PLA next/6th generation fighter thread

[tphuang]

Thanks for the translation.

TBH if Yankee is willing to put up his reputation on this in such a blatant way then this is as good as any other signal that we should be expecting J-XD in the near future, perhaps not dissimilar to this same time of year back in 2010 in the lead up to J-20’s reveal.

in fact, I will tell you now that the current level of rumor mill is basically the same as 14 years ago. And I followed all the rumor mills back in 2010.

All the rumors before J-20 and FC-31 flight by "big shrimps" turned out to be true. No reason to expect otherwise here.

Regardless, it will come out soon enough. We might see taxiing photos by December. A little more waiting won't kill anyone here.

Sorry, me again and even if I do not speak Chinese, can you point towards what timestamp they talk about the Sino-NGAD?

With a content being quite long and over an hour it would be nice to know, where to listen exactly!
Thanks in advance

I don't think you really need to listen to it. It's their typical rambling style. With your patented "sputnik moment" comment. There has been at least 3 times now that Yankee has talked about this.

Reminds me of back in the day when Pupu was releasing all this news.

They also talked about UCAVs for a bit that I need to listen over again. That actually seems more interesting.

 

[gelgoog]

Like I said before, the design bureau at Chengdu must be working on some sort of design. The J-20A is just a minor redesign. It should not require their entire R&D resources. Compare it with the design bureau at Shenyang which worked on both the J-15B and the J-31 in its two variants simultaneously.

The idea they would fly an unproven prototype at an airshow is too much. They wouldn't risk injuring people attending it. And the 6th generation is not likely to be an export fighter like the FC-31 either.

 

[Blitzo]

The idea they would fly an unproven prototype at an airshow is too much. They wouldn't risk injuring people attending it. And the 6th generation is not likely to be an export fighter like the FC-31 either.

I don't think anyone seriously is entertaining the idea of J-XD appearing at the air show.


That can be immediately dismissed out of hand and even the mere suggestion of it is silly.

in fact, I will tell you now that the current level of rumor mill is basically the same as 14 years ago. And I followed all the rumor mills back in 2010.

All the rumors before J-20 and FC-31 flight by "big shrimps" turned out to be true. No reason to expect otherwise here.

Regardless, it will come out soon enough. We might see taxiing photos by December. A little more waiting won't kill anyone here.

It does feel very similar to me as well, perhaps albeit with one difference being that with the lead up to J-20, there was seemingly a consensus on what kind of configuration it would have by this point (canard delta heavy, twin engines, with even knowing the intended engine would be named WS-15), whereas we are a little bit more in the dark this time around.

But yes the parallels are very significant.

 

[siegecrossbow]

It’s a dorito for sure.

 

[leibowitz]

I don't think anyone seriously is entertaining the idea of J-XD appearing at the air show.


That can be immediately dismissed out of hand and even the mere suggestion of it is silly.



It does feel very similar to me as well, perhaps albeit with one difference being that with the lead up to J-20, there was seemingly a consensus on what kind of configuration it would have by this point (canard delta heavy, twin engines, with even knowing the intended engine would be named WS-15), whereas we are a little bit more in the dark this time around.

But yes the parallels are very significant.

I concur. The airshow fantasy is unlikely to occur. That being said, Rick, I was wondering if you would be down for a friendly bet if a J-XD test flight did happen in Zhuhai. Perhaps shaving your head, or imbibing a beverage of the forum's choice?

 

[Blitzo]

I concur. The airshow fantasy is unlikely to occur.

It's worse than a fantasy -- the idea is just utterly nonsensical.
It's like in 2010 expecting the first J-20 prototype s/n 2001 to appear at Zhuhai that year.

That being said, Rick, I was wondering if you would be down for a friendly bet if a J-XD test flight did happen in Zhuhai. Perhaps shaving your head, or imbibing a beverage of the forum's choice?

I'm not a betting person.
Tbh I don't even want to dignify the idea by talking about of J-XD appearing at Zhuhai, or even joking about it. There are some ideas which just aren't worthy to be typed out.

 

[tphuang]

I don't think anyone seriously is entertaining the idea of J-XD appearing at the air show.


That can be immediately dismissed out of hand and even the mere suggestion of it is silly.



It does feel very similar to me as well, perhaps albeit with one difference being that with the lead up to J-20, there was seemingly a consensus on what kind of configuration it would have by this point (canard delta heavy, twin engines, with even knowing the intended engine would be named WS-15), whereas we are a little bit more in the dark this time around.

But yes the parallels are very significant.

although, I do distinctly remember certain mods at the time pranking @Deino while he was on vacation.

the big question last time was also engines. People were arguing long and hard about what engine was used here. So I guess nothing has changed in PLA land.

 

[ACuriousPLAFan]

Aside from the manned fighter jet itself, the loyal wingman portion will be just as interesting. How does UCAVs keep up in speed and altitude with manned fighter? What does it look like?

Just my two cents here.

Speaking strictly of loyal wingman-type UCAVs (Sino-CCA from now on) - It depends on what the PLAAF and PLAN mainly wants from their Sino-CCAs, and how these Sino-CCAs are expected to work alongside their manned counterparts (not just Sino-NGAD, but also J-20, J-35, J-16, and maybe even H-6 and H-20).

IMHO, there can be two major, rough defining features to categorize such CCAs - Speed and Range.

(Of course, there are more features and functionalities that goes into such attempts of categorizing such CCAs, but I picked these two as they are generally easier to talk about.)

For purely subsonic-capable CCAs, it would be reasonable to envision/expect them to prioritize range and (particularly) payload capacity. In this regard, I do see such CCAs manifest in the form of flying wing-type CCAs (e.g. GJ-11, CH-7), as they will be having generally more fuel efficient engine (i.e. less fuel-hungry) and airframe designs (i.e. greater lift characteristics). In this regard, the manned component would be piloting them for anti-ship or land-attack strike missions, since speed isn't as much of a crucial demand.

Meanwhile, for dual subsonic-supersonic-capable CCAs, it would be reasonable to envision/expect them to prioritize higher speeds and agility, as they are expected to fight against aerial enemy forces alongside manned components that would be piloting them, plus serving as radar picket, communication relay, target illumination and missile guidance. In this regard, I do see such CCAs manifest in the forms of conventional layout-type UAVs (e.g. MQ-28, FH-97A) if not those that prioritize higher speeds (e.g. Sharp Sword). Of course, range will be a greater concern for them owing to their smaller airframes (i.e. smaller fuel storage capacity) and supersonic-capable engines (i.e. fuel-hungry-ier), but having these CCAs serviced by aerial refueling UAVs (akin to the MQ-25) should alleviate such problems.

That is to say - I envision and expect the PLAAF and PLAN to procure both categories of Sino-CCAs.

 

[Blitzo]

Just my two cents here.

Speaking strictly of loyal wingman-type UCAVs (Sino-CCA from now on) - It depends on what the PLAAF and PLAN mainly wants from their Sino-CCAs, and how these Sino-CCAs are expected to work alongside their manned counterparts (not just Sino-NGAD, but also J-20, J-35, J-16, and maybe even H-6 and H-20).

IMHO, there can be two major, rough defining features to categorize such CCAs - Speed and Range.

(Of course, there are more features and functionalities that goes into such attempts of categorizing such CCAs, but I picked these two as they are generally easier to talk about.)

For purely subsonic-capable CCAs, it would be reasonable to envision/expect them to prioritize range and (particularly) payload capacity. In this regard, I do see such CCAs manifest in the form of flying wing-type CCAs (e.g. GJ-11, CH-7), as they will be having generally more fuel efficient engine (i.e. less fuel-hungry) and airframe designs (i.e. greater lift characteristics). In this regard, the manned component would be piloting them for anti-ship or land-attack strike missions, since speed isn't as much of a crucial demand.

Meanwhile, for dual subsonic-supersonic-capable CCAs, it would be reasonable to envision/expect them to prioritize higher speeds and agility, as they are expected to fight against aerial enemy forces alongside manned components that would be piloting them, plus serving as radar picket, communication relay, target illumination and missile guidance. In this regard, I do see such CCAs manifest in the forms of conventional layout-type UAVs (e.g. MQ-28, FH-97A) if not those that prioritize higher speeds (e.g. Sharp Sword). Of course, range will be a greater concern for them owing to their smaller airframes (i.e. smaller fuel storage capacity) and supersonic-capable engines (i.e. fuel-hungry-ier), but having these CCAs serviced by aerial refueling UAVs (akin to the MQ-25) should alleviate such problems.

That is to say - I envision and expect the PLAAF and PLAN to procure both categories of Sino-CCAs.

Just a throw-away comment about nomenclature:

I think calling them as "Sino-CCAs" is not a great idea.
CCAs are a name for a type of aircraft (typically UCAVs that operate closely with manned aircraft, in the past called "loyal wingman" UCAVs).

"Sino-CCA" would be the equivalent of calling their carriers as "Sino-CVs" or J-20/J-XX as "Sino-ATF".
Imo it is better just to call them "CCAs".
There isn't a need to flag them as "Sino" because it just ends up "othering" the PLA's own projects as if they must exist in relation to a foreign equivalent.

It's also for that reason I'm not particularly a fan of calling their 6th gen project as "Sino NGAD". That isn't to say one has to use the J-XD label, but even calling it the "PLA next gen fighter" or something is probably better because it's using more generic terms.

Not a huge issue, but seeing as these discussions are likely to continue into the future as these projects mature I think it's a good time to consider the nomenclature.

....


As for the question of what the PLA's future CCAs will look like -- imo they will look similar to what other well funded and large air forces will procure, which is to say there will be a wide variety of lower end and higher end types with widely differing sensor and weapons fits and sizes/weights, and ranges and varied in attritibility.

I wouldn't be surprised if there is more than only two broad categories. In fact, in the long term I expect there will be more than two categories.

 

[iewgnem]

Yankee & Co. in their

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

on Bilibili have some interesting information regarding the (manned fighter component of) Sino-NGAD.

(My own comments are in italic.)

Some key points include:
- Revelation/first flight possible within the next couple 10s of days (几十天内/后);
- System-versus-system combat (e.g. MUMT collaboration, family of systems) will be the absolute defining nature, not unit-vs-unit and platform-vs-platform combat anymore;
- Dimension (and thus, internal space) will be greater than 5th-gen fighters;
- Range (and combat radius) will be greater than 5th-gen fighters;
- High speed at high altitude operations will be important;
- Having larger weapons bay for larger/longer-range AAMs;
- Side weapons bays and SRAAMs (e.g. PL-10, AIM-9X) will become increasingly redundant, as the probability and viability for fighters to get within the range of use of the SRAAMs will become much lower (and that SRAAMs will become more of a deadweight onboard than being actually useful);
- Possibly having some kind of active protection system onboard (such as for shooting down enemy AAMs).

Yankee & Co. also mentioned that the Sino-NGAD can be described as:
- "If there is a parallel timeline where no 5th-gen fighters of our timeline (F-22, F-35, J-20, J-35 etc) exists, then the J-16 (and J-15B) will be the 5th-gen fighters instead."
- "This will be the first time where the US will be negated the long-held advantage of being constantly one generation ahead of their peers/competitors since the Korean War (i.e. "How nice of you to have Su-27s in production/entered service for several years now. Would be a shame if our (Y)F-22 just had its first flight.)."
- "How the Americans will react to the Sino-NGAD could be similar to how the Soviets reacted to the existence of the USN's F-14 during the mid-Cold War (i.e. the Soviets initially believed that the newly-introduced F-14 is just another F-111B.)."

---

By this point, it is reasonable to believe that the manned fighter component of the Sino-NGAD will become some kind of J-20/J-35 Pro Max Plus Ultra, with the main objective of surpassing every parameter of the current 5th-gen fighters. Namely, China's (manned component of) 6th-gens will be more of evolutionary progress from 5th-gens, rather than how 5th-gens are revolutionary progress from 4th-gens.

---

In the meantime, they also mentioned that the J-10CE has earned three more foreign orders (not including Pakistan). We already know Egypt is a potential customer, but which two other countries?

Obviously its technically a rumour and not an exhaustive description at that, but I find it very interesting that stealth was not mentioned as a next gen attribute, and SRAAMs were described as redundant, especially considering American NGAD, before the indefinite pause, placed improved stealth as one of if not the top priority.

Given that all Chinese NGAD papers had tailless designs, I think it's safe to say China's 6th gen will be some kind of tailless or folding tailless stealth design, or at least can be if they wanted to given GJ-11 is tailless.

So to not name improved stealth as next gen attribute, and more importantly descrbing SRAAM as redundant, when NGAD placed stealth at the top and US is fielding F-35, means China is confident, at very minimum on 6th gen, that it can detect and shoot down NGAD and F-35 at long range, which in turn means China has detection technology that makes stealth far less powerful than it used to be, and as such also deprioritized improving stealth on 6th gen designs.