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

[antiterror13]

look at the manufacturing quality.. ridiculous finishing

what did you mean of "ridiculous finishing"?

 

[Blitzo]

what did you mean of "ridiculous finishing"?

As in the finishing is very precise and smooth, and thus ridiculous (positive connotation)

 

[Aval]

The interesting thing to note is that the PLAN J-35 has a high probability of seeing combat in future as compared to the J-35A which might not see combat or at most against Taiwan.

PLAN J-35 has to face off the US naval might and the design has slight differences and perhaps, J-35 (Naval) isn’t available for export since there’s no prospect customer that has an aircraft carrier.

Keeping all that in mind, Export of J-35A even if results in some sort of leakage of RCS parameters won’t be of any issue for China since the real thing is the J-35 Naval that matters.

The problem then, as I speculated in another thread, is how similar (or not) is the J-35 to J-35A in terms of RCS (and also other aspects, but lets focus on RCS for now).

The main differences between J-35 and J-35A seem to be weight/internal structure and horizontal stabilisers design. The latter might have an impact on RCS, but should be minor given how its shielded by the main wing.

Frontal shaping of the two actually looks identical (and has no reason to differ significantly), and RAM coating should be similar (if not better on J-35A, since J-35 coating would need to survive harsher environs). Even if J-35AE has downgraded RAM, how close would it be to the PLANAF J-35?

The US doesn't need exact RCS numbers of the J-35, just a reasonable ballpark from real radar returns of a similar variant and not simulated based off photographic measuring would be sufficient to provide a workable base for counter training.

 

[arthur2046]

The US doesn't need exact RCS numbers of the J-35, just a reasonable ballpark from real radar returns of a similar variant and not simulated based off photographic measuring would be sufficient to provide a workable base for counter training.

The carrier-based J-XDS is expected to enter service in approximately five years. The true export of the J-35AE won't likely materialize until several years later.. Even if the RCS of the J-35AE were potentially leaked, it would be no big deal.

 

[SinoAmericanCW]

The carrier-based J-XDS is expected to enter service in approximately five years. The true export of the J-35AE won't likely materialize until several years later.. Even if the RCS of the J-35AE were potentially leaked, it would be no big deal.

There's no conceivable scenario in which a carrier-based version of the J-XX enters service within five years.

I would argue that 2035 is the earliest we can expect such an aircraft to reach IOC.

 

[kzh]

There's no conceivable scenario in which a carrier-based version of the J-XX enters service within five years.

I would argue that 2035 is the earliest we can expect such an aircraft to reach IOC.

The designer did say that the duration to push out a new platform has been reduced from 15 years to 5 years.

 

[SinoAmericanCW]

The designer did say that the duration to push out a new platform has been reduced from 15 years to 5 years.

I do expect the J-XX to enter service, within FTTB brigades, around 2030. Induction in first-line combat units will take a few more years, and even longer for the carrier-capable version, which is unlikely to be the baseline model that began flight tests last December.

 

[Schwerter_]

J-35 vs J-35A.

One thing to keep in mind is that the J35A picture comes from Zhuhai last year and shows a prototype with the hinge-type horizontal stabs, which is not representative of the production variant we saw recently.

 

[Hermes]

The problem then, as I speculated in another thread, is how similar (or not) is the J-35 to J-35A in terms of RCS (and also other aspects, but lets focus on RCS for now).

The main differences between J-35 and J-35A seem to be weight/internal structure and horizontal stabilisers design. The latter might have an impact on RCS, but should be minor given how its shielded by the main wing.

Frontal shaping of the two actually looks identical (and has no reason to differ significantly), and RAM coating should be similar (if not better on J-35A, since J-35 coating would need to survive harsher environs). Even if J-35AE has downgraded RAM, how close would it be to the PLANAF J-35?

The US doesn't need exact RCS numbers of the J-35, just a reasonable ballpark from real radar returns of a similar variant and not simulated based off photographic measuring would be sufficient to provide a workable base for counter training.

That’s the point of discussion. Avionics, EW suite matters the most and PLAAF won’t give away the same avionics as part of exports.

As for the RCS, Given the nature of the adversary i.e USA, And how the use of satellites for active monitoring could probably supersede the use of radars in a mixed environment, RCS data leak won’t be much of an issue. Everyone knows the 5th gen fighters fall under a given RCS bracket so there should be nothing surprising at all.

 

[Hermes]

As in the finishing is very precise and smooth, and thus ridiculous (positive connotation)

This raises a question, as apparently we can’t see any airframe panels (even the nose), it all feels like one single piece.

How would maintenance look like if an aircraft encounters even the most minor damages (bird hit) etc?

How would it be disassembled?

@Deino