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

[Alfa_Particle]

Might've been nerfed for the PLAAF version. Yankee said that cost reduction is the primary focus for PLAAF variant but even now they are not too happy and think there is room for more. Naval version, however, will have all the bells and whistles and more.

Surely not? That's a very noticeable handicap and a bit hit to its overall sensor fusion capabilities. I really doubt that they would go this far.

 

[Alfa_Particle]

3. The J-35A's internal fuel capacity exceeds 8 tons, giving it a range no weaker than that of older Flanker variants

Expected. With extremely smooth skin and being a very streamlined conventional wing, it's bound to have a better cruise L/D ratio than the J-20/Flankers. Plus, it's got a lot of space for fuel compared to its structural weight.

 

[SouthGround]

Surely not? That's a very noticeable handicap and a bit hit to its overall sensor fusion capabilities. I really doubt that they would go this far.

I agree. If you cut EODAS, you will still need a cheaper MAWS solution. How much would you even save? How much SA and survivability do you give up?

 

[Alfa_Particle]

I agree. If you cut EODAS, you will still need a cheaper MAWS solution. How much would you even save? How much SA and survivability do you give up?

Really, considering the J-35's role, it makes much more sense to prioritise survivability then cut costs.

 

[sunnymaxi]

Really, considering the J-35's role, it makes much more sense to prioritise survivability then cut costs.

PLAAF won't compromise on capabilities.. cost isn't important than national security.

 

[Maikeru]

According to Huitong's blog, J-35A "...has small polygon shaped

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

windows all around the fuselage to maintain pilot’s situation awareness." and the images confirm this if you look.

 

[ACuriousPLAFan]

2. The J-35A also serves as an aggressor aircraft, simulating the large numbers of F-35 in China's vicinity during BVR and close-range air combat training.

3. The J-35A's internal fuel capacity exceeds 8 tons, giving it a range no weaker than that of older Flanker variants

And people are still saying "The PLAAF doesn't need the J-35A! Only J-20 is enough!" in this forum.

Aggressor aircraft squadron purpose aside - That means the PLAAF will be fielding mid/lo-end 5th-gen fighters that are Flanker-ranged (which is about 1250-1500 kilometers of combat radius). And given the comparably cheaper price tags to the carrier-based J-35, let alone the J-20/A/S - Having a sizeable fleet of J-35As in service with the PLAAF means that China will further solidify and expand upon her advantage and control of the skies within ~1000-1250 kilometers of her coastlines and borders - Whilst leaving the J-20/A to conduct missions beyond the 1IC and/or other battle areas of greater significance/importance.

Wanna know what 1000 kilometers out from the Chinese coastlines and borders look like? Here's how it looks like:



~1250+ kilometers of combat radius, let alone with mid-air refueling support is only going to push those circles' borders farther outward. So there's that.

 

[sequ]

3. The J-35A's internal fuel capacity exceeds 8 tons, giving it a range no weaker than that of older Flanker variants

Assuming 8100kg internal fuel and equal range as Su-27, that is 16% less fuel consumption and thus 16% less thrust? Less draggier airframe to compensate for the lower bypass ratio the J-35A engines will have, gives me 23700lbf for the engines.

This is of course a very simple back of a (used) napkin calculation.

 

[Schwerter_]

In today's podcast, Yankee confirmed the following points:

1. The first unit to receive the J-35A will operate a mixed fleet of J-20 and J-35A.This unit has more of a research and development role than a combat one, tasked with training other units, testing new software, and pioneering new tactics.

2. The J-35A also serves as an aggressor aircraft, simulating the large numbers of F-35 in China's vicinity during BVR and close-range air combat training.

3. The J-35A's internal fuel capacity exceeds 8 tons, giving it a range no weaker than that of older Flanker variants

I trust you but do you have a timestamp maybe? I want to see (or listen in this case) it for myself

 

[siegecrossbow]

Assuming 8100kg internal fuel and equal range as Su-27, that is 16% less fuel consumption and thus 16% less thrust? Less draggier airframe to compensate for the lower bypass ratio the J-35A engines will have, gives me 23700lbf for the engines.

This is of course a very simple back of a (used) napkin calculation.

You reduce a lot of drag by not having external carry.