Chengdu next gen combat aircraft (?J-36) thread

Biscuits

Major
Registered Member
The J36 will be at the center of China's combat web and will only be used in large scale conflicts. In a large scale conflict, it's gonna to be surrounded by hundreds of other aircraft and probably personally always be escorted by a squadron of drones. Kinda like a carrier strike group. Asking why it can't dogfight is like asking why an aircraft carrier doesn't have anti-submarine and anti-missile capabilities like a destroyer or frigate.
It has equal thrust to weight as J-20 and F-22 and thrust vectoring... Big size alone doesn't mean it can't dogfight.

Consider that if you approach it in wvr, it can first see you at much longer ranges. Because it has all aspect broadband stealth, it only needs to look at you and send a high off boresight missile, which may come before you even notice the J-36 with your eyeballs despite being in wvr, since your radar wont notice it and your IRST needs to be pre-aimed at it. That's in addition to whatever EW it will use at the same time.

Until you reach comically close distances like 100m, 50m away, it's theoretical drawback of big size causing it to bleed much more energy in tight turns won't matter.

It's like asking "who is better at cqc, a soldier with a knife or a soldier with a rifle and a bayonet". Rifle soldier kills knife soldier at every normal engagement distance easily as he can attack fatally first. But then you ask, what if both soldiers spawn 5 mm from eachother face to face, wouldn't the knife be inside the guard of the rifle + bayonet and have a big advantage? Yeah that's true, but also pointless because people don't suddenly appear 5 mm from eachother IRL (barring cover). Saying J-36 can't dogfight is like saying knives are better than rifles for cqc based on the above scenario.

It might be worse in wvr than dedicated light 6th gen like J-XS or NGAD redesign but its still dominant against everything else.
 

Michaelsinodef

Senior Member
Registered Member
In the spirit of speculating about the timing and form of NGAD, I think it is useful to make some speculation about the different sub-systems about who is ahead (U.S. versus China). I will give it a go here with the preface that it is speculation on my part based on reading of various sources. Please chime in and invalidate my assumptions as you see fit.

1. Engines
1.1 normal turbofan. There is no question in my mind that the U.S. is ahead here, however, the difference maybe in the range of 10-15% power. It may even be very close between the two.
Maybe, but with the sorry state of US industry, I only believe when I see it.
1.2 VCE. I think the U.S. is still ahead here. However, it is most likely the case that technology is not yet mature for either side at this point. NGAD, being ten or so years behind J-36, may benefit from the late comer advantage and actually be able to field this.
Nah, think China is ahead.
1.3 TBCC. The U.S. has longer development time here, but unfortunately, we don't have a test vehicle to test this in. The hypersonic glide vehicle programs have not gone well for the U.S. due to the lack of wind tunnels for hypersonic flight. I would say both sides are not ready with this for now.
Same, China ahead.
2. Hypersonic glide vehicle, the Chinese are ahead here. We can see this via DF-17 and the lack of its counterpart for the U.S. From what I understand, the wind tunnels are a decisive factor here. The Chinese has wind tunnels that will do mach 30 and we don't even have one that can do mach 5.
China decisively ahead.
3. avionics
3.1 radar, I would say both are at the same level. However, the Chinese have a decisive advantage in their control of rare earth metals and thus the cost advantage.
China ahead.
3.2 EO/IR, I would put the U.S. ahead here given that we have been at it longer. My guess is that the advantage is marginal.
Same.
3.3 flight by wire, I believe the U.S. is ahead here, but since the Chinese have had this since the J-10 days, the differences may be small and that the U.S. may have better coverage of the corner cases due to longer operation time.
Same.
3.4 early warning/IFF. Both sides should have functional ones by now. The edge goes to the U.S due to long operating time, since it won't change the trajectory of the NGAD, I will leave it at that.
Same
3.4 Quantum Radar, The Chinese have had Publications of this a while back so I think they maybe ahead here, but at this point, the system is not mature enough to go on an aircraft.
Same.
4. Structure/new material. The Chinese has a decisive advantage here due to their extensive use of 3D printing for civilian use and the need for new materials for their industrial use as well as having the plethora research centers in their universities. While the U.S. also have research, the need from industries is limited.
Same.
5. missile tech. I think the Chinese is decisively ahead of the U.S. here given the array of missiles that they are already fielding.

6. Cooling system at supersonic flight. I think this is a new problem and both are at the same starting line.
China ahead.
7. Aviation manufacturing and assembly. The U.S. used to enjoy a decisive advantage here due to our civilian aviation industry, but the Chinese are catching up as they copy the successful models pioneered by the U.S. and having an extensive manufacturing eco-system to draw from. I would call this a draw.
China gonna be ahead of US for 6th gen on this.
The Chinese, with their current state of technology, opted to have a fighter jet with three engines, doing Mach 2.5(marginally better then the J-20), but significantly larger size with significantly longer range and quantum leap in power generation and avionics as well as the ability to carry much larger weapon in its internal weapon bay. At first look, I find it a very smart move. It has a huge impact on their entire network of systems and it bypass some of their weakness, for example in engine tech. In fact, with the three engines system, they can optimize for two different flight regimes. For example, the middle engine could be tuned to optimize for lower Mach numbers where as the two side ones for higher speed.

The U.S., if we are to have an NGAD, will likely go along the same path. A survey of the different subsystems indicates that, while we do have a fair lead in VCE and normal turbofans, in the other areas where the U.S. do have an advantage, it was mainly in operating the system much longer. The Chinese have their own version of the system that works. While VCE provide longer combat radius, it is difficult to imagine our system being much superior in other ways. It is easy to see our system being significantly more expensive to build.
All in all, people have no idea of the incredible sorry state US industry is.
Would say it's very doubtful that they can meaningfully be able to mass produce future tech/weapons.

(Personally doubtful if the US will even field a proper 6th gen).

Also, not only in industry, but there's also signs that their foremost research in related/useful tech is slowing down/getting worse, although still far from how bad industry has gotten.

Like, just look at civilian airplanes from Boeing! That the idea that US military airplanes might be better than the state civilian Boeing planes? Lmao I say
 

sequ

Major
Registered Member
So I’m still waiting on better estimates but if the central bay is long enough I actually think a max load out might look more like PL-17 sized missiles *in the side bay* and two rows of PL-15 sized missiles in the central bay. So if the side bays could fit 2x PL-17s each that would be 4x PL-17s+8x PL-15s, or potentially even 4x PL-17s and 12x PL-15s. At minimum this idea would be 2x PL-17 and 8x-PL-15s. But this is still a very aspirational speculation.
From what I've seen is that the J-36 is not long enough for such an arrangement. Is has roughly the same length as the J-20. The width is where the J-36 outshines the J-20.
 

00CuriousObserver

New Member
Registered Member

iBBz

Junior Member
Registered Member
The Chinese, with their current state of technology, opted to have a fighter jet with three engines, doing Mach 2.5(marginally better then the J-20), but significantly larger size with significantly longer range and quantum leap in power generation and avionics as well as the ability to carry much larger weapon in its internal weapon bay. At first look, I find it a very smart move. It has a huge impact on their entire network of systems and it bypass some of their weakness, for example in engine tech. In fact, with the three engines system, they can optimize for two different flight regimes. For example, the middle engine could be tuned to optimize for lower Mach numbers where as the two side ones for higher speed.

This thing isn't a fighter. It may weigh around 26-30 tons empty and have an MTOW of around 48-52 tons, which are not fighter numbers at all. If the weight and size issue isn't enough, the fact that the middle engine's intake is on top of the fuselage (Which was probably done this way to allow for larger center weapon bays) is a dead giveaway to me that thing doesn't plan on executing any fighter type maneuvers, at least with that engine in the middle not stalling. One thing I don't understand is why the side engines have their intakes on the bottom.


Regarding power generation. This was never a limitation in modern military planes. Military turbofans can push multiple tens of thousands of shaft horsepower easily without breaking a sweat, so even if the plane was a twin engine, it would not be that difficult to draw a megawatt out of them via generators and constant speed drives. Also I don't see how much electricity a plane of this size requires. It carries a bunch of radars and electro-optics and I'm assuming the one at the nose would be the most power hungry, and even that thing would not consume anything beyond 30-40kw. That is literally less than 60hp, which is nothing to even a single engine, let alone three. The three engine configuration of the J-36 is most certainly due to the need of higher thrust, and has absolutely nothing to do with "next generation power requirements".


Now for optimizing different engines for different flight regimes. This basically means different bypass ratios, which means the engine with the higher bypass ratio would generate drag at higher speeds, while the low bpr engines would not be working at their peak efficiency at lower speeds. The other issues that I see is higher bpr engines push higher maf at lower jet velocities, so with three engines sitting so close to one another ejecting air at different speeds rubbing up on one another, would cause even more losses. In my opinion, having identical engines would be the best solution here, but I'm open to discussions regarding this.


Since the J-36 has 3 engines and assuming the engines are similar to the J-20 (WS-10 or WS-15 or similar dimensions), and if it were to travel at the same speed and have the same drag as the J-20's, it would need to carry 1.5 times the fuel in order to go as far. If we assume the J-36 is designed to have higher speeds than the J-20, then we can safely assume the J-36 will need to carry more than 1.5 times the fuel of the J-20 in order to travel the same distances, which my gut tells me is unlikely, especially since it is supposed to carry larger sensors and obviously larger weapons, but we will have to wait for clearer photos and more info.
 
Last edited:

Ringsword

Junior Member
Registered Member
Has he been reading this forum?

Most of his point imo has been discussed here. Although, I think his article is still well worth reading.

I would say he is still thinking too much on solo platform and not the sensor fusion, command & control + EW that will be expected for this aircraft to carry out.

The threat posed by DF26 against US carriers is significantly enhanced by J36 EW pressure coordinated with its CCAs. That’s something never really mentioned anywhere.
Yes,the J36 will never IMHO operate solo but in a large "air flotilla" enhancing its overall strike power and itself shielded by a swarm of hard hitting stealth drone UCAV's(MD22-MD25)-the mind boggles.I like "AeroSpace Cruiser" since hopefully this J36 will operate near Karman line and clubbing down other fighters/tankers/AWACS like baby seals(thanks Jason) but do love "Imperial Star Destroyer"more thanks Siegecrossbow(actually made me a Star Wars fans) and let's not forget the SACGAD(not rival to CAGAD but a magnificent complimentary ) the "Stormbird"(my little pet name)-another giant threat to the enemies-need more details/pix for us to feast on/speculate/dream on its capabilities/role.
 
Last edited:

vincent

Grumpy Old Man
Staff member
Moderator - World Affairs
1.3 TBCC. The U.S. has longer development time here, but unfortunately, we don't have a test vehicle to test this in. The hypersonic glide vehicle programs have not gone well for the U.S. due to the lack of wind tunnels for hypersonic flight. I would say both sides are not ready with this for now.
China has quite a few prototypes flying right now.
3. avionics
3.1 radar, I would say both are at the same level. However, the Chinese have a decisive advantage in their control of rare earth metals and thus the cost advantage.
Nope, Chinese is a generation ahead
1735894868561.png
1735894883918.png
3.2 EO/IR, I would put the U.S. ahead here given that we have been at it longer. My guess is that the advantage is marginal.
Not according to patchwork
3.3 flight by wire, I believe the U.S. is ahead here, but since the Chinese have had this since the J-10 days, the differences may be small and that the U.S. may have better coverage of the corner cases due to longer operation time.
Considering how many control surfaces J-20 has, I would say China is decisively ahead.
6. Cooling system at supersonic flight. I think this is a new problem and both are at the same starting line.
Chinese car and battery makers have plenty of tech on cooling and thermal isolation.
 

cdj20

New Member
Registered Member
Part 3: How the PLAAF might leverage J-36's capabilities to defeat the B-21.
View attachment 142253
Previous infographics:
Definition of 6th gen and possible J-36 missions
Concepts of PLAAF air superiority oriented combat drones
J-36 in OCA (will be updated to include drones)
J-36 in DCA (updated with drones)

Good thoughts about the tactics for J36. I would suggest adding watermarks, including the name of the author and forum, to the pictures. Although you kindly allow us to share the pictures, some people on other platforms like Weibo mistakenly think the pictures illustrate how the Americans want to counter the J36.
 
Last edited:
Top