Shenyang / Chengdu 6th Gen Demonstrators?

[Mike Pryce]

Regarding the ongoing argument about the triple engines, the thing to keep in mind when you see a counter-intuitive configuration is not 'that's a bad idea' but 'someone thought that it was worth the tradeoffs for it to accomplish its mission, given their current capabilities - so what is that mission?' Someone crunched some numbers and got a result that they liked.

Minuses are complexity/maintenance, weight, bulk/volume, heat, drag. What plusses outweigh these?

Given that Chinese technology is apparently not up to producing the advanced variable-cycle engines that GE and P&W are struggling to develop, I lean towards the hypothesis that the central engine is a low-bypass turbofan or turbojet optimised for high-altitude, high-speed supercruise without afterburner or low-altitude dash with afterburner. The three operate as a system, combining capabilities or biases. The dorsal intake is not a problem because it won't be doing a lot of high-AOA manoeuvring in either regime.

I wonder if the reason for three engines is as simple as needing to cope with one failing on takeoff.

With two engines straddling the weapons bay if one fails and the other is then on max thrust that may be quite a lot of yawing moment for the split wingtip yaw control thingies to handle at low speed, especially if they are immersed in separated flow.

At high AoA/low speed the big diamond wing will be producing lots of drag, and maybe some vortices hitting the tips. With no conventional fin(s) or rudders(s) engine failure/yaw coupling is a fundamental design issue that has lost its conventional answer. (I think the B52 engine update has to stick with eight engines because they cannot resize the fin to allow four in case one fails.)

Having made the decision to have three engines they could have sold it as allowing a bigger plane/more range/payload etc.

The top engine 'hump' may also allow a little effective 'fin' area too, so easing the demands on the yaw controls in up and away flight.

 

[Avimimus]

Regarding the ongoing argument about the triple engines, the thing to keep in mind when you see a counter-intuitive configuration is not 'that's a bad idea' but 'someone thought that it was worth the tradeoffs for it to accomplish its mission, given their current capabilities - so what is that mission?' Someone crunched some numbers and got a result that they liked.

Minuses are complexity/maintenance, weight, bulk/volume, heat, drag. What plusses outweigh these?

Given that Chinese technology is apparently not up to producing the advanced variable-cycle engines that GE and P&W are struggling to develop, I lean towards the hypothesis that the central engine is a low-bypass turbofan or turbojet optimised for high-altitude, high-speed supercruise without afterburner or low-altitude dash with afterburner. The three operate as a system, combining capabilities or biases. The dorsal intake is not a problem because it won't be doing a lot of high-AOA manoeuvring in either regime.

Well put. I'm hesitant by any argument that would imply that China won't have a variable cycle engine in the next five to ten years. There are decades of people saying that the Chinese can only copy and not invent (sometimes saying this to me in explicitly racist terms), and it is dangerous. I'm sure you know the story of the Long-Lance effect?

That it was assumed the Type 93 was larger than other torpedoes due to the inferiority of the Japanese, no one thought it might also be oxygen powered, and staff theorised that Japanese submarines were somehow always in front of Japanese ships to explain away torpedo hits at long range (with it taking about a year before U.S. ships actually started evading at range).

It is absolutely reasonable to consider the possibility that China might be switching off one engine or mixing engines to gain endurance. But it would be unwise to ignore the possibility that a version of this airframe with a variable cycle engine might exist in just a few years.

From what I have read on this thread and others on other sites, people are torn between this being the ultimate A2A fighter versus a clean-sheet stealth strike bomber in the same idea of the Su-34.

The question I raised earlier - if your design can supercruise, is VLO, and has powerful sensors, long range, and a large payload - at the very least you have a platform that can work just as well in a Mig-31 equivalent role (a linebacker in American terms) and a Su-34/Tu-22 equivalent role. It is an inevitable result of the design.

If it is willing to sacrifice range for increased structural strength it could probably also be quite manoeuvrable (perhaps not as much as a Su-57, supermanoeuvrability might be questionable depending on stability issues - but certainly enough to get two successive passes in a few seconds with high off-boresight missiles). It might make more sense to usually just disengage rather than getting into WVR though. Given the range associated weight and other requirements of some of the implied NGAD specifications, I doubt it'll be much different in this respect either.

 

[Rolead]

No one has mentioned how many crew for each design. The Chengdu design seems the larger of the two with side-by-side seating (?), but could it be a four-seater like the EA-6B ? . Especially if the aircraft is thought of the as a 'battlecruiser' to help with the workload. Also would the Chinese consider a high/low mix where the Chengdu is the high and Shenyang the low.

 

[Woody]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1872212411882885564

View: https://x.com/Clay_PLAPAP/status/1872212411882885564?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1872212411882885564%7Ctwgr%5Edf1751bee20723dc4c2a78d55a6b39bf7ce1bf66%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.flightglobal.com%2Fdefence%2Fchina-celebrates-maos-birthday-with-new-combat-jets%2F161225.article

 

[Scott Kenny]

I agree, it's a huge aircraft but the main point I wanted to make was:

1. Is this an aircraft meant as a pre-production prototype to test and validate the general design concept, fix and refine, then go into mass production? Or this an aircraft meant as a one-off, "here's what we can make" by the Chinese military aerospace industry to the Chinese military?

I think it's a pre-production prototype, like the YF-22 was. Some details will certainly change, but it's intended to go into production.

2. Are there thrust vectoring nozzles on this aircraft or the potential to be fitted for them at some point, as well as afterburner? From what I have read on this thread and others on other sites, people are torn between this being the ultimate A2A fighter versus a clean-sheet stealth strike bomber in the same idea of the Su-34.

I personally am torn on the subject, if you are going to put complex CARAT type lower intakes and then a DSI upper intake, why not just save yourself the trouble and go full DSI? Unless the two outer engines are meant for higher speed operation and the inner one for efficient cruising, why have 3 of the same engine? Judging by the exhausts, they are the same model.

It may be able to do some thrust vectoring already, you can get some TV just by having simple flaps on the edge of the exhaust stream, via the coanda effect. Even the B-2 can do that, and it appears that there are flaps of some kind in line with the engines.

No one has mentioned how many crew for each design. The Chengdu design seems the larger of the two with side-by-side seating (?), but could it be a four-seater like the EA-6B ? . Especially if the aircraft is thought of the as a 'battlecruiser' to help with the workload.

Eh, maybe? I doubt it unless their CCAs need a lot more manual control, basically being Reaper-equivalents and not semi-autonomous.

Also would the Chinese consider a high/low mix where the Chengdu is the high and Shenyang the low.

No, I think the Chengdu is the Air Force plane (replacing Su27s/J11s/J16s and cascading them down to the units with J7s/J8s) and the Shenyang is the Navy plane (replacing J15s). The Chengdu is too big to fit on the carriers, unless you hang the butt of the plane way over the edge of the elevators.

 

[Blitzo]

From what I have read on this thread and others on other sites, people are torn between this being the ultimate A2A fighter versus a clean-sheet stealth strike bomber in the same idea of the Su-34.

I'll offer an alternative answer -- what if the ultimate A2A combat system of the forthcoming generation includes a manned A2A combat aircraft with physical parameters of what a stealthy theater range striker would look like?

 

[Ainen]

No, I think the Chengdu is the Air Force plane (replacing Su27s/J11s/J16s and cascading them down to the units with J7s/J8s) and the Shenyang is the Navy plane (replacing J15s). The Chengdu is too big to fit on the carriers, unless you hang the butt of the plane way over the edge of the elevators.

Chengdu one probably is in class of its own, it's too big for any flanker infrastructure. Unique aircraft of new type.
SY one, in my opinion, is future flanker replacement, probably for both services.

 

[TomcatViP]

I don't share the opinion that it's a demonstrator or pre-production. The mature FBW, smooth trajectory, lack of engine smoke, flight above urban terrain, all point toward a mature and refined design. There is also the side windows/sensor aperture: why would someone manufacture such complex part on a demonstrator? (by the way they remind me the ones on the X-3 that had that particular shape for downward vision)

But just a stupid question, has someone checked it's not AI generated? (I don't hear 3 engines running)

 

[Blitzo]

But just a stupid question, has someone checked it's not AI generated?

There's been plentiful videos of it in flight from multiple angles, from multiple different capture sources around Chengdu, and plentiful pictures from different angles, perspectives and sources as well.

Rather difficult to AI, fabricate or doctor things in that way.

If it were only one or two videos or pictures that existed, it would be somewhat more reasonable and prudent to consider.

 

[yeetmahboi]

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

View attachment 753920

LOL, as I predicted.

The rounded wingtip is another innovation.

 

[Woody]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1872297774919913576

View: https://x.com/lfx160219/status/1872297774919913576?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1872297774919913576%7Ctwgr%5Edf1751bee20723dc4c2a78d55a6b39bf7ce1bf66%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.flightglobal.com%2Fdefence%2Fchina-celebrates-maos-birthday-with-new-combat-jets%2F161225.article

 

[thanix01]

So I found this reddit thread with quote from J-20 and CAC Next Gen Military Aircraft designers regarding what they expect from a future fighter. I think it maybe usefull to give some idea of what China expect these aircraft to do and what they potentially may want to add to it.

https://www.reddit.com/r/LessCredibleDefence/comments/1hnvpc1/reflections_on_the_next_generation_of_fighter

Not sure if either of CAC or SAC upcoming aircraft can hit all of the things they wish for. Perhaps both SAC and CAC aircraft just choose to focus on doing certain aspect of what these designer want well.

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

2020 Article on Future Fighters by Yang Wei (Chengdu, J-20 Designer)

Development of future fighters

... published the next generation fighter capability inquiry, expecting to form initial combat capability around 2030. Subsequently, Boeing, Northrop Grumman, and Lockheed Martin each threw out the "F-X" plan to test the waters. During this period, a series of discussions were held on the characteristics of the so-called sixth-generation fighter: Is it hypersonic? How is the performance? Can it carry directed energy weapons? Few? Is it manned? In the end, the US Air Force found that the results of the demonstration were not satisfactory and unacceptable. First, the R&D cost may exceed any fighter jet project in history. Second, the R&D progress may result in deployment around 2040. Third, new concept technologies such as 3D printing, hypersonic speed, cluster combat, and autonomy are unlikely to become "panaceas" or "silver bullets", and their maturity and applicability are limited.
In 2016, the US Air Force's "Air Advantage 2030" research team suggested to the top leaders: abandon the discussion on the characteristics of the "sixth generation" fighter and focus on how to define the ability of penetrating air control (PCA). They don't even deliberately distinguish between B-bombers, A-attack aircraft, and fighters or MQ-drones, and use "capability clusters" and "system clusters" to describe them. In May of the same year, the US Air Force Chief of Staff approved the "Advantage 2030 Flight Plan", which clarified the US 2030 + construction goal of breaking the "anti-access/area denial" (A2/AD) capability.
At present, the United States is working hard to develop a penetrating air combat aircraft. Although it is not crowned with the "sixth-generation fighter", it may surpass the long-range and long-range capabilities of previous fighters, the high lethality brought by multiple weapons/high-density mounting, the omnidirectional ultra-low stealth brought by the supersonic tailless layout, and the terminal hard-kill defense of the self-defense missile. A series of capabilities will bring revolutionary changes to the future air combat form, enabling it to penetrate into the "anti-access/area denial" environment of high-intensity confrontation. In comparison, the F-22 and F-35 can only stay outside the defense zone in this environment. Therefore, in fact, it will form a cross-border attack on the fourth-generation aircraft.

According to this definition, for the US military's 2030 air superiority plan, the penetrating strike formation composed of penetrating air superiority/penetrating electronic warfare (PCA/P-EA) aircraft is a system. Penetrating air superiority and small advanced capability missiles (SACM), micro self-defense munitions (MSDM), and standoff strike weapons (SiAW) constitute a lower-level system. The logical relationship between this level of system and the next-generation air superiority system is very close. The next-generation fighter not only has detection, attack, electronic warfare and other functions, but also needs to be equipped with next-generation weapons to truly exert its combat effectiveness.

3.2 Platform and system develop in parallel

Being obsessed with the power of the platform and ignoring the construction of the system will make the mistake of becoming an "information island", while ignoring the emergence of system capabilities in the platform development, the system may be a castle in the air. Future development should be the parallel development and coordinated promotion of the platform and system, and the platform should build a strong system.

The 2016 Fiscal Year National Defense Authorization Act [42] passed by the U.S. Congress in November 2015 stipulates that a middle-tier acquisition (MTA) method that is not subject to the Joint Capabilities Integration and Development System (JCIDS) and Department of Defense Directive 5000.1 "Defense Acquisition System" should be adopted to achieve rapid prototyping and rapid deployment. Among them, rapid prototyping aims to develop a deployable prototype in about 5 years and conduct demonstration evaluation in a combat environment; rapid deployment aims to start production 6 months after the prototype is produced and complete deployment within 5 years.
It is worth noting that as soon as this authorization bill was proposed, Alex Grinkovich of the U.S. Air Force proposed in the "Future Air Superiority" series of articles: Only by rapidly developing deployable prototypes can the requirements of the 2030 node be met.
Will Roper, the head of procurement of the U.S. Air Force, also publicly mentioned the U.S. Air Force's rapid development plan, which can develop the next generation of fighter jets in a 5-year cycle, which is basically the same as the 5-year cycle of MTA.

It has been nearly 30 years since the first flight of YF-22. In the context of great power competition, technology and demand will once again reach the intersection. A cross-generation fighter is about to appear. It is a powerful backbone node platform with long-range, penetration, strong perception, strong firepower and rapid decision-making capabilities in the future distributed air combat system. Its form will definitely subvert the cognition of the concept of traditional fighters. Its appearance will definitely lead to a new round of revolution in air combat style and aviation technology and industry.

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

While this article is mostly a detailed account of what the US has been doing on NGAD, I believe there's a lot of stuff here which is directly applicable to the J-36. Particularly about rapid prototyping and deployment and "cross-generation" as well as the lack of distinction between fighter/attack/bomber.

 

[Scott Kenny]

Chengdu one probably is in class of its own, it's too big for any flanker infrastructure. Unique aircraft of new type.
SY one, in my opinion, is future flanker replacement, probably for both services.

Assuming that the Chengdu isn't a pure striker, it's more of a big interceptor like MiG31 or F-111B. Long range, decent weapons capacity in terms of AAMs, probably big/long AAMs at that like the AIM-174 or PL-17. But because it's got big weapons bays and decently sized fuel tanks, it's also a decent striker like the F-111 or Su-34.

I think the Chengdu is going to "replace" Su-27s, Su-35s, and J-11s in the PLAAF and the Flankers cascade down to other interceptor units that are currently stuck flying MiG-21s/J-7s or J-8s. Not technically directly replacing the ancient J7/J8s, but going to the units that currently fly Su-27s, Su-35s, and J-11s first, and the units with J-7s and J-8s retrain for Flankers and get the old Flankers. There's roughly as many J-11s, Su-27s, and Su-35s combined as there are J-7s and J-8s combined. (~300ish)

The Shenyang will replace the J-15s in the PLANAF, so they will have FC-31s/J-35s and whatever the Shenyang is going to be called (not J-36, that's the Chengdu) on the carriers. The oldest J-15 is 10 years old, and the PLANAF is expanding due to the new carriers. (60ish or more)

Which plane replaces Su-30s and J-16s depends. I think that J-20s will replace the Su-30s (stealth multirole for non-stealth multirole), so another 100x J-20s, total of ~400x.

The J-16s are very new, so they'll likely be the last replaced regardless of which plane does the replacing. I'm leaning more towards the Chengdu replacing the J-16 strike fighters, assuming that the Chengdu's bays are big enough to have a decent A2G load. That'd be another ~300ish Chengdus, but that wouldn't happen till all the other Flankers have been replaced.

I don't share the opinion that it's a demonstrator or pre-production. The mature FBW, smooth trajectory, lack of engine smoke, flight above urban terrain, all point toward a mature and refined design. There is also the side windows/sensor aperture: why would someone manufacture such complex part on a demonstrator? (by the way they remind me the ones on the X-3 that had that particular shape for downward vision)

YF-22 and YF-23 both had smooth flight trajectory once they addressed the PIO issue in the -22. IIRC, the only major adjustment to the YF-23's FBW was adding some damper code while the weight-on-wheels switch was closed, so the tails would stop twitching on the ground. And an event like that wouldn't be seen with the plane in the air like all these videos are.

The flight above urban terrain was to get as many people as possible to take footage of it, so as to make the biggest splash in the media. Remember, the planes flew on Mao's Birthday, a very significant date for the Chinese Communist Party. And of course only 3 weeks before the new president takes over.

 

[abheiden]

I'm talking about planning that was current in the early '90s and specifically related to the Su-27. Still 30 years ago, but closer than WWII. It's worth bearing in mind that when we look at these new aircraft, unless they're really bare bones tech demonstrators, they're likely the result of projects that are a decade old or more at this point.

I wonder if the reason for three engines is as simple as needing to cope with one failing on takeoff.

With two engines straddling the weapons bay if one fails and the other is then on max thrust that may be quite a lot of yawing moment for the split wingtip yaw control thingies to handle at low speed, especially if they are immersed in separated flow.

At high AoA/low speed the big diamond wing will be producing lots of drag, and maybe some vortices hitting the tips. With no conventional fin(s) or rudders(s) engine failure/yaw coupling is a fundamental design issue that has lost its conventional answer. (I think the B52 engine update has to stick with eight engines because they cannot resize the fin to allow four in case one fails.)

Having made the decision to have three engines they could have sold it as allowing a bigger plane/more range/payload etc.

The top engine 'hump' may also allow a little effective 'fin' area too, so easing the demands on the yaw controls in up and away flight.

IMHO the big wing is a plus for dogfight at high altitude say 30000 feet+ maybe outturn a F16.
Even in the good old days a B36 thanks to it enormus wings at high altitude outturn the fighters of that day

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

Wang Haifeng (Chengdu, allegedly Chief Designer of J-36)
"Key Technologies for Co-design of High-Performance Fighter and Engine"

高性能战斗机与发动机协同设计关键技术

The future operational environment imposes higher and more comprehensive requirements for the performance of fighters, calling for deeper integration between fighter airframe and engine and closer collaborative design during fighter research and development. Building on theories and practices for optimum airframe-engine integration in fighter design in the past decades, this paper proposes a collaborative airframe-engine design concept. Through an analysis of the combat requirements of Penetrating Counter Air (PCA) and other operational concepts, this paper then presents the essential capabilities of high performance fighters and looks into the requirements of future-oriented collaboration airframe-engine design. The key technologies concerning flight performance, stealth characteristics, flight control and aircraft energy are discussed, and the possible implementation approaches and suggestions for design and research are also provided.

 

[trajan]

My Chinese friend gave me two interesting pictures.

The first one shows a normal version of a Chengdu VI aircraft mounting
The picture includes two long range hypersonic attack missiles similar to the kinzel.
There are also the following active Chinese missiles used for size comparison:
One PL15E long-range missile with foldable wings, one PL17 ultra long-range air-to-air missile, one PL12E medium-range air-to-air missile, and one PL10E close-combat air-to-air missile

 

[trajan]

The other is a wildly conceived combination of a 2020-registered drawing of an airborne vertical launch system and a mounted version with a large number of vertically-launched missiles designed by CFA44, the fictional aircraft from the famous video game ACE COMBAT

 

[Ainen]

Assuming that the Chengdu isn't a pure striker, it's more of a big interceptor like MiG31 or F-111B. Long range, decent weapons capacity in terms of AAMs, probably big/long AAMs at that like the AIM-174 or PL-17. But because it's got big weapons bays and decently sized fuel tanks, it's also a decent striker like the F-111 or Su-34.

The problem is that it's a 25x25 wedge.
Basically, only H-6 infrastructure works.

China recently invested quite a lot into fortifying its airbases for flanker fleet(already huge reinforced hangars etc).
Even if they can aim for similar fleet of Chengdu jets(which will bite probably, big expensive aircraft), all the investment will go to waste.

Also, flankers are 'normal' fighters; Chengdu interdictor is ... certainly a2a, but not in equal sense. It probably can't WVR, for example, so something as simple as escorting a Chinese MPA, annoying an American destroyer, which is annoying Chinese island base, which is annoying US government, from being annoyed by US fighter jet - can't be done.
It can shoot it down, sure, but everyone were just annoying each other because it's their job. And now our spring of annoyances bursts out of control.

So such a change will be a change of posture, not just replacement.
Shenyang one is straightforward flanker-sized heavy fighter.

Count me sceptical.

 

[lancer21]

An excellent read from Tphuang here:

More thoughts on 6th generation projects

This is a follow up on what we have seen with the recent unveiling of Chengdu and Shenyang’s 6th generation project.

tphuang.substack.com

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

So judging by the literature, it appears we have an implementation of the PCA concept with rapid development, manned and unmanned systems, and a cross-generation approach, based squarely on what NGAD was going to be a few years back. Note discussions of adaptive 3 stream engines as well - likely for future production.

 

[zebra159357]

So judging by the literature, it appears we have an implementation of the PCA concept with rapid development, manned and unmanned systems, and a cross-generation approach, based squarely on what NGAD was going to be a few years back. Note discussions of adaptive 3 stream engines as well.

Will Roper sure had an innovative approach..

https://www.af.mil/Portals/1/documents/7/Take_the_Red_Pill-Digital_Acquisition.pdf

 

[siegecrossbow]

Think they’ll go nuts and incorporate VLS on this bird?

 

[Scott Kenny]

The problem is that it's a 25x25 wedge.
Basically, only H-6 infrastructure works.

China recently invested quite a lot into fortifying its airbases for flanker fleet(already huge reinforced hangars etc).
Even if they can aim for similar fleet of Chengdu jets(which will bite probably, big expensive aircraft), all the investment will go to waste.

Also, flankers are 'normal' fighters; Chengdu interdictor is ... certainly a2a, but not in equal sense. It probably can't WVR, for example, so something as simple as escorting a Chinese MPA, annoying an American destroyer, which is annoying Chinese island base, which is annoying US government, from being annoyed by US fighter jet - can't be done.
It can shoot it down, sure, but everyone were just annoying each other because it's their job. And now our spring of annoyances bursts out of control.

So such a change will be a change of posture, not just replacement.
Shenyang one is straightforward flanker-sized heavy fighter.

Count me sceptical.

Okay, I follow your reasoning.

Not sure I agree, but I follow the logic.

The other is a wildly conceived combination of a 2020-registered drawing of an airborne vertical launch system and a mounted version with a large number of vertically-launched missiles designed by CFA44, the fictional aircraft from the famous video game ACE COMBAT

Combined reply:

Think they’ll go nuts and incorporate VLS on this bird

I'm not convinced that the missiles in the VLS will eject safely at speed. Remember, as soon as the missiles clear the muzzle, you have 500+kph winds trying to bend the missile over. If you're lucky it just bends. If you're unlucky it gets stuck in the tube. If you're really unlucky, the solid rocket cracks and suffers a rapid unexpected disassembly that takes the plane with it.

 

[Scott Kenny]

View attachment 754013

The other is a wildly conceived combination of a 2020-registered drawing of an airborne vertical launch system and a mounted version with a large number of vertically-launched missiles designed by CFA44, the fictional aircraft from the famous video game ACE COMBAT

I much prefer the idea of a pop-up tube launcher than a VLS.

If you're going to use a weird launcher system, you need lenticular missiles like Pye Wacket.

 

[Noveos]

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.

Perhaps that was the wrong example. I just think people are too quick to call it 6th gen, but I am admittedly becoming more convinced it is one

 

[lancer21]

Anyone want to comment/speculate on the large white panels on the upper side and back of the J-36? Some say it's cammo but it surely must be something more exotic than that. Mirror like coating panels like tested on F-22 and F-35? Some kind of embedded antennas, if so what for?

 

[Avimimus]

I wonder if that VLS concept is for hard-kill missile interceptors or decoys? Can anyone who reads Chinese clarify?

 

[trajan]

While this article is mostly a detailed account of what the US has been doing on NGAD, I believe there's a lot of stuff here which is directly applicable to the J-36. Particularly about rapid prototyping and deployment and "cross-generation" as well as the lack of distinction between fighter/attack/bomber.

So the question arises, what means should we use to counter the threat of these two new types of fighters before the NGAD becomes a reality?
As of now the Chinese military's application of the new aircraft is mainly tilted towards ultra long range spot kills of our support units including but not limited to AWACS, refueling, and carriers.
This is due to the fact that the Chinese Air Force still has less information about air combat that they have experienced themselves, and gathered from allies.
Including the reports that have come out showing that their pilots are still inferior to ours in standoffs near the South China Sea.

So they tend to undercut our auxiliary units to get a fair shot.

So can we utilize on the only stealthy large platform available, the B21, or the smaller RQ170/80, and convert it to an air-to-air AWACS and refueling aircraft to reduce the risk of being attacked, and to fundamentally counter the Chinese Air Force's tactics?

 

[Avimimus]

An excellent read from Tphuang here:

More thoughts on 6th generation projects

This is a follow up on what we have seen with the recent unveiling of Chengdu and Shenyang’s 6th generation project.

tphuang.substack.com

Very dubious on the high speed claims. One loses a lot of efficiency, and there are also issues like aerodynamic heating (which might limit the options for stealth coatings used). Speeds closer to the F-22 would seem to make a lot more sense (with better subsonic cruise efficiencies).

 

[Scott Kenny]

Very dubious on the high speed claims. One loses a lot of efficiency, and there are also issues like aerodynamic heating (which might limit the options for stealth coatings used). Speeds closer to the F-22 would seem to make a lot more sense (with better subsonic cruise efficiencies).

Carets or DSIs are not good for a wide speed range like TPHuang is talking about. You need a variable inlet, and IIRC the best variable inlet for LO is a spike like the Blackbird (and F-23 EMD).

 

[Nx4eu]

A Mach 2 super cruise is believable, but a Mach 3 top speed sounds too high indeed. I wouldn't put it past it having a optimized super cruise at Mach 2, but with a top speed being capped near Mach 2.5

 

[siegecrossbow]

A Mach 2 super cruise is believable, but a Mach 3 top speed sounds too high indeed. I wouldn't put it past it having a optimized super cruise at Mach 2, but with a top speed being capped near Mach 2.5

Yeah it will meet the heat barrier which opens a whole can of worms. Unless there is new RAM that can withstand the intense heat. Even then it will light up like a Christmas tree on IR sensors.

 

[SOC]

RAM that can withstand the heat at Mach 3 has been around since the 1960s.

 

[Ronny]

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. View attachment 753941
View attachment 753944

what if those window are not for the EOTS equivalent but for DEW? and the inlet at the top is actually a ram air inlet purely for DEW?

 

[LowObservable]

RAM that can withstand the heat at Mach 3 has been around since the 1960s.

You just need to find the right fishing-tackle company.

 

[TomcatViP]

Or for some direct sight during landing for the pilots.

 

[Ronny]

Yeah it will meet the heat barrier which opens a whole can of worms. Unless there is new RAM that can withstand the intense heat. Even then it will light up like a Christmas tree on IR sensors.

pretty sure the RAM on F-35 and F-22 rear engine blocker could easily sustain the intense heat

 

[AGS-1787]

Could it be interim until they have the proper engines for it? Then they will switch to 2 engines