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

[Tomboy]

The analogy is closer than you think.
Pair of PL-10 + ancillary bay equipment may be about 500kg which is maybe 3% of a J-20 empty weight.
Pistol right of 2.5kg on a 80kg soldier is also about 3% of weight.

Biggest issue here is that instead of having that rather large bay and all that stuff for 2 PL-10s you could stuff more fuel tanks in there and maybe get a ton or two of extra fuel that would mean more range etc

 

[another505]

According to Yankeesama a lot of J-20 pilots don’t even want PL-10s and feel that they are a waste of space/weight most times. What do you think their opinion on the gun is?

Wonder if the 6th gen will be purely pl17 plus pl16 then

 

[Heliox]

Biggest issue here is that instead of having that rather large bay and all that stuff for 2 PL-10s you could stuff more fuel tanks in there and maybe get a ton or two of extra fuel that would mean more range etc

I could also carry more ammo for my rifle or water instead of a pistol + 2 mags.
Age old debate of 1 final layer of arms vs more performance for primary mission. Everytime someone argues about an internal gun on a air-superiority jet, this would come up. Now that we are in the LO-Internal carriage era, I suppose it's natural that the space/weight for WVR (primary) vs BVR (secondary/tertiary) will likewise crop up.

[add]
Look at it in context. A J-20 pilot says the PL-10 is quite supernumerary on a J-20 and he could have a point given the intended role of a J-20.

But a J-35 is very likely to be much more multi-role in employment than a J-20. Which makes the need for and use case of a WVR internal load quite different from a J-20

 

[FriedRiceNSpice]

The advent of unmanned close combat aircraft means the battlespace will get a lot more crowded, even at high altitudes. Fighters that need to get in close will need to be able to deal with this. It may not be economically practical or even practically feasible to expend expensive PL-15s and PL-17s (which I imagine are carried internally in the J-36) on CCAs. The J-36 probably avoids this by using its massive radar to identify priority targets and snipe them from afar, but the J-50 probably goes with the "get in close and kill everything" methodology so it'll need ways to efficiently kill CCAs.

A proper CCA is still going to be a relatively high end and expensive asset, not to mention a dangerous threat. Do you really want to sneak up on a CCA to fire SRAAMs when it is likely loaded with BVRAAMs? And if we are talking about lower end autonomous platforms, then the best counter is your own unmanned assets equipped with SRAAMs. Another potential (though more uncertain) solution in the future may be DEW weapons.

 

[lcloo]

It really depends on mission. In a hot battle where see first shoot first is the top priority, guns and SRAAM might not be useful at all.

However, if you have to use a 5th gen or 6th for CAP, where you might need visual identification of intruders, SRAAM would be needed, though I doubt PLAAF would use 5th or 6th jets for CAP mission, as there are still hundreds of J10/J11/J16 around beyond 2030.

If new SRAAM can be make to extend to 30km or so, that is another matter, but gun is definitely a dead weight for 5th and 6th gen jets.

 

[Heliox]

It really depends on mission. In a hot battle where see first shoot first is the top priority, guns and SRAAM might not be useful at all.

However, if you have to use a 5th gen or 6th for CAP, where you might need visual identification of intruders, SRAAM would be needed, though I doubt PLAAF would use 5th or 6th jets for CAP mission, as there are still hundreds of J10/J11/J16 around beyond 2030.

If new SRAAM can be make to extend to 30km or so, that is another matter, but gun is definitely a dead weight for 5th and 6th gen jets.

More than "mission"
"Mission" defines your loadout. Every platform has multiple loadout configs.
Ultimately, it's pointless discussing specific use cases where a WVR load on a J-35 will not make sense ... there will always be exceptions but exceptions do not prove the rule.

"Role" defines your airframe design - which will affect your possible loadouts. So the question really is what is the intended role of the J-35? This should then quite logically determine the design of the IWB and the basic loadout (eg. the sidebays capable of only WVR). That's why the comment from the J-20 pilot is so interesting. A lot of us have guessed that the J-20 is primarily a missile truck/interdictor meant to sling BVR missiles over the vast blue Pacific ... not really to merge with ROCAF in a gigantic furball. This said pilot has probably flown hundreds of hours/trg missions where he has never once deployed his side-bays (just a guess), hence the comment from him. OSINT is often gathered from such additive snippets.

Ultimately, if the intention is for a 5th/6th gen jet to do CAS, then really guns and rocket pods are required? No?
This is a facile comment btw. Ideally, you have a hi-lo inventory where the lo mix handles the gun runs BUT it does help explain why the F-35A has an internal gun. Again, not questioning USAF doctrine ... just trying to hammer the point that CONOPS determines your platform design. Trying to pick apart specifics of a platform design without considering the role is just silly.

 

[Schwerter_]

The analogy is closer than you think.
Pair of PL-10 + ancillary bay equipment may be about 500kg which is maybe 3% of a J-20 empty weight.
Pistol right of 2.5kg on a 80kg soldier is also about 3% of weight.

A person who claims it's only 2.5kg has never looked up at the 3rd ridgeline of the day while carrying 50% of their bodyweight in gear. We've even actually thrown away extra food ... simply because we couldn't throw away gear.

The PL-10 on a J-20 is an age old debate on air superiority fast jets over many different forms ... not a pound for air-to-ground and then guns on modern jets. The equivalent of the infantryman debating whether a bayonet is still de rigueur.

One thing though. This comment, to me, is very indicative of what the J-20's pilot is letting on as to the intended (official?) role of a J-20.

I get you, Ive never been in the military and definitely haven’t done mountain terrain patrols with full gear, but I can imagine how heavy even the smallest of objects get in that circumstance.The bayonet analogy also makes lots of sense. I think we’re trying to make the same point though (that of “having secondary armaments does come with some form of penalties)

regarding the PL-10 point, a pair of PL10 plus pylons plus maybe some ancillary stuff like cooling equipment would quite possibly be around 500 ish kilograms, take into consideration the bay doors, their actuators, additional strength requirements of the frames because a hole is dug on the side, etc, and I wouldn’t be surprised if the bays + missiles have a weight penalty closer to a ton, which is way more substantial. Plus the space requirement is also pretty big and on an airframe every bit of space matters.

 

[Aval]

A proper CCA is still going to be a relatively high end and expensive asset, not to mention a dangerous threat. Do you really want to sneak up on a CCA to fire SRAAMs when it is likely loaded with BVRAAMs? And if we are talking about lower end autonomous platforms, then the best counter is your own unmanned assets equipped with SRAAMs. Another potential (though more uncertain) solution in the future may be DEW weapons.

Fair point, although I'd argue that the crowded airspace made possible by ubiquitous drones of all price ranges would mean the flexibility of having SRAAMs in the side bays is worth its tradeoff in space and weight. In that sense, the SRAAMs aren't part of the J-50's intended role to "sneak up on and destroy CCAs" but rather a sidearm to deal with CCAs if they get close enough to "swarm" (i.e., get into WVR). In short, SRAAMs aren't backups to kill manned fighters in WVR (that era has passed), but to quickly kill attacking CCAs that have gotten close so that the J-50 can focus on the enemy manned fighter. This is all highly theoretical, of course.

The side bays may also be used to house DEWs, which would be used in much the same fashion.

In any case, I don't think a long a thin bay door on both sides of a 6th-gen fighter is there for no reason, and its shape and positioning is not optimum for maintenance access. Something in there is important enough to warrant such a design when 6th-gens really shouldn't have any business with side bays if what the J-20 pilots say about the PL-10 is true.

 

[FriedRiceNSpice]

Fair point, although I'd argue that the crowded airspace made possible by ubiquitous drones of all price ranges would mean the flexibility of having SRAAMs in the side bays is worth its tradeoff in space and weight. In that sense, the SRAAMs aren't part of the J-50's intended role to "sneak up on and destroy CCAs" but rather a sidearm to deal with CCAs if they get close enough to "swarm" (i.e., get into WVR). In short, SRAAMs aren't backups to kill manned fighters in WVR (that era has passed), but to quickly kill attacking CCAs that have gotten close so that the J-50 can focus on the enemy manned fighter. This is all highly theoretical, of course.

Swarms of lower end drones are no threat, so you simply bypass them and continue the mission. No need to waste time on them.

 

[Kich]

You can do away with SRAAM if you can employ an IR MRAAM. With an IR seeker head and TVC, a MRAAM can be employed in short range arena.

And using datalinks, the IR MRAAM can be sent to near medium ranges to fulfill it's primary function.

IR MRAAM exists already [France, Israel] but they might get more popular if everyone starts moving away from SRAAM.