Thanks a lot for all your effort in keeping the discussion environment of the forum healthy.
J-35A fighter (PLAAF) + FC-31 thread
- Thread starter ACuriousPLAFan
- Start date
Yes given when J-35 was developed compared to J-20 and the difference in metamaterial tech and stealth tech in general, the J-35 is definitely stealthier than J-20 if both are applying the best China can offer during their respective design and manufacturing years. If J-35 is made to be a second rate to the J-20 and at a target cost, it may compromise certain things? Assuming it isn't, the J-35 has better frontal stealth by virtue of being smaller and without canards. While canards may not inhibit VLO to the degree western pundits initially hoped (plenty of stealth fighter concepts applied canards and there are ways to reduce RCS of canards), not having canards is better than having them no matter how well you can hide them from radar, 0 < 0.001. To say nothing of deflections ... penalties which also apply to conventional configurations like F-22, F-35, J-35, Su-57, KAAN etc.
The reasons for PLAAF getting interested in J-35 are indeed surprising to me. PLAN's acquisition of J-35 is something I concede.
We talk about better A2G... really? How can we be sure of this? A2A I'd put money on J-20 despite canards. It holds 2 additional long range missiles and 2 additional PL-10s. Larger radar, engines generate more power for APUs and electronics. Of course there may be a million technical and tangible reasons why PLAAF wants to have both.
The reasons for PLAAF getting interested in J-35 are indeed surprising to me. PLAN's acquisition of J-35 is something I concede.
We talk about better A2G... really? How can we be sure of this? A2A I'd put money on J-20 despite canards. It holds 2 additional long range missiles and 2 additional PL-10s. Larger radar, engines generate more power for APUs and electronics. Of course there may be a million technical and tangible reasons why PLAAF wants to have both.
Last edited:
I don't understand how this can be.
Okay, so the width and length of J-35A weapons bay is approximately the same as J-20s, judging by the imagery. Is that superior? No, that one variable is equal.
Depth of the weapons bay for J-35 is unknown as there are not good images. Depth of J-20's bay can be estimated from images and is not shallow one bit. It looks deep enough to house 500 kg bombs easily and even 1000 kg weapons, if in a somewhat different shape than JASSM missile, for example. When looked at from the side, J-35 is quite a bit more slender than J-20 and it's in my opinion highly questionable if depth of J-35s bays can match J-20s. So... I'd say this is a variable where either J-20 is better or two planes are similar.
Then the most important metrics. Payload and range. Which are often interdependent, as bigger payload reduces range. J-20 is a bigger plane with more lift and same payload doesn't impact it as much as it does a smaller plane like J-35.
J-20 has a lot of internal volume for a lot of fuel. J-35 is much more slender and my estimates of internal volume of both planes suggest to me it holds even less fuel per kN of thrust generated than J-20. That's just internal fuel. J-20 also has the option of four large external tanks. J-35 has so far not been seen with any external fuel option. And even if it does have one, it's highly unlikely it will be able to haul around four 600-gallon tanks like J-20.
Basically, whatever payload J-35 will be able to hold, J-20 should be able to at least match it. That's just in internal bays. When adding external weaponry, J-20 should have even greater payload advantage. And whatever the payload, J-20 will be able to carry it to longer distances.
Right now, the only advantage that may be is the integrated optical/thermal targeting system. We know that current J-20 variants can't really look much past the forward quadrant. We don't know if current J-35 are similar but still possible its system is designed to look to the sides, like F-35's is. But even if that's all true, it doesn't really tell us anything about future J-20 and J-35 variants.
And then there's radar targeting. J-20 is constantly being modernized with newer electronics so there's no reason to think J-20s radar and avionics are worse than J-35's. So all other things being equal, J-20's bigger radar array and more power should lead to more sensitivity and better synthetic images of land targets. Again useful in air ground strike missions.
I guess if J-35 really had superior stealth to J-20, that might make it more useful for ground strikes than J-20 in SOME instances. But there's really no way of measuring stealth of those two planes so that discussion would be pointless.
Not sure about superior AG capabilities... It's slim making internal payload difficult for big diameter ammunitions. Range could be inferior to J-20 too.
J-35 will be able to fill the demand for J-10 replacement without impeding other types productions while using a different engine than WS-15. WS-15 will be in high demand for J-20 and the 6th generation fighters, maybe even H-20. Two engines make him costlier to operate tho.
I would really advice against gauging dimensions by eye. Fuselage height only tells one part of the story.
What I've heard is that the J-20 actually cannot fit 500 kg bombs in its IWB due to the intakes taking up some of the frontal section of the bay.
See how the intakes take up some space? The aft section of the bay is deep enough, but not the front. 1000 kg bombs are definitely out of the question.
The J-35/A, since it uses medium-thrust class engines, can afford thinner intake ducts and thus the front part of the bay wouldn't be as obstructed. 1000 kg bombs are still out of the question, but 4 500 kg bombs are possible. The J-20 uses high-thrust class engines and they require much thicker ducts due to the higher overall mass flow.
Hence, the J-20's fuselage may appear thicker, but much of that is dedicated to the s-ducts instead of the IWB.
That's only one part of the equation. The J-35/A is a (much) lighter airframe.
That's not how it works. The range of an aircraft depends on the percentage of the aircraft dedicated to fuel instead of the fuel mass itself.
By that logic, the extensive application of additive manufacturing used on the J-35/A is also unconfirmed to be utilised on the J-20A, much less legacy J-20s.
Does it need to? Look, I don't know why you're hellbent on comparing the stats of a heavyweight air superiority fighter to a medium-sized multirole fighter. Obviously a bigger platform is gonna look more appetizing on paper. But the point of the J-35A isn't to match the J-20's range. It might, but that's not its main design purpose.
The J-35A's point is to provide and enhance multirole capabilities of the PLAAF so that the J-20 can focus on air superiority. Why have the J-20 conduct stealth A/G strikes when you can just get a cheaper, potentially even stealthier platform to do it.? The J-20s are supposed to penetrate the enemy's "web" and establish air superiority while the J-35As construct the "web" on the friendly side and provide multirole support.
It doesn't need to match the J-20's range and powerful radars. That's not the point of the platform.
I've said why that might not be the case. Blame the WS-10C/15's overall mass flow.
And why do that when you've got J-16s? I get it if air superiority was established and it's AAMs that the J-20 is carrying externally. But for A/G missions it's makes much more sense to shove it to J-16s (if air superiority was established) and/or J-35A (in contested airspace).
Again, the J-35A doesn't need to carry it as far as the J-20. It could, but that's again not the main goal.
If both uses hybrid EOTSs, that's fine. But if such tech isn't mature yet, the J-35A in theory would use MWIR EOTS for multirole strikes while the J-20 uses LWIR for air superiority.
And the J-35A should be able to match most of its prowess while being cheaper to maintain and easier to operate. Refer to above also about the distinction between MWIR/LWIR and how the J-35A would be much more suited for A/G strikes.
Well, the J-35/A does have an actual paper of an internal cannon.
Look, although the J-20's size and canards doesn't mean it can't be as stealthy as smaller, conventional wing platforms, the J-35/A is literally the closest you can get to textbook perfect. Inherently smaller airframe, no protruding control surfaces, DSI, completely smooth belly, etc. It is inherently a stealthier design.
Last edited:
In a2a, they probably have the exact same main bay; it is either 4 or 6 for either, unless one of designs somehow screwed up with bulkhehads.
I.e. difference is secondary bays and everything else(sensors etc).
Which ultimately makes difference not that substantial in the air (j-20 is better, but not to the point it matters in frontal contest between two systems of systems).
As for the ground - we don't know. While bay is indeed probably same, for example, we need to know what's there in EOTS housing. While speculative, there is very high chance, that for J-35 it's a proper ground-attack/multirole sensor, while J-20 one is a a2a detection-focused device like the one originally planned for the ATF.
And it will most certainly make the J-35 much more capable attacker than the J-20.
Still, J-35 went into full system development basically a decade later than J-20(mid 2010s against mid-2000s). It is a newer platform, no way around it.
Guys, while y'all be making good points in this discussion, I think y'all forgot that the J-35A's rival in the PLAAF is not the J-20 but the J-20A. Both J-20A and J-35A are coming into production at the same time (relatively speaking) and CAC reportedly helped SAC with the J-35A(and J-35 too), it's very likely they share many commonalities with each other.
not a chance. They are going to have 1000+ J-20s at the current production trend. And more importantly, we are going to see a whole bunch of CCAs replacing older jet.
we gotta Lower expectations a little bit here
However, the Chinese Air Force currently operates approximately 2,000 fighter jets. Even if we assume that the Chinese Air Force does not continue to expand its fleet size in the future, achieving full stealth capability with its current scale would still leave a significant gap in fifth-generation fighter jets beyond the J-20. Considering the possibility of China further accelerating the expansion of its air force to prepare for potential war risks, I remain optimistic about the production of the J-35A.
As for CCA , I am unsure how the Chinese Air Force views the relationship between manned fighter jets and CCAs (perhaps I’ve missed some information on this topic). My personal perspective is that the Chinese Air Force would not use CCAs to massively replace manned fighter jets when they enter service. Instead, they are likely to combine CCAs and manned fighter jets into operational units in a certain proportion.
We just saw with J-36, a platform that's clearly meant to operate along side many CCAs. J-35 does not have the range to operate alongside J-36 in a 2IC mission.
If you want to make the argument for 1000 J-35A, can you outline what you think its combat radius is and where do you foresee it operate out of?