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

[enroger]

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:

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.

Nice one Mr Time traveler, now try next week's lottery number

Really, apart from structural consideration the mainbay can dig all the way to the top and J-36 is a thick girl. I main why won't they dig all the way to the top leaving some room for necessary structural reinforcement? That's a ridiculous space for one or two ridiculous weapons or a ridiculous number of slimmer weapons.

Yeah CCA and system of aircraft and all that, but we shouldn't forget this plane alone is a formidable MF

 

[bsdnf]

interesting view on naming on Weibo:
J-10→J-20 (fourth-generation air superiority)
J-15→J-35 (second-generation carrier-based)
J-16→J-36 (sixth-generation multi-purpose, more focused on penetrating strikes)

 

[Neurosmith]

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

I think your "China cannot afford two" premise - while true - undermines your own argument. It is precisely due to the high cost of 6th gen airframes that China probably cannot afford to have a fly-off competition using physically-flying prototypes à la the ATF program. Building a 6th gen platform only for bidding's sake is arguably an enormous waste of money and time/effort that could've gone to other projects rather than what essentially amounts to duplication of effort.

Hence, the fact that both Shenyang and CAC built and flew functioning prototypes almost definitely suggests that both are intended for service, and the lack of a historical PLAAF/PLAN "fly-off" is a testament to that.

 

[kwaigonegin]

Wow you just get up and think it‘s time to catch up the latest news from yesterday and save all the images you missed due to celebrating Christmas with the family and it continues with one news after another: Here the so far best image of CACs new „J-36“ (?) numbered 36011.

View attachment 141807

Time to get out a new log book and start tracking serials

 

[TK3600]

interesting view on naming on Weibo:
J-10→J-20 (fourth-generation air superiority)
J-15→J-35 (second-generation carrier-based)
J-16→J-36 (sixth-generation multi-purpose, more focused on penetrating strikes)

J-40 is more appropriate in your scheme. Next gen means new 2nd digit. J-35 is exception. It is to troll F-35.

 

[Zahid]

Time to get out a new log book and start tracking serials

Leave it to @Deino ;-)

I have a thought. If J-36 (for lack of a better name) is indeed super fast & the nodes it controls can hardly keep up with range & speed, does it not necessitate bases nearer to the target from where nodes could be launched? This would matter especially if a large number of nodes (drones/CCA/UAV) are needed. This gets us into serious bloc geopolitics with all the other implications.

 

[FairAndUnbiased]

I have a thought. If J-36 (for lack of a better name) is indeed super fast & the nodes it controls can hardly keep up with range & speed, does it not necessitate bases nearer to the target from where nodes could be launched? This would matter especially if a large number of nodes (drones/CCA/UAV) are needed. This gets us into serious bloc geopolitics with all the other implications.

crazy idea that I've seen here (apologize that I can't find it, credit where credit is due, I did not come up with this):

What about rocket assisted takeoff/delivery of air breathing drones?

I can imagine that a rocket can boost a jet powered, air breathing drone to maybe 50k meters, at which point it can unfold wings, start unpowered gliding towards a set point, start engines on the way, and establish datalink with the J-36.

That means that the J-36 can start ahead, and have its combat wing catch up with it via rocket launch.

 

[latenlazy]

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.

Fighter is fine. This thing is kinematically superior to what came before it, which is the entire point of a fighter. It just doesn’t optimize its kinematic performance for lower speed lower altitude regimes because it doesn’t have to. A Spitfire or Zero is probably doing tighter turns than an F-15 below 300 km/h too.

 

[Blitzo]

Fighter is fine. This thing is kinematically superior to what came before it, which is the entire point of a fighter. It just doesn’t optimize its kinematic performance for lower speed lower altitude regimes because it doesn’t have to. A Spitfire or Zero is probably doing tighter turns than an F-15 below 300 km/h too.

"Fighter" by definition will carry connotations of maneuvering, particularly WVR relevant maneuvering as baggage. That's rather undesirable, especially when the conops of this aircraft will so heavily emphasize other domains and capabilities for the highest yield contributions to its primary mission.

We have the opportunity (if not the obligation) to reframe what aerial combat means and implies here, I think it should be taken.

 

[latenlazy]

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.....

If this thing has a 8-9 meter long weapons bay, a scramjet cruise missile launched at apex altitude and maximum speed (maybe Mach 2.5 or even higher) with very good range could be a serious possibility.