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

[ACuriousPLAFan]

A slightly out-of-topic post from me here.

The J-XDS from Shenyang AC - Even when expected to become the "lo" in the "hi-lo" pair with the J-36 - Is pretty much just as big as the J-11BS/16 that accompanied it during its first flight.

With a noticeably larger wing area and a significantly larger internal volume of the fuselage compared to the J-11BS/16 (and very possibly even the J-20), the J-XDS is certain to have a larger fuel capacity than the Sino Flankers.

Therefore, coupled with smaller wing loading ratio and superior flight characteristics compared to the Sino Flankers and J-20s, the J-36XDS will only have combat ranges that are at least equivalent to them (~1500-1800 kilometers), even with the current dual WS-10 engines. I fully expect the J-XDS to push its combat radius beyond 2000 kilometers once the WS-10 engines are swapped with WS-15 or ACE-based WS-XX engines.

To put it simply, the J-XDS is superior to the J-35/A in pretty much every way.

In retrospect - There is little need for Shenyang AC to build more J-35/As (which will become the "lo" in the "hi-lo" pair with the J-20s) than Chengdu AC is building their J-20/A/Ss annually. The PLAAF's decision to procure the J-35A has more to do with the overall attempt at rapidly expanding China's overall 5th-gen fighter fleets to face down against the US&LC's F-35A/B/C, given the deteriorating global geopolitical development - Alongside better securing China's aerial superiority and supremacy in her own frontyard and backyard.

Having a combined 5th-gen fighter production rate that is equal to that of the US&LC's F-35A/B/C production rate, if not more by 20-40 airframes (i.e. ~100 J-20A/Ss + ~50-90 J-35/As per year) is plenty good enough. China isn't looking to fight wars across the entire world like the US has been doing.

Moreover, what's the point in mindlessly chasing after J-35/A numbers, especially when the J-36, J-XDS and their associated platforms (loyal wingman UCAV, H-20, etc etc) is about to join the PLAAF and PLAN en-masse in the 2030s and beyond?

 

[Andy1974]

We heard in the J-36 thread that the J-36 would be used to in the 2IC, they said that with J-36 they can fight simultaneously in the 2IC and 1IC.

If we consider Chinas stealth fighter needs in 2 separate theaters, then perhaps it is like so:

1IC: J-20A and J-35A
2IC: J-36 and J-XDS

If you think about it this way and ask how many J-35A would you need to cover the entire 1IC then it could be 1000, along with 500 J-20As.

Having 1500 stealth fighters, in a heavy and medium combination to defend all of China itself including the 1IC seems reasonable especially since we are told that J-35A is fast, efficient and affordable.

Having this many fifth Gen fighters allows the J-36 and J-XDS to concentrate fully on the 2IC while probably being able to safely refuel around the South China Sea.

 

[tphuang]

We heard in the J-36 thread that the J-36 would be used to in the 2IC, they said that with J-36 they can fight simultaneously in the 2IC and 1IC.

If we consider Chinas stealth fighter needs in 2 separate theaters, then perhaps it is like so:

1IC: J-20A and J-35A
2IC: J-36 and J-XDS

If you think about it this way and ask how many J-35A would you need to cover the entire 1IC then it could be 1000, along with 500 J-20As.

Having 1500 stealth fighters, in a heavy and medium combination to defend all of China itself including the 1IC seems reasonable especially since we are told that J-35A is fast, efficient and affordable.

Having this many fifth Gen fighters allows the J-36 and J-XDS to concentrate fully on the 2IC while probably being able to safely refuel around the South China Sea.

If you are fighting along 1IC, you'd still be having J-36 out there to control the battlefield along with 5th gen and CCAs. That gives you the most fire power and most sensor fusion and most EW pressure. I don't really see what's the point of having J-36 and not using it in some way. If you are looking to control air space over Japan, are you going to handicap yourself by not deploying 6th gen aircraft or H-20s?

As I've said before, J-20 is already extremely affordable and produced in large numbers. It's at 100 per year already and likely to be low 300s in count by the end of 2024. 2 more years of this and we will be over 500. J-20 will be produced until at least when J-36 enters service. J-20S in fact is a great 5.5 gen aircraft for controlling other aircraft. J-20A should be a more capable aircraft than J-35A since it has more interior space, more range and larger nose. The only advantage J-35A has is passive stealth.

 

[tphuang]

A slightly out-of-topic post from me here.

The J-XDS from Shenyang AC - Even when expected to become the "lo" in the "hi-lo" pair with the J-36 - Is pretty much just as big as the J-11BS/16 that accompanied it during its first flight.

With a noticeably larger wing area and a significantly larger internal volume of the fuselage compared to the J-11BS/16 (and very possibly even the J-20), the J-XDS is certain to have a larger fuel capacity than the Sino Flankers.

Therefore, coupled with smaller wing loading ratio and superior flight characteristics compared to the Sino Flankers and J-20s, the J-36XDS will only have combat ranges that are at least equivalent to them (~1500-1800 kilometers), even with the current dual WS-10 engines. I fully expect the J-XDS to push its combat radius beyond 2000 kilometers once the WS-10 engines are swapped with WS-15 or ACE-based WS-XX engines.

To put it simply, the J-XDS is superior to the J-35/A in pretty much every way.

In retrospect - There is little need for Shenyang AC to build more J-35/As (which will become the "lo" in the "hi-lo" pair with the J-20s) than Chengdu AC is building their J-20/A/Ss annually. The PLAAF's decision to procure the J-35A has more to do with the overall attempt at rapidly expanding China's overall 5th-gen fighter fleets to face down against the US&LC's F-35A/B/C, given the deteriorating global geopolitical development - Alongside better securing China's aerial superiority and supremacy in her own frontyard and backyard.

Having a combined 5th-gen fighter production rate that is equal to that of the US&LC's F-35A/B/C production rate, if not more by 20-40 airframes (i.e. ~100 J-20A/Ss + ~50-90 J-35/As per year) is plenty good enough. China isn't looking to fight wars across the entire world like the US has been doing.

Moreover, what's the point in mindlessly chasing after J-35/A numbers, especially when the J-36, J-XDS and their associated platforms (loyal wingman UCAV, H-20, etc etc) is about to join the PLAAF and PLAN en-masse in the 2030s and beyond?

I think that was my argument against J-35A originally. But it seems like there are several arguments for PLAAF procurement:
1) Immediate need for the air force and to put them in areas that don't need as much range.
2) Since there is already naval project and export, it's good for Air Force to also be operating it
3) Helps maintain R&D team at SAC
4) Also major WS-21/19 user which helps them maintain 2 lines of engine. WS-21/19 is presumably going to be popular with CCAs

 

[totenchan]

If you are fighting along 1IC, you'd still be having J-36 out there to control the battlefield along with 5th gen and CCAs. That gives you the most fire power and most sensor fusion and most EW pressure. I don't really see what's the point of having J-36 and not using it in some way. If you are looking to control air space over Japan, are you going to handicap yourself by not deploying 6th gen aircraft or H-20s?

As I've said before, J-20 is already extremely affordable and produced in large numbers. It's at 100 per year already and likely to be low 300s in count by the end of 2024. 2 more years of this and we will be over 500. J-20 will be produced until at least when J-36 enters service. J-20S in fact is a great 5.5 gen aircraft for controlling other aircraft. J-20A should be a more capable aircraft than J-35A since it has more interior space, more range and larger nose. The only advantage J-35A has is passive stealth.

We don't have any insight on the J-36 timeline, so it is way too premature to include them into any conflict scenario. We do know that the J-35 is explicitly designed to be easy to mass produce, which should be enough to justify its numbers considering the current manufacturing rates of the J-20 compared to something like the F-35.

 

[ismellcopium]

likely to be low 300s in count by the end of 2024.

Shouldn't it be more like 380-400 now? The consensus was 280-300 by last January and with recent news of 100+ produced last year.

 

[tphuang]

We don't have any insight on the J-36 timeline, so it is way too premature to include them into any conflict scenario. We do know that the J-35 is explicitly designed to be easy to mass produce, which should be enough to justify its numbers considering the current manufacturing rates of the J-20 compared to something like the F-35.

J-20 is also easy to mass produce and we know that because production rate has already reached 100 a year. And it's likely they are still expanding its production.
We also do know that CCAs will have to be a larger % of PLAAF going forward.

Shouldn't it be more like 380-400 now? The consensus was 280-300 by last January and with recent news of 100+ produced last year.

I had it at < 250 at start of last year.

Either way, it will likely get to 500 before J-35A starts joining the Air Force in meaningful numbers. Hence, my skepticism of a large J-35A procurement size

After all, Air Force procurement budget has fixed incremental sizes and you probably don't want to cut down your J-20 production since that will just lead to lower utilization and higher unit cost.

J-35A production unit cost can be reduced through large naval J-35 and export orders.

 

[d3dx9]

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?

In my opinion, for a war that could potentially break out in the next few years (at least as Americans believe there is a high risk of war in the near term), the likelihood of the J-36 entering service in time is quite low. I think the current procurement goal of the Chinese Air Force would be to "win potential air battles in the next few years without relying on sixth-generation aircraft." In this context, a sufficient number of J-35As would enable the Chinese Air Force to handle F-35As in the Western Pacific more effectively.

As for the combat radius, I don't have precise data, but I don't believe the J-35A would be inferior to the F-35A in this regard. Furthermore, let's not forget that China is not only preparing for potential conflicts with the United States. India is also a country that China needs to guard against. Although India's Air Force may be relatively weaker and lacks fifth-generation fighter jets, I think the Chinese Air Force has no reason to forgo the technological advantage offered by fifth-generation fighters.

In summary, considering the demands from multiple directions and the pressure to replace aging aircraft, I believe the production volume of the J-35A won't be low. That said, I have never asserted that its production would definitely reach 1,000 units.

 

[d3dx9]

In my opinion, for a war that could potentially break out in the next few years (at least as Americans believe there is a high risk of war in the near term), the likelihood of the J-36 entering service in time is quite low. I think the current procurement goal of the Chinese Air Force would be to "win potential air battles in the next few years without relying on sixth-generation aircraft." In this context, a sufficient number of J-35As would enable the Chinese Air Force to handle F-35As in the Western Pacific more effectively.

As for the combat radius, I don't have precise data, but I don't believe the J-35A would be inferior to the F-35A in this regard. Furthermore, let's not forget that China is not only preparing for potential conflicts with the United States. India is also a country that China needs to guard against. Although India's Air Force may be relatively weaker and lacks fifth-generation fighter jets, I think the Chinese Air Force has no reason to forgo the technological advantage offered by fifth-generation fighters.

In summary, considering the demands from multiple directions and the pressure to replace aging aircraft, I believe the production volume of the J-35A won't be low. That said, I have never asserted that its production would definitely reach 1,000 units.

Anyway, I believe the Chinese Air Force has its own plans for future procurement.
As for how many J-35As the Chinese Air Force will ultimately equip, I think time will give us the answer.
In fact, I was initially shocked by the extreme opinions on Chinese social media and hoped to see more valuable perspectives on the SDF.
And indeed, I found that the discussions on the SDF forum are far more meaningful than those I’ve seen on Chinese social media.

 

[Gloire_bb]

A slightly out-of-topic post from me here.

The J-XDS from Shenyang AC - Even when expected to become the "lo" in the "hi-lo" pair with the J-36 - Is pretty much just as big as the J-11BS/16 that accompanied it during its first flight.

With a noticeably larger wing area and a significantly larger internal volume of the fuselage compared to the J-11BS/16 (and very possibly even the J-20), the J-XDS is certain to have a larger fuel capacity than the Sino Flankers.
(...)
Moreover, what's the point in mindlessly chasing after J-35/A numbers, especially when the J-36, J-XDS and their associated platforms (loyal wingman UCAV, H-20, etc etc) is about to join the PLAAF and PLAN en-masse in the 2030s and beyond?

By being as large or larger than flankers, but also VLO treated(and likely a2a) optimized, "j-50" is even less suitable to carry Lo- then they are.
It's an often-mentioned misconception that flankers are Lo- aircraft;they are not. They're 1980s Hi, costing as much or more as more capable and newer airframes, and outright bad at sortie generation.
Maintenance alone ensures it.

J-36, with its clear tradeoffs, even higher stealth optimizations and even larger size/infrastructure limitations, is even less suitable for the numbers game.

And neither appear to be positioned to do a dumb "fly there bomb that" simple kind of task. Which is a major task in air warfare.

J-35, while less than ideal (two new, separate engines is two, no way around), is a strong numbers/sorties generator.

It is also a far more prolific CCA control node (i.e. a way to have a human with associated interfaces and data links in the specific place and time in the sky, in the largest number of such points in the sky).