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

A

AndrewS

Brigadier
Registered Member
Gloire_bb said:
Stand off weapons need targets, and their range isn't endless. J-36 is exactly the means to find(and prosecute) those targets in enemy rear.
Click to expand...

What enemy "rear" are you referring to?

Every point in Japan is within 1300km of mainland China and within 150km of an ocean approach.


Gloire_bb said:
Why you build it if you don't?
That's the question that apparently killed NGAD-1, by the way.
Click to expand...

Current generation stealth fighters with tailfins can be detected at long range with low-frequency radars,

So broadband stealth is simply the new standard.
 
Gloire_bb

Gloire_bb

Captain
Registered Member
AndrewS said:
What enemy "rear" are you referring to?

Every point in Japan is within 1300km of mainland China and within 150km of an ocean approach.
Click to expand...
Sweep behind Japan, for example.
Philippine MLR bases by interdicting traffic from Darwin.

Do some local vulturing on Guam-Taiwan leg, intercepting not just support nodes, but also patrol aircraft, drones, even fighter aircraft formations in transfer to and from zone of operations, including stragglers of all kinds (and SAR aircraft).

Whole bluefor (let's not call adversaries - enemies, it's a word with weight, especially on forum full of american members) rear is exposed there, because it isn't rear in the same sense as Chinese hinterland - it's simply empty ocean, terra nullis, covered behind thin crust of frontline presense and resilent information space.
Behind there, it's rather empty, and scarcer information sources here themselves are primary targets.
AndrewS said:
Current generation stealth fighters with tailfins can be detected at long range with low-frequency radars,

So broadband stealth is simply the new standard.
Click to expand...
Still, it's a change that goes beyond new standard; it opens relative freedom of operations far back.
 
HardBall

HardBall

New Member
Registered Member
Gloire_bb said:
Sweep behind Japan, for example.
Philippine MLR bases by interdicting traffic from Darwin.

Do some local vulturing on Guam-Taiwan leg, intercepting not just support nodes, but also patrol aircraft, drones, even fighter aircraft formations in transfer to and from zone of operations, including stragglers of all kinds (and SAR aircraft).

Whole bluefor (let's not call adversaries - enemies, it's a word with weight, especially on forum full of american members) rear is exposed there, because it isn't rear in the same sense as Chinese hinterland - it's simply empty ocean, terra nullis, covered behind thin crust of frontline presense and resilent information space.
Behind there, it's rather empty, and scarcer information sources here themselves are primary targets.

Still, it's a change that goes beyond new standard; it opens relative freedom of operations far back.
Click to expand...

Also, given its vast (to be confirmed) range, it should be routine to fly CAP for a PLAN task force between the 1st and 2nd island chains. As long as it has a real time datalink with the ships, it would be a potent deterrent to any western strikes on the battle group. That's actually how I see 6th platforms from the PRC in their most important task, to achieve superiority between the 1st and 2nd island chains, that will vast reduce options for opponents.
 
Gloire_bb

Gloire_bb

Captain
Registered Member
HardBall said:
Also, given its vast (to be confirmed) range, it should be routine to fly CAP for a PLAN task force between the 1st and 2nd island chains. As long as it has a real time datalink with the ships, it would be a potent deterrent to any western strikes on the battle group. That's actually how I see 6th platforms from the PRC in their most important task, to achieve superiority between the 1st and 2nd island chains, that will vast reduce options for opponents.
Click to expand...
CAPs over long leg tend to be inefficient. Especially CAP made of planes designed to avoid close combat.
Like, air force can use it to get more funding, but realistically navy must protect itself with fighters it brought itself. Simply because they're here with the fleet, both the CAP in the air, and standby reinforcement on the deck.

Long range fighters can work together with navy, but what you ask for is better be done by carrier aircraft.
 
HardBall

HardBall

New Member
Registered Member
Gloire_bb said:
CAPs over long leg tend to be inefficient. Especially CAP made of planes designed to avoid close combat.
Like, air force can use it to get more funding, but realistically navy must protect itself with fighters it brought itself. Simply because they're here with the fleet, both the CAP in the air, and standby reinforcement on the deck.

Long range fighters can work together with navy, but what you ask for is better be done by carrier aircraft.
Click to expand...

That depends on loiter time. If the upper limit of unrefueled range is indeed correct, then it would be comfortably be able to do CAP with a lot of loiter over most of the area within 2IC. That's something that J-20 cannot do comfortably, but might be a part of the calculous of what the design requirements are for this platform.

Carriers are very expensive to acquire and operationalize (having a US sized fleet of them is even more expensive than high end air warfare). And not all task forces can be assigned a carrier with a full air wing, especially given the situation of every other navy aside fro the US.
 
I

iewgnem

Junior Member
Registered Member
I dont think we can model CHAD's purpose using today's strategic paradigm, we're probably looking at 2030 for IOC and later for FOC, the world has a lot of variables, China has a lot of other weapons programs, the problems of today might not be the problems of 2030 or has already been solved by other systems or means by then.

Case in point Taiwan might not even be a factor by then.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top