Shenyang next gen combat aircraft thread

[ACuriousPLAFan]

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.

As I've said before - The absence of the angled vertical stabilizers is only one of the parts that forms the whole equation.

Also, even having the 5th-gens backfitted with more advanced RAM coatings would still render them having comparably lower degree of stealth capabilities than actual 6th-gens, let alone trying to do the same with 4th-gens (I kinda loled at that kind of suggestion). Again, RAM coating is only one part of the entire equation.

And as a matter of fact - I certainly wouldn't expect the level of stealth and EW capability of the J-XDS to be similar or even worse than the J-35 and J-20. It's pretty much a null hypothesis which applies to not just the J-XDS, but similarly to the J-36.

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.

Of course.

But the notion that the J-36 is being more expensive than the J-XDS, and even more so than the J-20 is pretty much a reasonable expectation at this point (given that it's an inter-generational difference instead of an intra-generational difference) - Potentially to such a degree that impact procurement numbers.

I don't see how that's an unreasonable take.

 

[dasCKD]

As I've said before - The absence of the angled vertical stabilizers is only one of the parts that forms the whole equation.

Also, even having the 5th-gens backfitted with more advanced RAM coatings would still render them having comparably lower degree of stealth capabilities than actual 6th-gens, let alone trying to do the same with 4th-gens (I kinda loled at that kind of suggestion). Again, RAM coating is only one part of the entire equation.

What kind of change do you see in the J-XDS's design that indicates, say, a greater degree of frontal aspect stealth compared to J-35s then?

 

[ACuriousPLAFan]

What kind of change do you see in the J-XDS's design that indicates, say, a greater degree of frontal aspect stealth compared to J-35s then?

How the engine DSIs are angled and shaped compared to the J-35 can be one. RAM coatings is, of course, another.

Also, it appears that you're rather (if not overly) focused on frontal-aspect stealth, all while 6th-gens have already moved on to all-aspect stealth.

 

[dasCKD]

How the engine DSIs are angled and shaped compared to the J-35 can be one. RAM coatings is, of course, another.

Also, it appears that you're rather (if not overly) focused on frontal-aspect stealth, all while 6th-gens have already moved on to all-aspect stealth.

I don't doubt that the 6th generations have better all-aspect stealth, just from the plane geometry alone. You said that the missing tails is just a part of that equation, and now that the exhaust geometry is another. To me though, the tails are *the* largest part of the equation that we know of, since even a narrowed exhaust will mostly work to reduce the stealth in the rear aspect of the plane. RAM, as I noted, can be backfitted onto older generation airframes.

 

[ACuriousPLAFan]

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?

No. In fact, I'd suggest reading back to what I've just explained in my previous posts.

Trying to forcefully squeeze the "medium bomber" into the J-XDS is unadvisable.

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

And yet, the A-3 had never been used in the fighter role for very obvious reasons. Trying to equate the A-3 and J-XDS together is like trying to equate apples with oranges.

 

[ACuriousPLAFan]

I don't doubt that the 6th generations have better all-aspect stealth, just from the plane geometry alone. You said that the missing tails is just a part of that equation, and now that the exhaust geometry is another. To me though, the tails are *the* largest part of the equation that we know of, since even a narrowed exhaust will mostly work to reduce the stealth in the rear aspect of the plane. RAM, as I noted, can be backfitted onto older generation airframes.

Well yeah, but the geometry of the aircraft cannot be changed. Those tails, engine intakes and circular engine exhausts (without future modifications with 2D thrust-vectoring structures for the latter) are still going to stick around until the aircrafts are retired and scrapped.

 

[siegecrossbow]

Compared with the J-36, the J-XD already sacrificed some stealth capabilities with all moving wingtips, shallow ditch between engines, and W-wings. The design philosophy still values traditional maneuverability to a great degree.

 

[Jaym]

No. In fact, I'd suggest reading back to what I've just explained in my previous posts.

Trying to forcefully squeeze the "medium bomber" into the J-XDS is unadvisable.



And yet, the A-3 had never been used in the fighter role for very obvious reasons. Trying to equate the A-3 and J-XDS together is like trying to equate apples with oranges.

I guess you cant be wrong...

im sure a fighter that has bigger or more missiles basically means closer to the bomber category. this applies with shengad but definetly more so with the J36.

more mtow means more stuff you can fit in means more roles possible

 

[MC530]

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.

First, the J35’s two medium-thrust engines prevent it from obtaining sufficient power supply. The new design should be unified under the high thrust engine of WS15.
Second, the design direction of the J35 is a "low detectable" MIg29++++, or an air superiority fighter, which has insufficient payload and endurance, especially when it cannot be used as an attack aircraft on an aircraft carrier battle group. The new design size and head will not be lower than J20.
Third, the J35’s body size cannot accommodate China’s best electronic equipment, and the latest air combat theory believes that information technology is the future.
Fourth, the initial J35 plan was used for foreign trade, and there were a lot of compromise designs (monkey versions). Improving these compromise designs is not as good as redesigning a more "perfect" new fighter jet and obtaining a better architecture.
Finally, the improvement of omnidirectional low detectability capabilities. There is no doubt that this trend can already be seen in the design of new fighter jets without vertical tails and engine nozzles. The latest Chinese aviation technology will also be introduced in skin and spectrum management.
The most important thing is that China does not need to spend $1 trillion to equip a fighter jet that will fall behind in the next 10-15 years. The completion time of Improvement Block 4 will arrive at the same time as NGAD.

 

[Schwerter_]

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

Well yes, but actually no. A heavy fighter (or any fighter for that matter) is a bomber in the sense that you can strap bombs and/or anti-surface missiles onto them and use them as a launch platform. That does not mean they’re actual bombers though, and trying to fit the name “tactical bomber” onto the 6th gen platforms doesn’t really achieve anything.