If it can actually hard kill incoming missiles like we've seen from some of the research papers posted around here, the analogy of a ship becomes more obvious.
Chengdu next gen combat aircraft (?J-36) thread
- Thread starter Blitzo
- Start date
And that airborne VLS patent.
Yeah, I'm half serious. Micro self defense missile in near term, laser ciws in longer term
This would be dramatically overselling what the Su-57 does or what was achievable in the 1980s.
So I was bored and did some MS paint:
^ The 3 doritos are CGAD and his drones. The blufor are the conventional looking planes. CGAD is able to detect enemy first due to stealth and stronger radar. So it fires missile ahead of time. The drone do the same even though its own range is not enough to detect. The missile cruise at pre-determined destination without direct guidance.
Rather than risk itself, CGAD let the drones handle it. The drone and blufor has similar 5th gen level of radar/stealth. Both sides detect each other, except the CGAD that bailed early. Since Chinese side launched earlier, their missile is already half way to the enemy. Drones guide the missiles to updated target, to improve accuracy.
Since the Chinese missiles launched first, the drones themselves could sooner disengage, beyond blufor's missile lock on. Blufor surprised by the sudden missile attack maneuver away. Chinese drones could maneuver at super human level, and with help of range, escape blufor's attack.
Chinese drones manage to out maneuver the missile. It was able to run away at BVR distance, while blufor has to deal with missile coming much closer. It also helps that drones maneuver at super human level WVR, without limit of pilot, escape blufor's attack. Blufor bleed their energy and cede initiative, while CGAD turn away to pursuit.
At this point CGAD is able to repeat round 1 and chase. Blufor engage afterburner to escape, which may or may not outspeed CGAD. If they cannot, they are eating another wave of PL-17.
At this point blufor know something is up, there is a CGAD that they didnt detect. They would either call reinforcement to even out the odds, or try escape into friendly air defense zone.
^ The 3 doritos are CGAD and his drones. The blufor are the conventional looking planes. CGAD is able to detect enemy first due to stealth and stronger radar. So it fires missile ahead of time. The drone do the same even though its own range is not enough to detect. The missile cruise at pre-determined destination without direct guidance.
Rather than risk itself, CGAD let the drones handle it. The drone and blufor has similar 5th gen level of radar/stealth. Both sides detect each other, except the CGAD that bailed early. Since Chinese side launched earlier, their missile is already half way to the enemy. Drones guide the missiles to updated target, to improve accuracy.
Since the Chinese missiles launched first, the drones themselves could sooner disengage, beyond blufor's missile lock on. Blufor surprised by the sudden missile attack maneuver away. Chinese drones could maneuver at super human level, and with help of range, escape blufor's attack.
Chinese drones manage to out maneuver the missile. It was able to run away at BVR distance, while blufor has to deal with missile coming much closer. It also helps that drones maneuver at super human level WVR, without limit of pilot, escape blufor's attack. Blufor bleed their energy and cede initiative, while CGAD turn away to pursuit.
At this point CGAD is able to repeat round 1 and chase. Blufor engage afterburner to escape, which may or may not outspeed CGAD. If they cannot, they are eating another wave of PL-17.
At this point blufor know something is up, there is a CGAD that they didnt detect. They would either call reinforcement to even out the odds, or try escape into friendly air defense zone.
Advanced Medium Combat Aircraft (AMCA), the original super 6.5+ gen aircraft.Fighter
Bomber
Fighter-Bomber
Air Superiority Fighter
Air Dominance Aircraft
Tactical Bomber
Combat Aircraft
Tactical Combat Aircraft
In all seriousness, I see Blitzo’s point. Justin Bronk’s characterization of the J-36 as a “” reflects the limitations of conventional thinking in UK/Western military circles. The term “fighter” is increasingly obsolete, as modern platforms prioritize survivability, systems integration, and collaborative combat trends over traditional maneuverability. It's copium to reduce the complexities of J-36 in such simplistic binary terms.
Well,
Broadband, UV/IR/Ka-X...L sensor fused coverage - check (everything other than L(220) - 360/720 degrees);
EW/IRCM with oversized apertures in all those bands other than uv - check.
VLO - not really, but X and now IR LO - check.
Supersonic cruise/maneuver and now probably sustainable BVR - check.
What felon undersells or oversells, frankly, know exactly zero members on this forum. And given how I have to write this - Bronk-level of attention is a general norm. But Justin Bronk is ultimately but a talking head from a former great nation; formers need their ego, as there's nothing else left for them. There's no such reason to underspeculate on China-focused forum, not anymore. But enough with 57.
China doesn't invent the wheel with placing sensors around the aircraft - it was original tech for 5th gen, which sort of failed to materialize in most planes for financial/priority reasons.
Now China looks there back again, and by doing that it converges two different strands of 5th generation, caused by ATF stealth turn. At the same time - it creates new compromises(basically, ditching all current vectored WVR/BVR theory in favor of a flying "destroyer", almost in ca.1960 fashion).
But while those technical developments are not unprecedented, it's under a new way to skin a cat. And this is big:
F-15 or F-14 weren't truly all that separate from 3rd gen fighters technically; they were expensive and fancy, but still mostly same. The novelty was concept - how to do air warfare, drawing from Vietnam experience.
It was totally possible to make T-10(flanker ancestor) on contemporary tech, too - but Soviet Union didn't draw right lessons in time, losing a whole decade.
I frankly suspect that, given the speed with which this aircraft appeared, - Chinese 6th gen effort may use a lot of high readiness solutions shared with j-20b; in the end, Chinese NGAD was clearly timed to not get behind original US NGAD effort for a dangerous 2025-2030 timeframe.
It's just that US themselves ironically failed to do it, and instead of China keeping up - it's now US lagging behind, with neither new tech nor new concept in the air.
Thus, new thing here likely isn't alien techology, as there's probably none; at most it's new aerodynamics and new software architecture (which may not even be unique to it, ultimately 6th gen archive comes literally direct from 2010s commercial IT). New thing here is conceptual approach to war fighting.
Because the 6th generation combat airplanes must have even better situational awareness, EW, command & control (than that of J-20S and J-16D), to a point that the performance of these capabilities are, in his opinion, becoming key differentiators between the 5th and the 6th generation. Airframes of the 6th generation therefore must be much larger in size for larger, heavier and more task payload. This makes the 6th generation more and more like "flying warships" - multi-role, all aspects capable and long endurance.
He then touched on that the Chinese military fans call J-20s "Galactic Battleships" because of the shinny metallic painting in sunlight. This nickname is a play of "银色" (colour of silver) and "银河" (the silver river in heaven, aka galaxy), and all kinds of powerful spaceships zooming from one galaxy to another in sci-fi works. Following this tradition, he thinks it is natural to also refer the 6th generation as "warships in air".
You are forgetting the matter of sensor and EW power and integration into network centric fighting doctrine. Pointing to some additional sensor placements on the Su-57 misses the point. We can do the same for the J-20 and it’s got better network integration than anything the Su-57 has ever shown. Even more the case with EW suites. Some spot EW capabilities, which even the Rafale and F-35 have, is not the same as being able emit enough power to directly assert dominance over a wide EM space, which is what 6th gens are supposed to do. My entire point was that the doctrine change is what justifies the generational increment.