It's an "AI enhanced" version of this image... personally I'm not a fan of AI enhanced images
Chengdu next gen combat aircraft (?J-36) thread
- Thread starter Blitzo
- Start date
It's an "AI enhanced" version of this image... personally I'm not a fan of AI enhanced images
Technically no, it's an AI enhanced image.
For 3km combat range, and some (non)permissions for overfly, it looks like all US bases in Persian Gulf and Gulf of Oman are more or less in range.
This will massively expand Chinese threat vectors towards US forces stationed in Middle East. Could now expand from Asia Pacific to the Middle East theater
This will massively expand Chinese threat vectors towards US forces stationed in Middle East. Could now expand from Asia Pacific to the Middle East theater
Maybe they're trying to make it harder for reconnaissance satellites to spot them.
This bird looks more like a "regional bomber" (think SU-34) than any kind of fighter. Range, stealth, internal weapons carriage, apparently side-by-side cockpit... it's got all the bomber-vibes in my opinion...
I don't understand how a J-36 would be the "perfect counter" to a B-21.
Presumably the B-21 has all-aspect broadband radar stealth.
So it should be able to detect LPI radars searching for it and the B-21 would therefore take a detour to avoid detection.
---
However, a B-21 doesn't need to be countered directly, if it doesn't have supporting tankers and airbases.
If we assume that enough J-36s can establish air and maritime superiority to a distance of 3000km (which includes Guam), then the B-21 will have to operate from Hawaii, Australia or Alaska. B-21s can still conduct missions with in-air refuelling, but due to the distances, sortie rates will plummet and we'll see tanker requirements increase exponentially, with daisy-chains of tankers having to refuel other tankers.
But from what USAF said, a broadband all aspect stealth plane/6th gen supposedly only needs to be able to use AAMs in order to be a game changer in air superiority, even if the airframe itself has utter dogshit aerodymamics. And I'm actually inclined to believe them on that point at least.
US doctrine developers came to the idea that a future small/medium aircraft lineup should consist of two platforms: Penetrating Counter Air (PCA) and Penetrating Long Range Strike (PLRS).
If following the law of similar goals causing similar looking solutions and assuming China also came to the same doctrinal solution, then it is clear that J-36 is defintely not the PCA element and rather the PLRS element.
But I'd absolutely not say it makes it incompetent in air to air, in fact strike can also include striking the enemy AWACS and tankers.
Does B-21 really need tanker support? I think range should be long enough.
This has already been discussed many times.
Going forwards the differentiator between a "theater bomber" and a "large air superiority fighter" may not be particularly significant.
===
Crossposting something I wrote elsewhere:
"I see this aircraft as a large, long range and endurance, stealthy, command+processing platform to direct friendly UCAVs and other manned fighters, while possessing its own very capable onboard weapons + sensors to engage targets independently when needed, and to possess enough kinematics to engage, disengage or avoid engagements on its own terms.
And I also view the above descriptor as what the future of an "air superiority aircraft" may be oriented towards."
It’s ridiculous that B-21 can be considered sixth gen but J-36 cannot when the former is designed from the ground up to be a bomber.