J-HIND
PLA next/6th generation fighter thread
- Thread starter Blitzo
- Start date
That would just be too powerful and advanced! Gotta give USAF some chance.
We shouldn't be the ones coming up with stand-in name ideas -- if we want to help, we should be asking people like yankee to hurry up and choose a name for it so that we can adopt it.
I'd like to emphasize that my tweet which was posted here by someone else, was not intended to ask the English language community to come up with name ideas, I was observing that I hoped the Chinese language side would choose one for us.
By soliciting and coming up with suggestions, that is actively contrary and detrimental to what the intent of my tweet was meant to be, and it did not need to be crossposted here to begin with.
As for the purposes of this thread, further low effort posts about coming up with stand-in name ideas should stop. Further posts on this will be deleted.
I'd like to emphasize that my tweet which was posted here by someone else, was not intended to ask the English language community to come up with name ideas, I was observing that I hoped the Chinese language side would choose one for us.
By soliciting and coming up with suggestions, that is actively contrary and detrimental to what the intent of my tweet was meant to be, and it did not need to be crossposted here to begin with.
As for the purposes of this thread, further low effort posts about coming up with stand-in name ideas should stop. Further posts on this will be deleted.
Say, for China's 6th-gen fighters which are expected for introduction into active service in the 2030s - Would China:
#1. Retain the "high-low" mix for the 6th-gens fighters currently practiced for China's:
- 4th-gen fighters, with J-11/J-16 for the "high" and J-10 for the "low", plus
- 5th-gen fighters, with J-20 for the "high" and (if adopted for PLAAF use) J-31 for the "low"?
Based on this, the idea would be for one large-size and heavy-weight 6th-gen fighter to be solely operated by the PLAAF, alongside one medium-size and medium-weight 6th-gen fighter which would be operated by both the PLAAF and PLANAF (with at least two differing variants made according to branches);
Or
#2. Follow the US and discard the "high-low" mix for the 6th-gen fighters, where:
- Only one 6th-gen fighter that is exclusively designed for the PLAAF, plus
- Only one 6th-gen fighter that is exclusively designed for the PLANAF?
(Note that this post is about manned fighters only. Loyal wingman-type UCAVs are not included.)
#1. Retain the "high-low" mix for the 6th-gens fighters currently practiced for China's:
- 4th-gen fighters, with J-11/J-16 for the "high" and J-10 for the "low", plus
- 5th-gen fighters, with J-20 for the "high" and (if adopted for PLAAF use) J-31 for the "low"?
Based on this, the idea would be for one large-size and heavy-weight 6th-gen fighter to be solely operated by the PLAAF, alongside one medium-size and medium-weight 6th-gen fighter which would be operated by both the PLAAF and PLANAF (with at least two differing variants made according to branches);
Or
#2. Follow the US and discard the "high-low" mix for the 6th-gen fighters, where:
- Only one 6th-gen fighter that is exclusively designed for the PLAAF, plus
- Only one 6th-gen fighter that is exclusively designed for the PLANAF?
(Note that this post is about manned fighters only. Loyal wingman-type UCAVs are not included.)
We can't realistically guess at this stage. What you're asking for is too detailed in nature and too far out for us to try to predict. We could say right now that there are reasonable arguments for both options.
FWIW, my impression lately is that the PLAAF might be moving away from a classical "high-low" mix:
-J-20 production is reaching a high level (~100/year)
-J-16 production is stable, with specialist variants entering service (J-16D)
-J-10 production is winding down
My impression is that the PLAAF is moving toward a primarily long-ranged force, ideal for Western Pacific operations:
-With the J-20 as the primary platform to establish air superiority/dominance
-With the J-16 as a heavy "missile/bomb truck" and, in its J-16D variant, as the primary SEAD/DEAD platform
-And probably also with the J-11B as another heavy "missile truck", with all of them eventually getting the AESA upgrade
AFAIK we're down to just 10x J-10 combat brigades, most of them (7x) being deployed in relatively "safe" theaters (NTC and CTC). J-10 brigades are steadily converting to newer types, and soon enough I'd expect just 6x J-10C brigades (2nd, 25th, 34th, 72nd, 130th + whichever unit receives 131st's former J-10Cs) to remain.
FriedRiceNSpice
Captain
By the time the first J-10Cs begin reaching the end of their service lives, I'd expect air defense as well as CAS to be fully handled by UCAV platforms, hence reducing the necessity for a short/medium weight (and range) manned 6th gen platform. Whether a single or two 6th gen platforms emerge would depend on whether or not a carrier specific platform is pursued.
Note: For ease of typing, I will be using the notional designation 6DJ-XX to refer China's 6th-gen fighters (6DJ = 6代机).
Therefore, having a much larger combat radius compared to previous gens will become a mandatory requirement for not just the 6DJ-XXs, but also bombers and many other types of combat and non-combat manned and unmanned warplanes for the PLAAF and PLANAF.
I have always envisioned that all the roles typically played by medium-weight fighters in the past and today (i.e. J-10s and maybe J-31/35) will be taken over by high-level UCAVs with dimensions, weight, performance and combat capabilities that should at least rival, if not superceed that of the manned medium-weight fighters in the future. Most importantly, beyond the ability of being loyal wingmans to manned fighters in the PLAAF and PLANAF, they should also be capable of executing missions with very high degrees of autonomy and self-discretion, and even directing their own loyal wingman UCAVs in combat with minimal human intervention.
Perhaps the unmanned variant of the Su-75 or enlarged variants of the Dark Sword can fit the requirements well. Though, I do expect more on this domain.
Worthy of note - The Pentagon has just kickstarted the competition between Boeing, Lockheed Martin and Northrop Grumman for the F/A-XX, i.e. USN-exclusive 6th-gen fighter:
Hence, I believe that Shenyang should start allocating more focus to develop China's own carrier-based 6DJ-XX as well.
However, the number of carriers in the PLAN right now (and for pretty much the rest of the 2020s) may not justify devoting too much effort towards developing and introducing a carrier-based 6DJ-XX, as there is simply too few Chinese carriers available to enable cost-effective mass procurement of the 6DJ-XX for the PLAN. We may have to wait till the 2030s (which is when CVNs are expected to enter PLAN service in significant numbers) to witness serious developmental works on the carrier-based 6DJ-XX to appear.
Until then, China's land-based 6DJ-XX alone will have to shoulder the leading responsibility of going toe-to-toe against equivalent enemy forces e.g. NGAD, F/A-XX and (perhaps) GCAP in the IndoPac theater for quite some time.
Same thoughts. Both the Pacific and Himalayan frontiers require most of the PLAAF and PLANAF missions to be conducted at long or even expeditionary distances from home/friendly bases and allied support.
Therefore, having a much larger combat radius compared to previous gens will become a mandatory requirement for not just the 6DJ-XXs, but also bombers and many other types of combat and non-combat manned and unmanned warplanes for the PLAAF and PLANAF.
Totally agree.
I have always envisioned that all the roles typically played by medium-weight fighters in the past and today (i.e. J-10s and maybe J-31/35) will be taken over by high-level UCAVs with dimensions, weight, performance and combat capabilities that should at least rival, if not superceed that of the manned medium-weight fighters in the future. Most importantly, beyond the ability of being loyal wingmans to manned fighters in the PLAAF and PLANAF, they should also be capable of executing missions with very high degrees of autonomy and self-discretion, and even directing their own loyal wingman UCAVs in combat with minimal human intervention.
Perhaps the unmanned variant of the Su-75 or enlarged variants of the Dark Sword can fit the requirements well. Though, I do expect more on this domain.
Unless the PLAN suddenly wants to quit the carrier-based aviation domain, then a carrier-based 6DJ-XX is absolutely required by the PLAN.
Worthy of note - The Pentagon has just kickstarted the competition between Boeing, Lockheed Martin and Northrop Grumman for the F/A-XX, i.e. USN-exclusive 6th-gen fighter:
Hence, I believe that Shenyang should start allocating more focus to develop China's own carrier-based 6DJ-XX as well.
However, the number of carriers in the PLAN right now (and for pretty much the rest of the 2020s) may not justify devoting too much effort towards developing and introducing a carrier-based 6DJ-XX, as there is simply too few Chinese carriers available to enable cost-effective mass procurement of the 6DJ-XX for the PLAN. We may have to wait till the 2030s (which is when CVNs are expected to enter PLAN service in significant numbers) to witness serious developmental works on the carrier-based 6DJ-XX to appear.
Until then, China's land-based 6DJ-XX alone will have to shoulder the leading responsibility of going toe-to-toe against equivalent enemy forces e.g. NGAD, F/A-XX and (perhaps) GCAP in the IndoPac theater for quite some time.
Last edited:
but don't you think if Shenyang start 6DJ-XX project now. it will take minimum a decade to successfully launch prototype then production will take extra time.. by then PLAN will have minimum 3 to 4 CATAPULT capable carrier..
if PLAN is very serious about to compete with USN in next generation carrier based aircraft. then it is right time for Shenyang to start research and development phase.
lcloo
Captain
IMO, development of aircraft carrier and its air assets should begin at least 15 years ahead of its scheduled commissioning in navy service. Especially the development of aircraft.
Using the commonly accepted Chinese doctrine of "simulataneously producing current generation, doing R & D on next generation and doing fesibility study on the next-next generation concept", we could expect 6th gen fighter aircraft, including aircraft carrier based aircraft, are already in R & D phase for many years already as now that hundreds of J20 has been produced. And feasibility study on 7th gen concept should have already started.
Whether the 6th gen carrier based manned fighter jet will be adopted or not by the navy should not stop the development of such aircraft. The 6th gen jet may be designed to be switchable between manned and unmanned modes if the aircraft designers desire them to be.
We might possibly able to witness the maiden flight of 6th gen airforce and/or navy version fighter jet between 2026 to 2031, i.e. 15 to 20 years after J20's maiden flight. Although I think 2026 is a bit of too optimistic.
Using the commonly accepted Chinese doctrine of "simulataneously producing current generation, doing R & D on next generation and doing fesibility study on the next-next generation concept", we could expect 6th gen fighter aircraft, including aircraft carrier based aircraft, are already in R & D phase for many years already as now that hundreds of J20 has been produced. And feasibility study on 7th gen concept should have already started.
Whether the 6th gen carrier based manned fighter jet will be adopted or not by the navy should not stop the development of such aircraft. The 6th gen jet may be designed to be switchable between manned and unmanned modes if the aircraft designers desire them to be.
We might possibly able to witness the maiden flight of 6th gen airforce and/or navy version fighter jet between 2026 to 2031, i.e. 15 to 20 years after J20's maiden flight. Although I think 2026 is a bit of too optimistic.