Shenyang next gen combat aircraft thread

[siegecrossbow]

No question about both being for air dominance. But why would PLAAF need both at the same time? J-50 while being smaller in size, does not appear to be a less expensive one to complement J-36 for a hi-lo combination.

My understanding is risk management as well as expense. Assuming that both use WS-15 in service and later switch to same TBCC engine (for logistics) there will be massive saving for Shenyang plane in terms of engine alone, not to mention maintenance and other costs. You can also store a lot more SAC aircraft within hangars (probably can get away with modified flanker and J-20 hangars) while same cannot be said for the J-36. Finally, there is significant risk with putting everything in the J-36 basket because for the first time in aviation history China is the one defining air combat philosophy. It may be too radical for today’s technology, and until we test the theories out in practice there is no real way of knowing for sure. Always better to have an advanced but less radical option to fall back on.

 

[latenlazy]

Why would PLAAF need two different classes of manned 6th gen aircrafts at the same time while pursuing unmanned CCA?

J-36 isn’t expected to be a mainstay fighter. It’s a super expensive super high capability platform at the center of a system’s based forced multiplier doctrine. You still need a numbers filler for the manned contingent, especially since tactical employment development for CCAs is still dependent on an unclear timeline.

 

[SanWenYu]

My understanding is risk management as well as expense. Assuming that both use WS-15 in service and later switch to same TBCC engine (for logistics) there will be massive saving for Shenyang plane in terms of engine alone, not to mention maintenance and other costs. You can also store a lot more SAC aircraft within hangars (probably can get away with modified flanker and J-20 hangars) while same cannot be said for the J-36. Finally, there is significant risk with putting everything in the J-36 basket because for the first time in aviation history China is the one defining air combat philosophy. It may be too radical for today’s technology, and until we test the theories out in practice there is no real way of knowing for sure. Always better to have an advanced but less radical option to fall back on.

I see the point to reduce risks. Also agree on the potential savings from reusing some existing facilities and sharing engines, etc. However having both in service will also mean less number to procure for each thus pushing up the unit costs. But it is difficult for us to guesstimate it.

 

[SanWenYu]

J-36 isn’t expected to be a mainstay fighter. It’s a super expensive super high capability platform at the center of a system’s based forced multiplier doctrine. You still need a numbers filler for the manned contingent, especially since tactical employment development for CCAs is still dependent on an unclear timeline.

I see so it will still be a hi-lo configuration of some kind.

 

[Blitzo]

My understanding is risk management as well as expense. Assuming that both use WS-15 in service and later switch to same TBCC engine (for logistics) there will be massive saving for Shenyang plane in terms of engine alone, not to mention maintenance and other costs. You can also store a lot more SAC aircraft within hangars (probably can get away with modified flanker and J-20 hangars) while same cannot be said for the J-36. Finally, there is significant risk with putting everything in the J-36 basket because for the first time in aviation history China is the one defining air combat philosophy. It may be too radical for today’s technology, and until we test the theories out in practice there is no real way of knowing for sure. Always better to have an advanced but less radical option to fall back on.

TBCC?

I assume you mean ACE/VCE rather than TBCC, because those are very different things...

 

[siegecrossbow]

TBCC?

I assume you mean ACE/VCE rather than TBCC, because those are very different things...

Yeah, my mistake.

 

[dodgson]

I see so it will still be a hi-lo configuration of some kind.

I believe so, but I think that this hi-lo combo is driven primarily by the demand for naval aircraft in China's growing carrier fleet. The PLAAF wants big land-based aircraft with a long range and heavy payload capacity to deter threats at a distance, but launching aircraft at sea places practical limitations on size. So if you're committed to spending the extra money designing a smaller aircraft for your navy, you would be wise to take advantage of that sunk investment cost and adapt a land-based variant that can also serve as a lower-cost compliment to your high-end land-based fighter.

For example, the PLAAF initially showed little interest in the J-35's medium-weight design (from FC-31 Gyrfalcon), but the PLAN showed interest, so development continued, and after refining the naval variant, a land based variant was finally developed too, the J-35A, and after that development began on an export variant. But this was primarily driven by the navy's interest, without which it is entirely possible the J-35 would not exist, and J-20 might be the PLAAF's only fifth gen fighter.

In this regard people see symmetry between the J-20/J-35 fifth gen combo and the J-36/J-50 sixth gen combo. Driven by the inevitable need for carrier capable sixth gen aircraft, one would expect China to develop two sixth gen jets, especially considering that the USA is doing so as well with the US Air Force's F-47 and the US Navy's F/A-XX program. So when the J-36/J-50 were both revealed, people anticipated that the lighter J-50 might be developed into a naval variant someday while also serving as a lower-cost compliment to the PLAAF's more expensive J-36. But of course, only time will tell.

 

[ACuriousPLAFan]

I see the point to reduce risks. Also agree on the potential savings from reusing some existing facilities and sharing engines, etc. However having both in service will also mean less number to procure for each thus pushing up the unit costs. But it is difficult for us to guesstimate it.

I see so it will still be a hi-lo configuration of some kind.

I'll just bring out this one again.



(The "dump truck" i.e. bomber refers to the still-WIP H-20.)

As for the numbers - I wouldn't be as concerned for the J-XDS. Even without considering the probable carrier-based variant, there's definitely going to be more J-XDS to be inducted with the PLAAF relative to the J-36.

In the 6th-gen lineup, the J-XDS will be the workhorse of the PLAAF.

In the meantime, I believe that the J-36 is definitely going to be procured in the triple digits, even if the evential numbers are only in the low-100s. Perferably, at least 2x to 2.5x the planned procurement number of the B-21 by the USAF.

 

[latenlazy]

I'll just bring out this one again.

View attachment 153516

(The "dump truck" i.e. bomber refers to the still-WIP H-20.)

As for the numbers - I wouldn't be as concerned for the J-XDS. Even without considering the probable carrier-based variant, there's definitely going to be more J-XDS to be inducted with the PLAAF relative to the J-36.

In the 6th-gen lineup, the J-XDS will be the workhorse of the PLAAF.

In the meantime, I believe that the J-36 is definitely going to be procured in the triple digits, even if the evential numbers are only in the low-100s. Perferably, at least 2x to 2.5x the planned procurement number of the B-21 by the USAF.

I think it will easily be more than low triple digits. I expect the manned stealth fighter air fleet to be a minimum 1200-1500 fighters for at least another generation, and unless the plan is keep a 5th gen fighter around as a numbers filler that whole contingent will eventually become a mix of J-50s and J-36s. If those are the correct ballpark numbers something like 300-500 J-36s is probably reasonable. Something we really should be factoring more into future force projections is fleet expansion. The 4th gen procurement numbers were more a function of limited resources than an optimal fleet size for a country as large (and now as well resourced) as China. One thing to keep in mind is that so long as air control over the western pacific is an essential mission that is *a lot* of area to cover, so while I don’t expect the J-36 to be a mainstay I do think having a few hundred around would be ideal in the event of a high intensity conflict where you may have to cover a lot of area simultaneously.

 

[manqiangrexue]

Are you saying that J-36 and J-50 would be serving different roles in PLAAF? Care to elaborate?

It's almost as if you haven't read anything about either aircraft posted on this forum since they first flew last year. Almost...