PLA next/6th generation fighter thread

[AndrewS]

In short a medium large size combat mothership with combined capability of stealth fighter jets like J20, excellent ECM better than J16D, ability to control large swarms of drones like loyal wingman and other drones, has switchable manned and unmanned mode if pilots have serious injuries. And also it should have ultra long range strike capability, especially ultra long range maritime strike.

I think I am hoping too advance ahead of time, but then it is almost Christmas time, we could wish sky high.

Most of that is feasible given development time.

But I would accept a lower level of manoeuvrability because WVR dogfighting isn't likely and also drop the requirement for ultra-long range because it's going to cost a lot more.

Personally I think combat radius of 3500-4000km is sufficient because that comfortably covers the 2IC and there's not many targets beyond this distance.

 

[ChineseToTheBone]

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

This journalist coworker of Yankee and Shilao published their article evaluating the rumours surrounding the upcoming sixth generation fighter and was obviously very insightful to read. If you do not want to read a machine translation of the full article by 席亚洲, I will summarize the main points discussed within briefly.

1st Main Point: The sixth generation fighters will need to have much greater combat range with increased loitering time, better supersonic maneuverability, and exceptional supercruise compared with the current generation.

2nd Main Point: Those above requirements will necessitate a much larger aircraft, which in turn would require three engines without technological breakthroughs in designs of adaptive cycle engines and rotating detonation engines.

3rd Main Point: Stealth will become more important with a focus on reduced control surfaces like going canardless and tailless, so having three engines could help the fighter design accomplish supersonic maneuverability through balancing engine output for each side.

4th Main Point: Longer beyond visual range combat will be the main focus as this sixth generation fighter will seek to gain combat initiative through higher speeds and better stealth, with guns and potentially shorter range missiles becoming dead weight from the need for longer range missiles.

 

[Michaelsinodef]

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

This journalist coworker of Yankee and Shilao published their article evaluating the rumours surrounding the upcoming sixth generation fighter and was obviously very insightful to read. If you do not want to read a machine translation of the full article by 席亚洲, I will summarize the main points discussed within briefly.

1st Main Point: The sixth generation fighters will need to have much greater combat range with increased loitering time, better supersonic maneuverability, and exceptional supercruise compared with the current generation.

2nd Main Point: Those above requirements will necessitate a much larger aircraft, which in turn would require three engines without technological breakthroughs in designs of adaptive cycle engines and rotating detonation engines.

3rd Main Point: Stealth will become more important with a focus on reduced control surfaces like going canardless and tailless, so having three engines could help the fighter design accomplish supersonic maneuverability through balancing engine output for each side.

4th Main Point: Longer beyond visual range combat will be the main focus as this sixth generation fighter will seek to gain combat initiative through higher speeds and better stealth, with guns and potentially shorter range missiles becoming dead weight from the need for longer range missiles.

Bit strange that it doesn't speculate about potential needed power, and how that might also make a 3rd engine being a big positive

 

[sevrent]

Bit strange that it doesn't speculate about potential needed power, and how that might also make a 3rd engine being a big positive

Im not sure if you really need 3 engines for suitable power, for discussed 1MW~ power target, two should be plenty. Besides cooling all that power consumption will probably be the biggest bottleneck

 

[Alfa_Particle]

Those above requirements will necessitate a much larger aircraft, which in turn would require three engines without technological breakthroughs in designs of adaptive cycle engines and rotating detonation engines.

Just a little quip: RDEs on its own is not really a good idea for powering fighters. You'll have to at least pair a compressor with it and at that point, just integrate it as an ACE's combustor.

better supersonic maneuverability

Stealth will become more important with a focus on reduced control surfaces like going canardless and tailless, so having three engines could help the fighter design accomplish supersonic maneuverability through balancing engine output for each side.

Honestly, I really hope they go for concealable control surfaces that is flush with the aircraft's body during cruise and operate as demanded during high AoA maneuvers. You don't necessarily have to reduce too much of the control surfaces, you just need to hide them better. Nose strakes (as seen on the F-18 HARV), LEVCONs, pop-up canards and/or similar iterations, horizontal stabs that are hidden/flush (I remember reading a research paper on this some time ago), etc. There's a lot of ways to retain relatively high maneuverability.

P.S. nose strakes would be incredibly helpful IMO for 6th Gens specifically since they'll have to lose the vertical stabs, and nose strakes can massively improve yaw maneuverability.

 

[iBBz]

What if engineers designed a nozzle that can change the shape of the jet so that it is vertically high in order to provide directional stability and compensate for the loss of ruddervators? So basically a flat nozzle like the ones on the F-22, but rotated 90 degrees and can vector right and left, with the added feature ejecting a wider jet. I think a nozzle design like this would need to have vertical and horizontal controls that are independent of one another, so a little bit more complicated than any current nozzles. This would obviously cause losses in thrust due to the diagonal jet, but maybe solve the problem of stability? I don't know, just thought I'd spill some of that creative juice on this thread's floor.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

This journalist coworker of Yankee and Shilao published their article evaluating the rumours surrounding the upcoming sixth generation fighter and was obviously very insightful to read. If you do not want to read a machine translation of the full article by 席亚洲, I will summarize the main points discussed within briefly.

1st Main Point: The sixth generation fighters will need to have much greater combat range with increased loitering time, better supersonic maneuverability, and exceptional supercruise compared with the current generation.

2nd Main Point: Those above requirements will necessitate a much larger aircraft, which in turn would require three engines without technological breakthroughs in designs of adaptive cycle engines and rotating detonation engines.

3rd Main Point: Stealth will become more important with a focus on reduced control surfaces like going canardless and tailless, so having three engines could help the fighter design accomplish supersonic maneuverability through balancing engine output for each side.

4th Main Point: Longer beyond visual range combat will be the main focus as this sixth generation fighter will seek to gain combat initiative through higher speeds and better stealth, with guns and potentially shorter range missiles becoming dead weight from the need for longer range missiles.

Point 1,2 and 4 are describing a bomber, not a fighter. Point 3 fails to describe how the third engine sitting in the center, would help with maneuverability through output augmentation. A tri-engine plane like the one being discussed here would effectively be a VLO tactical bomber, which in my opinion is what next gen planes should be. The PLAAF should have enough J-20s to back these bad boys up by the time they go into production, if they ever do and if that really does end up being the real design scope.

Just a little quip: RDEs on its own is not really a good idea for powering fighters. You'll have to at least pair a compressor with it and at that point, just integrate it as an ACE's combustor.



Honestly, I really hope they go for concealable control surfaces that is flush with the aircraft's body during cruise and operate as demanded during high AoA maneuvers. You don't necessarily have to reduce too much of the control surfaces, you just need to hide them better. Nose strakes (as seen on the F-18 HARV), LEVCONs, pop-up canards and/or similar iterations, horizontal stabs that are hidden/flush (I remember reading a research paper on this some time ago), etc. There's a lot of ways to retain relatively high maneuverability.

P.S. nose strakes would be incredibly helpful IMO for 6th Gens specifically since they'll have to lose the vertical stabs, and nose strakes can massively improve yaw maneuverability.

It would likely be easier to design something like a YF-23 with ruddervators that can tilt down to become horizontal stabilizers, maybe even design it so the stabilizers completely overlap with the wing to become a flying wing while in the horizontal position. A design like that would be better suited for LO, because it eliminates the need for housings, slots, and doors.

Either way, I think these types of designs are too fantastical and fitting for movies and video games. Designs like these likely end up costing too much to procure in large enough numbers.

 

[AndrewS]

Point 1,2 and 4 are describing a bomber, not a fighter. Point 3 fails to describe how the third engine sitting in the center, would help with maneuverability through output augmentation.

With 2 engines, if you want maneuverability and to get rid of tailfin control surfaces, you have to use non-stealthy 3D TVC nozzles?

But with 3 engines, you can use stealthy 2D TVC nozzles to achieve the same level of maneuverability.

A tri-engine plane like the one being discussed here would effectively be a VLO tactical bomber, which in my opinion is what next gen planes should be. The PLAAF should have enough J-20s to back these bad boys up by the time they go into production, if they ever do and if that really does end up being the real design scope.

The J-20 doesn't have enough range to reach the 2IC.

 

[iBBz]

With 2 engines, if you want maneuverability and to get rid of tailfin control surfaces, you have to use non-stealthy 3D TVC nozzles?

But with 3 engines, you can use stealthy 2D TVC nozzles to achieve the same level of maneuverability.

I don't understand what you mean. It is possible to yaw and roll with only two engines and flat nozzles and no vertical stabs/ruddervators. I don't understand how a third engine would would impact maneuverability.

The J-20 doesn't have enough range to reach the 2IC.

They could extend the range with drop tanks, aerial refueling, meet them halfway, or just send these bombers alone and rely on other means of defense, such as their speed, VLO or very long range armament.

 

[constalation]

Hi, were the rumors of the flight from Chengdu verified true or were they false like the posted photos?
Hopefully, we get some news soon. I have been checking this thread everyday.

 

[ougoah]

Hi, were the rumors of the flight from Chengdu verified true or were they false like the posted photos?
Hopefully, we get some news soon. I have been checking this thread everyday.

Kinda like with the aliens, unless you see if in person, best to suspend your belief. In any case, this is all just prototype test flying. As far as we know, the competition for PLAAF's next generation fighter is ongoing. It'll be pretty sweet to see what CAC's prototype looks like but even though it's flying around in whatever testing ground, it's still something the authorities could decide they want to hide and we won't see if for years despite it flying around today or yesteryear.

The hypersonic glide vehicles were flying around for a long time before we saw one example - DF-17. We only heard of the projects and test flights from various Chinese and American sources. Didn't make those years between 2010 and 2019 mean they weren't zooming around in the skies somewhere above China. Same with the 6th gen prototypes. I would say it's only worth checking this thread for the discussion and the whole military watching hint dropping to establish which rumours and sources have repute for future reference.