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

[AndrewS]

@KFX

Look at it from a requirements perspective

For the 1st Island Chain, we can see the smaller, shorter ranged Shenyang aircraft being developed.

But for the 2nd Island Chain, we're taking about 3000km from Guam to Mainland China. Both American and Chinese aircraft would want this operating radius.

The US approach is the twin-engine F-47 with a stealth tanker. This implies a twin-engine design cannot operate to 3000km.

For the same 3000km requirement, China has gone with 3 engines and a larger aircraft with more fuel. Presumably there is no need for a separate stealth tanker programme.

 

[AndrewS]

@KFX

From the USAF perspective, they already have overmatch in the Middle East and Europe over potential adversaries.

So the F-47 is only really needed against China, but there are only a handful of airbases in the 2nd Island Chain and beyond. So they've come up with a requirement of 200 F-47s.



---

For China, in addition to covering the 2nd Island Chain, the J-36 can also reach:

1. ASEAN and the Malacca Straits
2. India
3. Parts of the Indian Ocean and all of the Arabian Gulf

This would cover the majority of China's overseas seaborne trade

Therefore I see a Chinese planning requirement for a bare minimum of 400 J-36.

---

However, the future dynamic will likely be

[150+ Chinese airbases distributed over Mainland China with 400+ J-36 and other aircraft]

Versus

[A handful of isolated US airbases hosting very limited numbers of aircraft]

In such a scenario, the Chinese Air Force will almost certainly be able to concentrate its airstrikes and successfully keep all US airbases under regular attack. In comparison, Chinese airbases should be able to defend and see negligible damage.

---

Sure, in response, the US may decide it needs to buy more aircraft.

But note USAF is already saying that current aircraft procurement plans are unaffordable, and this is with just 200 F-47 being planned.

 

[latenlazy]

Datalinks should require minimal power compared to detection.

It's a one-way transmission and the receiver is expecting this.

And if you look at the numbers, megawatt-level electricity generation is more than feasible with just 2 engines. Getting rid of waste heat from the electronics is the bigger problem

Wrong. Larger airframe means much greater cooling capacity and the engines are actually both heat sinks and heat dumps. More engines actually mean *greater* cooling capacity.

 

[AndrewS]

Wrong. Larger airframe means much greater cooling capacity and the engines are actually both heat sinks and heat dumps. More engines actually mean *greater* cooling capacity.

Nope.

Read it again.

I'm not saying that 2 engines (with less fuel) has better cooling capability than 3 engines.

 

[latenlazy]

Nope.

Read it again.

I'm not saying that 2 engines (with less fuel) has better cooling capability

Oh I see. If I’m understanding correctly you were saying that two engines does not constrain MW level electric power, but that comment wasn’t tied to the later one about heat management. If so, that’s my bad.

 

[qwerty3173]

Datalinks should require minimal power compared to detection.

It's a one-way transmission and the receiver is expecting this.

And if you look at the numbers, megawatt-level electricity generation is more than feasible with just 2 engines. Getting rid of waste heat from the electronics is the bigger problem

As an addition, if cooling capacity is abundant, it's entirely possible that the hotspots on the craft, i.e. the nose section and leading edges can be actively cooled thus enabling much better infrared stealth as well as the ability to afterburn all the way to mach 2.8 without thermo-failure.

 

[Deino]

I hope this image is legit ??

 

[Blitzo]

I hope this image is legit ??

View attachment 150775

Certainly could be a real image that's been put through an obfuscating process because many of the details look consistent with what we know.

But it could also be a flipped version of the recent image, edited with a few bits cropped out and the landing gear edited to look like it's on tarmac rather than landing, and obfuscated to make it seem like a "real" image that was put through an obfuscation process, because some of the details line up a bit too perfectly (nozzles, dorsal intake, cockpit lines, and lighting).... which wouldn't be odd given the image would represent the same aircraft, but it seems unlikely for many of those details to be taken under the same exact lighting and angle/perspective.

So I think there is a good chance the image is not legit and may have been flipped horizontally, and deliberately doctored and obfuscated. But who knows, if they can produce other unique angles of the aircraft on taxiway showing the aircraft on tarmac as part of a sequence, then it would be real.

 

[00CuriousObserver]

I find it questionable that someone is able to take a picture at that specific angle.

 

[Nx4eu]

Certainly could be a real image that's been put through an obfuscating process because many of the details look consistent with what we know.

But it could also be a flipped version of the recent image, edited with a few bits cropped out and the landing gear edited to look like it's on tarmac rather than landing, and obfuscated to make it seem like a "real" image that was put through an obfuscation process, because some of the details line up a bit too perfectly (nozzles, dorsal intake, cockpit lines, and lighting).... which wouldn't be odd given the image would represent the same aircraft, but it seems unlikely for many of those details to be taken under the same exact lighting and angle/perspective.

So I think there is a good chance the image is not legit and may have been flipped horizontally, and deliberately doctored and obfuscated. But who knows, if they can produce other unique angles of the aircraft on taxiway showing the aircraft on tarmac as part of a sequence, then it would be real.

View attachment 150778

This angle is similar to this picture no?

Could these photo's be from the same guy who posted this one. And deblurred his photo in light of the recent reveal of the rear from another picture? I reckon these photo's could be apart of a video. The graininess could likely be a filter which could explain the uncanniness in looking edited. They may have edited out the building too? because both images to be honest have like tree branches in them.