Terrible example, since lack of commonality between F-35 variants is notorious and often highlighted as a missed target.
J-35A fighter (PLAAF) + FC-31 thread
- Thread starter ACuriousPLAFan
- Start date
Terrible example, since lack of commonality between F-35 variants is notorious and often highlighted as a missed target.
lcloo
Captain
Possibily from SAC's older factory.
I think it's a bit too pessimistic to predict the commonality of the J-35 based on the failure of the F-35 series in this regard. It’s unlikely to achieve the exceptionally high commonality originally expected of the F-35, but it also won’t be as poor as the F-35’s actual commonality.
The F-35's commonality issues stem from each variant having distinct features. For instance, the F-35A uses dorsal refueling and has an internal gun, while the B and C models use probe-and-drogue refueling and lack a gun. The F-35B incorporates a lift fan, significantly altering its airframe design, while the F-35C features reinforced structures for catapult launches, enlarged wings, and an arrestor hook.
What about the J-35 and J-35A? The naval variant has strengthened landing gear, increased wing area, modified vertical stabilizers, internal structural reinforcements—that’s about it. The differences between them are closer to those between the F-35A and C in terms of aerodynamics and airframe strength, but without the odd discrepancies like gun and refueling variations.
The F-35's commonality issues stem from each variant having distinct features. For instance, the F-35A uses dorsal refueling and has an internal gun, while the B and C models use probe-and-drogue refueling and lack a gun. The F-35B incorporates a lift fan, significantly altering its airframe design, while the F-35C features reinforced structures for catapult launches, enlarged wings, and an arrestor hook.
What about the J-35 and J-35A? The naval variant has strengthened landing gear, increased wing area, modified vertical stabilizers, internal structural reinforcements—that’s about it. The differences between them are closer to those between the F-35A and C in terms of aerodynamics and airframe strength, but without the odd discrepancies like gun and refueling variations.
The point was not that J-35/A will be a commonality disaster, just that F-35A/B/C is a terrible example to use here.
Why the tails of the J-35 and 35A differ will forever puzzle me.
Anyways, here a photo:
Anyways, here a photo:
There is no VTOL J-35 so you should not use the 22% stat that included F-35B. IIRC it is about 50% commonality for the army and navy variant, and for China that number is likely higher.
There is no VTOL F-35 either; the B variant is STOVL. Well, technically you can take off vertically with an empty bird but that's a useless gimmick. And the commonality for A (43%) and C (30%) was well below 50% . Matters have gone downhill since then.
J-35/A may very well prove to be more successful in that regard, but I reiterate my point that F-35 is a terrible example here.
F-35 is 3 aircraft for the price of 3
I.e. if PLAAF would just had wanted to help PLANAF out and get some similar capability - they could've directly taken naval variant, maybe in cheaper configuration.
Instead,they went for their own variant with expensive test and evaluation campaign.
Note, that this testing is significant part of overall development cost - and they probably cc would've had navy variant with rich configuration, still for lesser money. They've chosen not to.
I.e. they specifically wanted something tailored to their needs. This isn't lack of interest.
F-35C ended up the least common variant of 3. Which is ironic, because even F-35B is well below plan(whole thing is just too big for reasonable VTOL).
Another possibility is that due to the huge volume of PLAAF purchases, they believe that the money saved by reducing configuration is still greater than the cost of commonality and testing.F-35 is 3 aircraft for the price of 3
I.e. if PLAAF would just had wanted to help PLANAF out and get some similar capability - they could've directly taken naval variant, maybe in cheaper configuration.
Instead,they went for their own variant with expensive test and evaluation campaign.
Note, that this testing is significant part of overall development cost - and they probably cc would've had navy variant with rich configuration, still for lesser money. They've chosen not to.
I.e. they specifically wanted something tailored to their needs. This isn't lack of interest.
F-35C ended up the least common variant of 3. Which is ironic, because even F-35B is well below plan(whole thing is just too big for reasonable VTOL).
First of all, this is a fighter with twin medium-thrust engines and relatively weak power. The naval model will generally have a weight increase of about 1 ton, and the Air Force will not tolerate such meaningless weight.
Secondly, if export is the goal, the added weight of the naval version will be of no value to most target countries. A standard ground-based fighter is more cost-effective.
Third, the fighter jets used by the Air Force will have higher requirements in terms of multi-purpose. The Navy must rely on the J35 to gain air superiority, while the Air Force can completely rely on the J20.
Therefore, if the Air Force needs to equip the J35, it will inevitably require a special design.
Secondly, if export is the goal, the added weight of the naval version will be of no value to most target countries. A standard ground-based fighter is more cost-effective.
Third, the fighter jets used by the Air Force will have higher requirements in terms of multi-purpose. The Navy must rely on the J35 to gain air superiority, while the Air Force can completely rely on the J20.
Therefore, if the Air Force needs to equip the J35, it will inevitably require a special design.