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

[AndrewS]

Something I'm rather curious about is that while F-22s and F-35s with strange, silvery coatings have been spotted, something many linked to the NGAD program, the J-36s skin looks rather conventional.

At least from what we can see on the grainy footage we got so far. More akin to how the J-20 looks.

Makes me wonder if the US jets may have not been connected to the American next generation efforts, or if it's something the Chinese will test on a later airframe. After all not every feature is present on every prototype airframe. Or if the two move in different directions in that regard/material science constraints the engineers at Chengdu.

Edit: I'm also curious how much the J-36s development will influence the GCAP and FCAS moving forward. While I'm almost 100% sure the US knew about the developments at CAC for several years, I'm not entirely sure these findings would have been shared with the likes of Japan, the UK, Germany and France. While on the surface the general directions these programs are heading towards probably don't need major adjustments (given the systems of systems) approach, I can't help but think about the reactions at Mitsubishi, BAE, Dassault and Airbus D&S. Also at least in the case of GCAP the program is at a stage where major readjustments probably are hard to execute, even if they would be necessary.

And while the two are at first glance less relevant in discussions about the J-36s usecases, at least the GCAP would most likely be a potential adversary through Japan and the UK. I doubt Germany, France and Spain would participate in a Pacific War.

TWZ speculates that this silvery coating reduces the infrared signature.

It's not something Chinese aircraft require, given the state of IRST on the F-22 and F-35

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

 

[donnnage99]

First, the shining skin isn't for IR management. Notice the nose radome where the radar sits are not covered in this material.

Second, the state of IR sensors: on f-35 such as EODAS provide 360 degree coverage, and can triangulate to provide long range weapon track/guide without resorting to laser to calculate range. EODAS is an outgrowth of f-22's MLD so the f-22 theoretically has the spacing and apertures to take on the upgrade, not to mention the IRST/EW pods are in testing. Even the block III superhornet can use its IRST for triangulation (but not by a single aircraft).

There's no reason to still buy in on the myth of US shortcoming on IR sensors except for the laziness of research.

 

[zyklon]

Well, DF-17 is range limited and DF-27s are in stock in limited numbers. And they will be facing strong counter measures from adversary to cause them to miss target. Hitting moving ships with strong counter measures while traveling at mach10 isn't easy.

Having J-36 and H-20 + CCAs around will make things significantly more difficult for defensive force. Since you are dealing with better targeting (provided by your high end platforms that are not too far away), more EW pressure on defense, additional type of missiles and directions where defense will have to figure out how to defend. Variety, directions and breadth of attack make a huge difference in hit probability.

That's why I expect J-36 to be testing for a while. Being able to severely disrupt adversarial naval radar system is a huge difference maker.

It will certainly behoove the PLA to execute A2/AD operations with a multitude of attack vectors. That is something no reasonable person can disagree with.

Likewise, as you noted, the DF-27 has only recently entered service in limited numbers.

However, if and when the H-20 enters service, how many DF-27s will have been inducted, and how many more could have been manufactured with funding redirected from the H-20 program?

Unfortunately, there isn't enough reliable data to make a quantifiable comparison on just what system or mix of systems will offer the best ROI.

However, for reasons I will elaborate further, it might be time to fundamentally re-evaluate the value of heavy subsonic stealth bombers in particular and certain approaches to stealth in general.

---

With regard to EW, do you expect the J-36 or its CCAs to be doing most of the heavy lifting in terms of disrupting and degrading hostile communications and sensor systems?

Needless to say, the J-36's electrical system, which is arguably revolutionary, will give it an extraordinary amount of juice for all sorts of EW operations.

However, the requisite capabilities in play here are not exactly purely passive, but tend to release emissions that may make an aircraft more detectible and vulnerable against sophisticated adversaries capable of recognizing and/or counteracting EW.

This may in part be why the US NGAD is reportedly working towards EW oriented CCAs. By no means does that man the NGAD itself will be lacking in EW capabilities; if anything, both next generation Chinese and American systems will have teapots and teacups capable of executing collaborative EW missions in a complementary fashion.

I don't see why there wouldn't be a way to let the H-20 launch hypersonic cruise and ballistic missiles, possibly even with HGVs. Not to mention that such an airborne carrier would be all in all more survivable than ground based assets.

According to publicly accessible DoD data, a single DF-17 is ~11 meters long and weighs ~15 tons. How many of these do you think a H-20 will be able to carry?

TBF, sooner or later, someone will arm the PLAAF with more reasonably sized hypersonic weapons. Perhaps something akin to the MD-22, which is reportedly ~4 tons, or the YJ-21, but with a HGV warhead, which is reportedly even lighter?

However, I don't know if airborne carriers of such missiles will necessarily be more survivable than their ground counterparts.

For starters, whereas the H-20 is designed to fly to or at least near (though near can mean any number of things) the 3IC to conduct strikes, DF-27 crewmen probably don't ever expect to step off Chinese soil. So obviously, they may feel a little less vulnerable to hostile fire.

That's to be seen when the H-20 breaks cover. But I think we can all agree that a subsonic flying wing will be less likely to be detected than the supersonic tri-engine deltawing. Especially in the infrared range, while the J-36 will most likely take reduction of the IR signature into account, these are 3 engines that will need to be able to accelerate than chonky aircraft to supersonic speeds, as well as being able to run with an afterburner. I simply see no way how three afterburning engines (yes, supercruise is a thing, I know) right next to each other in a distinct cluster would not give off a significantly higher infrared signature than 2-4 engines spaces apart in two nacelles with a very wide nozzle each to get rid of that heat.

The emergence of orbital ISR constellations capable of persistent, real-time identification and tracking against moving ground, sea and air based targets is the real problem and threat to all sorts of stealth.

Moreover, the bigger you are and the slower you move, the more likely you'll be caught within the field of view of these systems.

Before someone starts questioning the existence of such orbital capabilities, I would like to encourage them to visit the website of ICEYE (

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

), a Finnish nanosat company that reportedly not only sold imagery, but also an IMINT satellite to the Ukrainian Armed Forces.

Let that sink in. If a relatively unknown Finnish nanosat company is openly marketing persistent spaceborne SAR capabilities, what do you think an agency with the NRO's budget and access to SpaceX's technology will be up to?

The answer is Starshield: you've probably heard of it, but if not, think militarized Starlink satellites that can also perform missions like IMINT and SIGINT collection.

One of the biggest upsides to this solution is that it's intended to be a constellation of at least several hundred satellites, which means enough sets of eyes for persistent, real-rime coverage over certain areas from LEO.

Now, let's ask ourselves:
- How many H-20s will be manufactured by XAC?
- Which airbases will H-20s fly out of?
- What mission profiles will H-20s employ given the most likely crisis and conflict scenarios in play?

These are all details that Uncle Sam will be able to approximate, and from there they'll develop collection parameters that will task Starshield satellites to observe H-20 satellites from takeoff to missile launch to landing.

Once fully fielded, such a constellation could be deployed to find and fix both heavy subsonic bombers, and light or at least relatively lighter supersonic aircraft like the J-36.

However, what's more likely to get spotted? Something big and slow, or something small and fast?

Moreover, when it comes to finishing, what sort of platform will be more likely to survive against SAMs and AAMs cued by such satellites?

---

Some reports have suggested that these Starshield satellites will also be employed to detect and track ICBM launches, which implies the ability to detect and track other missiles and perhaps some aircraft via infrared.

Against a constellation of such satellites, would you really want one of your most expensive, if not the most expensive aerial platform -- especially something that is heavy, subsonic and perhaps even politically symbolic -- loitering for hours waiting to strike enemy surface combatants?

More likely than not, the H-20 will operate at standoff distances to increase survivability. The more distance and escorts you put between such a heavy bomber and its targets, the more likely it is to survive.

However, that also makes the H-20's superior range -- which is inevitably a product of significant effort and expense -- less relevant, if not at some point moot.

At some point, you have to ask yourself:
- Is this solution suboptimal?
- is there a cheaper or better way to do things?

Disclaimer: Not here to upset or bait anyone with some emergent, mystery, anti-stealth wunderwaffen from Elon Musk and Northrop Grumman.

China is certainly developing comparable capabilities, and in all likelihood, so are a few other countries, and let's not even get started on ASAT capabilities coming into play.

Granted, outcomes will inevitably vary, but the general contours of such orbital ISR constellations should be clear enough, especially in terms of its potential impact on stealth aircraft.

Mods: If this is getting off topic, please don't hesitate to move/delete.

 

[ougoah]

It will certainly behoove the PLA to execute A2/AD operations with a multitude of attack vectors. That is something no reasonable person can disagree with.

Likewise, as you noted, the DF-27 has only recently entered service in limited numbers.

However, if and when the H-20 enters service, how many DF-27s will have been inducted, and how many more could have been manufactured with funding redirected from the H-20 program?

Unfortunately, there isn't enough reliable data to make a quantifiable comparison on just what system or mix of systems will offer the best ROI.

However, for reasons I will elaborate further, it might be time to fundamentally re-evaluate the value of heavy subsonic stealth bombers in particular and certain approaches to stealth in general.

---

With regard to EW, do you expect the J-36 or its CCAs to be doing most of the heavy lifting in terms of disrupting and degrading hostile communications and sensor systems?

Needless to say, the J-36's electrical system, which is arguably revolutionary, will give it an extraordinary amount of juice for all sorts of EW operations.

However, the requisite capabilities in play here are not exactly purely passive, but tend to release emissions that may make an aircraft more detectible and vulnerable against sophisticated adversaries capable of recognizing and/or counteracting EW.

This may in part be why the US NGAD is reportedly working towards EW oriented CCAs. By no means does that man the NGAD itself will be lacking in EW capabilities; if anything, both next generation Chinese and American systems will have teapots and teacups capable of executing collaborative EW missions in a complementary fashion.



According to publicly accessible DoD data, a single DF-17 is ~11 meters long and weighs ~15 tons. How many of these do you think a H-20 will be able to carry?

TBF, sooner or later, someone will arm the PLAAF with more reasonably sized hypersonic weapons. Perhaps something akin to the MD-22, which is reportedly ~4 tons, or the YJ-21, but with a HGV warhead, which is reportedly even lighter?

However, I don't know if airborne carriers of such missiles will necessarily be more survivable than their ground counterparts.

For starters, whereas the H-20 is designed to fly to or at least near (though near can mean any number of things) the 3IC to conduct strikes, DF-27 crewmen probably don't ever expect to step off Chinese soil. So obviously, they may feel a little less vulnerable to hostile fire.



The emergence of orbital ISR constellations capable of persistent, real-time identification and tracking against moving ground, sea and air based targets is the real problem and threat to all sorts of stealth.

Moreover, the bigger you are and the slower you move, the more likely you'll be caught within the field of view of these systems.

Before someone starts questioning the existence of such orbital capabilities, I would like to encourage them to visit the website of ICEYE (

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

), a Finnish nanosat company that reportedly not only sold imagery, but also an IMINT satellite to the Ukrainian Armed Forces.

Let that sink in. If a relatively unknown Finnish nanosat company is openly marketing persistent spaceborne SAR capabilities, what do you think an agency with the NRO's budget and access to SpaceX's technology will be up to?

The answer is Starshield: you've probably heard of it, but if not, think militarized Starlink satellites that can also perform missions like IMINT and SIGINT collection.

One of the biggest upsides to this solution is that it's intended to be a constellation of at least several hundred satellites, which means enough sets of eyes for persistent, real-rime coverage over certain areas from LEO.

Now, let's ask ourselves:
- How many H-20s will be manufactured by XAC?
- Which airbases will H-20s fly out of?
- What mission profiles will H-20s employ given the most likely crisis and conflict scenarios in play?

These are all details that Uncle Sam will be able to approximate, and from there they'll develop collection parameters that will task Starshield satellites to observe H-20 satellites from takeoff to missile launch to landing.

Once fully fielded, such a constellation could be deployed to find and fix both heavy subsonic bombers, and light or at least relatively lighter supersonic aircraft like the J-36.

However, what's more likely to get spotted? Something big and slow, or something small and fast?

Moreover, when it comes to finishing, what sort of platform will be more likely to survive against SAMs and AAMs cued by such satellites?

---

Some reports have suggested that these Starshield satellites will also be employed to detect and track ICBM launches, which implies the ability to detect and track other missiles and perhaps some aircraft via infrared.

Against a constellation of such satellites, would you really want one of your most expensive, if not the most expensive aerial platform -- especially something that is heavy, subsonic and perhaps even politically symbolic -- loitering for hours waiting to strike enemy surface combatants?

More likely than not, the H-20 will operate at standoff distances to increase survivability. The more distance and escorts you put between such a heavy bomber and its targets, the more likely it is to survive.

However, that also makes the H-20's superior range -- which is inevitably a product of significant effort and expense -- less relevant, if not at some point moot.

At some point, you have to ask yourself:
- Is this solution suboptimal?
- is there a cheaper or better way to do things?

Disclaimer: Not here to upset or bait anyone with some emergent, mystery, anti-stealth wunderwaffen from Elon Musk and Northrop Grumman.

China is certainly developing comparable capabilities, and in all likelihood, so are a few other countries, and let's not even get started on ASAT capabilities coming into play.

Granted, outcomes will inevitably vary, but the general contours of such orbital ISR constellations should be clear enough, especially in terms of its potential impact on stealth aircraft.

Mods: If this is getting off topic, please don't hesitate to move/delete.

Excellent thoughts.

To extend this into ASAT capabilities (since it is the natural progression as you mentioned), it is for a certainty that both sides recognise the importance of denying the other the same level of space based information collection and the active part this plays to air warfare.

Previously it benefited the US more to deny China these space based active ISR given the US advantage in stealth within atmosphere. With proliferating Chinese stealth and counter stealth assets acting within atmosphere and what the US wants to be able to achieve, penetration through coast, it shifted to the US proliferating space based counter stealth in the form of Starlink related constellations. In this field, China is quite far behind still in fielding micro satellite constellations to replace the higher tier but much more expensive and innumerous Jilin and Gaofen related satellites (not sure what the military equivalents are called).

Therefore total space denial is something both sides want to hold the button on in case either is able to dominate it better or make use of these assets more effectively. These sorts of comprehensive space denial ASAT weapons have yet to be seen in public but I have zero doubt both sides already have done quite a bit of work on it. After all, comprehensive ASAT, space denial weapons are just throwing up billions of fragments into orbits where the majority of militarised ISR satellites orbit. Each fragmentation warhead in such a weapon would produce multi millions of pieces so you'd only need a few dozen launches at most to take out the vast majority of space based assets for everyone. Lets not forget targeted ASAT weapons and each destroyed satellite producing millions of pieces of fragment clouds, adding to the comprehensive denial.

This isn't a long term problem for LEO because it's easier to deorbit the majority. After such a high intensity war, it will still take decades before space is remotely usable for new satellites.

China and US being the main players with space based assets (rest of the world combined don't even come close to either China or US in space assets by mass or volume and certainly when it comes to the US, also by unit if we count starlink). Therefore it makes sense that both hold these weapons. It would be extremely unprepared to not have them in some form of readiness already.

This means both sides pursue air warfare evolution with a low degree of confidence that space based assets remain operational during high intensity conflict. One or both sides will be actively knocking out all space assets of the other during a war. Fighters, bombers etc are going to be doing their thing and being designed with all these in mind.

 

[Stealthflanker]

Something I'm rather curious about is that while F-22s and F-35s with strange, silvery coatings have been spotted,

That silvery coatings is yes Silver flakes or a paint containing silver flakes.

The purpose of such painting is basically to equalize the Dielectric constant of the surface of the aircraft. Especially for F-22 where it's mentioned in a ppt, not necessarily for Infra red reduction.

This is the "skin" layer of F-22's and F-35's



That Silvery paint is that "Conductive coating". but hey isn't conductive material reflective to radar ? Yes, but you also can help radar absorber too, which they can absorb more incoming EM Wave. The EM Wave particularly at longer wavelength may penetrate beyond the thickness of the RAM and especially VHF can penetrate the composite skin and reflect from whatever inside the aircraft. That conductive material prevent that from happening while the RAM can (in case of shorter wavelength) absorb whatever left of the wave that penetrates and reflect back from the conductive coating.

If the dimension of your plane is big enough, having that conductive layer may also help you to maintain effectiveness of your stealth shaping in long wavelength e.g VHF. There will be no reflection coming from inside your plane.

Nowadays tho, especially for F-35 case, there might be no need for conductive coating as it can be embedded in the base of composite skin. This is what Russian use in Su-57.

 

[tphuang]

Okay, let's move on from this discussion of silver coating on F-22 and F-35. If you want to discuss what J-36 uses for stealth layer, we can talk about that.

But I don't get why people think they should be discussing other aircraft here.

 

[kurutoga]

If the dimension of your plane is big enough, having that conductive layer may also help you to maintain effectiveness of your stealth shaping in long wavelength e.g VHF. There will be no reflection coming from inside your plane.

I suspect B-2 and B-21 have conductive layer for this purpose.

 

[kurutoga]

On J-36, there is an interesting observation/hypothesis I saw on twitter, suggesting the existence of vectoring thrust structure after the engine nozzles

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

 

[Nx4eu]

On J-36, there is an interesting observation/hypothesis I saw on twitter, suggesting the existence of vectoring thrust structure after the engine nozzles

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

I know Tphuang just said not to discuss other aircraft, but the recessed engine is not indicative of the existence of a thrust vectoring structure. It is however indicative of a similar exhaust housing like the YF-23 which focuses on reducing the engines IR signature. What does suggest a vectoring structure are the petals that seem detached and move versus the rest of the tail structure, as that kind of feature is not present on the YF-23's design. This could indicate a sort of thrust vectoring that was discussed in this thread before.

Sort of solves the whole problem of the YF-23 has better than IR signature reduction than F-22 because it loses thrust vectoring. Seems like China has best of both worlds in this design. Thrust vectoring and even greater IR reduction compared to the F-22 type nozzle.

The YF-23 kind of engine exhaust housing for IR reduction can be spotted from the blurry J-36 Rear photo

 

[kwaigonegin]

I know Tphuang just said not to discuss other aircraft, but the recessed engine is not indicative of the existence of a thrust vectoring structure. It is however indicative of a similar exhaust housing like the YF-23 which focuses on reducing the engines IR signature. What does suggest a vectoring structure are the petals that seem detached and move versus the rest of the tail structure, as that kind of feature is not present on the YF-23's design. This could indicate a sort of thrust vectoring that was discussed in this thread before.

Sort of solves the whole problem of the YF-23 has better than IR signature reduction than F-22 because it loses thrust vectoring. Seems like China has best of both worlds in this design. Thrust vectoring and even greater IR reduction compared to the F-22 type nozzle.

The YF-23 kind of engine exhaust housing for IR reduction can be spotted from the blurry J-36 Rear photo
View attachment 143008
View attachment 143010

View attachment 143011

I concur. I've said in a previous post that I do not believe those are 2D TVCs. Not sure why some are so adamant that it is.
Also I think everyone agrees that it's quite obvious the J36 is optimized for long stand off engagements which further makes TVC superfluous.