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

[Deino]

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

IMO not necessarily, more a hint to different aerodynamic conditions on top and on the bottom side and dictated by RCS requirements.

A nice fan artView attachment 142022

Do we have something similar for the J-XDS? ... and by the way, my request from yesterday was surely lost in all these posts, but has anyone saved the patent for that landing-gear posted a few weeks / days ago?

 

[AndrewS]

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.

I don't see any credible scenario where J-20s would retain external fuel tanks anywhere near the contact line, never mind doing a flyover of an enemy landmass which has organic IADS SAM systems.

There are other much better options

 

[sdkan]

Cryptic hint from an ambiguously gay Chinese military observer.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

More surprises coming this year?

H20

 

[Biscuits]

H20

I don't dare to believe in Xian at this point, H20 IS the actual direct Chinese NGAD counterpart (in the sense it's never finished and seems to permanently be under re-evaluation)

H-20 was "first public flight any moment! Likely already air tested in secret" in like... 2019.

 

[ACuriousPLAFan]

... and by the way, my request from yesterday was surely lost in all these posts, but has anyone saved the patent for that landing-gear posted a few weeks / days ago?

@Deino here you go.

 

[AndrewS]

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.

In air combat, there should be many openings because:

1. Aircraft have short dwell times and persistence
2. China would have numerical superiority
3. China would have the operational initiative in deciding where and when to concentrate overwhelming force, and the opposing US bases/aircraft are scattered along isolated island chains.

 

[THX 1138]

Fighter
Bomber
Fighter-Bomber
Air Superiority Fighter
Air Dominance Aircraft
Tactical Bomber
Combat Aircraft
Tactical Combat Aircraft

 

[Gloire_bb]

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.

Is it such a big surprise?
Yes, complexing big apertures of widely different bands works

 

[Deino]

@Deino here you go.

View attachment 142029

Thanks a lot my friend!

 

[AndrewS]

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

China doesn't really need a "penetrating stand-in" aircraft

Repost below from the Shenyang thread

---


Doctrinally, I don't think there is a Chinese requirement for "Penetrating"

The US is operating with the geographical reality that China has many more airbases (150+ in mainland China) and tactical aircraft (2000) available in the Western Pacific. In comparison, the US realistically has access to about 10 airbases in Japan and 1 in Guam. Then there's a few mobile airbases in the form of aircraft carriers, plus a few more scattered, distant bases in Alaska, Hawaii and Australia.

So the US side faces the problem of being at a very large disadvantage in terms of numbers and can't suppress enough Chinese airbases.

Hence the US requirement Penetrating Counter Air (PCA) and Penetrating Long Range Strike (PLRS).

---

In comparison,

The Chinese have a significant advantage in the number of aircraft available in the Western Pacific. And because there are so few airbases available to the US, the Chinese can aim for outright air superiority and taking out all opposing airbases in the Western Pacific. Also note that all the potential US airbases are on small isolated islands in the Western Pacific that can be subjected to an air-sea blockade. I would even include the Japanese Home Islands in this category.

1. In terms of air-superiority munitions, the standard AAM is the dual-pulse PL-15 with a listed range of up to 200km. So there is no need for a Chinese fighter aircraft to ever overfly a hostile landmass to shoot down an opposing aircraft.

2. In terms of land-attack munitions, it looks like every conceivable land target in the Western Pacific can be reached by low-cost glide bombs with a 100km range. So again, there is no need for Chinese aircraft to overfly a hostile landmass.

Also note that all of the First Island Chain lies at most 1300km from mainland Chinese territory. That is within range of Tomahawk-class cruise missiles and large numbers of low-cost piston-engine cruise missiles launched from trucks on mainland China. And as they say, the best time to shoot down an aircraft is when it is on the ground.

In the Second Island Chain, if we have J-36s conducting air superiority missions and conducting daily attacks on Guam, then the airbase won't be functional and Guam itself would be under blockade.