Shenyang next gen combat aircraft thread

[W20]

Exactly, "hunter", "jäger" in German, "pursuit", I don't like "fighter", but my subjective opinion is irrelevant, it would be more interesting to know opinions on, for example, the possible teamwork between 6th Gen "jägers" scanning (?) and the WZ-9 as a receiving antenna (?)

 

[FairAndUnbiased]

Nowhere in my post did I say that the launch of the ballistic missile involved tracking it from ground launch. The video is quite self explanatory and describe tracking it after the 1st stage was already lit and the missile was well into the air.
My point was to demonstrate that the range of DAS is one which is well beyond that of what is considered "WVR" in terms of air combat distances, as part of my overall point that DAS is not a "WVR system" but rather a general high end situational awareness, tracking and MAWS system.


If you consider eyeballs as "WVR sensors" then I suppose there's nothing more to discuss in that matter.


But none of what you've written has actually done anything to counter the points I made in #382.
WVR air combat is low yield, and developmental work and upgrades and high yield pursuits are made in other domains emphasizing engagements at increasingly long distances.

I strongly recommend dispensing with the idea that WVR combat is useful, it would probably help with approaching and making sense of the kind of air combat systems and concepts that are emerging in the world, including from the PLA.

I only wrote that because you said 'tracking ballistic missile launch at 1300 km' which could be misinterpreted by others as saying that the launch occurred at 1300 km distant and was tracked by the F-35's DAS throughout. Tracked as in with full 3D position information + velocity. That was not what was shown. I clarified what I saw was shown.

Help me understand then, what is the point of the Shenyang model? Chengdu already came out with a plane that's clearly specialized for BVR. This plane isn't. It is clear to see the short range maneuverability advantage of this design, it is not clear that if short range maneuverability is useless or a minor consideration, then what use this sort of design has and what the advantage is to having the all moving horizontal stabilizers. Everything on a plane is useful or it wouldn't be there, so what use is it?

 

[TK3600]

Apologies, it was rhetorical… What I’m saying is that they in fact did not always call them Fighters.

Before “fighter”, the British called them Scouts. The US classified them as Pursuit, which itself came from what the French still call them today - Chasseur (halfway between the English meaning of “hunter” and “chaser” or “to chase”). The Russians even called them Exterminators.

France was once the global centre of aviation science and technology, which is why so many aviation terms are in French (such as the USN designation ‘V’ for fixed-wing heavier than air squadron, from the French ‘Voler’, meaning to fly). Even airship designations start with a ‘Z’, because a German guy called Ferdinand von Zeppelin invented them.

But for some reason, instead of being emboldened and allowing China (CAC in this case) to write their own narrative - a privilege bestowed upon all who pioneer something - we have people insisting that there be conformance to someone else’s narrative, an increasingly outdated one at that.

To put it bluntly, I couldn’t care less about the term ‘Fighter’. I’ll call something like the J-36 whatever Wang Haifeng prefers it to be called. They get the privilege of defining the new epoch, so anything else can be damned.

*I’ve used J-36 as an example given it’s more pertinent, and because I don’t know the J-XDS designer’s name, nor any of their views on the aircraft.

No one ever call P47 a pursuit. It is a fighter. Pursuit is its intended role, and which role it may be depends on mission, but fighter is a super category. So long it primarily fight other aircraft, fighter override all other roles in the name.

English language likes to use one word for multiple similar meaning, because they are stupid. Fighter can refer to the super category, or a niche combat role. Super category will remain even if role becomes fancier.

 

[siegecrossbow]

There is a rumor that there won’t be collapsible vertical slabs, only movable wingtips.

 

[Neurosmith]

There is a rumor that there won’t be collapsible vertical slabs, only movable wingtips.

The photos definitely show two tailfin positions: one with them folded horizontally and another with them up (evidenced by the lack of a horizontal control surface directly aft of the lambda wings).

 

[Deino]

The photos definitely show two tailfin positions: one with them folded horizontally and another with them up (evidenced by the lack of a horizontal control surface directly aft of the lambda wings).

Are you sure, "The photos definitely show two tailfin positions"? The one from the side clearly shows the tail - if there is one - folded horizontally, but all others could be anything IMO!

 

[Gloire_bb]

Let's be fair - photos of v-wing are so shitty we didn't even believe they're true when we first saw it.
could be anything indeed.

 

[Blitzo]

I only wrote that because you said 'tracking ballistic missile launch at 1300 km' which could be misinterpreted by others as saying that the launch occurred at 1300 km distant and was tracked by the F-35's DAS throughout. Tracked as in with full 3D position information + velocity. That was not what was shown. I clarified what I saw was shown.

The video was like two minutes long, and it was rather self explanatory. Come on.

Help me understand then, what is the point of the Shenyang model? Chengdu already came out with a plane that's clearly specialized for BVR. This plane isn't. It is clear to see the short range maneuverability advantage of this design, it is not clear that if short range maneuverability is useless or a minor consideration, then what use this sort of design has and what the advantage is to having the all moving horizontal stabilizers. Everything on a plane is useful or it wouldn't be there, so what use is it?

Sure, so there are a few reasons for that I can come up with:
- Shenyang's design may be intended for better low speed performance particularly under complex takeoff and landing conditions (especially relevant for carriers, if this is intended to be adapted for that mission; think crosswind/lateral control)
- Shenyang's design is smaller than Chengdu's, particularly in terms of overall volume, which will place some limits on the relative power generation, sensors, networking etc that it can accommodate relative to a bigger aircraft like Chengdu's. It is possible that preserving a degree of relative greater maneuverability is a way to put a bandaid for that deficit
- Shenyang's design overall may simply be less ambitious and capable overall from the outset -- that is to say, it preserves some "5th generation" traits such as still focusing on relatively greater maneuverability because either Shenyang (or the PLA) wanted a slightly "less ambitious" next generation design as a complementary lower risk design than Chengdu's

 

[siegecrossbow]

SHADE (Shenyang Air Dominance Enforcer) is less ambitious than CHAD because there is always the possibility that CHAD could be the wrong design philosophy or the development process could hit road blocks. You need to have something to fall back on if things don’t work out.

 

[Blitzo]

SHADE (Shenyang Air Dominance Enforcer) is less ambitious than CHAD because there is always the possibility that CHAD could be the wrong design philosophy or the development process could hit road blocks. You need to have something to fall back on if things don’t work out.

As an aside, personally I am not a fan of using acronyms that equate to English name/acronyms.

These are PRC aircraft, I think any acronyms should ideally use letters based off pinyin, and any acronym they form should not equate to a completed English word, but maybe that's just me.