Rumoured Projects & Likelihood Thereof

[ACuriousPLAFan]

Two patent documents that are related to the high-supersonic aircraft currently discussed above, titled "一种用于高马赫飞机的可变倾角尾翼构型" ("A variable-incidence tail configuration for high‑Mach aircraft") and "一种压燃冲压发动机进发排匹配设计方法" ("
A design method for matching the inlet, engine, and exhaust of a compression‑ignition ramjet"). Note that both documents share three authors and were filed last month. Posted by @一定会对蛙动手 on Weibo.

 

[ougoah]

Do you have the links to the reports and/or academic papers on these developments?

I have too many links to sift through for those. They were shared on SDF at some point (the payload separation studies) and the HGV payload separation test was mentioned by the US in their observation of Chinese hypersonic flights. IIRC this may have been in relation to the "FOBS" flight which circumnavigated the globe but it could have easily been misattributed to the "FOBS" when it could have been an HGV flight that performed the payload separation test.

 

[Blitzo]

I also think it’s a little odd. However, taking the premise that their interest is in fact true, this is what I’m positing (admittedly, somewhat shoehorned):

In a 6 / 6.5 / 7th gen future of air combat - there will be heavy use of UAVs (obviously), and also munitions with extreme range and speed. Essentially A2A, A2G, and ASh Prompt Global Strike. Some of them may even be loitering (like Iran’s “A2A mines”) and multimodal (I’m thinking of a smaller YJ-19 with a detachable powered loitering wing kit — like a large simplified and stripped down Wing Loong / MQ-9). And then there’s space-based AMTI and surface targeting…

So the high speed recon aircraft, can also serve as a targeting and comms node. It can provide targeting information to long-range fires (CJ-1000, 1000km SAMs and everything else that gets developed along these lines), especially against moving or time sensitive targets when there are no AMTI (and other types) of satellites passing overhead or that remain functional or otherwise un-destroyed. It could also be used to quickly travel closer to (non-AI, remotely controlled) UAVs that are under EW attack and reestablish control with tight beams to the UAVs.

I think it's one thing to float the idea that they may have a manned high speed recce aircraft in the works -- but the idea that this is related to a "7th" generation fighter so early is a bit too detailed and too out there.

The moment that people start talking about "next generation" fighter concepts it throws everything out the window because people just start wildly fantasizing, especially because 6th generation has yet to even be defined.

 

[GTI]

I think it's one thing to float the idea that they may have a manned high speed recce aircraft in the works -- but the idea that this is related to a "7th" generation fighter so early is a bit too detailed and too out there.

The moment that people start talking about "next generation" fighter concepts it throws everything out the window because people just start wildly fantasizing, especially because 6th generation has yet to even be defined.

I haven’t said anything about “7th generation fighters”. Nor suggested that the concept / project is a “7th generation fighter”.

What I have mentioned though, are trends and technologies, pertaining to air combat, that currently range from academic research, including some since verified via (some scale of) technical demonstration — to systems in service in at least test and evaluation capacities.

Or in other words, extrapolating likely aspects of future air warfare based on things that people, today, are researching, testing, developing, and fielding.

And then there’s the opening paragraph of my overall comment... A takeaway of “fantasising about 7th generation fighters” almost sounds intentionally obtuse from someone who writes, comprehends, and contextualises as wonderfully as you do.

P.s. You could’ve just corrected grammar and advised alternatives to emotive language, per usual

 

[Blitzo]

I haven’t said anything about “7th generation fighters”. Nor suggested that the concept / project is a “7th generation fighter”.

What I have mentioned though, are trends and technologies, pertaining to air combat, that currently range from academic research, including some since verified via (some scale of) technical demonstration — to systems in service in at least test and evaluation capacities.

Or in other words, extrapolating likely aspects of future air warfare based on things that people, today, are researching, testing, developing, and fielding.

And then there’s the opening paragraph of my overall comment... A takeaway of “fantasising about 7th generation fighters” almost sounds intentionally obtuse from someone who writes, comprehends, and contextualises as wonderfully as you do.

P.s. You could’ve just corrected grammar and advised alternatives to emotive language, per usual

You wrote "In a future 7th gen air combat" -- while describing this aircraft as having a key role in it.

The point of my post was to just separate the idea from "future aspects of air warfare" in general, and that it is far more reasonable and containable to call it a "high speed ISR aircraft".
The moment one starts to relate it with "future air warfare" and "7th gen whatever" it leads to an immediate risk of people fantasizing what 7th gen air warfare and 7th gen fighters might look like.

And yes I use the word fantasizing because that is exactly what they did in the rest of that page, about explicit 7th gen fighters. Perhaps you didn't intend to open up that can of worms, which is fine...
... but that is why I am saying describing it as a "generic high speed manned ISR aircraft" instead has a far different implication.

 

[GTI]

You wrote "In a future 7th gen air combat" -- while describing this aircraft as having a key role in it.

The point of my post was to just separate the idea from "future aspects of air warfare" in general, and that it is far more reasonable and containable to call it a "high speed ISR aircraft".
The moment one starts to relate it with "future air warfare" and "7th gen whatever" it leads to an immediate risk of people fantasizing what 7th gen air warfare and 7th gen fighters might look like.

And yes I use the word fantasizing because that is exactly what they did in the rest of that page, about explicit 7th gen fighters. Perhaps you didn't intend to open up that can of worms, which is fine...
... but that is why I am saying describing it as a "generic high speed manned ISR aircraft" instead has a far different implication.

In “a 6th / 6.5 / 7th gen future of air combat”.

And the “can of worms hesitance” should also be clear.

 

[CasualObserver]

That reminds me of one of those strange VCE engines that we saw from Chinese Academy of Sciences a while back. F119doctor actually took a look at it, according to him that is more suitable for an SR-71-esque aircraft so I wonder if these two are related as well

 

[Blitzo]

In “a 6th / 6.5 / 7th gen future of air combat”.

And the “can of worms hesitance” should also be clear.

I'm not sure what this is trying to address.
It's part of clear record that prior to post #151, no one was talking about any sort of future 7th generation aircraft or "future air combat" (which is adjacent to the same topic).


The description of the role of a manned high speed ISR aircraft in #151 itself is actually quite reasonable, but if you had omitted the "In a 6 / 6.5 / 7th gen future of air combat" part and simply wrote "Trends of general warfighting" or something like that instead, it would have avoided stoking the "7th gen/future air combat" topic.
This is just normal guardedness around trying to choose word that minimize opportunities for grossly off topic and too "out-there" discussions, but maybe others do not see value in that.