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

[minime]

J-36 is unique to PLAAF requirement. It's design for 2nd island chain operation from mainland.
New concept of Air superiority and multi-role never before seen in the history.
It's a VLO++ high speed long range mini AWACS platform act as a battlefield nod and if necessary it can operate alone with the heavy weapon load.
Imagine if the center weapon bay is modular for different mission profile like recon equipment or extra fuel tank.

I don't think any other country will follow this concept. F-47 is more align with SAC J-50.
It's a insult to call it F-111 or fighter bomber of any kind and fighter is too narrow of definition too.
Let just stick to air cruiser. J-36 air cruiser.

 

[siegecrossbow]

Nah. This is clearly a kind of modern equivalent of the F-111. A long range multi-role fighter bomber.

The huge weapon bays are another clear indicator.

Fighter bomber with thrust to weight of around 1.10 with WS-15 and 50 percent fuel. All other fighters are just plain bombers.

 

[FriedRiceNSpice]

The term fighter bomber has a negative connation due to the fact that for past generations of combat aircraft, technological limitations dictated that engineering/design trade-offs would need to be made to enhance the A2G capability of combat aircraft at the expense of A2A capability. On the other hand, if the best air combat design possible within today's technological frontier also naturally leads to a platform very well suited for certain A2G roles, why wouldn't you want to pursue such a capability? J-36's unique combination of stealth, range, and payload capability makes it ideally suited for certain A2G mission profiles. Obviously, you wouldn't waste J-36's doing close air support or generic bombing, but the J-36 would be the ideal platform for striking HVT or targets of opportunity deep in heavily defended air space, or SEAD/DEAD against critical nodes of enemy AD.

 

[qwerty3173]

Its incredibly annoying that people are still trying to fit aircraft into stereotypes, like that will help understand exact capabilities at all. For instance, I could say that the F-35 with its swollen weapons bay, insufficient thrust-to weight and pitiful supersonic performance is the biggest fighter-bomber there is, and the us is transitioning to an all fighter-bomber force. This type of reasoning is not helpful at all.

 

[ying1978]

Denial <= This is Chinese wet dream
Anger <= How dare those copycats clone our stealth fighters!
Bargaining <= Nah! Those are merely fighter bombers
Most Western aviation experts are still at this stage. Give them time and they will reach depression and ultimately acceptance in due course.

 

[siegecrossbow]

Denial <= This is Chinese wet dream
Anger <= How dare those copycats clone our stealth fighters!
Bargaining <= Nah! Those are merely fighter bombers
Most Western aviation experts are still at this stage. Give them time and they will reach depression and ultimately acceptance in due course.

As Yankee said they will think it is F-111B but soon realize that it is more of a F-14.

 

[gelgoog]

The F-111 was originally designed as part of the TFX program to replace all combat aircraft. Back then agility was not considered to be important. You had a huge radar and lots of missiles.

 

[FriedRiceNSpice]

As Yankee said they will think it is F-111B but soon realize that it is more of a F-14.

Why not simply the best of both?

 

[siegecrossbow]

The F-111 was originally designed as part of the TFX program to replace all combat aircraft. Back then agility was not considered to be important. You had a huge radar and lots of missiles.

One thing people get wrong about BVR is that turning capability is unimportant. Contrary to popular beliefs, the ability to make fast sustained turns after launching BVR load (so another aircraft could provide guidance) is more important than ever before, and delaying the disengagement by a fraction of a second could mean the difference between survival and death.

 

[Gloire_bb]

The term fighter bomber has a negative connation due to the fact that for past generations of combat aircraft, technological limitations dictated that engineering/design trade-offs would need to be made to enhance the A2G capability of combat aircraft at the expense of A2A capability.

To be fair, J-36 takes very visible sacrifices of A2G capability in favour of being actual A2A platform.

If the goal would be just to make a regional medium bomber, that could been done in the same size quite a lot better.
Just remove weight, volume and drag associated with provisions for 3rd engine and excessive supersonic maneuverability.

One thing people get wrong about BVR is that turning capability is unimportant.

BVR is quite energy-intensive when both sides get to launch, indeed.