PLA next/6th generation fighter thread

[Blitzo]

It's unclear to me how far along China's "6th gen" program is, but it looks like both NGAD and F/A-XX are in trouble (or at least going to be delayed for a long time) due to budgetary constraints

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

So now, you have China kind of sitting pretty with J-20 program going pretty well and likely getting further updates after J-20A making it relevant until at least 2050.

I see that Rick got interviewed for

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

where Brendan Mulvaney, the director of the U.S. Air Force’s China Aerospace Studies Institute, seem to be having some real copium for the progress of China's 6th gen program (given where NGAD is going)

But still, the question is this. If USAF is going to have a delayed entrance for NGAD due to funding issues, where does that leave PLA? I'm not saying PLA does thing to just keep up with USAF. If USAF and USN are stuck with some combo of F-35A+F-15s and F-35Cs+F-18s until at least 2040 (with what looks to be minimal "6th gen" participation), it seems like the threat profile facing PLA is less than otherwise expected for Westpac scenario.

Do we have PLA that slows down "6th gen" and put greater focus on unmanned options?

I don't think US efforts towards next generation/6th gen projects (publicly stated or otherwise) should too significantly alter PLA requirements themselves. It is very reasonable to say that J-20 variants will continue to be relevant until mid-century, but I don't think that greatly changes the geostrategic pressures to develop at minimum competitive (if not dominant) counter air capabilities.

If the USAF is actually pulling back on NGAD a bit (i.e.: this isn't just public posturing), and if it isn't highly related to budget pressures in other areas (F-35, B-21, sentinel, others etc), then the question is more about what a "6th gen" counter air system looks like. It may well be that CCAs operating with generic large VLO aircraft may be the future -- for example, could B-21 fill the role of the "NGAD manned platform" in the interim even if it lacks the speed and maneuverability that NGAD may have and make up for it by range and endurance and sensor capability etc.


IMO the recent USAF statements don't change anything for us in the J-XD waiting room, personally.


Edit: I would also add that even if USAF NGAD doesn't enter service before 2040 (which is still a bit of a pessimistic take on the program), the USAF will not only be F-35s and new F-15s. It is likely that extensive CCAs will be in service and B-21 will be well in service by then and almost certainly have a counter air role either as a battle management/CCA controller, or possibly with its own organic air to air weapons.

That will still be a beer formidable force, and if I were the PLA I would be looking at not only a primary manned, large vlo fighter/platform for J-XD, but also multiple different types of CCAs, which I'm sure they are doing.

 

[tphuang]

I don't think US efforts towards next generation/6th gen projects (publicly stated or otherwise) should too significantly alter PLA requirements themselves. It is very reasonable to say that J-20 variants will continue to be relevant until mid-century, but I don't think that greatly changes the geostrategic pressures to develop at minimum competitive (if not dominant) counter air capabilities.

If the USAF is actually pulling back on NGAD a bit (i.e.: this isn't just public posturing), and if it isn't highly related to budget pressures in other areas (F-35, B-21, sentinel, others etc), then the question is more about what a "6th gen" counter air system looks like. It may well be that CCAs operating with generic large VLO aircraft may be the future -- for example, could B-21 fill the role of the "NGAD manned platform" in the interim even if it lacks the speed and maneuverability that NGAD may have and make up for it by range and endurance and sensor capability etc.


IMO the recent USAF statements don't change anything for us in the J-XD waiting room, personally.


Edit: I would also add that even if USAF NGAD doesn't enter service before 2040 (which is still a bit of a pessimistic take on the program),

Btw, I'm not saying it will take NGAD that long (I still think 2035 IOC is more likely), but more that new J-20 variant could be competitive with whatever US military would like to deploy in westpac, since NGAD wouldn't be fielded in large numbers or have achieved full combat capabilities

the USAF will not only be F-35s and new F-15s. It is likely that extensive CCAs will be in service and B-21 will be well in service by then and almost certainly have a counter air role either as a battle management/CCA controller, or possibly with its own organic air to air weapons.

That will still be a beer formidable force, and if I were the PLA I would be looking at not only a primary manned, large vlo fighter/platform for J-XD, but also multiple different types of CCAs, which I'm sure they are doing.

so on that last part. If you believe that B-21 + extensive CCAs + F-35s is what PLAAF will be facing and that's formidable force. I would agree with that part about being formidable. Then, that's a strong view of UCAV development over next 10 years. So assuming that China would have similar advancement in unmanned combat, the question goes back to whether or not you want to devote more resources in next 5 years toward ensuring J-20 is superior to F-35 block 4 + accelerating UCAV vs 6th gen.

 

[Blitzo]

Btw, I'm not saying it will take NGAD that long (I still think 2035 IOC is more likely), but more that new J-20 variant could be competitive with whatever US military would like to deploy in westpac, since NGAD wouldn't be fielded in large numbers or have achieved full combat capabilities

I think this comes to the question about what is "competitive" in context of expected US capabilities of the era, as well as whether "competitive" is enough for the PLA or if they want to be more than competitive.

so on that last part. If you believe that B-21 + extensive CCAs + F-35s is what PLAAF will be facing and that's formidable force. I would agree with that part about being formidable. Then, that's a strong view of UCAV development over next 10 years. So assuming that China would have similar advancement in unmanned combat, the question goes back to whether or not you want to devote more resources in next 5 years toward ensuring J-20 is superior to F-35 block 4 + accelerating UCAV vs 6th gen.

The question should be one of "why not both".

My view for the last few years is that upgraded J-20 variants and CCAs/loyal wingman UCAVs, and a next gen/6th gen manned fighter are all highly complementary to one another and all very desirable.

 

[tphuang]

I think this comes to the question about what is "competitive" in context of expected US capabilities of the era, as well as whether "competitive" is enough for the PLA or if they want to be more than competitive.





The question should be one of "why not both".

My view for the last few years is that upgraded J-20 variants and CCAs/loyal wingman UCAVs, and a next gen/6th gen manned fighter are all highly complementary to one another and all very desirable.

it could very well be why not both.

I only throw this question out there, because we are still very early on in the projects. If you are not in a rush, then you have the option to slow things down a little bit

IIRC, shilao podcast said that J-20S was delayed because they wanted to wait certain critical tech to be ready. so there is always that at play here. If they for example think they need to wait a couple of more years so that 6th gen can enter service with 6th gen aeroengine rather than an uprated WS-15, then they might choose to do that.

 

[Blitzo]

it could very well be why not both.

I only throw this question out there, because we are still very early on in the projects. If you are not in a rush, then you have the option to slow things down a little bit

IIRC, shilao podcast said that J-20S was delayed because they wanted to wait certain critical tech to be ready. so there is always that at play here. If they for example think they need to wait a couple of more years so that 6th gen can enter service with 6th gen aeroengine rather than an uprated WS-15, then they might choose to do that.

My view is a bit more concrete than that -- I think "why not both" isn't a matter of "could be/maybe" but rather it should be the default assumption and the null hypothesis we are working off. That is to say, we would need quite strong indicators to make us change the baseline working assumption that they are pursuing advanced J-20 variants as well as a 6th gen/next gen fighter (both in conjunction with CCAs).

We can speculate about the rationale of whether they may want to slow down development of J-XD a little bit or not, or to wait for certain technologies or subsystems to be ready, if the USAF is actually seriously intending to slow down NGAD a bit (again, assuming that what they're saying publicly is actually a reflection of their own internal planning), but we can just as easily and more logically speculate that it makes sense for the PLA to take the opportunity to close the gap even more (to overtake while around the corner, as has been said in the past on occasion). As we've also seen with J-20, pursuing early variants even with interim subsystems still helps the service learn and iterate and develop new TTPs earlier and faster.



For us, in the general public, I don't think the news of the USAF potentially looking at slowing down NGAD a bit should change our baseline working assumptions for J-XD until such a point that there are sufficient indicators from the grapevine to suggest it is actually happening.

Because any argument that "if NGAD is slowing down, PLA can afford to slow down" can just be countered by "if NGAD is slowing down, PLA should use the opportunity to overtake".

 

[siegecrossbow]

it could very well be why not both.

I only throw this question out there, because we are still very early on in the projects. If you are not in a rush, then you have the option to slow things down a little bit

IIRC, shilao podcast said that J-20S was delayed because they wanted to wait certain critical tech to be ready. so there is always that at play here. If they for example think they need to wait a couple of more years so that 6th gen can enter service with 6th gen aeroengine rather than an uprated WS-15, then they might choose to do that.

J-20S isn’t so much delayed as it is AVIC’s personal project in the sense that they can do what ever they want with it and has no hard deadlines.

 

[ACuriousPLAFan]

Speaking of:

where Brendan Mulvaney, the director of the U.S. Air Force’s China Aerospace Studies Institute, seem to be having some real copium for the progress of China's 6th gen program (given where NGAD is going)

Brendan actually said this:

“Today? No. Twenty years from now? Absolutely. And we’ve seen this time and time again. We’re getting better at not ... underestimating what the Chinese system is capable of when it sets its mind to it,” Mulvaney said.

"Twenty years from now" = friggin' 2044. And his follow-up sentence outright contradict what he just said.

Looks like someone needs to receive the Robert Gates Treatment as a dose of timely reminder.

 

[valysre]

“Today? No. Twenty years from now? Absolutely. And we’ve seen this time and time again. We’re getting better at not ... underestimating what the Chinese system is capable of when it sets its mind to it,” Mulvaney said.

I think American policymakers are still struggling to wrap their heads around the idea that China is now capable of throwing huge amounts of money at such projects, has the brains to man the projects, and has the industrial ability to use the results. All leading to a much faster delivery timeframe than the decades that they expect for any serious endeavor.
The China that many American policymakers and voters see in their head is that of Great Leap Forward-era China, a place where pots and pans are melted down to meet steel production quotas, rather than the modern technological giant it is.

 

[siegecrossbow]

I think American policymakers are still struggling to wrap their heads around the idea that China is now capable of throwing huge amounts of money at such projects, has the brains to man the projects, and has the industrial ability to use the results. All leading to a much faster delivery timeframe than the decades that they expect for any serious endeavor.
The China that many American policymakers and voters see in their head is that of Great Leap Forward-era China, a place where pots and pans are melted down to meet steel production quotas, rather than the modern technological giant it is.

American policy makers can’t warp their heads around the fact that their top aviation corporations are outsourcing critical titanium components to a country that replaces them with aluminum to save costs but I digress.

 

[rajkumar]

American policy makers can’t warp their heads around the fact that their top aviation corporations are outsourcing critical titanium components to a country that replaces them with aluminum to save costs but I digress.

Isn't that more about how Americans might buy titanium from an unknown seller offering 'cheap titanium' for profit? It's like they've never heard what mothers warn their school-going children about on the first day