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.
J-35A fighter (PLAAF) + FC-31 thread
- Thread starter ACuriousPLAFan
- Start date
Independent/ground controlled architecture doesn't make sense if you aren't deficient in aerial medium.
So why the J-35 using the WS-19 instead of the WS-15? Seems a lot simpler for the logistics and costs if the J-20 and the J-35 can share an engine. The WS-15 seems like it will be used for other aircraft like the 6th gen fighters too and maybe even the H-20. While the WS-19 is solely developed for the J-35.
Because the J-35/A is a medium-sized fighter with a naval variant and a land-based variant. Carrier considerations goes first, and for parts commonality most design choices are retained.
Two WS-15s would make it a heavyweight and essentially you need to enlarge the entire aircraft, which defeats the point of it being a medium-sized fighter along existing heavyweights (J-15/20).
Why not one WS-15 then? Well, as established, the J-35 platform at its roots is a naval platform - you want two engines for redundancy. All these different considerations points toward a medium-sized fighter using two medium-thrust-class engine. Plus the base platform (FC-31) already uses two WS-13s, which probably is a big reason why PLAN chose it.
The WS-19 might be used by some future CCAs.
just a simple answer.
two different engines developed by two different institutes.
WS-19 is a medium thrust bypass engine developed by AECC Guizhou.
WS-15 is a high thrust bypass engine. cannot fit on J-35 and developed by AECC Shenyang.
single entity cannot handle all projects. from the beginning China purse this policy and effectively created many players. AECC supply chain is so widespread you just cannot imagine. for example, for Turbine blades. you can find many companies in mainland. these firms not only supply local engine manufacture but also to international companies like GE/Safran and Rolls Royce.. since 2018 all GE/Safran engines have low pressure compressor blades from China. Safran get majority of its low pressure turbine blades from China.
so my point is, China's industrial depth is too much to have multiple entities in gas turbine sector. no doubt cost will increase but it also helps to train more people and create institutional knowledge. its privilege to have more than one company in this high tech sector.
????? It's almost like J-36 doesn't exist.
Seriously, please don't write stuff like this.
It is possible that passive stealth of J-35A is better than J-20A, but the latter is a much more powerful platform due to size and power generation.
Fundamentally, range really matters in a Westpac conflict,
MUMT really matters in the future combat
power generation and EW really matters.
J-35A can't compete with J-20A/S in any of this.
Wang Yongqing The Chief Expert at 601 "For high invisibility (vlo), new measures & systems have been adopted using the latest technology from existing breakthroughs, J35A is a Multi-role Stealth fighter"
Colonel Wenbo "J35A is for Air Superiority + Air to Ground attacks (i.e Multirole)"
Last edited:
Need I to remind you that one is basically in service while the other is still in prototypical development? Be for real.
Considering you're comparing something that is tangibly close to being operational to something that hasn't even solidified its design, I suggest that you take your advice instead. Borderline ridiculous. There's nothing wrong with what I established - the J-35A is indeed the closest to textbook perfect shaping in terms of actual fighters that are in service. EW isn't shaping.
Be a bit more confident and say "it is." The J-35A's design and shaping is inherently stealthier, period. No, the J-20A won't get favourited and somehow get some next generation RAM that the J-35A won't use. In fact, multiple officials (including program personnel) said otherwise - the J-35A's stealth is top of the world and it's requirements for LO is stricter than those for the J-20.
I never said that's false. Size is indeed in inherent advantage. But it's not like the J-35A's goal to match it, and neither is this a Pokemon card game where only one J-20 and one J-35 faces off. Both will work with allied assets, and the J-35A in a real combat scenario would enjoy the J-20 and AEW/C's information shared by datalink - the J-20's size can be the J-35A's advantage. Just looking at one side of the number won't do you good.
I see we're still not beyond this. Absolutely absurd.
It's not the J-35A's job to match the J-20A in ANY of this. The J-20A/S can do whatever their job is, A/A, CCA coordination, whatever. The J-35A can mind it's own business, SEAD, DEAD, complimentary fighter, etc. They both have their OWN roles - it's not like the J-20 is some sort of omnipotent aircraft and that the entire PLAAF fleet can just use the J-20 and nothing else. I am BAFFLED and extremely frustrated as to WHY you're acting all this like it's the J-35A's job to replace the J-20. It's not. This has been established MULTIPLE TIMES yet somehow we're never beyond this. Please get over it. The J-20 can't do anything, and the PLAAF have demonstrated that they're eager to absorb the J-35A into their ranks and multiply their capabilities, PERIOD. Don't like it? Take it up with them.
Thank you. The J-35A is an inverse to what the F-35 is - a multirole fighter that favours A/A, than a multirole fighter that favours A/G.
Oh come on guys ... do at least a bit of research on your own! Why does the F/A-18E/F not use an F110?
I'm quite baffled that this question is still being asked in 2025.