Chengdu next gen combat aircraft (?J-36) thread
- Thread starter Blitzo
- Start date
It's just a marketing gimmick for them. If they had a comparable to J-36 NGAD, they wouldn't call B-21 6th gen. They'd call the NGAD it.
- This is a forum and making fun of Americans cope is part of the fun.
- Caling CCA node being a 6th gen feature is also part of that American cope, because the only country with an actual CCA node doesn't consider it 6th gen feature.
There is jokes then there is just misleading information. USAF in 2010s layed out 5 technologies they see as key to 6th gen and CCA / ‘node’ was one of them. That is how they see it and I don’t see how that matters or changes anythin. It’s a marketing / subjective term
Well they evidently don't see it that way anymore considering they sent NGAD back to the drawing board to "reevaulate" 6th gen definition.
We don’t know what they are evaluating they never explicitly said so. All they did say is they want to make sure they have the right idea/design before committing billions of dollars to it.
Yeah you don't just "pause" and "re-evaluate" your life 10 years into a program if you're remotely confident in your original track.
Assume you meant the split ailerons, they're to produce yaw torque to enhance yaw stability since the plane don't have vertical stabilizer. They open up to create drag, so unequal drag (one side open one side close) creates torque in yaw axis.
If you mean why they split the split-ailerons in two sections, I can make a guess:
Notice the angle of the split ailerons on B-2 is obtuse to the planes axis, so that when the split ailerons are deployed they enhanced stability in the yaw axis (slight perturbation in yaw result in larger frontal area on one side and smaller on the other side, creates a torque to correct the plane)
Contrary to B-2, J-36's diamond form trailing edges are at acute angle to the plane axis, if they arrange split ailerons parallel to trailing edge like B-2 does it will cause adverse effect to yaw stability. Hence you can see how the J-36's hinges of split ailerons are not parallel to trailing edges and instead at an angle, at this point you can easily tell why they split it in two sections because otherwise there isn't enough space for it.
Anyway, this is my best guess.
Last edited:
Doctrinally, I don't think there is a Chinese requirement for "Penetrating"
The US is operating with the geographical reality that China has many more airbases (150+ in mainland China) and tactical aircraft (2000) available in the Western Pacific. In comparison, the US realistically has access to about 10 airbases in Japan and 1 in Guam. Then there's a few mobile airbases in the form of aircraft carriers, plus a few more scattered, distant bases in Alaska, Hawaii and Australia.
So the US side faces the problem of being at a very large disadvantage in terms of numbers and can't suppress enough Chinese airbases.
Hence the US requirement Penetrating Counter Air (PCA) and Penetrating Long Range Strike (PLRS).
---
In comparison,
The Chinese have a significant advantage in the number of aircraft available in the Western Pacific. And because there are so few airbases available to the US, the Chinese can aim for outright air superiority and taking out all opposing airbases in the Western Pacific. Also note that all the potential US airbases are on small isolated islands in the Western Pacific that can be subjected to an air-sea blockade. I would even include the Japanese Home Islands in this category.
1. In terms of air-superiority munitions, the standard AAM is the dual-pulse PL-15 with a listed range of up to 200km. So there is no need for a Chinese fighter aircraft to ever overfly a hostile landmass to shoot down an opposing aircraft.
2. In terms of land-attack munitions, it looks like every conceivable land target in the Western Pacific can be reached by low-cost glide bombs with a 100km range. So again, there is no need for Chinese aircraft to overfly a hostile landmass.
Also note that all of the First Island Chain lies at most 1300km from mainland Chinese territory. That is within range of Tomahawk-class cruise missiles and large numbers of low-cost piston-engine cruise missiles launched from trucks on mainland China. And as they say, the best time to shoot down an aircraft is when it is on the ground.
In the Second Island Chain, if we have J-36s conducting air superiority missions and conducting daily attacks on Guam, then the airbase won't be functional and Guam itself would be under blockade.
Anyway, back on topic