Interesting @BreakingDefense article on the new PLA aircraft... some of my thoughts in the thread below.

1/

breakingdefense.com/2025/01/how-ch… "Actual CCP advanced aircraft" is a rather bizarre name to go with for it.

Being a bit more normal about the PRC, CPC, and PLA overall may be helpful for anyone wanting to do PLA watching. This ain't it.

2/

I will do a piece for @Diplomat_APAC in time, but for now -- preliminary thoughts on the role of CAC's new generation combat aircraft ("J-36").

We've had rumours of this for a while now, via the same sourcing and methods that predicted J-20 14 years ago and many PLA projects. 1/
This grapevine gave us characteristics of this "J-36" (I called "J-XD"), including its rough size, engine configuration, and yes its role and its descriptor as "6th generation".

I view numerical generations as neither here nor there, so I will refer it as "new generation". 2/

I have some different views.

First, I think the blogpost and FP article titles could be something more like "PRC views science and technology as central to economic growth and geopolitical competitiveness". Less snazzy, but more accurate. 1/

https://twitter.com/Scholars_Stage/status/1788626541678670292

The articles do not argue why science and technological advancement are not central to economic growth or national competitiveness -- i.e.: there's no convincing argument as to why science/tech/industry are *not* worth state led advancements... 2/

Thread: on the significance of Y-20B

Recent images give weight to rumours that Y-20B may be a MRTT (so called Multi Role Tanker Transport) -- that is, all Y-20B airframes may be capable of conversion to a tanker role through wing pods. This could prove rather meaningful. (1/16)

As of late 2023, the PLA's tanker fleet includes (from oldest to newest): 20+ HY-6s (turbojet engines, old, small), 3 Il-78s (some converted to a transport role), and 8+ YY-20As... so, 20+ obsolete small tankers, with 12+ large-ish tankers that still use old D-30 engines. (2/16)

Thread: the Ru-Ukr war has shown many lessons, one of being the importance of A2G ISR+PGMs.
For PLA, most of their combat aviation development in last 20 years was prioritised for air control systems, with precision A2G being mostly ALCMs.

Only one type of 500kg LGB as PGM.

1/n Priority on air control (BVR, AEWC, EW/EA, air superiority) makes sense, and short range PGMs needs air control to employ them anyhow.

But with some 40 and counting AEWC, 700 new modern fighters in last decade (still growing), very mature BVR, widespread AESA use...

2/n

An awaited video for me, and I hold both @MilAvHistory and @Justin_Br0nk in high regard; the video is worth watching.
However, also a few observations/caveats, based on my base of knowledge... /1

(Quote tweet to allow chained replies easier)

https://twitter.com/MilAvHistory/status/1436026496578166787

Re - buying Su-35s to RE the engines, IMO is very dubious.
While 117S is a capable engine, by the time they bought the Su-35s, work on uprated WS-10 iterations and WS-15 would've been sufficiently ahead that RE-ing 117S is almost certainly not worthwhile.

/2

I don't often review other articles... but...

1. At Falcon Strike 2015, they sent vintage J-11As, equipped w/ R-27 or early R-77 at best. Up vs Gripen Cs w/ superior radar and AIM-120Cs, obviously J-11As would've been destroyed in BVR domain.
nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/one-…

1/5 2. The big margin of victory in WVR being so lopsided for the J-11As is somewhat surprising given Gripens are far from sluggish.

3. Context for the J-11A -- in terms of avionics and weapons, the closest peer would be an F-15A but with Russian avionics and cockpit of the era. 2/5