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

[Totoro]

Dont know how you got those figures from pixel counting.
I am getting same length, 22.2 m, but wingspan of 22.5 m.
Though from other images it would seem wingspan is a bit smaller than length, so all those figures too aren't necessarily most conclusive either. It's simply too early to get the dimensions right down to a meter or less. I'd say current margin of error with images we have so far is closer to 2 m.

 

[AndrewS]

In my opinion we can't rule out the American F/A-XX or NGAD too quickly, as long as US can make them and deploy them, they are still a deterrence. With a longer range, the AF would be able to fly from Alaska, Australia, Hawaii, ... to Taiwan and back, while keeping the tankers outside of the warzone. For Navy they will have to gradually move the carriers deployed in the Atlantic Ocean to be near Taiwan. In the perfect situation, in about 3 weeks, US military can accumulate a few hundred fighter jets that can reach Taiwan, if both next gen programs go well.

It is a hypothetical scenario of course. Let's see how Trump responds.

Flying an NGAD from Alaska, Australia and Hawaii means daisy-chains of tankers.

That's [tankers] refuelling [tankers] refuelling [tankers]. Then the NGAD gets refuelled.

Even if all 500 tankers were deployed to Hawaii, I doubt you would even get 50 NGAD sorties per day.

---

In addition, Hawaii to China is 8000km. So that's a 16 hour round-trip for the pilots in an NGAD

---

Also consider that Hawaii is no longer a safe rear-area base. In 2035, I would expect the DF-27 to be operational and also quiet Type-095 SSNs with a 3000km hypersonic missiles.

So again, the more aircraft the US packs into a limited number of bases, the more targets there are on the ground.

---

As for the US Navy deploying carriers "close" to Taiwan, how close do you imagine this to be, given a J-36 with a 3000km combat radius?

 

[iBBz]

I don't understand -- of the first two images, you're saying you didn't depict the lengths on the first image, but you merely preserved the ratios? If that's the case, then it is reasonable.

I see you did an edit afterwards saying the measurements on the first photo needed to be recalibrated, the original post I saw didn't have that. Though there have also been plentiful other pictures to enable measurements, but that's fine.

I know it's weird. I insert the image as a canvas on Fusion360 and its too small to see at first, so I zoom in manually until I can see clearly, then sketch over it in mm. That's why I end up with weird numbers. I did use three images, but settled on this one because I thought it yielded the most accurate measurements due to perspective and sharpness.

Dont know how you got those figures from pixel counting.
I am getting same length, 22.2 m, but wingspan of 22.5 m.
Though from other images it would seem wingspan is a bit smaller than length, so all those figures too aren't necessarily most conclusive either. It's simply too early to get the dimensions right down to a meter or less. I'd say current margin of error with images we have so far is closer to 2 m.

Wow! I ran into the exact same problem. I think it's because on the image I used, the J-20 is at a different roll angle than the J-36.

I got a length of 19m and width of 18.355m from one image, length of 20.86 and width of 20.54m from another, then a length of 22.2m and width of 22.4m from the one I used. Now that I think about it, I should have just averaged the values, but I'm happy with the one I did so far. We will probably get better photos in the near future. I'll try to redo it then.

These are the photos I used.

 

[latenlazy]

I know it's weird. I insert the image as a canvas on Fusion360 and its too small to see at first, so I zoom in manually until I can see clearly, then sketch over it in mm. That's why I end up with weird numbers. I did use three images, but settled on this one because I thought it yielded the most accurate measurements due to perspective and sharpness.


Wow! I ran into the exact same problem. I think it's because on the image I used, the J-20 is at a different roll angle than the J-36.

I got a length of 19m and width of 18.355m from one image, length of 20.86 and width of 20.54m from another, then a length of 22.2m and width of 22.4m from the one I used. Now that I think about it, I should have just averaged the values, but I'm happy with the one I did so far. We will probably get better photos in the near future. I'll try to redo it then.

These are the photos I used.

No point averaging the values. The reason your estimates have range has more to do with inconsistent rulers and differing perspective. Averaging unknown scaling and measurement errors isn’t very meaningful. I used to run into the same problems trying to do early J-20 estimates.

 

[dingyibvs]

I remember early on during 6th gen discussions there was a lot of talk about it being optionally manned. I think some specialized unmanned variants of the J-36 could fulfill some valuable support roles. It would probably be a waste to just make them into unmanned weapons platforms like what a CCA is typically imagined as, you can probably do that with cheaper, specially designed platforms. But as unmanned force multipliers I think its high cost can possibly be justified. For example, you can make the cockpit and the IWBs into swappable modules. Place fuel modules in them and you can enable very deep (e.g. 5000km+) or fast (e.g. supercruising the entire flight) missions. Place EW modules in them and mass a few of them per each manned J-36 and you can have a distributed EW spearhead ahead of a large strike package. They would have essentially identical flight profiles as the J-36, thus greatly simplifying operational planning and logistics while increasing flexibility. Of course, you can also just place weapons in the IWB.

Taking a more generalized view, it would essentially make it so that all J-36 missions are solo missions as whenever you need more than one you can just add more unmanned versions to the formation.

 

[tphuang]

Agree totally except that 076 may not be able to fully support manned jets given parts/personnel requirements.

Then, here is a reminder for everybody, that 2038 is only 14 years from 2024. By now we all know what that means, right?

Also, from last week Medvedev's visit to Beijing. There are rumors that he mentioned turning Russia's Far East Region over to China as territory!? If so it will make Bering Sea air bases possible. I am not holding my breath for that though

076 can definitely support a limited number of manned fighter based on what Shilao and Xi YaZhou alluded to.
I think Russia losing sovereignty is out of question.

Fantastic read.

A question in regards to the above post, what happens in 2038?

I did not write about 2038 at all.

Btw, I'm not sure they need to do 7th gen (at least in manned form). The most obvious next step is hypersonic aircraft that can go in the near space and that's what all the RDE testing are about, but we are going to have large mach4-5 drones in service by 2036 range based on what I can see.

So I did this today and now I'm starting to think the J-36 MTOW may be much higher than 50tons. Has this possibility been discussed here? Note that the measurements on the first photo need to be scaled using the J-20's real dimensions.

I've been using 60t MTOW as the baseline. It could be higher than even that. Hence the need for 3 engines.

Excellent writes. By the way, what does CRUDES stand for?

Cruiser/Destroyer

thanks, I added that in now.

I remember early on during 6th gen discussions there was a lot of talk about it being optionally manned. I think some specialized unmanned variants of the J-36 could fulfill some valuable support roles. It would probably be a waste to just make them into unmanned weapons platforms like what a CCA is typically imagined as, you can probably do that with cheaper, specially designed platforms. But as unmanned force multipliers I think its high cost can possibly be justified. For example, you can make the cockpit and the IWBs into swappable modules. Place fuel modules in them and you can enable very deep (e.g. 5000km+) or fast (e.g. supercruising the entire flight) missions. Place EW modules in them and mass a few of them per each manned J-36 and you can have a distributed EW spearhead ahead of a large strike package. They would have essentially identical flight profiles as the J-36, thus greatly simplifying operational planning and logistics while increasing flexibility. Of course, you can also just place weapons in the IWB.

Taking a more generalized view, it would essentially make it so that all J-36 missions are solo missions as whenever you need more than one you can just add more unmanned versions to the formation.

I don't actually see the point of "optionally manned". You still need to carve out a large % of the aircraft to accommodate pilots. You can make the aircraft much smaller and cheaper without pilots in there.

 

[mack8]

I did not write about 2038 at all.

I should have been more specific when i wrote, that question was in reply to Kurutoga's post. What milestone is supposed to happen in 2038?

 

[dingyibvs]

I don't actually see the point of "optionally manned". You still need to carve out a large % of the aircraft to accommodate pilots. You can make the aircraft much smaller and cheaper without pilots in there.

It's not like the space used to accommodate pilots would be wasted though, they can be used to carry extra EW or fuel. If you just want extra weapons sure, you can make them much smaller and cheaper, but if you want say a refueler that can supercruise with the J-36 then it's gonna be something that looks and probably costs very much like a J-36.

 

[styx]

I notice that American commentators are really traumatized by the Chinese prototypes. Am I wrong, or is it interesting to note that this is the first time another nation has flown conceptually more advanced aircraft than the Americans? It seems to me that the USSR always played catch-up with the US in aviation. The most obvious signs of the trauma are the constant references to Mao's birthday and his crimes in the videos on yt, as well as the tendency to describe the flights as involving questionable american ngad"prototypes," since we have no idea what kind of "technology demonstrators" these might be. They could even be aircraft with no operational value, like the Tacit Blue. On the other hand, the Chinese prototypes seem to be quite close to operational readiness. By "close to operational readiness," I mean aircraft that have fairly complete avionics and an installed weapon system, along with dedicated space for it. For example, the YF-22 and YF-23, in my opinion, were further from operational readiness compared to the Chinese prototypes, and indeed, the F-22 underwent significant modifications. Especially the one designated as the J-36 seems to me like a prototype close to entering service.

 

[EmoBirb]

076 can definitely support a limited number of manned fighter based on what Shilao and Xi YaZhou alluded to.
I think Russia losing sovereignty is out of question.

I did not write about 2038 at all.

Btw, I'm not sure they need to do 7th gen (at least in manned form). The most obvious next step is hypersonic aircraft that can go in the near space and that's what all the RDE testing are about, but we are going to have large mach4-5 drones in service by 2036 range based on what I can see.


I've been using 60t MTOW as the baseline. It could be higher than even that. Hence the need for 3 engines.



thanks, I added that in now.

I don't actually see the point of "optionally manned". You still need to carve out a large % of the aircraft to accommodate pilots. You can make the aircraft much smaller and cheaper without pilots in there.

> You can make the aircraft much smaller and cheaper without pilots in there.

Ehhh. I think depending on what you want from said aircraft you won't actually get it much smaller, let alone cheaper. A high performance aerial weapons platform still needs the necessary space (and thus size) for fuel, weapons and sensors. And if you want a high performance unmanned aircraft, it won't be much cheaper than a manned counterpart. Because you still end up with the same manufacturing methods, materials and expensive subsystems.