Shenyang / Chengdu "6th Gen" Aircraft - General Discussion and Speculation

Ah, what the hey, I'll jump in here first.

I think the H-20 is going to be a "stealth H-6" in rough capabilities, not a B-2. 9000kg bombload and 3200nmi range. The Chinese airfields are designed around that scale aircraft, as is their current military doctrine.
 
Well, they seems to follow the J-20 "very heavy fighter" doctrine with emphasis on stealth. Apparently PLAAF follow the concept of future air combat being less about maneuvering, but more about detecting & hitting stealthy enemy with a salvo of long-range missiles, while staying out of his detection capability. Thus the heavy emphasus on stealth - to avoid being targeted first - and large size - to have payload and range to carry heavy, long-range missiles on internal carriage.
 
I think in many areas that the US has already lost the technical race to China. That includes aviation. I blame politicians on all sides in the US. It’s been a modern case of fiddling whilst Rome burns for years now. Look at the mess on hypersonic research, let alone NGAD. And no the tech bros aren’t going to pull the politicians fat out of fire either.
 
Given that there's half generation between new release and j-20(and just a single development span between it and j-35) - i don't think newcomers are replacement for chinese 5th generation.
It could be generational in 1970s, but the speed of "airframe" progress isn't there anymore.

If they're - they're in pipeline to replace flankers(Shenyang airrcraft), and attempt at somethting new entirely(Chengdu one).

Shenyang bird is still very hard to reasonably asses; it's still unlikely to be overly "joint" - if anything, simply because both PLAN and PLAAF paid for J-35, and I will be...surprised if it will go away in 5 years. It's too early even for J-15/16 fleets to go away.

Chengdu aircraft, while it notably drew attention with its uniqueness, at the moment is a rather measurable quantity.
By personal assesment - silver bullet type interdictor for disruptive action over the sea and island chains. I.e. in a way the task that was attributed to J-20 with all the "interceptor" talk. Which isn't really an interceptor work.
 
Well, they seems to follow the J-20 "very heavy fighter" doctrine with emphasis on stealth. Apparently PLAAF follow the concept of future air combat being less about maneuvering, but more about detecting & hitting stealthy enemy with a salvo of long-range missiles, while staying out of his detection capability. Thus the heavy emphasus on stealth - to avoid being targeted first - and large size - to have payload and range to carry heavy, long-range missiles on internal carriage.

Which is consistent with what we've seen from NGAD as well.

That said, I'm yet to be convinced that this aircraft is manoeuvrable in the supersonic flight regime. I'm not an expert in supersonic aerodynamics, but I'm not sure that the dorsal intake and absence of vertical stabilisers really make that much of a difference at the overall angles-of-attack that predominate in supersonic BVR fights.
 
Which is consistent with what we've seen from NGAD as well.

That said, I'm yet to be convinced that this aircraft is manoeuvrable in the supersonic flight regime. I'm not an expert in supersonic aerodynamics, but I'm not sure that the dorsal intake and absence of vertical stabilisers really make that much of a difference at the overall angles-of-attack that predominate in supersonic BVR fights.
Theres no point for the J-36 to be very maneuverable in the Su-57 sense. It just needs to be maneuverable to move into optimal launch position for its long range BVR missiles, for the very unlikely scenario that it does get into a WVR combat situation modern IR missiles already have the maneuverability to basically hit anything that's not immediately beside the launch plane, coupled with the presumed advanced sensors placed around the aircraft which would allow tracking close range targets from basically any direction.
 
Theres no point for the J-36 to be very maneuverable in the Su-57 sense. It just needs to be maneuverable to move into optimal launch position for its long range BVR missiles, for the very unlikely scenario that it does get into a WVR combat situation modern IR missiles already have the maneuverability to basically hit anything that's not immediately beside the launch plane, coupled with the presumed advanced sensors placed around the aircraft which would allow tracking close range targets from basically any direction.
It's in combat(and there are still significant nuances to that aspect; also, as of now it isn't quite obvious J-36 will even carry IR WVR missiles at all). Left of shooting, it's still a problem, as it is still problem for self-defense maneuvering and so on.
But overall, Chengdu had to choose, and the choice is rather obvious. For better maneuvering performance(BVR, WVR, supersonic, subsonic, stall) PLAAF has literally everything else.
 
Theres no point for the J-36 to be very maneuverable in the Su-57 sense. It just needs to be maneuverable to move into optimal launch position for its long range BVR missiles, for the very unlikely scenario that it does get into a WVR combat situation modern IR missiles already have the maneuverability to basically hit anything that's not immediately beside the launch plane, coupled with the presumed advanced sensors placed around the aircraft which would allow tracking close range targets from basically any direction.

(1) Survival in BVR environments can benefit from being able to sustain turns (high gee but low angle-of-attack). Kinematic defeat of missiles in BVR is one, but also being able to quickly shift orientation in order to optimise stealth. It can also be used to minimise turn circles (thus avoiding other threats). That was the type of manoeuvrability I was talking about.

(2) I wouldn't be surprised if this aircraft is expected to avoid the WVR realm entirely. However, in WVR missiles have longer ranges and shorter travel times if launched into the forward hemisphere (as they don't need to expend energy changing directions). Thus accelerating towards your enemy increases the likelihood of getting a first shot. So, an ability to make at least one sharp turn (e.g. using thrust vectoring) and accelerate rapidly is still very desirable in WVR combat. Of course, an alternative solution would be a very oversized WVR missile (similar to the R-73 experiments with giant rocket boosters to allow them to rapidly accelerate backwards).
 
Theres no point for the J-36 to be very maneuverable in the Su-57 sense. It just needs to be maneuverable to move into optimal launch position for its long range BVR missiles, for the very unlikely scenario that it does get into a WVR combat situation modern IR missiles already have the maneuverability to basically hit anything that's not immediately beside the launch plane, coupled with the presumed advanced sensors placed around the aircraft which would allow tracking close range targets from basically any direction.
It seems to lack the sort of thing that allows for exceptional BVR maneuverability though

J-20 and Eurofighter, long arm canards
IMG_3927.png
F-22 thrust vectoring

YF-23 massive control surfaces


I’m in more the air cruiser or strike craft camp
 
Some interesting discussion here. Apart from Perun's usual good analysis/commentary includes input from Justin Bronk of the The Royal United Services Institute.

Yep, by far the most thorough and thought through video I've seen on this. Have some notions of my own as well fwiw but I'll hold on to those for the moment. All the excitement (and I don't begrudge that) has made the discussion somewhat challenging to contribute to.
 
Theres no point for the J-36 to be very maneuverable in the Su-57 sense. It just needs to be maneuverable to move into optimal launch position for its long range BVR missiles, for the very unlikely scenario that it does get into a WVR combat situation modern IR missiles already have the maneuverability to basically hit anything that's not immediately beside the launch plane, coupled with the presumed advanced sensors placed around the aircraft which would allow tracking close range targets from basically any direction.
BVR maneuverability is not just for optimum launch position. It's also for staying outside of opponent's missile engagement envelope. In case of stealth and multi spectrum distributed sensors, staying outside of weapon guide sensors envelope. For example, the f-22's RWR picks up J-36's radar and geolocate the J-36's position but it need to be able to put its radar on j-36 for reliable track. The j-36's own RWR picks up the f-22's radar track, geolocate, and immediately maneuvre to break away from the track by both putting distance and reaching optimum altitude and angle for the stealthiest return in relation to the f-22.

All these can happen quite aggressively in BVR.
 
A lot of the aerodynamic additions are pretty novel so it will take a while to get things right. This is just the technical stuff too. The doctrine will also be unlike anything PLAAF is familiar with, so it will take a while to figure out how they coordinate with available assets in an effective and efficient manner.

This is why J-20/35 will be mass produced for the next two decades.

Assuming that this aircraft is a result of the JH-XX program, the tailed JH-XX was shown in 2013. Hypothetically, if it was displayed around the time the decision was made to pursue a tailless variant, they could have had subscale aerodynamic demonstrators flying almost a decade ago. These are huge assumption of course. But I wouldn't be surprised if they couldn't have the flight envelope and control systems fully worked out in two years after the first test flight (especially if they build multiple prototypes and are willing to lose a couple). The WS-15 might also be mature in the next half-decade. The bigger issue would be refining the low observability features and appropriate avionics/radar...

I don't think it would be wise to completely rule out IOC in a half decade, especially if there is a crash program that is willing to make a lot of compromises. That said, it would still be years before a sizeable number are produced and aircrews are trained (so we're probably still talking 2035 for the impacts of these design to be felt). J-20 and J-35 production might also continue for two decades as you suggest, due to already having established production lines and having a variety of older designs that need to be replaced.

Anyway, I'd recommend caution against assuming that development will take much more than five years or less than fifteen years... the best position is to acknowledge uncertainty.

P.S. If this is too speculative, feel free to move this to the speculation thread.
 
I think the J-20 first flew in 2011 and first entered service with an operational squadron in 2019 (9 AB, Wuhu). A similar timeline is logical for the Chengdu aircraft; depending how much is evolutionary vs. revolutionary it could be a little bit quicker, but I wouldn't expect it to be drastically shorter (i.e. I could see 6 years to service, but not four). The SAC aircraft may require longer development if it is intended for CATOBAR naval use.
We're assuming the Chengdu and SAC aircraft are at similar development stages, but the chances of two disparate aircraft programmes both getting to first flight status at the same time are pretty remote - there's always going to be the desire to beat the other guy, even if everything else proceeded in lock step. cf the YF-22 and -23, which were built to the same requirements over the same period to the same delivery timescale, yet the YF-23 rolled out three months earlier and flew a month earlier than the YF-22.

The similar first appearance dates are clearly politically mandated, and either they kept one aircraft from flying when it could (or both), or they rushed the other. "We need you to fly by date X. Forget everything but getting off the ground and flying a circuit without crashing" is entirely possible, it's essentially what was done with Eurofighter, and there was then an extensive period of not flying while the implications for the FCS from the Gripen and YF-22 crashes were worked through.
 
J-20 and J-35 production might also continue for two decades as you suggest, due to already having established production lines and having a variety of older designs that need to be replaced.
I mean, there's ~150x various Russian-built Flankers to replace, plus all those J-7s and J-8s, some ~340x there. 250x J-11s. Another ~280-300x J-16s, too, eventually. Not counting all the PLANAF birds.

I expect the J-20s to replace the ~100x Su30s, and maybe the J-16s (J-16s are all pretty new, so they may end up getting replaced by J-35, J-36, or J-50).

I think the land-based J-35 will replace all the J-7s and J-8s, some ~340 airframes.

I expect the naval J-35 variant to replace all the PLANAF fighter aircraft, that's some ~330 airframes between Su30MKKs, J-11s, J-15s, J-8s, J-10s, and JH-7s. Logistics simplicity!


I'm thinking that the J-36 will replace the J-11s, Su27s, and Su35s, though that role may go to the J-20 instead. This would make the J-36s an expansion of the total aircraft number in the PLAAF.

Edit: If mods move Avimimus's post to the speculation thread, please also move this one.
 
You have doubts about the J-50 as a carrier borne aircraft? I'd think it plausible that there might be a mix of J-50 and J-35 on carriers with surplus J-35 eventually ending up as land-based units.

Speaking of carrier use: Without vertical stabilisers, aircraft could be stacked on two very shallow storage decks. So that could be an alternative to folding wings (which would still be useful for deck storage of-course, but if you want to provide a bit more protection to your RAM, maybe it makes sense to return to internal stowage anyway?)
 
I mean, there's ~150x various Russian-built Flankers to replace, plus all those J-7s and J-8s, some ~340x there. 250x J-11s. Another ~280-300x J-16s, too, eventually. Not counting all the PLANAF birds.

I expect the J-20s to replace the ~100x Su30s, and maybe the J-16s (J-16s are all pretty new, so they may end up getting replaced by J-35, J-36, or J-50).

I think the land-based J-35 will replace all the J-7s and J-8s, some ~340 airframes.

I expect the naval J-35 variant to replace all the PLANAF fighter aircraft, that's some ~330 airframes between Su30MKKs, J-11s, J-15s, J-8s, J-10s, and JH-7s. Logistics simplicity!


I'm thinking that the J-36 will replace the J-11s, Su27s, and Su35s, though that role may go to the J-20 instead. This would make the J-36s an expansion of the total aircraft number in the PLAAF.

Edit: If mods move Avimimus's post to the speculation thread, please also move this one.
No J-8 fighters serve in the PLA anymore. There are a few specialized recon variant J-8 units, though.

J-7 are very low in numbers. They're possibly not even serving in any unit that is not a training unit. But that's hard to know for sure as there have simply not been enough photos released in the last few years, so tracking units still using J-7 has become very hard.
Certainly, given the number of newly built planes over the last few years, if no new units were established or if no existing unit was expanded, J-7 numbers would be covered. But it seems likely PLA is actaually expanding its overall inventory so it's plausible some J-7s are still out there. Is that a 100? or more, or fewer? That's hard to tell.

Russian built flankers, assuming that covers the kit assemblies, there are around a 100 of those left. Original Su-27 planes delivered complete from Russia have basically all been retired. There may be a handful UB variants left, but that's hard to confirm.

PLANAF combat aircraft have been, for the most part, transferred to PLAAF. Basically only J-15 are left under PLANAF.

By the time J-36 enters frontline service, which may not happen before 2032-2035, I would expect J-20 and J-35 (and a small number of J-16 I guess) will keep replacing existing planes. So, even before J-36 is around, I would expect Su-30, JH-7 and J-10A to go away completely. Alongside a fair number of J-11.

When J-36 and Shenyang's plane start coming into frontline units, I expect those to start replacing any possible J-15 that might be left, all the remaining J-11, all the remaining J-10 and basically most of J-16s. Though we're talking about a 20 year transition process, for some of those plane types.

There are also likely gonna be lots of unmanned wingmen around as well, eventually. Some of which may replace legacy planes, so it's not like next gen manned fighters are necessarily gonna be produced at over 100 airframes per year.
 
You have doubts about the J-50 as a carrier borne aircraft? I'd think it plausible that there might be a mix of J-50 and J-35 on carriers with surplus J-35 eventually ending up as land-based units.
It's certainly possible, but having all one type in the fleet is very useful for logistics simplicity. You only need one engine shop, one avionics shop, etc.


Speaking of carrier use: Without vertical stabilisers, aircraft could be stacked on two very shallow storage decks. So that could be an alternative to folding wings (which would still be useful for deck storage of-course, but if you want to provide a bit more protection to your RAM, maybe it makes sense to return to internal stowage anyway?)
You still need height over the deck to do things like pull ejection seats, which implies ~20ft+ hangar ceilings.


[...] it's not like next gen manned fighters are necessarily gonna be produced at over 100 airframes per year.
Agree with the rest of your comments that I put into the [...]

I don't think the new airframes are going to be produced at that rate. Especially not when you're talking about the J-16 replacement. Not ... let's call it the 9-10 squadrons a year.

But I do expect probably 5 squadrons a year for each type.
 
Ah, but is that necessary for the entire length of the hangar?

It might be possible to stack an aircraft, but it would probably have to be empty and stored as a spare rather than a ready part of the air group. The USN stored about 1/3 worth of its air group broken down as attrition replacements in WWII. I suspect this practice will be adopted again for smaller CCAs, but J-50 seems like a very substantial aircraft to store that way.
 
Alex Hollings from Sandboxx has uploaded this video speculating about the capabilities of the J-36 based on LM's still-born FB-22:


A now-defunct plan to field F-22 Raptor-based bombers, known as FB-22s, offers us some insight into what China hopes to accomplish with their new J-36 stealth aircraft that recently started testing.
 
Alex Hollings from Sandboxx has uploaded this video speculating about the capabilities of the J-36 based on LM's still-born FB-22:
"I ate a mango to understand what an orange tastes like"

I feel that, since this is "Sandboxx [...] speculating", this should go in the "General Discussion and Speculation" thread.

On a broader take, I hope that one day people can stop linking to his videos as if they have any sort of use.
This guy ain't it.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
This is really reminiscent of when the J-20 2001 first emerged :D

@siegecrossbow @Deino @Blitzo @Alfa_Particle

Well in general the sentiment is actually less dismissive than it was in 2011 believe it or not. At least most of them don’t think it is vaporware, which was the prevailing theory at the time for J-20.

That time I find it interesting that there is a psychological aversion to J-36/J-50(tentative designation) for being air dominance aircraft. I wonder why that is.
 
Well in general the sentiment is actually less dismissive than it was in 2011 believe it or not. At least most of them don’t think it is vaporware, which was the prevailing theory at the time for J-20.

That time I find it interesting that there is a psychological aversion to J-36/J-50(tentative designation) for being air dominance aircraft. I wonder why that is.
I think you're giving it too much credit. I haven't seen anybody have a "physiological aversion" to the notion. It's got more characteristics indicating that it's a strike aircraft than it does air dominance. Doesn't mean it couldn't be. Just means the clues are point to something else.
 
I would say it's 50/50 on whether it's air dominance or strike or maybe both. foward looking apertures and side radars(?). No downward looking apertures of any kind. Highly swept back wings but canted in comparison to leading edge extensions which indicate a careful compromise between good speed and some level of maneuverability (I'd imagine a strike aircraft would just be straight edge alignment from nose to wing tip).

Maybe envisioned as a strike aircraft that can immobilize US bases in a surprise attack before main invasion kicks in and with air to air capabilities to not be deterred if detected and intercepted by opposing f-35s and f-22s. In order to be undetected until moment of strikes, these aircraft can't be accompanied by j-20s as these are expected to be detected once entering into US multi layered sensors airspace.

Without immobilizing air bases and carriers, I don't see how an invasion of taiwan can be carried out without losing hundreds of thousands of troops at sea by a multitudes of US air launched anti-ship missiles. Perhaps this is the fear that launched the requirements for these aircraft.
 
Last edited:
Ah, but is that necessary for the entire length of the hangar?
Not necessarily, but IIRC it's easier to build the whole hangar one height.

Not to mention that only having one place where you can do Ejection Seat work complicates the operations. You'd have to shuffle aircraft around to the tall section when you need to work on them.
 
Well, PLAAF *is* going to expand in size. That's all but apparent/inevitable.
Some ten years ago, PLAAF and PLANAF combined had roughly 2000 combat aircraft. Yearly PLA deliveries were around a 100 airframes. Even that production pace back then signalled the size would increase over time.
And indeed, come 2025, PLAAF and PLANAF combined are now in possession of 2400+ combat aircraft. Current annual deliveries seem to be 150 combat planes per year. So, yeah, the trend seems set to continue and it's almost assured that by 2030 the PLA will have a few hundred more planes than it has today.
 
Well, PLAAF *is* going to expand in size. That's all but apparent/inevitable.
Some ten years ago, PLAAF and PLANAF combined had roughly 2000 combat aircraft. Yearly PLA deliveries were around a 100 airframes. Even that production pace back then signalled the size would increase over time.
And indeed, come 2025, PLAAF and PLANAF combined are now in possession of 2400+ combat aircraft. Current annual deliveries seem to be 150 combat planes per year. So, yeah, the trend seems set to continue and it's almost assured that by 2030 the PLA will have a few hundred more planes than it has today.
I agree that is is very likely that the Chinese armed forces will enlarge, but there's a balancing line between the costs of the new craft and the older types getting replaced. Costs in terms of % of GDP, not constant RMB/yuan.
 
I'm not sure there is as much value in that as there was 30 years ago. BVR AAM no escape zones are soon going to out range most fighters, especially in stealth v stealth confrontations and WVR HOBS missiles will kill before the merge.

If the aircraft is flying with the equivalent of a NGJ powered by that third engine could see it being an advantage in defeating BVR missiles at all but very short ranges, as long as it can detect the missile inbound.

I don't envy fighter pilots of the future, it feels to me like missiles are going to make things very difficult until tactically useful DEW emerges.
 
tactically useful DEW
I can see how the twin aperture factors in that equation. Not many existing AAMs are armoured enough anyway, and I'm not sure if the boundary air surrounding an AMRAAM is hot enough to render even a measly 50kw laser useless, especially when the missile is in its last-mile cruise phase and slowing down.
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom