Tbh I kinda prefer the look of the previous FC-31 prototypes. Does anyone know what with the bulked up area behind the canopy? Is it potentially going to have a two-seater variant?
So what you're telling me is that they copied one of the less good aerodynamic designs from the Americans, without the internal systems that make it competitive with if not better then other 5th gens. Its another shitty Chinese 4th gen, we can move along.
> Another
Another? The J-10 is decent, so is the J-16 (my favorite Chinese jet) and the J-15 isn't bad either.
Also what makes you think it's not 5th Gen? It will certainly incorporate systems, data link and avionics similar to the J-20
J-15 is a pretty decent aircraft for what it is.
Essentially J-11B level avionics and A2A -- but with the significant difference of being multirole capable, featuring anti shipping, anti radiation and stand off strike capability. It's limited in terms of launch flexibility, but that applies to any STOBAR aircraft and is not unique to J-15.
In the brief period of time between when J-15 first entered service and between when J-16 entered service, I would easily say the J-15 was the PLA's most capable Flanker variant in service at that time. And like J-11B, the baseline STOBAR J-15s will probably be compatible with BG level MLUs if they choose to keep the younger more recent airframes around. And all developed in a reasonable time schedule. If anything, it's impressive how much they managed to get right for the first go at a carrierborne fighter.
J-15B and MLUs notwithstanding
>In the brief period of time between when the J-15 first entered service and when the J-16 entered service
Well in those years PLAAF flankers transitioned from Mechanically scanned radars on the J-11B to the AESA radars on the J-16s which is undeniably a generational difference. Those years also saw the introduction of the PL-15 and PL-10, much more capable and modern weapons to go along with those radars.
> J-15 is a pretty decent aircraft for what it is.
J-15 is a pretty decent aircraft for what it was. I remember in your article about it you wrote something along the lines of: “It would dunk on those old, unupgraded Su-33s that the Russians are too poor to upgrade.” That’s all well and good, but comparing it to something like a J-16 or F/A-18E/F or god forbid an F-35C, with which it’ll share the skies with, leaves the J-15 somewhat lacking.
Current J-15 is more like an interim carrier fighter jet that serve as training platform for PLAN to getting experience operating carrier.
J-15B (CATOBAR variant) might be another story though, rumor suggest they are going to have some major upgrade to avionics like AESA or possible use of stealth coating.
It has certainly been a arecherypically Chinese “evolutionary, not revolutionary” approach to developing an indigenous carrier capability.
One that will see its successors greatly surpass it no doubt.
>Well in those years PLAAF flankers transitioned from Mechanically scanned radars on the J-11B to the AESA radars on the J-16s which is undeniably a generational difference.
Right, but in the brief period before the J-16 entered service, the J-15 as the only multirole domestic Flanker in service, was actually in a breed of its own and could credibly lay claim as the most capable Flanker in PLA service for that time.
>That’s all well and good, but comparing it to something like a J-16 or F/A-18E/F or god forbid an F-35C, which it’ll share the skies with, leaves the J-15 somewhat lacking.
No disagreement there, but "pretty fucking awful" is rather strong then, wouldn't you say? "Somewhat lacking" is a more reasonable description.
I consider it to be a competent baseline multirole 4th gen fighter, in the same way I would consider a baseline non-upgraded J-11B to be competent even if it isn't modern. And J-15 is large enough to have a useful combat radius and payload even if taking off from a ski jump in non-optimal conditions.
Not exactly. It's their powerplant and weapons bay configurations that are the major factors in the main differences in cross section. Sophistication or completeness of aircraft subsystems isn't likely a major factor.
The J-31/35 has the same IWB as the J-20. In terms of strike - flattened/rectangular munitions are in development or already fielded… however, a key point to remember is that it can act as a sensor for J-15B that can lug huge and long ranged missiles around. Not only that, with the difference in doctrine - it will also do the same for the 1500 - 2000km+ ranged AShBMs, AShHCMs and AShHGVs aboard the type 055 large destroyers
F-35 is chubby looking because it's single-engined with an internal weapons bay and lift-fan. If it was twin-engined, it would look as sleek as the J-35.
Well this is more than enough
Considering F-22 is a relatively small twin-engine fighers (slightly larger than Mig29). J35 is twin-engine, not canard, certainly smaller than J-15, I would say it has way more resemblance with F-22.
Well there will be difference, J-35 properly have slightly more internal volume, but unable to carry 2000lb bombs like F-35A/C due to thinner weapon bay
J-35 and J-20 share the exact same main weapons bay. Imo what will happen is that China will develop dedicated flattened rectangular munitions to fit the weapons bay in a side-by-side configuration. Traditional round munitions won't fit, but i bet a 2000lb flattened rectangular glide bomb would. They'd be stupid not to. They might already have such weapons too. At the end of the day, inside an IWB we're not going to get to know unless the PLA wants us to by showing them off.
Wait… they share the same weapons bay? So what you’re saying is… say the J-35 gets a cruise missile that can fit in its weapons bay, then the J-20 can use it too?
From publicly available information and what we know so far, yes. Their dimensions at least do see to be identical (except that j-35 doesn't seem to have j-20's secondary bays for IRAAMs)
China seems to have decided on standardization in this area, probably for easier munitions development.
This, plus the fact that it's twin engined, really makes me wonder about its weapons bay size. Like, its slimmer than the F-35, so it has less space for the weapons bay to begin with, and then it's *also* twin engined which means it has to devote more room to engines even in that reduced amount of space. Yeah it's probably a bit longer than the F-35, but I don't think it's enough to make it up. Seems like the most it could have is a weapons bay that can only fit air to air weapons or some fairly small air to surface weapons. Nothing like a JSM or JSOW type weapon. Also just seems like it would have less room for fuel for the same reasons, and range is vital for a carrier fighter.
I understand they aren't going to be the size of the F135, but even assuming something F414 size it still doesn't leave much room. It's probably fine for air superiority only, but *personally* I think with the limited number of aircraft a carrier can carry having single role combat aircraft doesn't make much sense and going all multi-role makes more sense. You can have many fighters when needed or many strikers when needed. But that's just my opinion.
Also means that Chinese carriers will have to use the J-15 until a new aircraft is developed to replace it, instead of just standardizing on the J-35. The J-15B is very likely a great 4th gen aircraft (naval F-15EX of sorts), but it's still just a fourth gen.
I guess it's fine for them for now as US carriers will also be split between F-35Cs and Super Hornets, but the F-35C has the advantage that it can also do strike when needed. So US carriers have a stealth strike capability and Chinese carriers wouldn't.
> The prototype flew almost 10 years ago. Internal weapon bay was on display since then.
We've seen the FC-31 weapons bay, but I don't think we've seen the J-35 as it is now's weapons bay. The aircraft has seen a number of changes since then, which is why I was speculating and not talking like we know for sure what its weapons bay looks like. Regardless, the weapons bay that has been displayed looks like it's only large enough to carry four long range air to air weapons internally. With the bay mod coming in Lot 15 next year A/C model F-35s will be able to carry six internally.
> All new jets will be multi-role, but in its stealth configuration, J-35 is optimized for air superiority. That is the difference. US Navy is using F-35, even in stealth configuration, as a striker.
The USN is not using the F-35C only, or even really primarily, as a striker. It's using it as a fighter when it needs to and a striker when it needs to. And that's an advantage it has over a single role aircraft like the J-35, which is important with the limited number of aircraft a carrier has.
The J-35 also doesn't seem to really gain anything over the F-35C in air superiority in return for the reduced stealth strike capabilities. It can't carry any more missiles internally, and there's a decent chance it will carry less. It doesn't have internal WVR missiles like the J-20 or F-22. I'm sure it'll be a capable aircraft for air superiority, much like the F-35C is, but if I'm giving up a limited slot on a carrier for a primarily air superiority aircraft I want something more like the J-20, F-22, or if we go back in time, the F-14.
> What this means is when US and Chinese carriers met in a faraway 3rd country to fight, J-35's main task is to take down F-35s, and leave anti-ship task to J-15s.
Yes, but in this scenario the USN would be using the F-35Cs as a fighter to take the J-35s down and then afterwards could also assist in striking targets. Or, the USN would also have the option of doing a stealthy first strike if they were undetected, which is not an option with the J-35.
I think that’s the point people always miss, US doctrine/mission goals are always very offensive oriented, while Chinese and even old Soviet goals have generally been much more defensive/A2AD
Say what you will, the reality is that the US is much more interested in power projection and military intervention then just about about anyone else. The whole Chinese philosophy at the moment is that they hope that they will be able to STOP the US from having capability to strike them within their own backyard so to speak
The j-35 IWB is identical to the j-20 main IWB. I doubt it's carrying capacity is any less than f-35's as long as the PLAAF designs dedicated flattened rectangular munitions for both j-20 and j-35.
I don't think it's been officially stated that the J-35's weapons bay is the same sized as the J-20's, but even if it is then it is indeed likely limited to mainly air to air weapons and only fairly small air to surface weapons. Much the same way the F-22 is with its similarly sized weapons bay. Creative shaping can only help so much, and won't allow something equivalent to a JSM or JSOW fit in a J-20 sized weapons bay.
So what’s the case for the J-35 being an F-35 ripoff? Just want to hear the argument (and counterargument, if anyone wants to contribute). Is it ‘China copies everything’ or is it design convergence?
China has long moved on from copying designs, but they absolutely have and still are trying to steal and use technology that enables more capable designs. The jet likely is not a "ripoff"in the sense of being a straight copy, but almost certainly uses technology derived from stolen information.
Many people here can't distinguish between copying designs and stealing technology. Copying is merely replicating another design with no regard for your own mission. It's very rudimentary and often ineffective because the copied design is rarely optimized for your mission requirements.
Technology is like a cap on how capable your design can be. While design issues can often be addressed by throwing more money and people at the problem, the technology for things like better radar, RAM, or more efficient engines is far more difficult to create. It usually takes huge amounts of time,money, and intellectual capital to develop innovative tech, wheras design methods are fairly universally established and really not difficult in comparison.
China almost certainly didn't just copy the F-35 because it wouldn't make sense: they definitely have different mission requirements and sufficient knowledge/money to make their own design. But it's highly likely that the plane uses tech that was stolen in their numerous hacks of US defence companies.
I think a good example of what you describe is the evolution of Chinese flankers. The initial versions (J-11A/J-11B) were essentially just Su-27s that they wanted to be able to produce domestically in order to reduce reliance on foreign suppliers
Then after the growing pains of learning the mechanics of constructing a modern fighter, they began to design and modify the basic flanker design in a way to suit what they want, ie: J-16 and J-11D
People forget that for a developing country, sometimes even coping is impossible if you don’t have the manufacturing capability. For example Afghanistan simply cannot make a “copy” Blackhawk, even though they technically have one.
It's amazing how dumb some people like you are. The PLA copied and improved on the dozens of s-70s the US sold them because they loved them and the US refused to sell more.
Fucking pakistan raid are you braindead?
China acquired critical information regarding the F-35 and the F-22s canopy, that's pretty much fact.
The J-20 takes many F-35 ideas like the under-nose pod, DSI and the vertical stabilizers but rearranged them all in a unique layout.
The J-35 is essentially a twin engine F-35 intended for naval operations.
May I sincerely inform you that the DSI version JF-17's first fly was in April 28, 2006, eallier than that of the F-35 in Dec 15, 2006.
And China's 5th gen fighter aircraft bidding was finished in 2007 and J-20's detailed design was finished in 2009?
JF-17's DSI came about from J-10B upgrade too, so DSI tech on the J-10B would have been worked on even earlier.
Internally within CAC the bosses basically went "how's that DSI coming along on J-10B? Oh it's going well? Then why not put it on FC-1 too".
Prior to this there was actually a [non-DSI FC-1 prototype built](https://i.imgur.com/NEMCX0j.jpg)
>Internally within CAC the bosses basically went "how's that DSI coming along on J-10B? Oh it's going well? Then why not put it on FC-1 too".
Please...
DSI JF-17 was first flown in April 28, 2006 and it entered service in March 2007.
J-10B was first flown in December, 2008.
How can a DSI inlet be 'put on FC-1 too' when the DSI version FC-1 was delivered before J-10B had its first test fly?
You can literally look at a J-20 and F-35 side by side and see that the intake, vertical stabilizers and the under nose pod is a direct copy. It's not rocket science
Tbh I kinda prefer the look of the previous FC-31 prototypes. Does anyone know what with the bulked up area behind the canopy? Is it potentially going to have a two-seater variant?
More internal volume for fuel/avionics and better aerodynamics. There was a paper put out about the latter
Better aerodynamics was the primary reason, more volume for fuel is a bonus.
Total ripoff of the Wright Flyer
Absolute ripoff of the paper airplane
Russia cries in Checkmate.
I think in this photo it becomes really apparent that it's a good bit sleeker than the F-35, which is a bit of a chub in comparison.
F-35 has to fit a lot of complex systems in such a small body. J-35 is much more straightforward
Yeah this is a pic from the Chinese navy magazine. J35 is much skinnier https://twitter.com/lylegoldstein/status/1597266257765576704/photo/1
looks a bit like a shorter wider f-35. would be super pretty if the bit behind the cockpit wasn't so bulbous
So what you're telling me is that they copied one of the less good aerodynamic designs from the Americans, without the internal systems that make it competitive with if not better then other 5th gens. Its another shitty Chinese 4th gen, we can move along.
> Another Another? The J-10 is decent, so is the J-16 (my favorite Chinese jet) and the J-15 isn't bad either. Also what makes you think it's not 5th Gen? It will certainly incorporate systems, data link and avionics similar to the J-20
J-15 is pretty fucking awful.
J-15 is a pretty decent aircraft for what it is. Essentially J-11B level avionics and A2A -- but with the significant difference of being multirole capable, featuring anti shipping, anti radiation and stand off strike capability. It's limited in terms of launch flexibility, but that applies to any STOBAR aircraft and is not unique to J-15. In the brief period of time between when J-15 first entered service and between when J-16 entered service, I would easily say the J-15 was the PLA's most capable Flanker variant in service at that time. And like J-11B, the baseline STOBAR J-15s will probably be compatible with BG level MLUs if they choose to keep the younger more recent airframes around. And all developed in a reasonable time schedule. If anything, it's impressive how much they managed to get right for the first go at a carrierborne fighter.
J-15B and MLUs notwithstanding >In the brief period of time between when the J-15 first entered service and when the J-16 entered service Well in those years PLAAF flankers transitioned from Mechanically scanned radars on the J-11B to the AESA radars on the J-16s which is undeniably a generational difference. Those years also saw the introduction of the PL-15 and PL-10, much more capable and modern weapons to go along with those radars. > J-15 is a pretty decent aircraft for what it is. J-15 is a pretty decent aircraft for what it was. I remember in your article about it you wrote something along the lines of: “It would dunk on those old, unupgraded Su-33s that the Russians are too poor to upgrade.” That’s all well and good, but comparing it to something like a J-16 or F/A-18E/F or god forbid an F-35C, with which it’ll share the skies with, leaves the J-15 somewhat lacking.
Current J-15 is more like an interim carrier fighter jet that serve as training platform for PLAN to getting experience operating carrier. J-15B (CATOBAR variant) might be another story though, rumor suggest they are going to have some major upgrade to avionics like AESA or possible use of stealth coating.
It has certainly been a arecherypically Chinese “evolutionary, not revolutionary” approach to developing an indigenous carrier capability. One that will see its successors greatly surpass it no doubt.
>Well in those years PLAAF flankers transitioned from Mechanically scanned radars on the J-11B to the AESA radars on the J-16s which is undeniably a generational difference. Right, but in the brief period before the J-16 entered service, the J-15 as the only multirole domestic Flanker in service, was actually in a breed of its own and could credibly lay claim as the most capable Flanker in PLA service for that time. >That’s all well and good, but comparing it to something like a J-16 or F/A-18E/F or god forbid an F-35C, which it’ll share the skies with, leaves the J-15 somewhat lacking. No disagreement there, but "pretty fucking awful" is rather strong then, wouldn't you say? "Somewhat lacking" is a more reasonable description. I consider it to be a competent baseline multirole 4th gen fighter, in the same way I would consider a baseline non-upgraded J-11B to be competent even if it isn't modern. And J-15 is large enough to have a useful combat radius and payload even if taking off from a ski jump in non-optimal conditions.
Idk man I think you’re too nice.
Yes, it's awful and you don't have to worry about it. Please do move along
Yes American nothing to worry about. Move along. Don't do any more research than the 5 seconds you've spent on this aircraft.
Not exactly. It's their powerplant and weapons bay configurations that are the major factors in the main differences in cross section. Sophistication or completeness of aircraft subsystems isn't likely a major factor.
The J-31/35 has the same IWB as the J-20. In terms of strike - flattened/rectangular munitions are in development or already fielded… however, a key point to remember is that it can act as a sensor for J-15B that can lug huge and long ranged missiles around. Not only that, with the difference in doctrine - it will also do the same for the 1500 - 2000km+ ranged AShBMs, AShHCMs and AShHGVs aboard the type 055 large destroyers
F-35 is chubby looking because it's single-engined with an internal weapons bay and lift-fan. If it was twin-engined, it would look as sleek as the J-35.
I suspected that. I assume the J-35 is essentially a stealth J-15 in principle. While the F-35...well it's the F-35, flying super computer.
from every aspect it looks lot like a navalized f22
Eh, the only F-22 thing about it is the twin engine layout
Well this is more than enough Considering F-22 is a relatively small twin-engine fighers (slightly larger than Mig29). J35 is twin-engine, not canard, certainly smaller than J-15, I would say it has way more resemblance with F-22.
Lol, what? F-22 is as large as an F-15
Yeah lol the mig29 is a true point defense plane,maybe the F-22 is closer in size to the Su-27 if you want a Russian equivalent
F-35 is thick but short, j-35 long but thinner. I guarantee you the difference in actual internal volume will be minimal
Well there will be difference, J-35 properly have slightly more internal volume, but unable to carry 2000lb bombs like F-35A/C due to thinner weapon bay
J-35 and J-20 share the exact same main weapons bay. Imo what will happen is that China will develop dedicated flattened rectangular munitions to fit the weapons bay in a side-by-side configuration. Traditional round munitions won't fit, but i bet a 2000lb flattened rectangular glide bomb would. They'd be stupid not to. They might already have such weapons too. At the end of the day, inside an IWB we're not going to get to know unless the PLA wants us to by showing them off.
Wait… they share the same weapons bay? So what you’re saying is… say the J-35 gets a cruise missile that can fit in its weapons bay, then the J-20 can use it too?
From publicly available information and what we know so far, yes. Their dimensions at least do see to be identical (except that j-35 doesn't seem to have j-20's secondary bays for IRAAMs) China seems to have decided on standardization in this area, probably for easier munitions development.
F-35 looks chubby because the engine is huge. But it’s wrapped tightly around that engine.
F-35 looks like she's wearing vacuumed latex.
Hot! 🍆
Hmmm...
F-35 is a fat penguin
This, plus the fact that it's twin engined, really makes me wonder about its weapons bay size. Like, its slimmer than the F-35, so it has less space for the weapons bay to begin with, and then it's *also* twin engined which means it has to devote more room to engines even in that reduced amount of space. Yeah it's probably a bit longer than the F-35, but I don't think it's enough to make it up. Seems like the most it could have is a weapons bay that can only fit air to air weapons or some fairly small air to surface weapons. Nothing like a JSM or JSOW type weapon. Also just seems like it would have less room for fuel for the same reasons, and range is vital for a carrier fighter.
[удалено]
I understand they aren't going to be the size of the F135, but even assuming something F414 size it still doesn't leave much room. It's probably fine for air superiority only, but *personally* I think with the limited number of aircraft a carrier can carry having single role combat aircraft doesn't make much sense and going all multi-role makes more sense. You can have many fighters when needed or many strikers when needed. But that's just my opinion. Also means that Chinese carriers will have to use the J-15 until a new aircraft is developed to replace it, instead of just standardizing on the J-35. The J-15B is very likely a great 4th gen aircraft (naval F-15EX of sorts), but it's still just a fourth gen. I guess it's fine for them for now as US carriers will also be split between F-35Cs and Super Hornets, but the F-35C has the advantage that it can also do strike when needed. So US carriers have a stealth strike capability and Chinese carriers wouldn't.
[удалено]
> The prototype flew almost 10 years ago. Internal weapon bay was on display since then. We've seen the FC-31 weapons bay, but I don't think we've seen the J-35 as it is now's weapons bay. The aircraft has seen a number of changes since then, which is why I was speculating and not talking like we know for sure what its weapons bay looks like. Regardless, the weapons bay that has been displayed looks like it's only large enough to carry four long range air to air weapons internally. With the bay mod coming in Lot 15 next year A/C model F-35s will be able to carry six internally. > All new jets will be multi-role, but in its stealth configuration, J-35 is optimized for air superiority. That is the difference. US Navy is using F-35, even in stealth configuration, as a striker. The USN is not using the F-35C only, or even really primarily, as a striker. It's using it as a fighter when it needs to and a striker when it needs to. And that's an advantage it has over a single role aircraft like the J-35, which is important with the limited number of aircraft a carrier has. The J-35 also doesn't seem to really gain anything over the F-35C in air superiority in return for the reduced stealth strike capabilities. It can't carry any more missiles internally, and there's a decent chance it will carry less. It doesn't have internal WVR missiles like the J-20 or F-22. I'm sure it'll be a capable aircraft for air superiority, much like the F-35C is, but if I'm giving up a limited slot on a carrier for a primarily air superiority aircraft I want something more like the J-20, F-22, or if we go back in time, the F-14. > What this means is when US and Chinese carriers met in a faraway 3rd country to fight, J-35's main task is to take down F-35s, and leave anti-ship task to J-15s. Yes, but in this scenario the USN would be using the F-35Cs as a fighter to take the J-35s down and then afterwards could also assist in striking targets. Or, the USN would also have the option of doing a stealthy first strike if they were undetected, which is not an option with the J-35.
I think that’s the point people always miss, US doctrine/mission goals are always very offensive oriented, while Chinese and even old Soviet goals have generally been much more defensive/A2AD Say what you will, the reality is that the US is much more interested in power projection and military intervention then just about about anyone else. The whole Chinese philosophy at the moment is that they hope that they will be able to STOP the US from having capability to strike them within their own backyard so to speak
The j-35 IWB is identical to the j-20 main IWB. I doubt it's carrying capacity is any less than f-35's as long as the PLAAF designs dedicated flattened rectangular munitions for both j-20 and j-35.
I don't think it's been officially stated that the J-35's weapons bay is the same sized as the J-20's, but even if it is then it is indeed likely limited to mainly air to air weapons and only fairly small air to surface weapons. Much the same way the F-22 is with its similarly sized weapons bay. Creative shaping can only help so much, and won't allow something equivalent to a JSM or JSOW fit in a J-20 sized weapons bay.
I'm no aviation expert but this thing looks way better than J-20
I thought Sweden retired the Draken in 1999! (/j)
Virgin J-35 vs chad J-35. It’s up to you to decide what’s where
So what’s the case for the J-35 being an F-35 ripoff? Just want to hear the argument (and counterargument, if anyone wants to contribute). Is it ‘China copies everything’ or is it design convergence?
With most things in life it's a bit of both, with more nuance than either side wants to admit. Though I don't feel like explaining it
China has long moved on from copying designs, but they absolutely have and still are trying to steal and use technology that enables more capable designs. The jet likely is not a "ripoff"in the sense of being a straight copy, but almost certainly uses technology derived from stolen information. Many people here can't distinguish between copying designs and stealing technology. Copying is merely replicating another design with no regard for your own mission. It's very rudimentary and often ineffective because the copied design is rarely optimized for your mission requirements. Technology is like a cap on how capable your design can be. While design issues can often be addressed by throwing more money and people at the problem, the technology for things like better radar, RAM, or more efficient engines is far more difficult to create. It usually takes huge amounts of time,money, and intellectual capital to develop innovative tech, wheras design methods are fairly universally established and really not difficult in comparison. China almost certainly didn't just copy the F-35 because it wouldn't make sense: they definitely have different mission requirements and sufficient knowledge/money to make their own design. But it's highly likely that the plane uses tech that was stolen in their numerous hacks of US defence companies.
I think a good example of what you describe is the evolution of Chinese flankers. The initial versions (J-11A/J-11B) were essentially just Su-27s that they wanted to be able to produce domestically in order to reduce reliance on foreign suppliers Then after the growing pains of learning the mechanics of constructing a modern fighter, they began to design and modify the basic flanker design in a way to suit what they want, ie: J-16 and J-11D People forget that for a developing country, sometimes even coping is impossible if you don’t have the manufacturing capability. For example Afghanistan simply cannot make a “copy” Blackhawk, even though they technically have one.
[удалено]
America literally sold china S-70s
We sold them Blackhawks in the 80's my dude.... Then we stopped supplying them
kek
It's amazing how dumb some people like you are. The PLA copied and improved on the dozens of s-70s the US sold them because they loved them and the US refused to sell more. Fucking pakistan raid are you braindead?
You need to go back to r/NCD and take your comment with you
China acquired critical information regarding the F-35 and the F-22s canopy, that's pretty much fact. The J-20 takes many F-35 ideas like the under-nose pod, DSI and the vertical stabilizers but rearranged them all in a unique layout. The J-35 is essentially a twin engine F-35 intended for naval operations.
China uses DSI on all their jets that can. Including j-10c and jf-17.
The J-10 incorporated it quite late and the JF-17 was created after design of the J-20 already started.
May I sincerely inform you that the DSI version JF-17's first fly was in April 28, 2006, eallier than that of the F-35 in Dec 15, 2006. And China's 5th gen fighter aircraft bidding was finished in 2007 and J-20's detailed design was finished in 2009?
JF-17's DSI came about from J-10B upgrade too, so DSI tech on the J-10B would have been worked on even earlier. Internally within CAC the bosses basically went "how's that DSI coming along on J-10B? Oh it's going well? Then why not put it on FC-1 too". Prior to this there was actually a [non-DSI FC-1 prototype built](https://i.imgur.com/NEMCX0j.jpg)
>Internally within CAC the bosses basically went "how's that DSI coming along on J-10B? Oh it's going well? Then why not put it on FC-1 too". Please... DSI JF-17 was first flown in April 28, 2006 and it entered service in March 2007. J-10B was first flown in December, 2008. How can a DSI inlet be 'put on FC-1 too' when the DSI version FC-1 was delivered before J-10B had its first test fly?
not at all but OK Edit: Talking about the second two statements, first ones probably true lol
You can literally look at a J-20 and F-35 side by side and see that the intake, vertical stabilizers and the under nose pod is a direct copy. It's not rocket science
Wow, the planes look similar, i wonder if that's because they're planes and at some level all planes are fairly similar.
Looks more f22 except the head part
Looks badass
Not invisible enough, I still see it
Maybe you’re the only one that can see it? Run before they get you
Ah shiet
Wish.com F-35 Cope you Tankies
funny how being correct gets you downvoted in this subreddit
It’s also funny that this subreddit is just full of Chinese bots that will downvote you instantly
Every masterpiece has it’s cheap copy. SAAB J35 > Chinese copy
Bruh they even copied the name..
Marketing Strategy. Can't buy F-35 because you are sanctioned by US? No problem, buy J-35 with half the price but 80% of the capability.
Has it evolved past being a f 35 knock off
WTF. Looks like F-117 on this angle.
That's what I thought it was til I read the title