J-XY - maybe J-35 - next generation carrier-borne fighter

[FairAndUnbiased]

Very interesting development.

If this bird manages to get fifth-generation avionics, genuine radar-absorbent material, airframe redesigns to reduce its RCS, and a new suite of AAMs, it might potentially come close to matching the performance of the AMCA in the far future.

Not a bad start for a country that was until very recently still mostly reliant on a geriatric fleet of MiG-21 derivatives and Q-5 Fantans.

I'm sure that it's better than a paper airplane.

 

[GiantPanda]

Agree mostly with you. J-XY could be a great weapon by itself though I'm more inclined to believe PLAAF can't put J-XY in front row seat of procurement any time soon. I suppose in PLAAF's tactical doctrine, MMRCA missions like forward basing/rapid response, low-altitude penetration through land terrain, light "bomb trucks" and such are already well served by J-10 series, which is easy to maintain/deploy (due to single-hi-thrust config), can go "beast mode" while still can be "stealthy enough" if some missions require so. There is no urgent need to add another MMRCA despite it being more stealthy, which is twin-medium-thrust config when PLAAF has almost vested the entire tactical fleet on hi-thrust for years.

I think J-XY has always been designed for PLAN doctrine from day one, while its land-based variant IF developed will be for exports only (or perhaps joint venture like JF-17, F-35, KFX/IFX, etc) in the immediate future. Land-based variants are by nature structurally simpler to build, and have better performance indicators, I believe SAC may customize it for exports after the original J-XY gets matured with PLAN.

PLAAF have been on the heavy engine (AL-31/WS-10) doctrine for two decades as you pointed out. Their modern force of J-10/J-11/J-16 and J-20 all use the same heavy engine whether in single or dual mode.

Asking them to switch now to a twin-medium-engined fighter would change their doctrine and would incur costs to their plans.

That said, they are supporting some non-standard engines now in the JH-7As and what is left over from the J-7 fleet. But those are expected to be retired over time. The replacement for those, especially the J-7s (since J-16 seems to be the heir to the JH-7A's role), will really be the only opportunity for the PLAAF to look at a different engine configuration. The J-35 really has to perform well in PLAN service for the PLAAF to consider it. Otherwise, the chances of a single-engine fighter based on the WS-15 entering service to replace the J-10 is probably greater than the J-35.

SAC knows the PLAAF's doctrine, they supplied most of their heavy fighters until the J-20 so they had always intended the FC-31 to go to the Navy or for exports.

 

[TNT]

Otherwise, the chances of a single-engine fighter based on the WS-15 entering service to replace the J-10 is probably greater than the J-35.

A very plausible scenario. A single engine 5th gen fighter might interest PAF more than J-35.

 

[siegecrossbow]

A very plausible scenario. A single engine 5th gen fighter might interest PAF more than J-35.

Has Pakistan operated twin-engine types since J-6/Q-5?

 

[TNT]

Has Pakistan operated twin-engine types since J-6/Q-5?

No they haven't, though the PAF did mention twin engined fighter for 5th gen.

 

[kungfugymnast]

For J-35 or FC-31, I will still reserve my choice since missing of side-bays especially for side-winders/AAMs. With only one bay under belly, somehow limits the utilization under environment that warrants stealth capability to the fullest.

Without sidebay, it won't be multi-role fighter when carrying only internal payload like F-35

PLAAF have been on the heavy engine (AL-31/WS-10) doctrine for two decades as you pointed out. Their modern force of J-10/J-11/J-16 and J-20 all use the same heavy engine whether in single or dual mode.

Asking them to switch now to a twin-medium-engined fighter would change their doctrine and would incur costs to their plans.

That said, they are supporting some non-standard engines now in the JH-7As and what is left over from the J-7 fleet. But those are expected to be retired over time. The replacement for those, especially the J-7s (since J-16 seems to be the heir to the JH-7A's role), will really be the only opportunity for the PLAAF to look at a different engine configuration. The J-35 really has to perform well in PLAN service for the PLAAF to consider it. Otherwise, the chances of a single-engine fighter based on the WS-15 entering service to replace the J-10 is probably greater than the J-35.

SAC knows the PLAAF's doctrine, they supplied most of their heavy fighters until the J-20 so they had always intended the FC-31 to go to the Navy or for exports.

Agree, since China is large country, a medium stealth fighter is not favourable by PLAAF. FC-31 is for export market and the navalized FC-31 could end up being just testbed for future navalized stealth fighter which would be larger totally new aircraft. It is still not finalized therefore either way could happen. I would bet on larger new aircraft that will bear the J-35 designation while FC-31 being just testbed unless they needed a navalized fighter urgently

 

[Shotgunner51]

Agree, since China is large country, a medium stealth fighter is not favourable by PLAAF. FC-31 is for export market and the navalized FC-31 could end up being just testbed for future navalized stealth fighter which would be larger totally new aircraft. It is still not finalized therefore either way could happen. I would bet on larger new aircraft that will bear the J-35 designation while FC-31 being just testbed unless they needed a navalized fighter urgently

Well almost like that. Let's say a medium stealth fighter is not "near-term priority" of PLAAF, especially a twin medium-thrust config. J-10C is doing MMRCA roles just fine in PLAAF doctrine, and it uses a WS-10C.

I don't think there's a "navalised FC-31" so to speak, because FC-31 from day one is a naval-centric project designed for CATOBAR. SAC knows exactly what they are going after i.e. PLAN order, so "land-based FC-31" never exist. The jets we have seen before, like 1.0, 2.0, were testbeds, and naturally testing started from somewhere close to SAC facility, on dry land, not on seas. The latest 3.0 is perhaps closer to prototype, if it is not prototype itself, as seen with obviously bigger fuselage which can pack more stuff. After FC-31 (or whatever new name) has started active combat duty on 003, only then SAC will further develop land-based variants on the same fuselage/frame for exports buyers, who I believe also look forward to seeing PLAN endorsement.

 

[kungfugymnast]

Well almost like that. Let's say a medium stealth fighter is not "near-term priority" of PLAAF, especially a twin medium-thrust config. J-10C is doing MMRCA roles just fine in PLAAF doctrine, and it uses a WS-10C.

I don't think there's a "navalised FC-31" so to speak, because FC-31 from day one is a naval-centric project designed for CATOBAR. SAC knows exactly what they are going after i.e. PLAN order, so "land-based FC-31" never exist. The jets we have seen before, like 1.0, 2.0, were testbeds, and naturally testing started from somewhere close to SAC facility, on dry land, not on seas. The latest 3.0 is perhaps closer to prototype, if it is not prototype itself, as seen with obviously bigger fuselage which can pack more stuff. After FC-31 (or whatever new name) has started active combat duty on 003, only then SAC will further develop land-based variants on the same fuselage/frame for exports buyers, who I believe also look forward to seeing PLAN endorsement.

Looking forward to it. Yes, relook at FC-31 first prototype had 2 wheeled front landing gear tells the goal is for carrier based from beginning. Due to time constraint, the FC-31 would likely enter service with PLAN for the Type 003. A larger navalized stealth fighter would only come later after that.

 

[JSCh]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1459447486364327943

 

[Rank]

The PAF would look at the status of the land-based version of the J-XY/J-35 -- i.e., J-21 or J-31.

I think the PLAAF could commit, but it'll be interesting to see how much urgency they put into it. IIRC the J-10B/C wasn't available for export until recently primarily because the PLAAF needed those fighters first. However, the technology gap between the J-10B/C and J-7 is way wider than that of the J-10B/C and early J-21/J-31 variants. Yes, the latter is technically a generation up, but the J-10B/C would still have many similar subsystems.

If the PLAAF says it needs a lot of J-21/J-31s quickly, and then other countries (e.g., Pakistan, Algeria, Egypt, etc) say they need J-21/J-31s soon, then I can see China actually investing in two big production lines. There's a chance the J-21/31 can become one of the most widely manufactured fighters in the world, second only to the F-35 IMHO.

However, I think the likelier scenario is the PLAAF buying J-21/J-31s in smaller increments (versus J-10B/C and J-20) so that there's enough room to support export orders. The export angle is super important because China will have a clear competitive edge in the market. The J-21/J-31 would literally be the only ITAR-free stealth fighter. It's simply one of those products that will attract a bigger customer base than strictly lightweight and medium-weight fighters like JF-17 and J-10, for which there are available alternatives.

Basically, I don't think the PLAAF will get in the way of AVIC getting the jump on Su-75 and TFX in those key markets. By the time the latter two are available, China would have had the chance to takeover most of the addressable market via the J-21/J-31 years ahead.

J-21/J-31 could be the Chinese industry's "F-16 moment" where they have a product most countries in a key market (i.e., ITAR-free) want. @Deino @JamD @kursed

j-31/j-35 is our 5th Gen. The only issue is we have to wait till 2030.

With my very limited knowledge and understanding, 5th Gen and its maintenance are costly for countries like Pakistan. The biggest con or disadvantage of the 5th gen is, you are actually paying more for less capable fighters when it comes to A2A (payload only limited to bays with limited capacity). Second, 5th Gens are mostly for maintaining air superiority that includes breaching the enemy radar systems to go beyond far into enemy territory.

For instance, PAF's objective is to reach Chennai or Kolkata, and for that, they have to enforce air superiority over the Indian skies. I don't believe we have such capability or intentions. However, in this scenario, we need a serious capability of air logistics including air refuellers to support such a level of operation.

PAF is designed to defend Pakistan's airspace. When it comes to PAF/IAF, the actual battle zone for air to air engagement is 150 - 300km of radius. Perhaps, going for 5th Gen is a risky bet. What do we achieve by getting stealth combat fighters? we have to think and define the role and objectives. Many things come into play and the most important is the "Cost".

PS: I said this many times before, as far as my knowledge, Project AZM is "J-31"

https://twitter.com/x/status/1459447486364327943

i like the color

 

[Yongpeng Sun-Tastaufen]

Twin engine is good choice for carrier fighter. Single engine like F-35C is too risky.

 

[Bilal Khan (Quwa)]

j-31/j-35 is our 5th Gen. The only issue is we have to wait till 2030.

With my very limited knowledge and understanding, 5th Gen and its maintenance are costly for countries like Pakistan. The biggest con or disadvantage of the 5th gen is, you are actually paying more for less capable fighters when it comes to A2A (payload only limited to bays with limited capacity). Second, 5th Gens are mostly for maintaining air superiority that includes breaching the enemy radar systems to go beyond far into enemy territory.

For instance, PAF's objective is to reach Chennai or Kolkata, and for that, they have to enforce air superiority over the Indian skies. I don't believe we have such capability or intentions. However, in this scenario, we need a serious capability of air logistics including air refuellers to support such a level of operation.

PAF is designed to defend Pakistan's airspace. When it comes to PAF/IAF, the actual battle zone for air to air engagement is 150 - 300km of radius. Perhaps, going for 5th Gen is a risky bet. What do we achieve by getting stealth combat fighters? we have to think and define the role and objectives. Many things come into play and the most important is the "Cost".

PS: I said this many times before, as far as my knowledge, Project AZM is "J-31"


i like the color

Bro based on what @JamD is saying, there's nothing serious within AZM. There's no J-35/J-21 or TFX. The PAF's actual NGFA plans are going to happen outside of AZM -- it's either J-35/J-21 or TFX.

That said, you're right about the high cost of FGFAs, but that's relative to large twin-engine aircraft. If you compare the FC-31 to the F-16, for example, the FC-31 can carry a heavier payload. The higher cost is irrelevant to the PAF because there literally is no alternative twin-engine fighter available. It can't acquire F-15s, F/A-18s, or Flankers. There's no trade-off by going for the FGFA because we don't have options.

The only alternative I can think of is deep-strike UCAVs. However, that requires expertise in autonomous drones.

 

[siegecrossbow]

j-31/j-35 is our 5th Gen. The only issue is we have to wait till 2030.

With my very limited knowledge and understanding, 5th Gen and its maintenance are costly for countries like Pakistan. The biggest con or disadvantage of the 5th gen is, you are actually paying more for less capable fighters when it comes to A2A (payload only limited to bays with limited capacity). Second, 5th Gens are mostly for maintaining air superiority that includes breaching the enemy radar systems to go beyond far into enemy territory.

For instance, PAF's objective is to reach Chennai or Kolkata, and for that, they have to enforce air superiority over the Indian skies. I don't believe we have such capability or intentions. However, in this scenario, we need a serious capability of air logistics including air refuellers to support such a level of operation.

PAF is designed to defend Pakistan's airspace. When it comes to PAF/IAF, the actual battle zone for air to air engagement is 150 - 300km of radius. Perhaps, going for 5th Gen is a risky bet. What do we achieve by getting stealth combat fighters? we have to think and define the role and objectives. Many things come into play and the most important is the "Cost".

PS: I said this many times before, as far as my knowledge, Project AZM is "J-31"


i like the color

Why would that be an issue? I don’t see any other country in South Asia acquiring fifth gen by that date.

 

[Rank]

Bro based on what @JamD is saying, there's nothing serious within AZM. There's no J-35/J-21 or TFX. The PAF's actual NGFA plans are going to happen outside of AZM -- it's either J-35/J-21 or TFX.

That said, you're right about the high cost of FGFAs, but that's relative to large twin-engine aircraft. If you compare the FC-31 to the F-16, for example, the FC-31 can carry a heavier payload. The higher cost is irrelevant to the PAF because there literally is no alternative twin-engine fighter available. It can't acquire F-15s, F/A-18s, or Flankers. There's no trade-off by going for the FGFA because we don't have options.

The only alternative I can think of is deep-strike UCAVs. However, that requires expertise in autonomous drones.

I meant to say, there is nothing like AZM, we don't have any expertise or capability to build such a thing. I agree with you absolutely if we ever go for 5th, that will be J-31 or any Chinese platform.

Why would that be an issue? I don’t see any other country in South Asia acquiring fifth gen by that date.

Actually, It's all about maintaining the balance of power. technically nothing to do with the time frame. We can't match with Indian in numbers however by establishing a strong 5th gen force (based on a few squadrons of 5hth gen) would be an edge but again there are many if and buts.

 

[siegecrossbow]

I meant to say, there is nothing like AZM, we don't have any expertise or capability to build such a thing. What I tried to say, if we ever go for 5th, that will be J-31 or any Chinese platform.


Actually, It's all about maintaining the balance of power. technically nothing to do with the time frame. We can't match with Indian in numbers however by establishing a strong 5th gen force (based on a few squadrons of 5hth gen) would be an edge but again there are many if and buts.

If India only has Pakistan to contend with then I could see that as cause for concern. But that is definitely not the case.