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

[FairAndUnbiased]

Everyone's talking about altitude and speed, but I think one major aspect not getting as much attention is stealth and the fact that J-36 would be the first supersonic tailless flying wing in the world (assuming SAC CHAD upfold tail at high speed)

If you look at old SR-72 calculations, radar detection range plays a big role in enemy engagement distance, tailless VLO design combined with high supersonic and high altitude means there is a very small to basically zero time-window between detection and J-36 leaving engagement envelope, i.e. the transit time between AAM/SAM launch and intercept is longer than time J-36 will spend within detection envelope.

If US NGAD was primarily subsonic VLO and they received intel on CHAD capabilities, I can see why they would want to pause the whole program, even if detection distances are the same, NGAD will basically have no window to intercept CHAD

its not a flying wing, it is a

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

There's a fuselage blended into the wings which supports the side intakes. The nosecone and the wing leading edge has different sweep angle, which further show it isn't a flying wing. a flying wing would not have a fuselage, so would not have side intakes, and would be too thick to sustain supersonic flight. It flies like a brick.

you can't see the stealth characteristics (duh) but there's 1 thing anyone can easily point just by looking at it: it has fewer different leading edge angles. As a comparison, a typical 5th gen fighter has 6 distinct symmetric leading edge angles: nosecone, fuselage, intake, vertical stabilizer, horizontal stabilizer, wing leading edge. J-36 has 4 distinct symmetric leading edge angles: nosecone, fuselage, intake, wing leading edge. A flying wing has 2 distinct symmetric leading edge angles: intake, leading edge wing. Cockpit is buried.

If we use this as a rough estimate of the frontal RCS, J-36 has inferior frontal RCS to a flying wing but better than tailed fighters. In exchange it has superior speed, maneuverability, etc to a flying wing. If all else was equal, it would not be as maneuverable as a tailed fighter, but all else is not equal - it is a trijet, and has the entire trailing edge as a control surface.

 

[iewgnem]

its not a flying wing, it is a

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

There's a fuselage blended into the wings which supports the side intakes. The nosecone and the wing leading edge has different sweep angle, which further show it isn't a flying wing. a flying wing would not have a fuselage, so would not have side intakes, and would be too thick to sustain supersonic flight. It flies like a brick.

you can't see the stealth characteristics (duh) but there's 1 thing anyone can easily point just by looking at it: it has fewer different leading edge angles. As a comparison, a typical 5th gen fighter has 6 distinct symmetric leading edge angles: nosecone, fuselage, intake, vertical stabilizer, horizontal stabilizer, wing leading edge. J-36 has 4 distinct symmetric leading edge angles: nosecone, fuselage, intake, wing leading edge. A flying wing has 2 distinct symmetric leading edge angles: intake, leading edge wing. Cockpit is buried.

If we use this as a rough estimate of the frontal RCS, J-36 has inferior frontal RCS to a flying wing but better than tailed fighters. In exchange it has superior speed, maneuverability, etc to a flying wing. If all else was equal, it would not be as maneuverable as a tailed fighter, but all else is not equal - it is a trijet, and has the entire trailing edge as a control surface.

That's just semantics, in the industry when lift coefficent of a body is large enough to participate in overall lift it's treated as a "wing-body" object and analyzed as a whole, "wing" and "body" by themselves are just simplified models used for analytical analysis of traditional aircrafts.

At the wing-body level it's planform that determines pressure and in turn lift distribution, in J-36's case the planform geometry of its front delta is straight and contineous and that makes it a "wing", the "nose" and intakes does not modify planform and make it no less a flying wing than B-2 with it's cockpit sticking out make it not a flying wing.

As for RCS, all eye-balling exercises are moot, I expect the bottom intakes to degrade RCS compared to top intake-only flying wing, but that's the only thing anyone can reasonably deduce without CAC RCS testing data.

 

[Ringsword]

its not a flying wing, it is a

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

There's a fuselage blended into the wings which supports the side intakes. The nosecone and the wing leading edge has different sweep angle, which further show it isn't a flying wing. a flying wing would not have a fuselage, so would not have side intakes, and would be too thick to sustain supersonic flight. It flies like a brick.

you can't see the stealth characteristics (duh) but there's 1 thing anyone can easily point just by looking at it: it has fewer different leading edge angles. As a comparison, a typical 5th gen fighter has 6 distinct symmetric leading edge angles: nosecone, fuselage, intake, vertical stabilizer, horizontal stabilizer, wing leading edge. J-36 has 4 distinct symmetric leading edge angles: nosecone, fuselage, intake, wing leading edge. A flying wing has 2 distinct symmetric leading edge angles: intake, leading edge wing. Cockpit is buried.

If we use this as a rough estimate of the frontal RCS, J-36 has inferior frontal RCS to a flying wing but better than tailed fighters. In exchange it has superior speed, maneuverability, etc to a flying wing. If all else was equal, it would not be as maneuverable as a tailed fighter, but all else is not equal - it is a trijet, and has the entire trailing edge as a control surface.

Some western analysts have gone insane and have accused China of copying........the Horten 229 flying wing fighter/bomber circa 1940.And called the J36 China's Hitler bomber.Have the Americans I know and respect turned into turd world indians FFS!!!

 

[FairAndUnbiased]

That's just semantics, in the industry when lift coefficent of a body is large enough to participate in overall lift it's treated as a "wing-body" object and analyzed as a whole, "wing" and "body" by themselves are just simplified models used for analytical analysis of traditional aircrafts.

At the wing-body level it's planform that determines pressure and in turn lift distribution, in J-36's case the planform geometry of its front delta is straight and contineous and that makes it a "wing", the "nose" and intakes does not modify planform and make it no less a flying wing than B-2 with it's cockpit sticking out make it not a flying wing.

As for RCS, all eye-balling exercises are moot, I expect the bottom intakes to degrade RCS compared to top intake-only flying wing, but that's the only thing anyone can reasonably deduce without CAC RCS testing data.

Is the planform geometry in front straight and continuous with the wing leading edge? maybe I am misunderstanding?

looks like at least 2 angles are present, and the fuselage is very distinct, at least according to this picture.

 

[Blitzo]

Picture from Janes (too large to embed)

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

article:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Janes has never been good at PLA watching, and they've been worse in the last few years once their PLA tracking writers became who they are today

 

[iewgnem]

Is the planform geometry in front straight and continuous with the wing leading edge? maybe I am misunderstanding?

looks like at least 2 angles are present, and the fuselage is very distinct, at least according to this picture.

All objects are bodies of various lift coefficient so it's semantics if we call something a body or wing, it all comes down to amount of lift. A pure cylindrical fuselage generates very little (but not none) lift at angle of attack so its simplifies into the term "fuselage"

Technically the whole thing is a combination of two delta wings of different sweep and aspect ratio, but practically the whole thing is just one large cranked-delta wing extending to the nose.

If there exist a traditional nose section that sticks out like on F-16XL then it probably learn more toward the "BWB" direction, but the delta clearly extend to the nose so there's no fuselage and its all wing-body.

 

[FairAndUnbiased]

All objects are bodies of various lift coefficient so it's semantics if we call something a body or wing, it all comes down to amount of lift. A pure cylindrical fuselage generates very little (but not none) lift at angle of attack so its simplifies into the term "fuselage"

Technically the whole thing is a combination of two delta wings of different sweep and aspect ratio, but practically the whole thing is just one large cranked-delta wing extending to the nose.

If there exist a traditional nose section that sticks out like on F-16XL then it probably learn more toward the "BWB" direction, but the delta clearly extend to the nose so there's no fuselage and its all wing-body.

from EM perspective in the optical approximation (wavelength <<< object size), having 2 wings of different angles is different than 1 wing with 1 angle. and having a thicker fuselage that forms an angle to thinner wings, even one that produces lift, creates a retroreflector at certain angles.

This is true for even planes that particularly pay attention to EM signature.

The reason why I am talking about the angle between the nosecone and the rear delta wing leading edge is in the context of EM.

 

[Deino]

Janes has never been good at PLA watching, and they've been worse in the last few years once their PLA tracking writers became who they are today

the problem began IMO with fireing my former boss, who was responsible for the Far East section and the new boss changing too much of my reports … and now an Indian (Akhil Kadidal) is responsible for PLAAF/China news, which is IMO again an unlucky decision

 

[enroger]

it would not be as maneuverable as a tailed fighter, but all else is not equal - it is a trijet, and has the entire trailing edge as a control surface.

Also with maneuverable it is important to differentiate what kind of maneuverability we're talking about. Lack of vertical stabilizer will led to reduced range of controllable sideslip, so no tight barrel roll. Max AoA is probably reduced too, so instantaneous turn rate maybe less.

Sustained turn rate on the other hand is likely excellent especially in supersonic regime, which happens to be the most important maneuverability for the kind of fight J-36 is expected to be in

 

[Deino]

Via @paralay / Secret Projects Forum