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

latenlazy

Brigadier
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.

I would argue that based on very overt design commitments we can observe the J-36 absolutely features intended roles that prominently emphasize maneuvering to attain a tactical solution in its kinematic profile. The kinds of maneuvering can be different from earlier generations and still be very much about maneuvering advantage.

Keep in mind as well that going forth every new combat aircraft design is going to be very networked very EW very AI very system so simply using those characteristics as the anchors for tactical typology and classification isn’t going to be very helpful. Features you’re identifying as deserving of special emphasis are going to be the generic baseline going forth.
 

GTI

Junior Member
Registered Member
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.








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".
The most [r]evolutionary impact brought about by 6th generation “aircraft” is not on combat aircraft design, but on air combat itself (why I say “aircraft” rather than “fighters”).

If we keep in mind that we are essentially describing components in an air combat system (of systems), I propose:

1. Air Combat Nodes: anything that can serve as a node in an air combat system. This includes J-36, but you also don’t need to carry missiles to be lethal in 6th generation air combat - so manned and unmanned ISR, AEW&C, battlespace controllers etc. are included. A node initiates the air combat engagement by the system, and may or may not also be capable of delivering it (whole or part of the package).

2. Air Combat Asset / Point / Peripheral / Endpoint / Detachment / Collaborator / Craft (a few options here): anything that is only delivering the air combat engagement, or supporting it. This would be deploying an actual weapon, providing sensors, or being an actual weapon or sensor (loitering munition or one-way CCA that becomes a cruise missile when it depletes its munitions).
 

W20

Junior Member
Registered Member
SAC 6th Gen flew with J-16
CAC 6th Gen flew with J-20

"J36" would be a good name for "SAC 6th"

But "CAC 6th" ... JH-40 (!?) or J-40 (!?)

anyway we need two names for clarity
 

sequ

Major
Registered Member
Those EO windows on the sides are not really positioned for forward looking. It might indicate that the J-36 is going to use these EO system as primary detection means flying in a racetrack/infinite-loop trajectory to detect targets and to then use its radar for ranging and targeting. These might use FHD LWIR/MWIR/SWIR detectors.

1735385286411.png
 

Gloire_bb

Captain
Registered Member
Those EO windows on the sides are not really positioned for forward looking. It might indicate that the J-36 is going to use these EO system as primary detection means flying in a racetrack/infinite-loop trajectory to detect targets and to then use its radar for ranging and targeting. These might use FHD LWIR/MWIR/SWIR detectors.

View attachment 141999
I suspect there's either more than one sensor in corner setup, or it's a movable IRST head, so they can in fact see forward.
See YF-12 for analogy.

I am making some more infographics. Please share far and wide. #StopAmericanCope
With huge exception of tailless/broadband VLO(which for example only partially apply to ShAD), it is advantages of larger aircraft, built for speed and endurance.

Like, compare su-57 and 75, most points will fit, despite the latter being obviously more modern.

For explaining why this is important step forward, it's good. But otherwise, generational things here are mostly under the canopy.
 
Last edited:

tphuang

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
VIP Professional
Registered Member
I am making some more infographics. Please share far and wide. #StopAmericanCope
View attachment 141997

View attachment 142000
I am going to make an annotated graphics on how I envision the J-XXX will accomplish each mission.
GaN AESA radar still?????????

I just had a post about GaO radar.

I don't think you need XXL weapon bay. Also that's something you can put on 5th gen.

I also don't think expanded speed envelope should be a requirement. It's also something you can achieve even with 4th generation.

A lot of these missions are to be accomplished by UCAVs. Can we move away from the primary node performing missile attacks concept? It makes no sense. It counters everything we've talked about so far.
 

enroger

Junior Member
Registered Member
Those EO windows on the sides are not really positioned for forward looking. It might indicate that the J-36 is going to use these EO system as primary detection means flying in a racetrack/infinite-loop trajectory to detect targets and to then use its radar for ranging and targeting. These might use FHD LWIR/MWIR/SWIR detectors.

View attachment 141999

You can't tell sensor orientation just by looking at the optical windows, they are just windows with sensor within probably on a gimble, take a look at current chin eots on J-20 and F-35 and you'll see

Optical windows are just there to be 1) as transparent as possible and as little optical aberration as possible 2) provide aerodynamic shaping & stealth shaping with conductive coating
 
Top