Chengdu next gen combat aircraft (?J-36)

Tomboy said:

Those are both limited by the engine cycle, yes you could just add more gensets, but you'll either lower the performance of the engine to unacceptable levels or increase fuel consumption without a core upgrade. Same with cooling, while there are other methods of cooling such as dedicated heat exchangers, the engine remains to be the largest heat dump and is also limited by the engine cycle.

I still don't think designing for WS-15 is a good idea, it's difficult to optimise systems for both future VCE and WS-15 at the same time considering the likely large difference in performance (US VCEs are expected to offer much more capacity for both compared to existing engines like F-135). If they'll ending up having to wait for VCEs like J-20 with WS-15 we might see another J-20/J-20A situation.

Click to expand...

Why would you have to “optimize systems for both” when an engine change is literally just an upgrade in power capacity? Would you rather they don’t develop a fighter at all until an engine that pleases you is ready, delaying any operational introduction of these capabilities for a decade? Would you rather the J-20 be inducted in 2025 than 2017? Can you maybe stop talking like you’re a rich kid shopping for a custom car?

Mearex said:

with how the ws-15 is progressing i'd be surprised if J-36 starts with ws-15 instead of ws-10

Click to expand...

........... said:

The fact that I can't even deny this is sad

Click to expand...

What’s really sad is watching supposed grown humans acting like juvenile drama queens.

Tomboy said:

Those are both limited by the engine cycle, yes you could just add more gensets, but you'll either lower the performance of the engine to unacceptable levels or increase fuel consumption without a core upgrade. Same with cooling, while there are other methods of cooling such as dedicated heat exchangers, the engine remains to be the largest heat dump and is also limited by the engine cycle.

Click to expand...

It's not about adding more gensets, but rather increasing the qualitative output of a genset in the same volume/cycle.

The same mechanical force from the engine prime mover, should be able to generate more electrical power, by improving the genset itself, with the genset itself being the hard wall of "how to get more power" rather than the engine's mechanical output to the genset.

Tomboy said:

I still don't think designing for WS-15 is a good idea, it's difficult to optimise systems for both future VCE and WS-15 at the same time considering the likely large difference in performance (US VCEs are expected to offer much more capacity for both compared to existing engines like F-135). If they'll ending up having to wait for VCEs like J-20 with WS-15 we might see another J-20/J-20A situation.

Click to expand...

If we are talking about generating electrical power or cooling, if they designed the airframe right, then they should largely be independent of the specific engine they have in place (within reason, obviously).

VCEs may offer some benefits in cooling if one needs bleed air from the engine to facilitate greater cooling than the aircraft's onboard thermal management can offer (by virtue of additional bypass channels), but ideally one shouldn't have to resort to too much bleed air from the engine in the first place. A huge part of the F-35's upgrade pathways is aiming to reduce the bleed air they need for cooling, by enhancing its thermal management capabilities.


If you are talking about engine aerodynamic performance or footprint, I don't see how that would be controversial given the PLA has been through this whole thing with J-20A being used for WS-10 and then WS-15, or J-35/A for WS-21 and WS-19, and so on. If they have the forward planning knowing the footprint of the VCE they intend to put into this aircraft, they should absolutely be able to minimize airframe disruption for using WS-15s and then replacing them with VCEs (either on the same existing airframe, or as new variants depending on timeline).

latenlazy said:

Why would you have to “optimize systems for both” when an engine change is literally just an upgrade in power capacity? Would you rather they don’t develop a fighter at all until an engine that pleases you is ready, delaying any operational introduction of these capabilities for a decade? Would you rather the J-20 be inducted in 2025 than 2017? Can you maybe stop talking like you’re a rich kid shopping for a custom car?

Click to expand...

Because your sensors and avionics are designed with a certain maximum power draw? I would rather have the PLA get rid of it's engine gap with the US.

So a 3rd prototype in a year, there is a fire lit under the ass of next gen air platform program ass then.
And as far we can tell there 2 programs running with a posible 3rd one.
With a Timetables this tight , it also points to a resource piority given to this platform.
How the table turned ,PRC are running 3 next gen fighter program with at least 6 prototype in the air while the US is only running one program and rumored 1 protoype soon to take flight.

Tomboy said:

Because your sensors and avionics are designed with a certain maximum power draw? I would rather have the PLA get rid of it's engine gap with the US.

Click to expand...

Did you know that planes get regular sensor and avionics upgrades?

What you would rather is a pretty pointless line of argumentation. Please try to not act like you are talking at a wishing well. It is not a particularly substantive way to hold productive discussion about a serious topic.

........... said:

So instead of going embedded exhaust like the original for maximum stealth like a 6th Gen should have
It goes sacrifice stealth for Maneuverability
Wow now watch the f47 and faXX have embedded exhaust for max stealth while j36 and j50 are using 2tvc for Maneuverability when the whole theme of 6th Gen is max stealth and drones so disappointing hopefully it changes for the final design

Click to expand...

The former has canards and the latter doesn’t exist because Trump needs money for battleships.

........... said:

So instead of going embedded exhaust like the original for maximum stealth like a 6th Gen should have
It goes sacrifice stealth for Maneuverability
Wow now watch the f47 and faXX have embedded exhaust for max stealth while j36 and j50 are using 2tvc for Maneuverability when the whole theme of 6th Gen is max stealth and drones so disappointing hopefully it changes for the final design

Click to expand...

So you've seen f47 and faXX?

Fans may not be impressed, stock market sure have. All 3 major aircraft maker went up 3-5% with CAC highest. Fact is the less change 3rd protoype is, the closer it is to finalisation and closer to service. Being first to enter service is a major advantage of its own, bigger than some minor design choice. It means more number produced before opponent is ready. Pilot gain experience earlier and form new doctrine. Experience then feed into next improvement cycle sooner. It all comes back. No need to fret "something is missing out".

OedoSoldier said:

View attachment 166825
In fact, Chief Engineer Wang Haifeng has long stated in his papers that 2D vectoring is crucial for next-gen supersonic tailless stealth fighters. Vector thrust is not an additional measure, but rather a very important component in flight control.

I believe that even with engines more advanced than the WS-15, the J-36 and J-50 would still utilize 2D vectoring nozzles.

Click to expand...

10 years ago: Nooo, why J-20 no TVC? It will surely come one day, right?.

Today: I hate TVC, get this garbage off my J-36.

........... said:

So instead of going embedded exhaust like the original for maximum stealth like a 6th Gen should have
It goes sacrifice stealth for Maneuverability
Wow now watch the f47 and faXX have embedded exhaust for max stealth while j36 and j50 are using 2tvc for Maneuverability when the whole theme of 6th Gen is max stealth and drones so disappointing hopefully it changes for the final design

Click to expand...

Aerodynamic design is about tradeoffs. The F-47 may have embedded exhausts, but if its tailless then it needs another way of maintaining flight control. F-47 concept art has consistently shown canards for that reason. So, in a contest between canards vs embedded exhausts, which would you prefer?