Not real, just suggesting designations for 6th gen engines.
Note that the US is already researching future 6th gen engines with ridiculous T/W beyond F135 levels.
PLA next/6th generation fighter thread
- Thread starter Blitzo
- Start date
Not real, just suggesting designations for 6th gen engines.
Note that the US is already researching future 6th gen engines with ridiculous T/W beyond F135 levels.
That is the question really. Back in the 90s different nations has different standards for what the next generation fighter will be. The Russians proposed MiG 1.44 and Su-47, the Europeans the Typhoon, and so and so forth. It wasn’t until the 2000s when stealth became a must have criteria for fifth generation fighters. I think we won’t know for sure until the mid 2030s what the defining criteria is.
This paper is the source of the images of the last few pages.
After body supersonic directional stability augmentation method for tailless configuration
LI Chunpeng, LIU Tiezhong, QIAN Zhansen, ZHANG Tiejun
Aero Science Key Lab of High Reynolds Aerodynamic Force at High Speed, AVIC Aerodynamics Research Institute, Shenyang 110034, China
Abstract: Aiming at the problem of insufficient supersonic directional static stability in the tailless configuration aircraft design, an aerodynamic supersonic directional augmentation method for the after-body design is presented. Firstly, the design idea of after-body supersonic directional augmentation was made clear by the comparative analysis of the directional static stability and surface flow field between flat after-body and conventional after-body of tailless configuration. And then the influence law of the after-body shape on the supersonic directional static stability was analyzed based on the parametric configuration. Finally, the effectiveness of the after body supersonic directional stability augmentation method was verified by the comprehensive aerodynamic characteristics numerical evaluation of the typical after-body scheme. The results show that the increment of after-body lateral projected area, after-body surface spine curves and after-body surface section curves are the three most important parameters which affect the ability of after body supersonic directional augmentation. Compared to the conventional after-body, the after-body shape designed by the supersonic directional augmentation method can dramatically decrease the directional static instability of the tailless configuration at transonic and supersonic flight with drag basically unchanged.
After body supersonic directional stability augmentation method for tailless configuration
LI Chunpeng, LIU Tiezhong, QIAN Zhansen, ZHANG Tiejun
Aero Science Key Lab of High Reynolds Aerodynamic Force at High Speed, AVIC Aerodynamics Research Institute, Shenyang 110034, China
Abstract: Aiming at the problem of insufficient supersonic directional static stability in the tailless configuration aircraft design, an aerodynamic supersonic directional augmentation method for the after-body design is presented. Firstly, the design idea of after-body supersonic directional augmentation was made clear by the comparative analysis of the directional static stability and surface flow field between flat after-body and conventional after-body of tailless configuration. And then the influence law of the after-body shape on the supersonic directional static stability was analyzed based on the parametric configuration. Finally, the effectiveness of the after body supersonic directional stability augmentation method was verified by the comprehensive aerodynamic characteristics numerical evaluation of the typical after-body scheme. The results show that the increment of after-body lateral projected area, after-body surface spine curves and after-body surface section curves are the three most important parameters which affect the ability of after body supersonic directional augmentation. Compared to the conventional after-body, the after-body shape designed by the supersonic directional augmentation method can dramatically decrease the directional static instability of the tailless configuration at transonic and supersonic flight with drag basically unchanged.
Up and above the 5th gen platform which is defined as an LO capable aircraft, 6th gen aims to fully integrate into a system of network(s) encompassing various kinds of platforms operated by different services. In addition and in effect of this, Situational awareness(both, through individual sensors and merged data from various platforms) will define how advanced a certain platform is in domain of 6th gen.
Systems in existence or proposed include MADL for F35 for high bandwidth jamproof directional connections for sharing huge amounts of raw data rather than a few data points as in case of Link 16 and equivalents. As a result you have a F35 that can cue a THAAD interceptor through IBCS network, re-designate and even track it up until intercept.
A concept to use Zumwalt based SM3 Block 2a guided by F35 was up in news a few years ago, not to forget CRAM targeting through its MFR.
The next gen will mostly be software intensive and as such might not present any visual difference to 5th gen, but its the electronics where the real gains will be made.
Apart from that, engines can also be used a litmus test to decide whether a platform is 6th gen or not, since massive electric power req, thermal sink needs would need them to be in T/W, efficiency and design limit ranges provided only by adaptive cycle engines like XA100/101.
Last edited:
To implement such a platform would not just be a singular point of development of a specified airframe configuration but multiple designated sensor and networking capabilities that'll need to be fielded to provide real time high fidelity data sharing in a contested environment.
MADL successor by darpa
Also Darpa Blackjack
Once such a network specification is in place, then its just a question of how you want to operate in the contested environment based on mission-success/cost assessment. Once that is done, just divide up the sensors and kinetic/non kinetic capabilities in various platforms that sit fit with your cost proposition -
High-high mix) Fighters like F35, PCA working in tandem to all available ISR/targeting,
really expensive,
old school but provides enough self sufficient sensors(pilots) to go through the day incase network is taken down, production possible today.
High-low mix) Use Skyborg like semi attritable platforms with F35, F15ex to divide risks while not overloading self sufficient software with too much variants to fail,
Provides a cost effective measure to fight a decentralized enemy,
Technologically possible today however testing and eval required.
Low-Low mix) AI enabled drones,
Complete self sufficiency in terms of tactics and sensor data engagement,
cost effective against a highly decentralized enemy with number of targets exceeding feasible cost of attack under current munitions and targeting tech,
Tech atleast a decade away from fielding.
At the end of the day, its all about how you keep the more expensive sensors, C2 and other electronics away from risk while enabling mission success using least expensive solution within the high risk probability environment.
Shifting platforms providing targeting capability at light speed within the network is just the most feasible way to do it now.
I think one approach to future warfare could be offloading sensors and capabilities onto unmanned platforms. This could create a resilient distributed sensor network. If one node goes down, it won't drag down the network to the same extent as if an AWACS was to go down today.
Using drones also allows countries to reduce costs and risks involved with training pilots and sending them into battle.
This approach imagines manned aircraft, including fighters, as centralized processing nodes in the network.
These increasingly complicated sensor networks will require high speed, jam proof, rugged and reliable electronics. These will also be a need to correctly interpret the vast amount of incoming data. Thus, advanced on and off board data processing, pattern recognition and data analysis will become crucial. And these capabilities on board aircraft will share high quality, actionable intelligence with all other branches of the military, including the navy and ground forces.
Using drones also allows countries to reduce costs and risks involved with training pilots and sending them into battle.
This approach imagines manned aircraft, including fighters, as centralized processing nodes in the network.
These increasingly complicated sensor networks will require high speed, jam proof, rugged and reliable electronics. These will also be a need to correctly interpret the vast amount of incoming data. Thus, advanced on and off board data processing, pattern recognition and data analysis will become crucial. And these capabilities on board aircraft will share high quality, actionable intelligence with all other branches of the military, including the navy and ground forces.
The definition of a generation shift, in my view, is the ability to completely wreck the previous generation given the same class of aircraft.
In other words, for it to be a true generational shift, you'd need F-22-like 8:0 kill rates vs last generation aircraft.
All of the technological shifts being offered, in my view, are only 5.5th generation aircraft. The decisive shift would be energy weapons; i.e, the ability to shoot down whatever missiles the enemy throws at you with laser point defense, and present an uninterruptible laser beam that can blind or destroy the enemy aircraft.
Alternatively, hypersonics work almost as well; if the aircraft is agile, fast, and maneuverable, it would allow aircraft to be able to escape enemy missiles simply by flying faster than they can fire.
===
The present Chinese "sixth generation" concept seems fairly decent, even if it only seems 5.5th generation. The emphasis on high stealth and strong firepower implies high payloads, or a future aircraft that can defeat enemy missiles by carrying a large arsenal of micro-missiles to counter enemy AAMs. Against stuff like CUDA (canceled, but the concept has its derivatives), enemy AAMs require extreme precision due to their lack of a warhead. This means powerful jamming equipment or anti-missiles have an advantage insofar as the American KK missiles must get extremely close to score a kill.
In other words, for it to be a true generational shift, you'd need F-22-like 8:0 kill rates vs last generation aircraft.
All of the technological shifts being offered, in my view, are only 5.5th generation aircraft. The decisive shift would be energy weapons; i.e, the ability to shoot down whatever missiles the enemy throws at you with laser point defense, and present an uninterruptible laser beam that can blind or destroy the enemy aircraft.
Alternatively, hypersonics work almost as well; if the aircraft is agile, fast, and maneuverable, it would allow aircraft to be able to escape enemy missiles simply by flying faster than they can fire.
===
The present Chinese "sixth generation" concept seems fairly decent, even if it only seems 5.5th generation. The emphasis on high stealth and strong firepower implies high payloads, or a future aircraft that can defeat enemy missiles by carrying a large arsenal of micro-missiles to counter enemy AAMs. Against stuff like CUDA (canceled, but the concept has its derivatives), enemy AAMs require extreme precision due to their lack of a warhead. This means powerful jamming equipment or anti-missiles have an advantage insofar as the American KK missiles must get extremely close to score a kill.
The fact that the Franco-Germano-Spanish alliance and the British-Swede-Italian alliance can attempting jump from 4.5 to 6th gen (that's 1.5 gen leap) is incredulous and unrealistic.
It's more likely they are jumping from 4.5 to 5+++ (or 5.5) rather than full 6.0. Only US and China and perhaps Russia have the technical wherewithal and experience to fully realize a true 6.0 platform.
It's more likely they are jumping from 4.5 to 5+++ (or 5.5) rather than full 6.0. Only US and China and perhaps Russia have the technical wherewithal and experience to fully realize a true 6.0 platform.
Why? It’s not like they didn’t do R&D on the component technologies for 5th generation fighters over the last two decades. They just never put together a program. They have the tech capabilities.