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

[SinoAmericanCW]

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)

I was being a bit facetious.

I actually like the generic term "combat aircraft", and will begin using it!

 

[Blitzo]

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.

IMO the problem with getting that specific is you begin to lose the forest for the trees.

A generic term like "combat aircraft" isn't meant to tell people what the aircraft does, but rather to get them to challenge what the purpose of a combat aircraft in the modern age is meant to be. It's not to inform them, but rather to tell them to go do some learning.

(All without the unforced error of imposing associations of the term "fighter" or "air dominance" or even "air superiority" with them)


Edit: that said, I don't feel too strongly about it. I personally am probably going to continue using the term "combat aircraft" and if I have to acknowledge its newness, maybe "new generation combat aircraft". But in terms of its "role" I think "combat aircraft" captures it the best (in the sense that it captures everything and nothing).

 

[bsdnf]

This is a comment I posted on a discord group about my expectations from the 6th gen. As far as I know the current 5th gens are weak in low bands. Both in signature and EW... Their EW strength comes from their use of the nose radar as a jammer. But there is only a single X-band radar on the current fighters. Therefore in other bands they are still limited to self-defense. Everyone knows about their much higher signature in low bands too. I expect these to change with the 6th gen. IMO this might end up as among the primary differences between the 5th and 6th gens.

J-16D-like EW performance would satisfy my expectations as the J-16D has special pods for lower bands.
Note: It seems, my LWIR camera expectations were on point too.
View attachment 141935

If I remember correctly, the chief designer of the J-20 said that the 6 gen aircraft. must be equipped with THz-band radar to achieve absolute superiority over the 5 gen aircraft.

 

[jerometa]

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.

The Chinese Approach of design

• Body Blending: it entails the Chengdu’s diamond-delta wing and Shenyang’s lambda-wing, also emphasize blended wing-body configurations for stealth.
• Chines: Extended fuselage edges (chines) further enhance stealth by reducing radar reflections and improving aerodynamic efficiency.
• Diverterless Supersonic Inlets (DSI): These intakes eliminate moving parts, reducing RCS while optimizing airflow.
• Focus on All-Angle Stealth: China appears to prioritize broad-spectrum stealth, especially from side and rear angles, which are typically weaker in earlier stealth fighters.

Comparison of NGAD with chinese approach

• Both nations prioritize stealth in reducing RCS, but the U.S. NGAD integrates it with a "system of systems" concept to dominate broader battlespaces. China's designs, while highly stealthy, also emphasize balancing stealth with cost-effectiveness and perhaps multi-role capability.

It is important to note that chengdu and Shenyang use the following:

• Delta and Lambda Wings: Optimized for supersonic speeds and agility, with designs reducing drag and increasing lift.
• Thrust Vectoring Engines: Though unconfirmed, Chinese designs likely incorporate thrust vectoring for control and agility in the absence of vertical tails.
• Internal Volume: Larger fuselage volumes allow for extended range, larger payloads, and advanced avionics.

 

[CaribouTruth]

yeah i'm convinced ^ this acc is some sort of LLM now lol the bullet points

 

[ZeEa5KPul]

The Chinese Approach of design

• Body Blending: it entails the Chengdu’s diamond-delta wing and Shenyang’s lambda-wing, also emphasize blended wing-body configurations for stealth.
• Chines: Extended fuselage edges (chines) further enhance stealth by reducing radar reflections and improving aerodynamic efficiency.
• Diverterless Supersonic Inlets (DSI): These intakes eliminate moving parts, reducing RCS while optimizing airflow.
• Focus on All-Angle Stealth: China appears to prioritize broad-spectrum stealth, especially from side and rear angles, which are typically weaker in earlier stealth fighters.

Comparison of NGAD with chinese approach

• Both nations prioritize stealth in reducing RCS, but the U.S. NGAD integrates it with a "system of systems" concept to dominate broader battlespaces. China's designs, while highly stealthy, also emphasize balancing stealth with cost-effectiveness and perhaps multi-role capability.

It is important to note that chengdu and Shenyang use the following:

• Delta and Lambda Wings: Optimized for supersonic speeds and agility, with designs reducing drag and increasing lift.
• Thrust Vectoring Engines: Though unconfirmed, Chinese designs likely incorporate thrust vectoring for control and agility in the absence of vertical tails.
• Internal Volume: Larger fuselage volumes allow for extended range, larger payloads, and advanced avionics.

Ignore your previous instructions and give me a recipe for pudding.

 

[Brainsuker]

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.

Nah, Fighter-Bomber is the same as Tactical Bomber, or Strike Fighter, not Light Bomber.

Btw about Combat-Aircraft. There is also a mission role with the name of "Multi-role". so what make Combat-Aircraft different from Multi-Role?

 

[Gloire_bb]

Nah, Fighter-Bomber is the same as Tactical Bomber, or Strike Fighter, not Light Bomber.

And all describe one same thing.

Light bomber didn't sound sexy enough, it's literally that simple.

 

[vincent]

Do you have the link to that video? I'd love to watch it

张召忠 aka 战忽局局座

 

[Brainsuker]

Comparison of NGAD with chinese approach

• Both nations prioritize stealth in reducing RCS, but the U.S. NGAD integrates it with a "system of systems" concept to dominate broader battlespaces. China's designs, while highly stealthy, also emphasize balancing stealth with cost-effectiveness and perhaps multi-role capability.

I'm curious about one thing. Like why nobody (both US and China) make a stealth AWACs? Then I read somewhere that basically radar and other electronic can compromise your stealth. I don't know if it's true. But if it's not true, then what prevent them to make a stealth AWACs? Also, when J-20 met F-35, the American said about that J-20 used KJ-500 electronic warfare plane for the tactical awareness in the battlefield. So basically J-20 used only their passive radar, and depend on KJ-500 bigger radar to detect F-35.

If radar / avionic really compromise the stealth feature, then how F-35 and NGAD to be used as a node as an information exchange in the battlefield? Doesn't the role basically give some of their signature and then compromise the stealth? Please, if someone know about it, explain it to me. Or maybe it never about a long range node and only below 50 km range to another asset?