Afterburner top speed can be sustained (moreover, with carefully done engine it can be efficient); it's a matter of goal.
Most of human air activity just doesn't happen at M=3.
Chengdu next gen combat aircraft (?J-36) thread
- Thread starter Blitzo
- Start date
Most of human air activity just doesn't happen at M=3.
The halt is temporary and linked to specific issues and benchmarks. That in itself doesn't tell us much, since it's just about the delivery and acceptance dates of specific airframes.
What's more telling is that fat Amy is still far behind operational readiness rates of previous aircrafts at the same stage of development/procurement. It should be a mature platforms based on normal reasoning, and its suite of capabilities are no longer leading edge. Yet it still suffers from chronic problems of various types, whose end is no where in sight. Not the least of which are the systems upgrades.
F-35 looks like a platform that will continue to suffer from massive operational issues well into its twilight years (which should only be 15-20 years away).
Most human air activity didnt happen at Mach 0.85 either before turbojets
As I said we dont know other than from swept angle what J36's operating envelope is, but its objective physics that high sustained Mach and altitude will achieve generational level dominance over lower gen
Yes, but unless you're ready to move everything from drones to presidential jets to m=3, and somehow make positional activity(like, loiter/cap) at m=3 effective(and, in case of low altitudes, possible without destroying either the jet and all civilian life below) - we're (mostly) flying subsonic.
ChAD is a bit over this scheme, as it appears now - it's very likely a silver bullet type aircraft, doing its own things (or relying on CCAs to achievable degree). It isn't PLAAF future rank and file aircraft.
This thread is about air combat, not future of flight
air combat is somehow tied to flight.
It isn't sport for the sake of sport.
I don't want to verge too much out of topic, but early talk and speculation of one of 7th gen characteristics is about extreme altitude/near-space operations.
If that's the case, then high altitude, high mach would indeed be PLAAF's future direction
Of course that's all early speculation, we still need more information and photos
Last edited:
Glad that the nickname I coined — CHAD, is catching on.
On a side note it is annoying that the same cope as when the J-20 came out are permeating the plane/military enthusiast circle. It is a striker/bomber, pure interceptor, or a demonstrator. Need I remind them that fighter aircraft size has been increasing as propulsion tech becomes more sophisticated? An F-15 weighs as much as a B-17, and an F-35 weighs almost as much as an F-15. It is only a matter of time before air based destroyers like the J-36 becomes reality.
On a side note it is annoying that the same cope as when the J-20 came out are permeating the plane/military enthusiast circle. It is a striker/bomber, pure interceptor, or a demonstrator. Need I remind them that fighter aircraft size has been increasing as propulsion tech becomes more sophisticated? An F-15 weighs as much as a B-17, and an F-35 weighs almost as much as an F-15. It is only a matter of time before air based destroyers like the J-36 becomes reality.
It's speculated this way since mid 1950s... count me very sceptical.
Fighter - as opposed to interceptor, interdictor(word best suited to describe J-36, btw; IMHO of course), penetration bomber, etc, - should be able to fight in all situations and at all speeds. Sometimes you intercept supersonic jets at 60k feet, sometimes you fight helicopters at 600 feet, sometimes you escort a transport aircraft, sometimes you loiter for hours just in case. Sometimes...
And it's just impossibly hard to mix extremes with existing propulsive tech. Like, mig-31 is already a big trouble in WVR for everyone, despite it not really being built for WVR fight (fight being a situation when enemy can fight back and you have to do something about it).
But as a fighter aircraft(not just interceptor with part-time killer job) its just hopeless.
This doesn't mean such near-space fighters won't appear - like, if nearspace travel will appear as something more serious than sci-fi, technology will have to match new rules of medium. If mr. Xi flies on CZ-9 in a state visit with remote risk, he'll need escort.
But this is in addition, not instead. You can carry passengers with CZ-9, but loitering or providing CAS with it will be quite hard.
So for now, J-36:
(1)Interdictor - long range, theater maneuver speed, broadband VLO; air or surface targets regardless. Enemy theater order of battle disruptor.
(2)battlefield aircraft - there's a lot of optimism for it as a command node, though frankly i don't think i see it. It can do it, probably better than J-20S. It's still not worth it using such a valuable plane for it over available c&c nodes, unless situation calls for it.
(3)interceptor - not exactly built for the role, but again, why not. Speed is here, loiter is here, weapons are here. High T:W and stealth will be wasted, but sometimes you need to do the job, not complain about margins and efficiencies.
(4)fighter. I don't think it can't do BCMs - and it certainly can do very long range escort better than almost anything. Ultimately, if you have side sensors and corresponding level of picture - you can fight with offbore weapons. Not the most energy-advantageous way, but it's a way.
It's just unlikely to be good at WVR BCMs(no vertical surfaces is a con, no way around), so, say, forcing annoyances away without shooting them down may be hard.
