Unless they’re also engineering designs based on sustainment factors.
J-35A fighter (PLAAF) + FC-31 thread
- Thread starter ACuriousPLAFan
- Start date
Size is a sustainment factor by itself.
All things equal, the more things get out of human scale, the more it's getting out of hand, at every turn.
Plus stealth on top.
Besides FME threats, the other major issue is just a simple lack of bandwidth and outright human capital at CAC for manufacturing J-20s for export.
If you constantly update and iterate your production design, you're also going to have to constantly update and debug your manufacturing processes. That's going to stress your human capital, especially if they're already pushing overtime to increase output.
On top of that, if China is to export the J-20 anytime soon, it's going to have to be a variant incorporating certain alternative subsystems in lieu of what's onboard the domestic model. That means diverting resources to updating, reengineering, debugging and certifying an existing baseline J-20 iteration into a customer specific J-20 iteration, plus additional manpower for assembling and then staffing a separate production line.
This isn't going to be something the PLAAF will want to put up with until "J-20 overcapacity" somehow finally kicks in at CAC.
Any significant upgrade to the F-22, especially for a meaningful number of airframes, is going to need Congress' stamp of approval to secure funding.
So tend to be and not exactly "private:"
200 per year looks like the realistic maximum.
Even this should be overkill for requirements in the 1st Island Chain by 2033
J-35 production only for 3-4 carriers (up to 6) at 30-40 per carrier will be a huge problem when it comes to high attrition, replacing lossed J-35s, and limited production lines. You won't be able to replace J-35 fast enough in a high intensity war in the Pacific.
That's where PLAAF's J-35A can effectively subsidize or support J-35 production with J-35A production lines (high parts interchangeablility and commonality) which are expected to keep high levels of production into the next decade and longer. Also helps J-35 gain the economy of scale , but most importantly, rapid replacements of J-35 units with huge adjacent capacity.
This makes sense considering F-35 is expected to be fielded in thousand and with hundreds per year annual production capacity. In a Pacific conflict, the ability to replace or replenish loss units quickly may is quite important.
That's where PLAAF's J-35A can effectively subsidize or support J-35 production with J-35A production lines (high parts interchangeablility and commonality) which are expected to keep high levels of production into the next decade and longer. Also helps J-35 gain the economy of scale , but most importantly, rapid replacements of J-35 units with huge adjacent capacity.
This makes sense considering F-35 is expected to be fielded in thousand and with hundreds per year annual production capacity. In a Pacific conflict, the ability to replace or replenish loss units quickly may is quite important.
Not like they will only be deployed to the Pacific Frontier either. The Xizang Frontier certainly needs to be considered as well, especially assuming the worst-case scenario (i.e. India operating Su-57Es + managed to get their AMCA into serial production by the mid-2030s).
I think India having a hundred 5th gen fighters is the realistic worse case scenario by 2033.
That doesn't change the overall strategic balances in any significant way.
And by 2033, I expect the first production J-36s to be ready.
For this task alone, just build more J-35 and introduce them as is. There was no need to develop J-35A.
Subsidy version doesn't add up very well.
I don't think land-variants need a folding wing which adds weight, complexity, and cost. It's not hard to retool to add folding wings, launch bar, and tailhooks, but it's much harder to add production lines and scale fast enough in times of war. Both J-35A and J-35 complement each in terms of economy of scale and high parts interchangeablility.
Within the next 10 years, there simply won't be enough Chinese aircraft carriers to effectively contest blue-water control past the 2nd Island Chain, against a larger fleet of US aircraft carriers.
So Chinese carriers will likely adopt a strategically defensive posture within the 2nd Island Chain, where they can work with large numbers of land-based aircraft and missile units.
That limits the usefulness of being able to produce large numbers of J-35 (in order to replace losses)
---
But in the following 10 years, my guess is that the 1st Island Chain will be "secured", and that China's military will focus on blue-water sea control.
I expect China will build a larger aircraft carrier fleet than the US Navy, and by then, the J-XDS would be available.