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

AndrewS

Brigadier
Registered Member
Operationally, it makes sense.

1. A radar with half the power only sees a 15% reduction in detection range, which isn't that bad

2. If you have mixed formations of J-20 and J-35, presumably the J-20 will be using its larger, more powerful radar and then feeding the data to other aircraft. By 2030, we'd be looking at 900-1000 J-20 plus 350? J-35s. So theoretically, the J-35 could always be flying with some J-20s

---

For example, Anshan now has a J-20 Brigade and a J-35 Brigade located together. So ideally, you would operate a mixed formation such as:

1. A J-20 as lead, with radar operating
2. A J-35 as wingman, with no radar operating

Both the J-20 and J-35 would be carrying the same number of long range PL-15, and for Anshan (focused on Korea contingencies some 500km away), range is not an issue.

Alternatively, it may be that the J-35 is stealthier than the J-20, so you want to operate the J-35 silently in front of the J-20, which is using its radar.

---

I think there is going to be a significantly expansion in the size of the Chinese Air Force in the coming years, and instead of building completely new airbases, it is better to expand existing airbases, so there are more mixed airbases like Anshan.


---

In comparison, the Chinese Navy has a very limited number of aircraft spots, so it makes sense for their aircraft to be as high-performance as possible.
 
Last edited:

pokepara

New Member
Registered Member
Comparing France to China is like comparing cherries to watermelons. I don't exactly think that every J-35 export is a loss to China, but every export with the WS-19 engine does, fundamentally deprive the army from having a domestic variant of the aircraft.
This would be true for everything China sells. The point is that you trade it for something you feel like its worth. Perhaps this is paying for greater factory capacity. Or R&D somewhere else. Even preventing a third party from being tied to American MIC or just denying the US a sale is valuable.

I remember when the 6th gens first flew, I joked that they already hurt the US badly without firing a shot by lowering Lockheed Martin shares by 15%.
 

RedGreekRevolt

New Member
Registered Member
This would be true for everything China sells. The point is that you trade it for something you feel like its worth. Perhaps this is paying for greater factory capacity. Or R&D somewhere else. Even preventing a third party from being tied to American MIC or just denying the US a sale is valuable.

I remember when the 6th gens first flew, I joked that they already hurt the US badly without firing a shot by lowering Lockheed Martin shares by 15%.
Thing is, China isn't making fifth generation fighters at nearly the rate it does steel or solar panels, there also is the problem that exporting state of the art or near state of the art weaponry is a much more delicate affair than exporting Xinjiang melons. Of course this argument can be countered with the example of the Americans selling the F-35, their (near) crown jewel. But the issue with this is that the Americans are almost exclusively selling them not to any kind of free customers but to vassals and quite rich ones, that can and do pay exorbitant premiums that reflect not so much the product as protection money and tribute. If for example China's relationship with Japan and Australia was the same as the one it has with the Wa State of Myanmar today and could induce them to pay a billion yuan apiece then yes, exports would be a non-brainer. But none of the internationally recognized states today share such a relationship with China and those that even vaguely resemble this have nowhere near the deep pockets of the countries of the Euro-Atlantic bloc. That is not to say that I view such early exports a catastrophic mistake, it's simply, in my view suboptimal.
 

AndrewS

Brigadier
Registered Member
You’d think that the latter would have higher electrical power output from WS-19…

I don't think it's a matter of available electricity.
Just that they chose a radar with a lower cost.

If the J-20 has a GaN-on-SIC radar, then that implies the naval J-35 also has a GaN-on-SIC radar.

It also implies the Air Force J-35A has chosen a lower-cost GaN or even GaA radar.
 
Last edited:

siegecrossbow

Field Marshall
Staff member
Super Moderator
I don't think it's a matter of available electricity.
Just that they chose a radar with a lower cost.

If the J-20 has a GaN-on-SIC radar, then that implies the naval J-35 also has a GaN-on-SIC radar.

It also implies the Air Force J-35A has chosen a lower-cost GaN or even GaA radar.
Of all the things to skimp out on radar seems to be an odd choice.
 

plawolf

Lieutenant General
Of all the things to skimp out on radar seems to be an odd choice.

I don’t remember the specific quote, but I do recall the Guancha trio saying that while the air force went with the standard package, the navy wanted all the bells and whistles.

The rationale is that for the navy, they will be fighting far from home (and friendly support), as the tip of the spear and (assumed) being outnumbered by opfor, so they wanted every edge they can had on every plane.

For the air force, rather than skimping out, I read that as not going for the top possible option across the board.

Whether radar was an area where they didn’t go for the best possible I can’t remember, but if they did, it would kinda make sense because the air force J35s would be operating close to Chinese territory, so can enjoy the full spectrum of friendly supporting and enabling assets such as AWACS, cooperative engagement with friendly air and naval assets, data linking with J20s, UAVs and all sorts of other assets to the point that they might be perfectly capable of undertaking air combat missions even if they went with the gym weights radar package that the latest F35 is sporting.
 
Top