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

[a985010812]

我非常怀疑它能否搭载在航母上，除非航母本身非常巨大。想象一下，要让这只鸟飞起来，升降机得有多大……

新一代的核动力航母应该会参考六代机而放大设计 据说排水量达到11-12万公吨 对我个人来说这两型六代机哪一个上舰都是一种胜利

 

[Deino]

新一代的核动力航母应该会参考六代机而放大设计 据说排水量达到11-12万公吨 对我个人来说这两型六代机哪一个上舰都是一种胜利

Please write & post in English!

 

[a985010812]

这取决于j36是否有折叠机翼...Vigilante很长，但它们仍然像A-3一样将它们击落。

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

我认为这是可行的、实用的，但我也不确定。

从这个角度看，所有这些排气管看起来都一样，那么第三个进气口用于 APU 或散热器的传言是否已经排除了可能性？

还有这种说法？ apu可不需要那么大的北部进气道

 

[a985010812]

需要说的是，虽然国际上总有一些反华分子说歼-36采用三发设计，是因为中国发动机是垃圾。但以现在三台WS15的标准来看，这架50吨级的战斗机推重比已经非常优秀，甚至如果这架飞机将来换用变循环发动机，甚至会感觉相当“推力过剩”。

新飞机不会配新发动机 这样不符合可靠性 通常新飞机配成熟的发动机 我觉得应该是三台ws10

 

[Tomboy]

新一代的核动力航母应该会参考六代机而放大设计 据说排水量达到11-12万公吨 对我个人来说这两型六代机哪一个上舰都是一种胜利

110kt-120kt still isn't large enough to have J-36 move efficiently on deck, it's a large plane and will take up quite alot of space in the hanger even with folding wing mechanism (remember the aircraft is almost as wide as it is long). We can almost confirm that J-36 will have a MTOW under 60 ton, but I doubt it'll be much less. Largest ever operational carrier aircraft had a MTOW of only 37 tons, J-36 will be expected to have ~55 ton MTOW. Even getting it in the air seems to be a big issue, EMALS on the Ford has a max capacity of only 45 tons. Fujian's and from the HJH facility 004's catapult do seem to be similar in dimension to Fords and probably could do about as well in terms of max MTOW as the EMALS. Unless they significantly modify the airframe to be much lighter(Which is nearly impossible, in fact most carrier aircraft is heavier than their land based counterparts due to additional strengthening required) I just don't see how it is possible to launch such a large aircraft from a carrier. Even recovery might be an issue, such a heavy aircraft landing potentially requires reinforcing the deck and requiring a much beefier arresting gear system.

 

[Deino]

新飞机不会配新发动机 这样不符合可靠性 通常新飞机配成熟的发动机 我觉得应该是三台ws10

Again! One of the rules here is to post in English! So if you use a translator to read and reply, then please use it again for your translated answer!

Next posts will be deleted!

 

[FriedRiceNSpice]

110kt-120kt still isn't large enough to have J-36 move efficiently on deck, it's a large plane and will take up quite alot of space in the hanger even with folding wing mechanism (remember the aircraft is almost as wide as it is long). We can almost confirm that J-36 will have a MTOW under 60 ton, but I doubt it'll be much less. Largest ever operational carrier aircraft had a MTOW of only 37 tons, J-36 will be expected to have ~55 ton MTOW. Even getting it in the air seems to be a big issue, EMALS on the Ford has a max capacity of only 45 tons. Fujian's and from the HJH facility 004's catapult do seem to be similar in dimension to Fords and probably could do about as well in terms of max MTOW as the EMALS. Unless they significantly modify the airframe to be much lighter(Which is nearly impossible, in fact most carrier aircraft is heavier than their land based counterparts due to additional strengthening required) I just don't see how it is possible to launch such a large aircraft from a carrier. Even recovery might be an issue, such a heavy aircraft landing potentially requires reinforcing the deck and requiring a much beefier arresting gear system.

Despite the technical challenges involved, I foresee the two most important requirements for future generation carrier strike aircraft are 1) range and 2) capability to carry larger, longer-ranged, and more difficult to intercept anti-ship missiles.

 

[Tomboy]

Despite the technical challenges involved, I foresee the two most important requirements for future generation carrier strike aircraft are 1) range and 2) capability to carry larger, longer-ranged, and more difficult to intercept anti-ship missiles.

But for range J-XDS if as rumored to be put on ships should offer more than enough range, as for carrying large munitions just off load them to large dedicated VLO strike drones like a scaled up GJ-21. IMO it seems to be where things are moving toward in carrier aviation, VLO drones for strike missions while advanced manned fighters for air superiority potentially coupled with carrier based loyal wingman drones.

 

[a985010812]

Despite the technical challenges involved, I foresee the two most important requirements for future generation carrier strike aircraft are 1) range and 2) capability to carry larger, longer-ranged, and more difficult to intercept anti-ship missiles.

Anti-ship missions are carried out by destroyers launching YJ21. The importance of attack aircraft may not be so urgent, and J15 now meets the requirements.

 

[FriedRiceNSpice]

But for range J-XDS if as rumored to be put on ships should offer more than enough range, as for carrying large munitions just off load them to large dedicated VLO strike drones like a scaled up GJ-21. IMO it seems to be where things are moving toward in carrier aviation, VLO drones for strike missions while advanced manned fighters for air superiority potentially coupled with carrier based loyal wingman drones.

Regardless of whether manned or unmanned, the aircraft will need to be relatively large in order to meet both the range and payload requirements. Unmanned aircraft can reduce the amount of internal space needed to a small degree (getting rid of cockpit and non essential sensors and electronics), but the difference will not be significant.

Anti-ship missions are carried out by destroyers launching YJ21. The importance of attack aircraft may not be so urgent, and J15 now meets the requirements.

That is precisely the driving factor beyond extending the range of carrier based aircraft and the munitions launched by said aircraft. 1) need for recon assets to provide locate targets and 2) strike range of carrier aviation needs to increase in order to remain relevant. A carrier based aircraft can be viewed as effectively a reusable booster to your longer range hypersonic weapon.