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

[tankphobia]

For intelligence agencies, 90% of intelligence sources are open source channels. If every Chinese citizen casually releases sensitive military photos without a sense of confidentiality, then please refer to the outcome of the Israeli air strike on Iran some time ago.

There is a wide gulf of difference between purposely allowing next gen fighter in development to be seen vs actual military installations being filmed to provide bda. One is controlled and the other is the failure to do so.

If the US can keep the b-21 completely hidden until the moment of their choosing, do you seriously think that China is unable to do the same if it wanted to???

 

[EmoBirb]

It's more that the better 6th gen fighters are going to have so much workload that they're going to require a second pilot and AI support. For this purpose a side-by-side configuration is ideal so it will be used whenever possible. If the J-50 has a fuselage to support this setup, I'd suspect that it'll have it as well. Both planes will still be multirole fighters with a strong emphasis on air superiority though. The PLAAF may still have a new fighter bomber but it's unlikely to look like either of these two planes.

I'd argue it's the exact opposite. A second human and the associated space required are redundant when the on board systems themselves, possibly aided by AI, can deal with the workload and present the gathered information to the operator/pilot and give certain things priority over others.

In fact, the act of piloting itself may be somewhat becoming redundant, freeing the single human on board up to be concerned with coordination of unmanned assets, battlefield analysis and engagement of emerging threats.

Looking towards the US in particular, which has a true hard-on for their unmanned F-16 that flies mock combat by itself, I'm actually leaning towards the possibility these days. As in piloting the aircraft becoming secondary at best or even tertiary for the "Pilot".

I believe it's further supported by the simply fact that letting the computer fly the jet is basically happening already and has been for a couple decades already, in the form of autopilot. And while the application for UCAVs is what people look towards the most, I could easily imagine that this aircraft (X-62?) contributed a good bit to the US 6th Gen effort. Especially as Kendall was extremely fond of it. It also makes a lot of sense, as the truly "hard" decisions are what's left to the human operator. Having basically a large, capable aircraft with the associated sensor where the human component can completely focus on coordinating assets, assessing information and contributing to the greater puzzle of information gathering and engagements.

So I wouldn't be so premature in declaring the two seater option to be "for the better" aircraft of the generation. Ideally you'd have no seat at all, but technology isn't truly there as of now. But if you can achieve the same or even better results with a single person and the rest being done by the aircraft itself, I'm unsure if I'd declare increasing the amount of ballast in the aircraft as a positive. But it's so far too early to tell, with exactly zero 6th Generation fighters in service anywhere in the world.

 

[qwerty3173]

I'd argue it's the exact opposite. A second human and the associated space required are redundant when the on board systems themselves, possibly aided by AI, can deal with the workload and present the gathered information to the operator/pilot and give certain things priority over others.

In fact, the act of piloting itself may be somewhat becoming redundant, freeing the single human on board up to be concerned with coordination of unmanned assets, battlefield analysis and engagement of emerging threats.

Looking towards the US in particular, which has a true hard-on for their unmanned F-16 that flies mock combat by itself, I'm actually leaning towards the possibility these days. As in piloting the aircraft becoming secondary at best or even tertiary for the "Pilot".

I believe it's further supported by the simply fact that letting the computer fly the jet is basically happening already and has been for a couple decades already, in the form of autopilot. And while the application for UCAVs is what people look towards the most, I could easily imagine that this aircraft (X-62?) contributed a good bit to the US 6th Gen effort. Especially as Kendall was extremely fond of it. It also makes a lot of sense, as the truly "hard" decisions are what's left to the human operator. Having basically a large, capable aircraft with the associated sensor where the human component can completely focus on coordinating assets, assessing information and contributing to the greater puzzle of information gathering and engagements.

So I wouldn't be so premature

You can let the computer fly the jet all you want but you still have to choose between myriads of tactical options yourself. One man is simply not up to this task, as test pilots in US trying to command drones using an ipad on their knees will tell you. In reality a 6th gen fighter should act a mini AWACS to CCAs and other combat drones and you need two for the command and control work.

 

[EmoBirb]

You can let the computer fly the jet all you want but you still have to choose between myriads of tactical options yourself. One man is simply not up to this task, as test pilots in US trying to command drones using an ipad on their knees will tell you. In reality a 6th gen fighter should act a mini AWACS to CCAs and other combat drones and you need two for the command and control work.

At that point you can quit making a fighter, use unmanned nodes and link back to an actual AEW&C aircraft to do the controlling.

Powerful sensors and the utilization of unmanned assets are force multipliers, not force replacements. So while control over such assets is important, it's not going to realistically justify having another person in the aircraft when your systems are advanced enough to simply ditch that idea altogether.

Neither you nor I truly know how the offerings of the generation are forming up and what layout they'll utilize. So far only the J-36 is somewhat confirmed to be a two seat aircraft, but the SAC offering? The F-47? F/A-XX? FCAS? GCAP? These are less concrete. But if this generation follows the trends of previous generation, then two seaters will be the exception rather than the rule. Given that only the J-20S stands as a produced, advanced, low observable fighter. While Sukhois patent is so far only a patent and the KF-21 doesn't qualify as belonging to that category of aircraft.

But the fact that F-22 and F-35 were single seat, the latter being a complex, high workload, multirole aircraft, should give you suspicions about the F-47s layout.

Ultimately I could see this being a unique trait of the J-36, being a more specialized aircraft following that assumption. While the rest of the generation will be less specialized but more so generalists.

 

[4Tran]

So I wouldn't be so premature in declaring the two seater option to be "for the better" aircraft of the generation. Ideally you'd have no seat at all, but technology isn't truly there as of now. But if you can achieve the same or even better results with a single person and the rest being done by the aircraft itself, I'm unsure if I'd declare increasing the amount of ballast in the aircraft as a positive. But it's so far too early to tell, with exactly zero 6th Generation fighters in service anywhere in the world.

As aircraft gain more and more capabilities, the amount of workload also increases. While using AI can offshoot some of this workload, a lot is still going to depend on the human element. As such having a second pilot can make a big difference. I'd go as far as to say that all 6th generation fighters should be envisioned as having two pilots, and that any that fail to do this will suffer a significant hit to their performance.

But the fact that F-22 and F-35 were single seat, the latter being a complex, high workload, multirole aircraft, should give you suspicions about the F-47s layout.

Ultimately I could see this being a unique trait of the J-36, being a more specialized aircraft following that assumption. While the rest of the generation will be less specialized but more so generalists.

The F-22 was designed in the '80s and it simply doesn't have the capabilities of more modern aircraft. It doesn't have advanced avionics or the most updated datalink, it doesn't have the newer radars, and so on and so forth. The F-35 is a much more modern plane, but it's also a heavily compromised design, and it doesn't have a lot of features that the different services would dearly love. Most pointedly, the Navy would love to have a two-engine plane, but they didn't get one. And given their experiences with the F-35 program, not even the Americans would want to experience that kind of mess again.

 

[mangchaocs]

If China wanted to keep the existence of this plane top secret there's a million ways it could. Saying please no to citizens when any foreign agencies can simply rent a room with a high floor level, point a camera and get better footage is asinine.

As responsible citizens, just don't be that guy who spreads open-source military intel from overseas.

 

[mangchaocs]

There is a wide gulf of difference between purposely allowing next gen fighter in development to be seen vs actual military installations being filmed to provide bda. One is controlled and the other is the failure to do so.

If the US can keep the b-21 completely hidden until the moment of their choosing, do you seriously think that China is unable to do the same if it wanted to???

For J-36, only in case CAC “moved” to the wild where they "were" located.

 

[Nautilus]

For J-36, Only in case CAC “moved” to the wild where they "were" located in the 1990s


View attachment 156116
View attachment 156117

This point keeps coming up but it's not really a response to anything. Clearly if it was considered a big deal it would be possible to move facilities, to enact exclusion zones, to conduct sensitive testing elsewhere.

 

[AndrewS]

I'd argue it's the exact opposite. A second human and the associated space required are redundant when the on board systems themselves, possibly aided by AI, can deal with the workload and present the gathered information to the operator/pilot and give certain things priority over others.

In fact, the act of piloting itself may be somewhat becoming redundant, freeing the single human on board up to be concerned with coordination of unmanned assets, battlefield analysis and engagement of emerging threats.

Looking towards the US in particular, which has a true hard-on for their unmanned F-16 that flies mock combat by itself, I'm actually leaning towards the possibility these days. As in piloting the aircraft becoming secondary at best or even tertiary for the "Pilot".

I believe it's further supported by the simply fact that letting the computer fly the jet is basically happening already and has been for a couple decades already, in the form of autopilot. And while the application for UCAVs is what people look towards the most, I could easily imagine that this aircraft (X-62?) contributed a good bit to the US 6th Gen effort. Especially as Kendall was extremely fond of it. It also makes a lot of sense, as the truly "hard" decisions are what's left to the human operator. Having basically a large, capable aircraft with the associated sensor where the human component can completely focus on coordinating assets, assessing information and contributing to the greater puzzle of information gathering and engagements.

So I wouldn't be so premature in declaring the two seater option to be "for the better" aircraft of the generation. Ideally you'd have no seat at all, but technology isn't truly there as of now. But if you can achieve the same or even better results with a single person and the rest being done by the aircraft itself, I'm unsure if I'd declare increasing the amount of ballast in the aircraft as a positive. But it's so far too early to tell, with exactly zero 6th Generation fighters in service anywhere in the world.

Couple of comments

1. The J-36 is being designed for operations to the Second Island Chain, some 3000km away. At subsonic speeds, that is a 6+ hour sortie time. Pilot are only effective for 4 hours, as per British and Russian writings. So you need a second human.

2. The USAF is writing about 4 CCAs per aircraft. But my view is that there will be another layer of unmanned drones below this. CCAs cost $30? Mn, so aren't really expendable. But you can get Kratos-type reusable drones with a deployable 500kg payload for <$3Mm. That is 10x cheaper and comparable to cruise missile costs, so they really are expendable. I would expect much larger numbers of such drones, which argues for a second human

3. A two-seater has a 5%? weight penalty associated, which is manageable. 2 seaters can also serve as trainer aircraft as well.

 

[AndrewS]

Wait, you said $300 million for a CCA? That's almost as much as an F47.

About $30 Mn for a CCA.
The ? is there because we don't have a definite figure yet