PLA next/6th generation fighter thread

Status
Not open for further replies.

dasCKD

New Member
Registered Member
On that point, it is strange that there are rumors of a 3-engine configuration specifically. If two engines won't provide the kinematics/energy needed to make the target design function, a four-engine configuration would seem more conservative even if they had to design a new engine that wouldn't unnecessarily weigh down the aircraft. Assuming the rumors are true, I'd be very interested in knowing why, specifically, a 3-engine configuration was chosen above other options.
 

latenlazy

Brigadier
On that point, it is strange that there are rumors of a 3-engine configuration specifically. If two engines won't provide the kinematics/energy needed to make the target design function, a four-engine configuration would seem more conservative even if they had to design a new engine that wouldn't unnecessarily weigh down the aircraft. Assuming the rumors are true, I'd be very interested in knowing why, specifically, a 3-engine configuration was chosen above other options.
If the rumors aren’t true I sincerely hope people remember this moment next time they want to believe some second string Weibo accounts.
 

sutton999

Junior Member
Registered Member
ladies, gossip gathered suggests that

1. This is not the 6gen, but 5+gen surfaced 3yrs ago (nickname 5.8), already flew last year, set to be revealed soon.
2. H20 has been flying multiple times, this is not H20.

could this be 2 VCE + 1 ramjet hybrid?
 

Maikeru

Major
Registered Member
ladies, gossip gathered suggests that

1. This is not the 6gen, but 5+gen surfaced 3yrs ago (nickname 5.8), already flew last year, set to be revealed soon.
2. H20 has been flying multiple times, this is not H20.

could this be 2 VCE + 1 ramjet hybrid?
Would make sense to go with 3 x WS15 more or less 'as is' rather than develop new and improved versions (or new engines altogether) if there's an urgent requirement to get a long range air dominance or striker into service ASAP.
What we've seen doesn't look entirely dissimilar to this:
1733112324073.png
 

leibowitz

Junior Member
ladies, gossip gathered suggests that

1. This is not the 6gen, but 5+gen surfaced 3yrs ago (nickname 5.8), already flew last year, set to be revealed soon.
2. H20 has been flying multiple times, this is not H20.

could this be 2 VCE + 1 ramjet hybrid?
So the JHXX?
 

AndrewS

Brigadier
Registered Member
Would make sense to go with 3 x WS15 more or less 'as is' rather than develop new and improved versions (or new engines altogether) if there's an urgent requirement to get a long range air dominance or striker into service ASAP.
What we've seen doesn't look entirely dissimilar to this:
View attachment 140315

Another reason to go with 3 engines is that the J-XD production run will be pretty small.

The US NGAD programme was only talking about 200 fighters accompanied by much lager numbers of CCAs. So I see a notional Chinese requirement being say 300 as an upper limit.

So if the requirement is for a 60tonne MTOW aircraft and given the small production run, is it worth developing an entirely new class of larger engine, just to keep the number of engines at 2?

Or would it be better to standardise on the existing WS-15 form factor and benefit from existing economies of scale?

We'll likely see 1000+ J-20s being produced, and presumably they can benefit from a future adaptive cycle engine? It would be similar to the previous plan to replace and update the F-35 engines in the future.

We also had previous public comments from the DOD that for the NGAD programme, they were seriously considering larger, even bomber size aircraft
 

leibowitz

Junior Member
Another reason to go with 3 engines is that the J-XD production run will be pretty small.

The US NGAD programme was only talking about 200 fighters accompanied by much lager numbers of CCAs. So I see a notional Chinese requirement being say 300 as an upper limit.

So if the requirement is for a 60tonne MTOW aircraft and given the small production run, is it worth developing an entirely new class of larger engine, just to keep the number of engines at 2?

Or would it be better to standardise on the existing WS-15 form factor and benefit from existing economies of scale?

We'll likely see 1000+ J-20s being produced, and presumably they can benefit from a future adaptive cycle engine? It would be similar to the previous plan to replace and update the F-35 engines in the future.

We also had previous public comments from the DOD that for the NGAD programme, they were seriously considering larger, even bomber size aircraft
Would appreciate @Blitzo 's thoughts on this matter as I think this is also a plausible reason why they went with a 3-engine design
 

AndrewS

Brigadier
Registered Member
On that point, it is strange that there are rumors of a 3-engine configuration specifically. If two engines won't provide the kinematics/energy needed to make the target design function, a four-engine configuration would seem more conservative even if they had to design a new engine that wouldn't unnecessarily weigh down the aircraft. Assuming the rumors are true, I'd be very interested in knowing why, specifically, a 3-engine configuration was chosen above other options.

4 engines would imply a 80 tonne MTOW.

That seems too much, given the US NGAD programme specification is a 3000km operating radius which they are planning on with 2 engines.

And fielding a new medium-weight engine is going to be even more expensive and take even more time.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top