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

[siegecrossbow]

Yes, very important to consider.

I spoke about this yesterday on my twitter space.

if you are still wondering what it can carry in IWB, then you are missing the point completely.

think system, think platforms.

that’s what all these old time analysts like Justin bronk doesn’t understand.

JH-XX is such an old concept. Think newer and bigger. It would be better if you think of J-36 as a super fast, maneuverable & survivable forward operating command & control aircraft.

it brings significant more cape than SAC design due to its sheer size, top speed & range.

It is just a way of coping. We are entering a new era of air combat philosophy (think going from wooden warships to iron clads) but they are still clinging to tactics outdated even in the mid 2010s, the very thing they mock the Russians on if I recall correctly (focus on BFM instead of avionics and RCS reduction) they are now grasping desperately at in order to discredit the J-36 and save face.

In fact in this video Yankee and ShiLao anticipated Western analysts downplaying it as a “fighter-bomber”. Surprisingly how little people learn in over a decade.

 

[gongolongo]

This is US Air Combat Command chief said back in 2022

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

China flew the 1st 6th gen, China also flew the 2nd 6th gen, that's just how it is.
The fact that China can afford two while US can't afford one means the race is already over.

IMO the debate should really be did CAC flew the world's first 6th gen or did SAC flew the world's first 6th gen.

Well China can not afford two....yet. These are prototypes. Like all programs like these, prototypes are one thing while mass production is another. My only issue is that people assume now that China is ahead and that it's time to celebrate. We don't know the status of NGAD. They could have flown 4 different prototypes but it doesn't mean they're acquiring 4 different air frames

 

[enroger]

I also speculate that the reason why the split is at an angle rather than parallel is because the top aileron is deflecting over-body vortical flow, which pinches the pressure distribution over the wings laterally, while the bottom provides yaw stability like ventral fins. If my guess is right this arrangement gives the flying wing a good degree of controllable instability.

I'm sure they have ancillary consideration other than yaw stability, maybe you're right. Just wondering how bald their control law people are.

And I still don't know why split the inner flaps sorta like XB-70, presumably differential deflection on those too for whatever reason. There goes the last strand of hair for the control law people

 

[minime]

JH-XX is such an old concept. Think newer and bigger. It would be better if you think of J-36 as a super fast, maneuverable & survivable forward operating command & control aircraft.

it brings significant more cape than SAC design due to its sheer size, top speed & range.

That's why I think future manned combat aircraft boil down to 2 type: offense and defense
J-XC(J36) is the offense type, J-XS(SAC) is the defense type

 

[gongolongo]

China has 2x 6th gen programs (plus whatever XAC is working on), while US couldn't even afford a NGAD design that they admited couldn't compete... I think its time we stop with the notion that US can do what China does.

US is OK with F-35's stealth because Americans mentally can't process the idea that you can be seen

Like I said, China's 6th gen might not fulfill requirements from NGAD. Also didn't the US fly a couple prototypes a couple years ago? I'm still cautious about what is known public VS reality of NGAD.

 

[bebops]

Well China can not afford two....yet. These are prototypes. Like all programs like these, prototypes are one thing while mass production is another. My only issue is that people assume now that China is ahead and that it's time to celebrate. We don't know the status of NGAD. They could have flown 4 different prototypes but it doesn't mean they're acquiring 4 different air frames

if they flown 4 NGAD, and they haven't picked a top candidate, it means none of them are good enough

 

[Type11_atRocket]

Yes, very important to consider.

I spoke about this yesterday on my twitter space.

if you are still wondering what it can carry in IWB, then you are missing the point completely.

think system, think platforms.

that’s what all these old time analysts like Justin bronk doesn’t understand.

JH-XX is such an old concept. Think newer and bigger. It would be better if you think of J-36 as a super fast, maneuverable & survivable forward operating command & control aircraft.

it brings significant more cape than SAC design due to its sheer size, top speed & range.

I wouldn't even be surprised if it carries some kind of decoy UAV in the IWB

 

[siegecrossbow]

I wouldn't even be surprised if it carries some kind of decoy UAV in the IWB

So towed decoy except no strings attached?

 

[Type11_atRocket]

This is really old way of thinking.

the power of j-36 will not come from itself but also from UCAV that you package around it.

think about something like MD22, both it and J-36 will have 3000 km combat radius. Anything MD-22 drops will be hypersonic just due to its momentum alone.


No, mach2.5+ won’t be the most efficient cruising speed.

higher speed allows J36 to get to battlefield faster. That carries signifi

no, they specifically said Guam which is 3000 km away. That means 3000 km combat radius + loiter time.

50% more weight does not mean 50% more fuel tank. Also, 50% more weight and engine does not mean 50% more fuel consumption.

with latest material science tech & space + weight reduction tech, I expect doubling of fuel tank.

flywing designs allow for large amount of fuel in the wing and offers lower drag vs conventional designs that have tail

Also the 3 engine 3 intake layout allow for certain subsonic cruise mode that is likely very fuel efficient and low RCS.

If they say 10000 km range then I expect it can be used to strike target 4000 km away.

think Alaska.

Yes, it is a B-21 hunter when paired with a bunch of UCAVs.

Think farther. By the time this thing goes into service, China probably will have more control over central & South Asia, allowing it to presumably refuel overland outside of its territory if necessary. But realistically speaking, that’s not too important long term. Hitting Diego Garcia is a logical target.

This is really poor analysis that’s very based on 2000s air warfare concept.

this is essentially a forward operating command & control aircraft that will be designed to operate close to enemy bases or far out fleet or loiter for long period of time to 1IC. Because it’s very survivable platform that can outrun AAMs & probably kill them with DEW.

What J-36 carries in its IWB is not as important as what UCAVs you pair along with it.

its inherently a multi role platform because its attacking prowess will come from the nodes that it control.

think of it as a central node (brain) with many other nodes that are manned or unmanned. Those side nodes will help it form one platform that attacks adversary.

they will operate as one unit for sensor fusion to computation to area coverage to attack missions to staying on station (some refueling drones)

hence the need for 2 pilots. It’s going to be controlling many nodes.

There is even a possibility of using ballistic missiles as boosters to launch hypersonic UCAV such as the MD22 directly into a combat zone, with J-XCs commanding them. This requires almost no transit time, and can quickly gather a formidable A2A force over any war zone in a short time, while the J-XC itself does not have to face any dangerous scenarios.

 

[Type11_atRocket]

So towed decoy except no strings attached?

True, using UAVs is obviously more flexible, which will greatly improve the J-XC's survivability