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

sunnymaxi

Captain
Registered Member
SAC exceed my expectations in craftsmanship and precision manufacturing. first J-15T and now J-35A surface finishing looks better than J-20. its maybe because of design but nevertheless this is the clear indication of, on what Path Chinese high tech industries heading towards.

China heavily investing in digitalization , automation and Ai into manufacturing in-order to increase the precision efficiency. being a latecomer have some advantages.

This is indeed a golden era of Chinese military industrial complex.
Gb1NlUFW4AcI5FA.jpg
 

AndrewS

Brigadier
Registered Member
If the naval version can supercruise while the air force version cannot, then the main reasons could only be weight and/or engine output.

Weight wise, examples could be more use of composites; demanding an air cooled AESA have the same volume and performance as a liquid cooled one, etc.

Engine output increases with the same engine can be achieved by accepting lower engine life and probably also more maintenance requirements.

But it sounds like the key difference is in the navy being happy to pay more for weight saving as opposed to just being prepared to push the engines harder. So I think it’s likely the naval version using an air cooled AESA for weight savings at higher purchases price at a minimum.

If anything, the Air Force version will be almost certainly be lighter than the Naval version. We can see that the Rafale-M is 500kg heavier than the Rafale-C.

Plus we see a smaller wing with no folding mechanism on the J-35. And since they had to design a new wing anyway, it doesn't have to be as structurally strong to handle high accelerations from catapult launches and arrested landings.
 

by78

General
More high-resolution images with great clarity.

54125367464_068ab0d848_k.jpg
54125021921_d4b0db1181_k.jpg
54125021906_971106b2a3_k.jpg
54125021911_1821b1b977_k.jpg
54125475155_da9b706fd4_k.jpg
54125367474_7b5782bdfc_k.jpg
54125021976_f636d35421_k.jpg
54125298633_b3317048c9_k.jpg
 

AndrewS

Brigadier
Registered Member
And my point still stands.

Even as both Chengdu and Shenyang ACs have sufficient production slots to roll out 200-300 J-20As and J-35As respectively per year in the coming years - Having the PLAAF procuring both the J-20As and J-35s is still the better, if not superior option than overwhelmingly focusing on J-20/A production only, as per my reasoning above.

Plus, should I also remind that both Chendu and Shenyang ACs do produce other types of warplanes beyond the J-20A and J-35A, so there's that.

I'd suggest a re-read on what I have explained.


Annual procurement of 300 combined units of J-20 and J-35 seems excessive.
They would want to commit to J-35 production volumes for at least 10 years, which would imply an additional 3000 aircraft.

But if you look at the geography of the Western Pacific - even 200 per year means 2000 additional aircraft which is still way enough for air dominance over the 1st Island Chain.

Remember that with current standalone J-20 production levels, it is still plausible for China to achieve air superiority/dominance over the 1st Island Chain by 2030.

---


Lockheed's F-35 production capacity is about 150-160 per year.
And the US military is only taking delivery of approximately 100 of these, with the rest for export.

J-20 production is at 100, possibly up to 120 per year. And there are indications they are maxed out at current capacity.

1. If the Chinese military want to match Lockheed production levels, that implies J-35 production of about 40-50 per year.
2. But I could see J-35 production reaching J-20 levels, which would mean about 100 per year

I would add that the the 2nd scenario becomes more likely if US-China relations remain bad.
And with the election of an unpredictable Trump, China needs a larger military just from a negotiating perspective and to dissuade any craziness.
 
Last edited:

minime

Junior Member
Registered Member
J-20 production is at 100, possibly up to 120 per year. And there are indications they are maxed out at current capacity.

1. If the Chinese military want to match Lockheed production levels, that implies J-35 production of about 40-50 per year.
2. But I could see J-35 production reaching J-20 levels, which would mean about 100 per year

I would add that the the 2nd scenario becomes more likely if US-China relations remain bad.
And with the election of an unpredictable Trump, China needs a larger military just from a negotiating perspective and to dissuade any craziness.
I would say J-35A is low in a High-Low combo for China to gradually replace aging early 4 gen fighter like J-10A and J-11.
At the same time keep the Naval version cost down and maintain production line given the demand is dictate by the speed of aircraft carrier entering service.
Meanwhile export version will help China project influence since J-20 is not for sale.
I think J-20 at the current rate is more than enough to deter the US from making any moves.
Don't forget SAC still making J15T/J15D and J16/J16D so production capability shift is another challenge.
So I doubt J-35A will mass produce in high tempo.
20-30 in the beginning, 40-50 per year at peaks is reasonable.
Combine that with Naval and export demand, we are looking at probably 80 per year for the J-35 family.
 

sunnymaxi

Captain
Registered Member
So clean it looks like CG. How did they do it?
same thing i have noticed.. LOL

SAC literally hit out of the park with precision manufacturing..
SAC exceed my expectations in craftsmanship and precision manufacturing. first J-15T and now J-35A surface finishing looks better than J-20. its maybe because of design but nevertheless this is the clear indication of, on what Path Chinese high tech industries heading towards.

China heavily investing in digitalization , automation and Ai into manufacturing in-order to increase the precision efficiency. being a latecomer have some advantages.

This is indeed a golden era of Chinese military industrial complex.
View attachment 138730
 
Top