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

[valysre]

there's no reason why advances in manufacturing techniques are not applicable to the J-20

One might imagine that retooling the entire CAC j20 line to make use of the additive manufacturing, etc., that SAC has apparently made great use of in the J35 lines could be somewhat difficult.

As such, I don't see how manufacturing techniques can give the J-35A a significant advantage.

Strongly recommend perusing this thread a little more. There has been lots of conversation around the advantages in airframe weight, stress distribution, manufacturing ease, etc. from aforementioned additive manufacturing (and other things that I am probably missing).

 

[Blitzo]

First, there's no reason why advances in manufacturing techniques are not applicable to the J-20. In fact, it'd be expected that it is, as that's the norm and not the exception. As such, I don't see how manufacturing techniques can give the J-35A a significant advantage. Sure, somethings probably can't be changed, but certainly many things can.

I expect J-20A to also have some benefits in manufacturing techniques and maintainability, however as a cleaner sheet design, the J-35/35A may well offer benefits that J-20A cannot take on unless it was more comprehensively structurally redesigned (e.g. additive manufacturing).

Secondly, how many big ticket items have the PLA exported before? The PLA has in the past been constrained in many well known ways when it comes to exporting big ticket items. My suspicion is that it's about to change. The geopolitical situation, product quality, and manufacturing capacity are all conducive to doing so now. The PLA has shown that it can adapt to the times. The first batch of the massive 055 was 8 ships, a break from the previous norm of a few 054s before 054As, or a few each of 052/052B/052Cs before 052Ds.

I think the export potential of the J-35A is an important milestone for the Chinese MIC, and with it there'll be paradigm changes that requires flexibility in thinking rather than just following the old ways.

They've actually offered a fair few big ticket items for export in the past up to now, but usually after they've only entered PLA service.

054A, 052D, J-10C, 039A SSK, even AEW&C -- they've all had domestic equivalents enter service first before being offered for export, and in none of those situations were their export versions greatly impactful on the domestic procurement situation.


This isn't merely a case of following existing trends, but also of common sense -- we know the PLA has been very much "5th gen pilled" since the mid 2010s, and it makes sense that since that time they would have sought the best way to scale up their 5th generation fleet in as practical and timely a manner as possible. As we've observed in the last 5-6 years that has involved increasing J-20/A production scale (it wasn't that long ago that we thought 20-40 per year as a sustainable production rate might be all we'd see), to 100+ aircraft per year, but clearly that wasn't enough for the PLA. If they sought J-35A, we should thus be looking at both the benefits that J-35A bring itself to the PLA from perspectives of cost, capability, time/production -- and "export potential" really should be a secondary if not tertiary consideration, considering how important of a domain (composition/time scale of air fleet procurement) this is.


Simply put -- for the PLA to want to buy J-35A over expanding J-20/A production only requires a handful of things to be true:
- J-35A can be approximately as capable as J-20/A (or even slightly less capable), while offering some benefits in cost reduction (procurement and operating cost, and common supply chain with J-35), AND
- J-35A being able to be delivered to the PLA in a more timely and lower risk way than further scaling up J-20/A production (whether it's expanding CAC production, or asking SAC to produce J-20/A)

If those two criteria can be met, then it's a relative no brainer for the PLA to favour J-35A over further increasing the ceiling of J-20/A production rates

 

[4Runner]

I always have a question when I see comparison piece by piece between PLAAF/PLAN and USAF/USN or any other foreign competitor: In which combat scenario exactly is J-35 necessary? So far I can only think of PLAN carrier-borne in A2/AD scenarios. PLAAF does not have to have J-35A; it is simply available; and it serves SAC better as it embarks on J-50 program.

J-16 series is by far the most potent air combat platform under 50 tons, in the context of layered PLA air defense as well as offense. It does not make much sense to compare J-16 against any competing model on paper. It only makes sense where and how PLA is going to use it: liberate Taiwan. In those combat scenarios, only remaining threats to J-16 would be surface VLS units at least 1000 miles away from the mainland coast line. Last but not the least, JH-7 program was not evolving as well as expected, and eventually was replaced by J-16 program.

The main assets in the air for PLA in those defined combat scenarios are always: J-20 + J-16 + KJ AWACS + GX EW/ECM/ESM/ELINT/SIGINT + H6K/N. All other air assets are for homeland defense only, including J-10 series and J-11 series.

There is no place for J-31 or J-35 series in PLA except carrier-borne. It will be great for export, for it is the only option other than F-35 on the market.

As 5/7 air combat teaches us: outside US and China, all other air forces are already obsolete; and gaps are getting wider year after year.

 

[vincent]

One benefit of procuring J-35A is the sustainment of the WS-19 program. The number of J-35 is too low to provide enough funds for the continuous improvement of WS-19.

 

[Blitzo]

I always have a question when I see comparison piece by piece between PLAAF/PLAN and USAF/USN or any other foreign competitor: In which combat scenario exactly is J-35 necessary? So far I can only think of PLAN carrier-borne in A2/AD scenarios. PLAAF does not have to have J-35A; it is simply available; and it serves SAC better as it embarks on J-50 program.

J-16 series is by far the most potent air combat platform under 50 tons, in the context of layered PLA air defense as well as offense. It does not make much sense to compare J-16 against any competing model on paper. It only makes sense where and how PLA is going to use it: liberate Taiwan. In those combat scenarios, only remaining threats to J-16 would be surface VLS units at least 1000 miles away from the mainland coast line. Last but not the least, JH-7 program was not evolving as well as expected, and eventually was replaced by J-16 program.

The main assets in the air for PLA in those defined combat scenarios are always: J-20 + J-16 + KJ AWACS + GX EW/ECM/ESM/ELINT/SIGINT + H6K/N. All other air assets are for homeland defense only, including J-10 series and J-11 series.

There is no place for J-31 or J-35 series in PLA except carrier-borne. It will be great for export, for it is the only option other than F-35 on the market.

As 5/7 air combat teaches us: outside US and China, all other air forces are already obsolete; and gaps are getting wider year after year.

Do you mean J-35 or J-35A?

For J-35, it is the PLAN's only prospective manned 5th generation and stealthy aircraft that is A2A capable in the future until J-XDS may or may not emerge for it, which will not happen any time prior to the early/mid 2030s at best.


For J-35A, if you've been following the above discussion, it is simply a case of offering J-20/A-like capabilities but at slightly lower cost while being able to add numbers to the PLA 5th generation fleet in a timely manner where J-20/A itself is unable to do. I.e.: high end, slightly shorter range and slightly lower 5th generation capability (than J-20/A), in numbers that J-20/A cannot meet alone.

There are plentiful conflict scenarios (including high end westpac) where having the slightly lower range J-35A be able to contest air superiority in different theaters and in "first island chain distances" would be useful to free J-20/As to operate at "first island chain plus" distances.

 

[Maikeru]

Do we have any realistic insight as to the comparative RCS of J-20A vs J-35A? I am thinking as a smaller, newer and canard-less aircraft, J-35A is likely to have a lower RCS but I haven't seen any modelling of J-35 radar returns.

 

[tamsen_ikard]

Do we have any realistic insight as to the comparative RCS of J-20A vs J-35A? I am thinking as a smaller, newer and canard-less aircraft, J-35A is likely to have a lower RCS but I haven't seen any modelling of J-35 radar returns.

J-35 should be comparable to F-35 in terms of stealth shaping, maybe even better since its less "Fat". It has been shown using simulations that J-20 stealth shaping has much higher RCS than F-35. It might be because PLA made compromises to make J-20 more manuverable with a canard delta design which has much better manuverability compared to a tradional layout. J-20 has this wierd long shape which is supposed to give better supersonic manuverability. So, J-20 is a compromise towards a better air superiority fighter with more focus on manuverability at the cost of some lesser stealth.

 

[toast]

I always have a question when I see comparison piece by piece between PLAAF/PLAN and USAF/USN or any other foreign competitor: In which combat scenario exactly is J-35 necessary? So far I can only think of PLAN carrier-borne in A2/AD scenarios. PLAAF does not have to have J-35A; it is simply available; and it serves SAC better as it embarks on J-50 program.

J-16 series is by far the most potent air combat platform under 50 tons, in the context of layered PLA air defense as well as offense. It does not make much sense to compare J-16 against any competing model on paper. It only makes sense where and how PLA is going to use it: liberate Taiwan. In those combat scenarios, only remaining threats to J-16 would be surface VLS units at least 1000 miles away from the mainland coast line. Last but not the least, JH-7 program was not evolving as well as expected, and eventually was replaced by J-16 program.

The main assets in the air for PLA in those defined combat scenarios are always: J-20 + J-16 + KJ AWACS + GX EW/ECM/ESM/ELINT/SIGINT + H6K/N. All other air assets are for homeland defense only, including J-10 series and J-11 series.

There is no place for J-31 or J-35 series in PLA except carrier-borne. It will be great for export, for it is the only option other than F-35 on the market.

As 5/7 air combat teaches us: outside US and China, all other air forces are already obsolete; and gaps are getting wider year after year.

Actually, I think you've already addressed part of the answer. With the complete retirement of various J-7 and J-8 models, the J-35A can replace these aging aircraft, as well as J-10/10A/10B and even some J-10C units—potentially even taking over certain J-11B and J-11BG units. Whether for territorial air defense or supporting operations in key strategic directions, more advanced systems are always necessary. Of course, as you mentioned, there’s also the export demand. So in my view, it still has significant room for growth.

 

[Deino]

Has this image been posted?

 

[4Runner]

My guess is that the unit cost of J-35A will be closer to J-20A than J-10C. As J-20A/J-20S approaches 100 units per year before J-36 reaches production, only export orders can help maintain J-35A production scale. After J-36 and J50 reach production, there is not much room for J-35A, for it is not a good candidate for low end compliment or royal wingman. Anyway, no matter how you cut it, J-35A will not replace J10 as homeland defense. Beyond 2030, 1000 J-20 and 1000 J-16 plus UAV will be sufficient to compliment J-36 and J-50.