PLA next/6th generation fighter thread

[AndrewS]

When j-20 first came out, people were shocked at its size and thought it was a fighter bomber which persisted long after. And now it seems quite prescient that they made it so large.

now we all think j-xd will be larger. My assumption was something along the line of 20% heavier than j-20 to make use of the higher thrust they will get. (Ws-15 vs ws-10c).

now if plaaf actually believes J-XD needs to be 60 to 70% larger (as in MTOW) vs J-20, then clearly just the generational upgrade in engine isn’t enough.

What if plaaf requirement for J-XD is 4000 km range instead of 2000 km? What if loyalwing man are going to be J-10 size in MTOW?

I think whatever we see from this aircraft will provide us more info of how PLA envisions future air warfare to be rather than any tech limitations. Plaaf was entirely okay with testing and fielding first j-20s with underpowered AL31. So I just don’t see how underpowered engine is a concern here.

I don't see the Chinese requirement for J-XD being just 2000km.

All of the 1IC is within 1500km of mainland China, and which will be covered by 2000+ fighters by 2030, with at least 1000+ 5th stealth fighters.

That is more than enough for air superiority, if not air supremacy/dominance.

---

Then you've got the 2IC (Guam, Palau and the Philippines are 3000km at most from the Chinese mainland)

Note that Australia is 4000km away from mainland China, but given airborne refueling or basing in the South China Sea islands, the J-XD could reach Darwin where the USAF is planning on stationing bombers.

---

Then look at what we know of the US NGAD programme.

2 next-gen adaptive cycle engines gets 3000km of range, which is borderline for Guam to the Mainland China.
We see various CCA designs with a range of 3000km

---

So there are reasons you would want the J-XD to have an operating radius of 3500-4000km, which means sustained Chinese air superiority over Guam and the other US bases in the 2IC.

Otherwise, what is the point of developing a new J-XD air superiority fighter, since all of the 1IC is dealt with anyway?

---

@Blitzo
Following on from this line of reasoning.

Let's say Chinese aero-engine technology had caught up, and they have a range requirement of 3500-4000km

When you're operating at such distances and want sustained air superiority, you need a significantly larger air superiority fighter with more fuel/range/time on station.

2 engines doesn't appear to be sufficient...

 

[tphuang]

I don't see the Chinese requirement for J-XD being just 2000km.

All of the 1IC is within 1500km of mainland China, and which will be covered by 2000+ fighters by 2030, with at least 1000+ 5th stealth fighters.

That is more than enough for air superiority, if not air supremacy/dominance.

---

Then you've got the 2IC (Guam, Palau and the Philippines are 3000km at most from the Chinese mainland)

Note that Australia is 4000km away from mainland China, but given airborne refueling or basing in the South China Sea islands, the J-XD could reach Darwin where the USAF is planning on stationing bombers.

I don't know what their requirements are. I was expecting something closer to 2500km for J-XD and the longer ranged stuff is reserved for H-20.

But if they are actually going to put 3 engines on J-XD, then that hypothesis goes out of the window. Then, they are happy with J-20 and J-35 for within 1500 km. J-XD is then designed to operate up to 2IC or even further if they can get refueled.

Certainly mission to Darwin, Diego Garcia and Alaska would be things that they might be interested in. If they can actually get a 3000 km combat radius aircraft or further with one refueling, it certainly opens up certain options that I previously thought was for strategic bombers.

 

[SlothmanAllen]

I might have misunderstood some of the conversation over the past couple of pages, but in no way does the United States need to prove itself superior to China in turbofan production. Period. The United States is the global leader in turbofan production and design. General Electric, Pratt & Whitney and CFM (GE and Safran) account for 70%+ of the worlds turbofan production. To put that in perspective, CFM produced 1,570 Leap engines in 2023. That is just over 4 Leap engines PER DAY! That is thousands of engines per year among the major manufactures! If you want to talk about the value of civil / military fusion then I don't see how you can deny the United States absolute dominance in this sector.

 

[lcloo]

I am interest to know what will be the designated roles and missions of a XL size large aircraft that need more thrusts, whether it is fitted with 2 or 3 engines.

It is certain not the fighter jet that we are well used to. I don't know what it will be, may be a large fighter bomber drone command ship? a strike jet? a leader of a swam of loyal wingman? or all of above? And slightly smaller than TU-22M?

Whatever it is, it will not be the fighter jet most of us have in mind. I know this is the 6th gen fighter thread but are we sure the 3 engine drawing is for 6th gen fighter jet?

If 3 engine drawing is true, it mean the need for heavy payload rather than meneuvers. Much like civilian Trident, Boeing 727, DC-10 and Lockheed Tristar L-1011. Thus this jet might be more like a truck for missiles especially large long distance missiles, drones and lots of electronic warfare gears and also loads of fuel.

There is so much questions to be answered, we better wait for the first photo...

 

[Gloire_bb]

We do not know they are capable of doing until they actually show it.

Besides China there isn't any comparable. Which other country has home made F135/WS-15 equivalent in service?

Ws-15 isn't in service, so China isn't that other country either.

And until it isn't, it's rather easy to name, EJ2000, 117s/117, M88, late F414/ F100/F110 - all fit.

 

[latenlazy]

I am interest to know what will be the designated roles and missions of a XL size large aircraft that need more thrusts, whether it is fitted with 2 or 3 engines.

It is certain not the fighter jet that we are well used to. I don't know what it will be, may be a large fighter bomber drone command ship? a strike jet? a leader of a swam of loyal wingman? or all of above? And slightly smaller than TU-22M?

Whatever it is, it will not be the fighter jet most of us have in mind. I know this is the 6th gen fighter threat but are we sure the 3 engine drawing is for 6th gen fighter jet?

If 3 engine drawing is true, it mean the need for heavy payload rather than meneuvers. Much like civilian Trident, Boeing 727, DC-10 and Lockheed Tristar L-1011. Thus this jet might be more like a truck for missiles especially large long distance missiles, drones and lots of electronic warfare gears and also loads of fuel.

There is so much questions to be answered, we better wait for the first photo...

This reply isn’t directly answering your question but I do think it may help people think more about what features to look for in a 6th gen fighter design.

I think one way to think about 6th gen kinematic design is that as sensors get more powerful and missiles get more energetic knife fight maneuvers get less practical and useful because you aren’t likely to reach the merge, but even if you do the merge is going to be decided much less by short range lower speed fighter kinematics than sensor power and missile kinematics. The shooter’s degrees of freedom is going to matter a lot less if the bullet’s degree of freedom is much higher. So as the engagement envelope stretches in distance what becomes more advantageous and survivable kinematically in a merge situation is if you shoot past the merge and break the close engagement window, recover energy fast, and reposition for a second shot. Thus in this kind of tactical employment kinematic advantage shifts to high speed defensive maneuverability and good energy recovery, to continue an engagement at longer range windows. And this is only *if* you don’t complete the engagement in BVR first with long range distributed system level capabilities. Turning WVR knife fights of earlier generations thus become a mix of long range BVR sniping and dashing lance fights. Hence greater emphasis on high speed, high altitude, and high supersonic maneuverability. If this thinking is right 6th gen A2A engagements will in a sense converge toward an evolved form of the old 80s high speed interceptor with superior ranged sensors concept envisioned for the likes of the A-12 and MiG-29/31, but with survivability issues rectified from superior kinematics.

 

[iewgnem]

I don't see the Chinese requirement for J-XD being just 2000km.

All of the 1IC is within 1500km of mainland China, and which will be covered by 2000+ fighters by 2030, with at least 1000+ 5th stealth fighters.

That is more than enough for air superiority, if not air supremacy/dominance.

---

Then you've got the 2IC (Guam, Palau and the Philippines are 3000km at most from the Chinese mainland)

Note that Australia is 4000km away from mainland China, but given airborne refueling or basing in the South China Sea islands, the J-XD could reach Darwin where the USAF is planning on stationing bombers.

---

Then look at what we know of the US NGAD programme.

2 next-gen adaptive cycle engines gets 3000km of range, which is borderline for Guam to the Mainland China.
We see various CCA designs with a range of 3000km

---

So there are reasons you would want the J-XD to have an operating radius of 3500-4000km, which means sustained Chinese air superiority over Guam and the other US bases in the 2IC.

Otherwise, what is the point of developing a new J-XD air superiority fighter, since all of the 1IC is dealt with anyway?

---

@Blitzo
Following on from this line of reasoning.

Let's say Chinese aero-engine technology had caught up, and they have a range requirement of 3500-4000km

When you're operating at such distances and want sustained air superiority, you need a significantly larger air superiority fighter with more fuel/range/time on station.

2 engines doesn't appear to be sufficient...

There is a case to be made for range requirement not greater than the closet US base up to Guam, since achieving air dominance over an airbase implies ability to land and occupy said airbase for further range extension, this is not counting any additional island airbases US helpfully build for future Chinese use.

 

[AndrewS]

There is a case to be made for range requirement not greater than the closet US base up to Guam, since achieving air dominance over an airbase implies ability to land and occupy said airbase for further range extension, this is not counting any additional island airbases US helpfully build for future Chinese use.

That would require an amphibious operation which is still risky.

Plus that new base would take time to make operational and then have to be continuously supplied.

 

[00CuriousObserver]

约克, someone who works in China's aviation MIC (I'm not sure how involved he is, but his company did CH-7's paint job) mentioned 6th gen today in a podcast. He's said a lot of sus things before because he talks a lot, but I consider his comments on PLAAF worthy enough to be mentioned.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

When asked about the 3-engine concept art, he said very dismissively "don't talk about it". And then later when 6th gen was mentioned again, he again said very dismissively "don't talk about 6th gen. As for why, think about the reason yourself."

Here's the podcast, unfortunately I lost the timestamps

 

[AndrewS]

If 3 engine drawing is true, it mean the need for heavy payload rather than meneuvers. Much like civilian Trident, Boeing 727, DC-10 and Lockheed Tristar L-1011. Thus this jet might be more like a truck for missiles especially large long distance missiles, drones and lots of electronic warfare gears and also loads of fuel..

I don't see the requirement being for a heavy payload, but for range.

We see low-cost CCAs being developed with a 3000km range. They are essentially long range cruise missiles which can deploy a payload.