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

[tphuang]

CCTV reports: "Completely independent research and developed medium-thrust engine, MTOW close to 30 tons." "RCS is smaller than the palm of your hand"

It has not yet been officially confirmed whether it is the WS-19 or WS-21. Maybe it's both for now, after all, we all know that WS-19 is the target engine
View attachment 161684

so it would make sense for J35A to be slightly under 30t while J35 is a little heavier due to the carrier needed reinforcements.

It is also quite possible that since requirements for carrier operations is higher, WS19 is ready for J35A but not on J35 yet.

IIRC, wing for J35 is also larger to provide greater lift and possibly longer range. That would also add to the MTOW of J35.

Back to J35A, if it’s MTOW is 29t, then that is probably around 8t of fuel. Which is in the same ballpark as F35A. Pretty good combat radius for its size and also enough space for some heavy electronics.

Is rcs smaller than palm of your hand claim a mistranslation? Could it be your fist? Because palm suggests a plate, which can have quite huge rcs, or near zero, if viewed from other angles. But fist could be approximated into a sphere of a certain size. Which makes more sense as a reference point for rcs measurement.

Is it really useful to get too in depth about this? RCS is not a fixed value. I think the figure of speech is just to impress on audience that it’s really stealthy. It’s not meant to be used to get an exact figure.

 

[Totoro]

Your overthinking, they just mean the RCS in the relevant band is about the size of a palm which is 50cm2 or around -25dsbm level. Not that it literally have the exact same signature as a human palm.

Don't understand. was there extra info disclosed besides what someone here on the forum quoted? A palm is very stretchy term, even size wise. And thats before shape (plate/sphere) comes into account.

Was palm used as a physical area reference or something else? It doesnt seem to be the physical area because a tiny 2.5 by 2.5 cm plate gives 0.005 m2, and that is far smaller than a palm.

 

[Totoro]

Is it really useful to get too in depth about this? RCS is not a fixed value. I think the figure of speech is just to impress on audience that it’s really stealthy. It’s not meant to be used to get an exact figure.

I dont know the context of the quote. Was it literally just some random dude picking a figure of speech out of thin air? In a sense that he couldve just as easily said as big as bird/bug/ping pong ball?
Or was the context somehow different?

 

[siegecrossbow]

so it would make sense for J35A to be slightly under 30t while J35 is a little heavier due to the carrier needed reinforcements.

It is also quite possible that since requirements for carrier operations is higher, WS19 is ready for J35A but not on J35 yet.

IIRC, wing for J35 is also larger to provide greater lift and possibly longer range. That would also add to the MTOW of J35.

Back to J35A, if it’s MTOW is 29t, then that is probably around 8t of fuel. Which is in the same ballpark as F35A. Pretty good combat radius for its size and also enough space for some heavy electronics.

Is it really useful to get too in depth about this? RCS is not a fixed value. I think the figure of speech is just to impress on audience that it’s really stealthy. It’s not meant to be used to get an exact figure.

Longer range is pretty much a given since F-35C has the longest range of the F-35 variants.

Don't understand. was there extra info disclosed besides what someone here on the forum quoted? A palm is very stretchy term, even size wise. And thats before shape (plate/sphere) comes into account.

Was palm used as a physical area reference or something else? It doesnt seem to be the physical area because a tiny 2.5 by 2.5 cm plate gives 0.005 m2, and that is far smaller than a palm.

I don’t understand the obsession over a figure of speech like this. What we do know is that vanilla J-20 has had its RCS measurement thrown off by significant magnitude when a bird landed on it, and J-35 has higher stealth requirement than vanilla J-20. That’s good enough for me.

I think they used palm because the average viewer could visualize something as so small that it fits in the palm of your hands.

 

[Syrida2887]

so it would make sense for J35A to be slightly under 30t while J35 is a little heavier due to the carrier needed reinforcements.

It is also quite possible that since requirements for carrier operations is higher, WS19 is ready for J35A but not on J35 yet.

IIRC, wing for J35 is also larger to provide greater lift and possibly longer range. That would also add to the MTOW of J35.

Back to J35A, if it’s MTOW is 29t, then that is probably around 8t of fuel. Which is in the same ballpark as F35A. Pretty good combat radius for its size and also enough space for some heavy electronics.

Is it really useful to get too in depth about this? RCS is not a fixed value. I think the figure of speech is just to impress on audience that it’s really stealthy. It’s not meant to be used to get an exact figure.

The ideal index of military enthusiasts on social media in China seems to be -40dbm.lol

 

[ismellcopium]

Back to J35A, if it’s MTOW is 29t, then that is probably around 8t of fuel. Which is in the same ballpark as F35A. Pretty good combat radius for its size and also enough space for some heavy electronics.

Wasn't it said to have combat radius similar to early flankers by IIRC guancha a while back, which would be around 1500km?

 

[latenlazy]

If PLA didn't value 2D TVC, then J-50 which is even more advanced and premier fighter of the PLA, wouldn't have it. But it does, so maybe their 2d tvc nozzle just wasn't developed in time for J-35, and only was developed for the next gen.

There is some kind of design freeze in every air frame. J-35 freeze probably happened couple of years back and missed out on the tvc

Any design must also account for the current maturity of the industry and its ability to deliver a feature on time. China's jet engine sector is still relatively less mature. So, even if all the design priorities support adding TVC for the J-35, the industry may not have the capability to develop a TVC-capable WS-19 on schedule.

The PLA likely has an urgent need to deploy the J-35, particularly for its carriers, and might not be able to wait for the ideal engine. This could lead to an initial deployment with an engine that works, even if it isn't the final, TVC-equipped setup.

1) I said “…does not value TVC so much that they will commit to it universally for all platforms…” Please learn to read and learn what a conditional statement is.

2) We’ve already gotten explicit comments from the J-20’s program director why TVC was rejected. They had TVC nozzles developed and tested for the J-20 years ago. TVC is not new tech for China in 2025.


3) Next generation is tailless, different design choices and tradeoffs.

 

[siegecrossbow]

1) I said “…does not value TVC so much that they will commit to it universally for all platforms…” Please learn to read and learn what a conditional statement is.

2) We’ve already gotten explicit comments from the J-20’s program director why TVC was rejected. They had TVC nozzles developed and tested for the J-20 years ago. TVC is not new tech for China in 2025.


3) Next generation is tailless, different design choices and tradeoffs.

If you have the choice between ease of maintenance and higher thrust versus ability to do better flips and turns at airshows, always go with the former.