StevoJH
The Bunker Group
Pretty sure they are using the A-22 Foxbat, which are two seat Light Sport Aircraft.
They are cheap, very slow and have a MTOW of 600kg.
6th Generation Fighters Projects
- Thread starter Sandhi Yudha
- Start date
They are cheap, very slow and have a MTOW of 600kg.
I don't know that the specific aircraft matters. Ukraine is using what they have available. If a prop-plane full of explosives is the best way to go, you should use the one you have readily available.
Musashi_kenshin
Well-Known Member
In Japan, a more muted cheering for the British-led GCAP warplane
By contrast, there is “GCAP silence” in Japan, says one local observer of business ties between Japan and the West.
www.defensenews.com
A bit of a nothing-burger article. Unsurprisingly the Japanese public don't know a lot about GCAP (does the general public in any democracy know a lot about their defence projects?) and some Opposition politicians are neo-pacifists. But the conclusion is that Japan will stick with GCAP.
I mean, what are the alternatives - not develop a sixth generation aircraft? Japan needs GCAP to stay ahead of Chinese and Russian technology. If anyone has scope to pull out it's the UK and Italy, because they can in principle expect countries nearer to Russia to do the heavy lifting in case of war. Japan doesn't have a Poland in the way - it is Poland.
Terran
Well-Known Member
I want to cycle back (before the light plane bomb) and cover what is and isn’t 6th generation requirements.
We had a back and forth debate over range. The cause of this debate was the argument caused by the Chinese J36.
Now first and foremost let me say there really isn’t a set of locked rules of what makes a sixth generation fighter. Generational definitions are actually fluid as it’s really just marketing. The Fifth Generation definition was set by LM twice. Twice as the first iteration was tailored to sell the F22 and included post thrust stall super maneuvering and super cruise however they then revised the definition when they introduced the F35 which lacks both of those.
What we are often seeing is assumptions of rules based off the USAF NGAD, FrancoGermanic FCAS and the European Japanese GCAP.
The assumption of the J36 being a sixth generation is based primarily on the assumptions of the NGAD program… however there are two fundamental flaws in that assumption.
First NGAD is a portfolio of programs different but related aircraft projects being in that portfolio second there seems to be two versions of the NGAD portfolio a version pre2024 which I will refer to as NGAD 1.0 and the modern version which started to emerge late 2023 into 2024 which I will refer to as NGAD 2.0.
In regards to the requirements what we are really basing our arguments around would be a project that was for a time called Penetrating Counter Air and what seem to have happened is a massive revision of PCA from 1.0 to 2.0.
J36 is an aircraft built along similar lines to what the USAF was looking at for PCA in NGAD 1.0. However it’s not an entirely exact match.
NGAD 1.0 set PCA in line as more of a modern take on a pre WW2 concept called the Bomber destroyer. A heavy fighter that was the size of a bomber meant then to serve as a bomber escort. The downside was these traded performance in turning and climb for a massive frame that was often slower than the bombers it was meant to support. It was bristling with guns but was often easy out flanked.
NGAD 1.0 PCA had to be massive for a modern fighter and more in line with a Bomber destroyer because it was supposed to have a 1000 mile combat radius. F22 the aircraft it would’ve replaced has a 470 mile Combat radius F35 is closer to 870 miles but still short of this. The thousand mile radius was due to China’s Anti access/Air denial strategy which by combining long range Integrated air defense system like S400 with conventional tipped IRBMs aimed to reduce the USAF and USN’s ability to base in the first, second and even out to the Third islands chains.
To achieve that requires an aircraft with fuel sipping engines and a large size. A very large size. The link via SMG consulting shows an aircraft roughly the same footprint as the F14 or F111 in terms of length and wing spread but where those had variable geometry wings this is a fixed delta wing. In other words a wedge that is roughly 73 foot (22-23m) long and 63 foot (19m) wide. You could literally fit an F22 inside of it with room to spare. The J36 is estimated to be about that size in length and maybe 78ft( 24m) in wing span Hence why I call it BIG CHUNGUS!
They are at the bottom end of a strategic bomber. Rivaling large Biz jets and small regional airliners.
NGAD would have been a single pilot aircraft with twin variable cycle engines. Where the J36 has three engines and a tandem cockpit (believed to be) this in combination with Chinese talk of it carrying stand off weapons pushes J36 less as a Sino NGAD and more as a JH-36. A regional fighter bomber more like the F111 or the Su34. I imagine it’s fighter role primarily being to hunt B52 and try and prevent penetrating cruise missile strikes.
NGAD 1.0’s PCA size and complexity combined with its limitations caused it problems. It was too big. Secretary Kindle called it out as too big. So a review and cancellation.
NGAD 2.0. The newer version redrafted PCA to be presumed around the size of F22 so maybe 63 foot long 45 foot wide this was accomplished by off loading the range aspect to another vehicle and aiming for a fighter with a combat radius about on par with F35 and a weapons load around F22. This revised NGAD puts that extra range on NGAS. A very low observable tanker that would refuel PCA, CCA and legacy F35 maybe even B21 on that ingress and egress pushing forward with a longer range via top off. This is more in line with the European 6th generation aircraft in size and being smaller opens back up a more fighter aircraft definition to PCA.
We had a back and forth debate over range. The cause of this debate was the argument caused by the Chinese J36.
Now first and foremost let me say there really isn’t a set of locked rules of what makes a sixth generation fighter. Generational definitions are actually fluid as it’s really just marketing. The Fifth Generation definition was set by LM twice. Twice as the first iteration was tailored to sell the F22 and included post thrust stall super maneuvering and super cruise however they then revised the definition when they introduced the F35 which lacks both of those.
What we are often seeing is assumptions of rules based off the USAF NGAD, FrancoGermanic FCAS and the European Japanese GCAP.
The assumption of the J36 being a sixth generation is based primarily on the assumptions of the NGAD program… however there are two fundamental flaws in that assumption.
First NGAD is a portfolio of programs different but related aircraft projects being in that portfolio second there seems to be two versions of the NGAD portfolio a version pre2024 which I will refer to as NGAD 1.0 and the modern version which started to emerge late 2023 into 2024 which I will refer to as NGAD 2.0.
In regards to the requirements what we are really basing our arguments around would be a project that was for a time called Penetrating Counter Air and what seem to have happened is a massive revision of PCA from 1.0 to 2.0.
J36 is an aircraft built along similar lines to what the USAF was looking at for PCA in NGAD 1.0. However it’s not an entirely exact match.
NGAD 1.0 set PCA in line as more of a modern take on a pre WW2 concept called the Bomber destroyer. A heavy fighter that was the size of a bomber meant then to serve as a bomber escort. The downside was these traded performance in turning and climb for a massive frame that was often slower than the bombers it was meant to support. It was bristling with guns but was often easy out flanked.
NGAD 1.0 PCA had to be massive for a modern fighter and more in line with a Bomber destroyer because it was supposed to have a 1000 mile combat radius. F22 the aircraft it would’ve replaced has a 470 mile Combat radius F35 is closer to 870 miles but still short of this. The thousand mile radius was due to China’s Anti access/Air denial strategy which by combining long range Integrated air defense system like S400 with conventional tipped IRBMs aimed to reduce the USAF and USN’s ability to base in the first, second and even out to the Third islands chains.
To achieve that requires an aircraft with fuel sipping engines and a large size. A very large size. The link via SMG consulting shows an aircraft roughly the same footprint as the F14 or F111 in terms of length and wing spread but where those had variable geometry wings this is a fixed delta wing. In other words a wedge that is roughly 73 foot (22-23m) long and 63 foot (19m) wide. You could literally fit an F22 inside of it with room to spare. The J36 is estimated to be about that size in length and maybe 78ft( 24m) in wing span Hence why I call it BIG CHUNGUS!
They are at the bottom end of a strategic bomber. Rivaling large Biz jets and small regional airliners.
NGAD would have been a single pilot aircraft with twin variable cycle engines. Where the J36 has three engines and a tandem cockpit (believed to be) this in combination with Chinese talk of it carrying stand off weapons pushes J36 less as a Sino NGAD and more as a JH-36. A regional fighter bomber more like the F111 or the Su34. I imagine it’s fighter role primarily being to hunt B52 and try and prevent penetrating cruise missile strikes.
NGAD 1.0’s PCA size and complexity combined with its limitations caused it problems. It was too big. Secretary Kindle called it out as too big. So a review and cancellation.
NGAD 2.0. The newer version redrafted PCA to be presumed around the size of F22 so maybe 63 foot long 45 foot wide this was accomplished by off loading the range aspect to another vehicle and aiming for a fighter with a combat radius about on par with F35 and a weapons load around F22. This revised NGAD puts that extra range on NGAS. A very low observable tanker that would refuel PCA, CCA and legacy F35 maybe even B21 on that ingress and egress pushing forward with a longer range via top off. This is more in line with the European 6th generation aircraft in size and being smaller opens back up a more fighter aircraft definition to PCA.
Out of the shadows - Chengdu's 'J-36' Working alongside renowned cutaway artist, 'Joe' Picarella MRAeS, journalist and stealth expert, Bill Sweetman attempts to unravel "the greatest puzzle since the MiG-25".
www.aerosociety.com
In the latest issue of AEROSPACE - March 2025
In the March 2025 issue of AEROSPACE: Boom supersonic aces XB-1 flight testing, UK Sustainable Aviation Fuel scales up and China's 'J-36' analysed. Plus all the usual news, events and Society updates.
www.aerosociety.com
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
Well it seems the USN has rejected LM's proposal for a 6th gen fighter. Perhaps to much gold plating in their offering or maybe the negativity on the F-35 delays? Tough choice wrt the other contenders. NG has a lot on the burner at the moment with the B-21 but they are certainly performing. Boeing, a high risk choice given their atrocious performance lately IMHO. The only reason for selecting them is having three vendors in the fighter business, probably a DoD priority but maybe not the USN's.
EXCLUSIVE: Lockheed out of Navy’s F/A-XX future fighter competition - Breaking Defense
EXCLUSIVE: Lockheed out of Navy’s F/A-XX future fighter competition - Breaking Defense