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

[Fergus]

Chinese libs usually end up the way they are because they can’t pass primary school geometry.

Not to continue discussing this but I have just debunked the F-22 showing it has no RCS reduction.

 

[siegecrossbow]

War, war never changes.

 

[GTI]

It's too early to say that the designs have matured and finalized, given that they just had their first flights (or possibly about to, for Shenyang AC's case).



I don't think there's going to be JH-XX anymore.

The roles and capabilities of which the JH-XX was originally envisioned to play/have would've already found their way forward on the J-36, J-DXS and even when MUMT-ed with UCAVs.

J-36 is not a fighter. J-36 is not a bomber. J-36 is also not a fighter-bomber.

It’s a paradigm shift. Calling J-36 an “Air Destroyer” would actually be more accurate. Maybe “Air Cruiser”.

Searching for naval (and space fleet, lol) comparisons actually make better sense than trying to compare it to previous epoch. With 6th gen we have drone carriers; CCA “torpedo boats”, “corvettes” or “frigates”; battlespace command (almost “flag facilities”); and networked aerial platforms ranging from micro (comparatively) to very large.

 

[Blitzo]

J-36 is not a fighter. J-36 is not a bomber. J-36 is also not a fighter-bomber.

It’s a paradigm shift. Calling J-36 an “Air Destroyer” would actually be more accurate. Maybe “Air Cruiser”.

Searching for naval (and space fleet, lol) comparisons actually make better sense than trying to compare it to previous epoch. With 6th gen we have drone carriers; CCA “torpedo boats”, “corvettes” or “frigates”; battlespace command (almost “flag facilities”); and networked aerial platforms ranging from micro (comparatively) to very large.

I personally have in recent months used the term "combat aircraft" in some settings.

While I understand the rationale of naval allegories, I think a direct naval terminology use has potential risks of conveying the wrong metaphor

 

[SinoAmericanCW]

I personally have in recent months used the term "combat aircraft" in some settings.

While I understand the rationale of naval allegories, I think a direct naval terminology use has potential risks of conveying the wrong metaphor

"Main Battle Aircraft".

 

[Blitzo]

"Main Battle Aircraft".

Deriving a connection with main battle tanks/AFVs I think may also be unhelpful.

What we want is a sufficiently generic and easily understood term that does not carry any baggage from other domains of warfare (as that may lead to incorrect derived meanings).


The best one I've come up with so far is just "combat aircraft". The fewer words the better as well.

(E.g.: the term "fighter aircraft" has loaded baggage as well)

 

[ddd...]

Deriving a connection with main battle tanks/AFVs I think may also be unhelpful.

What we want is a sufficiently generic and easily understood term that does not carry any baggage from other domains of warfare (as that may lead to incorrect derived meanings).


The best one I've come up with so far is just "combat aircraft". The fewer words the better as well.

(E.g.: the term "fighter aircraft" has loaded baggage as well)

Manned Air Dominance Node

 

[Blitzo]

Manned Air Dominance Node

Too many words, and the word "dominance" in context of aerial combat has always had an air of insecurity to me.
The perception that "air dominance" is better than the accepted term of "air superiority" is also something funny.

"Combat aircraft" is simple, bland, relatively short, and lacking in baggage.
The point is to inspire no emotions and to keep the term open to broad interpretation by design, in the same way that the next generation will be broad in capabilities and role.

 

[reservior dogs]

Manned Air Dominance Node

A J-16 would also fit this title.

 

[another505]

How will it command drones at 2IC, which UCAV have such range or even the speed remotely to follow the J-36 to that far?
Or is it a command UCAV at shorter range + long distance tactical bombing/fighting by itself or other J-36?