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

[tphuang]

Just in terms of what kind of capabilities it brings. Just think of the scenario of satellites identifying a large carrier group coming close to second island chain. Multiple carriers and escorts with many high end air defenses missiles.
In the past, you are reliant on DF26 to do the attacks.

with J36, you can have it get close enough (think < 1000 km) from carrier group where you are engaging 4th/5th gen aircraft at the edge of their combat radius and you are protecting H20 and H6k and hypersonic flying vehicles and other assets performing attack with different type of missiles from different axis. You can launch ARM to attack the sensors of different escorts and carrier. All this will be on top of DF26s.

the level of threat facing a large carrier group is now significantly higher. Since it’s facing a multi axis attack dealing with different missile threats. That is harder to deal with than just DF26 from one direction.

there are many similar scenarios where you can see J36 significantly raise the lethality of a PLA attack.

 

[Nx4eu]

Mach 3-4 is far far too high and shows this is just some fanboys wishful thinking than something made from due diligence, add that with the very unrealistic weapons bay configurations.

 

[dingyibvs]

I feel like all this debate about what constitutes a 6th gen spawns from the fact that unlike 5th gen, there is no one defining characteristic (i.e. stealth). Physically it's really just an evolution of the 5th gen, and these physical changes are developed to suit what each country's vision of aerial warfare in the next 20-30 years is like. In this regard, it seems to be more like the 3rd to 4th gen transition.

As such, rather than debating what the definition of 6th gen is, it's probably more worthwhile to debate what your vision of future aerial warfare will be like and how each platform is likely to behave in it. I mean, as it stands, I feel like the conversations here already seems to be trending in this direction.

 

[latenlazy]

I feel like all this debate about what constitutes a 6th gen spawns from the fact that unlike 5th gen, there is no one defining characteristic (i.e. stealth). Physically it's really just an evolution of the 5th gen, and these physical changes are developed to suit what each country's vision of aerial warfare in the next 20-30 years is like. In this regard, it seems to be more like the 3rd to 4th gen transition.

As such, rather than debating what the definition of 6th gen is, it's probably more worthwhile to debate what your vision of future aerial warfare will be like and how each platform is likely to behave in it. I mean, as it stands, I feel like the conversations here already seems to be trending in this direction.

Au contraire friend! I think persistent high energy kinematics, broadband stealth, all around sensing, full suite EW, and especially ground up network centric focus are in fact by their parts and in their whole significant leaps above 5th gen rather than just an evolution. I think it makes the most sense to define fighter generations around paradigm shifts in combat doctrine, and 6th gen is almost certainly a massive doctrine shift, even if some of these features were first employed at a less comprehensive level with what we might be able to call "5.5" gen designs.

 

[serse]

The design reminisce abandon usn A20 of the 1980s,it adapted delta design and side by side cockpit arrangement.

 

[LuzinskiJ]

Well, in dogfight they're most likely right - and that's one of the reasons why traditional new gen fighters probably won't go anywhere.
But there are these suspicious side appertures and side bays for something - i wonder what they're for...

They also said fairly confidently that it has two "motors" when it clearly shows show exhausts. And with equal confidence they pronounced there is no thrust vectoring when one of the photo clear shows daylight between the side "motor"s and the center one. Not sure the value of this video aside from letting two former fighter jocks to jump on the denigrating-China wagon. At least pay attention to the videos and the photos before doing the video, please.

 

[siegecrossbow]

Cute Orca says it is not a fighter bomber and may have TVC nozzles.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

 

[another505]

The point of UCAVs and CCAs is to have greater mass and persistence in the relevant operational area so that they are "always there," as they and accompanying friendly manned tactical aircraft will be able to apply constant pressure and degrade the enemy's own equivalent system of systems/echelon at the frontline of contact.

When your pressure begins to create openings in the enemy's defenses, that is when you send in your longer range and higher speed J-36s as well as your already forward deployed UCAVs/CCAs to move into the openings to attack the enemy's rear and high value targets to seek and exploit.

I.e.: think soviet deep battle, but in the air, and instead of seeking to create "envelopments" you are seeking to strike at high value targets in the enemy's rear both in the air (tankers, AEW&C, command etc) and on the surface (air bases, high value vessels, etc).


Sending in your penetrating long range assets like J-36 or long range UCAVs/CCAs without first creating weak points in the enemy's defenses just means your J-36s and UCAVs will have their effectiveness reduced at best, or outright lost in unfavourable or unnecessarily risky engagements at worst.

Remember -- both sides will have a complex formations and echelons of CCAs/UCAVs, high end manned tactical fighters, with support from their own AEW&C and EW assets, and both sides will be trying to keep their own system of systems coherent and structured while trying to degrade the enemy's system of systems echelons.



View attachment 142055

You're ignoring that the soviet deep strike battle had air assault and deep strike with SOF and etc. to disrupt the backline before there is a weak spot in the frontline where the armored division can break through.

That's what the J-36 has the unique ability to do unlike Shengad/J-20S. I do believe that J-36 will be in the front line with CCA but I think they will also be used in deep strike wreck havoc in the back line. If it is true that this thing can fly higher than any 5th gen can shoot with, it doesn't matter that the enemy has a front line of fighters and awacs.

I feel like you idea of a big line of blocks creating a strong front line is too simplistic.

 

[Blitzo]

You're ignoring that the soviet deep strike battle had air assault and deep strike with SOF and etc. to disrupt the backline before there is a weak spot in the frontline where the armored division can break through.

That's what the J-36 has the unique ability to do unlike Shengad/J-20S. I do believe that J-36 will be in the front line with CCA but I think they will also be used in deep strike wreck havoc in the back line. If it is true that this thing can fly higher than any 5th gen can shoot with, it doesn't matter that the enemy has a front line of fighters and awacs.

I feel like you idea of a big line of blocks creating a strong front line is too simplistic.

I'm not ignoring that (bolded part). I'm also not suggesting the front line will be a big line of blocks, obviously I didn't make that specific drawing and just quickly edited it. The details of tactical engagements will obviously have much more details.

The air assault/SOF penetrating strike equivalent for the aerial deep battle would be:
- use of standoff range/long range air to ground weapons to strike at opfor surface basing/logistics nodes
- use of skirmisher UCAVs/CCAs to try and test and conduct minor penetrations
- use of very long range AAMs to target opfor assets behind the front line of contact


Whether a J-36 would also be committed in the early phase of aerial deep battle to conduct penetrating attacks, entirely depends on the coherence and capability of the enemy's aerial system of systems echelon, however I do not foresee it being committed to a penetration unless the enemy's system of systems either has already been degraded, or unless there are particularly valuable tactical/operational opportunities that present themselves where a risk is deemed worth it.

But assuming a competent and organized enemy aerial system of systems at the outset of battle, I do not think committing J-36s early on for penetrating missions makes much sense.

 

[whatnow]

CCAs will not be that small, nor will they have the planform that will be compact enough to fit in a weapons bay like a folded cruise missile.

It is likely that true higher performing CCAs will have the footprint of anywhere between a light trainer (think JL-10 sized) up to a medium weight fighter (J-10, legacy hornet sized).

So something close in size to this but with more range?