J-35: A Direct Challenge to America

The People's Liberation Army Air Force (PLAAF) has officially announced that it will adopt the J-35A stealth multirole fighter. With the PLAAF's J-20 fighter-bomber, the PLAAF is the second air force after the US Air Force to operate two different stealth fighters.

Applause and a very reasonable question: why?

If everything is clear with the US, the F-22 is a very expensive and unsuccessful phenomenon that is not sold to anyone precisely because it is completely crap, and the F-35 is a more or less sensible aircraft, then why China needs two next-generation aircraft - yes, it is not all clear.

If the J-20 were an analogue of the F-22 in terms of a raw and unfinished design, then everything would be relatively clear and understandable. The J-20 is, of course, a controversial aircraft, of course, but when was a pioneer ever created for centuries? Here, by the way, the Raptor is again a good example: the first in the fifth generation, it never became a full-fledged combat aircraft, it is enough to recall its more than curtailed capabilities in terms of radio electronics.

The J-20 is definitely a heavy (36 tons) aircraft for long-range operations. Fortunately, its developers did not skimp on speed, range and ceiling. If all the figures declared by the J-20 designers are valid for serial models, it is quite a self-confident heavyweight hero. Yes, in terms of maneuverability, the J-20 is far from the Su-35, for example, whose strength lies in its lower weight and more advanced engines, but the Black Eagle will be quite good against many other aircraft.

By the way, speaking about the weight and dimensions of the Chinese "fives": the planes weigh almost the same when empty - 17 tons. But the maximum takeoff weight is different. J-20, as already mentioned, is 36 tons, and J-35 - only 28 tons.

This is where the difference in tactics lies. It is clear that the J-20, which takes on board more than anything, will represent the heavy category, while the J-35 will play in the middle weight category, in sports terms.

Moreover, the official media of China have already made statements that the J-35, just like the F-22, is destined for the role of conducting combat operations in the air. That is, the lighter and more maneuverable J-35 will play the role of a "pure" fighter (like the Su-27 and F-22), and the J-20 will take on the role of a fighter-bomber, capable of attacking ground and (importantly) surface targets.

That is, the J-35A was not originally intended to outperform China's first "five-seater" fighter, the Chengdu J-20, which will likely retain the J-35A's longer range, maximum payload, and maximum speed. However, the J-35A's lower cost and weight appear to be valuable enough for the PLAAF to replace older non-stealth fighters with stealth fighters that may have a shorter range.

There are quite a few such aircraft in the PLAAF. First of all, the J-7 and J-8, whose ancestor was the MiG-21, are on the way out, and then the Su-27 and its descendants will come.

If you look closely at the J-35, especially in comparison to the J-20, its neat dimensions (it is indeed considerably smaller than the J-20) suggest that the aircraft, with the appropriate hammer and file treatment (or whatever they use in China), would look quite normal on the deck of Chinese aircraft carriers.

And this is not irony, we will soon be disassembling the J-16D, which has the J-15 platform underneath it, which is not as young as we would like, and the prototypes-ancestors of the Su-33 and Su-27 have not been considered young and promising for a long time. Time spares no one, and if China is seriously concerned about modernization fleet (which, let us note, is still going full steam ahead), then the planes needed are not modernized 40-year-old veterans.

The overall geometry of the J-35A, its smooth conformal surfaces and supersonic intakes without F-35-style deflecting nozzles indicate a low radar cross-section. The RCS is certainly good, but an engine without a UVT is not exactly a gem. The Guizhou WS-13 or WS-21 are not the most advanced engines by world standards, but for China, this is a pretty decent level of engineering. It is clear that the engines without UVT are not because they really want stealth, but because they are using the engines that are available.

I must say – this is the right approach.

So far, from the photo, of course, it is simply not realistic to determine how low-visibility the aircraft will be. The profile is only half the story, the radar and reflective capabilities are greatly influenced by the design and integration of radar-absorbing materials, the internal architecture of the same air intakes/nozzles and the precision of manufacture.

In general, if you look seriously (and Chinese experts look very carefully) at the results in the SVO, the J-35 does not necessarily have to be as stealthy as the F-22 Raptor. The concept of using the American aircraft was somewhat different when it was developed: it was believed that the Raptor should effectively reduce the range at which it can be reliably detected and hit. rockets to the distance of confident use of one's weapons.

But as the high-tech conflict has shown, powerful radars and long-range missiles severely limit the capabilities of aircraft in such a war. Some Ukrainian aircraft (yes, without stealth) were shot down by missiles fired from a distance of more than 150 kilometers.

So today, stealth is a very useful option, but a powerful radar and long-range missiles are important components of modern combat use.

And the J-35A could prove to be a very useful aircraft, especially if the US does not change its attitude towards China.

The J-35 might not have happened. Shenyang Aircraft Corporation began developing the stealth fighter on its own, without support from the Chinese government or defense ministry, which were more interested in the J-20 project. After its first flight in 2012, Shenyang unveiled the aircraft at the 2014 Zhuhai Airshow, where it reportedly flew with some difficulties.

But the PLAAF was more than a little cold to the project, while the Chinese Navy saw the smaller, lighter fighter as a natural fit for launch from its future catapult-launched Type 003 carriers, and no one was going to write off the old ski-jump carriers either.

The prototype, which was named FC-31, began to be polished under Aviation Navy, which resulted in two significant upgrades, in 2016 and 2020.

The aircraft underwent significant changes to its wings, fuselage, engines, radar and optical sensors, and stealth optimizations. Then in 2021, a fourth model flew, designed for carrier operations, with folding wings, a twin-wheel nose gear, an F-35-style canopy, and the ability to take off via catapult. Finally, in 2023, a fifth variant arrived with smaller wings, redesigned tail fins, and a single-wheel landing gear—clearly a land-based model with its naval elements stripped down. The Air Force wanted one, too.

In fact, the last two versions of the aircraft were supposedly called J-31, now they apparently correspond to the designations J-35 for the Navy and J-35A for the Air Force, respectively.

A few words about the appearance. How many loud and bombastic phrases were said about how Chinese hackers broke everything that could be broken, and spies stole everything that could be stolen, and that is why the J-35 is so similar to the F-35. It was funny. But seriously - the physics of processes forces many modern fighters to have similar geometry. Try to visually compare the F-35 with the South Korean KF-21 and the Turkish "Kaan jet". Did they also hack and steal? Moreover, the J-35 and its prototype FC-31 differ significantly in the presence of two engines and a much more compact fuselage. And here you can put a big fat point. With a brush with ink, as it should be in China for many thousands of years.

As for the characteristics, they are still in the stage of uncertainty, because a prototype and a production sample are somewhat different things.

But in terms of armament, things are more interesting. The J-35 can carry six air-to-air missiles, four air-to-surface missiles, or half-ton bombs (also four) in the internal weapons bay. But if you give up the "invisibility", you can carry another six missiles on underwing mounts.

This is, at a minimum, no worse than the F-35.

But many of the F-35’s strengths are on the inside—its radar-absorbing materials, sensors, communications systems, and network computers. Can the J-35 match them in quality? Chinese industry can produce advanced electronics and combat systems, though the effectiveness of these components compared to Western counterparts remains unclear.

The J-35A is equipped with an electro-optical targeting system located under the nose, and Shenyang also claims that the aircraft has an array of optical and infrared sensors throughout the body that can provide 360-degree situational awareness and early warning of incoming missiles.

So, why does the PLAAF need two fifth-generation aircraft? This question is being asked by many in the world today, since, willy-nilly, we have to draw analogies with the United States. Is it really necessary to have two aircraft, given that the PLAAF already operates about two hundred J-20s?

In fact, the air forces of the countries made up their fleets of exactly these different aircraft: lighter and heavier. MiG-29 and Su-27, F-15 and F-16, Mirage-2000 and Rafale, and so on. So it is normal practice: different aircraft for different tasks.

The J-35A could serve as part of the overall concept, replacing hundreds of older J-7, J-8, J-10A, and J-11 fighters that the PLAAF is likely to retire over the next decade. The PLAAF may need more stealth aircraft, but not necessarily in the heavy and expensive format of the J-20. This is where the J-35A, as a cheaper option, could come in very handy.

A mix of light and heavy stealth fighters could improve the overall effectiveness of the air force: For example, if an air showdown between the PLAAF and the ROC (Taiwan) Air Force were to break out, the shorter-range J-35As could focus on providing close air cover for friendly forces, while the heavier J-20s could fly around Taiwan, intercepting any American aircraft that might try to interfere. At least, that’s what the US promised Taiwan a few years ago.

Well, and naturally, the adoption of the J-35A aircraft by the PLAAF may be aimed at increasing its export potential, which has not yet been realized, but work will definitely be carried out in this direction. At the very least, an aircraft adopted for service in its own country has a much better chance of success in export than any other aircraft. Here, by the way, the MiG-35 and Su-75 can serve as examples. Aircraft that are not interesting to the army of the manufacturing country are unlikely to interest potential buyers.

There is a great demand for modern fighters in the world, including stealth ones. Especially in countries that the US either opposes or does not trust enough to sell them F-35s, or even foreign-made aircraft using American components. Or that do not have the money to buy American or Russian combat aircraft.

And here an inexpensive (especially compared to the cost of American aircraft) Chinese aircraft will be very welcome. Pakistan, as we have already reported, made a knight's move in the confrontation with India, having concluded an agreement specifically for the J-35. And Pakistan can be expected to be followed by those who do not have the money for American aircraft and the courage to buy Russian aircraft in modern conditions.

And if we take into account China's plans to work on a sixth-generation aerospace fighter... Here, sales of fifth-generation fighters could receive a very unexpected boost in terms of production. Of course, producing a large number of J-35As could delay China's development of a sixth-generation fighter designed to push the boundaries of what's possible in technology. However, something tells us that the CCP can handle even this small problem.

From the US perspective, the introduction of the J-35A increases the likelihood that China and its customers could replace most of their older, non-stealth aircraft with stealth aircraft. But for now, the idea of ​​stealth is so firmly entrenched in the minds of US weapons experts that they will fuss over it like a rag to a buck. Until they become completely and irrevocably disillusioned with it. But then it will be too late, and China may end up with an aircraft that is slightly different from the Western concept.

How those who consider China an adversary of the USA will react to this, we will see. It will be a very interesting activity.

In any case, the J-35A is a proof of concept that was met with a cool reception ten years ago, but is now being implemented by China with unusual logic and speed. It is not yet clear how the J-35A will compare to the American F-35, but we will try to guess in the very near future.

Comments

[Dutchman Michel]

But if you give up the “invisibility”, you can carry six more missiles on underwing mounts.

This is how it differs from the F-35. And add to this the lack of a controlled thrust vector.

[ramzay21]

Roman is a smart man but sometimes he has to write articles like this. Of course, China, like the US, like the USSR, makes two different fighters, light and heavy.
Light fighters are cheaper and less expensive to operate, and they are the ones that fill the Air Force and they handle most of the Air Force's tasks, being the workhorse, this is the economy.
And heavy fighters, as the most advanced, are needed to gain air supremacy, but for most tasks their capabilities are excessive and cost more.
This is the most effective model of operation of all modern air forces in the world today, which also count money. Except us, of course. Our country has a lot of money, so our leadership does not count it, and therefore produces only heavy and expensive Su-35 and Su-57, completely forgetting about light MiG fighters.

[Andrei from Chelyabinsk]

Quote: ramzay21

This is the most effective model of operation of all modern air forces in the world today.

A complex theological question.

Quote: ramzay21

Our country has a lot of money, so our leadership does not count it and therefore produces only heavy and expensive Su-35 and Su-57

Not quite so. Our Air Force, like any other, has the task of air combat (fighter) and strike functions. For the former, a heavy fighter is better suited, for the latter - it is far from certain that a light multifunctional one. Ours have placed their bets on the Su-34 frontline bomber.
At the same time, again, objectively, the VKS still does not have enough heavy fighters.

[ramzay21]

Not quite so. Our Air Force, like any other, has the task of air combat (fighter) and strike functions. For the former, a heavy fighter is better suited, for the latter - it is far from certain that a light multifunctional one. Ours have placed their bets on the Su-34 frontline bomber.

Firstly, the Su-34 is a frontline bomber originally from the USSR and was developed to replace the Su-24 and is not a fighter at all.
Secondly, it was not for nothing that a light fighter like our MiG-35 or the American F-16 and F-35 combined strike and fighter capabilities, an acceptable load and efficiency, which is what is needed to perform most tasks.
If the task is to strike enemy targets with a pair of UPAB 500, then the same MiG-35 will do it the same way as the Su-34, only this sortie will cost half as much and the MiG-35 will be able to destroy air targets and protect itself during the mission, unlike the Su-34. And what is better, one Su-34 with 12 suspension points and a maximum load of 8 tons or two MiG-35s with 8 suspension points?

At the same time, again, objectively, the VKS still does not have enough heavy fighters.

That's why they're in short supply because they're trying to do with heavy fighters what light fighter-bombers are good for. The Su-35 itself and its operation cost almost twice as much as the MiG-35, but they perform tasks that the MiG-35 can do, and the MiG-35 can do what both the Su-34 and Su-35 can do.

[Andrei from Chelyabinsk]

Quote: ramzay21

Firstly, the Su-34 is a frontline bomber originally from the USSR and was developed to replace the Su-24 and is not a fighter at all.

Naturally. But this does not contradict or cancel what I wrote to you. In order to perform a strike function, an aircraft does not necessarily have to be a multi-role fighter.
There is a spectrum of tasks - striking land/sea targets, a frontline bomber will cope with them clearly better than a light MFI. And a heavy MFI will cope better than a light one with gaining air supremacy. Therefore, the bet on heavy MFI + frontline bombers may not be so stupid.

Quote: ramzay21

If the task is to strike enemy targets with a pair of UPAB 500, then the same MiG-35 will do it just like the Su-34, only this sortie will cost half as much

I have very big doubts about "twice as cheap". Firstly, all other things being equal, light MFIs are needed more than frontline bombers to solve similar tasks, which means we need to buy more planes and train more pilots, even if it is individually cheaper. And secondly, I have heard that the MiG-35 turned out to be very expensive to maintain and is not much inferior to the Su-35. But this is not certain.

[ramzay21]

In order to perform a strike function, an aircraft does not necessarily have to be a multi-role fighter.
There is a range of tasks - striking land/sea targets, with which a frontline bomber will cope clearly better than a light MFI.

Have you ever wondered why the US has long abandoned its frontline bomber? Because they are counting money! They have long understood that a light MFI can easily replace a highly specialized frontline bomber, but we simply do not have a light MFI, and therefore the Su-34 is our everything.
But let's count. The standard task is to destroy the headquarters discovered 50 km from the LBS with two UPAB 500.
Now we are naturally using the Su-34 and we are putting two UPAB 500 on it and to cover its actions from aviation and air defense we are raising the Su-35.
Ideally, this task can and should be performed by a light MFI, for example, the same MiG-35, on which, in addition to two UPABs, the remaining six suspension points are equipped with explosive missiles for protection against aviation and air defense.
One Su-34 or Su-35 should consume almost twice as much fuel as a single-engine MFI, but even compared to the MiG-35, the Su-34 and Su-35 consume much more, at least one and a half times more. It turns out that you are using two aircraft, each of which will consume at least one and a half times more fuel than the MiG-35, and three pilots. What do you think is more profitable?

Another example. You have a squadron of Su-34s. Enemy missiles/UAVs are detected going deep into our territory. Can you use the Su-34s to repel the attack? No, you can't. But you can use a squadron of light MFIs.
Can you use the Su-34 to patrol airspace and search for air targets? No, you can't. But you can use the same MiG-35.

And a heavy MFI will cope better with gaining air supremacy than a light one.

No one argues with this! But now we have such holes in the air defense that enemy missiles fly calmly over our territory and not only missiles and the main issue is in saturating our Air Force with aircraft.

Firstly, all other things being equal, light MFIs are needed more than frontline bombers to solve similar problems, which means we need to buy more aircraft and train more pilots, even if it costs less individually.

All other things being equal, instead of one Su-34 with two crew members, we will receive two light MFIs, and these MFIs will be able not only to strike ground targets, but also to patrol the airspace, detect and shoot down air targets, and significantly strengthen our air defense.

[Andrei from Chelyabinsk]

Quote: ramzay21

Have you ever wondered why the US has long since abandoned its frontline bomber?

Of course, I thought about it.

Quote: ramzay21

They have long understood that a light MFI can easily replace a highly specialized frontline bomber.

Sorry, but you are almost entirely wrong.
The US abandoned frontline bombers, but not in favor of light MFIs, but in favor of heavy MFIs - the F-111 was replaced by the F-15E. At the same time, the US also abandoned light MFIs, because the F-35 is more of a medium MFI than a light one.

Quote: ramzay21

A standard task was set to destroy the headquarters discovered 50 km from the LBS with two UPAB 500.

Well

Quote: ramzay21

Now we are naturally using the Su-34 and we are putting two UPAB 500 on it and to cover its actions from aviation and air defense we are raising the Su-35.

Let's say

Quote: ramzay21

Ideally, this task can and should be performed by a light MFI, for example, the same MiG-35, on which, in addition to two UPABs, the remaining six suspension points are equipped with explosive missiles for protection against aviation and air defense.

It cannot. If the operation requires air cover, then the presence of a covering aircraft is also mandatory for the MiG-35. If the operation does not require air cover (say, it is carried out in an area where constant fighter patrols are already established), then an additional Su-35 is not needed. Finally, even following your logic, no one is stopping you from attaching the UPAB to the Su-35 and not involving the Su-34.

Quote: ramzay21

Can you use the Su-34 to patrol airspace and search for air targets? No, you can't. But you can use the same MiG-35.

You see, the designers, talented guys, managed to create universal (multifunctional) aircraft. But the geneticists, these loose smart guys, never managed to breed a generation of universal pilots. Simply put, a master of strikes on ground targets will not become a master fighter and vice versa. Therefore, you can, of course, train "strikemen" on the MiG-35 and they will be able to work well on ground targets, but not as well as the Su-34. And in an air battle, these pilots will be greatly inferior to pure fighters on the same Su-35, since the machine is weaker, and the skills are not the same. Well, or vice versa.
Therefore, the picture you described is, let's say, very optimistic.

Quote: ramzay21

All other things being equal, instead of one Su-34 with two crew members, we will get two light MFIs

We won't get it. Maybe 3 MiG-35 for 2 Su-34, but that's doubtful.

[ramzay21]

Sorry, but you are almost entirely wrong.
The US abandoned frontline bombers, but not in favor of light MFIs, but in favor of heavy MFIs - the F-111 was replaced by the F-15E.

The F-15E is an analogue of the Su-30SM2, which are both heavy MFIs, and I bypassed the Su-30, because the Su-30SM2 is exactly the right aircraft. And I wrote about the highly specialized frontline bomber Su-34 and that in most combat missions, the light MFI can easily replace the Su-34, but the Su-34 cannot replace the light MFI.

At the same time, the US also abandoned the light MFI, because the F-35 is more of a medium MFI than a light one.

The F-35, with a single engine almost the same as the twin-engine F-22, is the lightest MFI capable of striking ground targets and air targets, and there are many more of them than the F-15E and F-15EX.

It can't. If the operation requires air cover, then the presence of a cover aircraft is also mandatory for the MiG-35.

Maybe that's exactly what happens, in any case, the F-16s covered themselves in such missions in Iraq in 1991, of course with the support of E-3 AWACS aircraft.
And the Su-30SM2 can do this, but the Su-34, despite its common roots with the Su-30, has a more difficult task.

Finally, even following your logic, no one is stopping you from attaching the UPAB to the Su-35 and not involving the Su-34.

On the Su-30SM2, yes, but the Su-35 and its avionics are designed for air combat and, in my opinion, do not have equipment for working against ground targets.

You see, the designers, talented guys, managed to create universal (multifunctional) aircraft. But the geneticists, these loose smart guys, never managed to breed a generation of universal pilots. Simply put, a master of strikes on ground targets will not become a master fighter and vice versa. Therefore, you can, of course, train "strikemen" on the MiG-35 and they will be able to work well on ground targets, but not as well as the Su-34. And in an air battle, these pilots will be greatly inferior to pure fighters on the same Su-35, since the machine is weaker and the skills are not the same.

No, not really. Our MiG-29K, from which the MiG-35 is made, as well as the latest versions of the F-16 and all F-35s, can freely operate both on the ground and against air targets, and both require only avionics capable of doing so, at least at long and medium ranges. And pilots, including our MiG-29Ks, of whom there are more than MiG-35s, are trained to do this and do it.
I deliberately avoid the Su-30SM2 because it has two crew members and the navigator is busy working on ground targets.

Therefore, the picture you described is, let's say, very optimistic.

This is the norm for NATO and Chinese Air Force pilots, as well as for our MiG-29K pilots.

We won't get it. Maybe 3 MiG-35 for 2 Su-34, but that's doubtful.

Even 3 MiG-35s will do much more than 2 Su-34s, and with a normal production run, the MiG-35 could be twice as cheap as the Su-34.

[bayard]

Greetings Andrew!

Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk

There is a spectrum of tasks - striking land/sea targets, a frontline bomber will cope with them clearly better than a light MFI. And a heavy MFI will cope better than a light one with gaining air supremacy. Therefore, the bet on heavy MFI + frontline bombers may not be so stupid.

Here we need to understand when and under what conditions the decision was made to rely exclusively on heavy MFIs and a heavy frontline bomber. And this was after 2008, when combat-ready fighters and experienced pilots were being assembled from all over the country for a 5-day war. The question arose of rearmament of the Army, so that it would be modern, well armed and equipped, but small. Including for economic reasons. We did not have a LFMI in a stage close to readiness, but we had a prototype of the Su-34, which showed itself very well in suppressing Georgian air defense. That was the first one to be launched into production. Then there was a limited series of Su-30M2 from machine kits that China did not buy, cheating us out of money, then the Su-30SM based on the Indian Su-30MKI and finally the Su-35S. And it was then that they decided that since we have a Small Army and Small Aerospace Forces, then let's at least build the entire fleet of fighters on heavy machines. So that if not by quantity, then by quality. Especially since for our huge country a heavy MFI with a large radius is definitely preferable. That's why they delayed and did not really finance the MiG-35S, which they decided to supply only for export. And since it did not go to our Aerospace Forces, it did not interest others either - "who refuses a good aircraft?" So for peacetime conditions and for a Small Army, relying on a fleet of heavy fighters was a reasonable choice.
But after 2014, when the prospect of a major war was becoming increasingly inevitable, the Ministry of Defense and the VPR as a whole showed monstrous short-sightedness and arrogance. They began to curtail the production of aircraft under the slogan "We've had enough!" (V.V. Putin at the aircraft manufacturing plant in Komsomolsk-on-Amur). And the experience of 3 years of the Air Defense Forces showed that 2/3 of the tasks of delivering FAB strikes with UMPK and strike missions in general would be best accomplished with lighter aircraft. The same MiG-35S. But there was no spoon for dinner. Strike aircraft almost never fly out on a mission with a full combat load, a maximum of half - no more than 4 tons, which is also quite optimal for the MiG-35S, because with its 6,5 tons maximum load, such a load (3,5 - 4 tons) is quite normal. Yes, and 4 FAB-500 with UMPK + 2-4 RVV will make up 3,5 tons at most. So the MiG-35S could take on the throwing of FAB-250 and FAB-500 with UMPK, and the Su-34 - FAB-1500 and FAB-3000 and VP cruise missiles.
But I'm afraid that the time for our Aerospace Forces to purchase a series of 300 MiG-35S is passing - in December they promise to lift the Su-75 into the air for the first time. A year earlier than expected. And if the tests go as planned, then by the turn of the decade the LFMI will go into series production. Then it would most likely be more rational to focus on the production of heavy aircraft for now and double the total fleet of fighter aircraft and frontline bombers at their expense. And from 2030 to replenish the Aerospace Forces with new Su-75s, as a result increasing the number of combat aircraft by 3 times from the original (at the beginning of the Central Military District).

Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk

I have very big doubts about "twice as cheap".

Well, of course, not 2 times, especially for a twin-engine LFMI. 1,5 times, and according to the developers, the complexity and labor intensity of servicing the MiG-35S has become 4 times lower than that of the MiG-29. But for a fleet of 500-600 such LFMIs, this is a very significant savings. In addition, the MiG-36 could/can be based on unpaved airfields and use highways as runways. They are more flexible, more convenient for routine combat missions, but now this niche will most likely be occupied by the Su-75. Even if the MiG-35S began to enter the troops last year, I would be more than "For", but from next year this will no longer be so relevant if the Su-75 enters the troops by the end of the decade.

Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk

I heard that the MiG-35 turned out to be quite expensive to maintain

4 times cheaper and simpler than the MiG-29... which was indeed very labor-intensive to maintain.

[ramzay21]

Here we need to understand when and under what conditions the decision was made to rely exclusively on heavy MFIs and a heavy frontline bomber. And this was after 2008, when combat-ready fighters and experienced pilots were being assembled from all over the country for a 5-day war. The question arose about rearming the Army so that it would be modern, well-armed and equipped, but small.

That's right!

That's why they delayed and didn't really finance the MiG-35S, which they decided to supply only for export. And since it didn't go to our Aerospace Forces, it didn't interest others either - "who would refuse a good airplane?

Absolutely right

But after 2014, when the prospect of a major war became increasingly inevitable, the Ministry of Defense and the VPR as a whole showed monstrous short-sightedness and arrogance. They began to curtail the production of aircraft under the slogan "We've had enough!" (V.V. Putin at the aircraft plant in Komsomolsk-on-Amur).

The issue here is the lack of real analytics in general among the country's leadership and the Ministry of Defense, and as a consequence, the lack of real plans for the development of the country and the army and plans for responding to various threats, and therefore the leadership reacts only to current irritants and produces only momentary pots, which is the main sign of the complete incompleteness of the country's leadership and the non-viability of such a system.

And the experience of 3 years of the SVO showed that 2/3 of the tasks of delivering FAB strikes with UMPK and strike tasks in general would be better solved by lighter aircraft. The same MiG-35S. But there was no spoon for dinner. Strike aircraft almost never fly out on a mission with a full combat load, a maximum of half - no more than 4 tons, which is also quite optimal for the MiG-35S, because with its 6,5 tons maximum load, such (3,5 - 4 tons) is quite normal.

I agree with the amendment. This has been shown by the experience of all armed conflicts in the last 50 years, no one has analyzed them and, accordingly, no conclusions have been drawn. The leadership of the Ministry of Defense and the generals did not understand at all why the Air Force needed the UPAB, and only a year later the SVO realized that the UPAB was still needed.

But I'm afraid that the time for our Aerospace Forces to purchase a series of 300 MiG-35S is passing - in December they promise to lift the Su-75 into the air for the first time. A year earlier than expected. And if the tests go as planned, then by the turn of the decade the LFMI will go into series production. Then it would most likely be more rational to focus on the production of heavy aircraft for now and double the total fleet of fighter aircraft and frontline bombers at their expense. And from 2030 to replenish the Aerospace Forces with new Su-75s, as a result increasing the number of combat aircraft by 3 times from the original (at the beginning of the Central Military District).

Knowing our leadership, we can confidently talk about shifts to the right for 10 years, and make an allowance for the fact that man, including Putin, is mortal. And our Air Force needed a light MFI yesterday, and therefore, although the MiG-35 is outdated, there is no other way out except for a series of at least 300 MiG-35 and saturating the Air Force with the minimum necessary number of these aircraft. The heavy MFI Su-30 SM2 will not save the situation.
If they finish up the Su-75, it would be reasonable to start producing it in the same place where they produce the MiG-35 and MiG-29K, and as soon as they start arriving, the MiG-35 can be withdrawn to internal and secondary districts, because they also need to be saturated with aircraft.

The only problem for the MiG-35 is the developer of the AFAR for the MiG-35 Fazatron, destroyed by Chemezov, if this is solved then production is possible.

But for a fleet of such LFMIs numbering 500-600 units, this is a very significant saving. In addition, the MiG-36 could/could be based on unpaved airfields and use highways as runways. They are more flexible and more convenient for routine combat missions.

Absolutely true!

[bayard]

Quote: ramzay21

Knowing our leadership, we can confidently talk about shifts to the right for 10 years, and make an allowance for the fact that man, including Putin, is mortal. And our Air Force needed a light MFI yesterday

I have always insisted on this, and precisely because I believed that it would be possible to achieve combat readiness of regiments on the Su-75 only by the middle of the next decade (it is not enough to produce them, they still need to be mastered in the troops before the possibility of standard combat use on a squadron/regiment scale). Therefore, I insisted on building a series of 300 such LFMIs in the remaining 10 years (we simply will not have time for more). And I was really expecting the promised first MiG-35S by the end of this year. But so far there have been no reports, although there were orders for it from several foreign customers (at least two). And if production is hampered due to some objective reasons (the absence of a normal AFAR radar, for example), but at the same time work on the Su-75, on the contrary, has accelerated and it really will take off in December, then it is likely that there may no longer be time to launch production of the MiG-35S in a full configuration. There were also problems with the radar from "Phazotron" - it did not meet the customer's requirements and the most reasonable thing would have been to install a reduced-area "Belka" radar on the MiG-35S ... call it "Strelka" and you simply can't think of anything better. But this is Time, the jealousy of the Sukhoi Design Bureau and the lack of competent planning in the Ministry of Defense. Therefore, if such a decision is not made in time, then it is already too late. And then all that remains is to speed up work on the Su-75 and hope for the best.

Quote: ramzay21

If the Su-75 is finished, it would be reasonable to start producing it in the same place where the MiG-35 and MiG-29K are produced.

For the Su-75, it seems that new workshop buildings are being built in Komsomolsk itself, and one of the MiG factories was torn to pieces and the land for construction was identified 3 years ago (maybe the plans were reversed with the start of the SVO, but the workshops were definitely empty).

[Doccor18]

Quote: ramzay21

Our country has a lot of money, so our leadership does not count it and therefore produces only heavy and expensive Su-35 and Su-57, completely forgetting about light MiG fighters.

You can criticize everything and everyone with gusto, but to be objective, the new generation fighter has probably long since surpassed any defense program in cost and complexity. This is, if you like, the apotheosis of the state's scientific and technical development. Who was able to master the next generation fighters? Only the titans of the world economy: the USA and China. The rest have only intentions, videos and models. Russia stands apart here, intricately woven from the gigantic capabilities of the past (the USSR aviation industry) and the rather modest economic realities of the present. Therefore, Russia, not being a global economic titan, was still able to stay at the forefront of military aircraft manufacturing, having designed its 5-ka. To demand to receive here and now a second light-class aircraft in the current conditions is clearly too much, and a comparison with American and Chinese capabilities is a utopia...

[ramzay21]

You can criticize everything and everyone with enthusiasm, but to be objective, the new generation fighter has apparently long since surpassed any defense program in terms of cost and complexity.

If there is a Su-57 engine, there is a fifth-generation avionics for the Su-57, then why not make a single-engine light fighter based on the Su-57 developments and the MiG's experience and backlogs? I don't mean a hastily knocked-together plywood mockup of the Su-75, I mean a serious development of a serious aircraft.

Who could master the next generation of fighters? Only the titans of the world economy: the USA and China. The rest have only intentions, videos and models. Russia stands apart here, intricately woven from the gigantic possibilities of the past (the USSR aviation industry) and the rather modest economic realities of the present.

And why did a country that has ALL the resources in huge quantities, that could develop EVERYTHING itself and produce EVERYTHING itself, and even against the backdrop of bad prices for the raw materials that this country sells, suddenly find itself in such realities of the present?
Could it be that this country, which has one of the most talented and inventive peoples, is being mismanaged?

[Doccor18]

Quote: ramzay21

then why not make a single-engine light fighter based on the Su-57 developments

It seems that not everything is so simple and clear...
The Americans have been fiddling with the "simple" 35th for over thirty years, but they still haven't gotten it right.

Quote: ramzay21

and the MiG's achievements and experience?

These reserves are "a hundred years old"... After all, the development of technology does not stand still, which means that the design bureau should always be at the forefront of ideas (i.e. have constant and generous funding).

Quote: ramzay21

Can

Maybe, but that's a completely different topic, far removed from combat aviation...

[Orange Bigg]

. If there is a Su-57 engine, there is a fifth-generation avionics for the Su-57, then why not make a single-engine light fighter based on the Su-57 developments and the MiG's backlog and experience? I don't mean a hastily knocked-together plywood mockup of the Su-75, I mean a serious development of a serious aircraft.

The Su-75 was not put together in a hurry. RSK MiG worked on a light 5th generation fighter for a long time and at the final stage of development it was even named MiG-59 if my memory serves me right, but I could be wrong. But when the process of merging the Sukhoi and RSK MiG firms took place, the developments on the MiG-59 ended up with Sukhoi, based on which the Su-75 shown at MAKS-2021 was created in just a couple of years, in fact, this is a slightly tweaked MiG-59 to fit it into the already existing technologies from the serial Su-57. So the Su-75 wasn't put together in a hurry. They worked on it thoroughly, just slightly adjusted it to the technologies of the serial Su-57 and achieved similarity, compatibility in general technologies and the design of the machines at the level of 80%. They actually adjusted the design on computers for 2 years, and then announced that they allegedly created the Su-2 in 75 years due to new computer technologies.

[Blackmokona]

Quote: Dutchman Michel

This is how it differs from the F-35. And add to this the lack of a controlled thrust vector.

The F-35 can also be loaded like a Christmas tree with external suspensions, which were optionally added at the request of South Korea.

[Magic archer]

A strange question - WHY! We also have a shortage of such aircraft in the troops! MiG-29 (35), in small quantities, and the Shakhmat will probably remain a mock-up! The concept of a heavy fighter and workhorse has not yet outlived itself. Therefore, we can only congratulate the Chinese and sigh sadly remembering our situation...

[Desperado]

So, do I understand correctly that instead of increasing the production of the Su-35, you are proposing to simultaneously produce the MiG-35, which has other engines and electronics? Think about the cost of launching into series production, operation, repair, etc., the larger the zoo of aircraft types, the higher the cost of its maintenance. The Russian Air Force needs to increase its fleet of 4++ fighters in the shortest possible time, and ideally, with the release of the Su-35, produce a budget version of a light single-engine fighter with the same engine and electronics.

[Quzmi4]

The Su-35 and MiG-35 are produced at different factories, as are the engines for them and most of the "stuffing". To refuse PARALLEL production of the MiG = to wait for the consistent saturation with Sukhois. Plus the loss of competencies. If there is anything left there( ...

[Desperado]

Refuse PARALLEL release of MiGar = wait for consistent saturation with Sukhois

No, just ask yourself - what is simpler and more economical? Expand current capacities or introduce new ones for a different technical process with different components. As for the MiG-35: for a light fighter, having 2 engines is excessive. We need a domestic analogue of the Chinese J-10.

[Quzmi4]

Expand current capacity or use idle production?

[Desperado]

You are thinking in categories far from reality. What is the point of producing the MiG-35, which is a cut-down version of the Su-35 and also with different avionics and engines? While winning in the cost of one copy, we lose in efficiency, maintenance cost and unification. If we consider it from the point of view of supporting the corporation of the same name, then the developments on a light fighter with one engine can be transferred to it. But this is a topic for another article.

[Quzmi4]

Well, then, sorry, Reality Guru! Where else can we...

[rocket757]

Many nuances need to be considered/taken into account in order to obtain the correct positions for comparison of any modern, complex technology!!!
And so, for the benefit of the matter, try to imagine, find those advantages over the enemy that may be... or not be???

[Soldatov V.]

In general, China is following the path we have abandoned. We have ruined and stifled competition between design bureaus and aircraft manufacturing companies. The main thing is that we have driven away designers and technologists. Economists and accountants have defeated technicians. The MIG and Yak (military) are dragging out a miserable existence. The Yak-141 and MIG-35 are quite decent aircraft by today's standards. Bankers and financiers determine the development of aviation, and other industries as well, not engineers, not specialists, but accountants.

[Andrei from Chelyabinsk]

Quote: V.

MIG and Yak (military) drag out a miserable existence. Yak-141 and MIG-35 are quite decent aircraft by today's standards.

Alas, no. The first one is hopelessly outdated by today's standards, the second one... In fact, it would have been very good about 20 years ago.

Quote: V.

We have ruined and stifled competition between design bureaus and aircraft manufacturing companies.

Alas, it is so. And it is very sad. But in fact, the MiG design bureau has been shrinking for a very long time and cannot create competition for the Su. And the Yak fell out of the fighter lineup back in the USSR

[Doccor18]

Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk

But in fact, the MiG design bureau has been shrinking for a very long time and cannot compete with Su.

And who is to blame for this? After all, it was the MiG design bureau in the USSR that was winning the race on all fronts against Sukhoi. Modernized versions of the heavy interceptor fighter MiG-31M and the frontline fighter MiG-29M, the newest multi-role fighter MiG-1.44 and the project of the light frontline MiG MFI. And how could Su respond? But the 90s came, and everything turned upside down...

[Soldatov V.]

I may be wrong, I wasn't there to see it, but the shrinkage started after Brezhnev's death, and it kept growing until the coup of 91. Based on the Yak-141, they made the F-35, and now China is catching up, having reworked everything it could. Is the F-16 better or worse than the MIG-35? How old is it? And how old is the SU-57? From the idea to its implementation in hardware.
Another issue is the hatred of the bourgeoisie in power towards everything Soviet, even towards excellent flying machines, even towards the AN-2 flying cart.
Yesterday on TV there was a vile program about Kerensky and the White movement, what kind of slop was not poured on the Bolsheviks, the communists, on Russia in general. On the officers who went over to the side of the people!
Yes, there were many mistakes and wrong decisions, but tsarist Russia lost WWI, and did it raise Russia to WWII and win? And would it have built what Soviet Russia built before its collapse? For housing construction alone, a monument of pure gold from grateful descendants should be erected on Brezhnev's grave.

[Quzmi4]

Based on the Yak-141, they made the F-35

How long can this nonsense be replicated?!!

[AlexSam]

Quote: V.

Yesterday on TV there was a vile program about Kerensky and the White movement, what kind of slop was not poured on the Bolsheviks, the communists, on Russia in general. On the officers who went over to the side of the people!

This is all that the current generation needs to know about Russia at the beginning of the 20th century, about the Bolsheviks saving Russia from collapse and destruction. Ilyin is in the same boat. And a state channel should be the one to tell about this, as the unquestioned authority and mouthpiece of the party, and not some thoroughly pro-Western, stinking Dozhd!
Comrades lead the way!

[Des]

From the article by the best author of VO: "And here an inexpensive (especially compared to the cost of American aircraft) Chinese aircraft will be very welcome. Pakistan, as we have already reported, made a knight's move in the confrontation with India, having concluded an agreement specifically for the J-35. And Pakistan can be expected to be followed by those who do not have the money for American aircraft and the courage to buy Russian aircraft in modern conditions."
Such an advanced aircraft would suit us just fine. It would be a shame if it turned out to be significantly cheaper than our developments. For those who are indignant))), - we will install our own engines.
And yes, it’s not pleasant.
For.
Two hegemons - like the USA (for now) and China.
The multipolar "world" is from no-start.

[Dedrusav]

How much amateurism in one article! At first I thought it was sarcasm, but alas. The author has not grown up to this.

[Wayfarer_2]

In this regard, I have a question. We showed our Su-57 in China, demonstrating its excellent "agility" thanks to deflectable nozzles. But the Chinese did not buy such engines from us, but installed an engine without deflectable nozzles on their J-35. So, why does a stealth aircraft need these bells and whistles? Is the concept of its use in "dogfights"? Not at all. It must fly in unnoticed, strike and fly away unnoticed. And for this it does not need any "agility". Why does it need all these "cobras", "bells" and the like? Aren't these capabilities excessive for a stealth aircraft, only increasing its cost and complicating production? The Su-35 is enough for "dogfights". That's exactly what it needs, the VTOL and super maneuverability, to evade, turn, fight, if necessary, in close combat. Isn't the SU-57 about something else? I repeat - isn't it for sneaking up unnoticed, firing and also unnoticed disappearing? Apparently, it is for this very reason that the F-35 does not have either high speed or super maneuverability. It doesn't need them. The concept of application is not the same. We make an airplane "for everything". It is more expensive, more complicated, and takes longer. Is it necessary?

[Doccor18]

Quote: Traveler_2

We are making a plane "for everything"

So it is one, multi-purpose, therefore "for everything"...

Quote: Traveler_2

It is more expensive, more complicated, and takes longer.

But it won't be cheap, simple and fast anymore. By the way, no one can do it...

Quote: Traveler_2

Whether it is necessary?

Does the country need aviation? Does the country need it? If the country needs it, then it needs modern combat aviation...

[Atlas]

And if two such super-duper invisible planes are flying towards each other, but in fact they are visible, just from a shorter distance.
And suddenly at this small distance they SAW each other and switched to the "who will beat whom" mode, will the engines with UVT be useful in this case or not??? Who has a better chance of winning??

[Doccor18]

Quote: Atlas

distance.
And suddenly, at this small distance, they SAW each other and switched to the “who’s going to beat the other one” mode.

The one who sees and launches the missiles first will get the beating.
But "suddenly" will not work, because there are no identical radars, as well as identical characteristics of the fuselage "invisibility". Someone will still be a favorite in terms of performance characteristics, he will be the winner in 99% of cases.

[ASSAD1]

We should not forget about the AWACS, which will help us see the enemy earlier. Unfortunately, we are not very good at this.

[not main]

At least to perform an anti-missile maneuver! Or do you think that the pilot's life is cheaper than engines with variable thrust vector?

[FIR FIR]

Quote: non-primary

to carry out an anti-missile maneuver

The maneuvering capabilities of modern SAMs are 3-4 times greater than those of the most agile fighter.

[not main]

An anti-missile maneuver is quite possible. Simply put: the aircraft makes a forced turn with a speed reduction with an overload of 8-9, the missile CANNOT reduce the speed and for pursuit it needs an overload several times greater. Everything depends on the range, speed and detection. That's it briefly. If you have any questions, please contact us. And your opinion is not always correct.

[APASUS]

China is developing its aviation industry and it doesn’t matter how many prototypes they have, especially at their own expense.

[SkepticOptimist]

Quote: Traveler_2

"cobras", "bells", etc.

"cobras", "bells" etc. There is no certainty that all this is permitted to ordinary rank-and-file pilots. But is it necessary? In general, it is advisable to ask the relevant pilots.

[foxes]

There is a big question about the quality of Chinese aircraft, and their real combat capabilities have not yet been tested. But the Chinese are making great strides in all areas and now have the second most powerful Air Force in the world, and most importantly, they are able to build aircraft in large quantities, which is a big concern for the US.

[Pioneer1984]

Power is an ephemeral concept. In terms of quantity, yes.

[mad-max78]

There are masters of sports in all kinds of sports, and Skoromohov is a master of speedy writing of gigantic articles on any topic.
He immediately and categorically wrote off the F-22 as a useless aircraft, without any arguments, well that's how the writer sees it)
As always in Roman's articles about everything without any argumentation or specifics, the main thing is to print more letters, there is no connection between the letters and words in the article as always, Roman does not learn anything.

[Quzmi4]

categorically wrote off the F-22 as useless aircraft, no arguments for that

First time on the site, right?
Although Skomorokhov is really a good writer( ...

[mad-max78]

Quote: Quzmi4

categorically wrote off the F-22 as useless aircraft, no arguments for that

First time on the site, right?
Although Skomorokhov is really a good writer( ...

No, I have already spoken out on this topic many times, I just can’t understand why everyone sees the quality of Skoromohov’s articles, which have neither meaning nor essence, and they continue to be published regularly?
No writer can produce such productivity, but this one writes and writes.

[Arisaka]

Neuronka can and does write. The pseudonym "Skomorokhov" was chosen just to suit.

[solovjoff]

A few words about the appearance. How many loud and bombastic phrases were said about how Chinese hackers broke everything that could be broken, and spies stole everything that could be stolen, and that is why the J-35 is so similar to the F-35. It was funny. But seriously - the physics of processes forces many modern fighters to have similar geometry. Try to visually compare the F-35 with the South Korean KF-21 and the Turkish "Kaan jet". Did they also hack and steal?

Of course they stole it None of the above have their own school yet. But the Su-57 is completely ours and is not similar to anyone else, even though as you say - "the physics of processes"

[nordscout]

And wasn't the Chinese military-industrial complex hasty in calling the J-35A a "headache" or a "challenge" for America???? I think that it makes sense for the Chinese to behave more modestly for now... Or are there already statistics on real air battles between the J-35A and the F-35, or at least with the F-22????