the arrival of J-36 brings so many new members to this forum..
people first should read the thread before comment anything. we have thoroughly discussed this. and there is a separate thread on J-36.
Shenyang next gen combat aircraft thread
- Thread starter Blitzo
- Start date
people first should read the thread before comment anything. we have thoroughly discussed this. and there is a separate thread on J-36.
6th gen aren't classified in fighters, bombers, interceptors etc.
US proposed the categories penetrating long range strike (PLRS) and penetrating counter AIR (PCA) as 2 distinct categories of 6th gen. Because China doesn't have as big mouth as US, we don't know what China's proposed 6th gen role categories are called, yet.
I propose we should adopt the US framework until China's own terminology for their framework drops. Under that idea, J-36 leans into the PLRS category and the small hypermanueverable Shenyang craft into the PCA category.
CAC 6th Gen ... is an air superiority aircraft and long range penetration, attack and interception
It is/was the dreamed JH-XX that i would call JH-40 or J-40 buut is "J-36" :-(
i don't like the word "fighter" because a "fighter" is a F-16, in fact we have heard two pilots phantasizing with a F-16 and CAC 6th Gen Air Superiority Aircraft
i don't like the word "bomber" because a "bomber" is no an air superiority aircraft or high performance aircraft
---
These semantic questions are a waste of time in word games of palace scribes
The point is that the first line of defense of the Chinese fortress will be 2500-3000 km away, and the funny thing is that, for example, Guam is right in the ditch of the first wall
It is/was the dreamed JH-XX that i would call JH-40 or J-40 buut is "J-36" :-(
i don't like the word "fighter" because a "fighter" is a F-16, in fact we have heard two pilots phantasizing with a F-16 and CAC 6th Gen Air Superiority Aircraft
i don't like the word "bomber" because a "bomber" is no an air superiority aircraft or high performance aircraft
---
These semantic questions are a waste of time in word games of palace scribes
The point is that the first line of defense of the Chinese fortress will be 2500-3000 km away, and the funny thing is that, for example, Guam is right in the ditch of the first wall
Last edited:
We don't know it's J. That's just a guess. We do know it's numbered 36. Could as well be JH-36.
Wit 1.1-1.5 thrust to weight and TVC not to mention being a mini AWACS and EW aircraft, this thing still eats F-16Vs for breakfast at any range.
Ignoring all the high speed estimates and exotic flight ceilings, its still basically got similar aerodynamic specs as a superflanker. Not the most nimble but very very far from a subsonic cow, and coupled with all the other features it gets, even a dedicated AS 5th gen is not guaranteed to walk away from a wvr duel with it.
When we say it's not so nimble, we're talking by 6th gen standards. For example, F-15 is rather unwieldy among the 4th gen and would surely lose a turn fight with J-10C or Eurofighter. But that doesn't mean you can roll up in a J-7 or F-104 with any confidence against a F-15.
Consider that it's high speed is also to help it chase fleeing enemy aircraft, because with a flanking J-36, the PLAAF formation will get first look first shot.
J-36 will be called a fighter very quickly when Americans have to decide if they want to say they were shot down by a fighter or a bomber.
why side intakes then? if you don't need maneuvering, then high angle of attack climbs are useless, and you can just put all intakes on top to further reduce RCS and have a bigger weapons bay.
The new classification is CHAD class
If US 6th gen come out it will be called the world's 3rd CHAD class aircraft.
It’s a Sky Destroyer (I’m tweaking my previously proposed “Air Destroyer”, after recently reading up on the US’ “Skyborg” program).
It’s a key node in an aerial warfare “Kill Web” or “Combat Net”.
Lethe
Captain
There is a lot of talk around that J-XDS is intended to be a carrier-compatible design. It isn't clear to me how robustly sourced that information is, and I would be interested to read some informed commentary on the likely low-airspeed recovery characteristics of the aircraft as observed.
Nonetheless, if we are to take the rumours at face value, i.e. that the observed aircraft is a prototype for a large (i.e. 2xWS-15) manned naval combat aircraft that would debut in the mid-late 2030s, I would note with some satisfaction that I have long argued for just such a larger aircraft to complement J-35 in PLAN's future carrier air wings. This series of posts from late 2023 is my most robust presentation of the idea, against the notion that J-35/Super Hornet/F-35C (and to a lesser extent Rafale and MiG-29K) have converged on the "Goldilocks" size for naval combat aircraft, but I have been advancing the same basic line of argument since before J-35 was even confirmed as PLAN's near-term solution, as with this series of posts from late 2017. So, if we are to take these rumours at face value then, while I don't want to say "I told you so", well... I told you so.
Ok, ego off. Please resume photography and analysis.
Nonetheless, if we are to take the rumours at face value, i.e. that the observed aircraft is a prototype for a large (i.e. 2xWS-15) manned naval combat aircraft that would debut in the mid-late 2030s, I would note with some satisfaction that I have long argued for just such a larger aircraft to complement J-35 in PLAN's future carrier air wings. This series of posts from late 2023 is my most robust presentation of the idea, against the notion that J-35/Super Hornet/F-35C (and to a lesser extent Rafale and MiG-29K) have converged on the "Goldilocks" size for naval combat aircraft, but I have been advancing the same basic line of argument since before J-35 was even confirmed as PLAN's near-term solution, as with this series of posts from late 2017. So, if we are to take these rumours at face value then, while I don't want to say "I told you so", well... I told you so.
Ok, ego off. Please resume photography and analysis.
Last edited: