Continuing a thought bubble;
We are often stuck in generation thinking, when it isn't always applicable.
"Next fighter is 6th generation fighter because it smells NGAD" is example of this; we're waiting for shiny wonders and miss actual ones.
Big, long range fighter can be viewed not as something utterly new; decade between it and j-20 is nowhere near enough to talk about replacement or even some incredible capability.
This binary thinking is flawed: F-22 is conceptually thoroughly outdated and can't be saved, yet at the same time it is undoubtedly still the strongest fighter in the world - by itself.
Are there right now technologies which will make j-20 outdated and up for replacement? No.
Are there technologies which make hell lot of difference for system of systems, and which are beyond current generation's(as it's system design was conceived 20 years ago, at the time of millennium bug and windows ME?)ability to adapt?
Oh hell yes, and we know some: Digital Engineering, Open System Architectures, and Agile Software Development.
None are terribly impressive, yes. All 3 make one hell of difference in adaptability to a digital world; compare car industry (how Tesla or Chinese car manufacturers patch their cars to how Lockheed or VW patches their products).
Oh, and I remember you wanted to iterate CCAs fast?
With that in mind, big J-2024 doesn't need to spew lasers, variable engines and so on. It needs to implement that 20 years of system design brought in, and by itself can "just" perfect replacement for Chinese single seat flankers in one single mission j-20 can't take from them. That is, very long range air superiority and escort. Flanker family was quite notorious in 1980s for breaking outer air battle by being able to escort backfires and badgers; why not repeat all the same purposes and more, but VLO and up to Guam? Making future dispersed American ecosystems by default vulnerable even when they're in the air is a nasty planning complication.
IMHO, such an explanation makes some sense, and it seems to match perfectly j-11 lifecycle (some are replaced by j-20a, others go through MLU - which will last them enough to wait out till new fighter enters service).
Basically, why complicate our own thinking with generations, when every 10 years system design change is in fact generational; at the same time, development of new fighters goes along their own design cycle, with a goal of producing necessary level of capability at corresponding time. No need to jump out of it.
We are often stuck in generation thinking, when it isn't always applicable.
"Next fighter is 6th generation fighter because it smells NGAD" is example of this; we're waiting for shiny wonders and miss actual ones.
Big, long range fighter can be viewed not as something utterly new; decade between it and j-20 is nowhere near enough to talk about replacement or even some incredible capability.
This binary thinking is flawed: F-22 is conceptually thoroughly outdated and can't be saved, yet at the same time it is undoubtedly still the strongest fighter in the world - by itself.
Are there right now technologies which will make j-20 outdated and up for replacement? No.
Are there technologies which make hell lot of difference for system of systems, and which are beyond current generation's(as it's system design was conceived 20 years ago, at the time of millennium bug and windows ME?)ability to adapt?
Oh hell yes, and we know some: Digital Engineering, Open System Architectures, and Agile Software Development.
None are terribly impressive, yes. All 3 make one hell of difference in adaptability to a digital world; compare car industry (how Tesla or Chinese car manufacturers patch their cars to how Lockheed or VW patches their products).
Oh, and I remember you wanted to iterate CCAs fast?
With that in mind, big J-2024 doesn't need to spew lasers, variable engines and so on. It needs to implement that 20 years of system design brought in, and by itself can "just" perfect replacement for Chinese single seat flankers in one single mission j-20 can't take from them. That is, very long range air superiority and escort. Flanker family was quite notorious in 1980s for breaking outer air battle by being able to escort backfires and badgers; why not repeat all the same purposes and more, but VLO and up to Guam? Making future dispersed American ecosystems by default vulnerable even when they're in the air is a nasty planning complication.
IMHO, such an explanation makes some sense, and it seems to match perfectly j-11 lifecycle (some are replaced by j-20a, others go through MLU - which will last them enough to wait out till new fighter enters service).
Basically, why complicate our own thinking with generations, when every 10 years system design change is in fact generational; at the same time, development of new fighters goes along their own design cycle, with a goal of producing necessary level of capability at corresponding time. No need to jump out of it.
Last edited:
