PLA next/6th generation fighter thread

[SinoSoldier]

The $1M question will be how closely the Chinese NGAD compares to the 2020 US NGAD prototype in terms of overall configuration, mission emphases, and employment of armament. I wonder if Chinese intelligence have managed to glean any information or specs against which the Chinese fighter could be referenced.

 

[antiterror13]

The $1M question will be how closely the Chinese NGAD compares to the 2020 US NGAD prototype in terms of overall configuration, mission emphases, and employment of armament. I wonder if Chinese intelligence have managed to glean any information or specs against which the Chinese fighter could be referenced.

Obviously both China and US intelligence agencies working hard to find out the secrets and specs of the other sides

 

[Blitzo]

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.

Having followed NGAD news for the last few years including back when it was known as PCA, I don't think it was particularly the case.

"Improved stealth" is one of those assumed givens which is just going to happen due to generational improvement, like "improved avionics".

To me, it kinda makes sense that those improved stealth, like improved avionics, are omitted. Instead it's more the physical characteristics/priorities of the aircraft and the conceptual way in which the aircraft is meant to operate, which is much more substantial and those are the things which are mentioned.

The $1M question will be how closely the Chinese NGAD compares to the 2020 US NGAD prototype in terms of overall configuration, mission emphases, and employment of armament. I wonder if Chinese intelligence have managed to glean any information or specs against which the Chinese fighter could be referenced.

That's not a very useful question for us considering we don't know anything about the 2020 NGAD "prototype", not even a simple question like how representative it would be for an intended for production aircraft, let alone what it's configuration or mission or armament are.

Those questions are made even less important when we don't even know if the 2020 NGAD "prototype" would have been representative to the NGAD program if they continued with their development prior to the current reassessment going on, and if the current reassessment will result in a different set of requirements for their program afterwards then the 2020 NGAD "prototype" may be even less relevant again.


At this stage, the relevance of J-XD emerging to the past US NGAD effort and whatever demonstrators or "prototypes" they've flown is probably not that great, and it's better to assess J-XD's emergence relative to the PLA's own program goals and timeline.

Once we know what the heck NGAD is going to look like after the reassessment, then some kind of comparison can be done afterwards, but right now we are in a situation where we know little to nothing concrete about both J-XD or NGAD.
Comparing one unknown quantity with another unknown quantity is just ridiculous.

 

[iewgnem]

Having followed NGAD news for the last few years including back when it was known as PCA, I don't think it was particularly the case.

"Improved stealth" is one of those assumed givens which is just going to happen due to generational improvement, like "improved avionics".

To me, it kinda makes sense that those improved stealth, like improved avionics, are omitted. Instead it's more the physical characteristics/priorities of the aircraft and the conceptual way in which the aircraft is meant to operate, which is much more substantial and those are the things which are mentioned.

It's subjective what priority improved stealth had in US NGAD program, but even at the visual level it's obvious that all concepts featured tailless designs, and the original name Penetrating Counter-Air implied stealth, so improved stealth over 5th gen was objectively one of the core definition for America's 6th gen program.

Stealth not being mentioned in the podcast for China's 6th gen also isn't in itself the most interesting, it could simply be implied, and it's a rumour podcast after all. But the deprioritization of SRAAM is actually more interesting, because when the US first started NGAD studies 10 years ago their threat model for 2030 did not include J-20 numbers between 500 to 1000, and they certainly did not expect to face China's 6th gen. China's program on the other hand has achieving air dominance against F-35 as the baseline, and also have full knowledge of US NGAD program, including it's stealth attributes.

So when US deprioritizs short range missiles, they're doing so under the expectation that they'd be facing non-stealth or weakly stealthy targets, but when China does so, it implies expectation of long range engagements against 5th gen and 6th gen stealth targets. This in itself implies a level of detection technology that isn't obvious.

 

[Blitzo]

It's subjective what priority improved stealth had in US NGAD program, but even at the visual level it's obvious that all concepts featured tailless designs, and the original name Penetrating Counter-Air implied stealth, so improved stealth over 5th gen was objectively one of the core definition for America's 6th gen program.

That is exactly what I mean by "improved stealth" should be one of the "assumed givens".
Obviously all next generation fighter concepts shown generically (whether they're NGAD speculation from aerospace manufacturers, or FCAS and GCAP concepts shown by their developers) are more stealthy than 5th generation aircraft, and sometimes they might mention improved stealth relative to 5th gen in passing.

But it's not a particularly important aspect to point out.

I suspect if you asked the likes of Yankee and so on whether J-XD will have "improved stealth" relative to 5th generation fighters, the answer will be "why does that even need to be asked".

Stealth not being mentioned in the podcast for China's 6th gen also isn't in itself the most interesting, it could simply be implied, and it's a rumour podcast after all. But the deprioritization of SRAAM is actually more interesting, because when the US first started NGAD studies 10 years ago their threat model for 2030 did not include J-20 numbers between 500 to 1000, and they certainly did not expect to face China's 6th gen. China's program on the other hand has achieving air dominance against F-35 as the baseline, and also have full knowledge of US NGAD program, including it's stealth attributes.

So when US deprioritizs short range missiles, they're doing so under the expectation that they'd be facing non-stealth or weakly stealthy targets, but when China does so, it implies expectation of long range engagements against 5th gen and 6th gen stealth targets. This in itself implies a level of detection technology that isn't obvious.

I don't think the deprioritization of SRAAMs are particularly interesting, it makes sense to do regardless of whether one's opfor will have a large or small number of stealth fighters.

The natural course of air to air engagement will be to emphasize weapons at greater distances, ideally as practically and economically far from the enemy as possible, in a state where their situational awareness is minimized and your information dominance is maximized.

I do agree that the USAF's revised NGAD effort probably has a lot to do with realizing what the PLAAF's air superiority capability will look like in 2030 and beyond, but SRAAM "prioritization" is not particularly worth noting because that was always likely going to happen anyway.

Why would anyone choose to engage at WVR distances when BVR is better in every way, especially if the technology is there to enable reliable BVR engagements?

I'm also not sure what you mean by "China's program on the other hand has achieving air dominance against F-35 as the baseline". It's better to avoid that kind of colouful phrasing in general.

 

[ACuriousPLAFan]

It's subjective what priority improved stealth had in US NGAD program, but even at the visual level it's obvious that all concepts featured tailless designs, and the original name Penetrating Counter-Air implied stealth, so improved stealth over 5th gen was objectively one of the core definition for America's 6th gen program.

Stealth not being mentioned in the podcast for China's 6th gen also isn't in itself the most interesting, it could simply be implied, and it's a rumour podcast after all. But the deprioritization of SRAAM is actually more interesting, because when the US first started NGAD studies 10 years ago their threat model for 2030 did not include J-20 numbers between 500 to 1000, and they certainly did not expect to face China's 6th gen. China's program on the other hand has achieving air dominance against F-35 as the baseline, and also have full knowledge of US NGAD program, including it's stealth attributes.

So when US deprioritizs short range missiles, they're doing so under the expectation that they'd be facing non-stealth or weakly stealthy targets, but when China does so, it implies expectation of long range engagements against 5th gen and 6th gen stealth targets. This in itself implies a level of detection technology that isn't obvious.

Just to add-on to @Blitzo's comment:

By this point, the J-XD having noticeably better (if not near all-aspect) stealth characteristics than the preceding J-20 and J-35 should've been assumed to be the actual case by default. The only viable discussion on this aspect is "by how much".

Regarding the deprioritization of side weapons bays and SRAAMs - Yankee & Co. in the podcast explained that the presence of SRAAMs (e.g. PL-10, AIM-9X, R-74M etc) on heavy-weight 5th-gens (J-20, F-22, Su-57) are initially with the purpose of self-defense (保命), such that these SRAAMs would be useful in case the 5th-gen fighters enter WVR combat against the enemy fighters. That is to say, the main methodology of aerial combat for 5th-gen fighters are always BVR (namely, shooting down/sniping enemy aerial targets from medium-to-long distances before the enemy manages to discover and target-lock those 5th-gen fighters).

However, through lots of exercises and studies, the PLAAF, USAF (and perhaps the RuAF) which operated these 5th-gen fighters soon came to similar conclusions that the probability of their 5th-gen fighters stumbling into WVR combat are getting lower than before. Friendly fighters either get to kill bogeys at longer distances, or be killed at longer distances. This means that the SRAAMs gradually become more of a deadweight than being useful as a self-defense measure.

In the podcast, Yankee & Co. mentioned that active protection system (whether DEW or micro-AAMs), which are currently being studied by countries that are developing their respective manned 6th-gen fighters, can be largely seen as a succeeding evolution (进化) from the SRAAMs. Said system are expected to, for instance, shoot down enemy AAMs that are targeting the carrier aircraft or nearby friendly aircrafts, instead of being used in dogfights against enemy fighters.

 

[vincent]

That's not a very useful question for us considering we don't know anything about the 2020 NGAD "prototype", not even a simple question like how representative it would be for an intended for production aircraft, let alone what it's configuration or mission or armament are.

Those questions are made even less important when we don't even know if the 2020 NGAD "prototype" would have been representative to the NGAD program if they continued with their development prior to the current reassessment going on, and if the current reassessment will result in a different set of requirements for their program afterwards then the 2020 NGAD "prototype" may be even less relevant again.


At this stage, the relevance of J-XD emerging to the past US NGAD effort and whatever demonstrators or "prototypes" they've flown is probably not that great, and it's better to assess J-XD's emergence relative to the PLA's own program goals and timeline.

Once we know what the heck NGAD is going to look like after the reassessment, then some kind of comparison can be done afterwards, but right now we are in a situation where we know little to nothing concrete about both J-XD or NGAD.
Comparing one unknown quantity with another unknown quantity is just ridiculous.

He was implying Chinese is gonna “copy” NGAD

 

[Blitzo]

He was implying Chinese is gonna “copy” NGAD

I'm trying to be generous and assume that he's just being myopic in his thinking.

Either way, I expect him to get the message.

===

Regarding the point defense/APS, I am somewhat reminded of this from a year or two ago

 

[Index]

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.

I think so as well. It only adds bizarre confusion to misname the J-XY as "Sino-NGAD". Respectfully the NGAD being it's own plane has nothing to do with J-XY...

Its like calling ATF program "US-PAK FA".

Anyways if it gets some anti-BVR missile defense capability, it could be what makes China define it as game changing 6th gen instead of incremental 5th gen improvement.

 

[Blitzo]

I think so as well. It only adds bizarre confusion to misname the J-XY as "Sino-NGAD". Respectfully the NGAD being it's own plane has nothing to do with J-XY...

Its like calling ATF program "US-PAK FA".

Lol, to add to the confusion a little -- "J-XY" isn't a name which has been used for the PLA next gen/6th gen manned fighter.

J-XY is a name which has been occasionally thrown around in the past for J-35 prior to its name seemingly being confirmed.


The name for the PLA next gen/6th gen manned fighter which has been used for a bit (or at least, one which I use) is "J-XD".

Anyways if it gets some anti-BVR missile defense capability, it could be what makes China define it as game changing 6th gen instead of incremental 5th gen improvement.

TBH I would consider such a system to be relatively minor. Such a system would be more of a last ditch self defense weapon as part of the aircraft's self defense/countermeasures suite (think of it as a hit to kill version of chaff and flares). There's also no reason why 5th generation fighters couldn't necessarily be fitted with such a system either, depending on the space and cooling it requires.


IMO it will probably be better to view the "6th generation" of fighters as being greater than the sum of its parts.
What I mean, is if you take the below factors individually, they all seem one to one as relatively minor:
- Greater range
- Greater internal volume, weapons bay size
- Emphasis on system of systems/MUMT subsystems
- More potent networking, sensors and avionics with power generation and cooling for it and for future upgrades
- New propulsion system (such as VCEs)
- Improved self defense suite (including possibly hard kill self defense suite)
- Improved stealth

If you give a 5th generation fighter one or two of those factors then one might just consider to be an "improved 5th generation" aircraft, but instead, perhaps what you need is for all of those factors to be present together to better characterize a 6th generation aircraft.