People's Liberation Army Air Force : News & Discussions

[randomradio]

USAF is not too concerned with the 2 new jets, as expected. We always knew that.

Important points of note:

Kendall: Reveal of New Chinese Aircraft Hasn’t Changed USAF Plans

Secretive new Chinese stealth aircraft are already accounted for in the Air Force's NGAD plans, Secretary Frank Kendall said.

www.airandspaceforces.com

“What motivated us to take another look [at NGAD] was the affordability” Kendall said, noting that there were other missions to which the service wanted devote added resources such as “more aggressive counter-space capabilities, airbase protection, particularly our forward air bases.”

“My operators were not 100 percent sure they had the right airplane,” he said. “And I agree with that. I think it’s really worthwhile to think carefully about what is essentially an F-22 replacement. Is that really the right new design?”

Kendall seems to be worried the US cannot afford the twin-engine version of NGAD. He's pointed out where else money's needed.

They are considering giving the B-21 an air superiority mission too.

Air Force open to greater B-21 stealth bomber role in strategy revamp

The B-21 Raider has so far avoided ballooning costs, said Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. David Allvin.

www.defensenews.com

Then there's this:

Cost Of Navy’s Newest Arleigh Burke Destroyers Is Ballooning

A wide array of chronic cost overruns and industrial capacity factors could torpedo the Navy’s goal of fielding a 390-ship force by 2054.

www.twz.com

Trump could prioritize the USN over the NGAD program due to the above. Which means, he could end up approving only the single-engine version in the same class as the F-35, but the airframe more suited for air superiority. This requires the development of a stealthy tanker to make up for the deficiency in the NGAD's range. And the B-21 will have to take care of escorting itself into the deepest of enemy territories.

But the SE version could mean more numbers. Instead of 6 squadrons (200), they can go for the full 10 that they need (350+).

If the Chinese end up developing a proper NGAD-equivalent for the ASF role, they could take the lead in this department for a decade, until the USAF develops their next gen drone successor.

 

[Picdelamirand-oil]

China’s big new combat aircraft: an airborne cruiser against air and surface targets

The speed, agility, range and stealth of an individual aircraft type are still important, but they’re no longer the whole story of air combat. Advances in sensing, processing and communications are changing military operations.

The Chengdu J-36, the big Chinese combat aircraft that first appeared on 26 December, has been developed to exploit these changes and support China’s strategic goal: to establish regional dominance, including the ability to annex Taiwan by force.

If J-36s can fly supersonically without using afterburning, as the prototype’s shape suggests they will, each will be able to get into and out of battle faster and more safely than conventional fighters and bombers, which cruise subsonically. A high degree of stealth will greatly help J-36s in penetrating defences. Supersonic cruise would also mean each J-36 could fly more missions in a given period.

The design’s big main weapon bays are sized for considerable air-to-surface missiles, which J-36s could launch against such targets as airfields, aircraft carriers and air-defence batteries. With great speed and height, J-36s could also throw inexpensive glide bombs farther than other aircraft could.

The main weapon bays are big enough to carry unusually large air-to-air missiles for engaging aircraft at great range, including vital support units such as tankers and air-surveillance radar planes. Targeting data for this might come from other aircraft, ships, satellites or ground sources. The missiles might also be launched at fighters at ranges that keep J-36s safe from counterattack.

J-36s are themselves likely to be sources of targeting data for other aircraft and for ships, using large passive and active sensors that aircraft of such size can easily carry. They may command aircraft that fly with them. In all this, they’d use radio links that are hard for an enemy to detect.

To call the J-36 an airborne cruiser may not be far off the mark—and may call into question the West’s decision to prioritise development and production of fighters that are, by comparison, mere torpedo boats.

(An earlier article in this series technically assesses the design of the J-36. The type’s designation is likely but not certain.)

For the Taiwan mission, China’s principal opposing force is US-led air power, comprising the US Air Force and the US Navy’s aircraft carriers, with support from Japan, Australia, Taiwan and maybe South Korea and others. Air power from China’s opponents can hinder its maritime and amphibious operations, resulting in slower progress and higher casualties.

So, counter-air capability is crucial for China. This is what the US thinks of as China’s anti-access and area denial capability. It includes surface-to-air weapons, fighters, air-base attacks and the information realm.

To understand where the J-36 fits in, start by considering China’s current force, of which the Chengdu J-20 is the spearhead. The J-20 is fast and stealthy, with good range for a fighter, but its weapon bays are limited to short-range and medium-range air-to-air weapons. Like the F-35, it is more detectable outside its forward quadrant. That becomes a greater vulnerability in a networked environment, where a sensor platform on your beam may not be well placed to launch a weapon but will pass your track to one that is.

The long-range Xi’an H-6 bomber, used as a missile carrier, can launch attacks at air bases throughout the Western Pacific. But its effect is limited to the warheads of up to six costly missiles that must fly far enough to keep their vulnerable launch aircraft safe.

The J-36 combines speed and range with all-aspect stealth. Potential internal loads include such long-range air-to-air missiles as the PL-17, which the J-20 cannot carry internally. Heavier, air-to-surface missiles would be aimed at airfields and warships. It also probably supports the kind of mass-precision attacks made possible by accurate, more autonomous weapons, or—as autonomous technology advances—the carriage of loitering munitions and jammers.

The J-36’s smaller outboard weapon bays might accommodate defensive and support weapons, possibly on extending rails like the J-20’s side bays.

The large transparent side apertures in the forward fuselage could be wide-field-of-view passive warning and cueing systems. But there’s another possibility: if you wanted to integrate a high-energy anti-missile laser into an aircraft, with a hemisphere-plus field of fire but without unstealthy turrets, it might from the outside look like those transparencies. A single optical chain could feed left and right steerable heads under the conformal windows. Cue panic.

Speed is not just valuable for survivability, although it does erode missile engagement envelopes. Even Mach 1.8 supersonic cruise halves flight time and greatly increases sortie rate compared with a subsonic-cruise aircraft.

The US considered developing a supersonic strike aircraft in the early 2000s. But with 9/11 and the cost of the F-35 program, a high-speed project could not get funded. ‘Response time, and cost per target killed, were the two holy grails,’ a Northrop Grumman engineer commented in early 2001. The supersonic aircraft was big and complex, but the sortie generation rate was far higher than that of subsonic alternatives, and fewer aircraft were needed. And it could use cheap, unpowered glide weapons with a stand-off range estimated at 170km from a Mach 2 launch.

Speed on one side of a conflict is an important advantage. If the J-36 can penetrate to threaten bases in the second island chain, forcing the US to move B-21s, B-52s and other high-value assets further back, US strike sortie rate and effectiveness will diminish.

It’s important to keep in mind that the J-36 will be part of a family of systems and a network of capabilities. The appearance over the holiday season of the KJ-3000 airborne early warning and control system, based on the Xi’an Y-20 airlifter, is significant.

China has produced five different airborne radar systems since 2003, more than any other nation, all based on the technology of active electronically scanned arrays (AESAs). It has expanded their role beyond that of forward-passing adversary track data to fighter aircraft. AESA radars can update tracks much faster than a rotating-antenna radar, so these systems can provide guidance-quality midcourse updates to missiles.

Compared with the propeller-driven KJ-500, the KJ-3000 can be moved faster and farther forward to support an operation, and it can fly higher for greater sensor range. Working with a KJ-3000, the J-36s could launch missiles while remaining radar-silent.

If its speed and stealth allow it safely to get close to the enemy, a J-36 itself will be able to provide targeting data to other weapons, such as missiles launched by H-6s that prudently stay well behind it. It will also be the command and control hub for other aircraft, crewed and uncrewed. If it is a two-seater, the second crew member will likely be a force manager.

As for how to classify the J-36, too many people have rushed to call it a ‘sixth-generation fighter’.

The ‘fifth-generation’ term, invented in Russia, was picked up by Lockheed Martin as a marketing tool in the early 2000s. What Lockheed Martin would call 5-gen fighters combine supersonic speed and maneuverability with some degree of stealth. The Chengdu J-20 fighter is fifth-generation by that standard.

But this ‘generation’ taxonomy misleads more than it informs, because combat aircraft designs need not and do not fall into discrete sequential groups of characteristics.

And ‘fighter’, ‘bomber’ and ‘strike’ definitions are getting less clear. Most Boeing F-15s, nominally fighters, have been built as strike aircraft, and the fighter-derived Sukhoi Su-34 is another step down the same path. Designed against air and land threats, the J-36 is even larger than the Su-34. Its size and flight performance put it into its own category, for which there is no name. Maybe ‘airborne cruiser’ will catch on.

 

[Bhartiya Naagrik Sainik]

The timelines you mentioned are wrong. LCA Mk2 is a modernization of Mk1. Even though it started in 2009, it went through redesigns to get to today's version.

And TEDBF was chosen to be 4.5th gen in order to expedite the development before jumping to a more complex CATOBAR-capable next gen design in order to save time as well as create iterative capabilities for development of a carrier jet instead of jumping rightaway to something difficult. The IN also wanted a quick replacement for its STOBAR requirement 'cause the Mig-29's life is running out.

CDR is carried out by the IAF. Even though designs were finalized earlier, the CDR is the definitive end of the design stage, when the IAF gives the go-ahead for the engineering phase.

The IAF has chosen 4.5th gen airframe for all its requirements because 5th gen designs of this level of capability are unnecessary. They are difficult to maintain in our operational areas and are expensive too. A lot of the infrastructure required to make use of shaped stealth are not survivable during wartime either. For 5th gen and higher, the IAF is waiting for airframe technology to mature to the point where it can be used as carelessly as a 4th gen jet. So it has to survive FOD, airframe deformities, bird strikes, combat fatigue, climate fatigue, carelessnes of airmen, battle damage etc. Otoh, you throw a rock at the F-35 and you can demote it to 4th gen.

For stealthy airframes, battle damage is of the greatest consequence. It's not easy to fix an airframe that's taken AAA fire or shrapnel damage. And that's just one of the reasons why the Russians, Americans, and Chinese are still building 4th gen airframes irrespective of their success in 5th gen. And they will all end 4th gen production roughly around the time India does and operate these jets for many decades, with retirement dates well beyond 2090 in some cases.

Let's ignore eachother bcoz unfortunately we're unable to agree on anything bcoz you've decided to simply echo GoI/MoD/DoD, may be you are connected to them, but me among every technically qualified, industrially experienced, tax paying citizen also certainly do have certain level of observation & credibility & have right to question govt. & private firms involved in national projects affecting everybody. Nobody is oblidged to blindly support their industrial decisions. It has been a collective failure not since 2010, 2000, 1990 but since 1947. Tired of reasons, excuses, justifications. And now our Defence Sectretary, AF Chief, DRDO chief are also ringing fire alarm.
After office & family time, peace of mind is primary for me. I never had any probs with your or others opinion. I'm here for time pass so let's all keep our opinions bcoz everybody is going to stick to their perception & let's all disagree politely like we learnt in GD/PI classes for jobs.
Have a good time ahead.

 

[Speedster1]

Most AFs around the world are only just beginning to define 6G fighter requirements. The Chinese have demonstrated TDs that reflects their general thinking around a 6G fighter. It's by no means their definitive design. The USAF is also considering its options given high unit costs of some $300m a pop. It could be a while before each side firms up requirements and starts full scale development.

In our case, we're aiming for a 5.5G fighter in AMCA which would at least be contemporary in 2035-40 time frame. It's not that we lack the capability but we tend to be overly optimistic about the timelines, playing to the gallery. For instance, ADA officials made several claims over the years about steel cutting for the LCA MK2 prototype 'soon' but didn't actually get around to it.

To restore the public's trust, there needs to be some accountability when senior DRDO/ADA people speak to the media. It doesn't help that our media lacks the chops to ask the right questions or even clarify what was said. This makes it harder for us civilians to have realistic expectations about key programs.

 

[Bhartiya Naagrik Sainik]

I understand your frustrations, and to some extent, share them too. But you're overlooking one critical element: costs; not just for development of a VLO airframe (which is quite considerable even with modern tech advancements) but also for operations. To say that a VLO aircraft takes much longer to develop than a RO/LO aircraft isn't controversial either. Tejas MK2 is intended to be the workhorse platform of IAF, so it can't be a 5th gen fighter whose operating costs are roughly 50% higher than a 4/4+ gen fighter of similar size/range/payload. IAF's OpEx can't cope with that. Heck, even USAF will be continuing with F-16B70/F-15E/EX as their workhorses for decades to come, and they've got more money than God to operate whatever n wherever. 4+ gen fighters will remain relevant till 2070-80, though they'll be 2nd/3rd line of attack/defence for any self-respecting AF. Same can be said for both PLAAF and RuAF, even the French.

Regarding TEDBF, I'm hopeful for a Block-2 variant powered by the same JV engine as AMCA. One can safely guess that it'll be announced the current version finishes it's development and enters production. IN will surely but prudently expedite that knowing that PLAN will have a 5th gen deck based fighter of their own very soon.

I actually reduced my reply by half. I had many other points on cost & time also.
See, as an example you can ask any Indian IT Engineer who will think - We got global CEOs but still don't have globally competing computer H/w like chips, servers, Super/Mainframe computers, switches, routers, firewalls & S/w like OS, DB, etc after IT boom since 1990s, while our neighbor is ahead.
Since 1947, we chose a Socialist mixed economy to balance cost, compeition, income, etc.
In general, i said many times that there will be natural overlap b/w newer gen getting inducted older gem getting retired. So any AF at a time might be operating 3 gens of jets.
Forget 5gen. The 4gen is also more costly than 3rd gen; 3rd costly than 2nd; 2nd costly than 1st.
With time, cost of even all the household & commercial things increase - phone, car, bike, food, clothes, etc.
But like i said, the costs in Communists & Socialists countries as per the theory cannot be more than Capitalist free market economy countries, until there is massive corruption. So USA cannot afford many F-22s but China can afford many J-20s (I know J-20 doesn't equal F-22 but hope you got the point).

So in our country a workhorse can be semi-stealth at least Then we didn't have "Adrishya" & "NiRaLa" RAMs, etc but our DoD lab guys say that these paints will be much eeasier to maintain & far less costly than western ones.
The chief engineers of LM, NG, Boeing in documentaries since 1990s have said that geometry alone reduces RCS a lot. The MLUed 4.5gen jet whose RCS is said to be reduced to order of 0.1sqm by composite materials, some RAM, some surface treatment, etc, they still cannot be compared with just the body of F-22 w/o RAM. That's what they said.
So RCS of F-22 with RAM - 0.00015 sqm
RCS of MLUed 4.5gen with composite body = 0.1 to 1 sqm
RCS of F-22 w/o RAM still < RCS of MLUed 4.5gen. Thats the important of geometry. We just have to angle the parts of jet Nothing exotic about it,
The RCS of AMCA w/o RAM should be far less than MWF easily.
Actually, if LCA can be inflated to MWF then AMCA can be deflated to stealthy MWF when engine is same.
So my questions still remain answered that by not executing 1 time job of employing professionals -
- how much money saved by not slanting the fuselage walls & rudders & slightly reposition componets?
- how much time saved in era of modern CAD S/w since 2000?
- how this way of progressing is not stagnation?
- how long will this continue?
- When we will start thinking like a leader nation?

W.r.t. USA i already said many times that their geography, economy, geopilitics, global agenda, global market, global allies & bases, everything well thought in early 1900s, especially after World Wars. They decided to lead/dominate by R&D by self or foreign scientists & engineers & results started appearing since 1940s itself.
In 1932 IAF got estalished.
On 15 Aug 1947 we got independence. After 2 months on 14 Oct the sound barrier was broken. And in 15yrs they made SR-71 & XB-70. So today they can continue making their 4gen jets for poor/lagging countries.
And for us after Marut jet, our R&D got stalled. And we still seeing the ripple effects.
LCA started in era when i was born. Now i'm 40+ but we don't have 40+ LCAs.
Still people want to duplicate obsolete airframe from prebious century
EU can skip 5gen but we can't skip 0.5gen, just the airframe, what a pathetic economy we got.
With Su-75 our eyes didn't open. So we'll definitely wait for stealthy gripen, J-10, JF-17.

 

[randomradio]

GoI/MoD/DoD... technically qualified, industrially experienced

Those don't exist in this sphere outside GoI/MoD/DoD. Outside the MIC, people only have personal opinions. Even Elon Musk is wrong about his opinion on the F-35, proving the limited information they really have. And the only user of military technology in any country is the forces themselves. Even companies like LockMart do not have full information on their own jets. In fact a lot of top secret hardware on primary platforms in the USAF come from the govt, not companies. The IAF is the same.

You may not know this but ever since the discovery of the TSD, there's been a concerted effort focused on discrediting the forces in every area.

Technical Support Division - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

While there were some sporadic complaints about imports, it really kicked off after UPA politicians discovered the existence of TSD in 2012, ever since they were caught conspiring with enemy states. Since then they have tried to malign the military in every way possible, and politicized the military. And one of those ways is they have successfully used these "technically qualified, industrially experienced" people to try and discredit the only professionally qualified and experienced organization in the country.

A population is subverted when they start making emotional decisions over rational ones. And that's the aim of the military's critics, with the goal of destroying the trust between civilians and the military. It's pretty much to the point that they are trying to convince the civilians that the military are just duffers who can't decide anything on their own or have some kind of agenda that will ironically actually hurt the military itself, bu they keep that bit to themselves. And maybe even you can understand the rammifications of a politicized military.

Anyway, my main point is your "technically qualified, industrially experienced" "neutral" opinion did not take into account the other side of the coin, so I did the job of pointing it out. That's why even actual experts always add a disclaimer at the end of their hand-written articles saying it's only their personal opinion, especially when the goal is to not give readers the entire story, ie a neutral point.

Stealth designs have drawbacks you cannot even comprehend; the inspections, the reviews, readiness levels, maintenance restrictions, parts supplies, weapon mounting and release restrictions, training restrictions, availability ratios between non-stealth and stealth, the list is endless. But it's not about you, it's about other people reading your posts and being led astray.

 

[randomradio]

Most AFs around the world are only just beginning to define 6G fighter requirements. The Chinese have demonstrated TDs that reflects their general thinking around a 6G fighter. It's by no means their definitive design. The USAF is also considering its options given high unit costs of some $300m a pop. It could be a while before each side firms up requirements and starts full scale development.

I think some of the basic stuff is already out, like broad-spectrum stealth, VCE engines, faster supercruise and longer range/endurance. At least the J-36 will meet these objectives in time. The jury is still out on avionics, like the scale and scope of MUM-T, h/w and s/w fusion, DEW, size of arrays, power, antenna tech, computers etc.

I'm hoping NGAD won't be the disappointing SE version.

To restore the public's trust, there needs to be some accountability when senior DRDO/ADA people speak to the media. It doesn't help that our media lacks the chops to ask the right questions or even clarify what was said. This makes it harder for us civilians to have realistic expectations about key programs.

They will sabotage themselves trying to do something mature. Plus it's not necessary as civilians are not expected to know much. But missed deadlines definitely put them into focus and the blame game begins, hence the need to stay quiet. Whatever you have been seeing recently is primarily due to the politicization of the military.

Before a program starts, you will hear all sorts of news about speed of development and capabilities etc, but once it starts, "It will be ready when it's ready." It's normal everywhere.

 

[randomradio]

Maybe ‘airborne cruiser’ will catch on.

Supersonic tactical light bomber similar to supersonic strategic heavy bombers like B-1 and Tu-160.

B-1R came with an air dominance plan once, with 20 AMRAAMs.

 

[Ashwin]

Please refrain from making personal attacks, whether directly or indirectly.

 

[Bhartiya Naagrik Sainik]

Please refrain from making personal attacks, whether directly or indirectly.

Then please delete remaining content with direct/indirect attacks as reported instead of rejecting for reasons known only to you & god.
Rest, let's discuss in "off topic chit chat" thread.

 

[Bhartiya Naagrik Sainik]

Notional NGAD Vs J-36

 

[Bon Plan]

Supersonic tactical light bomber similar to supersonic strategic heavy bombers like B-1 and Tu-160.

B-1R came with an air dominance plan once, with 20 AMRAAMs.

what kind of B1 : the first one, supersonic able, or the second one, slower.

 

[Speedster1]

think some of the basic stuff is already out, like broad-spectrum stealth, VCE engines, faster supercruise and longer range/endurance. At least the J-36 will meet these objectives in time

Given that the Chinese already have the H-20 (which likely already has much of the tech feeding into J-36/50), J-36 itself might eventually morph into a smaller, more agile ASF/MRCA. At this stage, they may be looking to confirm form and fit rather than launching an active 6G dev program. They may also want validation as to the threat from US NGAD and others before taking the next step. Aside from the core tech, any rework may prove to be expensive and they don't have the unlimited funds that the Americans do.

I'm hoping NGAD won't be the disappointing SE version.

I'd personally take claims of the B-21 being rigged for A2A with a pinch of salt. It may have the persistence but lacks agility and speed. The US is much more likely to use C-17s with airborne pallets launching smart cruise missiles, air-launched drones, etc from a stand-off distance than have the B-21 do A2A work. It's a safe bet to say that NGAD will, in no way, be inferior to the F-22 at the very least, the number of engines included. After all, they'd want more range to able to fight close to Chinese shores with IFR tankers not on hand.

They will sabotage themselves trying to do something mature. Plus it's not necessary as civilians are not expected to know much. But missed deadlines definitely put them into focus and the blame game begins, hence the need to stay quiet.

It's their devil may care attitude that's the most jarring, notwithstanding recent admissions by the DefSec, et all. And it's not always about the armed forces not placing orders. This has been happening even where order books are full. The Brahmos CEO, a certain Mr. Rane has been putting out sound byte upon sound byte about the Brahmos-NG being ready for testing for years now and yet there's nothing happening. In one interview, he plainly said the "Brahmos-NG would be ready when the IAF wants it to be ready". What does one make of that?

 

[Bhartiya Naagrik Sainik]

Most AFs around the world are only just beginning to define 6G fighter requirements. The Chinese have demonstrated TDs that reflects their general thinking around a 6G fighter. It's by no means their definitive design. The USAF is also considering its options given high unit costs of some $300m a pop. It could be a while before each side firms up requirements and starts full scale development.

In our case, we're aiming for a 5.5G fighter in AMCA which would at least be contemporary in 2035-40 time frame. It's not that we lack the capability but we tend to be overly optimistic about the timelines, playing to the gallery. For instance, ADA officials made several claims over the years about steel cutting for the LCA MK2 prototype 'soon' but didn't actually get around to it.

Yes correct, next/6gen is still TRIED to be defined well. Hence IMO it is best to compare jets in a table of features. Personal version # doesn't matter.
But like i said, cost in Capitalist Vs Communist/Socialist economy should differ a lot.

To restore the public's trust, there needs to be some accountability when senior DRDO/ADA people speak to the media. It doesn't help that our media lacks the chops to ask the right questions or even clarify what was said. This makes it harder for us civilians to have realistic expectations about key programs.

Yes, w/o accountability there will be monopoly & bullying. Govt., ministries, technical units, police, armed forces, everywhere 5 fingers are different & 100s of 1000s of employees will have different opnions. All these places are offices with employees.
For example few IAF pilots will say - 4.5gen MWF & TEDBF are sufficient; some pilots will say - time has come for minimum 5gen for all new jet projects some pilots may say - if EU can skip 5gen then let's try to skip their FCAS/GCAP level also & try to build something better.
Same thing inside ADA/NAL/HAL. So delay occurs in 1st few stages itself. It is about keeping pace with technology & doing RCA (Root Cause Analysis) technically, as our IAF Chief said "Technology delayed is technology denied". So it is clearly IAF(requirement) Vs ADA(design) Vs HAL(production) Vs MoD(funding) & it has been a collective delay/failure. And we tax paying citizens are denied insight & opinion even after talks for involving private sector.
In today's world many of us have friend/family/senior/junior/neighbor/someone working in govt./ministries/armed forces/HAL/DRDO/ISRO/etc, so
it is useless trying to put curtain on loopholes & discourage, mislead, curse, stonewall the citizens & media. Otherwise numerous forums like this wouldn't exist. We all should take side of technology, keep pace with it, analyse all aspects, absorb population into industry, avoid leaks,hope for the best.

 

[randomradio]

what kind of B1 : the first one, supersonic able, or the second one, slower.

B-1R. It's a converted B-1B, but top speed was increased to mach 2.2.

 

[randomradio]

Given that the Chinese already have the H-20 (which likely already has much of the tech feeding into J-36/50), J-36 itself might eventually morph into a smaller, more agile ASF/MRCA. At this stage, they may be looking to confirm form and fit rather than launching an active 6G dev program. They may also want validation as to the threat from US NGAD and others before taking the next step. Aside from the core tech, any rework may prove to be expensive and they don't have the unlimited funds that the Americans do.

Let's wait and watch. The Chinese may have 4 or even 5 "6th gen" designs. There's J-36 and J-50. There's also the upcoming JH-XX. And if J-50 is not carrier capable, then we will need to wait for one as well, or an NGAD-equivalent. There could even be a lighter 6th gen jet powered by a VCE.

The Chinese actually have more funds. Multiple times more than the US.

I'd personally take claims of the B-21 being rigged for A2A with a pinch of salt. It may have the persistence but lacks agility and speed. The US is much more likely to use C-17s with airborne pallets launching smart cruise missiles, air-launched drones, etc from a stand-off distance than have the B-21 do A2A work. It's a safe bet to say that NGAD will, in no way, be inferior to the F-22 at the very least, the number of engines included. After all, they'd want more range to able to fight close to Chinese shores with IFR tankers not on hand.

B-21 will naturally not perform all air superiority missions, but when combined with drones it can escort itself at the very least. The initial plan for NGAD was to develop 2 variants, one with low range for the European theater and the other to escort the B-21 deep inside Russia and China. That plan was junked later on. And even the new plan could be junked.

If NGAD becomes single-engine, then B-21 may have to escort itself.

It's their devil may care attitude that's the most jarring, notwithstanding recent admissions by the DefSec, et all. And it's not always about the armed forces not placing orders. This has been happening even where order books are full. The Brahmos CEO, a certain Mr. Rane has been putting out sound byte upon sound byte about the Brahmos-NG being ready for testing for years now and yet there's nothing happening. In one interview, he plainly said the "Brahmos-NG would be ready when the IAF wants it to be ready". What does one make of that?

It's not necessary to read too much into such things. Brahmos is going on as usual. Sometimes official people have the habit of speaking prematurely. JV deals always have many hurdles to climb, which even people in DPSUs may not be privy to due to the politics involved.

 

[Rajput Lion]

@randomradio, @vstol Jockey, @Parthu, @Picdelamirand-oil, @Bon Plan, @Speedster1, @Bhartiya Naagrik Sainik, @Ashwin, @marich01, @_Anonymous_, @Innominate, @YoungWolf, @Anirrudha

Very nice and almost the most detailed analysis of PLAAF 6th gen fighters and comparison with US NGAD program:

 

[Bhartiya Naagrik Sainik]

@randomradio, @vstol Jockey, @Parthu, @Picdelamirand-oil, @Bon Plan, @Speedster1, @Bhartiya Naagrik Sainik, @Ashwin, @marich01, @_Anonymous_, @Innominate, @YoungWolf, @Anirrudha

Very nice and almost the most detailed analysis of PLAAF 6th gen fighters and comparison with US NGAD program:

Yeah already saw that. He has other videos before on J-36 size & features. Finance is not my forte, i can only say that capitalist & communist finance model are very different as we all know.
On the tech part, we can see that notional NGAD & J-36 are identical size, but USA having better engines focussing on higher supercruising & max speeds.
I guess both sides trying to increase BVR-AAM range & IWB capacity, PL-17,21 Vs AIM-260, LREW, etc. Hypersonic AAMs might come up.
Both sides also have indications in their slides & diagrams of other products, of self-defence miniature missiles.
USA has tested DEW pods on Apache, advertised it on poster & animation, so they might surprise with inbuilt DEW-CIWS. F-22 was sighted flying with some mysterious chrome & white coatings, could be DEW-reflective or high temperature burn-resistance panels like used in heat shields.
3D artist Rodrigo Avella has made so many notional depictions of NGAD that 1 of them or some combination is sure to fly
+ creations by other artists.

 

[Bon Plan]

 

[Bhartiya Naagrik Sainik]

View attachment 39599
View attachment 39600

> Where are the 2 intakes, also moved to top?
> Rotary launcher looks interesting but it'll consume space till full height of jet below top intake meant for fuel & equipments.

Drawing credit: Russian enthusiast "Paralay".