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

[Gloire_bb]

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.

Let's see.
I honestly see it's frontline use as suboptimal use. Suboptimal use of the kind that will and should happen all the time, but still.

You don't need(and in fact lose) from putting bigger, long range, high capability platform into denser environment.

USAF with miningad sort of got it - they had to, because f-35 apparently won't.

 

[Blitzo]

Let's see.
I honestly see it's frontline use as suboptimal use. Suboptimal use of the kind that will and should happen all the time, but still.

You don't need(and in fact lose) from putting bigger, long range, high capability platform into denser environment.

USAF with miningad sort of got it - they had to, because f-35 apparently won't.

See, this is why I said your question depends on how one envisions air combat of the near future. Because nowhere did I say anything about putting J-36 into a denser combat environment.

 

[Gloire_bb]

See, this is why I said your question depends on how one envisions air combat of the near future. Because nowhere did I say anything about putting J-36 into a denser combat environment.

True.
But contested airspace between two superiorities will be here anyway?

 

[latenlazy]

Let's see.
I honestly see it's frontline use as suboptimal use. Suboptimal use of the kind that will and should happen all the time, but still.

You don't need(and in fact lose) from putting bigger, long range, high capability platform into denser environment.

USAF with miningad sort of got it - they had to, because f-35 apparently won't.

You have to remember that in a peer combat situation even if you are not in a frontline engagement your adversary will try to go after you because you are their highest value asset in the tactical engagement profile. If you’re just a bomber you will have escorts but if you’re the primary tactical asset maintaining air superiority you are going to have to be able to fight as well as your drones if you want to survive, especially to cover scenarios where you lose those assets. Being a node controller that’s also an offensive deadweight in a direct tactical engagement is a self handicap that you probably don’t want to build your air superiority strategy around.

 

[Biscuits]

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.

That might be true against airforces fielding large numbers of 5th gen, but against enemies who have iran/india tier IADS and just a few/no 5th gens, I think SEAD is something it will excel and take the main role in.

 

[tphuang]

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.

Okay,

I'm not sure about this.

Just think about utilization.

So I'm looking at this from the perspective that it can fly at really high altitude and cruise at high speed. Making it harder to hit by opposing AAMs and pick up by opposing radars (since look up range is normally less IIRC).

Flying high and launching fast means something like PL-17 can travel long distance at high altitude and using relatively little energy. There by extending its NEZ.

So you can have loyal wing man operate further ahead and working together to detect enemy fighter jet. Once locking down the opposing target, you can launch both PL-17 from J-36 and something like PL-12/15 from UCAV at target. Not saying that this is necessarily optimal, but my point is that J-36 property makes lobbing PL-17s from far out an optimal approach to keep it out of harms way.

By staying out of way, it can essentially lock on to target longer so AAM doesn't have to necessarily have to lock on to a LO target (which might be quite difficult).

Also in terms of attacking with hypersonic, I think it's better installed on other platforms. For example, anything with 2IC can be attacked by DF-26. J-36 being closer to target may be better off providing targeting guidance and providing hiding EW against targeting carrier.

Aside from that, it could be part of a wider attack where J-36 coordinates its UCAVs to launch different types of attack munition from ARM (or maybe it launches that) to AShm to maybe even PGMs.

Or maybe even something like MD-22 coming and J-36 coordinates it to perform hypersonic type of attacks.

I don't think it makes sense to put something as large as hypersonic missile inside J-36 when it can safely get closer to aircraft carrier with attritable assets in front.

 

[siegecrossbow]

Chinese design philosophy for CHAD. Comparable to Dr. Song’s article on J-20.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

 

[latenlazy]

I don't think it makes sense to put something as large as hypersonic missile inside J-36 when it can safely get closer to aircraft carrier with attritable assets in front.

If you’re in the AO I think you can and should be adding to attack volumes especially if the mission is standoff strike. Of course it would depend on the specific employment scenario. But my general belief is that standalone capability should still be important to have, especially if you want to have mission optionality.

 

[Blitzo]

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.

I would argue that B-21 shouldn't be reduced to a role that's defined primarily around flying into an area and dumping explosive payloads in a kinematic profile that emphasizes endurance and range, and J-36 shouldn't be reduced to a role that's defined primarily around a kinematic profile that emphasizes maneuvering to attain a tactical employment solutions.

Both are "combat aircraft" with different kinematic profiles, but in context of the other traits that are shared between them -- networking, sensors, weapons, processing, system of systems -- those differences in kinematic profiles are rather marginal.


But as I said, continued use of the terms like "fighter" and "bomber" is natural and understandable, I don't really have an issue with that -- it's only the connotations that it evokes to the general public and milspace adjacent folks who will end up misinterpreting these aircraft based off their preconceptions of what those terms mean.

 

[siegecrossbow]

Just realized that by the time CHAD and SHAD enter service I’d be in my mid 40s which is kinda sad. What a time to be alive though right?