PLA next/6th generation fighter thread

[AndrewS]

Well the "fulls scale" tech demonstrator for the US NGAD is also very much unclear what its characteristics and maturity are, so I would treat that with some caution especially in keeping with recent USAF statements about re-evaluating what they actually want with the NGAD platform.

Previous public comments from the DOD indicated a range of 1500-1800 nautical miles (3000km) for the USAF manned NGAD
That was acknowledgment that US airbases closer to China (on the 1IC) are simply too vulnerable.

So that meant Guam and possibly the Southern Philippines as operating locations, but there are only a handful of possible bases there.

But the Southern Philippines (at 2000km from the Chinese mainland and 1000km from the trio of China SCS island bases) is arguably too vulnerable to attack and blockade. For example, we now see low-cost Sunflower 200 (Shaheed-class) cruise missiles being marketed with a 2000km range.

For Guam we can see 100? DF-26 missiles per year for example.

And what happens when China fields its own NGAD with a 3000km range? There are now 50 Chinese airbases arrayed against the handful of bases in Guam and the Southern Philippines. So we're looking at Chinese air superiority over Guam, no matter how many manned NGADs the USAF buys.

You could even argue that today's J-20 fleet (when equipped with drop tanks) could operate against Guam.

---

So I see the delay to NGAD as the USAF belatedly acknowledging that even Guam is no longer a feasible operating location.

But the next available bases are a handful in Australia (4200km) and Wake (4600km). For aircraft to operate at these sorts of distances, it starts looking like a B-21 bomber? with tanker support. And those tankers will also be very vulnerable at their bases.

Arguably a USAF manned NGAD simply doesn't work, given the geography of the Western Pacific and South East Asia.
So might the USAF just go with a heavily modified variant of the existing B-21, focusing on air superiority?

---

From the Chinese perspective, a 3000km range NGAD still makes sense to develop and build.
1. It denies the US usage of Guam and the Philippines
2. Extends China's defensive perimeter deep into the Pacific and also to the Malacca Straits

And with airborne refueling, we could even see Chinese NGADs reach Australia and Wake.

 

[Blitzo]

Previous public comments from the DOD indicated a range of 1500-1800 nautical miles (3000km) for the USAF manned NGAD
That was acknowledgment that US airbases closer to China (on the 1IC) are simply too vulnerable.

So that meant Guam and possibly the Southern Philippines as operating locations, but there are only a handful of possible bases there.

But the Southern Philippines (at 2000km from the Chinese mainland and 1000km from the trio of China SCS island bases) is arguably too vulnerable to attack and blockade. For example, we now see low-cost Sunflower 200 (Shaheed-class) cruise missiles being marketed with a 2000km range.

For Guam we can see 100? DF-26 missiles per year for example.

And what happens when China fields its own NGAD with a 3000km range? There are now 50 Chinese airbases arrayed against the handful of bases in Guam and the Southern Philippines. So we're looking at Chinese air superiority over Guam, no matter how many manned NGADs the USAF buys.

You could even argue that today's J-20 fleet (when equipped with drop tanks) could operate against Guam.

---

So I see the delay to NGAD as the USAF belatedly acknowledging that even Guam is no longer a feasible operating location.

But the next available bases are a handful in Australia (4200km) and Wake (4600km). For aircraft to operate at these sorts of distances, it starts looking like a B-21 bomber? with tanker support. And those tankers will also be very vulnerable at their bases.

Arguably a USAF manned NGAD simply doesn't work, given the geography of the Western Pacific and South East Asia.
So might the USAF just go with a heavily modified variant of the existing B-21, focusing on air superiority?

---

From the Chinese perspective, a 3000km range NGAD still makes sense to develop and build.
1. It denies the US usage of Guam and the Philippines
2. Extends China's defensive perimeter deep into the Pacific and also to the Malacca Straits

And with airborne refueling, we could even see Chinese NGADs reach Australia and Wake.

I think you're thinking about this in too much depth at this time, and extrapolating a bit too much detail wrt US NGAD plans and issues and bringing in too many disparate other platforms.

It's safer and most correct to say that we can't exclude cost or capability or technology as reasons for the US desire to review and revise NGAD, but also that we can't pin it on a single factor.


IMO often "I don't know, and there's no reason to speculate further" is the best answer.