PLA next/6th generation fighter thread

[BoraTas]

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

For real though. I wonder if there was indeed a VLO, supersonic, medium-range striker project but then they decided to morph that project into a 6th gen fighter project by giving it extra kinematic and radar performance. It would also explain three engines. Boosting the thrust-to-weight ratio by throwing another engine is reasonable.

 

[ZeEa5KPul]

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"

Not all are necessarily "negative", either.

The more I think about it, the less weight I give the conclusion that the 6th gen has 3 engines because Chinese engines just suck that bad. It depends on the size of the aircraft - if it's small with 3 engines, that shifts the balance of probability to the sucky engine/VCE hard conclusion. If it's large, it's likelier that 3 engines is just inherent to that design unless you have alien sci-fi engines.

 

[Gloire_bb]

If it's large, it's likelier that 3 engines is just inherent to that design unless you have alien sci-fi engines.

Well, larger engines of same generation aren't prohibited, provided you're willing to develop them. They may be heavier, sure, but larger airframe takes that weight easier - and it's highly unlikely 3 will take less space, weight and fuel than two.

They're just very niche. I.e. in a world where engine design throughput is a free commodity, twin would've won. But China just hasn't, with 1.5 juuust about maturing highspec turbofan design houses.

So Blitzo's line of thought makes perfect sense. Sensible compromise is still compromise.

 

[Blitzo]

Not all are necessarily "negative", either.

The more I think about it, the less weight I give the conclusion that the 6th gen has 3 engines because Chinese engines just suck that bad. It depends on the size of the aircraft - if it's small with 3 engines, that shifts the balance of probability to the sucky engine/VCE hard conclusion. If it's large, it's likelier that 3 engines is just inherent to that design unless you have alien sci-fi engines.

I certainly am not implying that all are "negative".
I am implying -- in fact no, I would directly state outright, that people here need to be cautious and not get too high on their own supply.


There have been too many occasions in contemporary PLA watching when there have been jubilant over-expectations and projections that then get brought down to earth, especially in the domain of aeroengines overall. Considering that this is ultimately a more "pro-China" and "pro-PLA" forum as well, it is all the more important to approach this matter with a degree of caution.


In fact a suitably wet towel should be a required prescription even as we see this overall project emerge, and I hope when it comes out, people can not become jubilant and ecstatic and acknowledge it with a brief moment of polite interest at most.

 

[Wrought]

I certainly am not implying that all are "negative".
I am implying -- in fact no, I would directly state outright, that people here need to be cautious and not get too high on their own supply.


There have been too many occasions in contemporary PLA watching when there have been jubilant over-expectations and projections that then get brought down to earth, especially in the domain of aeroengines overall. Considering that this is ultimately a more "pro-China" and "pro-PLA" forum as well, it is all the more important to approach this matter with a degree of caution.


In fact a suitably wet towel should be a required prescription even as we see this overall project emerge, and I hope when it comes out, people can not become jubilant and ecstatic and acknowledge it with a brief moment of polite interest at most.

Even as someone who approves of your sober approach over nationalist frenzy, I think it is too much to ask people not to celebrate raucously at such a huge milestone. Symbolically taking the lead in global fighter aircraft (even if the truth is far more nuanced) is the biggest breakthrough in PLAAF history.

 

[ZeEa5KPul]

Well, larger engines of same generation aren't prohibited, provided you're willing to develop them. They may be heavier, sure, but larger airframe takes that weight easier - and it's highly unlikely 3 will take less space, weight and fuel than two.

Internal mounting and advanced ducting mitigates quite a few problems with 3 engine designs. 3 won't take up less space and weight than 2 large, but it can take less fuel. If you design the ducting to be robust and lightweight enough, you can channel air entirely to the 2 lateral engines during cruise and close off the centerline engine, eliminating its drag. That's going to use less fuel than 2 larger engines. When more power is needed - like during takeoff and combat maneuvers - you open the flow to the centerline engine.

There's some weight penalty with the duct flaps and the auxiliary power unit to restart the centerline engine, but the fuel savings in most flight scenarios make it worthwhile.

 

[Blitzo]

Even as someone who approves of your sober approach over nationalist frenzy, I think it is too much to ask people not to celebrate raucously at such a huge milestone. Symbolically taking the lead in global fighter aircraft (even if the truth is far more nuanced) is the biggest breakthrough in PLAAF history.

I think if in retrospect it becomes genuinely taking the lead in global fighter development rather than symbolic, then raucous celebration would be appropriate.

The possibility that it ends up the Mig-25 equivalent to an opfor's (yet to emerge) F-15, cannot be excluded, for example.

 

[Wrought]

I think if in retrospect it becomes genuinely taking the lead in global fighter development rather than symbolic, then raucous celebration would be appropriate.

The possibility that it ends up the Mig-25 equivalent to an opfor's (yet to emerge) F-15, cannot be excluded, for example.

Very true, but I maintain that asking people not to celebrate out of an abundance of caution for a hypothetical future aircraft (as opposed to a very real, if inevitably overhyped* one) is probably asking too much.

* Every next-generation breakthrough is always ridiculously overhyped as some miracle wunderwaffe, don't take it personally anyone.

 

[Blitzo]

Very true, but I maintain that asking people not to celebrate out of an abundance of caution for a hypothetical future aircraft (as opposed to a very real if inevitably overhyped* one) is probably asking too much.

* Every next-generation breakthrough is always ridiculously overhyped as a miracle wunderwaffe, don't take it personally anyone.

I think asking people to check themselves a bit is probably healthy. Hype is the mind killer.

 

[Wrought]

I think asking people to check themselves a bit is probably healthy. Hype is the mind killer.

Also true, but I nonetheless think "a brief moment of polite interest at most" is too much to ask. There will be at least some amount of cheering.