Shenyang next gen combat aircraft thread

[Atomicfrog]

If you have vertical slabs you can’t have all aspect stealth. From the sides you’d be luck to get it below 1 sqm with loads of treatment. See the place where the wings meet with the vertical slabs? That’s acute angle and what is commonly called a “corner reflector”. Don’t let claims of Reddit fan boys fool you.

And you add on top a big reduction in drag without these vertical control surfaces. It boost range and probably supercruise speed.

 

[CaribouTruth]

Yes but I don't understand why that would matter operationally. I mean it might reduce the RCS by a little but the J-35A is already very low I assume. It doesn't look like it could carry much more weapons internally than the J-35A. I just don't get why Shenyang can't pour their money into upgrades for the J-35A.

Lets go back to basics for a bit, until now what we know as "stealth" or low radar observability was limited to the "frontal aspect" of the plane, or simply the front of the plane. The known RCS measurements we talk about are the broadly the "frontal" radar returns.
The next generational divide in stealth will attempt to be "all aspect stealth". Or reduction in RCS from all angles. You cannot "retrofit" or pour money onto a 5th gen platform and reduce its side aspect RCS. It requires a completely new airframe.
Currently, this is the most physically obvious aspect of the generational divide that absolutely demands a clean sheet design. There might be others like increased power demand, radar technology, computational demands, intended range that are not physically obvious from the outside that also demand a clean sheet design but that's something we cannot confirm yet, but have a good clue from the J-36.

 

[ACuriousPLAFan]

Can someone explain in simple language what major advantages this new plane has over the J-35A again? I mean apart from looking cooler subjectively, why would Shenyang develop this new plane instead of pouring new technologies into its J-35A which has only really started rolling out. Only possible reason I can think of is that they want to export the J-35A and want to keep the latest hardware secret in the next gen which will not be for sale.

Yes but I don't understand why that would matter operationally. I mean it might reduce the RCS by a little but the J-35A is already very low I assume. It doesn't look like it could carry much more weapons internally than the J-35A. I just don't get why Shenyang can't pour their money into upgrades for the J-35A.

Continuing on what @siegecrossbow, @Atomicfrog and @CaribouTruth have explained:
- The RCS reduction on the J-XDS compared to the J-35/A certainly isn't little. The absence of the tail is only one part of that equation.
- The J-XDS has a much larger internal volume than the J-35/A, meaning more spaces for fuel = Larger combat radius/range.
- The J-XDS has a much larger wing area than the J-35/A, meaning smaller wing loading = Superior flight performances.
- Just like what I've mentioned previously - Without knowing the built and dimension of the weapons bay(s) of the J-XDS, trying to somehow equate the J-XDS and the J-35/A to claim that the weapons bay(s) of both aircrafts have the same capacity is pretty pointless.
- The J-XDS has a greater engine thrust than the J-35/A, meaning a much superior onboard power-generation capacity = More powerful avionics, computing and cooling systems can be installed onboard = Exceptional air combat capabilities (MUMT, MIMO, networked combat, etc).

In fact, the last point is an absolute key requirement for 6th-gen air combat systems going forward, which is something that decisively crushes every preceding generations of fighter jets.

---

Moreover, I should also note that the introduction of the J-35/A this late on the timeline of the PLAAF and PLAN fighter fleets development should be seen as more of an oddity instead of the norm. If anything, the PLAAF and the PLAN would've already started fielding the J-35/As since the mid/late-2010s if they are able to, instead of having to wait until the mid-2020s (i.e. presently) to do so, considering how many enemy 5th-gens and 4.9th-gens are popping up in the WestPac theater today.

In contrast, the appearance of the J-XDS (and J-36, as a matter of fact) at this point of the timeline is actually normal. It just so happens that China's military aerospace development has only managed to begin catching up with that of the US in the past couple years. That's why the J-35/A made its public debut so close to the J-XDS and J-36.

Furthermore, there likely isn't going to be as many J-36 procured by the PLAAF as the J-20, as the J-36 is pretty exorbitant, even by China's standards. Who else is going to take over the J-35A's place in the future PLAAF besides the J-XDS? UCAVs certainly isn't the answer.

Last-but-not-least, I don't think the PLAN is going to be happy with fielding only J-15Ts and J-35s onboard their CVs and CVNs in the 2030s, all when the enemy is expected to field their F/A-XXs on their CVNs.

 

[Jaym]

As of now, we still can't even be sure of whether there is singular large weapons bay on the J-XDS (like those on the J-20 and J-35/A), or a dual split smaller weapons bay on the J-XDS (like those on the F-35A/B/C).

That is to say, without knowing the dimensions and rated load capacity of the weapons bay(s) on the J-XDS, it's rather pointless to make such a claim.



Nope. In contrast to the A-3, which is very much a carrier-based bomber from the get-go - The J-XDS is designed and engineered to become a land-based and carrier-based fighter in the first place. Only if the weapons bay(s) is/are large enough, then the anti-ship or land-attack capability would come as an added bonus.

The differences in terms of how both warplanes were designed, engineered and used are pretty massive, so it's pretty much useless trying to equate them together.

Im a contrarian then... i think the increase in mtow means they are attempting a carrier based stealth bomber... the extra mtow will mean bigger missiles for bigger targets.

In fact i believe both 6 gen planes are medium tact bombers of some sort even if they were initially designed as fighters the extra bigger missiles will effectively make them medium bombers.

 

[Jaym]

This aircraft is of the same size and weight class as the J-15/J-16. IMO the main reason for designing this jet is to develop a stealthly heavy naval fighter as a successor to the J-15T, which can conduct missions which require longer range and heavier payload than what the J-35 can offer. In the long run I expect this new jet to operate alongside the cheaper J-35 in the PLANAF.

Isnt a heavy naval fighter at some point a medium bomber?

 

[dasCKD]

- The RCS reduction on the J-XDS compared to the J-35/A certainly isn't little. The absence of the tail is only one part of that equation.

I'm unsure of what information indicates this. I would agree that getting rid of the canted tails means that more angles on the plane will be optimized to reduce radar returns, but what features indicates that it will be much stealthier than a J-35 from the frontal aspect. If it's the better RAM coating then that kind of technology can be backfitted onto J-35s, J-20s, and even the 4th gens. If it's the better EWar capabilities aboard the J-XDS then I'd say that we don't have anywhere near enough information to conclude that that is the case, or how/if it'll affect the stealthiness of the platform.

Furthermore, there likely isn't going to be as many J-36 procured by the PLAAF as the J-20, as the J-36 is pretty exorbitant, even by China's standards.

We don't know how much the J-36 costs and we don't even know which ballpark to put the estimates in. Will it scale with engine count, at about 50% more than the J-20? Will it scale with estimated plane weight, at around 150% higher than the J-20? We have no idea how much more expensive the J-36 will be, nor how big the PLAAF's budget will be in the future, and so it seems incredibly premature to be throwing out conclusions like this this early. Even the PLAAF or Shenyang would be stretched to get a good estimate on the cost of the airframe, once it's in full production, at this stage of development.

 

[ying1978]

Isnt a heavy naval fighter at some point a medium bomber?

Both the J-36 and J-XD shows the PLA's idea for 6th-gen combat aircrafts are stealthy long-endurance airborne command & control / sensory / EW platforms that also have large weapon bays to carry long range air-to-air weapons as well as medium air-to-surface weapons internally. It transcends the traditional definition for fighters and bombers

 

[Jaym]

Both the J-36 and J-XD shows the PLA's idea for 6th-gen combat aircrafts are stealthy long-endurance airborne command & control / sensory / EW platforms that also have large weapon bays to carry long range air-to-air weapons as well as medium air-to-surface weapons internally. It transcends the traditional definition for fighters and bombers

Nah medium bombers have been adapted for other roles just like the A-3... i think its because they have higher mtow

 

[BillRamengod]

Im a contrarian then... i think the increase in mtow means they are attempting a carrier based stealth bomber... the extra mtow will mean bigger missiles for bigger targets.

In fact i believe both 6 gen planes are medium tact bombers of some sort even if they were initially designed as fighters the extra bigger missiles will effectively make them medium bombers.

Isnt a heavy naval fighter at some point a medium bomber?

Let's forget about traditional combat aircraft classifications for a few seconds, it's pointless. And what you're doing is reverse attribution.

 

[bebops]

It is more like an airborne command center plane. The main purpose is to generate significant power in which it would be used for better long range detection, spoofing, jamming as well as controlling multiple UAV.