J-XY/J-35 carrier-borne fighter thread

[kwaigonegin]

With F-35A/B/C, the canopy opens forward to make space for the lift fan in the F-35B STOVL variant, but that this creates issues for the ejection seat. IE. they need explosives to blow the canopy in an ejection. Interesting that the J-35 also sees the canopy fold forwards as well.

I mentioned this very thing a while back. Makes no ffing sense why the J35 had to also imitate the forward hinging canopy of the F35.
Unless there is also some VTOL variant in the works that no one is aware of.
If so I think that would be a huge mistake. It's already a big mistake for the US, it would be a disaster for PLAN or PLAAF.

 

[Jason_]

With F-35A/B/C, the canopy opens forward to make space for the lift fan in the F-35B STOVL variant, but that this creates issues for the ejection seat. IE. they need explosives to blow the canopy in an ejection. Interesting that the J-35 also sees the canopy fold forwards as well.

The J-20 also use explosives to blow the canopy in an ejection. This is the standard and preferred method for a modern fighter.

 

[Deino]

By the way, any news lately?

 

[Blitzo]

I mentioned this very thing a while back. Makes no ffing sense why the J35 had to also imitate the forward hinging canopy of the F35.
Unless there is also some VTOL variant in the works that no one is aware of.
If so I think that would be a huge mistake. It's already a big mistake for the US, it would be a disaster for PLAN or PLAAF.

I don’t see a particular issue with a forward hinged canopy. Similar to the J-20 and the F-35, the full canopy frame doesn’t need to be ejected as part of the ejection process, but rather the canopy glass would be detonated only.

Of all of the issues with the F-35 that one could argue to exist, the forward hinged canopy isn’t one I’ve heard of.

 

[Atomicfrog]

I mentioned this very thing a while back. Makes no ffing sense why the J35 had to also imitate the forward hinging canopy of the F35.
Unless there is also some VTOL variant in the works that no one is aware of.
If so I think that would be a huge mistake. It's already a big mistake for the US, it would be a disaster for PLAN or PLAAF.

Forward hinging canopy probably cut a couple of inches in hight when open than a rear one. Could be helpfull while in hangar in carrier operation.

 

[Schwerter_]

Forward hinging canopy probably cut a couple of inches in hight when open than a rear one. Could be helpfull while in hangar in carrier operation.

good point, especially as J-35 has quite the humped back and therefore a rear-hinged canopy would have its hinge very high up, further exacerbating the height issue

 

[KFX]

I mentioned this very thing a while back. Makes no ffing sense why the J35 had to also imitate the forward hinging canopy of the F35.
Unless there is also some VTOL variant in the works that no one is aware of.
If so I think that would be a huge mistake. It's already a big mistake for the US, it would be a disaster for PLAN or PLAAF.

If there is STOVL J-35 in the offing, perhaps this forward opening canopy leaves space for the lift fan - should they decide to go that route. Pure speculation on my part, but I would think that PLAN would see the benefits of operating fixed-wing jets from its big amphibs.

 

[Blitzo]

If there is STOVL J-35 in the offing, perhaps this forward opening canopy leaves space for the lift fan - should they decide to go that route. Pure speculation on my part, but I would think that PLAN would see the benefits of operating fixed-wing jets from its big amphibs.

There are no indications they are interested in pursuing a STOVL variant of J-XY/35 or even if it is viable to develop such a variant, nor are there any indications they are interested in developing a STOVL manned fighter in general at this stage.

A front folding canopy is not abnormal and its presence does not indicate that it must solely exist merely for the purposes of wanting a STOVL variant of a given aircraft type.
A front folding canopy also is not detrimental to ejection purposes because ejection would simply be done through detonation of the canopy glass.

 

[gelgoog]

They already put a fuel tank behind the cockpit and there is like no place to put a vertical lift fan in the airplane as it is.

 

[Blitzo]

They already put a fuel tank behind the cockpit and there is like no place to put a vertical lift fan in the airplane as it is.

... even if they didn't put anything behind the cockpit, there is no indication that a STOVL variant would be viable based off J-XY/35 even if they somehow had a requirement for such an aircraft (why they don't).


We shouldn't even be entertaining the idea of a STOVL variant of J-XY/35 to begin with, because the only reason this is being entertained is due to the ridiculous notion that a front folding canopy equates to desiring a STOVL variant of a given aircraft.