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

[taxiya]

Re stealth, I don't think there are "definitive" "official" sources that outright say this, but:

1. An official from SAC said:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

This paragrah "对于歼-35，用户提出了更高的隐身指标" (customer demanded higher requirement for stealth on J-35) is very much dependent on context. Higher can be "higher than J-20's current level" or "higher than a reference specification". That reference may or may not be J-20, it can be F-35 or just a RCS figure. Words like "higher, better" are meaniningless without a reference point, as in "higher than what".

2. Xiyazhou from Guancha said "J-35 used 'more complete' stealth technologies than J-20"

Timestamp 3:12

Just have to say that I don't have more confident to him or anyone unless I know they truely have access to SAC/CAC/PLA R&D program.

3. CCTV said "J-35A's stealth performance is amongst first in the world". I don't think the this has ever been said in this manner about the J-20.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1857246873280512331

---

Keep in mind that the J-20 and J-35 are designed for slightly different operational scenarios. The J-20 will primarily operate near China, benefiting from extensive land-based EW support and the background noise of a WESTPAC HIC. This is not necessarily the case for the J-35, as exemplified by carrier-based operations and export customers.

"amongst the first in the world" means it is among others. If J-20 (and F-22) are not the others who else can be? If J-35 is so outstanding from others it would not have been called amongst.

So far all such claims are IMO made based on very stretchy interpretation of very contextual sentences, far below my standard of admitting as a proof. But that is me.

 

[Biscuits]

That's irrelevant. You said it's the ideal shape, which it clearly isn't. And now you are modifying your statement

Be consistent. If you are going to make statements, be complete.

This is what I know. From a good source, J-20A's stealth is on the same level as F-35 from front and side. Given that J-35A's material, production quality and heat management is mostly to be on the same level as J-20A,

That's not necessarily so, J-35 is newer by quite a bit than both J-20 and F-35.

the only major difference you can really point to is the presence of canards on J-20A and lack of that on J-35.

It's an overall smaller fighter too.

In the complex battlefield that we are likely to see, this is not really going to be that big of a deal.

No, you are the one that said J-35A is the textbook perfect fighter shaping, when it clearly isn't. Anyone that starts with a statement like that deserves to be rebuked.

I don't find it that implausible that J-35 can be stealthier than J-20. J-20 enjoys a lot of prestige because it was for its time (and still is) some of the best air performance mated with stealth and sensors. Much like how F-22 was when it was first inducted. Both F-22 and J-20 gained reputations like a holy cow that some will claim can't be surpassed by other aircraft. But this isn't a realistic assessment and just something based on feels.

Shenyang which possess even the competence to make a 6th gen fighter (ranking them first or second most advanced aircraft designer globally) can defintely also make a project that rivals J-20 in stealth. When two planes rival eachother, there logically has to be a winner and a loser. I don't think we can say with 100% certainty that J-35 is the loser.

 

[taxiya]

That's not necessarily so, J-35 is newer by quite a bit than both J-20 and F-35.

It is newer to get PLA color, but not newer in the R&D process. FC-31 appeared only one year later than J-20, they started from the same time.

A very important thing in R&D is that you don't keep inserting newer tech once you have settled your system design. Otherwise you will never get the product finished. An example is that the manufacturing method of F-35 was settled well before the first prototype flown. The same is true to J-20 and FC-31 meaning both are on the same level from the start.

Transition from FC-31 to J-35 took the full time of J-20's development, so one can argue that J-35 incoperated lots of techs that were not available in early 2010s, but so is J-20A. The kind of change of engine and fuselage demands rebalance the whole aircraft that leads to change in construction etc. It is a new aircraft from inside from manufacturing perspective. It would be stupid to retain the production methods of more than 10 years ago.

Besides, SAC and CAC are the same company like VW and Audi. Passat and Audi A4 are built on the same chassi with same machinary and updated every year with same tech. They are only different in options and the shape. There is no reason to believe that AVIC won't do the same continious upgrading to PLAAF's number 1 bird, especially in a brand new variant.

 

[00CuriousObserver]

This paragrah "对于歼-35，用户提出了更高的隐身指标" (customer demanded higher requirement for stealth on J-35) is very much dependent on context. Higher can be "higher than J-20's current level" or "higher than a reference specification". That reference may or may not be J-20, it can be F-35 or just a RCS figure. Words like "higher, better" are meaniningless without a reference point, as in "higher than what".


Just have to say that I don't have more confident to him or anyone unless I know they truely have access to SAC/CAC/PLA R&D program.


"amongst the first in the world" means it is among others. If J-20 (and F-22) are not the others who else can be? If J-35 is so outstanding from others it would not have been called amongst.

So far all such claims are IMO made based on very stretchy interpretation of very contextual sentences, far below my standard of admitting as a proof. But that is me.

It's not definitive proof. It's reasons for suspicion.

Sure, the claims may have "stretchy interpretations" depending on how you wanna argue, but at least they exist. And afaik these claims don't exist in a similar fashion about the J-20 (but maybe they do and I'm just not unaware)

 

[taxiya]

It's not definitive proof. It's reasons for suspicion.

Sure, the claims may have "stretchy interpretations" depending on how you wanna argue, but at least they exist. And afaik these claims don't exist in a similar fashion about the J-20 (but maybe they do and I'm just not unaware)

In general J-20 always had a lower key in PR than J-35. For example, nobody knew J-20's induction date untill some time later, but the date of J-35 is already talked even before it is seen in PLA. Unless PLA has changed behavior, I tend to believe that the less talked about the more important.