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

[manqiangrexue]

How I expect the J-XXX will be used, part 1. Yes, I am aware that the PLAAF will also have CCAs. Not included because the star of the show is the J-XXX and because I don't know what it looks like and how it fits the PLAAF's current doctrine. #stopamericanscopingJ-XXXisabombernotatruesixgen
View attachment 142002

Meanwhile, at the Pentagon:

These are ex USAF pilots with 2k hours in air superiority platforms. They believe that F-16s will be able to shoot them down easily because a tailless delta configuration can never outturn an F-16 in visual range, and that the Chinese actuators for the control surfaces are stone age technology because of how large they are. In fact they are eager to 'dogfight' against it.

LOL Angry old has-beens be like, [add heavy Southern accent], "Chiiineese fighter mah ass! Imgon ram that mofo with mah pickup truck! Put 90 gallons gas-o'-line in the back camp-out tank. Ain't nothin' gon survive that!"

Old fart rollin' up to dogfight a J-36 in an F-16:

 

[AndrewS]

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!

It does feel like the future of aerial warfare has parallels to WW1 naval warfare. So as a possible analogy:

Destroyer = 3 engine Chengdu aircraft (J-36)
Frigate = 2 engine Shenyang aircraft
Corvettes = 1 engine reusable CCAs
Torpedo boats = Attritable drones in the Kratos Valkyrie class (circa $3 Mn each)

---

EDIT

And come to think of it, we're now in a situation where aircraft costs are approaching warship costs. For example, a B-21 is roughly the same cost as a Constellation-class Frigate.

 

[chinois49]

View attachment 142062View attachment 142063View attachment 142064


A bilibili user name @兰墨飞花 posted his own mesurement:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

"
Estimated length 24 metres
Wingspan estimated at 21 metres.
Maximum take-off weight estimated at 44_50 tonnes
Maximum speed is estimated at Mach 3-4.
Front landing gear on two wheels
Rear landing gear two wheels front and rear
Diamond-shaped, large-sidebar, lozenge-shaped, droop-less layout
10 movable flaps, (may be 4 full-action or 10 full-action)
Three engines, three air intakes, two CARET intakes in the lower jaw and one DCI intake in the dorsum
2D TVC nozzles.
Extra-large, extra-long bomb bay.
"

Translated with DeepL.com (free version)

As you can see j36`s bomb bay so big that even can carry two yj21 anti-ship missle

that is crazy

definitely not. The aircraft has a large wingspan and a high wing area, it measures a maximum of 22 m long, for a wingspan of 17-18 m. Its wing loading is relatively low. It benefits from approximately 50-54t of takeoff thrust if the turbojets are WS15.
Let's compare: SR 71: the wing area is close (170 m2) the maximum takeoff weight 78t, empty 30t. The special engines consisting of a turbojet associated with a hypertrophied afterburner system have an unknown thrust at altitude. The air intakes are of complex geometry and above all variable, which is not the case on the J36. At M3.3 the leading edge heats up to 600°C. The range is approximately 5000 km.
From the fixed geometry of the air intakes we can evaluate the maximum speed of the J 36... approximately M 2.5. at best. What type of fighter does China need? This aircraft is not an interceptor like the Mig-21, it is an air superiority aircraft that must go far (to accompany the bombers?) at least 2000-2500km range without in-flight refueling...and 4,000 with refueling to go tickle Guam. The maximum takeoff weight given here is fanciful. I stick to 75-85t, with an empty weight of 30-35t. The amount of fuel available is about 50t to within 5t. The J36 must go far!!
On the other hand, it must be able to climb high due to the relatively low wing loading. (20,000m in cruise?)

 

[bsdnf]

It does feel like the future of aerial warfare has parallels to WW1 naval warfare. So as a possible analogy:

Destroyer = 3 engine Chengdu aircraft (J-36)
Frigate = 2 engine Shenyang aircraft
Corvettes = 1 engine reusable CCAs
Torpedo boats = Attritable drones in the Kratos Valkyrie class (circa $3 Mn each)

---

EDIT

And come to think of it, we're now in a situation where aircraft costs are approaching warship costs. For example, a B-21 is roughly the same cost as a Constellation-class Frigate.

From the perspective of stealth and maneuverability, contemporary air combat can even be compared to the T tactics of the line battleship era, but in reverse. Both sides try to use the LO front to face the side & rear of the opponent to maximize information acquisition and minimize exposure, while the J-36's wide-band omnidirectional stealth is a further (and 5gen cannot imitate) compression of the information exposure surface, the mulit-sensor expanse of the information acquisition surface. In this respect alone, it has achieved a generation gap with the 5 gen aircraft.

 

[mack8]

I see people trying to come up with new terms for what this radically new generally machine J-36 represents. I call it a Fightercruiser, inspired by the dutch jachtkruisers of WW2. Big, long range, fast dasher and especially supercruiser, latest weapons, electronics, materials, DEW, MW defences/offences, imo it's the new standard setter in air combat. This is certainly the most exciting aviation moment since Su-57 unveiling in 2010, and far surpasses that previous moment i might say, this coming from an avid russian aviation fan.

 

[sequ]

From spf: cattalonX

 

[Deino]

View attachment 142128

From spf: cattalonX

Wow ... SPF is SecretProjectsForum?

If legit, then this is the so far clearest image showing the J-36 from behind.

Even more it clearly shown all three exhausts are the same which contradicts all the speculations about a third, completely different RAMJET engine in the middle

 

[sequ]

Wow ... SPF is SecretProjectsForum?

Can't find it anywhere else. It isn't on X either (yet).

 

[vinslee]

is this on topic?

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

 

[Gloire_bb]

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.

Please, on both, within context of CHaD. Within realms of that won't get us to a tea party, of course.

It does feel like the future of aerial warfare has parallels to WW1 naval warfare. So as a possible analogy:

Destroyer = 3 engine Chengdu aircraft (J-36)
Frigate = 2 engine Shenyang aircraft
Corvettes = 1 engine reusable CCAs
Torpedo boats = Attritable drones in the Kratos Valkyrie class (circa $3 Mn each)

---

EDIT

And come to think of it, we're now in a situation where aircraft costs are approaching warship costs. For example, a B-21 is roughly the same cost as a Constellation-class Frigate.

I think there's no need to reclassify existing elements to better suit the analogy, it will trap us to the analogy.

Analogy for the new element (i.e. CHAD as destroyer, implying superiority to fighter in relative weight and different behaviour) is probably sufficient. This term should gather its own weight for aerial content.
Or, for precisely this reason, maybe we should go for a different term just to avoid wrong connotations.

Otherwise the moment we go from "destroyer" to pre-ww1, whole logic collapses - "torpedo boat destroyer" was designed for a type of warfare which has few things in common with modern aerial warfare.