Talk:Shenyang J-35#J-31B

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)

:Yes, It is called J-35A now.Nafis Fuad Ayon (talk) 22:30, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

As it is stated in the page cited here{{Cite web |date=5 November 2024 |title=PLA stealth fighter jet J-35A to debut at 15th Airshow China in Zhuhai |url=http://eng.chinamil.com.cn/CHINA_209163/TopStories_209189/16349630.html}}, 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)

"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)

:The article is being reworked right now. If I cannot verify the detail in the article in that corresponding video, I will delete that sentence. -Loned (talk) 00:41, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

{{DRN

| thread=Shenyang J-35}}

Several editors have tried to remove the J-31B from the variants section despite it being promoted by the Chinese media and analyzed by numerous western media ([https://www.scmp.com/news/china/military/article/3269372/chinas-latest-stealth-fighter-jet-j-31b-ready-military-service-cctv-video-post-suggests], [https://asiatimes.com/2024/07/china-redefining-air-power-with-huge-stealth-fighter-rollout/], [https://bulgarianmilitary.com/2024/07/06/chinas-j-31b-gyrfalcon-stealth-aircraft-debuts-with-advanced-tech/], [https://interestingengineering.com/military/china-j31b-jet-rivals-f35]). Claims thrown around justifying the removal without sources include:

• That the announcement of the J-35 and J-35A means that the J-31B cannot exist. This one is fallacious as it is affirming a disjunct.
• That the J-31B in the Shenyang Aircraft Corporation video is the same aircraft that was later revealed as the J-35. I have yet to see any sources make this claim, and given the vast difference in size and advertised capabilities between the J-31B and J-35, it cannot be reasonably assumed.
• That the video is obviously erroneous, propaganda, or false advertising. So far, no sources have been provided indicating that experts have drawn such conclusions about the video.

Anyone who wants to challenge the inclusion of the J-31B in the article should be able to demonstrate any of the above to be true, with sources that explicitly support their arguments. They should not have to rely on WP:OR, WP:SYNTH, or WP:TRUSTMEBRO arguments. - ZLEA _T\^C 08:46, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

::I am challenging you to give us at least a single new reference from a reliable source about the so called "J-31B" variant after the official J-35 name announced. J-31 name never finalized instead the J-35 name officially chosen. J-35 is the naval variant and J-35A is the land based variant. These references might be helpful: ([https://thediplomat.com/2024/11/assessing-the-j-35a-the-chinese-air-forces-new-stealth-fighter/] , [https://www.scmp.com/news/china/military/article/3291826/pakistans-reported-j-35-deal-shows-chinese-stealth-fighter-ready-global-market-analysts] , [https://www.deccanherald.com/world/pakistan-plans-to-acquire-40-planes-of-chinas-latest-stealth-fighter-j-35-report-3329592]) Nafis Fuad Ayon (talk) 22:28, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

:::I notice that you failed to address any of the points of my original post, so consider your "challenge" rejected as the existing sources are sufficient. A lack of new information does not nullify the existence of the J-31B project, and you have yet to provide a single source confirming your apparently WP:OR notion that the J-31B from the Shenyang announcement is the J-35A (none of your provided sources even mention the J-31B). Even if the two are the same (which all evidence seems to point against), it should be noted in the article that the J-35A was called the J-31B by Shenyang prior to receiving an official PLA designation... if a source exists that confirms this, of course. Please do not remove sourced content from the article again unless you have a source directly challenging the existing sources. - ZLEA _T\^C 03:01, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::Please read all the latest and updated sources properly. The Diplomat mentioned , "During this time, the FC-31 was sometimes called the “J-31,” but the name was not official given the lack of PLA commitment." The South China Morning Post mentioned, "J-31B is J-35". Deccanherald mentioned, "The land-based version of J-35 was called J-31, according to previous reports." There is not a single reference about the so called "J-31B" after the official name announced.Nafis Fuad Ayon (talk) 04:36, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::{{tq|The South China Morning Post mentioned, "J-31B is J-35".}} That's funny, because when I search for "J-35B" in the page, I find absolutely nothing. I will give you exactly one more chance to either provide a source that specifically mentions the J-31B by name, not just "J-31", that supports your claim, or to WP:DROPTHESTICK. If you remove the information without providing such a source, or if you once again provide a source that mentions the baseline J-31 but not the J-31B and try to pass it off as supporting your claim, I will take this to the appropriate noticeboard. - ZLEA _T\^C 06:53, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::You won't find a J-35B because noone is claiming the existence of J-35B either?

:::::::::And how do you still believe that the J-31B, which based on its indicated name is merely a subset of the J-31, still exists somehow and somewhere, despite multiple provided articles already quite clearly deny the usage of its J-31 superset nomenclature? It also unexplainably skips the J-31A designation, which based on the PLA's naming system should be used earlier than a supposed J-31B. The PLA's past precedent is already there, and it's just logical to start with the first alphabet for naming a series of things. We even already have the J-35A name being used officially first, rather than a J-35B. Lgnxz (talk) 13:06, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::{{tq| And how do you still believe that the J-31B, which based on its indicated name is merely a subset of the J-31, still exists somehow and somewhere, despite multiple provided articles already quite clearly deny the usage of its J-31 superset nomenclature? }} Maybe because the manufacturer released a video about it? It's an undeniable truth that won't go away. There are plenty of sources covering it, proving that a J-31B project existed at one point. As of right now, there is no known "J-35" designation applied to the J-31B, so we have to use the last known designation for the project unless and until a new designation is revealed. Regardless, we have no grounds to remove it simply because they have not released updates for the project in almost a year. - ZLEA _T\^C 14:51, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::Just to let everyone know, I have drafted a discussion for WP:DRN and will take it there if anyone removes sourced content without adequate justification again. The existing sources are enough to confirm the existence of the project, regardless of whether there have been public updates since the original reveal. Even if it turns out that the J-31B became one of the J-35 variants or was just a hoax, the information should be updated to reflect this rather than completely removed. - ZLEA _T\^C 15:58, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::: {{User|ZLEA}} You are just wasting our time. You will never find the so called "J-31B" from any new (after november 2024) news source in your lifetime. Because J35A is the official land base variant name, not the J-31B.Nafis Fuad Ayon (talk) 17:48, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::May I ask where in the article you intend to cover the enlarged variant shown in the video? There are sources confirming the project existed, and none of the designated J-35 variants match its description. - ZLEA _T\^C 19:03, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

:::There is no evidence suggesting that they abandoned the J-31X nomenclature.

:::WP:SYNTH unless you find a source explicitly stating they only use a J-35X designation, I would be highly cautious in assuming such things. DarkPhantom23 (talk) 09:32, 25 May 2025 (UTC)