Cross-post from the naval-thread:
By the way, an interesting news via the friend I formerly mentioned. He just added ...
J-35A fighter (PLAAF) + FC-31 thread
- Thread starter ACuriousPLAFan
- Start date
Cross-post from the naval-thread:
By the way, an interesting news via the friend I formerly mentioned. He just added ...
Why not August 1st? /s
We know the 35A is extremely close to finishing development and testing (in fact it might've finished already, and now it's just up to the top brasses to decide the grand service reveal). So it's expected. Hell, if Changchun Airshow is on this year I'd expect it to appear and do some more crowd-pleasing.
Just LRIP? I mean, in the sense of serial production LRIP instead of developmental LRIP I guess.
Ah, so the PLAAF have tasted it and decided that they really like it, eh?
(@Deino I've decided to reply here since it's more about the 35A)
Last edited:
3rd of September 2025 is one day after the 80th anniversary of the Surrender of Japan that concluded the Second World War in 1945. Could also be hinting at China Victory Day Parade at Tiananmen Square at that day, if the claim is true.
Is he? Only 8 of my following are following him, with the only one notable being Ayi. Would be nice to get some confirmation on this from others.
He's fairly low-profile, same with a notable few whom I consider very credible.
Makes sense though. There will still be plenty of months before 'Fujian' will enter service and running smoothly. So the naval version has time until it's "needed". While the PLAAF probably would like to have as many stealth aircraft in it's fleet, preferably already yesterday. Obviously land operations are also less complex and the PLAAF J-35 is probably in some regards a simplified version, the landing gear certainly is. But given that the PLAAF has with the J-20 a proper, heavy, top of the line stealth fighter I wouldn't be surprised if the PLAAF J-35 is a bit "lesser" in some aspects compared to it's naval cousin, which would be the apex of chinese naval aviation.
All in all it would just be logical if the land based version would be operational much sooner in my opinion.
I find that assumption highly unlikely. As established multiple times before, the J-35A and J-20 are intended for different roles - there's absolutely no reason to assume that the J-35A would be less capable than the J-35 aside from CTOL/CV differences, just because "the J-20 exists." The IRST/EOTS will likely differ. An EODAS suite provides an advantage over legacy fighters. Etc. You don't need to strip parts and push out a less capable product for the sake of "being operational sooner" as the 35A is also a very mature product.
There is plenty of reason to assume that. The J-35A has virtually no apparent advantage over the J-20 (let alone J-20A) to justify it's procurement by the PLAAF other than being a cheaper complementary fighter to fill the ranks. Especially when J-20 production may have reached it's maximum output for the near (and relevant) future.
The PLAAF doesn't need two aircraft that are totally equal. Neither does the PLANAF. The J-35 will simply slowly take over for the J-16 in PLAAF service, while for the PLANAF the J-15T and J-35 will constitute that...how do the Americans say? Hi-Lo mix.
You generally don't see air forces operate two equally capable fighters for the sake of it. I can only think about parade grade air forces like Saudi Arabia and Qatar with F-15s and Eurofighters as well as F-15s, Eurofighters and Rafales respectively.
Point being, by nature of being an advanced stealth multirole fighter, the J-35 couldn't be different enough to th J-20 to justify it's purchase by the PLAAF, unless it's much cheaper (less capable), and thus can be procured in bigger numbers simultanously to the J-20.
Sure there is. Superior stealth, enhanced multirole capabilities, and lower cost and maintenance ease itself is still an undeniably significant advantage.
The J-20/A's prowess in A/A is also undeniable. But it comes at a hefty cost (pun intended), and its equipment and itself isn't designed for being multirole. The J-35A provides PLA much of the J-20/A's A/A capabilities at a fraction of the cost, while giving the PLA something that can stealthily complete SEAD/DEAD missions cheaply without risking an important A/A asset. That is something the PLA desperately wants, as hinted from Deino's source.
...of PLA multirole spots, yes. What, the JH-7s, older J-7/8/10/11s have gotta retire eventually.
Not when it's switching to J-20A production, and there's still a lot of spots to fill. Ones that an expensive, pure A/A fighter won't really be suitable at.
You're right. Fortunately, they're not.
As I've said, J-16s will be the latest ones to go. They've still got fairly old fighters, and it doesn't hurt to expand their ranks. After all, the USAF still holds a numerical advantage.
Correct. That's why the J-20/A and 35A serve different purposes.
Tell that to the PLAAF, who seem to be very eager to get their hands on the J-35A. And as established, they're very different.
Cheaper doesn't directly suggest less capable overall.
Which has a point, as established.