Shenyang J-35

[tdd]

Why would j35 be 10 times bigger on radar then f35?

If just compare airframe design there isn't any reason for that.

No experience and no quality.

[ricnunes]

You take j20 model add average aka public ram value and you get lower RCS then 0.01m2 which some chinese media mentioned for j35. It could be average frontal RCS for example. Like su57 designer explained for 0.1m2 value.

For su75 in patent it is 0.01m2 again mean frontal RCS.

J35 airframe design is almost perfect, only thing it need is flat nozzles and I hope we will see it.

That's false.
Average RCS for the J-20 is said to be around 0.05 square meters. An average RCS value of of 0.01 for the J-35 would be an improvement over the J-20 within the realms of expectation. These are BTW, values admitted by the Chinese themselves! All publicly known RCS values including the 0.001 for the F-35 are average RCS values.
I won't even waste my time on that paper (wood actually) Su-75 "plane"...

And no, the J-35 design isn't "almost perfect". Like it was already told you, you can't eyeball stealth and BTW neither use models together with some PC software to figure out real RCS. If you want to believe otherwise then you might as well and better believe in unicorns.

I have nothing more to say to you about this.

[aggies84]

Good, why bother with F-47 or AIM-174B? No one can touch F-22, F35 right?

[weasel1962]

Good, why bother with F-47 or AIM-174B? No one can touch F-22, F35 right?

God forbid, that risks being labelled as "pro chinese".

[hornetfinn]

Good, why bother with F-47 or AIM-174B? No one can touch F-22, F35 right?

AIM-174B is used by 4th gen fighters (Super Hornet currently) to give them a weapon to outrange enemies and to take out enemy high-value aircraft.

F-47 is needed as F-22 is getting worn out and will need a replacement at some point. Technology also needs to evolve to keep ahead of enemies. While Chinese aircraft are most likely not as capable as F-22 or F-35, they are constantly improving their technology at vey high speed. 20 years ago they were building licensed Su-27s and their first own 4th gen fighter aircraft. Now they are building several 5th gen aircraft. They will overtake USA and other Western countries if we don't constantly evolve and improve.

[ricnunes]

Good, why bother with F-47 or AIM-174B? No one can touch F-22, F35 right?

You seem to be sarcastic but I'll answer you like those were honest questions:

• About the AIM-174B and besides like hornetfinn said, that this missile is only used by the Super Hornet with no plans as far as we know for using it on other aircraft, namely on stealth aircraft like the F-35, means that this isn't the weapon that you'll use in a stealth versus stealth air combat. Resuming, this missile is to be used against HIGH VALUE non-stealth aircraft at very long ranges such as enemy AWACS or long range/strategical bombers or against enemy incoming missiles such as cruise missiles and likely ballistic missiles as well. Remember that this discussion is about Chinese 5th gen stealth aircraft against US 5th gen stealth aircraft!
• Regarding the F-47 and also to complement what hornetfinn correctly said about the need to constantly improve and to be ahead of the game (and for that you can't stop developing new aircraft), one has to look why the F-47 was developed in its first place: The need for an aircraft that excels existing aircraft in RANGE! While the F-47 will have stealth improvements over the F-35 and F-22, the fact it that its main advantage will again be RANGE. The F-47 will have greater subsonic range than the F-35 and will have even greater supercruise range than the F-22 which is meant or has in mind the Pacific theater.

So and as you can see, the F-47 wasn't born because the F-35 and F-22 are matched or outclassed by Chinese stealth aircraft but because there's a need for a much longer ranged fighter aircraft which curiously is meant to deal with the Chinese on their own turf, due again to its superior RANGE.

[milosh]

Aim174 isn't anti AWACS even though it can be. It is anti H-6 weapon.

H-6 bombers armed with new weapons become very problematic for usn. If natf wasn't axed in 1990s or if tomcat 21 or even better asf14 was selected when natf was axed there would be much less need for aim174.

Bu with slow f18 as fleet interceptor only option is aim174.

[hornetfinn]

I'd say that AIm-174 is anti-everything weapon, where the point is expanding the air-defence "bubble" significantly further against all kinds of threats from ISR drones to bombers and even ballistic missiles. H-6 even with latest weapons would need ISR and other support assets (like EW) to have any chance against US carrier groups. Keeping all of these furhter away would significantly affect their effectiveness. But of course the threat AIM-174 is aimed to counter is China as it's currently the only country that can pose any real threat.

[ricnunes]

Aim174 isn't anti AWACS even though it can be. It is anti H-6 weapon.

Like hornetfinn said, AIM-174 is "anti-everything" weapon. At the same time, I would say/guess that its priority would be High-Value Airborne Assets (HVAA's) which of course the H-6 is included but also other high value aircraft assets that for example (and again hornetfinn also mentioned) provide ISR such as for example, AWACS. AWACS aircraft don't only provide long range detection against enemy/opposing aircraft but also against ships like for example a Carrier Ground or a Surface Action Group which makes AWACS a platform that Chinese could (and IMO, would) use to detect or help detect US Navy ships (including carriers) which means that they would fit into the category of priority targets for AIM-174's alongside with H-6 and other aircraft.

On top of this, I think you're forgetting that the Chinese are expanding their Carrier capabilities which means that in the event of a US-China war (which we hope will never happen) there would be very good chances of a US Carrier Group versus Chinese Carrier Group confrontation happening and one of the most important Chinese assets during such confrontations would be the KJ-600 "E-2 rip-off" AWACS aircraft which in this case would I'm certain, be a prime target for Super Hornets armed with AIM-174.

H-6 bombers armed with new weapons become very problematic for usn. If natf wasn't axed in 1990s or if tomcat 21 or even better asf14 was selected when natf was axed there would be much less need for aim174.

Bu with slow f18 as fleet interceptor only option is aim174.

Or if my grandmother had testicles then it would have been my grandfather...

Joking aside ( ), I don't get the purpose of this part of your post because:
1- The Tomcat was retired and replaced by the Super Hornet while no advanced Tomcat variant was developed. What I'm saying may sound like "blasphemy" for some but this was IMO a good decision, specially when it was taken. As to why, I won't develop much further here but this could be a good subject for a Tomcat versus Super Hornet thread (and since there are so many X versus Y aircraft threads in this forum, here's an idea ). Anyway, what I mean is that it's pretty much pointless to speak about the Tomcat when it comes to the AIM-174 and even if there was still a Tomcat today, the AIM-174 or a similar missile would still exist as when the Tomcat itself was developed, it was developed together with an also long range missile (the AIM-54 which was longer ranged than anything at the time!) this despite the Tomcat's higher speed and this in order to face similar threats (Soviet Tu-95, Tu-16, Tu-22 and Tu-22M, etc...) and as such, it wouldn't matter how fast the F-14 would be compared to the Super Hornet - Again, the AIM-174 or a similar missile would also have been developed with a Tomcat present today which brings me to the following point:

2- Playing your "what-if game": if the Tomcat was kept in service up to today then IMO what would happen would be that the AIM-54 Phoenix would be retired and the Tomcat would have been updated with the AIM-120 AMRAAM (something that retired the AIM-54's would help fund). But then we would still end up to today's geopolitical situation which would require a longer ranged A2A missile - despite the AIM-120D-3 having a similar range to the AIM-54 Phoenix - and so, we would see the Tomcat being armed with AIM-174 missiles as well. But the diference would be that the Super Hornet can carry up to 4 x AIM-174 while the Tomcat would probably only carry a maximum of 2 x AIM-174 (if any, at all). On top of this, the Tomcat with 2 drops tanks plus 2 AIM-174 plus a complement of other A2A missiles (AIM-9's and AIM-120's) wouldn't probably be much faster than a Super Hornet with 1 drop tanks plus 2 AIM-174 plus a complement of other A2A missiles (AIM-9's and AIM-120's) while both would probably have similar range in these configurations.

[sprstdlyscottsmn]

On top of this, the Tomcat with 2 drops tanks plus 2 AIM-174 plus a complement of other A2A missiles (AIM-9's and AIM-120's) wouldn't probably be much faster than a Super Hornet with 1 drop tanks plus 2 AIM-174 plus a complement of other A2A missiles (AIM-9's and AIM-120's) while both would probably have similar range in these configurations.

Here you are very incorrect. An F-14D with 4 AIM-54s, 2 AIM-7s, 2 AIM-9s, and drop tanks (heavier and draggier than your proposed configuration) has a range of over 1200nm if the tanks are retained and not dropped. The top speed would also be 1.8, which is faster than the Super Hornet will actually go when clean. With a centerline tank and only 2x AIM-9s and 2 Aim-120s (all conformal or wingtip loads) the top speed of the Super Hornet is less than 1.5M, to say nothing of adding the bigger missiles under things or anything else under the wings. with 5 AIM-120s and a FLIR (four AIM-120s on the wings) tope speed is down to less than 1.25M. replace some of those wing mounted AIM-120s with AIM-174Bs and it's not breaking 1.2M.

When it comes to speed and range the Tomcat simply out does the Super Hornet, which is why so many people (myself included) get sucked into the "if only ST-21 was persued", and yes it was proposed. F-14D to F-14D Quickstrike to ST-21 to ASF-14 was a Grumman proposed path before the program was axed. Quickstrike and ST-21 would both have been available in the 1990's. while the SH didn't IOC until 2001. The Tomcat was actually functionally cancelled in 1989 when Cheney refused to produce more than 37 new F-14Ds. From then until 2006 it was on borrowed time because congress refused to fund it, not that it ever received the kind of funding programs like the F-15, F-16, or F/A-18 had.

[ricnunes]

On top of this, the Tomcat with 2 drops tanks plus 2 AIM-174 plus a complement of other A2A missiles (AIM-9's and AIM-120's) wouldn't probably be much faster than a Super Hornet with 1 drop tanks plus 2 AIM-174 plus a complement of other A2A missiles (AIM-9's and AIM-120's) while both would probably have similar range in these configurations.

Here you are very incorrect. An F-14D with 4 AIM-54s, 2 AIM-7s, 2 AIM-9s, and drop tanks (heavier and draggier than your proposed configuration) has a range of over 1200nm if the tanks are retained and not dropped. The top speed would also be 1.8, which is faster than the Super Hornet will actually go when clean. With a centerline tank and only 2x AIM-9s and 2 Aim-120s (all conformal or wingtip loads) the top speed of the Super Hornet is less than 1.5M, to say nothing of adding the bigger missiles under things or anything else under the wings. with 5 AIM-120s and a FLIR (four AIM-120s on the wings) tope speed is down to less than 1.25M. replace some of those wing mounted AIM-120s with AIM-174Bs and it's not breaking 1.2M.

Well, what I was proposing or comparing to was against potential/"what if" scenario of a F-14 armed with two (2) AIM-174 which would have been carried under the wing root pylons (together with other missiles on other stations) as I don't think that the F-14 could carry them under the fuselage like it could carry the AIM-54 (up to four). In that case, I believe that the drag induced by such AIM-174 loadout would have a drastic impact on performance similar to what the 6 x AIM-54 loadout had (which was never carried operationally by the F-14). I don't remember how fast a F-14 could go with a 6 x AIM-54 loadout but it wasn't that fast that's for sure (and it couldn't also land on carriers but here I digress).
Note that I'm not saying and neither I said in my last post that the F-14 wouldn't be faster than the Super Hornet. I'm just saying that the diference might not be as big as one might think (namely with potential AIM-174's).

When it comes to speed and range the Tomcat simply out does the Super Hornet, which is why so many people (myself included) get sucked into the "if only ST-21 was persued", and yes it was proposed. F-14D to F-14D Quickstrike to ST-21 to ASF-14 was a Grumman proposed path before the program was axed. Quickstrike and ST-21 would both have been available in the 1990's. while the SH didn't IOC until 2001. The Tomcat was actually functionally cancelled in 1989 when Cheney refused to produce more than 37 new F-14Ds. From then until 2006 it was on borrowed time because congress refused to fund it, not that it ever received the kind of funding programs like the F-15, F-16, or F/A-18 had.

You could be right about speed but I think you aren't that correct when it comes to range. From what I searched, the Tomcat combat radius in a fighter escort role equipped with 2xAIM-54 + 2xAIM-7 + 2xAIM-9 + 2xExternal Fuel Tanks is 503 nautical miles while the combat radius in a fighter escort role for a Super Hornet with 5xAIM-120 + 3xExternal Fuel Tanks + TFLIR pod is 536 nautical miles while if you trade/remove 2 External Fuel Tanks and keep only one then the combat radius drops to 428 nautical miles. As such, the Super Hornet range seems to be around the same or similar ballpark as the Tomcat.
I think that many people in such comparisons, tend to confuse the Legacy Hornet with the Super Hornet which yes, in terms of range the Legacy Hornet is quite inferior to the Tomcat (as well as compared to the Super Hornet). The Super Hornet is quite a different beast when compared to the Legacy Hornet despite bearing the same name.

Also and please don't get me wrong but while the Tomcat was a formidable fighter aircraft with (very sexy) lines, it's sweep-wings made it "futuristic" even today (but in reality were an actually "Achilles heel"), the plane was also raised to a mythical level in which a certain movie played a huge part and as with everything "mythical", greater expectations compared to the reality were created.
Again, don't get me wrong. I love the Tomcat but I'm trying to be as objective as possible here.

[sprstdlyscottsmn]

Well, what I was proposing or comparing to was against potential/"what if" scenario of a F-14 armed with two (2) AIM-174 which would have been carried under the wing root pylons (together with other missiles on other stations) as I don't think that the F-14 could carry them under the fuselage like it could carry the AIM-54 (up to four). In that case, I believe that the drag induced by such AIM-174 loadout would have a drastic impact on performance similar to what the 6 x AIM-54 loadout had (which was never carried operationally by the F-14). I don't remember how fast a F-14 could go with a 6 x AIM-54 loadout but it wasn't that fast that's for sure (and it couldn't also land on carriers but here I digress).
Note that I'm not saying and neither I said in my last post that the F-14 wouldn't be faster than the Super Hornet. I'm just saying that the difference might not be as big as one might think (namely with potential AIM-174's).

Right, and I am telling you that the drag/weight of 4x AIM-54 vs 4x AIM-120 is going to be a much larger difference than 2 AIM-174B vs 2 AIM-7. the F-14D with your proposed loadout would be the same Mach 1.8 placard limit and would have the thrust to reach it.

[Corsair1963]

It will be interesting to see how the J-35, KAAN, and KF-21EX compete with the F-35 in Stealth (RCS) and Sensor Fusion.

[milosh]

I'd say that AIm-174 is anti-everything weapon, where the point is expanding the air-defence "bubble" significantly further against all kinds of threats from ISR drones to bombers and even ballistic missiles. H-6 even with latest weapons would need ISR and other support assets (like EW) to have any chance against US carrier groups. Keeping all of these furhter away would significantly affect their effectiveness. But of course the threat AIM-174 is aimed to counter is China as it's currently the only country that can pose any real threat.

Of course it can be used for other targets then bombers but it's prime target are bombers to be precise anti ship ones.

I just want to point out aim174 is naval weapon which don't really have much with f22 or f35 in fact it have lit more with axed naval future interceptors or proposals. I see it as ad hok solution for axed proposals

[botsing]

Of course it can be used for other targets then bombers but it's prime target are bombers to be precise anti ship ones.

Question for you:

Besides "This missile allows F/A-18E/F Super Hornets to engage adversary aircraft at extended distances" (from the Naval Aviation Playbook 2025) can you please state your official source for this very specific targeting information?

I'm asking you this since US Navy/DoD is extremely tight lipped regarding the AIM-174 and its mission, and releasing this kind of information from their side seems very unusual, even unlikely.