PLA next/6th generation fighter thread

[00CuriousObserver]

Whereas based on CAC history, once the first "demonstrator" flies, it's about 7 years from joining service. Surely, you must see the difference here. We've both followed Chinese military aviation for about 20 years now.

There is a difference this time around though. Historically China has always been the chaser. This time, China is in unknown or "unclear" territories. Directly applying the comparison here would have flaws.

 

[ACuriousPLAFan]

Who is r/moses_the_blue here?? How did the discussion get onto r/LCS??

https://www.reddit.com/r/LessCredibleDefence/comments/1h9c642

 

[CaribouTruth]

Who is r/moses_the_blue here?? How did the discussion get onto r/LCS??

https://www.reddit.com/r/LessCredibleDefence/comments/1h9c642

There's probably plenty of lurkers around sniffing for info to post like this.

 

[AndrewS]

Exactly: IF - and again I would prefer to wait for its unveiling - it is indeed a huge fighter due to its-range-, sensor- and weapons-load-requirements, then a third engine may make sense simply since no current Chinese engine is powerful enough to power such a "monster-fighter"! That is in no way a testimony that the engines it uses are not good, not modern or whatever ... it only is that no powerful-enough engine is available.

But again: I would prefer to wait for its unveiling and then start making conclusions on why what or what not and what to deduct from it.

We can use the B-2 as an example

It would be more fuel/weight efficient to use just 2 engines instead of 4 engines. But the production run was too small to justify the development of an entirely new class of larger engine.

So it was more cost effective to use 4 smaller existing engine designs.

---

The same logic was informing the H-20 design

 

[tphuang]

There is a difference this time around though. Historically China has always been the chaser. This time, China is in unknown or "unclear" territories. Directly applying the comparison here would have flaws.

doesn't matter. It still needs to go through same development progress. The only way it takes longer is if PLA tells CAC that it doesn't need to go full throat in development because

Agreed! And deep in my hear I see it exactly the same way ... however to celebrate I would like to wait until I see it indeed on my own!

PS: And yes, these two "YF or X type of aircraft that flew a couple of years ago" are indeed most likely not on par - program-status wise - as this XD-demonstrator, but we do not know what other types the US flew already.

Anyway, most interesting times ahead!

Indeed, let's wait and see what it looks like first. I'm quite curious about this 3 engine config, since that completely changes what I expect to see.

 

[AndrewS]

I think there may be a lot of viable complicated intake arrangements to support 3 engines. It's just since trijet hasn't been experimented much before we're not familiar with them. Remember this?
View attachment 140596
Instead of chin intake going to a single engine, you could have two side intakes going to side engines + a back mounted intake going to center engine.

I remember Yankee humorously referred to the split exhaust path of the front lift engine as "pants shaped exhaust manifold".

Remember that even a twin engine design will still require a new and complicated air intake system, because it has to switch between low-bypass and high-bypass airflow nodes.

 

[ZeEa5KPul]

An engine probably represents 2.5-3? tonnes of weight. But the advantage is additional thrust, presumably supercruise and a larger MTOW. And there's already an APU to restart engines anyway?

I mentioned that because the APU would probably need to be beefed up to restart an engine (or engines, if there's a mode to shut off the two lateral and operate only the centerline) in flight at high altitude vs. static at sea level.

 

[Red tsunami]

that the USAF already has similar "demonstrators" flying since years! They only did not unveil them to the public yet.

Can you confirm that China has not done anything similar? And if you can't be sure about the real progress of US, don't make such statement that seem like China's progress is slower.

 

[Deino]

Can you confirm that China has not done anything similar? And if you can't be sure about the real progress of US, don't make such statement that seem like China's progress is slower.

I would better ask you the same in return: Has China ever built and tested dedicated demonstrators - especially in recent years - only built to explore certain technologies and eventually to be developed later further into production types?

The USA undeniably did so not only once ... so instead of again smelling "there is someone, who wants to belittle China's progress & capabilities", ask yourself how likely it is in return, that China already had such prototypes?

At least from all I know following the Chinese aviation scene since years if not decades I'm not aware of any such types ... in contrast to already several US ones often unveiled to the public only years after they had their demonstration phase completed.

As such to claim and in fact expect that the USA already tested 1-2 demonstrators (X-types) including engine tests for advanced technology powerplants is MORE likely than to believe, China did the same not only for the first time too but it is now already more advanced than ...!

 

[Kich]

US is not behind in the 6th gen race. It might be ahead since it has flown some prototypes already.
It has slowed or paused to reevaluate things because the manned part of the 6th gen system planes are said to be too expensive per unit.

But if PLA unveils a flying 6th gen concept, then that will be the biggest Christmas gift to US MIC because Congress will throw lots of money at them to make sure US don't lose this race. They might just disregard the NGAD and F/A-XX price tag and push on.

This might be heading to a USSR type conclusion.