For something as important and odd as having three engines, I'd say we can and should have some tighter standards imo
PLA next/6th generation fighter thread
- Thread starter Blitzo
- Start date
- Status
For something as important and odd as having three engines, I'd say we can and should have some tighter standards imo
I seriously struggle to think about how a three-engine fighter would work.
Even with the era of WVR combat being largely past us, and that BYR and VBVR combats will be the dominant mode of aerial warfare in the future - We're still taking about a fighter (J-XD) here, not a fighter bomber (JH-XX) or even a full-fledged bomber (H-20).
Even with the era of WVR combat being largely past us, and that BYR and VBVR combats will be the dominant mode of aerial warfare in the future - We're still taking about a fighter (J-XD) here, not a fighter bomber (JH-XX) or even a full-fledged bomber (H-20).
Last edited:
Where do you se a three-engine design? Am I blind??
Looking around they are now throwing around figures of just under 60t MTOW. Definitely not your typical fighter if that is true.
It’s talking about a setup with turbofans on either side and a pulse detonation engine in the middle. Hence 3 engines.
Well, let's assume that China's J-XDA is in fact fighter-bomber-sized or fighter-bomber mission-oriented - I still couldn't figure out how the placement of the third engine along the centerline wouldn't have significant detrimental impact on the internal spaces of the aircraft, especially as we're talking about the need for larger internal weapons bay (to fit larger-dimension AAMs and AGMs) and larger fuel tanks (for greater combat range).
And then, there's also the flight parameters and performance to consider.
Some ideas for why 3 engines
1) A very heavy and large aircraft, focused heavily on radar and sensors, electronic warfare. Carries very little munitions, or no munitions at all. Drones and 4/5th gen fighters do most of the actual dirty work. The 6th gen acts as a force multiplier electronic warfare platform and battlefield control, fitting considering how expensive they will be. 3 engines is not just for it's mass and size, but for electrical power too. Maybe even for DEWs.
2) A very heavy and large aircraft. Carries a lot of munitions. Main role is to get as close to the enemy as possible under stealth, dump dozens of missiles at point blank range and GTFO at hypersonic speeds. Hence the need for 3 engines.
1) A very heavy and large aircraft, focused heavily on radar and sensors, electronic warfare. Carries very little munitions, or no munitions at all. Drones and 4/5th gen fighters do most of the actual dirty work. The 6th gen acts as a force multiplier electronic warfare platform and battlefield control, fitting considering how expensive they will be. 3 engines is not just for it's mass and size, but for electrical power too. Maybe even for DEWs.
2) A very heavy and large aircraft. Carries a lot of munitions. Main role is to get as close to the enemy as possible under stealth, dump dozens of missiles at point blank range and GTFO at hypersonic speeds. Hence the need for 3 engines.
We don't need to speculate about why three engines may be plausible or beneficial -- imo the reasons are obvious.
The issue is more about why this couldn't be attained with two engines, and also whether the rumour base is sufficiently credible to seriously entertain the idea of three engines as a configuration to begin with. It is rare for a reason.
The issue is more about why this couldn't be attained with two engines, and also whether the rumour base is sufficiently credible to seriously entertain the idea of three engines as a configuration to begin with. It is rare for a reason.
- Status