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)

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

References

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)

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)

J-31B

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 (, , , ). 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: ( , , ) 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)

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)

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)

ZLEA (talk · contribs) 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)

I basically agree. Even if we did find a good source stating that, there are still multiple good-quality RS that use the J-31B designation. That justifies its inclusion in the article even if we can find good RS stating that it was only temporary or no longer official or whatnot (which has yet to be directly shown in RS throughout this whole discussion, I have to say—there are a few sources cited by Nafis that say that "J-31" was a temporary name for the FC-31 or J-35, but nothing that directly mentions "J-31B"). In any case, we need to represent what all the sources say, fairly and proportionally. We can say that they announced a J-31B variant, and we can say that the FC-31 or J-35 were called "J-31" before, but we shouldn't really go beyond either if we don't have RS that directly supports it.

@Nafis Fuad Ayon, @Lgnxz, do you still have a stake in this? I know @ZLEA still feels strongly about it. 🍉◜⠢◞ↂ🄜𝚎sₒᶜa𝚛🅟ම𛱘‎🥑《 𔑪‎talk〗⇤ 22:50, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

Since no one has come forward with the requested sources, I have restored the J-31B on the basis that it was reliably-sourced information removed via WP:SYNTH. Anyone with the requested sources (to clarify, sources that directly address the J-31B and don't require SYNTH) is of course free to provide them. - ZLEA _T\^C 21:11, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

@Nafis Fuad Ayon, making an edit like this when you know this talk page discussion exists, and not even bothering to come here and engage with the participants, is really unconstructive, especially considering that you gave it a vague and misleading edit summary like "Copy edit, updated" in the middle of a large block of edits. Also, the source you cited to defend the idea that the J-31B has been renamed J-35, this Military Watch Magazine article, says nothing about the J-31B at all, and furthermore the consensus on Military Watch Magazine in RSN discussion has been that it's unreliable both times it's been discussed, here and here.

Please come work with us to find consensus instead of just editing the article unilaterally. For my part, you know I didn't know any of the participants beforehand, I'm unfamiliar with this topic area, I'm just going based on what I see in the RS—I'm totally amenable to well-supported argument and I'm even willing to help you and ZLEA draft an RfC if y'all want to do that. 🍉◜⠢◞ↂ🄜𝚎sₒᶜa𝚛🅟ම𛱘‎🥑《 𔑪‎talk〗⇤ 18:31, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

This is exactly the same type of OR/SYNTH that started this whole mess in the first place. No sources have been provided that support the claim that the J-31B and J-35 are two designations of the same variant. It isn't even good OR (if any OR can be called good). The only "evidence" for the two variants being the same is pure speculation that the J-31B is/was intended for the PLANAF (which some analysts dispute, by the way), combined with the fact that the J-35 variant later entered service with the PLANAF. All actual evidence reported by reliable sources, including projected size and capabilities, would suggest that the two variants are almost two distinct types (a conclusion that would also be OR, since sources still treat the J-31B as a variant of the FC-31 prototype).

To be clear, I plan to take this to WP:AN/I if the information is removed or changed again without proper sourcing. - ZLEA _T\^C 22:46, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

References

Pakistani sources

For the claim about the Pakistani media saying that 40 j-35 were ordered by the Pakistan Air Force in December 2024 (later disproved by the Defence Minister), there are no Pakistani sources cited. There’s only the South China Morning Post, which is Chinese, not Pakistani as the sentence claims. There should be at least 1 singular Pakistani source from December 2024 to affirm this. Otherwise, it should be removed. 2400:ADC5:427:1400:25CB:2FCF:4FC2:BC4 (talk) 09:20, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

That's not how WP:RS works. The SCMP source does state that its information comes from Pakistani sources, so the sentence is entirely supported SCMP. No new sources need to be added (unless new information arises, of course), and nothing needs to be removed. - ZLEA _T\^C 17:25, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

I don't understand the logic of citing a claim from the Pakistani media, without citing a source from the Pakistani media. Such thing may bring the source claiming so in question for its authenticity. KashanAbbas (talk) 10:25, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

Many Pakistani sources are considered too unreliable for use on Wikipedia. That doesn't mean we can't cover what they say if more reliable sources cover it (in this context, the Pakistani sources are considered WP:PRIMARY, making SCMP WP:SECONDARY). That said, if you have any serious doubts about SCMP's reliability, feel free to bring it up at WP:RSN. - ZLEA ^TǀC 18:48, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

In general, if a source's reliability is in doubt (in this case, whatever the original unidentified Pakistani source is), it's helpful if a specific claim is bolstered by restatement or adoption from a secondary reliable source (in this case, SCMP). In doing so, it bolsters the notability and relative weight of the original claim (because it means the domestic media coverage will have been important enough for international media to have commented on). SCMP can have some issues when it comes to the Chinese government's political opinions, but those aren't relevant here and for generally factually-oriented claims like whether an order/contract exists, they're perfectly usable. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 19:37, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for speedy deletion:

• J-35 navy.jpg
• J-35A Zhuhai Airshow 2024 2.png

You can see the reasons for deletion at the file description pages linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:23, 25 October 2025 (UTC)

About the numbers of J-35

Hi, sir, I’m ISM.

“This claim is not verifiable without specialized knowledge”. This is right, but only when the J-35 reaches 100 units or achieves a larger production scale will professional analysts or experts provide an assessment. Their method will still rely on the serial numbers, which is exactly what we are observing now. The serial numbers are already in front of us, it’s only because no expert has reiterated this publicly that it cannot be considered verified evidence.

Thank you so much. 71.84.59.223 (talk) 00:28, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

You're confusing two issues. The point about the claim not being verifiable without specialized knowledge is not in regard to the number of units, but to the claim that it has "a radar cross-section smaller than that of a human palm". Regardless, in neither case could we include a statement that hasn't yet been made or is not yet verifiable. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball -- we do not try to predict the future. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 01:02, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

Changing the image for the J-35

The current image showcases a prototype that is now over a decade old, which isn't reflective of the current status of the J-35 as an active fighter used by the PLAN. Are there any images of the J-35 that we can use to replace the top image? Colin Zhong (talk) 03:11, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

Not that I'm aware of. This has been asked several times over the past few months, and the only image of a production J-35 on Commons is this one, which is at an unusual angle and unsuitable for the infobox. Several users have attempted to upload more photos, but so far all of them were copyright violations and were promptly deleted. - ZLEA ^TǀC 05:42, 5 December 2025 (UTC)