Military Current Affairs: What will happen when J-36 encounters F-47?

After several months of pause, the Pentagon has finally confirmed the development direction of the sixth-generation fighter jet. For the F-47, tasked with countering the Chinese Communist Party, this comes just in time. The CCP also seems to have been investing in a new generation of fighter jets, with prototypes of two different models test-flown at the end of last year. These aircraft have been widely referred to as the J-36 and J-50 fighter jets (tentatively named) by the social media. While it is highly questionable whether these jets are actually sixth-generation aircraft, one thing is certain – this marks a major competition for air superiority between China and the United States.

Shortly after the US announced the F-47 sixth-generation fighter jet, China’s next-generation fighter, the J-36, was sighted for the third time. Videos circulating on social media on March 25 showed the J-36 from the Chengdu Aircraft Industry Group undergoing test flights and landing at the company’s test flight base in Chengdu, Sichuan.

This inevitably sparks curiosity to compare these two cutting-edge aircraft belonging to two opposing camps, perched on the cusp of change. Due to a severe lack of detailed information, it’s challenging to make precise judgments on the technical front. Nonetheless, based on the glimpses observed, some compelling speculations can be inferred.

The Pentagon has been closely monitoring the latest developments in aerial combat and is confident that its historic investment in the Next Generation Air Dominance (NGAD) fighter jet program will keep the US military in a leading position. Trump stated that nothing in the world can compare to the F-47. The US Air Force, on the other hand, asserts that the F-47 will be able to defeat the strongest adversaries and operate in the most dangerous threat environments. The official US stance seems to have already positioned the J-36, J-50 against the F-47, highlighting the discrepancies.

Firstly, the development models have already diverged significantly.

Due to constraints in technological resources and industrial bases, China’s major defense projects are still fundamentally linked to planned economy models, habitually following historical experiences and strengths of its defense enterprises. For instance, the Shenyang Aircraft Industry Group (Shenyang Aircraft) manufactures J-8 and J-8II, while the smaller J-7 series of aircraft is produced by the Chengdu Aircraft Industry Group (Chengdu Aircraft), with no competition between them. Subsequently, Shenyang Aircraft mainly produces the J-11 and J-16 derived from the Su-27, as well as carrier-based aircraft like the J-15 and the still in development J-31. Chengdu Aircraft, on the other hand, focuses on light combat aircraft like the J-10 and later the J-20.

The emergence of the two so-called sixth-generation aircraft, the larger J-36 from Chengdu and the seemingly toy-like J-50 from Shenyang, which have entered the flight testing phase, reveals they serve entirely different purposes. These two aircraft are not in competition for the sixth-generation fighter title. Throughout the entire process, from initial project arguments, initial design, prototype manufacture and testing to production standardization, the development paths of the two companies are completely separate. Even though there may have been some discussions during the early stages, an unspoken agreement has been reached, avoiding a competitive relationship. The peaceful coexistence of China’s two major aircraft manufacturing companies has persisted to this day.

In contrast, the decision-making processes behind major development projects in the US typically involve two or three companies competing, with this competition stage continuing until the completion of validation aircraft test flights and evaluations. It may take several years to decide who will lead the project development after thorough comparative assessments, especially starting from the sixth-generation aircraft, as the use of more advanced computer-aided design methods has shortened the design and manufacture process for validation aircraft.

From the decision-making process in major development projects in China and the US, it is easy for people to judge whose products are more convincing.

The bulky J-36, adopting a triangular wingtail-less aerodynamic layout, seems to be aiming for improved stealth performance. Its rare three-engine design implies at least two issues: insufficient power from a single engine and the need for larger storage space to carry more fuel, resulting in either a reduction in ammunition load or a shortened range.

While the bulky form may address range and ammunition load issues, it might lead to other consequences, such as potentially compromising stealth performance and maneuverability, affecting flight speed. This could make it easier to be detected and targeted.

Based on observations of the various aspects of the J-36, it appears more like a high-performance fighter aircraft designed primarily for ground or sea attack rather than for competing for air superiority. This aligns well with China’s so-called anti-access/area denial (A2/AD) strategy. China may envision the J-36 flying long distances unnoticed, targeting maritime objectives in the vast expanse of the Western Pacific, rather than focusing on air combat.

As for the smaller J-50, featuring a blended wing-body design akin to a large swept trapezoidal wing and without vertical tail, it may lean towards a fighter design focused on agility. However, not all tailless design aircraft are considered sixth-generation, as the defining attributes of a sixth-generation aircraft lie not only in aerodynamic layout but also in unprecedented stealth capabilities, advanced propulsion systems, situational awareness, networked information flow, smart weapons, joint combat capabilities, and Cooperative Combat Aircraft (CCA) drones.

Another major doubt in China’s fighter jet design is its joint combat capabilities. The focus of China’s fighter jet development has always been on single aircraft flight performance. This outdated concept is reflected in the design of the J-20, the only duck-like layout aircraft among fifth-generation jets. Apart from power deficiency, this design choice is likely driven by the pursuit of maneuverability, which compromises the already low stealth performance of the aircraft. This also reflects the operational style of the J-20, which likely relies on its own capabilities for solitary combat rather than operating in a joint battlefield information system-supported cooperative combat manner.

Establishing a joint command and control system is no easy feat. The US, starting with the F-35, took decades to find solutions and technical approaches to address compatibility issues in joint all-domain command-and-control systems, a process that is far more advanced in the development and maturity of battlefield command and control systems of various US armed forces.

At least until now, there has been no evidence in China’s military exercises or propaganda of possessing capabilities similar to the US in terms of battlefield information systems or multi-domain joint operations.

Compared to China’s sixth-generation aircraft, the original design motivation of the F-47 is to gain air superiority. The F-47 has a clear objective – to penetrate the “wall” erected by China’s A2/AD strategy and establish indisputable air superiority in the fiercely competitive operational regions in the Western Pacific.

China has spent decades developing aircraft, electronic warfare systems, long-range missiles, and drones to build a defensive “wall,” blocking the US deep in the Pacific. The F-47 is hailed as a penetrating fighter, tasked with shooting weapons inside the “wall” constructed by the Chinese military and destroying it.

Efforts to improve stealth capabilities can be seen in the F-47’s aerodynamic layout, such as the seamless fusion of cockpit and fuselage, dramatic treatment of wing sweep angle, the use of advanced composite materials replacing the primary structural metal components rather than just surface components and coatings, and the discreet design of the engine exhaust nozzle, all embody efforts to reduce radar observability significantly.

Trump stated that the performance numbers of the F-47 are unprecedented, referring to the stealth features verified through combat assessments in a stealth test field, which was a key factor in Boeing’s victory in the competition. The F-47 exhibits extremely minimal target characteristics on enemy fire control radars and, coupled with various tactical strategies, makes it difficult to lock on to. Maintaining full stealth throughout is vital in ensuring the F-47’s ability to penetrate China’s defenses.

Combining speeds of up to Mach 2, stealth, and endurance, thanks to cutting-edge aeronautical engines, the US Air Force has been investing in advanced propulsion systems for over a decade to generate remarkable power within compact dimensions. New technologies enable the F-47 to achieve supersonic flight without afterburners and efficient cruising modes, potentially enabling it to conduct long-range operations across the Pacific with the assistance of intelligent unmanned refueling aircraft.

The F-47 can operate with up to five cooperating combat drones, which can engage in combat with the enemy hundreds of kilometers ahead of the F-47. These combat drones in the future are likely to carry the latest American AIM-260 long-range air-to-air missiles, with a range of up to 300 kilometers. This indicates that a combat unit centered around an F-47 could engage at distances well over 500 kilometers. This range exceeds the perception and attack range of a single fighter aircraft itself, demonstrating the role of joint all-domain command-and-control and intelligent weapon systems.

If a J-36 were to enter the attack range of an F-47, it would likely be shot down in a state of bafflement, potentially without even a chance to encounter the F-47.