yes, the role of the weapon should be to match the requirements not the size. As long as it does air-to-air combat, it is a fighter jet regardless of the size weight. If it does air-to-surface combat as the primary function then it is a strike or a bomber etc.
Chengdu next gen combat aircraft (?J-36) thread
- Thread starter Blitzo
- Start date
yes, the role of the weapon should be to match the requirements not the size. As long as it does air-to-air combat, it is a fighter jet regardless of the size weight. If it does air-to-surface combat as the primary function then it is a strike or a bomber etc.
Not an interesting idea at all. It is not possible to launch a missile vertically from a fixed wing airplane at proper speeds. This is the equivalent of attempting to close the convertible top of an E93 M3 while doing 250km/h on the Autobahn.
Aren't firing a missile by first ejecting it or dropping a bomb also considered launching vertically, but vertically downwards? And I believe fighter jets can fire (some) missiles while upside down.
Last edited:
Better to develop a dedicated LO refuelling UAV. Using a high valu J-36 for the task of refuelling which will put itself in an exposed manner both kinematically and in terms of signature exposure, imo just isn't worth it
That’s definitely true but the proposed mounting positions in that particular picture places the 3 modules in places that are simply impossible.
the side ones are almost the same position longitudinally as the side intake opening, and the top pair is wide enough to completely obstruct the airflow in the ventral intake unless it aggressively diverges its airflow to the sides (which I don’t think is possible given its external shape and tri-engine placement)
The idea that’s described here is sound in principle(again I can’t comment on whether this aerial VLS provides actual combat advantage, but simply having them on a jet isn’t a problem in and of itself). My problem is that this particular execution won’t work.
Last edited:
It has to do with the angle of the munition in relation to incoming airstream. In normal cases the exiting munition experiences aerodynamic pressure head on, as for vertical launch the exiting munition experiences aerodynamic pressure laterally along it's longitudinal axis almost like a shearing force. Low subsonic maybe it's ok, supersonic launch is another matter
Yes but with that system the missile, when first ejected into the surrounding airflow, experiences an extremely high angle of attack.
Normally the released ordinance has its nose pointed roughly the same direction of the aircraft which means it’s dropped into local flow that points in also roughly the same direction, AKA small angle of attack which is good for a number of reasons: retaining the energy it got from the launch platform, making sure its control surfaces don’t stall, etc.
In the case of a vertically (as in vertical to the aircraft nose) launched missile it is dropped at effectively 90 degrees AoA which will: slow it down very very effectively; destabilize it to some degree depending on the design; make the control surfaces stall out and leaving the only effective method of attitude control as the TVC nozzle (which exacerbates energy loss as the thrust will be directed at an angle instead of pointing in the missile long axis to best accelerate it)
You would pretty much have to refuel J36 with unmanned LO platform when operating that far out. That is actually one big question for such a platform. What will they use for it?
One suggestion from Xi Yazhou is to have refueling version of GJ11.
I think I saw something from CNN. The Faux News had a story.
No Canadian media outlet has reported this as far as I can tell.
Although I must admit, kind of glad the Canadian government still have not made a decision to buy F-35 from the Americans. The Canadian military is pushing for that, but the Canadian government is dragging its feet.
Now they are forced to talk about this new plane from China, China, China, Chyna!
