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

L

Lucas234

New Member
Registered Member
Regarding so-called "nicknames"... The Chinese Wikipedia uses the term 代号, which is translated as "code name". And all the "nicknames" are frequently used officially, including Chinese state media, thus, we can be pretty sure that they are in fact no "nicknames", but rather official combat names, similar to American ones (such as F-15 Eagle). Am I right?
 
Deino

Deino

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Registered Member
Lucas234 said:
Regarding so-called "nicknames"... The Chinese Wikipedia uses the term 代号, which is translated as "code name". And all the "nicknames" are frequently used officially, including Chinese state media, thus, we can be pretty sure that they are in fact no "nicknames", but rather official combat names, similar to American ones (such as F-15 Eagle). Am I right?
Click to expand...

Yes, I think true nicknames are the unofficial ones like Pomegranate for the J-16, Chubby Girl for the Y-20 ... are there more? I think I heard the J-11 is called Chopsticks?


Nagumo said:
Hello, have any "dragon" names older fighters like J-7 and J-8 too?
Click to expand...


Not that I know, maybe they are before the era of dragons?
 
Last edited:
CaribouTruth

CaribouTruth

Junior Member
Registered Member
Lucas234 said:
My guess: No. At least no such mention of anything like that can be found. I think that the Chinese military has started to use the official names several years ago, probably starting with the J-10, because it simply looks cool. :)
Click to expand...
I assumed it was for indigenous designs, or at least began with those. Sino-Flankers got rolled into that. Cool-factor doesn't hurt though!
 
L

lgnxz

Junior Member
Registered Member
ACuriousPLAFan said:
Illustrations from academic papers which likely indicates the longitudinal cross-sectional diagram of the internal weapons bay (IWB) of the J-35A (for the PLAAF) and the J-35 (for the PLAN).

Posted by @Captain小潇 on Weibo.

View attachment 139896
View attachment 139897
View attachment 139902
View attachment 139898

Assuming the lengths of IWBs on both the J-20/As and J-35/As are similar, if not exactly the same:

Through comparison, the IWBs of the J-35/A seems to considerably differ from the IWB of the J-20, such that the J-35/A's IWB actually has a deeper depth towards the front than the J-20's IWB, mainly due to the differences in the placement of the IWBs and the designs of the engine inlets on both the J-20 and J-35/A.

View attachment 139900
View attachment 139905

This has likely resulted in the J-35/As being actually capable of carrying larger-dimension payloads inside her IWB than the J-20.

The upper four diagrams should refer to the J-35/As, whereas the lower four diagrams should refer to the J-20.

View attachment 139901

Honestly, didn't realise the the IWB of the J-20 actually doesn't have a uniform depth across the entire length until today.

View attachment 139904

Such features could also explain why the J-20/As and J-35As are given different mission sets by the PLAAF.
Click to expand...
Interesting find, but still isn't completely certain, given that we have many other papers on J-20 and J-35A (such as a supposed gun installed on the left-side of J-35A) that didn't materialize into the actual aircraft.

Also regarding the IRST comparison, what does LTD mean on the supposedly J-35A's, does anyone know about this abbreviation?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top