Not relevant, but it probably comes down to a lot of Lockheed Martin collaboration.
PLA next/6th generation fighter thread
- Thread starter Blitzo
- Start date
- Status
A hot take is I've played around with, is that F-35 Block 4 and J-20A will be seen in retrospect as examples of "5.5th gen" aircraft.
As for "6th gen", everyone is being cautious and doing thorough experiments and trials to determine what their next generation of aircraft looks like.
I don't think that's particularly controversial.
What should be more interesting is what is the gap between the US and PRC "6th gen" fighters versus the gap in preceding 5th gen and 4th gen fighters...
They have a highly advanced electronics industry. So they can make the sensors and other avionics. It isn't their first aircraft design (they did the T-50 trainer earlier). The engines are imported.
antiterror13
Brigadier
How about J-11B and J-16 ?
Take it with a mountain of salt at this point.
Controversial take incoming.
It just seems like we've reached a point where the gains made by development of technology is slowing down. The gap between a clean sheet design and existing 5th gens aren't big enough hence development period gets longer and longer. In stark contrast to ealier generations where every few years there would be a huge increase in capability.
There's also the question of whether the pilot is even required with the rapidly closing capability of UAVs, which promise lower cost and better performance.
Like why build a super long range fighter when you can just lob tactical ballistic missiles, surely at some point the cost to manufacture a high stealth long legged fighter is more expensive than just building more BMs. Ballistic missiles don't need a pilot, an airfield or aerial refueling. If the goal is just to hit something far away that is heavily defended, having more/better missiles seems like a easier option.
Yes, mainly as control and decision nodes. Even highly complex and advanced UCAVs (e.g. CCAs) are unable to do everything on their own, especially taking into account their smaller sizes and the less advanced computing systems onboard than larger, manned fighters in order to reduce unit costs for larger available numbers.
Not every target requires ground-launched ballistic missiles. Once most if not all of the key/critical enemy targets and theater/strategic AD systems are taken out, costs no longer justifies spamming more ballistic missiles to strike enemy targets that can be supressed if not destroyed by other cheaper and more effective means.
For instance, I certainly wouldn't want to use DF-16 to strike a HIMARS TEL somewhere in the Ryukyus, when a WL-3 or CH-5 armed with A2G missiles can do the job with better response time and lower cost - Provided the THAAD and PAC-3 systems in the region have been effectively surpressed/rendered ineffetive in threatening PLA's airborne units.
Besides, the costs of ballistic missiles actually goes up quite rapidly as strike ranges extends further, even with economics of scale being considered.
Also, I honestly don't think that the PLAAF would be using Sino-NGAD or J-20A/S to conduct ground/surface-attack missions. Providing target guidance for the missiles launched from the JH-7s, J-16s and/or H-6s (and hopefully H-20s soon, if not also missile/bomb-truck UCAVs e.g. GJ-11s) would be a better case of use for them.
Last edited:
Where do you get the bottom photo? Impressive if real.
It's PS. I saw it on WB.
- Status