PLA next/6th generation fighter thread

[Gloire_bb]

Did I miss something, but where did the twin came from? Like, all shrimp talk was about 3 as of yet.

Did it come out through it being the thing we expected before?

That's bias, guys...
(Saying it as a big single engine/light fighter fan and the cheapest scrub of the forum)

 

[iewgnem]

If the 3rd engine is different from the other 2, then I cant think of a reason other than its some type of high speed engine tech, and not just a smaller bypass since then you'd just carry around dead weight and canceling any range benifit from bypass optimization.

Hard to believe though, China does have a very advanved ram/scramjet program, but its a huge leap to go from missiles to aircraft.

However if it is ramjet or scramjet or RDE, then it'll establish the same dominance over 5th gen as 5th gen over 4th

 

[Blitzo]

If Yankee is throwing his hat in, then I think the weight tilts a bit more in favour of the three engine configuration rumour.

I would just encourage people to keep a wide range of possibilities in mind as to the reasons and/or implications for it, and that not all are necessarily "positive"

 

[AndrewS]

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.

For operations to the 1IC (1500km) away, there should be a plethora of strike options comprising:

1. CJ-10 cruise missiles launched from trucks
2. CJ-10 cruise missiles launched from aircraft
3. Piston-engine cruise missiles launched from trucks
4. Fourth-gen aircraft (1000+) to carry heavy strike payloads
5. UCAVs to carry lighter strike payloads

What would a hypothetical J-XD1 add in such a scenario?
If a J-XD1 is developed and used over the 1IC, it might as well focus on air superiority, and allow all the other (more cost-effective) strike options to be used.

---

For operations to the 2IC (3000km) away, remember you're looking at a handful of airbases and carriers.

And I don't see it being worth the risk (or it being feasible) to use a fighter-bomber to deliver short-range munitions against these sorts of targets.

So you would need big munitions, which means a flying wing to accommodate a large IWB or carrying large non-stealthy missiles under the wings.

 

[Blitzo]

Well CAC is making the 6th gen right? So maiden flight would be at the usual airstrip. Since he's dreaming about a crowd of representative from other manufacturers and they refer to J-10C as "our 10C" it should be GAIC people. Or I suppose it could also be CAC's own people mixed in with the crowd. Just curious about which of the two manufacturer gets to claim "our 10C" these days.

Anyway I digress, I doubt dreams have that much meaningful small details.

I think he's saying that in his dream, August 1st flight team were there commemorating the occasion before the first flight and their aerobatic smoke lasted a while making them wait a bit in the dream for the J-XD to fly. Given there are J-10Cs among the August 1st flight team, CAC would refer to those as "our 10Cs".

I don't think there's too much worth parsing here. All these guys remain too poetic and cryptic, and when we get into literal dream interpretation it's a waste of everyone's time.

The only useful thing to derive here is it adds a meaningful amount of weight to the three engine configuration option, and that we all still can expect J-XD to emerge in the increasingly soon future.

For operations to the 1IC (1500km) away, there should be a plethora of strike options comprising:

1. CJ-10 cruise missiles launched from trucks
2. CJ-10 cruise missiles launched from aircraft
3. Piston-engine cruise missiles launched from trucks
4. Fourth-gen aircraft (1000+) to carry heavy strike payloads
5. UCAVs to carry lighter strike payloads

What would a hypothetical J-XD1 add in such a scenario?
If a J-XD1 is developed and used over the 1IC, it might as well focus on air superiority, and allow all the other (more cost-effective) strike options to be used.

---

For operations to the 2IC (3000km) away, remember you're looking at a handful of airbases and carriers.

And I don't see it being worth the risk (or it being feasible) to use a fighter-bomber to deliver short-range munitions against these sorts of targets.

So you would need big munitions, which means a flying wing to accommodate a large IWB or carrying large non-stealthy missiles under the wings.

Let's not turn this thread into another "PLA westpac strike strategies" thread please. We already have one of those.

The idea of a "J-XD1" to complement the expected "J-XD2" remains very tentative at best, so there's no need to delve too deeply into trying to justify or exclude the idea of it from a system of systems point of view.


All we can say is that everything seems somewhat fluid at the moment (apart from the expectation that in the near future, CAC will come out with a large airframe J-XD that may possess three engines) in terms of the direction of future PLA land based air power.

 

[leibowitz]

This thing will have 50% more thrust than a Tu-22M Backfire. If the dimensions in the earlier sketch are accurate, it will carry more weapons than the B-21, while having better kinematics than the F-35. It's going to severely complicate the defense calculus of almost every air and naval battle planner in East and South Asia. Imagine trying to defend a CVBG against sixteen of these, loaded with up to 128 stealthy AShMs, plus incoming HGVs receiving midcourse guidance from these 6th gens...

 

[Blitzo]

This thing will have 50% more thrust than a Tu-22M Backfire. If the dimensions in the earlier sketch are accurate, it will carry more weapons than the B-21, while having better kinematics than the F-35. It's going to severely complicate the defense calculus of almost every air and naval battle planner in East and South Asia. Imagine trying to defend a CVBG against sixteen of these, loaded with up to 128 stealthy AShMs, plus incoming HGVs receiving midcourse guidance from these 6th gens...

You're extrapolating a bit too detailed and a bit too far at the moment..

 

[AndrewS]

Let's not turn this thread into another "PLA westpac strike strategies" thread please. We already have one of those.

The idea of a "J-XD1" to complement the expected "J-XD2" remains very tentative at best, so there's no need to delve too deeply into trying to justify or exclude the idea of it from a system of systems point of view.


All we can say is that everything seems somewhat fluid at the moment (apart from the expectation that in the near future, CAC will come out with a large airframe J-XD that may possess three engines) in terms of the direction of future PLA land based air power.

Yes.

But from a requirements perspective:

1. The US military spends all its time talking about air superiority in the Western Pacific, which isn't anywhere near the US homeland.
2. In comparison, the Western Pacific is next to Mainland China, so why wouldn't the Chinese military aim for air superiority over the 1IC and then to the 2IC?

---

China arguably has a larger economic base than the combined US/Japan/SK/Taiwan.
Plus the geography of the Western Pacific fundamentally works against the US in the Western Pacific.

So Chinese air superiority to the 2IC is a realistic objective.

 

[Blitzo]

Yes.

But from a requirements perspective:

1. The US military spends all its time talking about air superiority in the Western Pacific, which isn't anywhere near the US homeland.
2. In comparison, the Western Pacific is next to Mainland China, so why wouldn't the Chinese military aim for air superiority over the 1IC and then to the 2IC?

---

China arguably has a larger economic base than the combined US/Japan/SK/Taiwan.
Plus the geography of the Western Pacific fundamentally works against the US in the Western Pacific.

So Chinese air superiority to the 2IC is a realistic objective.

All you needed to write was "yes".

Everything else below it is unnecessary in this thread for now.


We are on the cusp of this new aircraft emerging in coming weeks, we don't need this thread to become a place of comparative operational/strategic requirements and to become another "PLA westpac strike strategies" thread during this time, thank you very much.


Let's just sit back and observe for a while. Not everything needs a reaction, and if there is to be a reaction let's try to make it constructive and focused rather than expanding the thread to a variety of other errant topics.

 

[tphuang]

It almost makes me wonder if they are just going to get rid of H-20 project and have one major fighter bomber project that will have something like 3500km combat radius.

Or maybe they think AI will be so good in the future, that each 6th gen will be controlling like 20 UCAVs through 2 operators and you wouldn't need to have AWACS or special missions aircraft anymore, since all these VLO platforms will be handling those tasks.

There are some serious implications if your 6th fighter is going to be that large. Or at least what PLA thinks future air warfare will look like