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

[Blitzo]

I don’t see why they’re the least important characteristics when they’re equally responsible for the offensive and defensive advantages the aircraft is designed to obtain as the other features.

They certainly have a contribution, but their weighting is far lower than the others.

Otherwise they might as well have developed a B-21 and called that a 6th gen fighter.

I'm pretty sure NG have actually said that B-21 is the world's first 6th generation "aircraft", and they're not wrong.
For the same reason, I think calling J-36 as a combat "aircraft" is desirable and beneficial.

Terms like "bomber" or "fighter" are increasingly obsolete in context of the most high value traits of aerial warfare.

It is maneuverable at high speed. It is a fighter.

Radar is our new eyes. Everything so far is very much a fighter. A F-4 lobbing missile is as much fighter as Zero shooting mg. CHENGAD is lobbing drones.

Not long after we will have battle beyond own radar range. It fires missile guided by allies, or drone near the enemy. Radar is off, only data link on. Only then do we drop fighter name, because command takes bigger role than personal fighting. For now fighter stays.

I disagree -- the emerging paradigm of air combat is one where the term "fighter" is more detrimental than beneficial to understanding the most determinant characteristics and traits of aerial combat.

So long as the term "fighter" is associated with heavy weighted importance of maneuvering, it will always have baggage attached to it. People will never think of command, networking, sensors and weapons first, but instead think of maneuvering first whereas it should be thought of last.

Obviously I'm not opposed to people continuing to use the term "fighter" of course, but from a military history/theory point of view, I consider the term potentially anachronistic in context of the emerging trends of aerial combat including that which J-36 seems to embody.

 

[TK3600]

They certainly have a contribution, but their weighting is far lower than the others.




I'm pretty sure NG have actually said that B-21 is the world's first 6th generation "aircraft", and they're not wrong.
For the same reason, I think calling J-36 as a combat "aircraft" is desirable and beneficial.

Terms like "bomber" or "fighter" are increasingly obsolete in context of the most high value traits of aerial warfare.







I disagree -- the emerging paradigm of air combat is one where the term "fighter" is more detrimental than beneficial to understanding the most determinant characteristics and traits of aerial combat.

So long as the term "fighter" is associated with heavy weighted importance of maneuvering, it will always have baggage attached to it. People will never think of command, networking, sensors and weapons first, but instead think of maneuvering first whereas it should be thought of last.

Obviously I'm not opposed to people continuing to use the term "fighter" of course, but from a military history/theory point of view, I consider the term potentially anachronistic in context of the emerging trends of aerial combat including that which J-36 seems to embody.

Overfixation on maneuver is your own problem. Most people see fighter thinks "a plane that fights other planes". Of which speed and maneuver remain important in different ways.

In the past you need nose authority to aim guns. Then it evolved to dodge missiles. Now it is for optimize radar signature on approach and initiatives in combat. Speed always matters. Slower one cannot escape, cannot pursue.

In conclusion I disagree both your points, that fighters is inappropriate, and that maneuvering is irrelevant.

 

[latenlazy]

They certainly have a contribution, but their weighting is far lower than the others.

I'm pretty sure NG have actually said that B-21 is the world's first 6th generation "aircraft", and they're not wrong.
For the same reason, I think calling J-36 as a combat "aircraft" is desirable and beneficial.

And yet CAC didn’t just fly a B-21 analogue. They bothered to put a lot of work into high energy flight characteristics. If they were weighting that aspect of the design “far lower” they wouldn’t have done all that work. Why even include 3 engines if kinematics weren’t important. Following your logic it wouldn’t have mattered if they penalized the thrust to weight ratio.

 

[siegecrossbow]

In the video I quoted. Context was "Orca and Yankee being Chinese godfather of western OSINT community". You were mentioned as one of the famous one in west.

Don’t forget the part where they called Deino an expert Jai Hind baiter on Twitter.

 

[Blitzo]

And yet CAC didn’t just fly a B-21 analogue. They bothered to put a lot of work into high energy flight characteristics. If they were weighting that aspect of the design “far lower” they wouldn’t have done all that work. Why even include 3 engines if kinematics weren’t important. Following your logic it wouldn’t have mattered if they penalized the thrust to weight ratio.

J-36 is a combat aircraft that pursues a different energy regime to B-21, however in terms of their most high yield characteristics and traits, they possess significant similarities.

Putting it another way -- if we cannot easily acknowledge the air superiority/A2A role that B-21 can have, then that makes us no better than people who look at J-36 and assume it's a bomber or striker.

Surely you remember this when B-21 came out, and when our mutual friend rubbished the idea of calling it a "bomber"? It is the exact same reason why calling J-36 just a "fighter" is erroneous.

Overfixation on maneuver is your own problem. Most people see fighter thinks "a plane that fights other planes". Of which speed and maneuver remain important in different ways.

In the past you need nose authority to aim guns. Then it evolved to dodge missiles. Now it is for optimize radar signature on approach and initiatives in combat. Speed always matters. Slower one cannot escape, cannot pursue.

In conclusion I disagree both your points, that fighters is inappropriate, and that maneuvering is irrelevant.

On the contrary, it is not me that overfixates on maneuver, rather it is the people who look at J-36 and assume it's a bomber/striker rather than an air superiority aircraft.
That is because their vision of a "fighter" or an "air superiority aircraft" is exactly as you describe -- "a plane that fights other planes".

Instead, an air superiority aircraft should be seen as "a plane that contests and seizes air superiority".

 

[Gloire_bb]

Instead, an air superiority aircraft should be seen as "a plane that contests and seizes air superiority".

Is ChAD one?

Not that it can't(or b-21 can't), but is it the best way to use it?

 

[horse]

Don’t forget the part where they called Deino an expert Jai Hind baiter on Twitter.

That is just too damn funny!

HAHAHAHA!

I am laughing out loud man!

HAHA! HEHE!

 

[Blitzo]

Is ChAD one?

Not that it can't, but is it the best way to use it?

That somewhat goes back to the question of how one envisions the air superiority/aerial combat mission of the near future.

For J-36, in the era it is likely to enter service and the supporting elements we expect, I would say yes. That doesn't rule out potential other roles (such as contributing to strike), but for the highest yield effects, without getting into too detailed conflict scenario modelling, I would say yes air superiority/seizing air control is the best use of its traits.

 

[latenlazy]

J-36 is a combat aircraft that pursues a different energy regime to B-21, however in terms of their most high yield characteristics and traits, they possess significant similarities.

Putting it another way -- if we cannot easily acknowledge the air superiority/A2A role that B-21 can have, then that makes us no better than people who look at J-36 and assume it's a bomber or striker.

Surely you remember this when B-21 came out, and when our mutual friend rubbished the idea of calling it a "bomber"? It is the exact same reason why calling J-36 just a "fighter" is erroneous.

Distinctions make categories. I agree a B-21 whose tactical employment is more about controlling a network of assets in a system can’t be reduced to a role that’s defined primarily around flying into an area and dumping explosive payloads, but imo a J-36 that’s designed to attain kinematic advantage in a high energy regime as part of its tactical employment profile can’t simply be reduced to whatever the B-21 is either. A fighter meanwhile *is* defined around energy advantage, so while a bomber may be inappropriate for describing the B-21’s role, I think a fighter still works fine describing the J-36’s role.

 

[Biscuits]

Yes. The ADM-160B/J MALD of the USAF/USN is a prime example.

View attachment 141953

The J-36 certainly can carry one or few of them inside its side IWBs (~4 meters long) in place of a couple MRAAMs, as the MALD is only ~2.9 meters long x ~0.4 meters wide.

With purported ranges of 900+ kilometers and the ability to cruise at Mach ~0.8-0.9, the J-36 could launch them outside enemy radar/IR detection ranges and have them fly alongside until the J-36 reaches its mission/battle zone.

Something like the MALD is very much within the capability of the Chinese MIC to develop. I'd argue that they could even go for a supersonic-capable variant (which can be turned on for short durations), with the only downside being the need for additional length an/or costing some range.

The same goes for the J-XDS and the loyal wingman UCAVs.

With 99% certainty they have a wide variation of flown decoys, it is just never talked about to get the element of surprise.



They have supersonic stealthy target drones in service (which simulate the F-35 in speed and rcs profile), to revamp it into super-MALD is beyond simple for their aerospace industry.

I would guess that in addition to normal fire from fighter jets, decoys are planned to be launched from containers, from rocket boosted missiles etc so as to arrive from unexpected directions, and can mimic the enemy's stealth fighter, regular fighters, large neutral aircraft and various missiles alike.