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

sevrent

New Member
Registered Member
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.)
This could be a space to watch in coming future. We know USAF is testing some new coating on their stealth aircraft probably tech testing for their own respective 6th gen. Could be solvable problem that China anticipates to figure out as well by the time J-36 is entering production. 1735396173669.png1735396123027.png
 

Jason_

Junior Member
Registered Member
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.
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.
Put yourself in the American's shoe. How are you going to stop the J-36 from breaking through the 1IC on day one? Consider the following constraints:
1. The 1IC is huge. Its 3000km from Tokyo to Manila.
2. Your best radar (SPY-6) has a detection range against the J-36 of less than 200km. Most radars would have less than 100km. (This is very optimistic for the US and doesn't consider EW.)
3. The J-36 will know it is being scanned via RWR before it reaches the range where it can be detected, meaning it can reroute to go around the threat.
4. Your SAMs will have less than 100km effective range against a high speed high attitude target not directly flying towards it.
5. A small number of fighters/drones you put in the J-36 way will likely lose the encounter and not stop it.
 

jvodan

Junior Member
Registered Member
As I understand the nose angle is one of the limiting factors on speed in that you dont want the shock wave crossing the skin of your nose cone,
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
The geometry of the plane suggests a sub 2 mach airframe speed.
 

LuzinskiJ

Junior Member
Registered Member
"Fighter" by definition will carry connotations of maneuvering, particularly WVR relevant maneuvering as baggage. That's rather undesirable, especially when the conops of this aircraft will so heavily emphasize other domains and capabilities for the highest yield contributions to its primary mission.

We have the opportunity (if not the obligation) to reframe what aerial combat means and implies here, I think it should be taken.
The whole “fighter”,”bomber” dichotomy needs to be ditched and a new lexicon is needed for future war fighting, maybe in a different language. Well aware this is an English forum, so this idea maybe controversial.
 

AndrewS

Brigadier
Registered Member
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".

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.

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.


Also, I didn't depict the adversary, but my assumption is the echelon structure of their own air combat system will look very similar, with a contact line of attritible UAVs, followed by CCAs/UCAVs and then tactical manned fighters.

I generally agree there's no need to risk a J-36 unnecessarily. Rationale below.

---

If we're talking about the early days when there aren't many J-36 in service (circa 2032), then it does make sense to not risk the J-36.

But we can expect to see Chinese numerical superiority in aircraft within both the 1IC and 2IC because:

1. The Chinese have many more airbases and available aircraft in theatre
2. We'll likely see Chinese 6th-gen aircraft go into service sooner and with higher production rates than the US

So very quickly, we'll see a situation where J-36s can be risked if the potential payoff is sufficient.
Call it the year 2035.

---

So in the year 2035, if we're talking about Chinese air superiority in the 1IC, there will be a huge force disparity of 4th and 5th gen fighters, plus presumably the smaller Shenyang next-Gen aircraft which looks to be designed for 1IC operations. Combine this with expected missile salvoes, and it should be straightforward for the Chinese to achieve air superiority.

So I agree that there isn't actually a need to risk a J-36 within the 1IC.

But in the initial stages of an air-war, it does make sense for a J-36 to supercruise and go for the flanks or rear of an opposing formation, and then launch PL-17 missiles at very high altitude and very long range (500km+). Targets could include AWACs flying above Okinawa or Tokyo for example. It's low-risk but high payoff.

Also remember what the mere existence of a J-36 designed to operate to the 2IC means.
There's no point operating to the 2IC unless you have air superiority over all of the 1IC


---

In the 2IC, the situation is somewhat different.

A 3000km distance is too far for the vast majority of the Chinese Air Force and presumably the smaller Shenyang next-Gen manned aircraft.

So the J-36 will be even more critical as the key node tying everything together.

But at the same time, we can expect Chinese numerical superiority in airframes because they have the airbases and the numbers, along with the initiative, so they can decide when to concentrate an offensive sweep.

And when you have the numerical advantage, you can afford to operate the J-36 conservatively (go with the attritable CCA/UCAV/missile route) but also accept risks because there will be spare J-36s to take over if required.

---

I really don't see how the US can counter this, given their disadvantages in:

1. geography
2. way fewer airbases
3. aircraft development speed
4. aircraft production rates
5. smaller economy in terms of real output of goods and services

---

Of course, I see this as a hypothetical discussion.

In 2035, given the scenario above, I don't see Japan being suicidal enough to declare war on China.
And with that reality, US military strategy in the Western Pacific completely falls apart.

Contrast that with the comments made by a former Japanese Prime Minister and President Biden, who both previously said publicly they had the option of going to war with China over Taiwan.
 

sutton999

New Member
Registered Member
As I understand the nose angle is one of the limiting factors on speed in that you dont want the shock wave crossing the skin of your nose cone,
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
The geometry of the plane suggests a sub 2 mach airframe speed.
It is a different ball game. Old formula does not apply.

The experimental passenger jet model reaches 6.56 Mach in a similar shape.

656.jpg
 

Attachments

  • hyper jet.jpg
    hyper jet.jpg
    42.8 KB · Views: 85

_killuminati_

Senior Member
Registered Member
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.
Same exhaust but top intake is different, almost DSI. Doesn't that indicate a different engine (or at least functioning differently)? Not scramjet.
 
Top