Shenyang / Chengdu 6th Gen Demonstrators?

[Ainen]

Approximate volume of aim174 is 0.410 cubic m. Pl17s is around 0.390 cubic m. That's a rather small difference. Given that aim174 kept the internals of the rim174, and its mid body fins, all optimized for different trajectory starting from a fairly low altitude of a few km, it's plausible pl17 can (more than?) compensate for the small difference in volume. And then there is likely bigger drag that aim174 suffers due to its fins and in small part its diameter. I wouldn't be surprised if pl17 actually outranged aim174 by a small margin.

Plus currently it has a major launcher advantage. Superbug v flankers and especially J-36 is just unfair.

 

[totoro]

Senator Cotton: What is your current assessment of whether the United States Air Force or the PLA Air Force will first field a sixth-generation manned fighter?

Mr. Hunter: My assessment would be that it would be the United States, but the term "pacing threat" is, I think, a very apt term, because it is a race.

The thing is, first country to field is largely irrelevant metric. Especially if we define fielding as delivering first airframe in customer's hands.
Which country will be the first to be able to deploy a critical mass of such planes (100? 200?) at the needed battlefield location - now that sounds more relevant. Of course, qaulity matters too. Generations are meaningless here. If one side can do the same thing with 100 planes , compared to its opponent with 150 planes, that's what matters as well.

 

[dark sidius]

A channel with a volume of almost 8 m3 passes through the 94 m3 aircraft, 8.5% of the useful volume is purely for purging and placing another engine. Isn't it too greasy? And it could be a tank with 6.4 tons of fuel...

PAK DP, J-36 and NGAD

What is this NGAD design ? it look like the F-22 ?

 

[dark sidius]

A channel with a volume of almost 8 m3 passes through the 94 m3 aircraft, 8.5% of the useful volume is purely for purging and placing another engine. Isn't it too greasy? And it could be a tank with 6.4 tons of fuel...

PAK DP, J-36 and NGAD

What is this NGAD design ? it look like the F-22 ?

 

[paralay]

What is this NGAD design ? it look like the F-22 ?

Speculation of a single NGAD + F/A-XX fighter

https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/paralays-vision-of-ngad.31241/#post-696892

 

[Nx4eu]

An interesting thought Ainen about side radars. Another thing is EOTS and IRIST sensors to complement the radars, I cannot see either on the prototype so far but I can see both on the fighter once it enters service.

Cannot see them? To me it seems that instead of having a singular optical window on the chin of the nose, this plane has opted for two optical windows on either side which are inline with the chine/edge.

 

[Josh_TN]

Plus currently it has a major launcher advantage. Superbug v flankers and especially J-36 is just unfair.

I think we are getting ahead of ourselves with the J-36 designation, let alone PL-17 carriage. If we are jumping that far into the future I suspect a B-21 armed with HACM could make PLAAF AEW almost completely unmanageable. Flanker vs Rhino doesn’t seem to matter much for a 300-400km engagement, IMO.

 

[FighterJock]

Thanks Nx4eu, it is rather strange to see them on the sides and having twin EOTS instead of the single EOTS sensor like on the J-20 but I suppose that there must have been a reason for the change since having the J-20 flying operationally.

 

[Noveos]

This thread really blew up. It seems like a watershed moment for Chinese aviation. However, I can’t help but to think that if the Bird of Prey flew today, people would say it’s sixth gen lol

 

[Avimimus]

This thread really blew up. It seems like a watershed moment for Chinese aviation. However, I can’t help but to think that if the Bird of Prey flew today, people would say it’s sixth gen lol

Perhaps. But there are strong suggestions that this new aircraft is designed to work as part of a system with other aircraft (including drones), likely extensive sensor fusion and it also almost certainly has fifth generation plus features such as supercruise capabilities, being VLO. Bird of Prey wasn't a fighter.

 

[In_A_Dream]

Now here's a thought, does anyone think China would field a strike platform with dedicated EW capabilities? A third engine would be great for power generation.

 

[Noveos]

Perhaps. But there are strong suggestions that this new aircraft is designed to work as part of a system with other aircraft (including drones), likely extensive sensor fusion and it also almost certainly has fifth generation plus features such as supercruise capabilities, being VLO. Bird of Prey wasn't a fighter.

You’re right it wasn’t a fighter. I’m just skeptical of headlines calling it a sixth gen since it merely “looks” like one. I don’t think there is even agreed-upon criteria for a sixth gen right? Let alone fifth generation plus

 

[Josh_TN]

Thanks Nx4eu, it is rather strange to see them on the sides and having twin EOTS instead of the single EOTS sensor like on the J-20 but I suppose that there must have been a reason for the change since having the J-20 flying operationally.

It looks like they are attempting a wide continuous field of view for an IRST. EOTS/DAS hybrid is my amateur guess. Wider field of view with more sensitivity/range.

 

[Josh_TN]

Now here's a thought, does anyone think China would field a strike platform with dedicated EW capabilities? A third engine would be great for power generation.

I do not see why an EW platform needs to be dedicated. An AESA antenna is equally useful as a radar, an ESM receiver, a radio, and a jammer within it’s frequency range. There is little need for a dedicated tactical platform in this day and age.

I would go one step further and say that the difference between a long range interceptor and an interdiction/strike aircraft is probably only intent, not major design trade offs. While I believe the primary role to be strike, that is from an avionics view meaningless and from a kinematic view probably rather arbitrary: there is no reason it cannot serve both roles (and EW and UAV control on top).

As someone posted many pages ago, it can be ‘a floor wax AND a dessert topping!’.

 

[Josh_TN]

You’re right it wasn’t a fighter. I’m just skeptical of headlines calling it a sixth gen since it merely “looks” like one. I don’t think there is even agreed-upon criteria for a sixth gen right? Let alone fifth generation plus

I think the definition of 6th generation is sufficiently nebulous that we might as well start a thread labeled “what is art?”.

It is probably more constructive to focus on specific features and design trade offs.

 

[Hydroman]

What about this baby? Twin engine stealth? Manned? Quazi Lamda-Cranked Arrow?
....hmmm
Anyone got anything on this bird?

Seems to be similar to these US concepts. F/A-XX top image, NGC NGAD bottom image.

 

[Hydroman]

Looks like the flaps on J-36 doesn’t have traditional exposed hinges.

View attachment 753920

Notice the flight control actuator blisters are not in-line with the flow field but seem to be somewhat planformed aligned to the leading edges. The two outboard, split surfaces could possibly be using either an YF/F-23 multiple linear servoactuator arrangement or servo-rotary hingeline units which do not require blisters.

 

[sienar]

It looks like they are attempting a wide continuous field of view for an IRST. EOTS/DAS hybrid is my amateur guess. Wider field of view with more sensitivity/range.

There should be some degree of overlapping directly ahead. Combining two inputs should allow for a virtual improvement in resolution.

 

[Josh_TN]

There should be some degree of overlapping directly ahead. Combining two inputs should allow for a virtual improvement in resolution.

Probably more relevant for the radar than the IRST, but agree.

 

[In_A_Dream]

I do not see why an EW platform needs to be dedicated. An AESA antenna is equally useful as a radar, an ESM receiver, a radio, and a jammer within it’s frequency range. There is little need for a dedicated tactical platform in this day and age.

Dominance over the EM spectrum is still a very high priority for both the US & China, tactical and beyond. Ukraine was a good reminder for some people.

 

[Blitzo]

This thread really blew up. It seems like a watershed moment for Chinese aviation. However, I can’t help but to think that if the Bird of Prey flew today, people would say it’s sixth gen lol

I think if it was a full scale aircraft inclusive of provisions for weapons bay, sized appropriately for missions at range, and with indicators it was a project committed to by the US as its next generation fighter, then it would be very reasonable to call it sixth generation as well.

 

[Null]

I think this picture describes every user here and on other forums of China claiming it has a 6th generation aircraft.

Claims of Quantum radars and laser sensing satellites detecting submarines killed the hype of their own 6th gen aircraft. They have not offered outside of the box thinking in any aviation achievements from patents, avionics and missile breakthroughs, engine breakthrough performances, etc.

Engines: China has no dates on estimated production or development for adaptive cycle engines or detonation engines. Usually, the performance of engines determines what kind of aerodynamic layout you would have planned for a new aircraft. Using foreign engines on your 5th generation aircrafts not too long ago to immediately designing what the physical layout would look like for a new generation aircraft just seems too early and set for compromises in combat in case actual 6th gen aircraft engines come out that would make you question if you should have done a different physical layout than the one you did before with underperforming engines.

Patents: US did serpentine ducts, flat nozzle, round serrated nozzle designs. Russia did partial S-ducts with radar blockers for performance, switching from round nozzles to serrated round nozzle, to round flat nozzles, removed horizontal stabilizers on the Su-75 and made the aircraft configurable to be one seat, two seat, or AI by changing cockpits. What did China even do that showed some kind of creativity in aviation that made them look different or standout?

Electronics: Of course, they have come a long way to producing smaller wafers with high yield production overcoming western sanctions. However, the U.S. will still have the edge in radars because of using Taiwan or Japan's electronics production for their own 6th gen aircrafts. And Russia started production a month ago in PICs and have their own photonic computer set to be made to operate in Zettaflops which will match Intel and Japan's supercomputer plan's for the same Zettaflop range in like 2030 which is insane because Russia's domestic electronic wafer production capabilities are at 300nm to 90nm when they made those claims and eventually they will get to smaller size production capabilities to 11nm to improve their PICs https://www.notebookcheck.net/Russi...stem-to-rival-ASML-s-technology.935627.0.html.
Even Intel is changing its direction to photonics and a lot of investors in the US are looking into this direction as well. PICs also enhance neural network and A.I. capabilities. I am pretty damn sure China's 6th gen aircraft AFAIK is not flying around with PICs and a photonic computer.

Missiles: RVV-MD2 is basically the same as AIM-9x Block 3 with the 50-60km short missile range and 360-degree LOAL engagement. Both US and Russa are designing internal 300km air to air missiles and internal hypersonic air to ground missiles. Anything like that from China has been announced? I think ramjet air to air missile designs will be the future for same high speeds but longer ranges and 2030+ we will see production of these kinds of missiles for any 6th gen aircraft.

What makes any news from China feel so disinteresting like 6th gen aircrafts is that it feels like a copy and paste from another country's kind of aviation achievements such as the US. The UK and China immediately trying to field 6th gens while the US and Russia are taking their sweet ass time tells me whose latest aircraft designs would have more defining features what makes a 6th gen aircraft a 6th gen aircraft. This doesn't mean I will completely go shit on the Tempest and J-36 but that my current expectations are set very low unless they go with upgrades later on them.

 

[red admiral]

Notice the flight control actuator blisters are not in-line with the flow field but seem to be somewhat planformed aligned to the leading edges. The two outboard, split surfaces could possibly be using either an YF/F-23 multiple linear servoactuator arrangement or servo-rotary hingeline units which do not require blisters.

The inner actuators are simply aligned the hinge line of the surfaces and then have a small bump covering them. You could put a larger bump aligned with the flow field but the actuator will still be the same orientation. For higher sweep hinge lines the flow field aligned bumps get large, so may not be a net saving.

Still working out the outer split panels. Maybe the different hinge alignment is to leave space onboard for a rotary actuator and torque tube in the slightly thicker wing section. Or might be an aerodynamics thing. But there's not a great deal of space for structure out there.

 

[Josh_TN]

Dominance over the EM spectrum is still a very high priority for both the US & China, tactical and beyond. Ukraine was a good reminder for some people.

Ukraine is also a good reminder that dedicated platforms are insufficient compared to more platforms having some capacity. AFAIK only the PLAN, RAAF, and USN operate dedicated tactical jamming platforms. Perhaps some EU air forces get an ECR Typhoon. But F-35 is already an ECR/SEAD platform out of the box, and I cannot imagine anyone creates dedicated jammers in the future if the trend is large fighter/bombers with plenty of power and surface area for EW. I think the Growler and its J-15 equivalent are the last of their kind, at least for the top tier.

 

[Airborne2001]

Looks like the flaps on J-36 doesn’t have traditional exposed hinges.

View attachment 753920

I'm actually really curious about this. What are the benefits of "ailerons"(?) like these? Is it for more specific turning abilities?

 

[siegecrossbow]

I think this picture describes every user here and on other forums of China claiming it has a 6th generation aircraft.
View attachment 753945
Claims of Quantum radars and laser sensing satellites detecting submarines killed the hype of their own 6th gen aircraft. They have not offered outside of the box thinking in any aviation achievements from patents, avionics and missile breakthroughs, engine breakthrough performances, etc.

Engines: China has no dates on estimated production or development for adaptive cycle engines or detonation engines. Usually, the performance of engines determines what kind of aerodynamic layout you would have planned for a new aircraft. Using foreign engines on your 5th generation aircrafts not too long ago to immediately designing what the physical layout would look like for a new generation aircraft just seems too early and set for compromises in combat in case actual 6th gen aircraft engines come out that would make you question if you should have done a different physical layout than the one you did before with underperforming engines.

Patents: US did serpentine ducts, flat nozzle, round serrated nozzle designs. Russia did partial S-ducts with radar blockers for performance, switching from round nozzles to serrated round nozzle, to round flat nozzles, removed horizontal stabilizers on the Su-75 and made the aircraft configurable to be one seat, two seat, or AI by changing cockpits. What did China even do that showed some kind of creativity in aviation that made them look different or standout?

Electronics: Of course, they have come a long way to producing smaller wafers with high yield production overcoming western sanctions. However, the U.S. will still have the edge in radars because of using Taiwan or Japan's electronics production for their own 6th gen aircrafts. And Russia started production a month ago in PICs and have their own photonic computer set to be made to operate in Zettaflops which will match Intel and Japan's supercomputer plan's for the same Zettaflop range in like 2030 which is insane because Russia's domestic electronic wafer production capabilities are at 300nm to 90nm when they made those claims and eventually they will get to smaller size production capabilities to 11nm to improve their PICs https://www.notebookcheck.net/Russi...stem-to-rival-ASML-s-technology.935627.0.html.
Even Intel is changing its direction to photonics and a lot of investors in the US are looking into this direction as well. PICs also enhance neural network and A.I. capabilities. I am pretty damn sure China's 6th gen aircraft AFAIK is not flying around with PICs and a photonic computer.

Missiles: RVV-MD2 is basically the same as AIM-9x Block 3 with the 50-60km short missile range and 360-degree LOAL engagement. Both US and Russa are designing internal 300km air to air missiles and internal hypersonic air to ground missiles. Anything like that from China has been announced? I think ramjet air to air missile designs will be the future for same high speeds but longer ranges and 2030+ we will see production of these kinds of missiles for any 6th gen aircraft.

What makes any news from China feel so disinteresting like 6th gen aircrafts is that it feels like a copy and paste from another country's kind of aviation achievements such as the US. The UK and China immediately trying to field 6th gens while the US and Russia are taking their sweet ass time tells me whose latest aircraft designs would have more defining features what makes a 6th gen aircraft a 6th gen aircraft. This doesn't mean I will completely go shit on the Tempest and J-36 but that my current expectations are set very low unless they go with upgrades later on them.

Well. There is an old saying that opinions are like a-holes and one basically states that your post is saltier than my wife’s cooking.

I'm actually really curious about this. What are the benefits of "ailerons"(?) like these? Is it for more specific turning abilities?

You mean the lack of hinges? My guess would be to improve rearward stealth.

 

[Avimimus]

I'm actually really curious about this. What are the benefits of "ailerons"(?) like these? Is it for more specific turning abilities?

I suppose most of them would be elevons, with the outer ones being split drag rudders. The outer split drag rudders act as airbrakes, allowing some control of yaw without a vertical stabiliser/vertical tail. They likely help at slow speeds or in case of an engine failure. They can also probably act like ailerons to roll the plane. The inner elevons control pitch and some of them may also contribute to roll control. The lack of visible hinges probably is a radar reduction measure, but would also have some aerodynamic benefits.

What is interesting is that each wing has five separate moving control surfaces. In theory it should be enough to have two (i.e. an aileron/split drag rudder and an inner elevon for each wing).

Combined with thrust vectoring for the engines - it means this design should have thirteen control surfaces along the rear of the aircraft... the reasons why aren't clear.

One possibility is that having more control surfaces has benefits for VLO. For instance, if one is trying to minimise radar returns in a single direction, one could choose to move three control surfaces a small amount, or one control surface a large amount (depending on what is optimal for signature reduction). Another possibility is that each control surface has a smaller actuator, leading to a smaller 'bump' for the actuator and producing a more perfect shape for signature reduction. There might also be a desire for redundancy (e.g. having four split rudders might allow one split rudder and one engine to fail - and still have the expensive aircraft successfully land).

But the use of five control surfaces per wing is a good question to wonder about - it does require explanation.

 

[NMaude]

Which aircraft was the X-15 the prototype for?

It wasn't a prototype for a production aircraft and you know that, it was an experimental aircraft hence the "X" as an affix not a prefix.

 

[Wyvern]

What makes any news from China feel so disinteresting like 6th gen aircrafts is that it feels like a copy and paste from another country's kind of aviation achievements such as the US. The UK and China immediately trying to field 6th gens while the US and Russia are taking their sweet ass time tells me whose latest aircraft designs would have more defining features what makes a 6th gen aircraft a 6th gen aircraft. This doesn't mean I will completely go shit on the Tempest and J-36 but that my current expectations are set very low unless they go with upgrades later on them.

I'm not really sure what you mean, China has to follow the same laws of physics as the US, as a result any aircraft (especially a stealth one) is going to have a lot in common with other aircraft.

Taking time doesn't really mean much in the grand scheme of things. At some point the design has to freeze for work to continue. The nature of that means that the first production aircraft might lack certain more modern tech but that's the nature of R&D. Part of the processes plans for future upgrades before you've finished building the last bloc whatever on the production line but again, you need to have aircraft flying first.

I'd also add that what Russia is doing isn't a great indictor of the future of aviation. Not that they can't make good aircraft but rather other pressures are going to kill any "6th gen" in it's cradle.

 

[The K2]

I suppose most of them would be elevons, with the outer ones being split drag rudders. The outer split drag rudders act as airbrakes, allowing some control of yaw without a vertical stabiliser/vertical tail. They likely help at slow speeds or in case of an engine failure. They can also probably act like ailerons to roll the plane. The inner elevons control pitch and some of them may also contribute to roll control. The lack of visible hinges probably is a radar reduction measure, but would also have some aerodynamic benefits.

What is interesting is that each wing has five separate moving control surfaces. In theory it should be enough to have two (i.e. an aileron/split drag rudder and an inner elevon for each wing).

Combined with thrust vectoring for the engines - it means this design should have thirteen control surfaces along the rear of the aircraft... the reasons why aren't clear.

One possibility is that having more control surfaces has benefits for VLO. For instance, if one is trying to minimise radar returns in a single direction, one could choose to move three control surfaces a small amount, or one control surface a large amount (depending on what is optimal for signature reduction). Another possibility is that each control surface has a smaller actuator, leading to a smaller 'bump' for the actuator and producing a more perfect shape for signature reduction. There might also be a desire for redundancy (e.g. having four split rudders might allow one split rudder and one engine to fail - and still have the expensive aircraft successfully land).

But the use of five control surfaces per wing is a good question to wonder about - it does require explanation.

The elevons remind me of the ones used by the XB-70.

 

[DWG]

Until you do a full development you don't have the skills to do it.

The impressive thing about the J-10/J-20/ 'J-36' chain is they seem to have learned that. They appear to be going through full development in less time than others do demos. EAP got the go ahead in 1982 and the RAF got to use Typhoon in 2006. All despite having Tornado before. The demo made them lose experience due to delay.

I wouldn't use Typhoon as a model for project development time for multiple reasons:

1) the collapse of the threat leading to de-prioritization across all four partners
2a) German Reunification leading to German desire to exit the project entirely.
2b) Gerhard Kohl's promise to cancel the project due to the cost of reunification
2c) Volker Ruhe's attempt to singlehandedly redesign Eurofighter to suit his ambition to become Bundeskanzler in place of Kohl.
3) German fiscal shenanigans over workshare leading to significant delays while people tried to get a workable compromise the Germans would pay for
4) that there was effectively a year long ground stop after first flights for DA1 and DA2* while people evaluated the lessons from the YF-22 and Gripen PIO crashes and sanitised the FCS software for the new understanding of PIO risks.
5) The de-prioritization becoming even more pronounced as the collapse of the threat became even more complete.

If the Cold War had continued at full bore I suspect we could have had Typhoon IOC by the late 90s.

* Or from another angle a politically necessary pair of first flights were made before the rework got under way **

** NB this was before I joined the project and is my supposition, not something I know as a fact.

 

[DWG]

What is interesting is that each wing has five separate moving control surfaces. In theory it should be enough to have two (i.e. an aileron/split drag rudder and an inner elevon for each wing).
[...]
One possibility is that having more control surfaces has benefits for VLO. For instance, if one is trying to minimise radar returns in a single direction, one could choose to move three control surfaces a small amount, or one control surface a large amount (depending on what is optimal for signature reduction). Another possibility is that each control surface has a smaller actuator, leading to a smaller 'bump' for the actuator and producing a more perfect shape for signature reduction. There might also be a desire for redundancy (e.g. having four split rudders might allow one split rudder and one engine to fail - and still have the expensive aircraft successfully land).

Good points. The one I'd add to is that it gives lots of opportunities to optimise whatever it is you're trying to make the aircraft do, whether that be reducing VLO signature from the control surfaces, or optimising attitude to minimise fuel burn, optimising attitude to minimise the VLO return from the aircraft as a whole, moving one surface fast or multiple surfaces slowly, or whatever.

 

[DWG]

On the strictly minor side of things, I find it interesting the aircraft serial is painted over the cheek arrays.

 

[sienar]

One possibility is that having more control surfaces has benefits for VLO. For instance, if one is trying to minimise radar returns in a single direction, one could choose to move three control surfaces a small amount, or one control surface a large amount (depending on what is optimal for signature reduction). Another possibility is that each control surface has a smaller actuator, leading to a smaller 'bump' for the actuator and producing a more perfect shape for signature reduction. There might also be a desire for redundancy (e.g. having four split rudders might allow one split rudder and one engine to fail - and still have the expensive aircraft successfully land).

But the use of five control surfaces per wing is a good question to wonder about - it does require explanation.

Perhaps they are trying to minimize trim drag as much as possible across a broad speed range.

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

On the strictly minor side of things, I find it interesting the aircraft serial is painted over the cheek arrays.

Likely the cheek arrays are empty.

 

[DWG]

It looks like they are attempting a wide continuous field of view for an IRST. EOTS/DAS hybrid is my amateur guess. Wider field of view with more sensitivity/range.

I suspect the continuously varying depth of the optical window depending on the angle you're looking through it will mess with sensitivity.

 

[DWG]

Likely the cheek arrays are empty.

Oh, I'm absolutely presuming they are, I still think it's interesting they've chosen to paint it there rather than somewhere that can remain common across multiple aircraft as development aircraft fitted with the actual arrays start to appear. It might be as simple as the PR guys wanted that 36XXX in as visible a place as possible, but even that would interesting.

 

[Hydroman]

Based upon the configuration of this platform, seems definitely geared towards the medium to low altitude strike missions and I could be wrong. I'm sure it has healthy supersonic dash speed performance as well. I don't think this thing has fighter-type maneuverability also, leave that to the second released platform, the J-20 and the J-35. It will be interesting how we (the US) will respond, I'm sure our intelligence organizations are working overtime or maybe the priority is getting Biden some more potato salad?

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

Electronics: Of course, they have come a long way to producing smaller wafers with high yield production overcoming western sanctions. However, the U.S. will still have the edge in radars because of using Taiwan or Japan's electronics production for their own 6th gen aircrafts. And Russia started production a month ago in PICs and have their own photonic computer set to be made to operate in Zettaflops which will match Intel and Japan's supercomputer plan's for the same Zettaflop range in like 2030 which is insane because Russia's domestic electronic wafer production capabilities are at 300nm to 90nm when they made those claims and eventually they will get to smaller size production capabilities to 11nm to improve their PICs\ https://www.notebookcheck.net/Russi...stem-to-rival-ASML-s-technology.935627.0.html.
Even Intel is changing its direction to photonics and a lot of investors in the US are looking into this direction as well. PICs also enhance neural network and A.I. capabilities. I am pretty damn sure China's 6th gen aircraft AFAIK is not flying around with PICs and a photonic computer.

Missiles: RVV-MD2 is basically the same as AIM-9x Block 3 with the 50-60km short missile range and 360-degree LOAL engagement. Both US and Russa are designing internal 300km air to air missiles and internal hypersonic air to ground missiles. Anything like that from China has been announced? I think ramjet air to air missile designs will be the future for same high speeds but longer ranges and 2030+ we will see production of these kinds of missiles for any 6th gen aircraft.

What makes any news from China feel so disinteresting like 6th gen aircrafts is that it feels like a copy and paste from another country's kind of aviation achievements such as the US. The UK and China immediately trying to field 6th gens while the US and Russia are taking their sweet ass time tells me whose latest aircraft designs would have more defining features what makes a 6th gen aircraft a 6th gen aircraft. This doesn't mean I will completely go shit on the Tempest and J-36 but that my current expectations are set very low unless they go with upgrades later on them.

You must have selective vision.

RVV-MD2 is a warmed over R-73 from the 1970s. Russia spend the 1990s trying to regain the ability to make R-73s, and then lost access to the (Ukrainian) seekers after the first Ukraine war in 2014 and had to sort that out by getting replacement seekers designed and made in Russia. It is now improving elements of the design, but conceptually it's archeology, not engineering.

Izdeliye 300, its clen-sheet replacement, was in stasis for 15 years and is only recently been revived. They are far off the pace.

China mastered production of the Python AAM as PL-8A in the the 1990s, in the 2000s improved it as PL-8B and have designed and in the 2010s designed and deployed the PL-10. General assessments are that PL-10 matches the current western AAMs like ASRAAM, IRIS-T and AIM-9X in performance. They now are designing a replacement for the PL-10.

China has deployed a number of longer range BVR AAMs and has been working on ramjet AAMs. Their progress is hypersonics has been noted.

China is the "pacing threat". Russia is a distant third at best.

 

[F-14ATomcat]

I am pretty sure the NGAD will have two engines as well.

But the basic point is the same: If you can produce engines of differing thrust but equivalent T/W and SFC... then one could go with a single 240kn dry thrust engine, two 120kn engines, three 80kn engines or four 60kn engines to do the same task.

Now, the scaling of T/W ratios and SFC may not be linear, the engines may perform differently over different parts of the flight regime, and there maybe structural implications etc. So it isn't that simple. But the basic point remains.

Assuming T/W and SFC don't change with the scale of the engine, then the considerations are things like manufacturing and maintenance costs... balanced against having an engine with enough thrust and possibly things like having an ability to switch off an engine and close its intake duct in flight to cruise at 2/3rds power.

I am not a professional engineer in aeronautics, so i do not know if that what NGAD will have, in my personal opinion an efficient engine type does not need that. I can not say more when they reveal NGAD or the European aircraft we will know but in the mean time I doubt that is the path they will use.