Chengdu next gen combat aircraft (?J-36) thread
- Thread starter Blitzo
- Start date
You mean Disney is gonna run this one into the ground too?
There should be gaps in the nozzle petals.
It was revolutionary when it was put in practice... in the 1980s.
AWACS operate at the edge of detection of their own radars so once they turn off their radars they are not visible to the enemy unless it has long range ground-based radars capable of tracking them, ideally in conjunction with ground-based wide-band ELINT systems that combine radar emissions with radar return to positively identify an AWACS plane.
AWACS radars have ranges of 500-600km and modern systems have also passive detection capabilities with up to twice that range.
The whole point of AWACS is to have an aircraft on station for long periods of time to maintain an up-to date tactical picture. Flying 8 to 12 hour missions in the same region is how AWACS are meant to be used. AWACS not only detect enemy movements but also coordinate the movements of friendly forces which fly with their radars turned off. AWACS controllers are like battle planners who position the aircraft in optimal positions for intercepts etc. This was whate made USAF so potent compared to Soviet ground-based systems. Not being limited by horizon a single AWACS could arrange waves of fighters, coming and going, over hundreds of kilometers, and if necessary reposition with them in support of the strike. All the while remaining mobile so simple counter-measures like ballistic missiles against ground stations were not viable.
Nobody needs an AWACS that does its work for 30 minutes in one part of the battlespace then moves 1000km to another corner and does its work for another 30 minutes. That's not an AWACS. That's a waste of resources.
KJ-500 has a dedicated crew of operators able to handle approximately 1000 targets and execute command and control tasks for approximately 100 or more friendly aircraft. For such tasks 3 crewmembers (e.g. E-2) is absolute minimum. You need one person handling radar, one person directing air traffic and one person handling combat information (CIC). A crew with 5 to 6 people is preferable - they can work in shifts and double up in need. KJ-500 has also a more capable radar with a large all-directional antenna with uniform scanning in all directions which allows for a better situational awareness than a single array compressed into the fighter's nose. J-36 will be AWACS in the same way Toyota Hilux with a ZU-23-2 is self-propelled artillery.
J-20 has better kinematic and energy performance and is a better air superiority fighter even if it lacks range. Air superiority fighters are used against more than just enemy fighters or enablers like AEW or tankers. They are primary asset to shoot down cruise missiles, bombers, interdictors, recon craft etc. as well as for testing of enemy defenses. Shenyang's aircraft looks more like a potential J-20 replacement.
J-16D is the only aircraft that has no inherent advantage over J-36 except in being several times cheaper which absolutely matters in warfare.
From what I've seen the J-36 shapes up to be a long-range mix of F-117A + EF-111A but with greater emphasis on being the decision node for a UCAV swarm. What other roles will be given to it largely remains to be seen because we don't know how effective and efficient its intended electronic capabilities will be. It may as well be a stepping stone for a next generation of planes just like F-117A was.
Just like @ACuriousPLAFan suggests, let's stick to common naming conventions like "multirole" and ignore fanboy ideas like "air cruiser".
A "cruiser" is just an old name for a multirole ship capable of independent operation over long distances and periods of time. No individual aircraft is ever going to be a "cruiser". The German WW2 name of "destroyer" needs to be understood in the context of military tradition and language. For example "fighters" in German are "hunters" (Jagdflugzeug) and "destroyers" like Bf110 were really multirole aircraft. Conversely the "destroyer" in naval nomenclature was a shortened name of "torpedo boat destroyer". These names are not accidental but too many people forget that for the sake of "cool". Even space marines are named as such because they are serving with a space navy.
Besides it is always useful to remember that warships and aircraft are not mutually exchangeable. Individual warships are more like aircraft units while individual aircraft are more like individual systems of a warship. Direct parallels are a bad idea.
Increased power will impart sufficient energy to the waves to function in a denied EM environment.
The best intuitive example for that is the experiment with two flashlights of different power. Shine the weaker flashlight at someone and wait until he flashes back the stronger flashlight. You won't see anything while he will see everything despite your flashlight still being on. Obviously since light is EM waves then the entire principle can be applied to all EM wave problems.
A J-36 flying a mission with an UCAV swarm against e.g. Guam will arrive at a target that will be heavily jammed. In such conditions no unmanned operation can proceed with intended effectiveness or may even fail altogether. You need to be able to communicate back and forth between assets which may be as far as 100 of kms away from you performing different approaches. Even with retranslation a portion of the communications may go through the edges of denied area. You need to be able to communicate at high power as well as overpower potential enemy assets when they engage you.
J-36 will never have as much power as a ground station or a strategic bomber but it only needs sufficient power to approach to actionable range. If its power is enough to attack from that range using UCAVs and missiles then it is sufficient. There's always a limit of power that any aircraft can carry compared to ground or naval assets. But aircraft only need to exploit a tactical situation.
But in general EW is shaping up to be the most prominent aspect of future warfare. VLO is just too natural multiplier not to have but EW is where the battles will be decided. Intelligence is nothing if you can't communicate.
A thought experiment but 370kW cooling is equivalent to heat transfer of 370 electric kettles working at 1000W to heat up 1 litre of water (1kg) each by 100 degrees C in ~6 minutes. In an hour that's 3700kg liquid heated to 100C! Half that power and it's 1850kg at 100C.
Even if we assume that heat would be dumped into the fuel going to the engine first how much can you heat up the fuel and for how long before it becomes problematic?
I think 1MW is the peak capacity that will be used at extremely short periods. It just doesn't seem very viable otherwise. Definitely it will require a very comprehensive automated thermal management system.
Far less than you imagine. It's mostly centered around ensuring that heat is properly dissipated so as to reduce material expenditures i.e. make things cheaper. Cooling land structures is trivial. The only question is how cheaply it needs to be done. It's an economic issue.
Put the same structures in the air which is the second best common thermal insulator after vacuum and the problem becomes technological. Require that the structure has low IR signature and you have a technological problem that will consume millions before it is even properly understood.
Have you seen it in a thermal imager after that period? Batteries and electric engines are also far less prone to deformation and explosion than aviation engines and fuel.
Tank (combustion) engines running at 1,5MW approach a technological barrier but that barrier exists only because it's hard to put more cooling without exposing it to enemy fire which would then cause mobility kill. IR signature is also a factor now.
Think in terms of thermodynamics. Aircraft operate in an environment that acts as an insulator much like space systems. You can't approach that as anything that has a conductive environment.
Lol. Come on. It's been barely three weeks ago.
PLA next/6th generation fighter thread
What is PLA's goal for this aircraft? That's the interesting question. This is the very reason why I pointed it out in this discussion because there is a very clear geographic rationale for developing an intermediate fighter-bomber. Let's do a fun thought experiment. Let's measure things...
www.sinodefenceforum.com
This forum looks very amateur. There are so many speculations and hearsay here. Given that Wang Haifeng is the chief designer, why no one discussed the details revealed in his paper? His paper in early 2024 can almost explain all the problems.
Abstract:
The future operational environment imposes higher and more comprehensive requirements for the performance of fighters， calling for deeper integration between fighter airframe and engine and closer collaborative design during fighter research and development. Building on theories and practices for optimum airframe-engine integration in fighter design in the past decades， this paper proposes a collaborative airframe-engine design concept. Through an analysis of the combat requirements of Penetrating Counter Air （PCA） and other operational concepts， this paper then presents the essential capabilities of high performance fighters and looks into the requirements of future-oriented collaborative airframe-engine design. The key technologies concerning flight performance， stealth characteristics， flight control and aircraft energy are discussed， and the possible implementation approaches and suggestions for design and research are also provided.
Key words: fighter, engine, collaborative design, performance, stealth, flight control, energy
Full paper link:
You can download pdf from the link above and use a translation tool to translate the paper to English.
Key technologies in collaborative airframe⁃engine design for high performance fighters
Haifeng WANGAbstract:
The future operational environment imposes higher and more comprehensive requirements for the performance of fighters， calling for deeper integration between fighter airframe and engine and closer collaborative design during fighter research and development. Building on theories and practices for optimum airframe-engine integration in fighter design in the past decades， this paper proposes a collaborative airframe-engine design concept. Through an analysis of the combat requirements of Penetrating Counter Air （PCA） and other operational concepts， this paper then presents the essential capabilities of high performance fighters and looks into the requirements of future-oriented collaborative airframe-engine design. The key technologies concerning flight performance， stealth characteristics， flight control and aircraft energy are discussed， and the possible implementation approaches and suggestions for design and research are also provided.
Key words: fighter, engine, collaborative design, performance, stealth, flight control, energy
Full paper link:
You can download pdf from the link above and use a translation tool to translate the paper to English.
You can look at the early discussion of this paper on the now locked 6th gen fighter thread.
Last edited: