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

[Gloire_bb]

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.

Without broadband stealth that would literally be su-57 - and that mostly because 5th gen fighter requirements are just incompatible with all aspect/broadband stealth.

Frankly speaking, it's a shame f-117n/c/x never went through - because it's possible to say that same package was in fact doable since the 1980s.

We've listed here specs and architecture approaches that appeared in 2010s, and which do absolutely separate 6th gen from everything before. I think it's more reasonable to look there. From there - different approach to air combat in general.

Other unique aspects of j-36 flow either out of them, or out of its unique range/mission profile.
Which, in principle, could be done in previous gens(fb-22/23; f-15e; etc), i.e. it isn't generational per se.

 

[tphuang]

Another thing I think we forget to talk about is its role in electronic warfare. We are no longer in a situation where it’s just one aircraft jamming another. In the age of LPI radar, it’s a lot more complicated in tricking adversary into thinking what’s in front of them.

let’s say you have a fleet of 2 J36s and 20 UCAVs, your entire EW effort has to be coordinated to give adversary a consistent picture.

instead of them thinking you have 22 aircraft, maybe you can make them thinking 60 aircraft are here and they don’t know if what pops up on their radar is real or not.

but consider that you have to be dealing with many aircraft and ships, the EW effort will have to be very complex and the central node will have to do a lot of computation and communication on what each UCAV will have to emit to give that consistent picture to adversaries. The role of J36 is so much more important than missile lobbing.

now think about what they can do in a large missile attack by confusing adversaries radar.

 

[Blitzo]

Yankee's latest piece on CHAD:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Apparently he has been lurking here lately and taking notes on what people said:

View attachment 142098

He likes the warship reference and considers whoever made the above post a "fast thinker" (可见还是有反应足够快的洋人的)

He included the latest update to this meme that added the tricycles for the poor PLAGF?

View attachment 142097

Consuming such information as a written up article is truly appreciated and as much of a Christmas miracle as the actual emergence of J-36 itself.

 

[GTI]

Yankee's latest piece on CHAD:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Apparently he has been lurking here lately and taking notes on what people said:

View attachment 142098

He likes the warship reference and considers whoever made the above post a "fast thinker" (可见还是有反应足够快的洋人的)

He included the latest update to this meme that added the tricycles for the poor PLAGF?

View attachment 142097

Oh wow, that’s my post! Blitzo’s not a fan, but I think we should persist. What else did he say about it?

I don’t care what anybody says and thinks, it’s now China’s time to dictate and define what next generation air warfare is.

Long range and endurance, plus multiple types of manned and unmanned aircraft have partially turned air into the sea or space domain - we use naval references for sea and space, so why not for air? Especially seeing as the 7th gen may bring about space planes or near-space planes.

P.s. I’m also incredibly honoured that Yankee cited my post, it’s like being mentioned by an OSINT celebrity! … I look up to people who could get [legitimate] H1Bs, not BBLs!

 

[Gloire_bb]

I vote for destroyer.
3 engines, wedge-shaped.
All checks.

 

[bsdnf]

In fact, the aerospace industry has been researching TSTO and combined propulsion system(TBCC & RBCC) for some time, keyword: Tengyun project.

Oh wow, that’s my post! Blitzo’s not a fan, but I think we should persist. What else did he say about it?

I don’t care what anybody says and thinks, it’s now China’s time to dictate and define what next generation air warfare is.

Long range and endurance, plus multiple types of manned and unmanned aircraft have partially turned air into the sea or space domain - we use naval references for sea and space, so why not for air? Especially seeing as the 7th gen may bring about space planes or near-space planes.

P.s. I’m also incredibly honoured that Yankee cited my post, it’s like being mentioned by an OSINT celebrity! … I look up to people who could get [legitimate] H1Bs, not BBLs!

 

[Blitzo]

Oh wow, that’s my post! Blitzo’s not a fan, but I think we should persist. What else did he say about it?

I think the term aerial DDG isn't wrong (a friend some months ago coined a similar term for the expectant new gen aircraft as well), it's more just risking putting the conemps/conops of this too allegorically naval.

"Combat aircraft" is my way of trying to encourage non-specific and broad perceptions of aerial combat overall.

I vote for destroyer.
3 engines, wedge-shaped.
All checks.

With the PLA star on it, one could even say it is a star destroyer of sorts.

 

[Jason_]

From the same article, this part on the PLAAF’s thoughts on the CCA matches everything I have been saying about the proper role of drones in a high end 6th gen fight.

DeepL translation with my edit:
< From the above, we have answered the question of why our "Strong Military Wingman" (Guancha’s nickname for PLA CCA) is a high-end aircraft that is different from the enemy's "Loyal Wingman" concept from the very beginning, in terms of the common subsystems within the system and how to accomplish the mission in the face of a strong enemy. The core advantage of the "Strong Wingman" is that it enables worry-free maneuvering in air combat by omitting the pilot and his/her supporting systems, and eliminates the impact of human error on mission accomplishment, while "cheapness for the sake of cheapness" such as reducing specifications should not be a distraction in the development process. With this core principle in mind, the two major R&D bases of China's aviation industry for fighter jets actually have a technological foundation accumulated since the beginning of this century, which is sufficient to be transformed into a "strong military wingman": the Dark Sword high-mobility UAV, which made its debut at the Zhuhai Airshow in 2006, and research on countering the HiMAT high maneuverability UAV from Rockwell; there is also the fifth-generation light fighter program competition, which adopts a single engine configuration similar to the Russian Su-75 "checkmate" with no canard no horizontal stabilizers to perform penetration strike.

 

[enroger]

I vote for destroyer.
3 engines, wedge-shaped.
All checks.

slap a 1130 and FN-3000 on it

 

[Gloire_bb]

slap a 1130 and FN-3000 on it

And no rows of octuple torbolasers?
Prepare boarding party.