Shenyang next gen combat aircraft thread

[ougoah]

Judging from outward looks the difference in weight between the two is more like around 30%. J-36 looks larger than it actually is because of its ridiculous amount of wing area, this greatly enhances maneuverability and range but is far too unwieldy for carrier operations.

Larger wing area just gives you more lift and if total weight is same, lower wing loading.

It doesn't enhance manoeuvrability. That depends on speed and many other factors maybe an actual aeronautical engineer could detail. Typically a larger wing area is going to work against sustained turns but there are literally a thousand other factors. J-36 looks like it's optimised for range, time in air and payload magazine depth. It is a long range focused weapon and needs to fly high and fast to make the most of its sensors and payload. Turning performance is a lower priority if you can see further, better and more while delivering larger and longer ranged weapons. Just fly there fast and be able to fly high. Stay in the air long and operate over longer distances.

J-36 is everything the best NGAD powerpoint wish list dreamed of being.

J-50 appears to lower the long reach priority (I mean it is still outreaching all 4.5 and 5 gen fighters probably by significant margin). It instead replaces those lost points with better turning ability. The J-50 is still a huge fighter - Flanker width and J-20 length with a wider and more blended fuselage than the J-20. These two 6th gens have stealth levels that 5th gens dream of. Even though their sensors and weapons reach much further (and they carry greater depth), they can be armed with guns and still take out the previous generations.

Both of these attain a different level of all aspect stealth - what I've been calling ultra low observable (ULO) in contrast to 5th gen VLO. B-2, GJ-11 and B-21 are probably the only in service and near service (B-21), shooter combat aircraft in the world that qualify as ULO. ISR stealth drones from US and China don't count. None of these are supersonic (absolute quantum leap ahead considering the traditional flying wing aircrafts are very delicate gliders) and none of them are air to air optimised or even capable of air to air. Going supersonic is something the US hasn't been able to do with tailless.

 

[latenlazy]

Larger wing area just gives you more lift and if total weight is same, lower wing loading.

It doesn't enhance manoeuvrability. That depends on speed and many other factors maybe an actual aeronautical engineer could detail. Typically a larger wing area is going to work against sustained turns but there are literally a thousand other factors. J-36 looks like it's optimised for range, time in air and payload magazine depth. It is a long range focused weapon and needs to fly high and fast to make the most of its sensors and payload. Turning performance is a lower priority if you can see further, better and more while delivering larger and longer ranged weapons. Just fly there fast and be able to fly high. Stay in the air long and operate over longer distances.

Eh, sustained turns matter a lot for defensive maneuverability, and BVR combat tactics really emphasizes sustained maneuvers.

 

[ougoah]

Eh, sustained turns matter a lot for defensive maneuverability, and BVR combat tactics really empathizes sustained maneuvers.

Yeah huge wings generally isn't great for sustained turning. Better for instantaneous turn rate then causes the aircraft to lose energy quite rapidly. This is my very basic understanding based on Mirage performance and delta wings - great instant turns but poor sustained which is more consequential for merge fights. It's possibly invalid for new aerodynamic planforms like these never before done supersonic tailless fighters.

Okay ignoring the J-50's lambda wings for now and focusing just on J-36. What does it matter to this fighter that it doesn't have sustained or even instant turn rate that can match 4th and 5th gen hotrods? It's more than a BVR fighter. J-10CE can out BVR the most modern Rafale. If J-10C is decent at BVR against 4.5 gen fighters of the world, J-16 and J-20 would be beyond BVR lol. J-36 would be able to detect, target, shoot at and hit 4th and 5th gens like a 5th gen would play and dominate a 4th gen. It can still turn even if it can't turn as well as a 4th or 5th gen. That task is up to J-50.

The J-36 prototype in videos that show turning (pilot might be going super easy on the stick) performance that humiliate tailless aircraft like B-2 and B-21. This is just a prototype doing a test flight. A completed J-36 would be able to hold its on within the parameters of performance required for its missions. Probably do more than what's necessary. Zoom in, coordinate, command, shoot and stay in the air to support the 50 million other PLAAF units that would be flying 100s of km in front of it. Frankly the next level stealth of J-36 is just there in case any opposition fighters or drones manage to sneak through or behind somehow. Oh and also if it is tasked with penetrating missions. Only downside it has wrt stealthiness is likely inferior thermal signature compared to subsonic ULOs like B-21. But B-21 actually can't turn worth a dime or go supersonic. Flying wings simply cannot aerodynamically go supersonic.

 

[latenlazy]

Yeah huge wings generally isn't great for sustained turning. Better for instantaneous turn rate then causes the aircraft to lose energy quite rapidly. This is my very basic understanding based on Mirage performance and delta wings - great instant turns but poor sustained which is more consequential for merge fights. It's possibly invalid for new aerodynamic planforms like these never before done supersonic tailless fighters.

You have it backwards All else held equal sustained turns are helped by larger wing area and lower wing loading. The Mirage’s poor sustained turns come from the drag penalties of the pure delta, a lift to drag issue tied to the wing shape, not a problem from the wing area. It’s also why deltas with vortex lift devices have better sustained turns (and also instantaneous turns, the discovery of vortex lift was basically a rare free lunch for the most part), and why deltas were mostly only found in dedicated interceptor designs until the discovery of vortex assisted lift.

 

[AndrewS]

Judging from outward looks the difference in weight between the two is more like around 30%. J-36 looks larger than it actually is because of its ridiculous amount of wing area, this greatly enhances maneuverability and range but is far too unwieldy for carrier operations.

But given that the J-36 is optimised for very long range and supersonic kinematics, you would expect fuel (and therefore max takeoff weight) to be at least 50% greater than a J-50.

 

[qwerty3173]

But given that the J-36 is optimised for very long range and supersonic kinematics, you would expect fuel (and therefore max takeoff weight) to be at least 50% greater than a J-50.

Fuel and to a lesser extent engine thrust is the most linear part of aircraft design. Most necessary devices and the bare air-frame is not nearly so linear in their weight-capability curve. J20 has twice the thrust and twice the range of the similar aerodynamically designed J10 but is not twice as heavy.

 

[enroger]

That is easier to pull off than combat mode by far. All you need to do is maintain distance between aircraft at varying air speeds. In fact I think the blue angels already have something similar on the F-18 for a while.

I'm way more interested in pulling off an "airshow" mode, unmanned system should be able to pull off some pretty crazy maneuvers. Useless in the battlefield but imagine the wow factor

 

[AndrewS]

Fuel and to a lesser extent engine thrust is the most linear part of aircraft design. Most necessary devices and the bare air-frame is not nearly so linear in their weight-capability curve. J20 has twice the thrust and twice the range of the similar aerodynamically designed J10 but is not twice as heavy.

My point is that the J-36 is optimised for a long-range air dominance role, against the Second Island Chain, some 3000km away.

Therefore they should maximise the fuel load (and therefore MTOW) of the J-36, for cruising range and then supersonic manoeuvres.

So if you have 50% more thrust available with 3 engines, then you want at least 50% more weight than an equivalent J-50.

 

[qwerty3173]

My point is that the J-36 is optimised for a long-range air dominance role, against the Second Island Chain, some 3000km away.

Therefore they should maximise the fuel load (and therefore MTOW) of the J-36, for cruising range and then supersonic manoeuvres.

So if you have 50% more thrust available with 3 engines, then you want at least 50% more weight than an equivalent J-50.

The 60ton max trailers that they used already is proof that the J36 is not as heavy as your guesses, MTOW probably around 55tons. J50 on the other hand is at least 40ton MTOW. 3000km is already achievable and you don't really need more fuel to reach further targets than 3000km because the third island chain is too far away for any meaningful fighter operations.

 

[Tomboy]

The 60ton max trailers that they used already is proof that the J36 is not as heavy as your guesses, MTOW probably around 55tons. J50 on the other hand is at least 40ton MTOW. 3000km is already achievable and you don't really need more fuel to reach further targets than 3000km because the third island chain is too far away for any meaningful fighter operations.

3000km combat range is not achievable with any current fighter, not even close. Even a fighter as large as J-36 will absolutely require the latest engine tech like VCE to possibly hit that range.