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

[Blitzo]

geography and numbers in aerial warfare work in such a way that you usually have this opportunity by default.

It would be optimistic to hope so, but with the high likelihood of the opfor pursuing a similar system of systems in an echelon format, you have to create sufficiently large openings in the enemy echelon while preventing the enemy from creating openings in your own.

The idea of using J-36s to conduct long range penetrating sorties is entirely reasonable, but I cannot see it being done without first winning the initial phase of the air war which is to break the enemy's system of systems formations to enable penetration and exploitation.

In the same way that you wouldn't send armoured cavalry to bash their head against unweakened defenses if you want to penetrate to an enemy's rear and exploit, you also really shouldn't be sending your penetrating high value combat aircraft into an enemy's system of systems air combat echelon without significantly weakening them first.

 

[ACuriousPLAFan]

The first ever combat between the 6th-gens got so aggressive and intense such that the entire Chinese Wikipedia page had to be locked down until December 31st.

 

[Jason_]

There is in fact no confirmation for a lot of things we are saying here and won't be for a long time.
There is in fact no evidence that it can carry any of the anti-ship/ground missiles that you stated in your chart.

I consider my payload assumptions to be much more reasonable than the speculative use of GaO in a 2024 aircraft.

There is nothing theoretically preventing a new fifth generation aircraft from having a XXL weapon bay.
More importantly, having XXL weapon bay is a design requirement, not a necessary feature of 6th gen.

Are you for real? It is impossible to redesign a 5th gen to incorporate a much larger weapon bay just as it is impossible for 4th gen to be stealth.

My point is to drop your hyperboles. Design attributes on J-36 are not all necessarily things we will see on other "6th gen" aircraft, which in itself is a marketing term.

"Marketing terms" have meaning and value so long as people use them. People are asking what '6th gen' means. I am sharing my view.

The most important part of 6th gen, which is AI and collaboration with UCAVs for missions, you are not even talking about all.

The PLAAF disagrees. The PLAAF sees collaboration with UCAV as a common feature of 5th and 6th gen and even advanced 4.5th gen. See latest Shilao & co. podcast.

We here at SDF is a forum that should be calmly analyzing facts and discuss some. This it not meant to be a flag waving forum.

So, If you keep up with hash tags like #stopamericanscoping, those posts are going to be deleted.

I think you will find few voices on this forum as informed and as reasoned as mine.

 

[SwampPuppy]

J-36 turned Pinkov into a little pink.

Pinkov is piece of shit no matter what he said

 

[Type11_atRocket]

嗯，我认为你需要更多地从最大效果而不是最大守恒的角度来考虑。如果你最有能力的穿透性进攻资产没有被用来获得最具穿透力的进攻效果，你可能做错了什么。

It should be said that this provides more tactical options, J-36 can command CCA in a safer area, but when necessary, it can also play its own flight performance advantages to break through the enemy, the two are not opposite, the specific choice depends on what kind of specific situation it faces.
In general, these different tactics are the inevitable result of its performance, which also includes carrying a variety of heavy attack munitions. All in all, the only thing that can be said for sure is that this is definitely a versatile aircraft.

 

[Brainsuker]

@bsdnf I would suggest that you read carefully what @Blitzo wrote here and also this entire thread.

J-36 is not lingering in the rear. It is the most important node(s) in your strike force. If you lose J-36, your entire group of aircraft breaks down.

Nothing else in your group of aircraft have the ability to consume all the data, provide one whole picture, coordinate electronic warfare and direct actions.

There is a lot more to combat than getting from A to B and then lobbing missiles.

Also just in terms of employment of missiles, it's not clear to me why you think it is so important for an aircraft to be cruising mach 2.5 in the front line of combat theater. What are you using that speed for? Why can't a slower aircraft accomplish the same task up front?

Why do we assume that china's 6th gen will do the same as the us 6th gen? Well, us aim to control the battlefield because they have offensive minded. While china is a defensive minded. So why not make a platform to disturb the enemy web instead, so us wont be able to complete their formation? So maybe this j36 is the NGAD counter and not another NGAD?

 

[latenlazy]

To effectively use your most penetrating offensive effects you need to be able to create openings in the enemy's echelon to begin with, and that will have to be done with a system of systems fracas.

The whole point of developing your most penetrating offensive asset is that they’re supposed to be the ones creating the openings.

 

[Blitzo]

The whole point of developing your most penetrating offensive asset is that they’re supposed to be the ones creating the openings.

No, they are meant to have the highest likelihood of achieving their mission, however the openings themselves are dependent on the full array of relevant supporting assets.

Throwing yourself into enemy defenses which are not degraded is just a way of losing your most penetrating offensive asset.

If you want mission success, you degrade enemy defenses and send your most penetrating offensive asset through said opening.

 

[Gloire_bb]

It would be optimistic to hope so, but with the high likelihood of the opfor pursuing a similar system of systems in an echelon format, you have to create sufficiently large openings in the enemy echelon while preventing the enemy from creating openings in your own.

The idea of using J-36s to conduct long range penetrating sorties is entirely reasonable, but I cannot see it being done without first winning the initial phase of the air war which is to break the enemy's system of systems formations to enable penetration and exploitation.

In the same way that you wouldn't send armoured cavalry to bash their head against unweakened defenses if you want to penetrate to an enemy's rear and exploit, you also really shouldn't be sending your penetrating high value combat aircraft into an enemy's system of systems air combat echelon without significantly weakening them first.

Armored formations are good analogy when you compare then in desert war, where the flank is open almost by definition(for example, North Africa 1940-43). Model Taiwan scenario still involves theater several thousand kilometers long, in either direction - long and deep.

PCA isn't armored cavalry, it's an elite raiding force. You can use it at frontlines - and there their stealth and speed will matter to little, as they'll be just another unit along, with many useless training and skills.

It's quite natural for high speed/vlo asset to get to work during initial stage, killing the whole system that supports bluefor's forward action.
Attack aircraft in transfer (CCA or manned fighters), attack damaged strandlers and SAR, attack support nodes(tankers, patrol/drones, aew/ew), attack transport aircraft, attack supply ships.
Typical interdiction.

 

[Jason_]

The value of the aircraft, imo is exactly why it won't be operating at the tactical front, at least not at the early phases of a high end air war when both sides are at their "full strength".

Why not? On the day 1 of Desert Storm, the USAF sent its most survivable F-117 to bomb Bahgdad (unescorted) when the Iraqis were at their full strength. I expect on day one of a high end air war, the J-36 (being one of the few aircrafts in the PLAAF capable of doing so) will supercruise pass the 1IC to attack high value targets on Guam.

In that context, its stealth and endurance and sensor and weapons set will be to act as a loitering force multiplier for every other asset rather than itself directly entering the fray at the frontline.

Or it can force multiple by shooting down enemy fighters and high value targets, while also sharing sensor data and loitering.

Certainly, if the initial stages of the air war occur in favour of the PLA, then J-36 could be risked to operate at greater distances against what remains of the adversary where aircraft like J-20 and J-35A cannot easily accompany it due to shorter combat radii. But in such a scenario it would require the PLA to "win" the first few rounds of aerial warfare to credibly secure air superiority, and that is what's more difficult imo and if is where the value of J-36 will first be felt in an air campaign.

Air superiority should not be a operational prerequisite for a penetrating "stand-in" aircraft.