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

[Blitzo]

Given that there has been official confirmation that J-20S has MUMT capabilities for collaborating with loyal wingamn UCAVs - Here's wondering whether we will see a twin-seater variant for the J-35A (and also J-35 for the PLAN) for similar purposes in the future?

Most importantly, though - Will we see also single-seat J-20/As, J-35As and J-35s (of which would collectively be available in the high-triple digits if not low-quadruple digits in the coming years) also be equipped with MUMT capabilities sometime in the future?

I think they're just doing it to "show" the "difference" of it controlling UAVs.

However single pilot aircraft should also be capable of doing so.


Putting it another way, a twin seat aircraft will always be more capable than a single seat aircraft in doing command roles, but a single seat aircraft should still be able to do so as well. Automation and autonomy will ultimately benefit both single and twin seat aircraft, but the aircraft with two people in it will benefit from it more.

Imo this assessment doesn't change since the J-20B (or J-20S, if that is indeed its name) first arrived on the scene a few years ago.

 

[Deino]

Another good image of the J-35A "2. aircraft" (in the meaning of the 2nd one shown)

 

[Alfa_Particle]

Another good image of the J-35A "2. aircraft" (in the meaning of the 2nd one shown)

View attachment 138982

Isn't it No.3 in terms of this?:

Well this is based on what was discussed today (at least in case I got it right) and the idea, that two of the aircraft seem to have the old style horizontal tail configuration, while one of them (#01) seems to differ also in other aspects, so I rate the one we've seen today on Saturday an intermediate one (aka #02), the one we saw on Friday as the newest / most recent one (#03) - some even noted it would represent the production standard and will be sent to the PLAAF for trials after the show - even if it does not have the EODAS installed yet.




These may be just not installed yet ...



By the way, after a second and even third and fourth thought, some comparisons of different images and a lot of cut & paste to find suitable ones I would rather say, the engines are the same and so at least at the moment I think they use all the same engines, namely the WS-21!

View attachment 138899

 

[sequ]

Another good image of the J-35A "2. aircraft" (in the meaning of the 2nd one shown)

View attachment 138982

Smoke= RD-33 derivative e.g. WS-13(E)/21
No Smoke= WS-19

Simple as

 

[Deino]

Isn't it No.3 in terms of this?:

Yes, but since I'm still not sure, we have no confirmation or what I would call a "commonly accepted agreement" - maybe others could add their thoughts on this issue !?? - and since it was the one shown as the "second" one I used this term.

Smoke= RD-33 derivative e.g. WS-13(E)/21
No Smoke= WS-19

Simple as

Simple maybe yes, but based on the very few clear images showing the J-35A in hard maneuvers so we could be sure which engin smokes and which not or at least lesser and identify the engine at the same time I would say it is a bit too simple!

 

[Alfa_Particle]

Yes, but since I'm still not sure, we have no confirmation or what I would call a "commonly accepted agreement" - maybe others could add their thoughts on this issue !?? - and since it was the one shown as the "second" one I used this term.

Agreed as to how a consensus hasn't been reached yet. I think it would be better off destinating them by order of appearance.

Smoke= RD-33 derivative e.g. WS-13(E)/21
No Smoke= WS-19

Simple as

Not necessarily. WS-21 apparently has a different combustion chamber.

 

[sunnymaxi]

Agreed as to how a consensus hasn't been reached yet. I think it would be better off destinating them by order of appearance.


Not necessarily. WS-21 apparently has a different combustion chamber.

we have seen 5 or 6 different flights of J-35/J-35A .. in those videos, Engines barely emit smoke or very minimal. RD-33 is basically a smoke truck.

 

[siegecrossbow]

Smoke= RD-33 derivative e.g. WS-13(E)/21
No Smoke= WS-19

Simple as

That’s not a safe assumption since even WS-15 smokes under circumstances.

 

[Deino]

Agreed as to how a consensus hasn't been reached yet. I think it would be better off destinating them by order of appearance.

He thinks the second one seen is the final (#03) one

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1855486245524160939

 

[Alfa_Particle]

He thinks the second one seen is the final (#03) one

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1855486245524160939

View attachment 138999View attachment 139001View attachment 139000View attachment 138998

Respectfully disagree. The worn paint and primer showing means that this aircraft has been flying for quite a while, and hard.

As I've said before, visible EODAS windows ≠ closer to the final product. Still inclined to think that:

(Oldest) 2nd one that appeared -> 3rd one that appeared -> 1st one that appeared (youngest).

Also, I know it's too blurry to be anything conclusive, but I really think these could be WS-19s:


Compare that to early renders:


And WS-19's Chief Designer and team's photo:


They strikingly match to a point that it sticks out to me.