I don't think it being fat would make it less stealthy, B-21 is even fatter and stealthier than F-35. For all we know being fat might increase stealth with the tradeoff being worse aerodynamics.
J-35A fighter (PLAAF) + FC-31 thread
- Thread starter ACuriousPLAFan
- Start date
In addition to the F-15E/EX, the U.S. military has hundreds of F-16s and F/A-18s with excellent multi-role capabilities as well, but the J-16 is one of the few multi-role aircraft in the PLAAF.
J-50 will probably be produced in much greater volume than J-36 and will probably use J-35 production space. J-35A will also share most of its production line with the naval J-35. Also pretty sure J-16 is never hitting 1000. Production should already be winding down today. The J-16 is a very good strike fighter but is just not very survivable going into the future.
Rather than high vs low logic I think people should start shifting their thinking towards what an optimal stealth fighter fleet size is for China going into the future and how to get to those numbers in a reasonable timeframe for the chronological window where the PLA anticipates the highest threat for high intensity conflict. If say you want to hit 1200 stealth fighters by 2030 assuming there are roughly 300 J-20 today you’d have to get production up to ~200 a year*. Putting that all on CAC when SAC can also pitch in with the production capacity it set up for the naval J-35 that’s otherwise going to be slow run while it’s waiting on carriers to complete assembly would be a pretty poor use of present available resources. It’s not like CAC line expansion happens overnight. CAC isn’t a magical stealth fighter fairy that can just wave its wand and double production with no lead time. Insofar as part of any production expansion ramp up is constrained by skilled technicians and line workers, why would you wait on CAC when SAC has spare capital that would just be idling without a project? Using the resources you have on hand is actually always far more efficient in practice than assigning wunderkind status to one of your suppliers and expecting them to carry everything.
Furthermore for all the talk of CCAs as fleet number fillers, realistically we don’t know where CCA development is and you are not planning your next five years of your primary force procurement around unproven capabilities with immature employment doctrine.
*And no, I do not think 1200 by 2030 is an absurd number. Yes there are also training bottlenecks but insofar as people want to talk about accelerating readiness it’s better to have your equipment first so that you can begin meaningful training earlier.
The reality is that you're refusing to acknowledge reality.
So you've decided to throw everything that not just myself, but @Blitzo and all others have already clarified and explained not just in this instance, but also in many of the previous pages in this thread out of the window and declares "Muh, I don't see sh1t with what the J-35A could bring to the table"? Really?
I didn't say that the J-35A is more geared towards A2G. I said that the J-35A is more of balanced with A2A-A2G (compared to the majorly A2A-focused J-20), with a slight tilt towards the former (relative to the F-35A/B/C).
One the topic of A2G capability - In fact, the J-35A is expected to have an IWB that is deeper for greater portions of its length than the J-20's IWB, alongside a 360-degree IRST EOTS (compared to the 240-degree IRST EOTS on the J-20), among other features.
Plus, go back and have a read on what the CCTV reporting mentioned. Also, you need to brush up your comprehension skills.
You have been basing your entire logic of reasoning and argument in this thread on that bolded sentence, which is based on mere assumptions, projections based on false historical analyses and "what I feel like", which is plain wrong to begin with.
And while we're at it (not just directed at you) - I would recommend everyone who can understand Chinese to go have a good look at this video to understand about the J-35A and why the PLAAF wants to procure it:
【为什么海军空军都需要歼35？歼35未来要做什么？硬核解析【珠海航展特别节目】】
Last edited:
I think the Guancha trio has already mentioned the Air Force's reasons for procuring the J-35A: it's cheaper relative to the J-20 and J-35, and it is able for increased production. They need the J-35A to counter the F-35's numerical advantage
CAC, especially the J-20 production line, is said to have been working on an unofficial 7-day schedule for a long time, 996 is like a vacation. Yankee claims that more than two people have died last year due to overwork or illness. Their sacrifices are not taken for granted, and it is inhumane to push them to increase production capacity. Transferring the J-10 production to Guizhou will reduce the burden on personnel, but don't expect them increase production capacity.
CAC, especially the J-20 production line, is said to have been working on an unofficial 7-day schedule for a long time, 996 is like a vacation. Yankee claims that more than two people have died last year due to overwork or illness. Their sacrifices are not taken for granted, and it is inhumane to push them to increase production capacity. Transferring the J-10 production to Guizhou will reduce the burden on personnel, but don't expect them increase production capacity.
Last edited:
I am not a fan of using last year’s production rate for j20 to extrapolate future production since factories are expanding and work force will increase. There are many reasons for and against procurement of J35A, but J20 program production limit isn’t one you can use longer term since production capacity can always be expanded.
Where does the SAC prototype take off from now? This airstrip doesn't look completed?
It’s more a question of short term cadence than long term capacity. Suspect that the Air Force has decided to hit a certain number by a certain time window which will require a certain cadence.
Sure, expanding the ceiling sounds simple on paper, but losing SAC’s production talent over time isn’t just a gap, it’s a generational break. Retraining or rebuilding that capacity is harder than setting up new lines with a fresh workforce and suppliers. That’s part of why spreading production across multiple primes, while expensive, ends up being the more resilient approach in the long run. SAC can’t retain its talent just doing exports and low-rate PLAN work. And realistically, we should expect heavy attrition of (naval) J-35s in any serious Pacific conflict—having parallel J-35A production means replacements can (significantly) come faster, and that kind of redundancy isn’t just nice to have, it’s essential.
F-35 has its own variants too. Doesn't mean each variant cannot subsidize each other.