I wonder if they would have the same cope about CHAD if it were an American bird.
Chengdu next gen combat aircraft (?J-36) thread
- Thread starter Blitzo
- Start date
I wonder if they would have the same cope about CHAD if it were an American bird.
Just some small quibbles on the discussion regarding J-36's top speed and celling.
Honestly, it makes little sense for the J-36 (and J-XDS too, for that matter) to go significantly above Mach 2 (and especially for extended durations at that), given the considerations on the operational performance and maintenance of the stealth coatings and engines, let alone how the IR signature would register on the enemy's IR sensors.
Moreover, being able to regularly operate at about 20 kilometers of altitude (~65000-70000 feet) is also already plenty good enough. This is already significantly higher than the altitudes where modern fighter jets regularly operate at, which is around 9-12 kilometers (~30000-40000+ feet) during typical combat operations. As a matter of fact, the SR-71 with operational speeds of Mach 3+ only has a service celling of 26 kilometers (~85000 feet) - And the SR-71 also has its own unique sets of compromises and drawbacks that the engineers must contend and deal with, in order to have the SR-71 fly that high and that fast.
TL; DR - Without strapping any special types of engines/rocket boosters on the J-36, going any higher and faster means literally violating the laws of physics.
If anything: An unmanned, hypersonic-capable aircraft which specializes in theater/strategic ISTAR roles that can fly at around 30 kilometers (~100000+ feet) of altitude over continental/oceanic distances would be a more realistic and beneficial distribution and utilization of resources for the PLAAF, rather than trying to "beef up" the J-36 to do something that she wasn't meant to do in the first place.
Honestly, it makes little sense for the J-36 (and J-XDS too, for that matter) to go significantly above Mach 2 (and especially for extended durations at that), given the considerations on the operational performance and maintenance of the stealth coatings and engines, let alone how the IR signature would register on the enemy's IR sensors.
Moreover, being able to regularly operate at about 20 kilometers of altitude (~65000-70000 feet) is also already plenty good enough. This is already significantly higher than the altitudes where modern fighter jets regularly operate at, which is around 9-12 kilometers (~30000-40000+ feet) during typical combat operations. As a matter of fact, the SR-71 with operational speeds of Mach 3+ only has a service celling of 26 kilometers (~85000 feet) - And the SR-71 also has its own unique sets of compromises and drawbacks that the engineers must contend and deal with, in order to have the SR-71 fly that high and that fast.
TL; DR - Without strapping any special types of engines/rocket boosters on the J-36, going any higher and faster means literally violating the laws of physics.
If anything: An unmanned, hypersonic-capable aircraft which specializes in theater/strategic ISTAR roles that can fly at around 30 kilometers (~100000+ feet) of altitude over continental/oceanic distances would be a more realistic and beneficial distribution and utilization of resources for the PLAAF, rather than trying to "beef up" the J-36 to do something that she wasn't meant to do in the first place.
Last edited:
I think in actual regular operation, you don't want to be going above Mach 2 or 60000 feet. It's better to be able to cruise at mach1.5. But then, you want to have the ability to go like mach2.5 or 70000 feet when necessary. that just makes it harder to track and hit.
are modern AAMs even designed to hit aircraft that high and fast and can still turn like a fighter?
If launched from a regular fighter at their peak service ceiling I don't see a reason why something like an AIM-120 for example wouldn't be able to hit that altitude, especially as the air gets less dense. Surely the aerodynamic surfaces would be slightly less effective in getting the missile to turn and the climb would affect range, but all in all I don't see the trouble. Given that most missiles rely on an internal rocket motor rather than air breathing engines.
It's also questionable if an aircraft at Mach 2+ and that altitude could "turn like a fighter" especially without large control surfaces.
All in all I think efficient supercruise and stealth are much higher priority than high speed and service ceiling.
I don't think I'm saying supercruise and stealth aren't higher priority than top speed and ceiling, but the latter are just cherry on top of everything.
I'd be curious about AAMs actually hitting something that high, fast and stealthy. It's naturally already hard for any fighter jet to obtain weapon grade tracking on J-36. But it's even harder to do it in look up mode. And then, it is even harder for something like AAM to lock on to J-36 looking up and facing strong EW pressure and flying at > mach 2.5. I don't know if the current generation of missiles are designed to say climb to 70000 feet at mach3+
> And then, it is even harder for something like AAM to lock on to J-36 looking up and facing strong EW pressure
Imo the biggest obstacle.
The current crop of missiles wasn't specifically designed for such tasks, but I'm certain the large missile manufacturers of the world will adapt to it. Radar and missile technology don't stagnate while stealth technology evolves. But I can't deny that I'm curious how the missiles will look like that are made to specifically deal and operate with the next generation of combat aircraft. I wouldn't be surprised if we'd see more emphasis on tracking and homing in on other aspects of an aircraft than just it's radar signature, putting more effort into the ability to track IR signatures at increased ranges, perhaps even Electromagnetic signatures etc.
Obviously just speculation on my part, they may as well just stuff better radar seekers in their and just launch them into the general direction.
plawolf
Lieutenant General
The question has never been about whether flying at 60,000 or 70,000 feet will make you invulnerable to attack, as that has already been proven false by the downing of U2s decades ago.
The issue is the impact on your missiles’ range and NEZ of having to go so high up. Add in even 1.5m super-cruise to the equation and your range/NEZ shrinks massively further. To compensate, you need more propellant mass, which translates to bigger missiles. Which becomes a potential big problem when internal weapons bay sizes and VLS cell dimensions puts a hard cap on how big your AAMs and SAMs can grow without needing to invest in whole new sets of planes and ships. And this is before you even consider the fact that the CHAD has massively bigger weapons bays and so can carry bigger missiles than all existing 5th gens. Not to mention all the additional energy it can impact on munitions with its higher ceiling and speed.
Stripping out all of the next gen aspects, the size and ceiling of the CHAD alone allows it to outstick all existing 5th gens to a comical degree.
Good point, I wont be surprised to see alot of investment in space based assets to become more and more critical in kill-chains and detection, however that wont change the fact that the AAMs will be super short-legged flying upwards and long before that J-36 would've spotted the threat and gotten one of the CCAs to neutralize it.
Normal AAM burn time is measured in seconds. The missile‘s vertical momentum will decline rapidly after the fuel burn is over. Their range at shooting things at higher altitude must be atrocious.