Keep in mind that some of that production might be going to export customers. Suspect the current geopolitical environment might be expediting interests ahead of expectations.
J-35A fighter (PLAAF) + FC-31
- Thread starter ACuriousPLAFan
- Start date
Maybe, but I think we're going to hear specific noises and American interference first.
Plus, both PLAN and PLAAF requirements are in fact rather urgent, China needs LO strikers(and any naval LO) ASAP.
China literally lacks 1st day aircraft as of now - jamming, drones and J-20s as sensor nodes are good, but you also need just a survivable bomber.
J-16 isn't exactly one.
Apart from being a cheaper plane (and perhaps slightly stealthier?), what would make the J-35/A a better striker than J-20? Is it purely opportunity cost, that being that J-20 is too few and thus precious to spare for the strike role?
For LO striking, we roughly know the depth of J-20's IWB but we've never seen J-35/A IWB, and its length and width look similar from compared photos. Are we expecting J-35/A IWB to be deeper? Have there been any credible rumours on this? J-20 IWB seems too shallow to carry anything other than thin A2A missiles.
F-35 is a better striker than F-22 because it has deeper IWBs, better sensors and integration, and has EOTS (while F-22 does not). None of these differences may be present for J-35/A vs J-20.
Even for non-LO striking, we've seen photos of J-20 with external carry of munitions and as a larger plane it should be able to carry more externally, so the J-20 can do better in that role too (but moot anyway as J-16 exists).
(Obviously for PLANAF the J-35 being the only LO option altogether makes it an important new addition. But I still fail to see why PLAAF would need J-35A purely for strike, except on cost grounds).
J-20(not A, we don't know about A) doesn't have a ground targeting apparatus. Rear end if its EOTS is opaque, which directly means that even if it has laser(which it likely doesn't), it is not intended to be used for munitions slower than aircraft(i.e. bombs).
J-35 is also almost certainly stealthier and has cheaper flight hour.
For J-20A/S - no idea what's hidden under the new beautiful diamond, but they're few.
Makes sense. But as a subsystem (that's seemingly mostly contained to just its small physical container + software), wouldn't it be cheaper to refit J-20s with new 360 (with laser) EOTS than making and inducting (training, logistics etc.) an entirely new plane for it? If engines can be retrofitted, why can't EOTS?
China can currently use the GJ-11 and GJ-21 to undertake the major strike missions.
Last edited:
The J-35A is a multi-role fighter jet that can also be deployed for air superiority operations, with one of its key objectives being to defeat the F-35. Chinese media have described the J-35A as a large-scale force for stealth and anti-stealth operations. This indicates that the J-35A will be mass-produced on a large scale. Given that its cost is lower than that of the J-20, the quantity of the J-35 series will very likely surpass that of the J-20 series in the future.
Now, CCTV, China's official media outlet, has revised its description of the J-20 series to a multi-role fighter jet, which indicates that it already possesses ground-strike capabilities.
What evidence do you have that J-35 is cheaper to fly?
There are plenty of reasons to buy J-35 family. Not having ground attack in current PLA family certainly isn't one of them.
Wait, how could production of the twin engine J-35 already be nearing J-20? I thought the new SAC facility is nowhere near up at full capacity yet?
Edit: ah, missed the rumour about J-16 production halting. OTOH I'm a bit sad about that if true but would explain a lot if they pivot the existing lines. Range and payload of the J-35A must truly be pretty good if they're confident with it fully replacing rather than complementing J-16.
Last edited: