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

[mangchaocs]

LMAO~~It's so funny that I just had to post it.



Here is the translation：

"Purchasing a large number of F-16 A/B fighters as "killers" for stealth aircraft is an extremely wise choice.

In modern aerial combat, the maneuverability of a fighter is crucial, especially in high-probability evasions after beyond-visual-range missile attacks. Air combat often develops into close-quarters dogfighting dominated by aircraft cannons. Under loads of up to 9G, the outcome depends on the aircraft's rigidity and structural stability, where the number and quality of rivets play a key role. Excellent maneuverability at supersonic speeds—such as leaf-like fluttering, rolling, and steep climbs—not only make for impressive airshow performances but are also vital in real combat scenarios.

In contrast, some designs based on copying Western air combat game models, such as the J-35 produced with "cost down" printing technology, have not adopted traditional rivet structures. Instead, they are equipped with the criticized, degraded RD-33 engines, which frequently suffer from black smoke issues. Under high-load 9G maneuvers, these models often break apart in the air. Besides their low cost and maintenance, as well as higher maneuverability due to the reinstallation of cannons, they have few other advantages. As for the J-20, it doesn't even have basic cannons, making it incapable of fulfilling the requirements for dogfighting.

In terms of overall performance, these so-called "national treasures" fall far short of India’s "Tejas" fighter, reflecting the significant gap in technical accumulation and real combat capability."

 

[Alfa_Particle]

LMAO~~It's so funny that I just had to post it.

View attachment 143440

Here is the translation：

"Purchasing a large number of F-16 A/B fighters as "killers" for stealth aircraft is an extremely wise choice.

In modern aerial combat, the maneuverability of a fighter is crucial, especially in high-probability evasions after beyond-visual-range missile attacks. Air combat often develops into close-quarters dogfighting dominated by aircraft cannons. Under loads of up to 9G, the outcome depends on the aircraft's rigidity and structural stability, where the number and quality of rivets play a key role. Excellent maneuverability at supersonic speeds—such as leaf-like fluttering, rolling, and steep climbs—not only make for impressive airshow performances but are also vital in real combat scenarios.

In contrast, some designs based on copying Western air combat game models, such as the J-35 produced with "cost down" printing technology, have not adopted traditional rivet structures. Instead, they are equipped with the criticized, degraded RD-33 engines, which frequently suffer from black smoke issues. Under high-load 9G maneuvers, these models often break apart in the air. Besides their low cost and maintenance, as well as higher maneuverability due to the reinstallation of cannons, they have few other advantages. As for the J-20, it doesn't even have basic cannons, making it incapable of fulfilling the requirements for dogfighting.

In terms of overall performance, these so-called "national treasures" fall far short of India’s "Tejas" fighter, reflecting the significant gap in technical accumulation and real combat capability."

It's sarcastic... I think.

 

[tphuang]

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.

Your understanding of Westpac conflict is lacking.

Nothing that PLAAF does in Westpac should be thought of in standalone. PLARF is important aspect of all consideration.

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.

Don't compare J-35A to F-35A in combat radius. It should be compared to J-20A. I mean clearly, it cannot match J-20A/J-20S in power generation, CCA control and range.

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).

What?????? How in the world can it be a more prolific CCA control node than even J-20S let alone J-36?

 

[tphuang]

100 a year is really not all that many, and if there actually is a shift to the WS-15 incoming, iirc the rumors were that production rate was likely to drop temporarily. And the emphasis on new production methods is something that has been emphasized about the J-35 since the FC-31 days.

Sorry, but until we see one of the CCAs actually flying, and get some idea of how they are supposed to be integrated into the PLAAF I will assume that they are a less mature program than the J-35, which has several flying examples and is rumored to have already been delivered to a unit for testing. CCA is also the name of an American program, we don't have any idea of what the PLAAF intend with its UCAV programs, so equivocating them doesn't make any sense to me.

I don't necessarily believe that the land based version is actually going to reach some arbitrary goal of 1000 units, but assuming that its some sort of stop gap or half-measure seems premature.

What production drop? Most of the switching production line has already been worked out already.

CAC also has new factories coming online.

The funny part about this discussion is that you talk about "new production methods" like it is only possible with J-35. You do understand that CAC has made significant progress in production engineering. That's why it's been able to ramp up J-20 production to 100 per year, right?

GJ-11 is already in service. How is that a less mature program than J-35?

 

[Gloire_bb]

What?????? How in the world can it be a more prolific CCA control node than even J-20S let alone J-36?

By numbers. More nodes, more fidelity from loyal wingmen. Joke, simply more control per cca, closer.

It sometimes appears here on the forum that drone control equipment is some kind of huge, clunky, lamp-powered 1940s electronic computer with crazy germans inside, which absolutely requires j-36.
It is not.

Cca control node is literally any vehicle close enough to operations(to ensure backup direct datalinks, thou even that isn't strictly necessary), with human onboard, carrying modern computer/software, interface and sufficient communication capabilities to match.

Flying equivalent of modern drone control station.
No, you don't need 3 engines, supercruise and all that.

 

[d3dx9]

Your understanding of Westpac conflict is lacking.

Nothing that PLAAF does in Westpac should be thought of in standalone. PLARF is important aspect of all consideration.


Don't compare J-35A to F-35A in combat radius. It should be compared to J-20A. I mean clearly, it cannot match J-20A/J-20S in power generation, CCA control and range.

Honestly, I don’t quite understand your statement about the PLARF: "PLARF is an important aspect of all consideration." Could you explain in more detail how the role of the PLARF in a potential conflict in the Western Pacific might influence the future procurement strategies of the Chinese Air Force?

As for the J-35A being less capable than the J-20A, I don’t think that necessarily means it will be unpopular. In my understanding, the J-35A could form a pairing with the J-20, somewhat similar to the relationship between the F-16 series and the F-15 series.

 

[tphuang]

By numbers. More nodes, more fidelity from loyal wingmen. Joke, simply more control per cca, closer.

It sometimes appears here on the forum that drone control equipment is some kind of huge, clunky, lamp-powered 1940s electronic computer with crazy germans inside, which absolutely requires j-36.
It is not.

Cca control node is literally any vehicle close enough to operations(to ensure backup direct datalinks, thou even that isn't strictly necessary), with human onboard, carrying modern computer/software, interface and sufficient communication capabilities to match.

Flying equivalent of modern drone control station.
No, you don't need 3 engines, supercruise and all that.

I can tell you from listening to Shilao podcast on this subject, PLAAF considers J-20S to be their first 5.5th gen aircraft due to having 2 crew members that allows 2nd operator to concentrate on controlling other assets, but especially CCAs. PLAAF considers have more interior space and electronics to be extremely important in this matter. That is why J-36 and the SAC 6th gen project are all huge in the nose section.

The amount of data crunching and sensor fusion involved in 6th gen will be a whole magnitude higher than 5th gen.

Yes, you can use J-35 in the role of controlling node. But in terms of controller and computation power, it's not what you want out there when there are larger, more powerful aircraft with an additional operator.

You can argue about the case to use J-35 as the controlling node all you want, but PLAAF disagrees with you. And that's all that matters.

Honestly, I don’t quite understand your statement about the PLARF: "PLARF is an important aspect of all consideration." Could you explain in more detail how the role of the PLARF in a potential conflict in the Western Pacific might influence the future procurement strategies of the Chinese Air Force?

As for the J-35A being less capable than the J-20A, I don’t think that necessarily means it will be unpopular. In my understanding, the J-35A could form a pairing with the J-20, somewhat similar to the relationship between the F-16 series and the F-15 series.

Meaning that in westpac conflict, it's not just an aircraft vs aircraft kind of scenarios. How a fighter fits into the bigger battlefield is the bigger issue.

 

[Alfa_Particle]

Don't compare J-35A to F-35A in combat radius. It should be compared to J-20A. I mean clearly, it cannot match J-20A/J-20S in power generation, CCA control and range.

Why? Their roles differ and so are their respective range requirements.

Let's compare apples with apples and oranges with oranges.

 

[Gloire_bb]

You can argue about the case to use J-35 as the controlling node all you want, but PLAAF disagrees with you. And that's all that matters.

Well, PLAAF went head on into j-35a, not me(you may in fact remember I was kinda surprised). With all respect to podcasts.
So i don't think it's me in a disagreement here. Not now at least.

The more CCA heavy the fleet is, the less capable the control node needs to be. But, the more nodes you need.

In a way, if you're ready to drop all independent capability altogether, one may say that the best controller node is something like Northrop model 437.

And, vise versa, the more onboard capabilities there is, the less vulnerable and passively capable it is, the more such platform can operate independently ...

 

[jnd85]

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

The only issue I have with this projection is that it assumes current production rates will continue long term and are not part of a surge effort responding to specific policy objectives, after the achievement of which production may slow or halt altogether. That said, preducting the future is hard, especially since a lot of previously reliable patterns seem to no longer hold true vis a vis military production.

To elaborate, over the past several decades it was normal to see test craft and other equipment developed iteratively, and produced in certain volumes but not really with the intention of replacing the full fleet of whatever craft they may be an improvement over. The presumed reason being that although each individual iteration was definitely an improvement over what was already in service, there was sufficient confidence on the part of policymakers that an even better product was immediately over the horizon, and that investing fully in the current technology would not be prudent. In my mind, that pattern has proven wise and served China well up to now.

However, recent years has seen a shift toward ever greater investment in generational replacement. To a certain extent this is to be expected in light of aging equipment, but it also somehow feels to me like a shift in decision making. Leadership seems to on the one hand be confident that they are either approaching some acme of R&D or seeing diminishing R&D returns, and thereby feel confident that current state of the art are a good investment to roll out wholesale. On the other hand it may be that they are responding to pressure from one or a small number of individuals.

All that was a long explanation of why I feel it is hard to say if we will reach 1000, or if it may very quickly jumpt to 350 or some other number and then stop.