PLA next/6th generation fighter thread

Gloire_bb

Gloire_bb

Captain
Registered Member
bsdnf said:
Frankly speaking, Europe is one generation behind. Eurocanard are all 4.5 generation aircraft after all. Britain and Italy are indeed involved in the F-35 project, but it is difficult to develop a 5 gen aircraft without the Americans, let alone 6 gen. And France and Germany cooperation, which actually mainly rely on France. In my opinion, Europe can only catch up with China and the United States if it cooperates as a whole, rather than splitting into two separate projects.
Click to expand...
Europe built what they were building, getting their aircraft in 1990s(Sweden)-2000s(France and EF club) from a set of programs dating back to early 1980s. During the development, at least two(not sure about gripen) considered stealth redesign, but there was just enough will to finish what's being already done. Nothing more.

Note, that technically it's totally possible to produce a stealth aircraft on eurofighter/rafale tech base, but this opportunity couldn't be used. Problem with gen 4.5s was the same as problem with gen 3s 30 years before(coming about together with f-14/15/16)- they were conceptually behind, not technologically.

Most of Europe already happily buys f-35, which is literally the last thing their defense(i.e. actual need) may ever require. Offense several borders away in a larger pack of dogs(preferably behind us, since they don't have will to buy armament stocks either) - sure, that's what they do.

Among 'European' nations, only Russia had this will(and btw this is why I use will and not money - look who's the richest boy in the club) to scrub its 'eurocanard' and instead go from scratch.

Western Europe doesn't have this will to design aircraft in half generations, so new one could only come after the previous one ends its useful life. It isn't the same as they were technically unable to produce it - European know-how in general is world level. But will... it's hard to justify even what they do when realistically European nations feel no threat.

Russia is very very horrible, but last time Russian troops were in western Europe was in 1814. Delivering speeches about threat is one thing, believing in them is another.
 
Last edited:
Gloire_bb

Gloire_bb

Captain
Registered Member
By the way, since I've already remembered that failed canard(1.42).

That thing was in 45t mtow class, with nearly 360 kn AB thrust - which isn't all that far from 3xWS-10C.
Twice the weight of eurocanards.

With that weight and size, it was meant to be among the most maneuverable aircraft out there, across the whole spectrum of speeds (way more ambitious than eurofighter/rafale).

So I wouldn't prematurely write off J-XX BCM capability just because we expect it to be big. Flankers were huge when they first appeared, yet they set standards for agility in fighter world.
 
A

AndrewS

Brigadier
Registered Member
Gloire_bb said:
By the way, since I've already remembered that failed canard(1.42).

That thing was in 45t mtow class, with nearly 360 kn AB thrust - which isn't all that far from 3xWS-10C.
Twice the weight of eurocanards.

With that weight and size, it was meant to be among the most maneuverable aircraft out there, across the whole spectrum of speeds (way more ambitious than eurofighter/rafale).

So I wouldn't prematurely write off J-XX BCM capability just because we expect it to be big. Flankers were huge when they first appeared, yet they set standards for agility in fighter world.
Click to expand...

Whilst they may be using WS-10 now, I'd expect them to switch to the WS-15 during development, and for them to be designing the airframe with this in mind.

So in the first production aircraft, we'd be looking at 480+ kN from 3 engines

Then a future version would have adaptive engines
 
TK3600

TK3600

Major
Registered Member
Gloire_bb said:
Giving assurances on something we don't know is premature.

US block on f-22 was unusual, based on a rather misguided - as it appeared - assessment of own position in the world, and backfired badly enough.
And that's despite f-22 being truly half a circle away from others.

Moreover, that decision effectively doomed both the platform and the unique tech advantage with it.

Is j-xx such a platform far away from others? Is it really that far away from, say, j-35?
Frankly, we don't know yet. Size isn't generational thing.
Click to expand...
China is not known to share advanced weapon to others during development, so that is easy one to scratch off.

Europeans has neither need nor money to acquire 6th generation aircraft. Nor do they have much technical expertise for assistance. US is the only country serious about 6th gen in western camp. It is of utmost important to lead 6th generation to not lose to Chinese 6th gen, which is an attitude not shared by other allies.

As for F-22 example, you imply it was an exception. It is the norm that US design aircrafts themselves, the F-35 is the true exception that it was from ground up meant for shared design.

The most likely scenario is US carry the development by itself, and sell the aircraft as they see fit. They will likely keep most to themselves, because they have a huge need for replacement and to match with China.
 
Gloire_bb

Gloire_bb

Captain
Registered Member
TK3600 said:
Europeans has neither need nor money to acquire 6th generation aircraft. Nor do they have much technical expertise for assistance. US is the only country serious about 6th gen in western camp. It is of utmost important to lead 6th generation to not lose to Chinese 6th gen, which is an attitude not shared by other allies.
Click to expand...
Kind reminder that Europe has at least two such programs, and at least GCA demonstrator seems to be rather close to reality(couple of years).

They most certainly do have expertise, money, and will.

If anything, it's USAF who's NGAD efforts hit the financial wall and are at least postponed.

Also, even the small Sweden, which already surely couldn't pull it off last two times, is at consider doing it again.
It's will. Small, affordable 6th gen is still 6th gen.
TK3600 said:
The most likely scenario is US carry the development by itself, and sell the aircraft as they see fit. They will likely keep most to themselves, because they have a huge need for replacement and to match with China.
Click to expand...
It seemed to be this way with original USAF NGAD (much less so Navy one, by the way, which is now closer to reality).
With current NGAD thinking (affordable mass fighter), I'd be rather surprised US won't be selling it.
Like, if you need something inaffordable to change into affordable, and undermine your main golden goose (f-35) by directly challenging it with newer, more advanced product - you sell it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top