Shenyang FC-31 demonstrators / J-35 naval fighter / J-35A land-based version

Scott Kenny said:
But if China is being smart about it, they will be starting work on their 6th Gen design more or less as soon as J20s reach IOC. Maybe FOC.
Click to expand...
Everyone does that(3rd, 4th gen experience).

However, it takes time to properly understand what the next generation is, and there is a big risk of committing too early (euro canards).
 
Ainen said:
Everyone does that(3rd, 4th gen experience).

However, it takes time to properly understand what the next generation is, and there is a big risk of committing too early (euro canards).
Click to expand...
USA didn't after 5th Gen.

The Euro Canards are 4th gen aircraft, but took far too long to reach IOC.
 
FighterJock said:
I do not think that we will be seeing Chengdu's 6th Gen just yet siegecrossbow as they are far too busy with J-20 production at present. Perhaps towards the end of the decade we might see the 6th Gen fighter starting to make an appearance.
Click to expand...

Watch this space, imo.
Not making any predictions here, but its emergence might be a bit earlier than what past conventional estimates have reasoned.
 
Scott Kenny said:
USA didn't after 5th Gen.

The Euro Canards are 4th gen aircraft, but took far too long to reach IOC.
Click to expand...
USA does those literally non-stop. NGADs(both of them) didn't materialize out of thin air.
Eurocanards have all the traits of "pre-stealth 5th generation". Not as ambitious as US/Soviet projects/prototypes, perhaps, but this isn't important.
 
TomcatViP said:
At the end it was just a 2g 500ft demo... Not much to show to the crowd.
Still the roll sensitivity to gusts was noticeable.
Click to expand...
Charateristic of most Chinese air dispalys is it not? They hardly ever do the level of stunts employed by say the Russians so I would not have been expecting a serious role demo from them - especially not a brand new type.
 
I am surprised at that BLACK_MAMBA, I would have thought that the PLAAF would have been desperate to show off their new fighters especially to the outside world.
 
Blitzo said:
Watch this space, imo.
Not making any predictions here, but its emergence might be a bit earlier than what past conventional estimates have reasoned.
Click to expand...
I have no doubt whatsoever that they'll get there before the US. Seems the USAF is taking a page from the USN. (As in they wouldn't know what to do with a Golden Goose if someone gave it to them.)
 
overscan (PaulMM) said:
If you mean the visible smoke trail, that's typically happening in mil power for RD-33, it burns cleaner in afterburner.
Click to expand...
As the plane passes show center, you can see the smoke trail disappear and visible AB flames during the pull up and short shallow climb sequence. Back to Mil power w smoke trail as it levels off.

This was a comment on the apparent need for AB just to maintain speed under this non-challenging maneuver.
 
F119Doctor said:
As the plane passes show center, you can see the smoke trail disappear and visible AB flames during the pull up and short shallow climb sequence. Back to Mil power w smoke trail as it levels off.

This was a comment on the apparent need for AB just to maintain speed under this non-challenging maneuver.
Click to expand...
I don't know that he had to do that. it's like the airshows we have where they wait until they are near the crowd and then they hit the AB just for noise/display.
 
FighterJock said:
I am surprised at that BLACK_MAMBA, I would have thought that the PLAAF would have been desperate to show off their new fighters especially to the outside world.
Click to expand...

No lol.

The PLAAF (and PLA as a whole) are generally quite subdued. They don't reveal or confirm the existence of new platforms unless they're at a sufficient state of readiness, and even when they do they don't show us anything "useful" or "interesting".


One of the early cardinal learning points for the PLA is that they generally don't show off or brag about anything of substance.
 
The "keep the opponent understating you" stance so to speak. Could be the reverse though "we better don't show off what we can't do".
 
Blitzo said:
No lol.

The PLAAF (and PLA as a whole) are generally quite subdued. They don't reveal or confirm the existence of new platforms unless they're at a sufficient state of readiness, and even when they do they don't show us anything "useful" or "interesting".


One of the early cardinal learning points for the PLA is that they generally don't show off or brag about anything of substance.
Click to expand...
It used to be, but the trend seems changing, with the PLA PR actively posting various activities of the current up-to-date fighting force, which was unthinkable in the past
 
SK2 said:
It used to be, but the trend seems changing, with the PLA PR actively posting various activities of the current up-to-date fighting force, which was unthinkable in the past
Click to expand...
Last couple weeks they've been spamming Reddit like a MF.
 
SK2 said:
It used to be, but the trend seems changing, with the PLA PR actively posting various activities of the current up-to-date fighting force, which was unthinkable in the past
Click to expand...

I wouldn't say that they are exactly current or up to date. Most of the stuff they're revealing have already existed for a period before getting the official coverage treatment.

Certainly compared with most other major military nations, they are a fair bit behind in advertising under development projects and projects in testing.
 
Ainen said:
USA does those literally non-stop. NGADs(both of them) didn't materialize out of thin air.
Eurocanards have all the traits of "pre-stealth 5th generation". Not as ambitious as US/Soviet projects/prototypes, perhaps, but this isn't important.
Click to expand...
The US started designs of F15 more or less as soon as F4s were in full service. The US started designs for ATF as soon as F15s were in IOC. Then the US sat on starting the generation following F-22 for damn near 20 years.
 
Scott Kenny said:
The US started designs of F15 more or less as soon as F4s were in full service. The US started designs for ATF as soon as F15s were in IOC. Then the US sat on starting the generation following F-22 for damn near 20 years.
Click to expand...
Let's say that they had designed, developed and put into service a next gen followup to the F-22 during those whole fake-GWoT years, what do you think that aircraft would've ended up doing and looking like? Do you think the condition of that environment, under which they would've developed the doctrine based on their expectations for the next couple of decades, allowed for a design that is better suited for the war within the 1.5IC-2IC that the US Aviation has unexpectedly found itself in our reality than the F-35?

And no, don't respond to this by naming the past bomber designs they've studied that are loosely based on the F-22.
 
Scott Kenny said:
The US started designs of F15 more or less as soon as F4s were in full service. The US started designs for ATF as soon as F15s were in IOC. Then the US sat on starting the generation following F-22 for damn near 20 years.
Click to expand...
Pre-ATF studies for F-22 only became known way later, in 2000s. It's simply too early, and one of the reasons we don't get any program of them is b/c they failed to justify the cause.
Much like with early 5th gen studies, what's the point of investment if it's just more or less same bird, but bigger and badder? F-15 filled the niche.

Also, generations are a rather artificial concept. F-35 is no less ahead of F-22 than F-15 was ahead of F-111.

They're two mismatched aircraft(not a pound heavy air superiority v interservice medium strike fighter), so in many ways f-22 still seems superior, but the fact stands.
 
Last edited:

Attachments

  • Gb_scN3WIAAa3yT.jpeg
    Gb_scN3WIAAa3yT.jpeg
    141.3 KB · Views: 67
Last edited:
Interesting to see that the F-35's grooved and bumped belly design is not repeated here, even though the aircraft seem to occupy similar sizes, roles, and joint capability (navy/airforce), albeit with an extra engine for the Chinese
 
4decaa said:
Interesting to see that the F-35's grooved and bumped belly design is not repeated here, even though the aircraft seem to occupy similar sizes, roles, and joint capability (navy/airforce), albeit with an extra engine for the Chinese
Click to expand...

J-35/A is a fair bit longer than F-35, and beyond sharing similar configuration of wings and major control surfaces, the rest of the fuselage and wing cross section are rather different.

J-35/A really has more similarities with KF-21 family and the Indian AMCA than F-35 given the placements of their major inlets, engines, weapons bays, and geometries.
 
4decaa said:
Interesting to see that the F-35's grooved and bumped belly design is not repeated here, even though the aircraft seem to occupy similar sizes, roles, and joint capability (navy/airforce), albeit with an extra engine for the Chinese
Click to expand...
the f-35 is shaped around one single ginormous engine and pretty aggressive range requirement for its size
 
Archibald said:
Also the lift fan behind the cockpit. Even if not present on the -A and the -C.
Click to expand...
Lift fan(or any other supplementary lift solution for the matter) doesn't change all that much when it isn't there.
This stovl/ctol pair with little additional compromise was with us since Convair model 200.

F-35's compromises are very specifically result of combination of a short plane (ship hauling), big engine with intakes, and two very deep 2000 lb- capable bays, everything having to be parallel due to the length limit.

If B is guilty of something criminal, it's F135 upgrade paths. But not before.
4decaa said:
Interesting to see that the F-35's grooved and bumped belly design is not repeated here, even though the aircraft seem to occupy similar sizes, roles, and joint capability (navy/airforce), albeit with an extra engine for the Chinese
Click to expand...
Engines are visible moved back as far as possible; two also helps with flatness (albeit at cost of more volume overall). That's the answer.
 
I'm pretty sure that the volume of the F-35's fuselage was also dimensioned with the lift fan in mind. That doesn't negate what you said though. From wing/horizontal stabilisers point of few the J-35 exhibits more commonality with the F-22 than with the F-35.
 
The space of the lift fan is replaced by fuel cell in the A and C models right? The fuel cells' shape is quite flexible from internal layout standpoint and usually can be shaped to accommodate other components' layout. Having a cylinder shape running vertically potentially cutting off streamlining and packaging other components is probably not ideal if you can help it.
 
So how many time did the J-35 fly at the airshow? It seems as if we are always given to see videos of the same flight.
 
So like with the J-20 there has been no indication the J-35 will have an internal gun?
 
Who said that there was no internal gun in the J-20 or even the J-35? There have been no official word from either CAC or SAC that each fighter has an internal gun.
 
SK2 said:
It used to be, but the trend seems changing, with the PLA PR actively posting various activities of the current up-to-date fighting force, which was unthinkable in the past
Click to expand...
emm….no? Before socialmedia there were magazines and televisions, neither of those are reachable by foreigners. CCTV has a freaking Channel specifically dedicated to this. IMG_5995.jpeg
 
Last edited:
Ainen said:
Lift fan(or any other supplementary lift solution for the matter) doesn't change all that much when it isn't there.
This stovl/ctol pair with little additional compromise was with us since Convair model 200.

F-35's compromises are very specifically result of combination of a short plane (ship hauling), big engine with intakes, and two very deep 2000 lb- capable bays, everything having to be parallel due to the length limit.

If B is guilty of something criminal, it's F135 upgrade paths. But not before.

Engines are visible moved back as far as possible; two also helps with flatness (albeit at cost of more volume overall). That's the answer.
Click to expand...
VTOL requirements dominate the design of any air vehicle. Hence the F-35B influenced the layout, aerodynamics, structures etc of all three versions as the requirement on the JSF program was a common, or as common as possible airframe. Thus the F-35A and C versions are significantly compromised in terms of what their aerodynamic performance could have been. J-35 is effectively what F-35A and C should have been without the VTOL compromise.
 
BLACK_MAMBA said:
VTOL requirements dominate the design of any air vehicle.
Click to expand...
They don't, it's a (wrong) public "common sense". VTOL looks so different, VTOLs tend to fly worse - we have found the witch. Can we burn her?
The main reason behind JSF's performance compromises are requirements: single specified engine, A/C version carrying capacity, length limitation. Even "compromise" is perhaps a wrong word - it flies as specified.
The main troublemaker for the JSF program, though, is indeed the least common one of the 3 - you're right here. But it's the CATOBAR C version. Not B.
BLACK_MAMBA said:
Thus the F-35A and C versions are significantly compromised in terms of what their aerodynamic performance could have been.
Click to expand...
They weren't compromised by the B version in any single way. I didn't bring up the Convair model 200 experience for nothing - it was a a very specific program that specifically showed that a combination of CTOL and VTOL doesn't require compromises.
Moreover, the only significant problems B version brought into the program were (1)alcoa alloy troubles(specific to this version and not affecting others) and engine upgrade controversy.

VTOL doesn't limit length- it only limits the relative position of lift and center of mass during hovering.
This requirement doesn't limit aircraft of normal aerodynamic scheme, just takes away significant volume that is already there. You may or may not use it for lift purposes, simple as that.
 
Ainen said:
The main troublemaker for the JSF program, though, is indeed the least common one of the 3 - you're right here. But it's the CATOBAR C version. Not B.
Click to expand...
Aero layout of f-35a compromised for neither of the variants. Just look at yf-17 and fa-18. A good carrier fighter have every reason to be good on the land as well.
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom