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

Blitzo said:
That's assume the duct itself is a straight line from the inlet to the front of the engine face, which we of course know isn't given the case as we can see the geometry of the DSI to begin with.
Otherwise looking at something like F-22 or J-20 externally they would be assumed to have a straight path as well.

View attachment 749090
Click to expand...
I don’t see enough room for a full serpentine duct. It looks more like the SU-57 with some lateral offset inward, with the DSI bump blocking some of the engine view.

But nothing like F-22 or F-35 where the engine face is invisible from the outside.
 
F119Doctor said:
I don’t see enough room for a full serpentine duct. It looks more like the SU-57 with some lateral offset inward, with the DSI bump blocking some of the engine view.

But nothing like F-22 or F-35 where the engine face is invisible from the outside.
Click to expand...

I do agree that based on the lateral positioning of the engines relative to the centreline there's a little less horizontal room they have to play with than say J-20 and F-22 (F-35 is a bit unique given it's a single engine aircraft), but when looking at where the location of the engine face is probably at (particularly vertically relative to the air intake), and where the weapons bay is located, and considering the placement of the DSI bump, I'd be surprised if the engine face were visible from the usual frontal sector (basically from the intake it wound constrict and snake slightly downwards and laterally following the path of the DSI bump, before the second bend upwards and medially to meet the engine face).

Then again I'm sure it won't be too many years until we get a clear frontal aspect image of the aircraft in the way that we have for J-20, which would probably help to clarify the matter.

This is the best frontal aspect shot we have at this stage (obviously lacking details but shows the kind of relative spacing they have available to them)
j35a frontal.jpeg
 
Last edited:
F119Doctor said:
I don’t see enough room for a full serpentine duct. It looks more like the SU-57 with some lateral offset inward, with the DSI bump blocking some of the engine view.

But nothing like F-22 or F-35 where the engine face is invisible from the outside.
Click to expand...

Where do they fit the weapon bay if the duct is not curved?
 
snne said:
Y'all are specifically choosing to ignore the fact that this aircraft existed for 12 years and kept evolving before it eventually evolved into a naval aviator.

-Since the US has had the most experience in designing so far, their designs obviously inspired everyone else's next generation aircraft and there's nothing wrong about it since this is the same kind of inspiration that the US also draws from others.-

While China was involved in industrial espionage as every country on the planet does, this is 100% an indigenous design (as anyone with a set of eyes and a brain can see from afar!).

View attachment 749093View attachment 749094

Your ignorance can no longer be tolerated as something unintended, this is starting to become malicious at this point...

You're welcome: https://chinese-military-aviation.blogspot.com/2012/07/fighters_18.html?m=1

@Deino @siegecrossbow @Blitzo
Click to expand...
I absolutely agree with your counterargument - the US makes logical design decisions with their aircraft design, and these decisions to add things like EOTS/DAS would likely exist even in world where the LockMart didn't make the F-35 in 2006/before J-20 & J-35 etc. This design is no doubt indigneous, and my comment was intended to poke fun at the notion that a stealthy fighter aircraft wouldn't have s-ducts.
 
4decaa said:
my comment was intended to poke fun at the notion that a stealthy fighter aircraft wouldn't have s-ducts.
Click to expand...
I mean, Russia keeps claiming that they have some weird grid thing in front of the engines of the Su57 that blocks radar, instead of just making an S-duct.
 
Them shock diamonds...

54156585310_a5f25bbdc3_k.jpg


Scott Kenny said:
I mean, Russia keeps claiming that they have some weird grid thing in front of the engines of the Su57 that blocks radar, instead of just making an S-duct.
Click to expand...

I mean, F-22 and F-35 have it too. It's just that theirs are afterburner injectors that are meant to also act like blockers and are placed at the last stage of the engine whereas Su-57's are meant to divert waves from head on direction...


FPGCD9aVIAEER0t.jpg
axagFim.png
FPGCKiSUcAU5P34.jpg


VS


su-57-radar-blocker.jpg
capture-6.png
(cc: @stealthflanker)
inlet-arrangement.png
transparent-view.png


Reading recommendation: https://basicsaboutaerodynamicsanda...2022/09/26/su-57-radar-scattering-simulation/ (a detailed open-source RCS estimation of Su-57 involving our very own @stealthflanker )

trimetric-su57-x-band.png
 
Last edited:
US never revealed what was stolen in those hacks into the f-35 but edward snowden did.

New Snowden Documents Reveal Chinese Behind F-35 Hack

Experts have long argued that China has copied the F-35 design for its own fighter jets. Is this the proof?
thediplomat.com

"The Snowden files outline the scope of Chinese F-35 espionage efforts, which focused on acquiring the radar design (the number and types of modules), detailed engine schematics (methods for cooling gases, leading and trailing edge treatments, and aft deck heating contour maps) among other things."

The US cybersecurity and counter intelligence against China was an absolutely mess to largely not fault of their own during the early 2000s. At the time, I remember several officials ringing the alarming bells once in a while over the fact that most resources were dedicated to the war on terror and there's not enough resources/funding to secure our data from near peer threats.

Regardless, I think it's wise to refrain from typing "copy" every time we see some sort of obvious similarities to the naked eyes. It doesn't add anything to the discussion and technical understanding we all pursue and it doesn't stand on any ground of evidence unless forensic analysis that show explicit similarities such as inlet ducts specific schematics, composition and placement of different materials to suppress radar returns or infrared signature.
 
donnage99 said:
US never revealed what was stolen in those hacks into the f-35 but edward snowden did.

New Snowden Documents Reveal Chinese Behind F-35 Hack

Experts have long argued that China has copied the F-35 design for its own fighter jets. Is this the proof?
thediplomat.com

"The Snowden files outline the scope of Chinese F-35 espionage efforts, which focused on acquiring the radar design (the number and types of modules), detailed engine schematics (methods for cooling gases, leading and trailing edge treatments, and aft deck heating contour maps) among other things."

The US cybersecurity and counter intelligence against China was an absolutely mess to largely not fault of their own during the early 2000s. At the time, I remember several officials ringing the alarming bells once in a while over the fact that most resources were dedicated to the war on terror and there's not enough resources/funding to secure our data from near peer threats.

Regardless, I think it's wise to refrain from typing "copy" every time we see some sort of obvious similarities to the naked eyes. It doesn't add anything to the discussion and technical understanding we all pursue and it doesn't stand on any ground of evidence unless forensic analysis that show explicit similarities such as inlet ducts specific schematics, composition and placement of different materials to suppress radar returns or infrared signature.
Click to expand...

My personal feeling is there is probably a good chance that the development of various PRC systems, including J-35A, benefitted from cyber espionage, however I think people arguing that on the basis of overall/gross configuration of an airframe are not being very logical and probably underestimating how easy it is to actually produce an aircraft, and overestimating the importance of an aircraft's "design".

Instead, areas that may have actually seen benefits from cyberespionage include:
- providing a base of knowledge to advance further research and development overall
- providing intelligence with which to "tune" and inform their own systems to counter
- if direct "copying" of subsystems or technology occurred, it is probably less the overall external geometry of the aircraft and more informing specific internal subsystems or even coding
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom