Future Single engine PLAAF fighter
- Thread starter Totoro
- Start date
I think it depends on a lot of factors. Do you want a man in the loop or not? As long as the international community agrees that it should be a person controlling the weapons fire button there will be issues with remote control of aircraft. Remote controlled aircraft can be either jammed or, worse, hijacked much more easily than a manned aircraft. Also there are speed of light and communication concerns. i.e. if you have an UCAV with a man in the loop the further away you are from the UCAV the worse your latency will be.
Then there are situational awareness concerns if you have a remotely controlled aircraft. The bandwidth to have ALL the information a pilot has is too much to transmit easily across available networks. Notice they even had issues with that on the F-35 helmet and that is a much shorter and possibly even wired control solution.
You can then argue that you can use AI controlled vehicles which can choose targets and hit them on their own initiative. But I think this would be a hard thing to sell politically anywhere except in the most dire situations. Also there is little advantage between that and a regular missile.
So I think both things might happen. Fighter aircraft with a lot of pilot assists. Or the drone control ships you mention. Which one is better? It depends. I still think it is too early to give up on the concept of the piloted fighter aircraft though.
TerraN_EmpirE
Tyrant King
UCAV have a place but not as fighters there abilities are still and likely to remain to limited for such a mission as a attacker and ISR with strike fine
The idea of manned unmanned mix is fine in theory but against EW/Cyber and spoofing it has to have a degree of hardening as yet under available anywhere.
And in 15 years? Roughly all sides will take time to bring their next low end fighter into play. Do you think the UCAV will be as hackable with a proper development program given the recent events?
Laser coms are one idle thought.
TerraN_EmpirE
Tyrant King
Air to air combat is always dynamic. Which is another flaw for remote control of UCAV. The laser come have to have line of sight with their commander.
Sat coms have to have line of sight with the comunications relay via satellite.
If the manned fighter or UCAV is forced into a maneuver it looses contact what does it do then?
Today it basically falls from they sky as it keeps performing the last order given or it tries to stabilize and in reestablish contact.
On air to air the UCAV would need to be able to operate without input from the lead ship in the event of a break in communications. But it also needs to be smart enough to not just go autonomous but still be able to recognize who is threat and who is not. I mean if it gets into a fur ball and starts raking up kills that's one thing but if in that it suddenly finds its commanders tail and that commander is damaged and unable to laser or radio.
A human pilot knows this is my friend something is wrong.
The UCAV needs that level of AI. I am not sure we will be at that point in 2 decades.
Sat coms have to have line of sight with the comunications relay via satellite.
If the manned fighter or UCAV is forced into a maneuver it looses contact what does it do then?
Today it basically falls from they sky as it keeps performing the last order given or it tries to stabilize and in reestablish contact.
On air to air the UCAV would need to be able to operate without input from the lead ship in the event of a break in communications. But it also needs to be smart enough to not just go autonomous but still be able to recognize who is threat and who is not. I mean if it gets into a fur ball and starts raking up kills that's one thing but if in that it suddenly finds its commanders tail and that commander is damaged and unable to laser or radio.
A human pilot knows this is my friend something is wrong.
The UCAV needs that level of AI. I am not sure we will be at that point in 2 decades.
i don't think what f-35 is going to fade away anytime soon.
1.is single-engined 5th gen fighter desirable for PLAAF?
Yes, it probably is. It will significantly increase optimal 5th gen ratio in the fleet. J-31 is of questional use here, since i don't really see how it planaf development is going to be cheaper than j-20.
2.Is it within reach for China?
Most probably, yes. China has the money it takes to develop additional 5th gen platforms, engine question will be solved, sooner or later.
3.Is it feasible?
The most difficult question to answer. PLAAF can have a lot of money(yet more if the current confrontation course is going to continue), but how much resulting fleet will exceed alternative one with lower 5th gen part(but higher ratio of heavy 5th gens to compensate)? Or there can be other solutions(i really look forward to see what a "true 4.5 gen" like kf-x is going to bring to the table)
But i will carefully say what "yes". J-10 can be relatively painlessly displaced by stealthy replacement.
But i believe what J-11s and, especially, their newer strike/ew versions won't leave us anytime soon, though. They are just too good of a platforms for non-stealthy applications.
Su-34 and F-15E can exceed 12t of useful payload. That counts for something.
4.What to expect?
The hardest question. But imho, PLAAF won't go for a strike fighter, a2a optimized bird is likelier.
Yes, it probably is. It will significantly increase optimal 5th gen ratio in the fleet. J-31 is of questional use here, since i don't really see how it planaf development is going to be cheaper than j-20.
2.Is it within reach for China?
Most probably, yes. China has the money it takes to develop additional 5th gen platforms, engine question will be solved, sooner or later.
3.Is it feasible?
The most difficult question to answer. PLAAF can have a lot of money(yet more if the current confrontation course is going to continue), but how much resulting fleet will exceed alternative one with lower 5th gen part(but higher ratio of heavy 5th gens to compensate)? Or there can be other solutions(i really look forward to see what a "true 4.5 gen" like kf-x is going to bring to the table)
But i will carefully say what "yes". J-10 can be relatively painlessly displaced by stealthy replacement.
But i believe what J-11s and, especially, their newer strike/ew versions won't leave us anytime soon, though. They are just too good of a platforms for non-stealthy applications.
Su-34 and F-15E can exceed 12t of useful payload. That counts for something.
4.What to expect?
The hardest question. But imho, PLAAF won't go for a strike fighter, a2a optimized bird is likelier.
plawolf
Lieutenant General
A single engined fighter running on a WS15 makes more sense than the J31.
The issue is going to be timeframe; production bottlenecks and competition for Chinese fighters if CAC gets the go ahead for it.
The J31 is much further along than a CAC single engine offering.
With J20, J10 and UAV orders, it’s also hard to see CAC having the production capacity to also make a single engined 5th gen fighter.
Although I would still favour CAC taking the lead on design, with maybe work subcontracted to SAC to keep them in the fighter game while also bypassing productions bottlenecks at CAC.
An alternative single engined design might be a WS10/13 powered UCAV.
These will have limited AI, with potentially twice seat J20s acting as forword controllers.
The idea would be that the backseater would spot for the UCAVs and assign them to targets, at which point AI takes over in terms of actual engagement.
You could also potentially add in a real time direct control whereby the back seater takes direct control of an UCAV via his HOTAS and HMD.
Even if such UCAVs suffer terrible exchange rates, they would have expended enemy munitions and fuel enough to allow the manned J20s to swoop in and clean up fairly easily afterwards.
The issue is going to be timeframe; production bottlenecks and competition for Chinese fighters if CAC gets the go ahead for it.
The J31 is much further along than a CAC single engine offering.
With J20, J10 and UAV orders, it’s also hard to see CAC having the production capacity to also make a single engined 5th gen fighter.
Although I would still favour CAC taking the lead on design, with maybe work subcontracted to SAC to keep them in the fighter game while also bypassing productions bottlenecks at CAC.
An alternative single engined design might be a WS10/13 powered UCAV.
These will have limited AI, with potentially twice seat J20s acting as forword controllers.
The idea would be that the backseater would spot for the UCAVs and assign them to targets, at which point AI takes over in terms of actual engagement.
You could also potentially add in a real time direct control whereby the back seater takes direct control of an UCAV via his HOTAS and HMD.
Even if such UCAVs suffer terrible exchange rates, they would have expended enemy munitions and fuel enough to allow the manned J20s to swoop in and clean up fairly easily afterwards.
TerraN_EmpirE
Tyrant King
The PRC has some engines said to be on par with the F119 that would be about where you would expect the power level of a low end fifth gen to be.
If careful with the weight loads of parts keeping it as light as possible even perhaps ditching a cannon or using a smaller one. Keeping in mind the fact of need of a smaller internal weapons bays conformal style like on J20 with perhaps 4 maybe 5 weapons in 1-4 bays with provisions for external stores. An AESA with additional electro optics. They could have by now introduced a single engine very LOW end fifth gen.
So then why Not?
My thinking is they don't see it as a need for themselves. If some third party nation with the money showed up tomorrow morning at AVIC's offices with a suit case full of money and a list of wants for a single engine fifth gen. The Chinese would happily break out the tea and ask what they were looking for in their new machine.
But that doesn't seem to be the situation for the Chinese right now. The two existing machines J20 and FC31 are both twin engines. Why?
Some claim range. Range isn't the issue. Range comes from effiencent wing, conservative fuel consumption well thought out load and a engines not being pushed to afterburner. Will result in good range. If you want still better range build a subsonic flying wing.
My answer is war load. The Chinese do want range but they also want weapons. And that is an problem
On a fourth gen if the missile fits on the rail and you can get off the ground you are golden.
Internal weapons carry was normally avoided on fighters save for highly specialized interceptors like the F106.
Yet the birth of low observable demanded internal storage out of radar, and with that restrictions on size. The first stealth F117 could only two bombs. Because of restrictions on size and shape.
The recent J20 display showed 6 Air to air missiles all with impressive range in a single platform. J20 isn't much bigger than the F22A. But the missiles loaded in that display are larger than Amraams. They fit inside that J20 a weapon load of 4 long range air to air missiles and 2 short range.
In a smaller fighter like a single engine they likely would have only had 4 missiles either a mix of long and short or all long.
A larger one might have gone to 8+
The FC31 same deal the twin engines give the greater potential of payload vs the single engine. Yet a.smaller build cutting back some.
That I think is why almost all of the active fifth gen programs target twin engines.
It's the question of what how big a bay you can build around the fuselage.
If you don't mind the sacrifices you can get away with a single engine fifth gen but the restrictions on internal payload will be created just by dimensions. Smaller the engines smaller the fuselage smaller the weapons bays.
If careful with the weight loads of parts keeping it as light as possible even perhaps ditching a cannon or using a smaller one. Keeping in mind the fact of need of a smaller internal weapons bays conformal style like on J20 with perhaps 4 maybe 5 weapons in 1-4 bays with provisions for external stores. An AESA with additional electro optics. They could have by now introduced a single engine very LOW end fifth gen.
So then why Not?
My thinking is they don't see it as a need for themselves. If some third party nation with the money showed up tomorrow morning at AVIC's offices with a suit case full of money and a list of wants for a single engine fifth gen. The Chinese would happily break out the tea and ask what they were looking for in their new machine.
But that doesn't seem to be the situation for the Chinese right now. The two existing machines J20 and FC31 are both twin engines. Why?
Some claim range. Range isn't the issue. Range comes from effiencent wing, conservative fuel consumption well thought out load and a engines not being pushed to afterburner. Will result in good range. If you want still better range build a subsonic flying wing.
My answer is war load. The Chinese do want range but they also want weapons. And that is an problem
On a fourth gen if the missile fits on the rail and you can get off the ground you are golden.
Internal weapons carry was normally avoided on fighters save for highly specialized interceptors like the F106.
Yet the birth of low observable demanded internal storage out of radar, and with that restrictions on size. The first stealth F117 could only two bombs. Because of restrictions on size and shape.
The recent J20 display showed 6 Air to air missiles all with impressive range in a single platform. J20 isn't much bigger than the F22A. But the missiles loaded in that display are larger than Amraams. They fit inside that J20 a weapon load of 4 long range air to air missiles and 2 short range.
In a smaller fighter like a single engine they likely would have only had 4 missiles either a mix of long and short or all long.
A larger one might have gone to 8+
The FC31 same deal the twin engines give the greater potential of payload vs the single engine. Yet a.smaller build cutting back some.
That I think is why almost all of the active fifth gen programs target twin engines.
It's the question of what how big a bay you can build around the fuselage.
If you don't mind the sacrifices you can get away with a single engine fifth gen but the restrictions on internal payload will be created just by dimensions. Smaller the engines smaller the fuselage smaller the weapons bays.