kwaigonegin
Colonel
I agree. Very captivating and original. I think the August 1st team should adopt this color scheme.Indeed, what a relief ... however a FC-31 in this colour scheme would surely look impressive!
View attachment 137073
I agree. Very captivating and original. I think the August 1st team should adopt this color scheme.Indeed, what a relief ... however a FC-31 in this colour scheme would surely look impressive!
View attachment 137073
Just in time to compete with the first AMCAs to enter service then.so it was 899 years ago in the future?
By looking at the cloud around the aircraft I believe that the last photo with building on the left side is the original. The first two photos are blown up (scaled up) from the first photo.I GOT THE ORIGINAL SHOTS!
View attachment 134895View attachment 134896View attachment 134897
Undoubtedly the air force J-35 and not the FC-31s. Slim landing gear, hump, EOTS, etc.
By looking at the cloud around the aircraft I believe that the last photo with building on the left side is the original. The first two photos are blown up (scaled up) from the first photo.
I also assume that you assert this is an air force aircraft due to "lack of" catapult bar and "slimmer" landing gear.
I however doubt this conclusion, your photo could be just a J-35.
For comparison, the catapult bar is only about 1/3 of the diameter of the actuator. In the original photo, the actuator has blurred with its cover and is barely visible. A bar 1/3 of this size certainly can not be registered by the camera sensor.
- landing gears extend and become longer after leaving ground. Most part of it that you are seeing is the inner stroke of the hydrolic cylinder which is thin. That gives them "slimmer" impression.
- The aircraft is so small in the original photo that a catapult bar is less than a pixel, therefor can not be registered by the camera.
View attachment 137217
IMO, there is no photo evidence so far to support existence of a varient other than PLAN.
I am more conservative when taking in new evidences. They (in the two posts) look like FC-31V2 to me especially because they seem to have smaller wings than J-35. They are also taken from different angle and probably different time, so we can not make connections with the other more J-35 look photos. Anyway, that is just how I see it.IMO, if it were those pictures alone then there could be basis for dismissing it, however there were subsequent pictures taken from the bottom which seem confirmatory to me -- i.e.: smaller wing than J-35, while having a chin EO/IRST (which FC-31V2 lacks).
Of course it's technically possible that it is merely FC-31V2 had a chin EO/IRST installed, but in context of the other photo set, I'm tempted to call it a "land based J-35 variant". Whether it's for the PLA in any capacity is another matter.
Shenyang FC-31 / J-31 Fighter Demonstrator
There are new, currently unconfirmed rumors (IIRC from last week?) that the air force J-35 derivative will be under the J-35 name, like J-35(X). They could either pull a Lockheed Martin and do J-35A/B or do J-35J and J-35K (J for jian 舰 and K for 空). If they would proceed with an export...www.sinodefenceforum.com
I am more conservative when taking in new evidences. They (in the two posts) look like FC-31V2 to me especially because they seem to have smaller wings than J-35. They are also taken from different angle and probably different time, so we can not make connections with the other more J-35 look photos. Anyway, that is just how I see it.
If I recall correctly, both the FC-31 and V2 have a twin-wheeled front landing gear. Yet there are multiple photos recently depicting an aircraft with a single wheel front landing gear, noticeably smaller wings, and EOTS/IRST. One of the spotting is a video too.I am more conservative when taking in new evidences. They (in the two posts) look like FC-31V2 to me especially because they seem to have smaller wings than J-35. They are also taken from different angle and probably different time, so we can not make connections with the other more J-35 look photos. Anyway, that is just how I see it.