J-XX Fighter Aircraft

Status
Not open for further replies.

yehe

Junior Member
Re: J-xx

On topic - wouldn't it be cool if JXX came out before pakfa? Which seems quite doable, knowing the russians. Then again, lately their rhetoric has picked up steam and they are more than often claiming 2009 as first flight date. That might not bode well for the 'race' with JXX...

I kinda doubt it, the Russians are still ahead of China in terms of military technology, like AESA, TVC engine, the rissians are pretty mature in these fields, China are catching up, but will take a couple more years.

I think Jxx wont get out before 2015. But the twin engined J10 might.
 

Roger604

Senior Member
Re: J-xx

I think Jxx wont get out before 2015. But the twin engined J10 might.

If this thing is the double-engined "J-10", then it's certainly a 5th generation stealth fighter. If so, it's quite possible that China may deploy a 5th generation aircraft before Russia does.

Heck if they're showing the cockpit HUD of this new fighter, it wouldn't be too long before it enters a prototype stage ;)

336lo1.jpg
 
Last edited:

King_Comm

Junior Member
VIP Professional
Re: J-xx

Roger604, where did you get that picture from? from Tiexue? I don't think that Tiexue forum is known for its credibility.
 

dollarman

New Member
Re: J-xx

Roger604, where did you get that picture from? from Tiexue? I don't think that Tiexue forum is known for its credibility.

The picture is a confirmed fake, which I'm sure he knows, though a very nice CGI work nonetheless. The first image showing the LCD screen is real, but it is unclear whether the front-view shown is actually that of the j-xx.
 

Roger604

Senior Member
Re: J-xx

The HUD photo is real.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


Everybody knows that aircraft is a CGI, not an actual photograph.

The important questions are:

1) What is the source of that amazingly detailed and professionally made CGI?

2) Why does the HUD photo, released a year later, show an aircraft that is clearly identical to the CGI, released a year earlier?

;)
 

crobato

Colonel
VIP Professional
Re: J-xx

Ok. This thread has gotten silly.

I was thinking about responding, but you can read my previous posts, they already address the points brought up. We should get back to the actual topic of the thread.

There's lots of material about AI available on the 'Net if you want to know the actual state of technology. PM me if you need help finding something specific.

... Ami.

The problem with you is that you think it is necessary to recreate every damn unnecessary baggage/garbage/balony the human brain has to carry before you can create a truly AI UCAV with BFM capability. That's wrong. You only bring in what you need.

A lot of pilot training is there to overcome such a baggage because we are not inherently flight animals.

I don't understand why do you need to bring up matters like pathfinding on a flight AI when pathfinding simply does not apply to this field. I don't even understand why you have to bring the Mars Rover in the first place. Does the Mars Rover fly in any way?

I don't understand why you think electronics have problems discerning IFF when in fact, we **ARE** currently relying completely on electronics for IFF. You think humans can distinguish friend or foe better? War experience tells you we cannot. Todays electronics have a whole host of means to distinguish friend from foe, from IR and optical imaging, to SAR/ISAR to analysis of radar signatures. Signatures, patterns, forms can all be compared digitally to a large database of known forms. In that sense, AI is vastly superior when it comes to recognition than any human.

While indeed the human brain is a marvelous device, it is far from perfect. The baggage in its design and its huge complexity makes it vastly inefficient for repetitive tasks that must be done in high precision and in vast speed. Why is it that we have autopiloting, digital fly by wire and terrain following that are being performed by computers? Do you understand that a lot of military training is drilling to do the same tasks over and over again repeatedly until it finally shines? We are spending too much training to OVERCOME the human brain baggage and its inefficiencies to do REPETITIVE TASKS in precision and speed, something AIs can do much more quickly and consistently more accurate by focus of design.

When John Boyd reduced the art of BFM into a series of equations based on physics behind the concept of energy maneuvering, it does not take long to figure out than an AI can perform such calculations so much faster than any human can, and even compare alternatives, in order to determine the optimal flight solution to a maneuvering question.
 

AmiGanguli

Junior Member
Re: J-xx

I know how it is, Ami, I'm totally with you on this one. I just didn't have the willpower to go against the windmills in this thread. And yes, arguments have made a whole circle... it would be silly to try to go on when its evident no results would be made.

Thanks. I was getting pretty frustrated.

Croboto: You can't just take my quotes out of context. I was replying to specific points, so you have to read what I say in the context of the material I quoted. Nowhere did I claim that pathfinding was a major obstacle - quite the opposite in fact.

... Ami.
 

Skywatcher

Captain
Re: J-xx

I'm of the opinion that the HUD belongs to the CAC proposal.

The SAC windtunnel models haven't shown any canards that I'm aware of.
 

Chengdu J-10

Junior Member
Re: J-xx

J-XX right hmm lets get back on track people. Engines incorporated into the J-XX will need to have larger thrust, TVC as the J-XX will mostly be a heavey weight fighter. Equipped with the new BVRAAM.
 

oringo

Junior Member
Re: J-xx

The problem with you is that you think it is necessary to recreate every damn unnecessary baggage/garbage/balony the human brain has to carry before you can create a truly AI UCAV with BFM capability. That's wrong. You only bring in what you need.

A lot of pilot training is there to overcome such a baggage because we are not inherently flight animals.

I don't understand why do you need to bring up matters like pathfinding on a flight AI when pathfinding simply does not apply to this field. I don't even understand why you have to bring the Mars Rover in the first place. Does the Mars Rover fly in any way?

I don't understand why you think electronics have problems discerning IFF when in fact, we **ARE** currently relying completely on electronics for IFF. You think humans can distinguish friend or foe better? War experience tells you we cannot. Todays electronics have a whole host of means to distinguish friend from foe, from IR and optical imaging, to SAR/ISAR to analysis of radar signatures. Signatures, patterns, forms can all be compared digitally to a large database of known forms. In that sense, AI is vastly superior when it comes to recognition than any human.

While indeed the human brain is a marvelous device, it is far from perfect. The baggage in its design and its huge complexity makes it vastly inefficient for repetitive tasks that must be done in high precision and in vast speed. Why is it that we have autopiloting, digital fly by wire and terrain following that are being performed by computers? Do you understand that a lot of military training is drilling to do the same tasks over and over again repeatedly until it finally shines? We are spending too much training to OVERCOME the human brain baggage and its inefficiencies to do REPETITIVE TASKS in precision and speed, something AIs can do much more quickly and consistently more accurate by focus of design.

When John Boyd reduced the art of BFM into a series of equations based on physics behind the concept of energy maneuvering, it does not take long to figure out than an AI can perform such calculations so much faster than any human can, and even compare alternatives, in order to determine the optimal flight solution to a maneuvering question.

I don't always agree with crobato, but I think he has a good point. There is a difference between the AI being researched in the academia that can "learn all and do all" versus the pseudo-AI being applied to machines. Granted such technology shouldn't be technically called "AI" since they still lack the essential cognitive skills that our brains possess, but they do replace a lot of expensive trainings and will continue to improve.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top