Shenyang next gen combat aircraft thread

[zyklon]

I for one am pretty happy if that turns out to be true, an extra set of moving control surfaces (and variable geometry at that) feels like it’ll sacrifice a lot of important parameters such as all-aspect stealth, weight, FCS complexity, maintenance, etc for… what? Actually I don’t even know for sure what it brings to the table that can be important enough in the context of 6th gen

If Shenyang's 6th gen fighter retains conventional vertical control surfaces then its program is probably closer along the lines of the GCAP or FCAS than its sister program out of Chengdu in terms of ambition, risk and cost.

Not to belittle Europe's defense programs, but their big ticket programs rarely even attempt to rival what the US is playing with. On the other hand, the PLA's principal focus is meeting or beating Uncle Sam.

Obviously, we're all very much speculating at this juncture, but in addition to providing the PLAAF with a Hi-Lo mix, this jet out of Shenyang would also make for a less sensitive and more accessible export option.

Not trying to get our Pakistani friends too excited, but maybe the PAF will for once receive a squadron of fighters produced in Shenyang rather than Chengdu by the time HAL's AMCA makes its first flight . . .

 

[zyklon]

If the Shenyang 6th gen fighter indeed retains vertical control surfaces . . .

Mods - Premature post by error. Please delete.

 

[no_name]

In my opinion 6th gen would be the last gen fighter to operate off carriers, and that already with some compromise over operating doctrine due to size and different take-off/landing/carrier real estate constraints.

7th gen would likely be hypersonic capable space planes that can reorient itself anywhere once in orbit. It will be launched into orbit and in station on rotating rosters. Similar to how the US used to have various carriers stationed around the world there will be a few planes stationed in orbits.

 

[vincent]

I for one am pretty happy if that turns out to be true, an extra set of moving control surfaces (and variable geometry at that) feels like it’ll sacrifice a lot of important parameters such as all-aspect stealth, weight, FCS complexity, maintenance, etc for… what? Actually I don’t even know for sure what it brings to the table that can be important enough in the context of 6th gen

I believe movable wingtips are useful at reducing the structural strength requirement of the wings. There was a video of a Chinese university team adding movable wingtips to a model plane to reduce the stress on the wings when the plane encountered strong winds.

 

[kurutoga]

7th gen would likely be hypersonic capable space planes that can reorient itself anywhere once in orbit

Manned space plane is really difficult. While human's future is inevitably linked to space exploration, it's yet to see space level warfare becomes common place due to cost.

I always thought of non-chemical power sources for space-level vehicles. Too soon.

 

[no_name]

Manned space plane is really difficult. While human's future is inevitably linked to space exploration, it's yet to see space level warfare becomes common place due to cost.

I always thought of non-chemical power sources for space-level vehicles. Too soon.

Hopefully by then tech is advance enough that it will be unmanned.

 

[kurutoga]

Hopefully by then tech is advance enough that it will be unmanned.

Hopefully. But I have low confidence the countries can afford it. It involves establishing large satellite constellations. Maybe only US and China can afford such weapon. It will be difficult to sell such fighter planes to a country without a mutual defense treaty.

 

[TK3600]

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




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

Maybe it intend to stay on first 3 carriers. Or 4th. Fujian and 004 might be structurally unable to accomodate bigger plane. In case of 004, its design might be set before 6th gen was settled.

 

[GTI]

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.

What are you talking about? They were called pursuit. They literally changed the designation to ‘fighter’ from ‘pursuit’. Just like till this very day, the French call them Chasseurs. Or how the British did dogfights, dropped bombs and strafed ground targets in their Sopwith Camel Scout planes in WWI (before later changing designation to fighter from scout).

And now you are just inventing stuff with your “super categories”.

English uses multiple words for 1 meaning, it’s the other way around, you’ve got it wrong. This comes from a history of being conquered (e.g. when the French ruled them it resulted in adoption of French jurisprudence words, or French words for the foods eaten by the ruling French class - why we have “steak or beef vs. cow”). It also comes from a history of loan words taken from the people who first pioneered something.

Technology changes, language changes. Unshackle your mind.

 

[TK3600]

What are you talking about? They were called pursuit. They literally changed the designation to ‘fighter’ from ‘pursuit’. Just like till this very day, the French call them Chasseurs. Or how the British did dogfights, dropped bombs and strafed ground targets in their Sopwith Camel Scout planes in WWI (before later changing designation to fighter from scout).

And now you are just inventing stuff with your “super categories”.

English uses multiple words for 1 meaning, it’s the other way around, you’ve got it wrong. This comes from a history of being conquered (e.g. when the French ruled them it resulted in adoption of French jurisprudence words, or French words for the foods eaten by the ruling French class - why we have “steak or beef vs. cow”). It also comes from a history of loan words taken from the people who first pioneered something.

Technology changes, language changes. Unshackle your mind.

You go on about P-47 yet end of the day it will be referred as fighters. We had like 5 similar technological breakthrough, yet fighter remains. You can invent sub roles for the fighter, like fighter bomber, frontline fighter, escort fighter, carrier fighter,air defense fighter, interceptor, drone fighter, but they are all fighters!

And in case you say"butbutbut fighter must be agile dog"fighter" like in WWI". J-20 does not have a gun, yet it will forever be called fighter. We are long past dogfighting, yet the name remained. J-36 is not new when it comes to not give a shit about dogfight. Nothing changed. It will be a fighter.

It may change our impression of fighter just like when we shifted from machine gun to BVR missiles, but the name will stay fighter in English, and it will stay as 战斗机 in Chinese.