PLA 6th generation fighter thread

[tphuang]

I was listening to an interview with Justin Bronk about NGAD. He mentioned how NGAD is supposed to have range of 750+ nm and all aspect stealth. Which means that it will probably be really large and have flywing type of planform. That type of platform is historically really expensive and he estimated it to be $300 to $350 million each. Imo, that might even be an underestimate if the loyalwingman of B-21 is estimated to be $300 million each. To me, it seems like the manned fighter jet portion of NGAD will be procured at very small numbers (maybe just 300 to 400) and be backed up with a whole lot of loyal wingman (maybe 1 manned for every 4 or 5 unmanned)

So, if we bring that back to PLAAF's 6th gen design, that should also be getting picked very soon. I think most of us expect it to be CAC winning the 6th gen project. Aside from the obvious advancements in situation awareness, network of man/unmanned systems, all around stealth, it will be interesting to see what PLAAF requirements look like. J-20 already has probably the longest range of any 5th gen aircraft. I would assume the 6th gen aircraft will be even larger and more powerful. Aside from that, does PLAAF's design need to have something like 1500 km combat radius with just internal fuel/payload? Will they require all aspect stealth or will they sacrifice stealth at certain radar band or from rear/side to lower costs and be produced at larger numbers?

 

[Andy1974]

J-20 pilots have already talked about flying with 4 drones in training, it makes sense for the US to do this also. If we consider these drones and their successors to be 6th Gen, then China is already fielding it.

If we consider 6th Gen needs 2 people in 1 manned fighter then the J-20B has all the systems in place already.

I have the feeling that when “6th Gen” gets defined, we will realize China will already basically have it.

 

[gelgoog]

NGAD would be long range since it would be designed for a Pacific conflict.
It will likely have much lower fuel consumption because of the variable cycle engine.

 

[ZeEa5KPul]

I don't see how this NGAD is supposed to have anything to do with air dominance with a flying wing planform. Flying wings are subsonic and not maneuverable, and the US would be monumentally stupid to think speed and maneuverability can be discounted entirely for stealth.

I think 6th gens will have some type of variable wing planform with things like flip-up tails. I expect the engine and planform to work in tandem where tails would be lowered and the engine in cruise mode during rendezvous, while in engagements the tails would be raised and the engines switched to power.

It also goes without saying that the PLAAF needs absolutely everything the US needs with NGAD. The days of the PLA having to go with ad hoc solutions are long behind us. If the USAF has a capability, the PLAAF needs a capability at least as good.

 

[Blitzo]

I don't see how this NGAD is supposed to have anything to do with air dominance with a flying wing planform. Flying wings are subsonic and not maneuverable, and the US would be monumentally stupid to think speed and maneuverability can be discounted entirely for stealth.

I think 6th gens will have some type of variable wing planform with things like flip-up tails. I expect the engine and planform to work in tandem where tails would be lowered and the engine in cruise mode during rendezvous, while in engagements the tails would be raised and the engines switched to power.

Both China and the US have/are studying those planforms extensively.

Take these planforms and control surface solutions, fitted with modern 2020s era flight control systems, and scale it to a 22m long aircraft (rest of airframe sized accordingly).


I would be surprised if the PLA and US 6th gen efforts did not both end up with some sort of tailless flying wing arrow-head planform.

 

[Blitzo]

I suspect the order of priorities for 6th generation airframes will be ranked as thus, in descending order: stealth, endurance/range/payload, speed, maneuverability.

Superior situational awareness and denial of the enemy's ability to detect and locate yourself, will likely be the highest priorities for the 6th generation.
The airframe's own inbuilt kinematic performance will be important to allow it to exploit its situational awareness and stealth, but it will be different to past generations where situational awareness and stealth were used to exploit an aircraft's kinematic performance.

(situational awareness in this case referring to the whole spectrum of onboard and offboard sensors and networking that a 6th generation aircraft will have access to)


And a few more pictures -- the last two being that tailless delta airframe from last year we saw at CAC. It's sized similar to a J-10 or F-16, and I suspect if it is one of the flight planform tech demonstrators for 6th gen applications that CAC as mentioned a couple years back.

 

[ZeEa5KPul]

Both China and the US have/are studying those planforms extensively.

Take these planforms and control surface solutions, fitted with modern 2020s era flight control systems, and scale it to a 22m long aircraft (rest of airframe sized accordingly).


I would be surprised if the PLA and US 6th gen efforts did not both end up with some sort of tailless flying wing arrow-head planform.

View attachment 90619View attachment 90620View attachment 90621View attachment 90622View attachment 90623

Yes, something like this makes sense. The control surfaces on these planforms are very unusual on a traditional flying wing. Do you have an idea what kind of kinematics each are these capable of? Can the fly at Mach 2+? How fast are their turn rates?

Edit: Very interesting pics and illustrations. It seems that the 6th gens will be some kind of swept flying wing or dart.

The airframe's own inbuilt kinematic performance will be important to allow it to exploit its situational awareness and stealth, but it will be different to past generations where situational awareness and stealth were used to exploit an aircraft's kinematic performance.

Could you elaborate on this?

 

[Blitzo]

Yes, something like this makes sense. The control surfaces on these planforms are very unusual on a traditional flying wing. Do you have an idea what kind of kinematics each are these capable of? Can the fly at Mach 2+? How fast are their turn rates?

These are not traditional flying wings -- all moving wingtips combined with spoiler slot deflectors on an aggressive flying wing delta like that is not a B-2 style flying wing.

I'm sure you don't seriously expect myself or others to know what their turn rate or maximum speed is, given these are only planform studies.


However, I would advise you to perhaps recalibrate what sort of kinematic performance a 6th generation fighter is meant to achieve.

Put more importance on stealth, endurance and payload.

It may well be that the kinematic performance of 6th generation fighters ends up being no better, or even inferior (or significantly inferior) to some 5th generation fighters.

 

[Andy1974]

These are not traditional flying wings -- all moving wingtips combined with spoiler slot deflectors on an aggressive flying wing delta like that is not a B-2 style flying wing.

I'm sure you don't seriously expect myself or others to know what their turn rate or maximum speed is, given these are only planform studies.


However, I would advise you to perhaps recalibrate what sort of kinematic performance a 6th generation fighter is meant to achieve.

Put more importance on stealth, endurance and payload.

It may well be that the kinematic performance of 6th generation fighters ends up being no better, or even inferior (or significantly inferior) to some 5th generation fighters.

If it is not highly maneuverable then it could possibly be countered, a bit down the line, by a cheap fast maneuvering drone.

The PLA said in a report about the Kratos drone that one good way to counter it is with a more maneuverable drone and shoot it down with guns.

In 6th Gen vs 6th Gen, Within Visual Range, with anti-missile missiles and laser defenses proliferating, you will be glad you are more maneuverable and have guns.

 

[Blitzo]

If it is not highly maneuverable then it could possibly be countered, a bit down the line, by a cheap fast maneuvering drone.

The PLA said in a report about the Kratos drone that one good way to counter it is with a more maneuverable drone and shoot it down with guns.

In 6th Gen vs 6th Gen, Within Visual Range, with anti-missile missiles and laser defenses proliferating, you will be glad you are more maneuverable and have guns.

"Cheap" and "fast+maneuvring" in the same sentence doesn't work.

Especially if your drone needs to be large enough and stealthy enough to survive to get within visual range of a 6th gen fighter (and the 6th gen fighter's own network of attritable sensor/shooter drones).


Future aerial UCAVs are unlikely to be high maneuverable dogfighting drones like in video games like ace combat, but rather stealthy sensor and weapons platforms that are relatively hard to detect, highly networked and designed to extend the sensor and weapons range of your system-of-systems.

It would be very exceptional and unlikely for a "cheap, fast and maneuverable" drone or aircraft to get within visual range of your 6th generation fighters before they are detected and destroyed hundreds of km away. This is assuming the drone somehow even knows where your 6th gen fighter and it's supporting MUMT UCAVs are, to begin with.



And if it somehow comes down to 6th gen Vs 6th gen in WVR, then chances are one of you have already lost well before that stage because you would've already lost your supporting system of systems.

The gains in combat efficacy by prioritzing kinematic performance simply isn't as worthwhile as stealth, endurance, payload (including sensors and networking).
Bleeding edge kinematic performance for next generation air combat reaches diminishing returns too quickly relative to other parameters of air combat