Any guess on service ceiling? I'm guessing atleast 75,000 feet if Mach 3.
Chengdu next gen combat aircraft (?J-36) thread
- Thread starter Blitzo
- Start date
That fits any aircraft. How do you convey information that this is a sixth gen?
I mean,"next gen manned fighter" is pretty sufficient. Anyone who look at this name with a photo of J-36 and say no that doesn't look right is either ignorant to what's happening "next gen" or simply feeling defensive, and changing the way we name it doesn't help with that.
That's the point, you don't.
The whole idea of using such a bland, generic term is to get people to ask themselves why it has such a broad name rather than automatically stereotyping characteristics to it if it's called a "fighter" or "fighter bomber" or "striker" or "bomber" in context of being "XYZ generation".
By using a bland, generic name you force people to actually think about what "combat" means in the modern age for aircraft and into the future.
As Blitzo notes, term fighter has undesirable load.
People see it, assume its maneuver capabilities will be limited, and then immediately proceed "if not, then" to call it striker/bomber.
Do you have the link to that video? I'd love to watch it
But from what I can see with NGAD system, it’s conceptually the same as what you have with J36. Tyler rogoway seems to get it. But the other ones are still clinging onto fighter vs fighter bomber concept.
I have written about this already. But some examples are the MD22 project. I think GJ11 can potentially do it. But likely, they need one or two new platforms the can be adopted for different missions from ground attack to anti ship to a2a to SEAD. They can carry different type of radar optimized for different band, so the system can work together.
again, drones don’t have to cruise at same speed as the primary node to their destination.
Yes, the issue is that most of them aren't able to have the imagination to mirror their own UCAV/CCA efforts to PLA efforts/J-36.
The inability to recognize what's good for the goose is good for the gander is a bit of a blindspot for those elements of the commentariat.
(To be fair to NGAD, we do not yet know what the actual manned aircraft will look like, but at least the UCAV/CCA efforts are something that seems consistent across multiple global next gen combat aircraft efforts, including GCAP and FCAS as well)
My counter argument would be:
1. "Air superiority" is only one mission of the 6-gen air warfare system, while we should already agree that the traditional lines between air superiority vs say RS, EW, deep strike or even strategic bombing (assuming J-36 can carry supersonic and maybe nuclear weapons) are blurred in the 6-gen air warfare. In contrast, "air dominance" is a higher level of air control through not only air supremacy but also sea/ground or even space (assuming J-36 is also capable of attacking near space targets) suppression.
2. "Combat aircraft" is too generic to the extent that all components of the 6-gen air warfare system, as well as all older generation air warfare aircrafts, can be called so.
3. To me, the primary difference between J-36 and other components of the 6-gen air warfare system is that it is manned. While the primary difference between it and older combat aircrafts is that it is a "node" rather than a stand-alone aircraft.
NGAD is closer to what we see from Shenyang. Or, now, probably even su-75.
It's smaller (even in its original iteration; and in a current one, apparently, at least 2-2.5 times smaller), and it's in fact fully *fighter*.
Bfm capability doesn't inherently make you a lesser control node.
Also, their use of fighter-bomber(fancy term for light bomber) arguably betrays they don't analyze what they see.
Fighter-bomber isn't a wrong word. It just would've described a different thing.