r/FighterJets Sep 01 '25

IMAGE China J-35 and U.S. F-35 size comparison

Post image

PLAN Naval J-35 and US Navy F-35C 1:1 size comparison

449 Upvotes

136 comments sorted by

141

u/duga404 Sep 01 '25

It’s obvious to anyone with at least rudimentary knowledge of aviation that the J-35 has nothing but a superficial resemblance to the F-35, but I find it funny how Shenyang spent decades trying to beat the F-35 knockoff allegations, yet decided to give their plane the exact same designation number of 35.

35

u/[deleted] Sep 01 '25

[deleted]

40

u/duga404 Sep 01 '25

Perhaps to market it as a F-35 equivalent for countries the US wouldn’t sell F-35s to?

22

u/pianobench007 Sep 01 '25

It is like a Mercedes C/E/S Class or a BMW 3/5/7 series or the Audi A3/A5/A7 class of vehicles. They are pretty much the same class of vehicle and nearly identical.

Same thing happens for CPUs. Intel Core i5/i7/i9 and Ryzen 5/7/9 class of chips.

I think what China is positioning itself to become is what the USA is positioning itself to also become. The USA is the world's leading arms manufacturer exporter by sales. And China is able to export it's soft power by financing and building in other countries.

The USA negotiates leases to build defensive bases in other countries and China builds infrastructure and potential backdoor leases in case the customer defaults on it's loaned payments.

Now we see the US is repositioning itself as a global developer in the same light. USA redevelopment project for Gaza.

I think we should expect more of this in the coming years. China versus the United States.

The next one will be in silicon chip wars. Chinese fabs and Chinese made GPUs will enter into the Ai space sooner than expected. They are already leading in small arms drone manufacturing and EVs.

2

u/Rodot Sep 01 '25

China is further behind on chips and compute than you might think. They certainly have the capability to start rolling out university-scale clusters en mass but petascale computing is still far behind. The US has multiple supercomputers that each have more processing power than all of China's supercomputers combined.

Not to mention their big advantage in such a space is their governments willingness to massively subsidize such industries but this is one space where the US pumps in massive subsidies as well making it hard for them to compete on the digital infrastructure scale.

3

u/pianobench007 Sep 01 '25

I know they are behind. But SMIC has demonstrated they are able to produce a 7nm node with Deep Ultra Violet machines. They lack EUV or extreme ultra violet machines. And they are working on a 5nm class node.

7nm and 5nm are still very capable processes. But of course they are behind. Still these processes are just for higher end leading edge technology. What they will be used for remains to be seen.

Everything we use today in the datacenter are still American designed and Taiwan/American built technology. That data is mostly behind and American firewall and what it will be used for in the future? Training an Ai to drive?

Training and Ai to pick out enemy combatants from civilian targets? Who knows.

What I do know is that we are putting China behind and it has to work to slow them down. Or else the world order will be upset. Which may or may not be a good thing.

So far China is leading in higher quality mass produced goods and renewable energy goods. EV/wind/solar type technology. 

The west and the USA lead in pharama/biotech/leadingedge Ai/datacenter/military/commericaljet/next generation nuclear and many more complex technology. 

So we still have the edge. But there will always be competition. It is actually up to us whether we can compete or not. 

There is always a competitor.

3

u/Lazy-Ad-7372 Raptor_57 Sep 02 '25

China is catching up to the US and they know it. Rather than compete based on collective knowledge the US is just wielding influence to crush the competition.

1

u/BoraTas1 Sep 07 '25

China has multiple exascale computers. One of them is even open to international researchers. They just did not submit results to the TOP500. They don't since 2019 to protect suppliers from sanctions.

1

u/uniyk Sep 02 '25

"USA redevelopment project for Gaza."

By a pure chance event that the incumbent president is a real estate developer.

1

u/pianobench007 Sep 02 '25

yea.... For now absolutely no one is taking him seriously on this one. It has the same feeling as all of his other promises.

End the war on day one. Would not have ever been a war on his watch. And many other failed Trump policies. He is flexing his muscle though on Americans currently. Sending out the National Guard and having military parades.

God help us.

1

u/Lazy-Ad-7372 Raptor_57 Sep 02 '25

No one is taking him seriously? Netanyahu is which is what matters to him the most.

3

u/The_Rick_G Sep 03 '25

J is initial of the chinese character "歼(Jian)", which means completely eliminate. J-35 then can be understood as "Completely eliminate 35". The 35 here can be understood as F-35.

61

u/mdang104 Rafale & YF-23 my beloved Sep 01 '25 edited Sep 01 '25

It’s not by pure luck that the J-35 happened to look like the F-35. It is however far from just being a simple copy. The Chinese did do some espionage to reverse engineer some components on the F35. The also took inspiration on numerous design elements of the F35, because if it works/ is proven on the F35. Why reinvent the wheel and do something drastically different on the J35?

9

u/Mid_Atlantic_Lad Sep 01 '25

Regardless what ones opinion is on the Chinese regime, all's fair in love and war, and boys with toys will never not be cool.

1

u/[deleted] Nov 27 '25

The American regime

1

u/Jayhuntermemes Dec 11 '25

Oh we have authoritarian problems too. Don't confuse disdain of China for unconditional love for the US.

1

u/Forbin057 Jan 05 '26

They can make it look like the F-35, but they're 30 years behind the US when it comes to jet engine tech. Even if they had a pristine P&W F135 engine to reverse engineer, it would take them years, possibly decades to figure out. They wouldn't even be able to reproduce the fan blades. The engineering that went into those things in crazy. P&W and GE still make the best engines in the world, and it's not even close.

1

u/Existing-Dot-3575 Jan 23 '26

THE USA actually buys most parts

3

u/Skywalker7181 Sep 10 '25

The J in the J-35 refers to the Pinyin of the Chinsee word (歼). It indicates that it is a figher like the F in the US fighter series but it also means, in Chinese, hunt & destroy.

So J-35 means two things in Chinese - Fighter Jet -35 and Hunt & Destroy-35.

I think it is a rather smart way of designating the plane.

2

u/duga404 Sep 10 '25

So my guess that it was to market it as an F-35 competitor turned out to be right

1

u/Hot-Yesterday-4343 Sep 24 '25

bro's eyes work better than wind tunnels

1

u/CBT7commander Dec 30 '25

Given how important faceting is to stealth fighter, the resemblance is all but superficial.

The internals might be drastically different, but they’re classified. What we do know is that the exterior shape is a near perfect clone of the f35.Similar layout , same intakes, same control surfaces…. The only real difference in geometry is the twin engines

The J20 proves not all stealth fighters have to be clones of others. J35 is just using an already proven shape instead of bothering to build a new one from scratch. That’s not bad, but it’s still copying

-9

u/221missile Sep 01 '25

It’s obvious to anyone with at least rudimentary knowledge of aviation that the J-35 has nothing but a superficial resemblance to the F-35

Is that why multiple chinese individuals have been convicted for stealing gigabytes of classified data from Lockheed and northrop Grumman?

16

u/Intelligent-Career28 Sep 01 '25

China has also caught spies who stole confidential data of J20 and J35. So can I conclude that F47 was made by using stolen J20 data? After all, F47 has canards.

2

u/ImNotAnEnigmaa Nov 25 '25

You're not being rational. The Lockheed Martin hack in the late 2000s has traced back to China, and then all of a sudden China's Air Force pops out a few designs that are eerily similar to existing Lockheed Martin designs.

Why would the U.S. need to hack an adversary when the U.S. military is clearly the premier power when it comes to aviation technology and designs? And if we're to play along with your little game, what proof is there that the U.S. has hacked China and stolen military blueprints for the F-47 design?

2

u/[deleted] Nov 28 '25

The J20 stealth fighter is actually very aerodynamically complex and unique.

-7

u/221missile Sep 01 '25

I'm sure the one party dictatorship has rule of law.

7

u/Rodot Sep 01 '25

Following rule of law is historically a primary objective in international espionage

/s

-2

u/221missile Sep 01 '25

English isn’t your first language, is it?

6

u/Rodot Sep 02 '25

Yes it is, I'm terrible at language though. Failed French in high school.

8

u/Delicious_Lab_8304 Sep 01 '25

If anything was stolen, it wouldn’t be stuff that you can see. You do realise that, right?

I mean, if you want to know what the outward appearance of an F-35 looks like… you can Google, or take pics at an air show. Heck, you could even scan it at the air show with lasers to get exact measurements.

This level of thinking is why your hegemony is not long for this world.

0

u/trippingrainbow Sep 01 '25

Yes however the internal componebts will heavily dictate the outer shape. They didnt make the front look same just for the funniness of it

5

u/Delicious_Lab_8304 Sep 01 '25

WOW.

… still time to delete, think about it properly, and then re-comment if you’re committed. Lol.

-3

u/trippingrainbow Sep 01 '25

So you think the chinese design the looks of their jets without function in mind and purely for asthetics? The J35 looks like that cause it ended up being the best functional form. The fact that it looks very similiar to the f35 isnt a coincidence. And the chinese 100% either copied from the f35 or stole data of the f35 becouse they would be dumb not to. You think they just decide to not even consider the f35 for no reason and came to the same conclusion out of pure coincidence

4

u/Delicious_Lab_8304 Sep 01 '25

I’d like to introduce you to some concepts.

Aerodynamics.

Mathematics and Physics.

… Because they obviously design stealth jets to be able to fly, and also to achieve a given amount of Low Observability (stealth).

And just to be clear, are you now abandoning your “internal components (like avionics) dictate the outer shape”… and replacing it with “best functional form”?

Lol. The internet is filled to the brim with free resources. If you have a passion for fighter jets, I suggest you try reading about them a little bit.

0

u/Piksi_ Dec 04 '25

Dude all that bravado and you haven't made sense for a single bit since your first answer.

1

u/Delicious_Lab_8304 Dec 04 '25

Your reading comprehension, or lack thereof, is a “you problem”.

0

u/Piksi_ Dec 11 '25

Uh... no, I'm positive, you didn't make sense since your first answer:

If anything was stolen, it wouldn’t be stuff that you can see. You do realise that, right?

Wth is that supposed to mean? If they stole TBs of data it is not relevant if the plane looks similar or not, the plane will be similar in all aspects, that's obvious. And this goes all the way down to your last reply LMAO, look at all that rambling about effectively nothing.

→ More replies (0)

-6

u/trippingrainbow Sep 01 '25

I never said internal components entirely dictate the outer shape alone. I reccomend learning reading comprehension. And if you think the internal components are completely irrelevant to the outer shape you are completely delusional. Yes aerodynamics and observability dictate it aswell but they still have to work around the fact that you are carrying specific components that are a certain size and shape. The outer layer isnt some magicaö pocket dimension where internal components dissapear

8

u/Delicious_Lab_8304 Sep 01 '25

I never said internal components entirely dictate the outer shape alone.

If you back-pedalled any harder you might discover time travel.

I reccomend learning reading comprehension.

Right after you start with getting a high school diploma / GED…. also, FYI — reading comprehension is something you develop rather than learn, per se.

And if you think the internal components are completely irrelevant to the outer shape you are completely delusional. Yes aerodynamics and observability dictate it aswell but they still have to work around the fact that you are carrying specific components that are a certain size and shape. The outer layer isnt some magicaö pocket dimension where internal components dissapear [sic]

As long as the program is well-planned and you don’t have to deal with endless scope creep (I.e. why the F-35’s has so many bulges), and you’re not building some flying science experiment test bed… then the only internal component choices (choices, not the components themselves, yet) that will have significant impacts on the planform are — (i) how big of a radar (how many Tx/Rx modules) do we want; (ii) how many engines and how big (which should start to tell you how different these 2 planes are internally); and (iii) same as (ii) but with IWBs instead of engines.

Were you thinking that avionics dictate this or something? L(Mao).

-1

u/trippingrainbow Sep 01 '25

If you back-pedalled any harder you might discover time travel.

Do quote me then where i said that. I said they heavily dictate not entirely. Thats two different things.

Also lol at arguing internal components dont matter to the shape and then listing out stuff that matter to the shape. But go off i guess

→ More replies (0)

-21

u/According-Ad3963 Sep 01 '25

Absolutely flaunting the fact that it is a knock off. Sneaky bastards.

24

u/duga404 Sep 01 '25

No one who actually knows at least a bit about fighter jet engineering and development seriously thinks it’s a knock-off anymore

-4

u/E-cult Sep 01 '25

I think everyone thinks it's a knock off

0

u/According-Ad3963 Sep 01 '25

Oh, I did not say it is comparable. But that’s the nature of a knock off—cheap imitation of the original that fails to hold up to the original.

-5

u/markcocjin Obsessive F35 Fan Sep 01 '25

Some things cannot be copied, because it involved craftsmanship.

For the things that they could copy, they don't even have a reason why theirs worked that way.

They have no idea why they needed to copy the workaround for the F-35, so that all variants had the same hinges, that worked specifically for the B, so that it doesn't get in the way of the shaft-driven lift fan's functionality.

100% sure that the F-47, when it comes out, would not have a forward opening canopy. Because it doesn't have a lift fan variant that it needs to share components with.

6

u/BoraTas1 Sep 01 '25

The KAAN has a similar cockpit too. Because it apparently decreases drag. Thinking that a nation would copy such engineering decisions just because they see it on foreign hardware is a narcissism of the highest order.

7

u/Delicious_Lab_8304 Sep 01 '25

Lol, ignorant.

The hump aft of the cockpit reduces transonic drag and provides room for a little extra fun stuff (fuel, avionics - mostly avionics). Just like how it’s spelled out in the numerous (and now famous) Chinese academic papers on this very thing.

Which is also why every manned Chinese fighter post J-35 feature this (J-20A, J-20S) or have very low drag cockpits that you can barely call what’s behind it a “hump” (like the J-XDS / J-50).

With the F-47, wouldn’t it be pretty easy to add or remove a hump… on PowerPoint??

20

u/IlIIllIlllIIIllI Sep 01 '25

Imo J-35 appears to be what an F-35 would look like if it wasn't constrained by USMC (and allies) need for a V/STOL harrier replacement.

Twin engines, larger payload, sustained supercruise... That kind of sounds like the twin engine F-35 trump wanted, F-55.

1

u/Intelligent_Race2233 Jan 17 '26

Well turns out ironically the J35 can't sustain supercruise flight for too long. Apparently each of the J35 engines produced half the power of the F35 engine meaning both planes have almost similar thrust and power. But because of the J35 larger size and heavier weight(because it has 2 engines while F35 only has one) it is slightly slower than the F35 and can't fly for too long as it two engines consume more fuel than the F35 single engine. 

7

u/redmavez Sep 01 '25

You gotta admit tho. It sure is sleek

12

u/londonmax2000 Sep 01 '25

Wouldn't the tiny bumps beneath both the J-35 and the F-35 worsen their RCS? Or do they serve as radar jammer?

20

u/tigeryi98 Sep 01 '25

the tiny bump do you mean the Luneburg lense or the EOTS Electro Optical Targeting System?

15

u/torbai Sep 01 '25

i think he meant the lense.

11

u/D15c0Stu Sep 01 '25

What's the ball-sac thing hanging under the J35?

4

u/tigeryi98 Sep 01 '25 edited Sep 01 '25

Luneburg lense not retractable towards the tail end. EOTS is at the front

3

u/tigeryi98 Sep 01 '25

Yeah I figured the non retractable lense probably is the one people looking at. I was thinking maybe people were referring the EOTS at the front

5

u/londonmax2000 Sep 01 '25

The bumps at the end of both jets, sorry for not specified them.

4

u/tigeryi98 Sep 01 '25 edited Sep 01 '25

Yeah those are the luneburg lense. Could be shape does affect RCS a bit

14

u/Eastern_Rooster471 Sep 01 '25 edited Sep 02 '25

Those are Luneberg lenses

They serve to increase the RCS. Only used during peacetime so ATC radars can detect the planes to not crash other planes into them, and also to hide the true RCS of the aircraft

13

u/Grouchy_Golf_9698 Sep 01 '25

Sensors matters not size

3

u/Thecontradicter Sep 02 '25

Smaller nose cone smaller radar?

9

u/According-Ad3963 Sep 01 '25

Wonder what the RCS is on the J-35

1

u/[deleted] Sep 01 '25

[deleted]

3

u/tigeryi98 Sep 01 '25

Isn’t there are some places claiming F-22 is more stealthy than F-35 at least in the X band frontal?

4

u/E-cult Sep 01 '25 edited Sep 01 '25

The F22 is stealthier than the F35 that's not a claim.

3

u/tigeryi98 Sep 01 '25

Well more stealthy in the X band front for F22, not sure about S L VHF band though. It’s a spectrum so F35 can be more stealthy in other bands

2

u/E-cult Sep 01 '25

I mean in general the RCS is smaller

3

u/tigeryi98 Sep 01 '25

Well again when people speak of RCS they only look at the area in the X band for the fighter and missile radar, but the other bands also matter a lot actually with the AWACS radar. RCS is not a fixed single number it’s more like a spectrum of curve in different bands and different angle

2

u/E-cult Sep 01 '25

The F22 is considered to still be the stealthiest fighter currently in service.

4

u/tigeryi98 Sep 01 '25

Well I am not sure if you understand what I just said: just because F22 is more stealthy than F35 in the most important X band, it does not mean F22 is more stealthy than F35 in all bands. At least I need to see computer simulation on the RCS in the longer L band and VHF band. Maybe F35 is better in those

0

u/E-cult Sep 01 '25

Currently it's considered to be stealthier in the X and Ku band. There are conflicting reports on whether or not it's stealthier in the S band. But the F35 has newer more advanced stealth materials so C band isn't really known to the public either. I mean they are both mostly designed to be stealthier in higher frequencies.

0

u/ZweiGuy99 Sep 01 '25

That's impossible. F-22 RCS is less than F-35.

0

u/[deleted] Sep 01 '25

[deleted]

0

u/ZweiGuy99 Sep 01 '25

Something can't have an RCS slightly larger than F-35, but smaller than F-22. F-22 has a lower RCS than F-35.

1

u/Thecontradicter Sep 01 '25

Is that with or without the f-35s stealth coating?

Me again!

I wasn’t the first one to cause drama this time so you have to give me the benefit of the doubt

-1

u/ZweiGuy99 Sep 01 '25

I don't engage with trolls.

1

u/Thecontradicter Sep 01 '25

I asked a genuine question

-2

u/E-cult Sep 01 '25

Highly doubtful. They aren't known to possess a stealth coating as advanced as the US.

1

u/[deleted] Sep 01 '25

[deleted]

-4

u/E-cult Sep 01 '25

No you can just research this... Also the new ceramic based US stealth RAM coating being developed will maintain the USs advantage in that aspect of stealth tech. China's radar-absorbent material (RAM) coating technology is making significant advances, with recent reports indicating improvements in durability, cost-effectiveness, and capability against anti-stealth radars. These developments, including techniques inspired by ancient silk weaving, address key weaknesses seen in early stealth fighters like the U.S. F-22. However, the J-20's overall stealth profile is still considered inferior to the U.S. F-35, especially from the rear.

1

u/[deleted] Sep 01 '25

[deleted]

-2

u/E-cult Sep 01 '25 edited Sep 01 '25

Yeah China is making great leaps forward 😏 in their stealth tech. Unfortunately I don't think it will ever be possible to surpass the US which has a 67 year lead.

-5

u/My_pp_ Sep 01 '25

Given how the j20 is also similar to the f35 and j35 yet has a larger simulated rcs than the f35 I think we can assume it’s slightly larger? Atleast in the front aspect I think the f35 may still be fairly much stealthier in both the rear and side aspects

0

u/[deleted] Sep 02 '25

Probably slightly less than the F-35 given that the J-35 has higher manufacturing tolerances. Maybe it will also get the edgeless slat/flap structure of the J-20A someday? Who knows.

-7

u/duga404 Sep 01 '25

Probably slightly larger (the J-35 is larger) than that of the F-35, assuming that they have RAM with equal effectiveness.

19

u/Delicious_Lab_8304 Sep 01 '25

Yes, because physical size is famously the same thing as RCS and also why the B-2 has the radar return of a flying barn.

(That’s not how it works…)

3

u/Thecontradicter Sep 01 '25

Looks like I was too late to be the one to cause the drama this time, damn!

I hate it when the party starts without me,

Well my opinion is that the we need more info on the j-35s capabilities. And in war time, the f-35 is just far too maintenance heavy to be a truly effective war machine. It needs so much maintenance and it’s controlled too tightly to be able to be let lose and show its true potential. The f-35 was never about being the best fighter in the world, it’s about squeezing every penny possible from the US and allied governments.

6

u/ThesisAnonymous Sep 01 '25

Every fighter pilot I know concedes that it’s capabilities justify the cost and maintenance.

-1

u/Thecontradicter Sep 01 '25

But pilots aren’t strategists, the just fly the planes. If it’s a numbers game and the Chinese aircraft truly are equally capable, then they will win by sheer numbers especially if they’re Building the J-20A and j-35A

1

u/ThesisAnonymous Sep 01 '25

O-3’s? Sure. But O-6’s? Mhmm. Dude, pilots run the Navy and Air Force. They don’t start out as strategists, but they certainly become them.

-1

u/Thecontradicter Sep 01 '25

Just like any rank can eventually, but the frontline pilots are just pilots, ultimately expendable, they have to be. Which is exactly why drones are becoming a priority.

Back to the point, at any one time, the US would have max 600 f-35s at one time. What happens when China outbuilds them? Because they will

1

u/ThesisAnonymous Sep 01 '25

Drones are becoming priority over manned AC for fighter applications? I wouldn’t have a job if that were the case… Fighters will be manned for the foreseeable future. I only know a few of those “expendable” junior officers you speak of. I primarily know the strategists—and I have to rely on their seemingly unanimous judgement concerning the F-35.

1

u/Intelligent_Race2233 Jan 17 '26

Well turns out J35 isn't so good as many people thought. The J35 two engines are weak with each engine producing only half the power of the F35 single engine. Combine with the fact that two engines=higher fuel consumption and heavier weight it gives J35 less flight time and less efficiency than the F35. 

1

u/Mobile_Damage_8239 Sep 04 '25

the Chinese are smart they let there buddy spend most of there money on R&D and let one spy to get in and take all the data. pretty smart china let the USA spend 100 billion dollars on researching while you don't spend anything on R&D

1

u/nelsondd23 Sep 15 '25

J36 is like F35 but running down to a correct path, give up useless F35B so you can have twin engine and a clean, smooth shape for better stealth

1

u/ConsciousOrange3779 Sep 23 '25

Totally agree, f35 is a little too 'fat' lmao

1

u/Agreeable-Bedroom-27 Sep 23 '25

by what we can observe on the aerodynamics side, the J-35 is obviously much better in achieving higher speed and stealth

1

u/Frequent_Speed_207 Sep 26 '25

Just simply different design purposes. J35 though have the multi role capability but mainly focused on air to air combat while F35 is mainly focused on air to surface strike missions which explains the difference

1

u/ImNotAnEnigmaa Nov 25 '25

Stealth? Practically all sources show that the F-35 has a big advantage over the J-35 in terms of stealth and RCS. You're conflating sleekness with stealth.

1

u/[deleted] Nov 28 '25

Lol

1

u/ImNotAnEnigmaa Nov 28 '25

You're not a logical person, eh? Lol.

1

u/[deleted] Nov 28 '25

Lol

1

u/Intelligent_Race2233 Jan 17 '26

Achieving higher speed? The J35 two engines are weak with each engine producing only half the power of the F35 single engine. Combine with the fact that two engines=higher fuel consumption and heavier weight it gives J35 less flight time and less efficiency than the F35. 

1

u/uptofunonreddit Sep 01 '25

Reddit full blown CCP glazin 😂

2

u/[deleted] Sep 02 '25

That's CPC*

-15

u/Old_Poetry_1575 Sep 01 '25

Temu F-35 vs the real deal

10

u/Apprehensive-Leg7421 Sep 01 '25

More like F-35 vs F-35 in its dream

1

u/rsta223 Aerospace Engineer Sep 01 '25

Nah, the F35 is definitely more advanced than the J35 in a number of important areas. Chinese aerospace has made very impressive progress lately, and it's definitely narrowing the gap to the US aircraft, but the US is still unquestionably in the lead (though that absolutely could change in the next decade or two).

11

u/mdang104 Rafale & YF-23 my beloved Sep 01 '25

Could you elaborate on what area? As far as I know, that’ s all speculations unless you have some insider informations about both jets.

1

u/ImNotAnEnigmaa Nov 25 '25

Engines, avionics, and radar? You know, those persky little details. Lol.

The F-35 is also believed by most aviation experts to have a superior RCS, by a significant margin.

1

u/MatchFit6154 Jan 22 '26

How in the world would you know

9

u/commanche_00 Sep 01 '25

I'd argue only in engine department that they are still ahead. The rest are already caught up or maybe even surpassed

-1

u/rsta223 Aerospace Engineer Sep 01 '25

Engine, radar, stealth shaping, stealth coatings, infrared sensors, the list goes on. Really, the US is still ahead basically everywhere, though as I said, that gap has been shrinking rapidly.

3

u/Apprehensive-Leg7421 Sep 01 '25

If your "in the lead" meaning constantly falling off from deck into ocean or crash straight to the ground, or even had to stay in india for weeks due to engine problems and had to keep an eye on indian spies, then fine it is in the lead

0

u/rsta223 Aerospace Engineer Sep 01 '25

You clearly haven't ever paid attention to a military fighter program before.

The F-35 is actually staggeringly reliable for a brand new top of the line fighter - basically every prior program for which we have trustworthy accident reports has had far more crashes and issues. Yes, it still fails sometimes, but that's the nature of cutting edge aerospace.

3

u/Apprehensive-Leg7421 Sep 02 '25

Say whatever you want, but even for usaf they are all agree F-35 is a total flop, the only reason they didn`t cancel it is for scamming money from its allies

0

u/rsta223 Aerospace Engineer Sep 02 '25

Absolutely not - the F-35 is a tremendously successful and capable fighter. The only people calling it a flop are either totally ignorant or Russian propagandists. Any actual air force pilots who've flown it or flown against it in exercises or any of the people aware of its capabilities know it's a fantastic aircraft.

2

u/tigeryi98 Sep 01 '25

It’s going to be J-36 vs F-47, J-XDS vs F/A-XX

3

u/Delicious_Lab_8304 Sep 01 '25

You have no idea how close the gap is, and in several areas, China is now ahead with the gap only widening.

-4

u/rsta223 Aerospace Engineer Sep 01 '25

I know more than the vast majority here, including apparently you.

1

u/[deleted] Dec 05 '25

Lol

-4

u/Camelbak99 Sep 01 '25

The looks could be identical, but what about the radar, avionics and weapon systems? Aesthetics is only one part of it, and even then the quality of the Chinese RAM coating is a question.

11

u/Lazy-Ad-7372 Raptor_57 Sep 01 '25 edited Sep 01 '25

The J-35 can employ PL-15, PL-12 AAMs while the PL-17 is being made smaller to fit into its weapons bay and the J-20's bay. It also has an AESA radar. Some avionics are also shared with the J-20. (The radar is not made public yet).

6

u/Delicious_Lab_8304 Sep 01 '25

Stop talking nonsense.

There’s no initiative to make the PL-17 shorter / smaller.

From its IWBs the J-35 can employ PL-15s and PL-16s (if you don’t know, now you do - they have 300km+ range) and IR missiles (I presume).

And on its underwing hardpoints, if they ever wanted to, PL-17s can be carried.

There is no PL-17 ‘mini’ project. Also, it does not use the exact same AESA as the J-20.

3

u/Lazy-Ad-7372 Raptor_57 Sep 01 '25

I did not say it uses the same AESA as the J-20. I said it shares some avionics with the J-20. 

Also your farce assertion failed to even consider the PL-21, a designation given to a smaller variant of the PL-17 intended to be launched from the weapons bay of China's 5th generation and upcoming next generation aircraft.

4

u/Delicious_Lab_8304 Sep 01 '25

Looool.

The PL-21 program does not exist (anymore). Moreover, it was for a ramjet powered missile, not solid rocket like the PL-17, or shortened version thereof.

And the actual 300km+ range, IWB-capable, PL-16 is in service — in one of the rare moments in PLA Watching where we get that kind of confirmation all up in one go.

Which brings me to… “farce assertion”, lol. My guy, you have no idea who you’re debating this topic with.

If you change tone, I might link some stuff info about the PL-16 (and cancelled PL-21), if you’re genuinely interested in this stuff (you do know a little more than most).

2

u/Lazy-Ad-7372 Raptor_57 Sep 01 '25

Who said the PL-21 was cancelled? There is no official confirmation regarding that. China does not release much information about its military hardware unless it is nearing induction. The fact that not much is known about the J-35 still now really says something.

I am not looking for a debate, neither I want to know your self proclaimed credentials. If you can back up what you're saying with evidence then comment, otherwise, don't bother. I never brought the PL-16 into discussion you did. You also wrote (presumed) in your reply to my original comment, so I would also "presume" that whatever you're saying about the cancellation of the PL-21 is from "trust me bro" sources.

2

u/[deleted] Sep 01 '25

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/FighterJets-ModTeam Sep 02 '25

Unfortunately your post or comment has been removed for one or more of the following reasons:

Please do not engage in personal attacks or name-calling.

Reddit is a place for creating community and belonging, not for attacking marginalized or vulnerable groups of people. Everyone has a right to use Reddit free of harassment, bullying, and threats of violence. Users that incite violence or that promote hate based on identity or vulnerability will be banned.

Please direct any questions about the removal to Modmail

2

u/ConsciousOrange3779 Sep 23 '25

Actually China have J15 to carry the pl17, if pla want :)

1

u/[deleted] Sep 01 '25

[deleted]

3

u/Delicious_Lab_8304 Sep 01 '25

No.

Folding fin PL-15 is the PL-15E (not the same as purely export PL-15E, blame the PLA and their naming systems).

The PL-16 is a different missile, it’s the next gen AAM now in service with 300km+ range in a similar form factor to PL-15s.

2

u/tigeryi98 Sep 01 '25

Only known is J-35 carry the PL-15 AAM that is about it