Talk:Shenyang J-35

Pakistan buys the J-31?

According to a bunch bunch of news sites and tweets Pakistans Air Chief marshal said “The groundwork has already been laid for the acquisition of the J-31 Stealth Fighter aircraft, which is all set to become part of the PAF fleet shortly.” Should we add that? https://bulgarianmilitary.com/2024/01/03/chinas-j-31-stealth-fighter-may-fly-in-pakistan-replacing-the-f-16/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.176.85.223 (talk) 19:27, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Official name of the aircraft -> Shenyang J-35

As it is stated in the page cited here, China officially revealed the name of the aircraft as Shenyang J-35. J-35A for the Air Force variant specifically. It would be better to rename the page so that it informs better. Slh7477 (talk) 07:29, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Given Shenyang J-35 page is directing to Shenyang FC-31, it's complicated to redirect the other way. Changing this could involve an adminisrator decision. If there's enough new sources to cover the J-35, which is largely different from the FC-31 prototype, I would make J-35 a completely new article. -Loned (talk) 00:02, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

The title of this article seemed to be changed to Shenyang J-35.--Rotoryu (talk) 14:37, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Not sure I agree with this move and the subsequent changes to the title. I prefer split. But I would not argue against it either. Instead, I will improve the page. If anyone wants to discuss the page split we can do it later if there are enough content separating FC-31 and J-35. -Loned (talk) 15:50, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Additive manufacturing

"Officials from AVIC claimed that additive manufacturing was extensively used on the aircraft, resulting in 50% reduction in components compared to similar aircraft. However, the resulting airframe cannot be disassembled, and the static test frame had to be transported in whole as a consequence."

Saying that they used a lot of a additive manufacturing in the aircraft doesn't mean that they actually physically 3D printed the entire airframe as one single component. It would just mean they used that technique to create many of the smaller components that were later assembled into an airframe, instead of more typical milling and forging operations. If they did use a giant 3D printer to print out that entire plane, that would be a pretty revolutionary and important advance in technology. The method of manufacturing parts shouldn't have any relationship to whether the aircraft can be taken apart easily, that depends on how it was assembled, is it was welded or bonded with advanced adhesives instead of using bolts. And it is relatively unusual to disassemble aircraft of this size to transport them. You have to remove the wings of a large jet to transport it, so they are usually assembled in a way that allows the wings to be removed, with difficulty. Jet fighters are usually transported intact, because it's difficult to take them apart again and they aren't so big that it's necessary. Although they are usually produced in smaller complete units which are later assembled into an aircraft, which in theory can be taken apart again. I see no obvious reason to think that same isn't true of this aircraft.

If they did assemble the airframe as a monolith, I don't think that has anything to do with additive manufacturing. It's just the way they designed the airframe, which would probably result in lighter weight, more strength and better stealth. Idumea47b (talk) 06:57, 11 November 2024 (UTC)