Right?? So why the J-50’s bay is not visually bigger than the 5th gens is what I’m trying to figure out
Shenyang next gen combat aircraft (?J-XDS)
- Thread starter Blitzo
- Start date
In the absence of other evidence, its probably going to boil down to "design tradeoffs", the fundamental reality of engineering and especially that of intensely closed systems like flying machines.
If a J-20 -esque main IWB is sufficient for 4-6 PL-15/16, and you'd need to make a significantly larger aircraft to fit the next class of A2A missiles (see J-36 for PL-17), then there's no point in making the J-XDS IWB any bigger than a J-20 IWB. If anything, in the interest of optimising space usage, the J-XDS IWB might even be a bit smaller so long as it can still carry the same payload. The J-35/A IWB is a tad bit smaller than the J-20 after all (at least visually from the outside), and its expected the carry the same amount of PL-15/16.
And why wouldn't you make your carrier-based 6th-gen any bigger? Because carrier space and flight deck length put significant constraints on design, especially aircraft size. Fielding an aircraft with sufficient size for internal carry of PL-17 -class missiles probably isn't possible with current or foreseeable future carrier designs. Type-004 may be marginally bigger than the Ford-class, but that's not going to be enough for J-36. And assuming a hypothetical hypercarrier design does emerge before the end of the J-XDS' lifecycle (sometime in the next 50 years or so, a very long time!), at that point the original land-based J-36 should be a mature platform and explorations of a naval variant could be possible, so there's no permanent opportunity cost there.
There's also the possibility that SAC, or rather the Chinese MIC, is hedging its bets. Note that two concurrent complimentary next-gen fighter programmes (intended to be seen into service induction) is unprecedented in human history. The J-XDS already hedges against the J-36's "all-in" on maximising stealth, speed and range at the expense of WVR anything, in a similar way to how the YF-22 hedged against the YF-23. The J-36, in turn, is likely a hedge against the J-XDS which would naturally be more reliant on the emerging CCA concept to carry external payloads in the absence of a larger singular platform. So we can partially attribute the J-XDS' non-increase in IWB capacity to its experimental reliance on CCAs, of which there exists multiple possible strategies in future naval warfare (including, but not limited to, support carriers like Type-076 launching CCAs in support of manned platforms from full carriers).
I know the J-50 can’t and doesn’t need to take PL-17s. I just think that it should have some room for some larger than PL-16 missiles that may be created in the future. Something just 20-25% longer than the PL-16. The PL-16 would already be fairly old by the time this this my goes into service by 2035 I don’t think it should keep using the PL-16 into the 2040s
Yes, if these missiles were to be crammed into a manned fighter jet, their length and width would pose enormous challenges to the hangar, flight deck, and elevators.
Carrier-based aircraft capable of carrying PL-17/PL-XX ULRAAMs are more likely to be UCAVs rather than manned fighters; removing life support equipment and the cockpit would save considerable space.
The US military's vision of using the CCA as a flight weapons bay is stuck with the AIM-120 size, misleading many. Since we also don't expect the J-50 to independently guide ULRAAMs, why not put them in a dedicated CCA?
If we take an extreme stance and assume it doesn't require superior flight performance and detection capabilities, then a single-engine configuration, top air intake, and only basic radar are acceptable. Such a UCAV would be capable of carrying four PL-17 missiles or two 1000km-range scramjet ULRAAMs, possessing formidable lethality within the system.
Last edited:
Ugh, it's a perfectly normal practice, seen in all generations other than 5th, and here it isn't the case only because of SU collapse. One of such aircraft still makes up the majority of PLAAF, in fact.
Earlier, US introduced half a dozen complementary new generation aircraft at the same time.
Also, consider how mission profiles determine the engineering design tradeoffs.
The most notable difference is 3 engines versus 2 engines, which is a far bigger difference than what we saw with the YF-22 and YF-23, which both had 2 engines.
---
So the larger J-36 is supposed to operate at long distances to the Second Island Chain, which is 3000km away.
That is too far for the vast majority of Chinese aircraft and missiles to support, so the J-36 will have to rely more on itself. And because it emphasises range over maneuverability, it will be more valuable/expensive than the opposing fighters it encounters, so the J-36 should really avoid WVR.
In comparison, the land-based J-50 will focus on the First Island Chain, where there will be arguably overwhelming land-based air support and missile options available, so there's no requirement for a larger IWB. Large external payloads could be carried by the J-16 for example. And today, the existing unmanned air superiority CCAs (Type-A or Type-B) are supposed to be at dogfighting ace level already.
---
I don't really see these 2 programmes as "hedging" against each other, as they both have different mission profiles.