J-XY/J-35 carrier-borne fighter thread
- Thread starter Deino
- Start date
by78
General
The characters are the name of a defunct forum (FYJS).
That's indeed true.
However, Kuznetsov's wheelchocks are able to handle both the Su-33 and MiG-29K by being physically wider:
The wheelchocks on Kuznetsov have been designed such that the outer halves of the wheelchocks are used for the Su-33, while the inner halves of the wheelchocks are used for the MiG-29K.
Meanwhile, the wheelchocks on Liaoning and Shandong are visibly narrower than those on the Kuznetsov:
@sugar_wsnbn's reasoning being that the J-15 and the J-35 have a 3-metre difference in width, such that "so naturally, the position of the landing gear (i.e. the spacing in between the rear landing gears of both fighters) is also different".
However, I won't rule out the possibility that the J-35 designers at Shenyang might have designed the rear undercarriages of the J-35 to have similar spacings in between those wheels as those on the J-15 - Either that, or wider wheelchocks that can accommodate both the J-15s and J-35s have already been installed on Liaoning during her recent MLU.
Original post and the 4 photos above are also posted by on Twitter.
Last edited:
It's just a way to enable them to fit into the deck flush while also being able to act as wheelchocks, while minimizing the impediment to the structural integrity of either.
That's a reasonable case being made in regards to kuznetsov's wheelchocks, though I have a sneaking suspicion that we probably aren't going to get very high quality imagery that can definitively confirm if there are any modifications to CV-16/17's wheelchocks for a while -- I wouldn't be too surprised if the first confirmation we get of J-XY/35 being compatible with CV-16/17 is official imagery of it operating from one of the STOBARs.
Or putting it another way, I wouldn't hold out too much hope for measuring wheelchock width as something to watch out for, for our purposes (especially if J-XY/35 has a similar wheeltrack/width to J-15, which can't be ruled out -- which even though J-XY/35 is in a different weight class and has different dimensions to J-15, it also is of a different design and generation as well).
... and if we do get near term clear imagery of CV-16/17's wheelchocks and they look unmodified from their existing dimensions, that also does not necessarily demonstrate anything.
Some tidbits from pop3 in conjunction with the recent spotting of a J-35 mockup on Liaoning.
Roughly translated:
Two facts:
1. Liaoning's return to Dalian Shipyard since late last year is most definitely a mid-life upgrade (MLU) of some sorts.
2. The choice to adopt J-35 for carrier-based operations over the J-20 has been clean-cut since the very beginning. I think we should put the so-called "J-35 is a bad plane for a carrier-based fighter, the PLAN should've go with J-20 instead" debate to rest.
Roughly translated:
Two facts:
1. Liaoning's return to Dalian Shipyard since late last year is most definitely a mid-life upgrade (MLU) of some sorts.
2. The choice to adopt J-35 for carrier-based operations over the J-20 has been clean-cut since the very beginning. I think we should put the so-called "J-35 is a bad plane for a carrier-based fighter, the PLAN should've go with J-20 instead" debate to rest.
Last edited:
pop3 also said one thing
Development of short vertical take-off and landing aircraft
The two major airlines in the North and the South are working hard to develop short-range/vertical take-off and landing models, let's see.
Well, if the decision for the carrier-based operation has been clean-cut since the very beginning, why J-35 progress is so slow or rather started so late?
And the funding for FC-31 is from SAC not PLAN and it's a export project from the get go?
A lots of contradiction facts here.