Chengdu next gen combat aircraft (?J-36) thread
- Thread starter Blitzo
- Start date
These has been discussed here already and are likely CCAs not 6th gen mockupsA satellite image of the parade rehearsal ground. I spot two models that resemble the outlines of sixth gen aircraft from Shenyang and Chengdu.
3 mn is area where some of curre higher end US PGMs are.
I Franklin wonder if several years into the future US can deliver any multi effector at <10.
Especially with growing budget.
A satellite image of the parade rehearsal ground. I spot two models that resemble the outlines of sixth gen aircraft from Shenyang and Chengdu.
At this stage I would be very surprised if those were representative or related to the CAC and SAC next gen fighters.
Not only are they subscale (which would imply that the PLA would be willing to officially acknowledge their existence at a parade in such a strange manner), but they are also part of a contingent that is meant to be unmanned (led by a GJ-11, and a MALE UAV).
It is more likely that they are CCAs/UAVs which have a planform that superficially resembles the planform of the CAC and SAC aircraft -- after all a delta wing and a lambda wing aircraft are not that unique and could fit the bill for CCA type UCAVs as well as a large manned fighter.
Not sure how Valkyrie drones would fit into the doctrine. I've been thinking about doctrinal and tactical changes for modern full scale peer warfare lately. For aerial battles, I'm simply not seeing the viability of "cheap" CCAs. CCAs' purpose should be to leverage industrial capacity to maximize the use of human capital. A competent J-36 pilot would take years to train, but an aircraft can be manufactured in weeks to months.
So I think CCAs would essentially be unmanned 6th gen jets, perhaps with swappable mission packages. They'll be cheaper than manned jets, but not by that much. Maybe half as much as they're unmanned and don't need much avionics.
If you want cheap CCAs, then it really would be more versatile missiles. You would launch them with no particular target in mind, knowing that they're on one way missions and they'll be assigned targets by your aircrafts at some point of time. Maybe something like a 2-stage turbine/rocket propelled stealth missile, basically a stealthified, longer range PL-15 costing say $3 mil. They'd be assigned vulnerable targets by their 6th gen companions since they would have a pretty small payload (say 20-50kg), ideally opponent fighters, AWACS, or ground/ship based radars, but could also be lower value ones like tanks, IFVs, or even trucks since they're not coming back anyway. They'll then shed their stealth trappings, turbine engine, and basically become just a regular missile and start the rocket motor for a suicide mission.
Such a "CCA"/missile would IMO be preferable to the Valkyrie as I just don't see the Valkyrie doing anything. They can be detected by pretty much anything in a peer conflict and shot down by pretty much anything as well, and they only carry 2-4 SDBs each and can only fly at Mach 0.8. They seem to be more useful when you've already achieved air supremacy, but by then you can just use regular drones. If they can't survive, might as well design reusability out of it and make it into a missile. Take away reusability and make the payload smaller, but make it stealtheir and faster at the terminal stage.
Last edited:
A key question here is whether you can have something the size of a cruise missile (Valkyrie) and have a blended/flying wing which will give it broadband stealth against both short and long-wave radars.
Thinking about it, my gut says yes you can, but it will be at a severe cost to manoeuvrability.
But that shouldn't be an issue given the anticipated mission set.
---
So now we have a scenario where both CCAs (and smaller missiles) have broadband stealth.
1. That argues for even larger numbers of CCAs relative to manned fighters such as the J-36
2. And for even larger numbers of "smart" cruise missiles which will primarily deploy low-cost ground-attack payloads.
But mixed in amongst that cruise missile swarm will be some other payloads, such as AAMs.
So you have to treat the entire swarm as a potential threat.
---
As to propulsion question, when you start using rocket proulsion, the costs start to rack up immensely as you increase range.
But the cost-range/payload equation for long-range is much more favourable with jet engines (or even piston-engines)
---
So now we're got something which looks like a larger version of an low-cost expendable jet-engine Shaheed?
Note some versions of the existing Shaheed already have a 90kg payload.
The key is being low-cost, because then you can use them for all sorts of missions and don't mind if many get shot down
ok, as in the SAC J-XDS thread!!
Guys ... can we stick to the topic and no longer discuss in almost all flagship threads what just common sense?
Please continue any CCA discussions here or create a new one:
Guys ... can we stick to the topic and no longer discuss in almost all flagship threads what just common sense?
Please continue any CCA discussions here or create a new one:
Chinese UCAV/CCA/flying wing drones (ISR, A2A, A2G) thread
Parade drones/UCAVs, via @type36512
www.sinodefenceforum.com