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

[ougoah]

Radar stealthiness of in and near service 5th gen fighters from frontal and overall ranking imo would be:

1. J-35/ F-35

2. F-22/ J-20

3. KAAN/ Clean KF-21/ Su-57 (no application of meta-materials as of now ... both US and Chinese industry sources have said that meta-material production only exists in China and the US, other nations have close to zero presence outside of some limited theoretical academic knowledge of this class of materials requiring atomic piecing for structure).

J-35 likely beats F-22 and J-20 in frontal and overall RCS signature because it takes advantage of 2020s meta-materials. F-22 didn't even apply first gen meta-materials in its skin. A lockheed martin engineer even acted as whistleblower on F-22 skin treatment being a "scam" approach and had associated weight and longevity penalties. F-35 does not suffer from any of those cracking issues as F-22 does. Not because it's a younger aircraft but because F-35 applied US first gen meta-materials. J-20 applied China's first gen meta-materials. I'm calling them first gen because it is the first time meta-materials on either side were applied to service aircraft. F-35 and J-20 used completely different approach to stealth material compared to past aircraft like SR-71, F-117, B-2, and indeed F-22.

J-35 they are hinting is applying another generation of meta-material compared to J-20's. Hence 2nd gen. It is also similar shaped to F-22 and F-35 - no canards which would improve its frontal RCS compared to J-20. How much more so is irrelevant to this point. J-35 is smaller and has no canards compared to J-20.

Combining the improvements in materials, smaller size, and not using canards, it is no doubt J-35 is stealthier than J-20 assuming it is not a cost cutting fighter. China seems to only want top tier for military. There is no clear cost cutting platform Soviet style in PLAAF and PLAN. Each platform serves its unique role and is the best of what the industry can bring within reason. Only place we see cost cutting platforms is PLA and that's remnant PLA ie Type 96 series tanks serving as mainstay MBT over Type 99 series. This is a remnant of the 1990s era though as newer equipment also seem to follow the just bring one type to the game and make it perform well. In this sense, I do not believe J-35 to be a high scale low cost alternrative to J-20.

 

[Alfa_Particle]

On what sources do you base this superiority in stealth and multirole capability of the J-35A over the J-20 (leaving the J-20A out here completely for a bit)?

As others have said, there are official hints (or straight-up confirmations) that the J-35A had higher stealth parameters compared to the J-20, new generations of RAM, etc.

Even assuming that the J-20A will use the same RAM, by default the J-35A should be stealthier - it's literally the closest to a textbook perfect stealth fighter in terms of shaping.

1.) DSI. It doesn't have the splitter gaps of the F-22's caret intakes as a massive reflecting source that takes great pain and a whole lotta hair to deal with.

2.) Conventional wing layout. Although with great efforts, layouts like the J-20's canard-delta can be as stealthy as conventional wing designs, the J-35A doesn't have to deal with that. In equal conditions (which is a MASSIVE caveat), a canard-delta can only be *as* stealthy as a conventional wing, not more. Fortunately for the J-20, most of the other aircrafts have some sort of flaw to equalise the field (F-22 with the splitter plate gaps, F-35 with the bumpy underside + relatively lower wing sweep angle). However not with the J-35A.

3.) Relatively high wing sweep angle. A higher wing sweep angle means that your horizontal degree range without RCS spikes will be larger than that of a lower wing sweep angle (*cough, F-35, cough*). The J-35A's wing sweep angle is almost identical to that of the Raptor.

4.) Flat and smooth underside. Same as the F-22 and the J-20.

5.) Clipped wings and stabilisers to deal with edge scattering. Also found on the F-22 and the J-20.

6.) Smaller vertical stabilisers (with no strakes). The F-22 had to use massive vertical stabilisers IIRC because of some supersonic performance requirements and something with fluttering (although I'm not sure if it's because of the fluttering that they had to enlarge the stabilisers or because the stabilisers were so large that there we fluttering issues). IIRC the J-35A got around it with using an addictively manufactured frame which is stiffer. Hence from the sides, smaller stabilisers would reflect less radar waves. Strakes can be made with composites, but it's better to have nothing there at all.

7.) Relatively small airframe. Of course larger airframes can be as stealthy as smaller ones, but you literally start with an inherently smaller RCS.

etc.

But, as close to textbook perfect as the J-35A is, it's still not perfect. The F-22 beats it at rear IR stealth with the 2D TVC nozzles. However I've been told that circular nozzles are actually stealthier on radar. The J-35A is rumoured to get 2D TVC too though, so if that turned out to be true I think it can rightfully claim the top spot in terms of overall stealth.

For all we know the J-35 is just getting started to become operational. Information is pretty scarce and it was developed from a cheapish, privately funded, export oriented demonstrator (FC-31). The J-20 on the other hand was a ground up new design, from the outset intended to be the cutting edge, high performs stealth fighter for the PLAAF.

And since the program revamp supported by the PLAN, the FC-31 has transformed to also a cutting edge, high performance fighter. Seriously, it underwent extensive redesign, to the point that it might as well been a new aircraft. They took the best of the FC-31 (extensive application of additive manufacturing, new approach of airframe design, etc.) and made it even better and more capable (shifting the engine bays a bit upwards so the intake ductings would take up as less space of the IWB as possible, IRST/EOTS, EODAS, redesigned how the control surfaces are clipped for even better control of edge scattering, etc.).

In fact initially the PLAAF wasn't even interested in the FC-31/J-35.

The JH-7 all over again. This isn't the first time the PLAAF did this.

So I find it hard to believe that anything but the smaller price tag and seperate assembly line (thus not putting more pressure on the assembly of the J-20) were driving factors for the PLAAF.

I told you repeatedly - the 35A fills the gaps that the J-20 shouldn't or couldn't fill, called being multirole.

Just like it's cousin in name, the F-35, it seems to be the cheaper, strike oriented, complementary fighter for it's respective air force.

Why is cheaper somehow a derogatory term? It's an advantage. Nothing wrong with being complimentary, it's still a force multiplier.

While the J-20 is evidently the favorite of the PLAAF.

And the PLAAF is a player. Just look at how they're asking for the 35As to be delivered earlier.

 

[siegecrossbow]

Otter claims fewer J-35s will be acquired than maybe the J-10 series since sixth gen is moving so fast.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

 

[Alfa_Particle]

Otter claims fewer J-35s will be acquired than maybe the J-10 series since sixth gen is moving so fast.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

There's like 600 ish J-10s, and I also don't think the 6th gen programs would go that smooth, plus the PLAAF is expanding their ranks.

 

[00CuriousObserver]

There's like 600 ish J-10s, and I also don't think the 6th gen programs would go that smooth, plus the PLAAF is expanding their ranks

<600 J35s still seems like a lot...

 

[Alfa_Particle]

<600 J35s still seems like a lot...

Not enough. I expect more.

 

[Jason_]

The manned J-36/50 does not directly compete with the J-35A in role or timeframe but I can see some capability overlap for a high end UCAV. The J-35 is safe for its naval role.

 

[Gloire_bb]

The manned J-36/50 does not directly compete with the J-35A in role or timeframe but I can see some capability overlap for a high end UCAV.

Won't overlap for foreseeable future.
I e. it's possible to create such overlap(there are other ways to skin this cat), but why a country which invested for decades to achieve premier aerospace should do it?

There's a perfect historical example of that not to do: UK losing its first grade military aviation industry for the sake of missiles.
Losing that aircraft industry they did, learning how to make rockets - that somehow failed.
Turned out, military aircraft didn't go anywhere (and happily fly with missiles ever since).

 

[Jason_]

Won't overlap for foreseeable future.
I e. it's possible to create such overlap(there are other ways to skin this cat), but why a country which invested for decades to achieve premier aerospace should do it?

There's a perfect historical example of that not to do: UK losing its first grade military aviation industry for the sake of missiles.
Losing that aircraft industry they did, learning how to make rockets - that somehow failed.
Turned out, military aircraft didn't go anywhere (and happily fly with missiles ever since).

The industries needed to produced advanced fighters are identical to the industries needed to produced advanced UCAV. Maybe Martin Baker needs to be worried.

 

[Gloire_bb]

The industries needed to produced advanced fighters are identical to the industries needed to produced advanced UCAV. Maybe Martin Baker needs to be worried.

Yes, but you need to control ucavs. True mission autonomy is still quite far.

Independent/ground controlled architecture doesn't make sense if you aren't deficient in aerial medium.