Shenyang next gen combat aircraft thread

[Alfa_Particle]

This is how big the J-XS would have to be... if its internal bay was as large as the J-36's main internal bay:

View attachment 149960








This is how big the J-XS will be... if its internal bay was only as large as the J-20's main internal bay:

View attachment 149961




If we assume the J-XS is only as large as a J-20, then its internal bay is not going to be any larger than the J-20 internal bay. Expecting the J-XS to carry PL-17 is not realistic. In fact, I don't think the J-XS can even replace a J-15T. It will not be able to internally carry large missiles that are mounted externally on a J-15T.

Sure, let's ignore how the image of the J-36 was taken from an angle. Let's ignore my main point, which is how the rest of the IWB DOESN'T need to be as long, only the centre does.

By the way, the J-20's IWB hatches are noticeably longer than 4 metres (closer to 5). The IWB itself is shorter.

Think about this, if your scale is true, then the J-XD-S' engines (hypothesised to be WS-15s) are significantly shorter than the AL-31Fs. Then your scale falls apart because that's obviously not true.

And I forgot to mention, IIRC the yellow outline instead is the length of the J-20's IWB in the drawing as reference. The blue outline is longer. Your lines are wrong.

If we assume the J-XS is only as large as a J-20

Which is obviously not true now, is it? Previous imagery showed that it's as big as a Flanker.

Regardless of how detectable HVTs are by friendly AWACS, I think in many situations, most HVTs will not be placed at ranges to really threatened them. They might be kept 500 miles or more away from the front.

The big benefit of VL-AAM is that they will stretch the logistic and support lines for the opposing side. No one is going to be flying non-stealthy tanker 300 miles near potential enemy fighters.
And with more powerful transceivers modules being made, AWACS from all sides (with their giant flashlight sensor) will still remain far back behind the frontlines.

Range--away from the frontlines--will protect most HVTs, limiting the number of kills VL-AAMs might achieve. But I guess that alone is success for these missiles.

I don't want to derail this thread anymore.

Those are very ideal assumptions. A shame that real life isn't ideal.

 

[Kich]

Not going to reply anymore and start a back and forth since it will derail this thread and get shut by the mods.

 

[taxiya]

A flying paper tiger?
View attachment 149923

"Paper Tiger" is an intellectual property of China, we reserve the right to take legal actions against anyone using it without our permission.

 

[Gloire_bb]

The point is to have them there to shoot at the enemy when they are getting close. Never heard of how 5th gens fight? If your missiles don't hit, run away to fight another day. Same concept here but with a longer stick, more missiles and more options.

That's not how 5 gen fighters fight, that's how aircraft more valuable than the "3rd object" fight.

3rd object can be more valuable than fighters, and relative value of 5th gen fighters goes down as their numbers increase.

 

[CannedFish]

Sorry, I suppose I should have made a clearer distinction and made my point clearer. Or perhaps you took my comment standalone, instead of as a reply to Kich's comment:
[The point is if your CCAs are destroyed and the target/boogie is still flying and closing in, are you going to turn around and high-tail from the battle?
I hope not because then why would you even exist and carry MR-AAM and SR-AAM.]

That's not how 5 gen fighters fight, that's how aircraft more valuable than the "3rd object" fight.

3rd object can be more valuable than fighters, and relative value of 5th gen fighters goes down as their numbers increase.

Either way, I might as well try to elaborate:
"The point is to have them there to shoot at the enemy when they are getting close." Was about 6th gens having missiles. If the CCAs are neutralised, then the 6th gen has missiles to respond. And if the missiles fail to deal with the enemy, the long range of the missiles gives the jet more distance to turn and run. (Ofc they can also use it in conjunction with the CCAs, that's a given.)

"Never heard of how 5th gens fight? If your missiles don't hit, run away to fight another day. Same concept here but with a longer stick, more missiles and more options." Was in reference to how 5th gen don't "engage" with the enemy, they don't initiate dogfights if they expended their missiles, they run to fight another day. In the early days of the F-22 career, its pilots would often lose to red force F-16 setting up dogfight traps. Closing in is simply throwing away your 5th gen advantage (the expensive stealth).

That's not how 5 gen fighters fight, that's how aircraft more valuable than the "3rd object" fight.

3rd object can be more valuable than fighters, and relative value of 5th gen fighters goes down as their numbers increase.

That's the point I'm trying (and struggling) to get across. We're talking about the birth of a new generation here, we should look to the dawn of 5th generation for comparison, why the hell are you all discussing this with the mature age of 5th gens as template?
In the early days of 5th gen, they were incredibly valuable (F-22 of course) compared to normal fighters (4th gens and whatnot), the same applies to the 6th gens now, you'd be daft to not turn back and run if the 6th gen is under treat (compared to the pricey 5th gens it ofc would cost even more).