can you please elaborate more what he is actually talked about.. translation confused me
PLA next/6th generation fighter thread
- Thread starter Blitzo
- Start date
- Status
TL; DR - The original dialogue text actually originates from an interview session on Chinese TV in the 2000s, where our "Chief of the Strategic Fool-You Agency" denied the news about China developing a 5th-gen fighter (i.e. J-20).
@Rational314159 (or someone else) basically just modified the original text from the interview session to fit with the current development (of China's J-XD).
@Rational314159 (or someone else) basically just modified the original text from the interview session to fit with the current development (of China's J-XD).
Also, one particular reply comment by Yankee underneath the original post:
Needless to say, even if the illustration by 草根CG on Weibo has a very high degree of accuracy in terms of indicating features and characteristics of the real thing - It is logical to assume that should the illustration is completely accurate down to the tiniest details, then someone would've been called-up for some tea-time with the MSS already.
Needless to say, even if the illustration by 草根CG on Weibo has a very high degree of accuracy in terms of indicating features and characteristics of the real thing - It is logical to assume that should the illustration is completely accurate down to the tiniest details, then someone would've been called-up for some tea-time with the MSS already.
Last edited:
Just a few comments:
The internal payload capacity for the J-XD2 and J-XD1 look too high, given that they would be a fighter/interceptor airframe instead of a flying wing. There's also no need for such high internal payloads, given that CCAs would be able to accompany them to distances to the 2IC
If the J-XD1 can obtain air superiority to the 2IC, the need for a H-20 also becomes questionable.
My guess is that less than 50? H-20s would be required for the handful of targets between the 2IC-3IC
Such a small programme doesn't seem worth it, when the alternative is aircraft carriers.
Last edited:
I recall a recent discussion in the 00X/004 carrier thread about future Chinese carriers surpassing the current ~100k ton standard for supercarriers and going up to ~150k tons in displacement, but it was a very speculative discussion. If it turns out that next-generation PLAN carrier aircraft are going to be notably larger than current ones (including the J-35), ~10 tons payload internal, it would support the idea that optimal displacement for a supercarrier will grow as carrier aircraft grow larger and more capable.
Conversely, if it is rumored or revealed that China's future carriers will displace ~150k tons, it would also be evidence in the opposite direction - suggesting that its intended air wing will have larger aircraft (the Shenyang J-XD), or a larger airwing (large numbers of unmanned aircraft), or both. But that's a discussion better left for the carrier thread.
It mainly depends on how large the J-XD1 and J-XD2 will be, should the hypothetical dual-J-XD fleet becomes reality across the PLAAF and PLAN in the future. Needless to say, even with loyal wingman UCAV support, they are still going to be reasonably well-armed.
If the J-XD1 is, as they've claimed for now, to have three engines, then it doesn't make much sense for the warplane to have a relatively small size. Logically speaking, the J-XD1 should have a slightly bigger and deeper IWB, given its prescribed roles as a fighter + tactical bomber.
As for the smaller, two-engine J-XD2 - A longer IWB for either XLRAAMs, or more M/LRAAMs in tandem arrangement would be key. The IWB may not need to be as deep, but it would be crucial for the IWB of the J-XD2 to be longer than their predecessors.
Plus, there's also the potential of including active self-defense/protection systems onboard, whether that be micro-AAMs, lasers and/or other means.
It was very much a hypothetical and speculative discussion at best. I won't put too much energy into it until further developments of future Chinese CVNs come to light.
Last edited:
The B-2 has 2 IWBs with a capacity of 23 tonnes, and remember that flying wings have much more internal volume to work with.
The B-21 has a single B-2 IWB with half the capacity.
---
I don't see a notional J-XD1 as having a "tactical bomber" role come to think of it. With 3 engines, you could have a 10-15 tonne total payload yes. But with a fighter airframe, that means the IWB will be limited and most of that notional 10-15tonne payload is on the wings.
And we already have the H-6 as a "regional bomber" (bomb truck) to carry long-range cruise missiles.
In comparison, a fighter-type airframe should be able to supercruise, which has the advantage of improving the launch velocity of AAMs and air combat positioning.
Addendum - All three aircraft models (J-XD1, J-XD2 and H-20) are assumed to be powered by the engines belonging to the same family for ease of operation, logistics and maintenance across the warplane fleets.
The CG showed 3 engines of the same type, this is what could be wrong.
In my hypotheticals, the J-XD1 isn't meant to be as agile and maneuverable as the J-XD2. The nature of the J-XD1 is more of a fighter-bomber (maybe JH-XX?) with balanced if not slightly heavier weight on the fighter role than the tactical bomber role, while not being an actual, true-blooded fighter like the J-XD2.
Of course, you're free to agree or disgaree with my viewpoint.
Well, we can only wait and see. Nothing much we can do until we see the actual photographs/video of the real thing.
- Status