Just for the record, there have been anyway not many three-engined types and for a three-engined fighter I only remember this one: the North American Rockwell NR-349 based on the A-5 Vigilante.
PLA next/6th generation fighter thread
- Thread starter Blitzo
- Start date
- Status
Just for the record, there have been anyway not many three-engined types and for a three-engined fighter I only remember this one: the North American Rockwell NR-349 based on the A-5 Vigilante.
If PLA unveils a flying 6th gen prototype, right after NGAD went back to the drawing board, then America lost the race, by definition.
The meme that US MIC just says things because they want more money isn't actually real, one because they already captured the funding process so don't actually need to convince anyone, and two because US doesn't have that much money.
It's not a matter of will, it's very much a matter of ability.
China almost certainly already flew prototypes too
People often forget real time reporting of J-20's first flight isn't the norm, it's the outlier, Chinese aerospace industry does a massive amount of stuff without telling anyone, not telling anyone is standard procedure.
There's this, for example, could be mockup, could be prototype, point is, nobody knows.
In a way, certainly, though I won't read too much into this.
USSR outdeployed US in swing wing fighters, as Europeans and China outdeployed US in delta canards; didn't really help.
China has workable family of 5th gen air superiority platforms, and it clearly feels it can afford to continue producing them. Since the core is settled, they can complement this fleet with something else, covering functions for which j-20/35 aren't long ranged and stealthy enough. Tip of the spear, not rank and file.
What US doing is not just money problem. Before they thought that they're in this position - f-35 is king, NGAD expands it a penetrative silver bullet. Srinkle it with CCAs and you're good.
Cheaper NGAD doesn't just mean USAF run into money problem. Cheaper ~f-35 priced NGAD means it's f-35 replacement. Something US lobbyist prevented even being mentioned for two decades.
I.e. USAF judged f-35 won't cut it, and they have to urgently replace their main platform in a role they assumed covered.
US navy will still produce big fighter. But for USAF it suddenly turned into luxury; something wrong with f-35, wrong enough it can't be rectified. Wrong enough that even lockheed with all state, multinational contract defense force can't just shut it.
Last edited:
current 5th gen 2 engine planes use serpentine intakes with no direct line of sight from intake face to fan face to avoid radar returns coming from the fan. But historically, this was also used for trijets. Note the elevation difference between intake and exhaust in the Lockheed L-1011
I don't think a 3rd intake at top/bottom or an internal diversion from the 2 existing intakes (I'm not an expert on aerodynamics so I can't say for sure which is better) will be an issue.
Yes, and I've been very even handed in my writing, I think.
If people here adopted the usual caution I have in the vast majority of my pieces, then the hype would be somewhat accurately calibrated, no?
To add to this:
Even if the three-engine design turns out to be true it says nothing about China taking a lead in "global fighter development" because the challenges in development have long moved to other areas than coming up with new flying airframe designs.
For example:
Soviets who had extremely outdated design methods in 1980s were able in the to put both MiG-29 and Su-27 to flight very quickly and then couldn't match that speed with the development of other sub-components: engines of sufficient thrust and reliability, radars of sufficient range and resolution, airframe materials of sufficient resilience, sub-systems like FBW of sufficient reliability etc.
Fighter aircraft today are more flying computer networks with tons of dedicated software than engines and wings. Just because the airframe is new doesn't mean that the insides are.
China has unique needs stemming from its geography that may warrant a three-engine design if the MTOW of planned aircraft exceeds certain parameters and the speed requirement remains supersonic.
China doesn't have aircraft supercarriers and won't have for forseeable future because just building four, equipping them with sufficient aircraft and training the crews would require tremendous expenditure and organisational effort. The US was able to do so in the 1950s because it was coming off a great war and they had excess equipment and experience. Then it took almost three decades of Cold War spending and readiness to get to the point where it is today. You can look up what % of GDP was spent on the military then and Bretton Woods didn't end by itself.
So if China is to counter US strategy it needs to think practically, a bit like USSR did in the Cold War. And that means that developing a long-range fighter-bomber may be the most economical solution. It allows to use mainland bases (with refueling if necessary) and it may be enough to strike far beyond 2IC and as far as northern Australia.
If the primary use for the aircraft is to deliver stand-off munitions then it simply may not need to be too sophisticated to start service. A J-20 equivalent technologically with necessary range and payload would be sufficient. Penetrating those areas will be more like flying into the USSR over the pole than anything that we've become used to consider within 1IC. It will provide exactly the kind of challenge that USSR had to deal with during Cold War. Northern coast of Australia is 2/3 length of northern coast of Russia. And obviously there are other directions as well.
In short China may be thinking about its own Tu-22 or Su-34 because those aircraft have their use because of their size and range. Turnaround is important at war and servicing large bombers is more time-consuming than servicing small bombers.
China has very different minimum requirements compared to the US because of geography and minimum requirements define almost everything. They are the lowest energy state. Everything tends to gravitate toward it. So if three engines are a minimum requirement for some missions then there will be a three-engine design. If not, then no. We will see it when we will see it. Or not. There is really no ground-breaking revolution here and there is no need to be excited about trivial things. But one needs to understand that it is indeed a trivial matter.
MiG-25 was designed to intercept USAF recon and bombers. F-15 was designed to counter (what CIA thought) MiG-25 (would be) and not the other way around.
They might. But it is not necessarily a natural decision to make.
US pushed with F-15 then switched to F-16 when it turned out that MiG-25 was misunderstood and F-15 was too expensive. F-22 was cut and F-35 ordered in large numbers instead.
My point is that choosing a cheaper option is more in line with the decision-making of the Pentagon than is commonly thought.
Pentagon chose the cheaper option more often than not. In fact it tends to choose the cheaper option most of the time. It's the idiots in the media who claim otherwise because for them anything the Pentagon orders is too expensive because they are such geniuses that would solve the problem at half the cost and twice the number. An honest assessment of Pentagon's programs indicates a much more reasonable approach than people imagine and a lot of the cost stems from specific requirements.
I don't see how China flying it's "6 gen" has to change anything, especially that we really don't know anything about US "6 gen". Unless you do, then by all means enlighten me.
What is a "USSR type conclusion"? I hope you don't mean the propaganda story about how the US started an arms race which pushed the USSR into bankruptcy.
no my point is that you are the one telling all of us to not talk about it outside of this forum and you've been talking about it more than anyone else.
Cut others some slack on this issue. When J-20 happened, it was a big cause of celebration for people on this forum. And there is no reason why people shouldn't celebrate again. It's been 14 years.
On the contrary, I've been saying people shouldn't share rumours about the new aircraft being expected to emerge imminently as well as the more "to be confirmed" rumours (engine count etc).
Acknowledging that there is a 6th generation aircraft in the works is fine.
Furthermore, my last few posts in this thread haven't related to what is shared on other platforms or published, it has been about the capabilities and nature of the platform we expect and the discourse in PLA watching itself.
If you are trying to find an inconsistency between what I'm posting here and what I'm actually sharing outside of this environment, you will need to try a bit harder.
I think there is always room for improvement as a community, and while I don't criticize people for celebration, I also think we can aspire to better reactions as well.
- Status