Comparisons between 1st and 2nd prototypes of the J-36. Some very noticeable differences.
Posted by EMPERORHanWudi1112@reddit | WeirdWings | View on Reddit | 75 comments
Fit-Shoe5926@reddit
I need Reddit experts to look for hashtag RIVETS
Kpt_Kipper@reddit
Lumping in Chinese aviation manufacturing with Russian practices is not really fair.
China, like it or not, is actually pretty becoming an admirable producer of high end materials for years now
greendoh@reddit
From the looks of if China knows exactly what they're doing right now, and the shift from Russian designs (or inspired designs) is a great indicator of what they think of Russian paper tigers. They've seen the data, they know they need better to top Western equipment.
Norzon24@reddit
Well they are still pumping out upgraded Flankers. It's a genuinely good airframe held back by Russian avionics. Also some Flanker influence did show up in J35, and J20 is likely influenced by aerodynamics configu6 of mig 1.44
ShakyBrainSurgeon@reddit
The chinese demanded modern Flankers and the Russians for some reason hesitated so they started their own version of the Flanker with modern materials. This tells you what they truly think of the Russians.
If you compare the J-20 to the MiG 1.44 it´s not even fair anymore. Sure, you can spot similarities but the J-20 is more or less everything the Russians can´t accomplish right now.
Kpt_Kipper@reddit
They didn’t supply China with new flankers because China started producing Russian airframes illegally without license haha
ShakyBrainSurgeon@reddit
Yes, because the Russians didn´t use modern materials despite the Chinese explicitly asking for it. So they did it themselves.
Sir_Baller@reddit
The only caveat to this argument is that Russia made China buy SU-35s in order to gain access to the newer AL-31Fs, because they refused to sell them the engines alone.
ShakyBrainSurgeon@reddit
Yeah, historically they struggled a lot with producing their own engines. If the specifications for their new domestic engines are true however, they won´t be bothered with that anymore.
I tend to think, that the J-36 might have three engines at least partially because the Chinese aren´t able to produce the kind of engines they wish for this project as of now. Maybe this indicates, that they are still behind the Americans in this regard.
Zestyprotein@reddit
The basic Flanker design is also over 50 years old. First flight of the T-10 was 1977.
SeaAdmiral@reddit
4.5 gens still have a role in being cheap munitions carriers in more permissive environments.
Zestyprotein@reddit
China vs U.S. isn't going to be a permissive environment.
Norzon24@reddit
So is the F15 but US is still buying EX
Zestyprotein@reddit
Out of desperation. F-35 is 10 years behind schedule, and about $100 billion over the rebaselined 2012 budget. And climbing.
Norzon24@reddit
It's not when everyone are doing the same thing
Activision19@reddit
F15’s first flew in 1972 and the US Airforce is still buying new ones.
Zestyprotein@reddit
Yep. And that's because of poor planning, and poor program execution. The F-35 is 10 years behind schedule, and almost $100 billion over budget since the 2012 rebaselining. And they had no plan for anything else until NGAD came along, and we know very little about that.
DangerousBrain4320@reddit
You can laugh at the rough workmanship of Russian aircraft, but you absolutely cannot question the aerodynamic design capabilities of the Sukhoi Design Bureau.
greendoh@reddit
I don't think the issue with Russian planes is with aerodynamics or beauty - it's inferior electronics, detection, jamming and weapons systems.
That's why even in combat scenarios where the nations are roughly equal, Westen equipment has dominated. Iran-Iraq being a good example.
Fit-Shoe5926@reddit
Every time I read about "inferior electronics", I read nothing specific about why it is inferior. Talk for talk.
DefinitelyNotAMeanie@reddit
Indeed, unlike the US for example China actually produces a proper, modern, stealth air superiority fighter (in three flavors) in addition to their carrier borne stealth multirole fighter (which can actually supercruise unlike the obese F-35) and two next generation designs flying in the prototype stage.
They definitely have become the bar to beat with regards to tactical combat aviation.
Bad_boy_18@reddit
They somehow always ignore f22 raptor too has rivets...
Fit-Shoe5926@reddit
Brown, and, rust-fried rivets. Just as the F35.
DefinitelyNotAMeanie@reddit
They do look kinda nasty, even though I'm aware that this is how it's supposed to look
Fit-Shoe5926@reddit
They look as they are supposed to look. IMHO, electrochemical corrosion, so perhaps an oversight by the design crew. But felon-haters like to bring their favorite SCREWS arguement. That they aren't 'stealfie'
DefinitelyNotAMeanie@reddit
Of course it's normal.
As for the Su-57S, I don't know the people you mean, but if they have issues with the fit and finish of the serial models they have to get their eye sight checked
DefinitelyNotAMeanie@reddit
DefinitelyNotAMeanie@reddit
AccomplishedLeek1329@reddit
Yeah, but those are democracy rivets, entirely different from autocracy rivets
/s
FlatusGiganticus@reddit
stealth rivets
CringeLord1111@reddit
Man, i'd love to see the middle engine during a high AoA manouver. There is a reason why fighters dont usually have inlets on the top. Ehh, i guess the old stolen soviet engines werent strong enough, and designing a new engine would have been too expensive for one of the world superpowers
fourunderthebridge@reddit
Mate this is not Ace Combat. The future of air superiority doesn't involve dogfighting.
WS-15
BiAsALongHorse@reddit
Defending from incoming missiles still requires high g turns. Granted, full on flow sep is going to be incredibly unlikely because they'll be taken at speed, but keeping the engine breathing under those conditions would be fairly challenging (although absolutely doable with enough development work)
fourunderthebridge@reddit
I mean if the enemy got a missile lock on you then you've failed as a stealth platform. Plus a lot of missile has a proximity fuse, so they're super hard to dodge anyway. They're betting on all aspect stealth and a robust EW suite to prevent this, in addition to simply shooting the other guy down first.
BiAsALongHorse@reddit
It's not about "dodging", it's about making the missile burn energy through turning and forcing it down into denser air. Stealth isn't a binary thing either, and basically no platforms are well protected from longer band radars by anything other than their RAM
fourunderthebridge@reddit
I know, but even a Flanker struggles to do that. It's very hard to avoid a modern AA missile by outmaneuvering it.
It's clear that both the US and China are betting on all-aspect stealth and EW more than maneuverability.
BiAsALongHorse@reddit
No, a flanker (and any fast jet for that matter) has a very easy time meaningfully reducing the range of an incoming missile. How much depends a lot on the missile and the initial energy state of the aircraft, but these are elementary bvr tactics
fourunderthebridge@reddit
Interesting. Do you have a source I can read up on that? Maybe some papers? I am not too versed in BVR missile avoidance as I am of the impression that modern BVR missiles are very hard to avoid, since by the time you detect them, it's almost too late. But again I'm always happy to learn.
I still think in the modern day, if you have to choose between stealth and maneuverability, you maximize stealth. EW countermeasures and decoys like the ones in the Rafale's SPECTRA suite do a lot of work in protecting from incoming threats as well.
And above all, the point is to not get detected in the first place.
GavoteX@reddit
...not exactly. Note that both Russia and the USA sacrificed a measure of stealth for enhanced maneuver capabilities. (F-22 instead of YF-23)
fourunderthebridge@reddit
For fifth gen, yes. But even then China never really emphasized maneuverability that much. Most of their Flankers don't have TVC. And rumours are they rejected TVC for their J-20.
And for sixth Gen, all aspect stealth is more prioritized. Hence the tailless designs. But again, that doesn't mean maneuverability is forgotten altogether. After all, this newest J-36 prototype has TVC now.
commanche_00@reddit
Cringe af
Accomplished_Mall329@reddit
China has another new jet (the J-50) for maneuverability. J-36 is optimized for higher payload and even better stealth than the J-50. The huge size and diamond shape is already bad for maneuverability, so even if they added high AoA capable inlets on this thing it wouldn't make much difference. It already won't be pulling those types of maneuvers anyway.
alyxms@reddit
Aww, I liked the bogies on the original landing gear
Foreign_Athlete_7693@reddit
The new bogies remind me of those on the TSR2 ....
alyxms@reddit
Unfortunately the picture on the bottom is the old one
NoDoze-@reddit
I agree! Now it looks like a paper airplane that you've cut into to add control surfaces.
AceArchangel@reddit
Looking more and more like the Ace Combat take of the FB-22
Norzon24@reddit
The upper picture is the 2nd one yes?
Guess this put to rest the narrative that J36 is just a technologies testbed, even if it's still in early prototyping stage
DisdudeWoW@reddit
also should stop people from actually thinking this is in service
ElectricAccordian@reddit
The idea that this was a technology testbed was always just based on vibes, not reality.
Financial-Chicken843@reddit
Yeh lol anyone who watches military aviation from initial glance can tell this isnt one of those whacky x planes that will simply be donated to a museum in a few years when all the testing is one and done.
If you remove all the testy tubes and attenaes it can pass for an inservice aircraft with internal weapons bay and all.
All im saying is it doesnt look barebones and made of plywood like say the wings of prey which is what all the ppl downplaying it was hoping it would be.
I mean loook at the thicness of it. The nose and the fuselage.
SuperEtenbard@reddit
Sounds like the US needs to step up the R&D budget and make up for lost time.
SlavaCocaini@reddit
Maybe they put the reject on display first and we're only just now seeing the winner.
Norzon24@reddit
The lanes aren't different enough to be separate designs
Eve_Doulou@reddit
Going by past development cycles, it’s probably 5 years away from initial squadron service.
Rooilia@reddit
How do you decide if it's a demo plane or an actual prototype?
Eve_Doulou@reddit
Because I’ve been following China’s military modernisation now for 20 years. There’s zero chance they fly this over Chengdu and then retire it as a demo. That level of testing was likely done over the western desert regions, with the aircraft only moved to the CAC base once the decision was made to go ahead with the program.
Also you can see avionics/antennae all over the airframe. Those are not equipped at the initial testing stage as they are not needed.
This project is a live one, it’s why the PLAAF revealed it in its typical obscure way. If it was just a demo, you’d never see it.
AvalancheZ250@reddit
Who knows how many wild and wacky "UFOs" have flown over the Gobi Desert, never to be seen again...
Rooilia@reddit
Thanks for the insight!
Late_Video_5744@reddit
Does that mean the early model was specifically built to test the aerodynamic effects of movable wingtips?
evilaccountme@reddit
All this tells me is it's a failing aircraft, and they're taking drastic measures to make it actually flyable. By the end of this, it'll just get modified into another F-22 copy. National CCP embarrassment.
commanche_00@reddit
Ahh.. someone from /advchina 😂
CrypticCowboy4509@reddit
Love to see a size comparison of this thing with the other latest gen fighters around the world
BiAsALongHorse@reddit
I wonder if DSIs were considered too risky for initial flight tests because compressor stalls might cause lateral stability issues
BiAsALongHorse@reddit
I wonder if DSIs were considered too risky for initial flight tests because compressor stalls might cause longitudinal stability issues
NoDoze-@reddit
Looks like theyre working on that radar cross section. /sheeesh
Zestyprotein@reddit
Or land version (tandem wheels) and carrier version?
ParkingBadger2130@reddit
J-36 is too big.
Zestyprotein@reddit
I would agree, but there are at least a couple of articles linking the carrier landing system to it. Dimensions wise, it's comparable to the A-3 Skywarrior, and we flew those off the much smaller Essex Class. In terms of weight, it appears a fair bit heavier than an A-3 though.
ParkingBadger2130@reddit
I think its going to the J-50 which is about a flanker size, but maybe only heavier, but the dimensions are roughly in the same ballpark.
SinkSquare@reddit
This seems like a big modification. It looks like the center fuselage is shorter now, rather than the whole wing extending towards the back beyond the fuselage. Would that make the weapon bay shorter as well perhaps?
chrstphd@reddit
Differences between those 2 aircrafts seem to me quite important.
I can somewhat understand the shape of the air intake are reworked, but the position of the engines ? And even the main gear ?
Today, any aircraft flies in computers way before the real thing, they could see this way before building the prototypes, isn't ?
kryb@reddit
They didn't move the engines, they just extended the nozzles. The subsequent change in CG would explain the new landing gear configuration.
Harpies_Bro@reddit
It might be a lengthened nozzle rather than the engine itself going backwards.
EventAccomplished976@reddit
There‘s a possibility that they decided to narrow down to two possible solutions in various areas and then incorporated them into two different prototypes. If that is true expect the eventual production version to mix and match between these two.