This is certainly a beautiful bird indeed. Where there is a will, there is a way. They work around the clock in shifts. Small steps, quick pace!
J-XY/J-35 carrier-borne fighter thread
- Thread starter Deino
- Start date
Just wonder will they eventually produce aq land variant?
I don't think navy will procure alot and there is virtually zero export prospect for naval variant.
That will means cost per unit will be exorbitant unless air force also buy or they can find export customers.
Problem is does PLAAF have a need? Unless it a multi role fighter that can complement existing jets.
I don't think navy will procure alot and there is virtually zero export prospect for naval variant.
That will means cost per unit will be exorbitant unless air force also buy or they can find export customers.
Problem is does PLAAF have a need? Unless it a multi role fighter that can complement existing jets.
I have a feeling that J-31 will look more like FC-31 v2.0 than J-35.
Export was taken into account at the beginning of development
All countries that can't buy the F-35 are target customers
I would personally prefer it look like J35 minus the folding wing and different landing gear rather than FC-31 v2.
J35 does look more aesthetic pleasing compare to when i first saw it.
It may sound layman but aesthetic does influence buyer's decision.
@Hendrik_2000,
Firstly please calm down. Secondly, It is my opinion that the poster of the youtube video and Twitter account 彩云香江 is not providing any information more than collecting and repeating what we already know. More than that he is making basic mistakes and unfounded claims, in other words he should NOT have made his posts that he has no knowledge of.
I took (wasted) some time to watch the video in question, and compared to the paper from the designer of SAC regarding improvement from FC31.
Here is the list of his unfounded claims that are not found in the paper.
1. Where does he get the idea of the main wing being enlarged?
2. Where did he get the idea that the main wing and horizontal stablizer are moved further backward?
3. Where did he get the idea of the reduction of overlapping. FC-31 had almost zero overlap, 350003 still has that tinny overlap, just look at the inner edge of the flap of the main wing.
4. Where did he get the idea that the tail booms are extended?
5. The intake tip was reshaped but not widened.
6. Nowhere in the paper talks about increasing internal fuel by the hump behind the cockpit.
None of the above are mentioned in the paper. He made more mistakes than he was right.
I can sense that he is proud of China's achievement, but that is not an excuse of saying anything unfounded and unprofessional. Worst of all, spreading his posts is messing up this forum.
You have posted his posts in this forum for a long time. Many of us have spent time on reading those posts. I think we have given both him and you enough chance to demonstrate whether his posts are of quality. The result is negative. Can you for the sake of all of us be restraint from sourcing from this person? Please don't make it a personal fight of "I will do what you ask not to" between you and @by78, it is childish.
Firstly please calm down. Secondly, It is my opinion that the poster of the youtube video and Twitter account 彩云香江 is not providing any information more than collecting and repeating what we already know. More than that he is making basic mistakes and unfounded claims, in other words he should NOT have made his posts that he has no knowledge of.
I took (wasted) some time to watch the video in question, and compared to the paper from the designer of SAC regarding improvement from FC31.
Here is the list of his unfounded claims that are not found in the paper.
1. Where does he get the idea of the main wing being enlarged?
2. Where did he get the idea that the main wing and horizontal stablizer are moved further backward?
3. Where did he get the idea of the reduction of overlapping. FC-31 had almost zero overlap, 350003 still has that tinny overlap, just look at the inner edge of the flap of the main wing.
4. Where did he get the idea that the tail booms are extended?
5. The intake tip was reshaped but not widened.
6. Nowhere in the paper talks about increasing internal fuel by the hump behind the cockpit.
None of the above are mentioned in the paper. He made more mistakes than he was right.
I can sense that he is proud of China's achievement, but that is not an excuse of saying anything unfounded and unprofessional. Worst of all, spreading his posts is messing up this forum.
You have posted his posts in this forum for a long time. Many of us have spent time on reading those posts. I think we have given both him and you enough chance to demonstrate whether his posts are of quality. The result is negative. Can you for the sake of all of us be restraint from sourcing from this person? Please don't make it a personal fight of "I will do what you ask not to" between you and @by78, it is childish.
Last edited:
Sinodefence is not just any forum. It is a high quality forum and most of us try to keep it that way. Don't trash it.
It is not a Phd dissertation, but we have the paper from the designer, so you have the truth presented to you. Or are you trying to say that J35's designer is not telling the truth? Don't play the "no absolute truth" in front the truth. It is you being arrogant when denying the truth out of ego.
That is your fault not the SAC's fault, not my fault. If you can not read the professional paper, then the best to do is be quiet instead of screaming around, or better go and take a Chinese lesson.
Forum is not free for garbage and misinformation (deliberate or not). It is not just your playground, it is a place that you share with many others, we do have the right to tell you to behave. ABSOLUTE TRUTH exists, quite many, like earth is rotating around sun.
Last edited:
Prime example of double standards and using ignorance as justification for, in my personal opinion, unacceptably uneducated claims and low quality posts.
Speechless.
well at least allow me to try cheer everybody up with this: may be a repost but apparently there is an EODAS window on the nose before the cockpit. Seems like these J-35 prototypes either have most (if not all) of the sensors already installed or SAC left space and plans
to install them during tests. Either way it’s a lot quicker than I expected as afiak early prototypes are mainly used to test flight performance and not sensor integration. This should be a good sign that the project is progressing quickly.
Speechless.
well at least allow me to try cheer everybody up with this: may be a repost but apparently there is an EODAS window on the nose before the cockpit. Seems like these J-35 prototypes either have most (if not all) of the sensors already installed or SAC left space and plans
to install them during tests. Either way it’s a lot quicker than I expected as afiak early prototypes are mainly used to test flight performance and not sensor integration. This should be a good sign that the project is progressing quickly.
Last edited:
What's the reason for the "F-35B sized hump" behind the cockpit since it can compromise rear visibility.
Interesting that you should take offense to a post that did not in any way directly target you. Most interesting. I guess your reactions speak for themselves.