J-XX Fighter Aircraft

Re: J-xx

oringo said:

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.

Click to expand...

After having some time to cool down a bit, I think the big point of contention is how much you actually trust sensors (and computers that analyze sensor data).

I would say that, as sensors have improved, so have countermeasures such as stealth and ECM. So in a real battle situation you can't assume that your computers will see and correctly identify your targets.

This means that you still have to count on humans to 1) use their superior pattern recognition to find the targets, 2) use common sense to figure out where the target is likely to be, and who is likely to be on your side.

I suspect AI 'fighters' will come about as a gradual evolution of today's UAVs, with successive models being more and more capable, rather than a fully realized UAV fighter emerging all at once to succeed the F-22. They'll gradually replace piloted planes in more and more roles, and eventually you won't need piloted fighters at all. But I think it will be quite a while before that happens.

... Ami.

[I'm not going to debate whether or not humans or computers are better at pattern recognition. There's lots of material available on the web to prove my point, and it's just frustrating trying to explain it here.]

Re: J-xx

After having some time to cool down a bit, I think the big point of contention is how much you actually trust sensors (and computers that analyze sensor data).

I would say that, as sensors have improved, so have countermeasures such as stealth and ECM. So in a real battle situation you can't assume that your computers will see and correctly identify your targets.

This means that you still have to count on humans to 1) use their superior pattern recognition to find the targets, 2) use common sense to figure out where the target is likely to be, and who is likely to be on your side.

Click to expand...

I believe you need to study more about electronic IFF methods currently being used.

Humans simply do not provide superior target recognition. That's a matter of proven fact in the battlefield, and this is why a whole host of electronic IFF measures have been invented and is currently operational.

Re: J-xx

Id say the best thing would be a mix of manned fighter and unmanned, with a few manned to control the unmanned, give direction, change of target, ETC.

Re: J-xx

Unmanned fighters can be UCAV along with old legacy fighters converted into robots (J-6s and early J-7s in China's case).

Manned fighters can be a mix of small interceptor and tactical support fighters, with heavy fighter doubling as strike aircraft, along with heavy fighters acting as lead planes and mini-AWACs.

It should be noted that the first robot vs. manned aircraft duel has been fought between a Global Predator who launched a missile against an Iraqi MiG-25 prior to GW2. The Predator lost, so the score currently stands for 1-0 in favor of humans.

Re: J-xx

Moving my post here.

Roger604 said:

This appeared on the Chinese websites as "Xue E" -- Snow Swan

Click to expand...

crobato said:

Are you sure its not a hoax?

Nonetheless, it has a very interesting aerodynamic design, not something an amateur would simply dream up without some extensive understanding of aerodynamics.

The current exhaust design is a disappointment. You would think they would try to something about thermal signature reduction.

Click to expand...

I agree. This aircraft design definitely looks more sophisticated than what you would expect from an amateur CGI. It must have some basis in reality. I think it's either the actual SAC J-14 heavy stealth fighter, or it is a rejected design.

I have read some source (don't know how credible they are) that indicated J-14 will have an RCS close to the F-22. This is consistent with sources like SinoDefence and others, that say SAC J-14 will be "F-22 class stealth" while CAC J-13 will be merely low-observable.

If so, I find it hard to believe J-14 will achieve this with a canard delta. Most likely it looks something like these pics. This "Xue E" is also a very aesthetically pleasing creature. More graceful than anything else out there right now. Kind of on par with the Rafale or the Blackjack, I think. And it looks like they really put some work into the intakes, at least it seems from the side view.

Maybe they figured the performance price of putting a YF-23 type "stealthy" exhaust is too high, without gaining much benefit from reduced IR.

crobato said:

It should be noted that the first robot vs. manned aircraft duel has been fought between a Global Predator who launched a missile against an Iraqi MiG-25 prior to GW2. The Predator lost, so the score currently stands for 1-0 in favor of humans.

Click to expand...

I hope the robots don't come back for revenge like in Terminator.

Re: J-xx

While the design is quite beautiful, my first impressions on it was that it was designed primarily on the aerodynamic view. Curved and rounded surfaces---the neck reminds me a bit of the Flanker---are not conducive to RCS reduction. You need to reflect radar on as few angles as possible, not everywhere, and thus angled surfaces are preferred. But then the basic design can still be refined.

The plane seems large and I cannot help feeling it may have internal bomb bays, and the plane maybe intended for long range strike missions.

What I find very interesting is the way the elevators blend into a singular diamond winged concept, with a suggestive LERX on the front and the forward edge of the wing with a slight compound sweep like a double delta.

Whoever drew this knows that a plane based on a single wing, less separated elevators and canards, whether coplanar or biplanar, is the one that gives the least drag of all. Yet he is aware that putting the elevators like that, similar to a butterfly tail, gives better control authority than surfaces extending from the back of the main wing. The way the control surfaces extend way back from the exhaust farthest from the plane's center tells you he understands how long arm moments help control authority.

Underneath the plane it looks like an inverted intake with a DSI like hump.

There is something about the plane that feels like an extrapolated Flanker, given the neck lines, LERX and the wing forward sweep. Shenyang? It may seem like Chengdu and Shenyang are working based on the aerodynamic models they have the most experience with.

Re: J-xx

Well, the Raptor itself has a few curves on the back of its "hump", though not as pronounced as the ones in the pic.

Exhaust suppression systems might not be ready yet. They've only just certified the core engine design, according to the guy who said the WS-10A was ready for production.

Re: J-xx

Very impressive pictures Roger....is the site where u got it from a trustworthy source?

Re: J-xx

Okay, you aerodynamics conneseurs. What is the major downside of vertical stabilizators angling intwards instead of outwards? I'm talking perfomance wise. I would understand that airflow might be an issue if they're close to each other, but in this concept it's clear there's a vast amount of space between them.

Re: J-xx

Totoro said:

Okay, you aerodynamics conneseurs. What is the major downside of vertical stabilizators angling intwards instead of outwards? I'm talking perfomance wise. I would understand that airflow might be an issue if they're close to each other, but in this concept it's clear there's a vast amount of space between them.

Click to expand...

I just want to point out that the Sukhoi PAK FA design also has the vertical stabilizers angling outwards instead of inwards, similar to the picture that Roger604 posted of the J-xx, so I would not accuse the design of poor aerodynamics simply because there seems to be a vast amount of space between them.

PAK FA pictures from Wikipedia: