PLAAF 6th generation fighter thread, news and rumours


Bltizo

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Registered Member
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #101
I think this is more of an aerodynamic concept since I don't see a lot of room for weapons bay, which admittedly is a shortcoming for aircraft with belly-intake.
On the one hand I wouldn't read too much into the specific details too much (like, it appears on this model there are no air intakes visible to begin with, with those to be modelled at a later date).
But at the same time, what can be surmised from that particular configuration is the dorsal/topside engine nacelles which are quite significant in size which would likely be able to accommodate most of the engine and a significant part of the air intake duct as well.
Obviously we don't know how big this model is meant to represent --20m, or 22m or maybe even 24m long?? Which would change the assessments of weapons bay size.

But even taking a middle ground approach, say 22m, I wouldn't be surprised if it had a decent stores capacity.
 

anzha

Junior Member
Registered Member
I think this is more of an aerodynamic concept since I don't see a lot of room for weapons bay, which admittedly is a shortcoming for aircraft with belly-intake.
The YF-23 was mildly impacted, but still had a . It's largely dependent on size, too. Some reports of the 6th gen place them closer to between the F-111 and B-58 in size due to the supposed unrefueled range requirements.

We'll see.
 

latenlazy

Colonel
On the one hand I wouldn't read too much into the specific details too much (like, it appears on this model there are no air intakes visible to begin with, with those to be modelled at a later date).
But at the same time, what can be surmised from that particular configuration is the dorsal/topside engine nacelles which are quite significant in size which would likely be able to accommodate most of the engine and a significant part of the air intake duct as well.
Obviously we don't know how big this model is meant to represent --20m, or 22m or maybe even 24m long?? Which would change the assessments of weapons bay size.

But even taking a middle ground approach, say 22m, I wouldn't be surprised if it had a decent stores capacity.
I wouldn’t make too big a deal of this one. This looks like a configuration study, not a total design study. I’m sure there are a number of different configurations they’re looking at for a number of different design objectives. We’re not going to have an idea of what the candidate designs actually look like until they synthesize a proposal for a request with requirements.
 

Bltizo

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Registered Member
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #104
I wouldn’t make too big a deal of this one. This looks like a configuration study, not a total design study. I’m sure there are a number of different configurations they’re looking at for a number of different design objectives. We’re not going to have an idea of what the candidate designs actually look like until they synthesize a proposal for a request with requirements.
Yeah definitely, I'm not putting anymore stock into this any any of the other delta/arrowhead configuration studies we've seen over the last few years.

I'm more just pointing out to Siege that even as "minimalistic" as this specific configuration is, there is a very reasonable expectation that if it were somehow realized into a proper sized 6th gen aircraft, that it would probably have a respectably sized weapons bay.
 

Inst

Senior Member
I think this is more of an aerodynamic concept since I don't see a lot of room for weapons bay, which admittedly is a shortcoming for aircraft with belly-intake.
Note the height of the cockpit; i.e, YF-23 style large weapons bay attached to the pilot pod.

Or, the pilot pod could be discarded altogether in an unmanned configuration. The concept design doesn't seem to place a lot of priority on pilot visibility; this could have ditched the pilot pod.

The most interesting part is the pseudo-fins; i.e, above the engine you get angular shaping as though the intent is to form an aerodynamic control surface, but it's not.

@Canton_pop

More like post J-20; as I've said privately to people working in Western defense, the J-20 is closer to a dissertation; the criticism of the J-20 as having too many aerodynamic surfaces / devices is apt. But it is an original design, and current Chinese aircraft in development have mostly been quite interesting or innovative.

The biggest limitation, of course, is the engine. If both the WS-10 and WS-15 had tortured adolescences, what can we expect from the WS-25 / WS-XX?
 

Top