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

[sequ]

GaN AESA radar still?????????

I just had a post about GaO radar.

Being lab tested =/= operational.

Do not be surprised if the LRIP variant don't feature GaO. I'm sure it'll eventually get it or something even better.

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

The placements indicate optimization for lateral viewing (doesn't mean it can't look forward though).

 

[siegecrossbow]

Please explain what XHAD and SHAD is?

CAC and SAC sixth gen’s respectively. I miss spelled in my original post.

 

[latenlazy]

.


The placements indicate optimization for lateral viewing (doesn't mean it can't look forward though).

Actually the placement looks like they’re optimized for binocular vision. You can get depth information from parallax effect between the two sensors. Might explain why they went with one sensor on each side rather than a centrally positioned sensor at the top or bottom of the nose.

 

[enroger]

The placements indicate optimization for lateral viewing (doesn't mean it can't look forward though).

That, and there is not really a lot of choice to place them. I do agree EO is going to be major or even primary detection method especially against enemy stealth, I'm just saying the positioning doesn't tell us a lot

Edit: on second thought, the fact that there're two of them does seem a bit peculiar, maybe you have a point

 

[Gloire_bb]

Actually the placement looks like they’re optimized for binocular vision. You can get depth information from parallax effect between the two sensors. Might explain why they went with one sensor on each side rather than a centrally positioned sensor at the top or bottom of the nose.

Doesn't look like that, they probably can see forward, but anything beyond -1 deg just doesn't fit.

 

[tphuang]

Being lab tested =/= operational.

Do not be surprised if the LRIP variant don't feature GaO. I'm sure it'll eventually get it or something even better.

Nothing on J-36 is operational, but they got many years before they need to finalize the radar and they are well on that track given the recent progress. More importantly, the point is that GaN is old technology.

 

[Deino]

The third engine may not be turbofan engine
This plane may go to upper atmosphere. That's what I am hearing.

thats nonsense! All three exhausts are at least from what we see the same, a scramjet-engine is AFAIK not ready and all such claims like „near-space & hypersonic capabilities“ are IMO pure wishful thinking.

 

[Jason_]

GaN AESA radar still?????????

I just had a post about GaO radar.

Until I have confirmation that the J-XXX use a GaO radar I am going to assume GaN.

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

LMAO no.

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

First, I am not saying these are "requirements." I am saying these are features. Not every aircraft/drones will have all these features but I expect the high end manned component of the 6th gen family to meet most of them, as the J-XXX does. Also no 4th gen is anywhere close to supercruising above Mach 2.

A lot of these missions are to be accomplished by UCAVs.

Not mutually exclusive with the J-XXX performing these missions.

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.

No, thats ridiculous. The engineers at Chengdu made immense sacrifices to put that giant internal weapons bay on the J-XXX. It is meant to be used.

 

[Blitzo]

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.

That is all the better reason to unify these aircraft as "combat aircraft," which thus recognizes the primacy of networking/weapons/sensors/system of systems. Whether an aircraft is able to pull a few more Gs or whether an aircraft is trades speed for endurance/range, thus become the less important qualifiers.

 

[Oldschool]

thats nonsense! All three exhausts are at least from what we see the same, a scramjet-engine is AFAIK not ready and all such claims like „near-space & hypersonic capabilities“ are IMO pure wishful thinking.

I dont know... The chief designer young wei peevously had publicly expressed the 6th gen plane capable of traveling different levels of atmosphere.