" like what I've described but that is why Turkey has already poured billions of dollars and a couple of years' worth of manhours into this engine.
I mean, they're not new to any of this, they all didn't wake up one day and decide to develop a heavy 5th gen fighter and all of its subcomponents; in fact, they've begun building the foundational capacity aimed at this project exactly 50 years ago.
What I'm trying to explain you guys is that, all of these arguments repeated into irrelevance are already known to not just us but obviously also to the people who're tasked with materializing this thing and as you educate yourself further on this topic; you start to see that the Kaan project as a whole is not at all a "hollow" project, it's actually quite the opposite due to the sheer amount of experience and hardwork put into it.
------
Guys, please let this be the last post about Kaan in this thread. You're welcome to discuss this further in the dedicated Turkey discussion thread but let's stay on topic here.
There's a difference between pointing this out and calling it a fake, hollow project.
Btw, as I've already explained in my previous answers (all of your points are already answered there), those F110s are only interim engines just like the AL-31Fs on early production J-20s.
Since this is a project of utmost importance and urgency, even if it ends up without an engine for a while (like the Altay MBT), Turkey will simply wait it out before the indigenous solution is ready.
It's not like Turkey is starting from where China had to start with their previous turbofan projects like when they had problems with initial WS-10s, Turkey is a well integrated OEM supplier to the West (with quite recent indigenous turbofan design experience) and they've accumulated specific technologies from participating a number of Western engine projects including a not-so-insignificant participation in the F135&F136 projects as a building block.
All they have to do now is take all those specific experiences, bring them together and enlarge the recently developed turbofan engines.
In fact, TEI has designed their latest engine so that it could be easily scaled up and it contains engine technologies that are demanded from 5th gen aircraft.
I'm aware that in engine design, you start to face more problems as your engine gets bigger and it's not quite "a linear experience" like what I've described but that is why Turkey has already poured billions of dollars and a couple of years' worth of manhours into this engine.
I mean, they're not new to any of this, they all didn't wake up one day and decide to develop a heavy 5th gen fighter and all of its subcomponents; in fact, they've begun building the foundational capacity aimed at this project exactly 50 years ago.
What I'm trying to explain you guys is that, all of these arguments repeated into irrelevance are already known to not just us but obviously also to the people who're tasked with materializing this thing and as you educate yourself further on this topic; you start to see that the Kaan project as a whole is not at all a "hollow" project, it's actually quite the opposite due to the sheer amount of experience and hardwork put into it.
Yeah, unfortunately we also have to get conscripted. Besides, what does conscription have to do with any of this?
------
Guys, please let this be the last post about Kaan in this thread. You're welcome to discuss this further in the dedicated Turkey discussion thread but let's stay on topic here.
Doesn't it count for something at least though that the J-35 has no VTOL mechanism taking up the bay?
If it has J-20 sized bay, isn't that about similar to F-35 then? Which proves the point of it being a smaller plane that can more efficiently ground attack without wasting a highly optimized air dominance unit.
Not really.
No. J-20's weapons bay is nowhere near as deep as F-35's central bays. J-20's bay is more like F-22's bay, possibly a little bit larger, but it lacks the depth of F-35's central bays that are designed to be able to carry weapons as large as 1t JDAMs
From hundreds of images we saw, we're pretty much able to size up most dimensions on J-20. Some images include the weapons bay, there are several fairly hi res images of it. Anyone can do their measurements. I'll just post measurements I did over the years:
Total length of the bay around 4.5 meters. Total width of (one) bay around 1 meter (give or take 5 cm)
560mm depth at the deepest point of deepest structural support brace. Of course, only a small portion of the length is that deep, as intakes curve above them. (theoretically something like the tip of a fin might extend into the area between support braces)
Some 3.2 meter long stretch of the bay is 440mm (or more)
Some 3.7 meter long stretch of the bay is 380mm (or more)
Some 4.3 meter long stretch of the bay is 310mm deep (or more)
Objects the size of JSOW and JSM should fit in there. Perhaps even a bit larger. Certainly the length is there to allow for something slightly longer. Depending on how much clearance is needed between the roof of the bay and the actual ordnance, due to various interfaces and/or ejecting mechanisms, even something similar in size to JASSM *might* fit. (I'm not saying that's likely)
I suggest using these images, for people wanting to do their own measurements:
Wingspan to engine nozzle (since its round) and then nozzle to depth of the bay is a practical way to do it. Also, width of the weapon bay doors is also helpful, as it is known from overall wingspan.
JSOW is 4.1 m long and 44 cm tall at its highest point. Said highest point goes on for some 2.1 meters, after which it tapers off. for example, a 3 meter long stretch of the jsow is 32 cm tall. (not counting tails which would be foldable for any such missile designed for internal carriage)
So, today, J20 is basically assured it can take in a weapon even a bit larger than the JSOW.
J-20s bay MAY one day be able to hold a2g weapons with 600 mile range. Case in point - JSOW-ER can achieve 560 km (350 miles)and can be carried by F-35. (carrying a 250 kg class warhead)
What about JASSM? JASSM-ER is 4.27 m long, so it can fit length wise in J20's bay. With bay being 90ish cm wide, that's also doable. What's questionable is depth. JASSM seems to be some 55-60 cm tall, complete with the pylon interface. That is almost surely too much for J20, as I got 560mm max depth which pertains to only a small portion of the bay's length. But it does seem as if the missile that J20 could take in would be somewhat closer to JASSM size than to JSOW size.
So basically it'd have to be a weapon 4,3 m long, with cross section dimensions of 35-40 cm height and 80-90 cm wide. (to compensate for the height loss to overall volume). That'd still fit in one of J20's bomb bay but it'd have to be a novel, daring, semi blended wing/body design.
Or if warhead is just 250 kg then it might be something in between, perhaps 40 by 70 cm cross section...
What does seem perfectly plausible even with last gen Chinese engine tech is a 300+ km range stealthy a2g missile, basically a bit longer and wider powered JSOW. By the time it actually enters service, and with newer tech, 500+ km range and 400+ kg warhead seems quite plausible. (JASSM carries a 432 kg warhead)
Total length of the bay around 4.5 meters. Total width of (one) bay around 1 meter (give or take 5 cm)
560mm depth at the deepest point of deepest structural support brace. Of course, only a small portion of the length is that deep, as intakes curve above them. (theoretically something like the tip of a fin might extend into the area between support braces)
Some 3.2 meter long stretch of the bay is 440mm (or more)
Some 3.7 meter long stretch of the bay is 380mm (or more)
Some 4.3 meter long stretch of the bay is 310mm deep (or more)
Objects the size of JSOW and JSM should fit in there. Perhaps even a bit larger. Certainly the length is there to allow for something slightly longer. Depending on how much clearance is needed between the roof of the bay and the actual ordnance, due to various interfaces and/or ejecting mechanisms, even something similar in size to JASSM *might* fit. (I'm not saying that's likely)
I suggest using these images, for people wanting to do their own measurements:
Wingspan to engine nozzle (since its round) and then nozzle to depth of the bay is a practical way to do it. Also, width of the weapon bay doors is also helpful, as it is known from overall wingspan.
JSOW is 4.1 m long and 44 cm tall at its highest point. Said highest point goes on for some 2.1 meters, after which it tapers off. for example, a 3 meter long stretch of the jsow is 32 cm tall. (not counting tails which would be foldable for any such missile designed for internal carriage)
So, today, J20 is basically assured it can take in a weapon even a bit larger than the JSOW.
J-20s bay MAY one day be able to hold a2g weapons with 600 mile range. Case in point - JSOW-ER can achieve 560 km (350 miles)and can be carried by F-35. (carrying a 250 kg class warhead)
What about JASSM? JASSM-ER is 4.27 m long, so it can fit length wise in J20's bay. With bay being 90ish cm wide, that's also doable. What's questionable is depth. JASSM seems to be some 55-60 cm tall, complete with the pylon interface. That is almost surely too much for J20, as I got 560mm max depth which pertains to only a small portion of the bay's length. But it does seem as if the missile that J20 could take in would be somewhat closer to JASSM size than to JSOW size.
So basically it'd have to be a weapon 4,3 m long, with cross section dimensions of 35-40 cm height and 80-90 cm wide. (to compensate for the height loss to overall volume). That'd still fit in one of J20's bomb bay but it'd have to be a novel, daring, semi blended wing/body design.
Or if warhead is just 250 kg then it might be something in between, perhaps 40 by 70 cm cross section...
What does seem perfectly plausible even with last gen Chinese engine tech is a 300+ km range stealthy a2g missile, basically a bit longer and wider powered JSOW. By the time it actually enters service, and with newer tech, 500+ km range and 400+ kg warhead seems quite plausible. (JASSM carries a 432 kg warhead)
We know that a J-20 and J-35 compatible stand off range cruise missile (JSM equivalent) was in the works for quite a few years back, and the fact that they are able to carry A2G weapons designed around their weapons bay geometry is also well known.
However, the specific question being asked was about the comparison of J-35 (and in turn J-20) weapons bay relative to F-35's weapons bay, and it is very much the case that the F-35's weapons bay (A and C variants specifically) have central stations whose depth is greater than that of what J-20 and in turn J-35's can offer.
Considering even F-35's central bays cannot accommodate JASSM internally, it would be silly to think J-20's bay could accommodate such a weapon (not that PLAAF has JASSM in service anyhow).
Keep in mind that any discussion around J-20's A2G payload should also reserve space in the ventral weapons bay for two BVRAAMs, considering the F-35's two central bay stations are for A2G ordnance while it retains two door mounted BVRAAMs as well.
Therefore, unless one is willing to completely send in a J-20 to conduct a strike mission without any on board BVRAAM, you will probably have to halve the width of whatever A2G weapon one has in mind that you want to speculate about, to get a more realistic estimate of how big such a weapon could be.
Alternatively, if one wants to use the full width of J-20's ventral weapons bay for a more capable A2G weapon and omitting the ability to carry BVRAAMs, then that is fine as well but it also means accepting that J-20's (and J-35's) ventral bay is not comparable to that of F-35 as F-35 can carry large A2G ordnance while also carrying two BVRAAMs.
We have identified the cover for the retractable probe on J-35, and J-35A is likely to possess it as well.
It would be bizarre if they did not have an IFR probe for in flight refuelling, imo this is a question which probably doesn't need to be asked and the null hypothesis can be assumed as yes.
SinoSoldier
Colonel
For what it's worth, the FC-31 has been confirmed to be able to carry four 500 kg bombs in its internal bay. The J-35/A's bay would be of the same size at the minimum, which may very well allow for Ra'ad- and AKF98-sized missiles.
Imo China would very much want the air combat optimized J-20 as a fighter-interceptor rather than multi-role, if given the choice.
Modern interceptors don't really exist because if it has bays, it can be a multi-role.
But historically speaking, the interceptor mission means a plane with stronger air performance than the general fleet, often flown by elite units, tasked with hunting down the enemy's "best" air units. While air superiority is an aircraft that patrols airspace and escorts friendlies. Basically the distinction between Spitfires and Hurricanes.
You can press gang air superiority fighters into interceptors and you can use interceptors to patrol air space. But pure fighters like J-10 or F-16 are not going to provide the same performance as say F-15, which leans more towards interceptor on the fighter-interceptor spectrum (or the J-20 and F-22, which are 5th gen versions of that). Using interceptors to patrol airspace represents a wasteful use of resources.