PLA next/6th generation fighter thread

[ChineseToTheBone]

Jan 11th was an accident since they planned on flying earlier but ran into technical difficulties.

I had assumed its maiden flight was timed for matching up with the visit from Secretary of Defense Robert Gates.
In any case, this new fighter jet prototype having its maiden flight this year would be great.

 

[Blitzo]

Okay back on topic now. Further posts unrelated to the thread topic will be deleted.

 

[Interstellar]

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?

- Having greater dimension than 5th-gen fighters (though J-20's already one of the largest 5th-gen fighter while its engines are still under development);
- Having greater range than 5th-gen fighters;
- Having larger weapons bay;
- May not have side weapons bays or SRAAMs

Ever consider the possibility that this is something other than a fighter?

 

[Blitzo]

- Having greater dimension than 5th-gen fighters (though J-20's already one of the largest 5th-gen fighter while its engines are still under development);
- Having greater range than 5th-gen fighters;
- Having larger weapons bay;
- May not have side weapons bays or SRAAMs

Ever consider the possibility that this is something other than a fighter?

IMO a better question is whether the role of "fighter" will even remain relevant into the future.

Someone whose time with us here was too short, had in the past said perhaps a more appropriate term for certain types of aircraft including say, B-21, might be "large combat aircraft" rather than a "bomber" and I would not be entirely surprised if J-XD may also similarly dispense with the traditional role of a "fighter".

 

[Wrought]

IMO a better question is whether the role of "fighter" will even remain relevant into the future.

Someone whose time with us here was too short, had in the past said perhaps a more appropriate term for certain types of aircraft including say, B-21, might be "large combat aircraft" rather than a "bomber" and I would not be entirely surprised if J-XD may also similarly dispense with the traditional role of a "fighter".

The B-21 is subsonic though. Surely that's a very significant tradeoff to make for any aircraft expected to engage in any sort of air superiority engagement, especially in such a vast environment as the Pacific. With virtually no ability to evade, you're betting everything on stealth, countermeasures, friendly escorts, CCAs, and so on, all of which will be limited by the need to stay close.

I realize the future of air combat is all systems and networks, but babysitting a subsonic key node doesn't seem like the best way to approach it.

 

[Blitzo]

The B-21 is subsonic though. Surely that's a very significant tradeoff to make for any aircraft expected to engage in any sort of air superiority engagement, especially in such a vast environment as the Pacific. With virtually no ability to evade, you're betting everything on stealth, countermeasures, friendly escorts, CCAs, and so on, all of which will be limited by the need to stay close.

I realize the future of air combat is all systems and networks, but babysitting a subsonic key node doesn't seem like the best way to approach it.

Indeed, that is a significant difference (as well as the overall physical size of the B-21 even in keeping with how big J-XD might be).

My own thinking however is that whether an aircraft is subsonic only or supersonic capable (or even supercruise capable) may not be as important of a decisive factor in differentiating the key high yield realms of capability for future "air superiority platforms" and that may indeed include system of systems, networking, offboarding of capabilities, long range/endurance etc.


All that said, personally I think that the "fighter" term is still useful, but I think it's useful to consider that perhaps other domains of performance might be more important which leads us to consider new lenses of viewing traditional "fighter" and "bomber" aircraft.

 

[gelgoog]

Aircraft speed definitively makes a difference. Arguments that stealth makes speed irrelevant fall flat.

Speed reduces the time needed to both get to and come from the target, if you are fast you reduce the size of the no escape zone of enemy anti-air missiles, it is as simple as that. At the higher speeds, close to Mach 3, you become way harder to intercept. Try reading about US combat with the MiG-25 in Libya and Iraq.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!