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

[latenlazy]

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.

You developed something this stealthy and this rangy with the salvo depths that it does to do the hard parts. If defenses were degraded to the point where the mission were easy you could just strap fuel tanks onto a J-20.

 

[sequ]

After closer inspection and more accurate calculations, the J-36 has a wing area of 170m2!

Strangely enough, its length and width are (almost) the same! The difference should be no more than 0.5m!

 

[Biscuits]

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.

I'm not anywhere near an expert but I'd guess that "empty" flanks always exist over contested airspace, to some extent.

With a front perhaps over 3000 km in length, it doesn't seem to me feasible to cover the whole front in contact line platforms, let alone ones with sufficiently advanced capability to see the J-36 as it passes through.

Of course the way you describe essentially holding them in reserve if facing an enemy head on and only punching through after they've sustained casualties, it also seems valid, at least in the scenarios where you have very large head to head air battles.

But at the same time I think flanking around is always going to be viable and a huge part of what gives a 6th gen it's generational advantage. Just staying as a support aircraft in an intermediate range can be done by J-20S also.

In the end I could think doctrines will call for some J-36 to stay in intermediate range together with CCAs as a reserve, while the some flank around and using their EW/CEC to improve the chances of scoring an advantage in the center air battle. Then when a weakness presents itself, the reserve J-36 move in and mow down the fleeing adversary fighters.

 

[Jason_]

@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.

The PLAAF would be a sad and pathetic force if its entire group of aircraft breaks down because one J-36 is taken 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.

Its an American caricature that Chinese untermensch pilots lacks initiatives, can't do anything without direct orders, and needs constant micromanagement from a central node.

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?

The speed is used to increase the energy, range, and probability of kill of your own missiles while shrinking the no escape zone of your enemy's missile.

 

[Blitzo]

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.

That's certainly optimistic.

Yet even the F-117s during the gulf war did not bomb Baghdad unsupported -- helicopters attacked iraqi border radar sites and the F-117s had EF-111 support.

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

If they present themselves to the J-36 or if the tactical situation requires it due to a lack of other available assets to service the targets, sure.

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

Air superiority is not a prerequisite, but degradation of enemy echelons/aerial forces/defenses should be.

That is, assuming one wants to have their penetrating aircraft actually return home to fight again.

You developed something this stealthy and this rangy with the salvo depths that it does to do the hard parts. If defenses were degraded to the point where the mission were easy you could just strap fuel tanks onto a J-20.

On the contrary, I consider defenses degraded to make the mission still rather difficult, far from "easy" -- it would allow a J-36 to do the mission and come back alive, while J-20s with EFTs would just be swatted out of the sky by remaining organic IADS and closer range CAP that is defending your target.

 

[latenlazy]

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.

I am not saying that the J-36 can’t be employed in a different conemp but that this isn’t the conemp it’s unique capabilities were developed for. For near shore capabilities there are cheaper, even preexisting options.

 

[Blitzo]

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.

Minor raiding and skirmishing is viable, but deep penetrating strikes at the outset seems risky to me if the enemy's echelons aren't broken.

But hey, if you're willing to risk your assets like that, maybe the targets are worth it

 

[Biscuits]

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?

China's doctrine is actually way more offensively minded.

The final victory scenario for China is taking back all its lost tributaries/colonies, if it will be achieved militarily, it means sweeping the airspaces and infrastructures of many 100 millions of people and controlling sea and air lanes over continent sized oceans.

In contrast, the final victory scenario for US is something that looks like the status quo except US/Japan has annexed Taiwan and maybe North Korea. This requires much less offensive power, as they're not planning to fight majorly over the mainland or in China's territorial waters (besides Taiwan).

That's why China is making so many missiles/bombs. And now investing in penetrating air platforms in addition to existing 5th gen.

So it's status as something that can raid heavily defended airspace and disrupt/hunt defending CAP is imho fully in line with China's needs and doctrines.

 

[Lethe]

Some folk have questioned the thermal signature implications of a Mach >2.0 supercruise capability that is being widely attributed to this aircraft. I would add to this a query regarding the durability and maintainability of RAM coatings under such conditions.

(It emerges fairly consistently from the American literature that maintaining such coatings is a PITA in general, and it is rumoured that F-22 operational limit is dictated by thermal considerations.)

 

[tankphobia]

Some folk have questioned the thermal signature implications of a Mach >2.0 supercruise capability that is being widely attributed to this aircraft. I would add to this a query regarding the durability and maintainability of RAM coatings under such conditions.

(It emerges fairly consistently from the American literature that maintaining such coatings is a PITA in general, and it is rumoured that F-22 operational limit is dictated by thermal considerations.)

That was kinda my concern also, if IRST is a major feature of this new aircraft, they must be confident that IR is able to effectively counter VLO.

Beyond just the durability of the RAM coating, operating an aircraft at mach 2+ would create significant heat and lighting up the aircraft for all to see, rendering radar stealth moot?