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

TK3600

Major
Registered Member
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era of air combat philosophy (think going from wooden warships to iron clads) but they are still clinging to tactics outdated even in the mid 2010s, the very thing they mock the Russians on if I recall correctly (focus on BFM instead of avionics and RCS reduction) they are now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.

@Deino You are mentioned near end!
 

TK3600

Major
Registered Member
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
Knowing how China works, we will most certainly have two, one way or other. Maybe one for navy one for air force, or one domestic one export, or both supplement each other (Mig31/Su-35).

NGAD contractor is not even selected. My optimistic estimation is flyable concept demonstrator, but final design requirement is not set. The final plane will be very different from current prototype.
 

zlixOS

Just Hatched
Registered Member
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.
My suggestion: manned heavy combat node

It emphasizes the networkability of 6th gen fighters, bombers, strike aircraft, UAVs, and AEWACS while also avoiding loaded terms such as fighters, bombers, strike aircraft, UAVs, and AEWACS. SAC's design could be a manned/unmanned medium combat node (depending on the rumors).
 

FairAndUnbiased

Brigadier
Registered Member
Initially I thought about the possibility of it carrying air launch YJ-21 and thought it was ridiculous due to the size of the missile. Then I realize this thing can fling those missiles at M2 plus, 20km altitude, this will massively reduce the size of the booster (rough estimate shave off halve of the solid fuel) compared to one carried by H-6. Thoughts?

On a tangent, geometrically speaking the center bay may even be deep enough to house a rotary rack for six PL-17 telephone poles.....
Interesting idea with the rotary launcher. This reminds me of my predictions for the next PLAAF plane to come out.

On the JH-XX thread, I commented on a JH-XX design in August 2023 then in March-April 2024.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Summary of properties:
1. roughly fighter shaped, not subsonic flying wing, aerodynamically less ambitious
2. both LO in RF and supersonic
3. ~40 tons MTOW
4. ~23 m length
5. at least 1 top side intake
6. maybe trijet
7. uses existing engines
8. role as good kinematics launch platform for high range munitions both anti ground and anti air with organic target finding capabilities using high mach + RF LO to minimize reaction time and detectability
Was I kind of on the mark? ;) not too bad for guessing eh?

Many believed that I was insane for even thinking of a RF LO + supersonic + trijet + top intake design in the 23 m length, 40 ton MTOW regime. Many said that this was an "unimportant ability" to have.

I also said it could be integrated with a rotary launcher for missiles as the most efficient way of having a large payload. But we'll see soon enough.
 

Blitzo

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Registered Member
The point of calling it 6th gen is it's a simple concept that effectively rub in the humiliation into American' simple brains and demoralize them into making irrational decisions, decisions that given their financial and technical limitations they could not afford to get wrong.

Technical discussion can ignore the term, but the term should be used everywhere and all the time.

TBH I'm not interested in trying to cause or defend emotional reactions from one side or another.

I'm more interested in facilitating productive, useful discussion and that includes all sides who have an interest in accurately discussing this aircraft.
 

TK3600

Major
Registered Member
if they flown 4 NGAD, and they haven't picked a top candidate, it means none of them are good enough
Knowing US, this is likely what happened:

NGAD demonstrators are good enough. It was delayed because it is not urgent, and penny pinching is priority. More reflective of politics than plane's merit. Entire program is at risk regardless of technical progress. This is not a joke. We have seen this too often, like Ticonderoga modernization program. The ship that just got overhauled went straight to scraps.

The budget is now secured. Thats good and all, but we cant use the old demonstrators. Because it would make too much sense. The beaurocrats will revise the requirement "to meet changing threat environment (*insert buzzwords)". Now entire program is scrapped and restart to fit new requirements. We will have no NGAD prototype ready in 5 years, even though we technically do 3 years ago.

Disclaimer: this is speculation, if true all coincidence. NSA plz no arrest.
 
Top