J-20 5th Gen Fighter Thread V
- Thread starter Deino
- Start date
- Status
the 2101 means... is it a new J-21? or still J-20?
2101 is only the serial number... the X in 2X0Y could refer to the first batch of production J-20s (in this case being the first LRIP batch), and the Y refers to the aircraft place within the batch.
The plane is still called J-20.
Ultra
Junior Member
If I am not mistaken, the very best human pilot can withstand is 12g for only a few seconds, and 9g for a very short period or they will simply black-out. That's after years of very intensive training. Missiles on the other hand can go 20g+ regularly and more than 100g+ recorded for some older missiles.
Its really down to physiology and physics - as we found newer and stronger materials, couple with better and superior construction / manufacturing methods, and smarter and better A.I. for the CPU, better sensors - the missiles will in the near future out-maneuver human pilot every single time.
Super maneuverability will become a useless feature in the future combat aircraft.
Trends in Air-to-Air Combat: Implications for Future Air Superiority
In this study, Dr. John Stillion conducts a historical analysis of air-to-air combat, drawing on a database of over 1,450 air-to-air victories from multiple conflicts from 1965 to the present. Using this data, Stillion assesses how advances in sensor, weapons, and communication technologies have changed air combat and the implications of these trends for future combat aircraft designs and operational concepts. Stillion concludes that these advances may have fundamentally transformed the nature of air combat. This transformation may be steadily reducing the utility of some attributes traditionally associated with fighter aircraft (e.g., extreme speed and maneuverability) while increasing the value of attributes not usually associated with fighter aircraft (e.g., sensor and weapon payload as well as range). As a result, an effective sixth-generation “fighter” may look similar to a future “bomber” and may even be a modified version of a bomber airframe or the same aircraft with its payload optimized for the air-to-air mission, Stillion argues. If this is correct, then the United States may be in a position to save tens of billions of dollars in nonrecurring development costs by combining Air Force and Navy future fighter development programs with each service’s long range ISR/strike programs.
quotes a defense industry insider who thinks that Stillion’s analysis is spot on:
Why invest in the sixth generation fighter ? Such an aircraft will only offer marginal improvements over the F-22 at great cost. But it will still be fairly short-ranged (at least considering the operational distances in the Pacific and other theaters). Wouldn’t it be better instead to focus on a bigger aircraft?
The insider could envision a future fleet of around 400 bomber-like multi-role aircraft constituting the core of America’s airpower in the 21st century: “What I find most compelling is the idea that we could develop a single, large, long-range, big payload, stealthy aircraft that would comprise the future United States Air Force’s combat arm.”
Granted, human pilots will still have the insights and abstract problem solving skills over a cold lump of metals, but with AESA radars, more effective BVR missiles, an increasingly networked battlespace, HOBS missiles and high-end sensor fusion now a reality, dogfight may finally become a relic of the past, along with super maneuverability.
Its really down to physiology and physics - as we found newer and stronger materials, couple with better and superior construction / manufacturing methods, and smarter and better A.I. for the CPU, better sensors - the missiles will in the near future out-maneuver human pilot every single time.
Super maneuverability will become a useless feature in the future combat aircraft.
Trends in Air-to-Air Combat: Implications for Future Air Superiority
In this study, Dr. John Stillion conducts a historical analysis of air-to-air combat, drawing on a database of over 1,450 air-to-air victories from multiple conflicts from 1965 to the present. Using this data, Stillion assesses how advances in sensor, weapons, and communication technologies have changed air combat and the implications of these trends for future combat aircraft designs and operational concepts. Stillion concludes that these advances may have fundamentally transformed the nature of air combat. This transformation may be steadily reducing the utility of some attributes traditionally associated with fighter aircraft (e.g., extreme speed and maneuverability) while increasing the value of attributes not usually associated with fighter aircraft (e.g., sensor and weapon payload as well as range). As a result, an effective sixth-generation “fighter” may look similar to a future “bomber” and may even be a modified version of a bomber airframe or the same aircraft with its payload optimized for the air-to-air mission, Stillion argues. If this is correct, then the United States may be in a position to save tens of billions of dollars in nonrecurring development costs by combining Air Force and Navy future fighter development programs with each service’s long range ISR/strike programs.
quotes a defense industry insider who thinks that Stillion’s analysis is spot on:
Why invest in the sixth generation fighter ? Such an aircraft will only offer marginal improvements over the F-22 at great cost. But it will still be fairly short-ranged (at least considering the operational distances in the Pacific and other theaters). Wouldn’t it be better instead to focus on a bigger aircraft?
The insider could envision a future fleet of around 400 bomber-like multi-role aircraft constituting the core of America’s airpower in the 21st century: “What I find most compelling is the idea that we could develop a single, large, long-range, big payload, stealthy aircraft that would comprise the future United States Air Force’s combat arm.”
Granted, human pilots will still have the insights and abstract problem solving skills over a cold lump of metals, but with AESA radars, more effective BVR missiles, an increasingly networked battlespace, HOBS missiles and high-end sensor fusion now a reality, dogfight may finally become a relic of the past, along with super maneuverability.
The problem with relying on superior sensors is that they are contingent variables in a battlefield, and not definitive ones. Your adversary can interfere and constrain with your ability to detect and see, but no technology yet exists that can interfere and constrain your ability to maneuver.
What is written there is a vision of future air to air combat, and certain elements may or may not come .
thunderchief
Senior Member
Another (actually same but better resolution) pic of 2101, stolen from another forum . Do my old eyes deceive me, or those wheelZ look green ? 
plawolf
Lieutenant General
I have to agree. The yellow primer coloured plane, while not giving much insight into what parts are composite (unless the entire surface area are all composites), does give useful insight into where the antennas are.
The radome obviously, and also along the top of the vertical tails, tail stings and wing roots.
What is harder to see definitively, but which I think I can just make out, are grey patches along the leading edge of the main wing, and fixed lower fins.
The lower fines might just be lighting, but I'm fairly confident I can see grey on the leading edge of the wings, indicating the presence of possible L-band radar.
Hardly surprising given that the J10C, which in my view is based on J10 test beds used to help with the J20 avionics development work, also sports such leading edge grey patches.
Really wish we had better resolution pictures of the primer aircraft. Although given how much I was able to gleam from just that grainy image, it's understandable why the higher quality shots of it are being held back.
The radome obviously, and also along the top of the vertical tails, tail stings and wing roots.
What is harder to see definitively, but which I think I can just make out, are grey patches along the leading edge of the main wing, and fixed lower fins.
The lower fines might just be lighting, but I'm fairly confident I can see grey on the leading edge of the wings, indicating the presence of possible L-band radar.
Hardly surprising given that the J10C, which in my view is based on J10 test beds used to help with the J20 avionics development work, also sports such leading edge grey patches.
Really wish we had better resolution pictures of the primer aircraft. Although given how much I was able to gleam from just that grainy image, it's understandable why the higher quality shots of it are being held back.
- Status