J-35A fighter (PLAAF) + FC-31 thread
- Thread starter ACuriousPLAFan
- Start date
th
this is not the carrier version, why don't they show the version for 003 Fujian?A few more from Zhuhai...
Why is there an expectation that they should show the carrier compatible J-35?
Shouldn't we be grateful that they were willing to show the J-35A publicly in such a public way to begin with?
Even if I generally agree with you - and I'm more that grateful -, it is in a certain way surprising: We know the J-35 since "much" longer and at least it was expectable it would be more mature in flight testing. As such to unveil and reveal a de facto formerly not yet confirmed type on the show and to still hide the "better-known" first variant is at least strange IMO.
But yes, it is as it seems generally not surprising that they didn't reveal it since it is still not ready. As such the even bigger surprise to show the "A"-variant
My feeling is that J-35A is structurally and aerodynamically lower risk than J-35 as the latter is the carrierborne variant -- even if the J-35A is technically "newer" in terms of when it may have made its first flight relative to J-35 -- simply because the FC-31V1/V2 tech demonstrators did exist and probably provide significant risk reduction.
There is also the fact that the J-35 as the carrierborne variant is more "exotic" overall.
So IMO there are many logical explanations for why it should be normal to not expect J-35 to be present, and if that can be established then the question answers itself.
Btw, a lot of people consider that the J-35 family is superior to the F-35 family b/c it doesn't have a STOVL variant.
Can't help but say that if J-35 has an advantage here, it's that the CATOBAR variant was first. Moreover, it is an aircraft from an aircraft manufacturer with fresh pain of carrier experience (none of the LM contributors has done so since the early 1970s).
STOVL doesn't matter, but beginning from the most painful and different version damn does.
We shall see the outcome of course, but from a risk management perspective this should be a +.
antiterror13
Brigadier
and do you share the opinion of "a lot of people consider that the J-35 family is superior to the F-35 family b/c it doesn't have a STOVL variant" ?
I agree that STOVL is unnecessary adding complexity with marginally benefit for US and China, however STOVL might be useful for smaller navy without big carrier as STOVL can be use on LHD (e.g Type 076) example for Japanese navy
perhaps, China might develop dedicated STOVL for Type 076 in the future ...... just might, could be drone version though
No, I don't.
If you look deeper into modern STOVL in general and JSF in particular, it's very easy to see that it was neither a problem nor a big source of compromise for the land or carrier version.
Adding in the navy late on, however, was the decision that brought most unnecessary difficulties and restrictions into the program, including the most impactful one - length.
Basically, it's way better to "land" a carrier fighter than do anything.