- Joined
- 27 December 2005
- Messages
- 17,402
- Reaction score
- 24,150
Topic for discussions about the new Chinese potentially 6th gen aircraft without limitations on the conversation.
Last edited:
Well, they seems to follow the J-20 "very heavy fighter" doctrine with emphasis on stealth. Apparently PLAAF follow the concept of future air combat being less about maneuvering, but more about detecting & hitting stealthy enemy with a salvo of long-range missiles, while staying out of his detection capability. Thus the heavy emphasus on stealth - to avoid being targeted first - and large size - to have payload and range to carry heavy, long-range missiles on internal carriage.
Theres no point for the J-36 to be very maneuverable in the Su-57 sense. It just needs to be maneuverable to move into optimal launch position for its long range BVR missiles, for the very unlikely scenario that it does get into a WVR combat situation modern IR missiles already have the maneuverability to basically hit anything that's not immediately beside the launch plane, coupled with the presumed advanced sensors placed around the aircraft which would allow tracking close range targets from basically any direction.Which is consistent with what we've seen from NGAD as well.
That said, I'm yet to be convinced that this aircraft is manoeuvrable in the supersonic flight regime. I'm not an expert in supersonic aerodynamics, but I'm not sure that the dorsal intake and absence of vertical stabilisers really make that much of a difference at the overall angles-of-attack that predominate in supersonic BVR fights.
It's in combat(and there are still significant nuances to that aspect; also, as of now it isn't quite obvious J-36 will even carry IR WVR missiles at all). Left of shooting, it's still a problem, as it is still problem for self-defense maneuvering and so on.Theres no point for the J-36 to be very maneuverable in the Su-57 sense. It just needs to be maneuverable to move into optimal launch position for its long range BVR missiles, for the very unlikely scenario that it does get into a WVR combat situation modern IR missiles already have the maneuverability to basically hit anything that's not immediately beside the launch plane, coupled with the presumed advanced sensors placed around the aircraft which would allow tracking close range targets from basically any direction.
Theres no point for the J-36 to be very maneuverable in the Su-57 sense. It just needs to be maneuverable to move into optimal launch position for its long range BVR missiles, for the very unlikely scenario that it does get into a WVR combat situation modern IR missiles already have the maneuverability to basically hit anything that's not immediately beside the launch plane, coupled with the presumed advanced sensors placed around the aircraft which would allow tracking close range targets from basically any direction.
It seems to lack the sort of thing that allows for exceptional BVR maneuverability thoughTheres no point for the J-36 to be very maneuverable in the Su-57 sense. It just needs to be maneuverable to move into optimal launch position for its long range BVR missiles, for the very unlikely scenario that it does get into a WVR combat situation modern IR missiles already have the maneuverability to basically hit anything that's not immediately beside the launch plane, coupled with the presumed advanced sensors placed around the aircraft which would allow tracking close range targets from basically any direction.
Some interesting discussion here. Apart from Perun's usual good analysis/commentary includes input from Justin Bronk of the The Royal United Services Institute.
BVR maneuverability is not just for optimum launch position. It's also for staying outside of opponent's missile engagement envelope. In case of stealth and multi spectrum distributed sensors, staying outside of weapon guide sensors envelope. For example, the f-22's RWR picks up J-36's radar and geolocate the J-36's position but it need to be able to put its radar on j-36 for reliable track. The j-36's own RWR picks up the f-22's radar track, geolocate, and immediately maneuvre to break away from the track by both putting distance and reaching optimum altitude and angle for the stealthiest return in relation to the f-22.Theres no point for the J-36 to be very maneuverable in the Su-57 sense. It just needs to be maneuverable to move into optimal launch position for its long range BVR missiles, for the very unlikely scenario that it does get into a WVR combat situation modern IR missiles already have the maneuverability to basically hit anything that's not immediately beside the launch plane, coupled with the presumed advanced sensors placed around the aircraft which would allow tracking close range targets from basically any direction.
A lot of the aerodynamic additions are pretty novel so it will take a while to get things right. This is just the technical stuff too. The doctrine will also be unlike anything PLAAF is familiar with, so it will take a while to figure out how they coordinate with available assets in an effective and efficient manner.
This is why J-20/35 will be mass produced for the next two decades.
We're assuming the Chengdu and SAC aircraft are at similar development stages, but the chances of two disparate aircraft programmes both getting to first flight status at the same time are pretty remote - there's always going to be the desire to beat the other guy, even if everything else proceeded in lock step. cf the YF-22 and -23, which were built to the same requirements over the same period to the same delivery timescale, yet the YF-23 rolled out three months earlier and flew a month earlier than the YF-22.I think the J-20 first flew in 2011 and first entered service with an operational squadron in 2019 (9 AB, Wuhu). A similar timeline is logical for the Chengdu aircraft; depending how much is evolutionary vs. revolutionary it could be a little bit quicker, but I wouldn't expect it to be drastically shorter (i.e. I could see 6 years to service, but not four). The SAC aircraft may require longer development if it is intended for CATOBAR naval use.
I mean, there's ~150x various Russian-built Flankers to replace, plus all those J-7s and J-8s, some ~340x there. 250x J-11s. Another ~280-300x J-16s, too, eventually. Not counting all the PLANAF birds.J-20 and J-35 production might also continue for two decades as you suggest, due to already having established production lines and having a variety of older designs that need to be replaced.
No J-8 fighters serve in the PLA anymore. There are a few specialized recon variant J-8 units, though.I mean, there's ~150x various Russian-built Flankers to replace, plus all those J-7s and J-8s, some ~340x there. 250x J-11s. Another ~280-300x J-16s, too, eventually. Not counting all the PLANAF birds.
I expect the J-20s to replace the ~100x Su30s, and maybe the J-16s (J-16s are all pretty new, so they may end up getting replaced by J-35, J-36, or J-50).
I think the land-based J-35 will replace all the J-7s and J-8s, some ~340 airframes.
I expect the naval J-35 variant to replace all the PLANAF fighter aircraft, that's some ~330 airframes between Su30MKKs, J-11s, J-15s, J-8s, J-10s, and JH-7s. Logistics simplicity!
I'm thinking that the J-36 will replace the J-11s, Su27s, and Su35s, though that role may go to the J-20 instead. This would make the J-36s an expansion of the total aircraft number in the PLAAF.
Edit: If mods move Avimimus's post to the speculation thread, please also move this one.
It's certainly possible, but having all one type in the fleet is very useful for logistics simplicity. You only need one engine shop, one avionics shop, etc.You have doubts about the J-50 as a carrier borne aircraft? I'd think it plausible that there might be a mix of J-50 and J-35 on carriers with surplus J-35 eventually ending up as land-based units.
You still need height over the deck to do things like pull ejection seats, which implies ~20ft+ hangar ceilings.Speaking of carrier use: Without vertical stabilisers, aircraft could be stacked on two very shallow storage decks. So that could be an alternative to folding wings (which would still be useful for deck storage of-course, but if you want to provide a bit more protection to your RAM, maybe it makes sense to return to internal stowage anyway?)
Agree with the rest of your comments that I put into the [...][...] it's not like next gen manned fighters are necessarily gonna be produced at over 100 airframes per year.
You still need height over the deck to do things like pull ejection seats, which implies ~20ft+ hangar ceilings.
Ah, but is that necessary for the entire length of the hangar?
A now-defunct plan to field F-22 Raptor-based bombers, known as FB-22s, offers us some insight into what China hopes to accomplish with their new J-36 stealth aircraft that recently started testing.
"I ate a mango to understand what an orange tastes like"Alex Hollings from Sandboxx has uploaded this video speculating about the capabilities of the J-36 based on LM's still-born FB-22:
This is really reminiscent of when the J-20 2001 first emergedAlex Hollings from Sandboxx has uploaded this video speculating about the capabilities of the J-36 based on LM's still-born FB-22:
Time is a flat circle, and it is humanity's curse to repeat their histories and their own mistakes, for no mortal is truly unbounded by pride.This is really reminiscent of when the J-20 2001 first emerged
@siegecrossbow @Deino @Blitzo @Alfa_Particle
This is really reminiscent of when the J-20 2001 first emerged
@siegecrossbow @Deino @Blitzo @Alfa_Particle
I think you're giving it too much credit. I haven't seen anybody have a "physiological aversion" to the notion. It's got more characteristics indicating that it's a strike aircraft than it does air dominance. Doesn't mean it couldn't be. Just means the clues are point to something else.Well in general the sentiment is actually less dismissive than it was in 2011 believe it or not. At least most of them don’t think it is vaporware, which was the prevailing theory at the time for J-20.
That time I find it interesting that there is a psychological aversion to J-36/J-50(tentative designation) for being air dominance aircraft. I wonder why that is.
Not necessarily, but IIRC it's easier to build the whole hangar one height.Ah, but is that necessary for the entire length of the hangar?
You need to reassess the production output of PLA aircraft.Yeah, and?
I'm comparing the current PLAAF inventory to the planes in production.You need to reassess the production output of PLA aircraft.
I agree that is is very likely that the Chinese armed forces will enlarge, but there's a balancing line between the costs of the new craft and the older types getting replaced. Costs in terms of % of GDP, not constant RMB/yuan.Well, PLAAF *is* going to expand in size. That's all but apparent/inevitable.
Some ten years ago, PLAAF and PLANAF combined had roughly 2000 combat aircraft. Yearly PLA deliveries were around a 100 airframes. Even that production pace back then signalled the size would increase over time.
And indeed, come 2025, PLAAF and PLANAF combined are now in possession of 2400+ combat aircraft. Current annual deliveries seem to be 150 combat planes per year. So, yeah, the trend seems set to continue and it's almost assured that by 2030 the PLA will have a few hundred more planes than it has today.
I'm not sure there is as much value in that as there was 30 years ago. BVR AAM no escape zones are soon going to out range most fighters, especially in stealth v stealth confrontations and WVR HOBS missiles will kill before the merge.
I can see how the twin aperture factors in that equation. Not many existing AAMs are armoured enough anyway, and I'm not sure if the boundary air surrounding an AMRAAM is hot enough to render even a measly 50kw laser useless, especially when the missile is in its last-mile cruise phase and slowing down.tactically useful DEW