Ideal PLAAF/PLANAF fighter?

Awesome sir. I am in the same camp re canards. Like the opposite cant of the wings and canards, subtle touch but obviously makes some sense as it puts the canards vortex higher than the wing leading edge without staggering the roots.


Minor adjustment to J-X0003 idea.


The framed faceted canopy is inspired by the Delta Dagger. Just thinking it might be easier to apply radar reflective transparent materials to a less sophisticated multi-plane arrangement.


The wing missile bays double as fairings for the rear control surfaces articulates. If a folding-wing version was built, they'd also provide the longitudinal spar for that mechanism. They also double as wing fences of sorts to reduce flutter (I hope)


A further variation seeks to reduce weight plus increase stealth by using a 'butterfly tail'. I've also increased the fuel volume by permanent 'conformal' tanks.

My two cents.

I don't think you can answer the question without first answering two others: what will be the aircraft's primary role and how will it integrate with the rest of the force structure.

Although the final design should be a multi-role aircraft, I think it's primary mission should be air supremacy. I'm thinking of a "high" / "low" capability mix (high and low are relative here) similar to the US F-15/F-16 structure. The J-10 (and FC-1 if China decides to use it domestically) should do very well as a multi-role aircraft in low and medium threat environments but may focus on air interdiction (ground attack) missions in heavy threat environments, leaving the counter-air mission to the new fighter.

To ensure adequate numbers (keeping costs reasonable) should be step above J-10 derivatives but doesn't need to get to F-22 levels. An 80% F-22 capability in sufficient numbers should more than make up for the capability gap (quantity has a quality all its own!). Should have some LO, but do not sacrifice speed and agility (especially WVR combat). Given the distances involved in the Pacific, must have decent range. Should have a multi-target capability (ESA radar) and multi-spectral sensors (radar, IRST, ESM, etc) and electronic self-protection.

Planeman, though the second drawing does look sexier, i have a feeling the true delta wing fighter would benefit more from horizontal tail surfaces. So i'd go for the first drawing. Those weapons bays integrated into the wing, also acting as wing fences certainly are a novel idea. Perhaps too novel. I guess something like that would already be used if it was valid. Main issue i see is how to achieve enough volume for weapons without interrupting the wing. If one has to use a structure going around the weapons bay, connecting the wingtip with the inner part of the wing - that might prove to be too heavy and too thick to be workable, as i cant even imagine what sort of forces are acting on the wingtips in high g manouvers.

On the other hand, the butterfly (pelican?) tail design, coupled with the delta wing seems perfect for the larger strike plane which doesnt necesarrily need all the manouverability of a fighter.

As for the requirements, LO is a must, equally for the a2a and a2g. Battlefield interdiction and CAS still require hell of a lot of stealth if one is to survive in a modern day theatre of war. So i'd definitely make radar stealth equally important for all the models in the fleet - from the lightest fighters to the heaviest bombers (unless we're talking just about cruise missile trucks)

Numbers in the fleet are very important. That's a given. Even for a mostly defensive war - (maintaing control over, say, taiwan, plus defending the rest of the airspace over china) one has to have a huge air fleet. 50% of the possible combined enemy air fleets. Which brings us to 1600-2000 combat airplanes. Future plaaf definitely shouldn't go under 1600 units, while making them most (if not all) multirole.

All right, played around a little in my virtual construction facility.

What came out so far is just a rough idea in wich direction I want to go, I still have to work out the details.
The plane is 19m long with a 15m wingspan, I've kept a rather large delta, with a conventional tail. The wingsweep is pretty modest so far, might have to increase it if I want supercruise, should actually be a capability due to the same reasons of battlespace size as mentioned above. A rather convetional layout somewhat resembling the T-50 in that it's not a fully blended VLO design like a F-22.
Some space between the engines but not as big as on Flanker models. The idea here is to not have a dedicated internal weapons bay, but the capability to add conformal fuel tanks / stealthy weapons carrying attachments / sensor packages or just big A-G / AShM.
There's a rather big S-bend in the vertical and slightly flattend nozzles with a little sawtooth.
The tail between the nozzels is actually supposed to move as well to aid the stabilators.

Some small advances here, the skin has been rudimentarily coloured / textured.

Flattend the bottom of the fuselage to allow for better installment of half-sunk weapons there. Extra hardpoints under the wings are available.

Great model. Would the design be more faceted (ie less rounded) as per most stealth designs, than appears in the model?

Indeed, great modelling work, those are some fine skills you've developed. But as for the whole fighter - i sort of feel that would have been ideal plaaf fighter in full service 5-10 years ago, not something that is going to be ideal in 5-10 years time.

How large would it be? empty weight? It looks pretty small, or its cabin is too big.

That design currently is 19m long, with a 15m wingspan. The weapons are supposed to be PL-12 and PL-9, to get a size impression. So, yeah the cabin actually is too big, I'll scale it down, and I guess that might than also fix some other proportion issues there. Empty weight about 14t.
The design right now also is not really blended / RCS optimized. By trying to keep it conventional i.e.: simple, I probably overdid it somewhat and in that way it might be a decade or so late, as pointed out. So I'll go ahead and adapt the geometry of the plane.
I'm yet unsure if I want to enclose the space between the engies into the fuselage and have a dedicated weapons bay, or if I try to keep that space open in some way similar to a Flanker and have other methods of installing weapons in stealthy, adaptable containers.

Oh, and, by the way, thanks for the compliments on the model, I slowly figure out how all the aspects fit together.

Update: Angled the surfaces of the design more apropriatly for RCS consideration. Kept the cabin size, making it a two seater for the moment. This one is intended as a multirole A/C with focus probably a little towards strike. Will have an EO targeting & designating unit installt on the bottom fuselage under the cabin. And also a IRST in front of and abeam the canopy.
Layed out to carry big weapons also. The gear will retract to the outer edge of the intakes.

When I find some more time I'll modify it towards A-A. Moving the engines closer together, fit a dedicated, enclosed weapons bay between them and maybe some other things.

Definitely a good starting block. The engines look too shallow but appreciate the effort those models take.

It lends itself to LO, but could corner-cut full LO costs, using blending, stealthy air intakes, general edge alignment, RAM and internal weapons to get LO just not as small as F-22.