I wonder if there is a S/TOVL version in parallel development .....
There's no need for thatI feel like @paralay is secretly cooking something...
I wonder if there is a S/TOVL version in parallel development .....
I feel like @paralay is secretly cooking something...
It's pretty subjective but this is my favorite looking 5th gen among all the in service jets and demonstrators that have been designed so far (besides the YF-23/F-23). It's like the F-35 but not so "fat", instead it's more "elegant".
It is also pretty interesting that, although there are some design (like the DSI or canted wing/stab edges for ex.) and size differences, Kaan and J-35 will end up looking pretty much alike from a distance due to a mixture of "F-35 and F-22-ish" design choices.
Also, although the IWB is not exactly the same as that of J-20 (as it's been speculated to be), it's pretty much close at least in terms of surface area so this enables commonality of carriable payload. Which is big for a bird of this size (KF-21/F-35/AMCA class).
That sounds closer to suggestive at best rather than forceing anything, beacuse really, there's aren't any consequences these guy could enforce on don't they? Either way, weird logic for sure.These photos are several years old. Apparently some geniuses are trying to force PLAN to display the planes at Zhuhai by demonstrating that they already have high def photos of multiple prototypes so there is no need for secrecy. Weird logic. Hopefully they don’t get invited for tea.
Forget it ... never ever! How do you want to fit not only one but even more so two lift fans with/for two engines in that one?
Theoretically they could make it work if they somehow solve the gas-driven lift fan issues MDD/NG/BAE faced during JAST. If they could, they could configure it as single lift plus double lift and cruise with a single big GDLF fed from both engines.A STOVL fighter based on the J-35 would be unworkable, weight gain due to the two lift fans would only be the start of the problems for such a fighter.
Twin engine failure modes make that very much a non-starter.Theoretically they could make it work if they somehow solve the gas-driven lift fan issues MDD/NG/BAE faced during JAST. If they could, they could configure it as single lift plus double lift and cruise with a single big GDLF fed from both engines.
Obviously, a more logical choice if they do want a STOVL fighter would be to develop a bespoke design, but at least there are candidate solutions that could make a double engined STOVL fighter possible.
didn't know there's a carrier version of the L-15. I thought they were going with that J-7 based trainer. FTC-2000 was it?
JL-9 has MIG-21 roots so low speed handling characteristics will never be as good as something like an L-15. This probably makes it less attractive for genuine carrier operations.
Sorry, but if your engine fails, a conventional single engine L+L/C STOVL aircraft also goes down, and it will go down quickerTwin engine failure modes make that very much a non-starter.
But without an instant snap-roll to the dead engine, giving time to eject.Sorry, but if your engine fails, a conventional single engine L+L/C STOVL aircraft also goes down, and it will go down quicker
Irrelevant factor. If you're that close to ground single engine is just as dangerous. Also, engines aren't mounted on wingtips but close to boresight centre axis.But without an instant snap-roll to the dead engine, giving time to eject.
Well, if fan fails f-35 will snap-roll forward instead.But without an instant snap-roll to the dead engine, giving time to eject.
Yes, we've seen a couple of videos where that happened on F-35s.Well, if fan fails f-35 will snap-roll forward instead.
Digital hover control+ automatic ejection at this stage control the issue, f-35 proven it quite well.
No, because the loss of one engine equals the loss of the aircraft in this case, twin engine VTOL is twice as likely to cause loss of aircraft. It's not P(losing both engines), which is P(lose engine)^2, it's 2*P(lose engine).Irrelevant factor. If you're that close to ground single engine is just as dangerous.
The probability of engine failure can vary with design choices rather than being constant.. There's also whether the failure modes are common or independent e.g. separate SDLF within F-35 opens up new failure modes (e.g. FOD ingestion to fan) which impacts failure probabilities despite it being single engine.No, because the loss of one engine equals the loss of the aircraft in this case, twin engine VTOL is twice as likely to cause loss of aircraft. It's not P(losing both engines), which is P(lose engine)^2, it's 2*P(lose engine).
Well, if the "J-35A" is the land-based variant, (by this I guess you mean the base aircraft with shorter wingspan?) "J-31" Technically doesn't exists, right? That would mean that only the FC-31 and J-35 (of different variants) are real designations. Or did I understand you wrong?Latest news, the J-31 will appear at Zhuhai in the flying display! (and allegedly the J-35A is the land-based variant)
Well, if the "J-35A" is the land-based variant, (by this I guess you mean the base aircraft with shorter wingspan?) "J-31" Technically doesn't exists, right? That would mean that only the FC-31 and J-35 (of different variants) are real designations. Or did I understand you wrong?
If I'm not mistaken, then this is one of the clearest image of the J-35A!Hopefully more soon ... (Image via @恒苏Actline from Weibo)
View attachment 746436
Looks like it is one of the first production aircraft to be flown if it has no pitot tube. Is that true Deino?
So the combat jets on Chinese carriers will be a mix of J-15 and J-35 ? J-15 in the role of Superbug (missile and bomb truck) and J-35 as the F-35C ?
So how many J-35s would the PLAN purchase in that scenario siegecrossbow? Especially since it might be more expensive than the J-15 variants.
A first clear image of the J-35A was revealed showing a painted „75“ on its tail to celebrate the birthday of the PLA Air Force!
View attachment 746685