PLA next/6th generation fighter thread

[Gloire_bb]

I actually don't see any defining characteristics that make a fighter 6th generation.
It just appears to be more of the same.

As of now, it appears to be:
External - attempt to finally do away with vertical surfaces (intermediate step of 4 surfaces is already happening);
Internal - adaptation of DEW(massive increase in energy generation and, crucially, heatsink, with only sneaky/pop-up turrets outside).
Those two won't fit in any existing airframe and represent something qualitatively new.

Accuracy is meh, of course - for 50 years we only get to know the actual direction of the next generation after its announcement.

 

[siegecrossbow]

I'll echo this.

Much of what is proposed for sixth gen is already available on fifth gens (LO, AI, CEC, algorithms, powerful and efficient engines, sensor fusion, automation, conformal sensors).

Much of this has been widely discussed for well over a decade now, nothing groundbreaking.

IMHO, one of the next big changes will be true unmanned air to air combat since that's been a bitch to automate, unlike air to surface.

The improvement of LO will be on a whole other level though. Sixth generation aircraft will achieve true all aspect LO.

 

[Philister]

True.

But with 5th gen -> 6th gen, it feels more like the difference between 4th gen -> 4.5 gen aircraft.

Just more of the same, but somewhat better.

More like 1-2 or 2-3, the gap between 3gen and 4gen is unusual , I don’t expect 6gen would dominate 5gen like 5gen did to 4gen

 

[Philister]

More like 1-2 or 2-3, the gap between 3gen and 4gen is unusual , I don’t expect 6gen would dominate 5gen like 5gen did to 4gen

4-5

 

[Gloire_bb]

More like 1-2 or 2-3, the gap between 3gen and 4gen is unusual , I don’t expect 6gen would dominate 5gen like 5gen did to 4gen

We haven't really seen how(if) 5th gen dominates 4th gen.
The only thing we saw is that it failed to displace it, much like between 2nd and 3rd generation airframes.

 

[AndrewS]

We haven't really seen how(if) 5th gen dominates 4th gen.
The only thing we saw is that it failed to displace it, much like between 2nd and 3rd generation airframes.

We've never had an actual conflict where 5th Gen fighters have gone up against 4th Gen fighters.

For the past 30 years, the US previously never had to worry about air superiority.

And it's only in the past 5 years that 5th gen fighters have been available for other countries.

 

[AndrewS]

The improvement of LO will be on a whole other level though. Sixth generation aircraft will achieve true all aspect LO.

All aspect LO sounds like an expensive and overengineered solution not required by fighters in most situations.

 

[AndrewS]

As of now, it appears to be:
External - attempt to finally do away with vertical surfaces (intermediate step of 4 surfaces is already happening);
Internal - adaptation of DEW(massive increase in energy generation and, crucially, heatsink, with only sneaky/pop-up turrets outside).
Those two won't fit in any existing airframe and represent something qualitatively new.

Accuracy is meh, of course - for 50 years we only get to know the actual direction of the next generation after its announcement.

We already have flying wings which do away with vertical surfaces, so it's just more of the same.

I agree that DEW lasers would represent a decisive capability that marks out 6Gen aircraft. But this is still pie in the sky.

Remember Star Wars SDI, or the railgun for the Zumwalt that were hyped so much for so many years, but failed to actually be practical.

 

[plawolf]

I personally think we will maybe have two diverging, but not mutually exclusive 6th gen development paths.

One will continue down the current LO route with better shaping and delete the vertical stabilisers and have more range and maybe marginally better agility etc.

The other will be a more radical concept looking at using combined cycle engines and advanced materials and shaping to achieve hypersonic and/or sub-orbital/orbital flight characteristics to almost bypass the need for stealth or dogfights by being simply too fast for the enemy to do anything about.

If pressed, I would argue that continuing LO and going tailless isn’t really worthy of a generational jump. At most it’s equivalent to going from 3rd to 4th gen, but won’t be as revolutionary and game changing as the leap from 4th to 5th. So I would suggest calling tailless LO as 5.5 gen while reserving hypersonic, orbital capable fighters as truth 6th gen.

 

[AndrewS]

The other will be a more radical concept looking at using combined cycle engines and advanced materials and shaping to achieve hypersonic and/or sub-orbital/orbital flight characteristics to almost bypass the need for stealth or dogfights by being simply too fast for the enemy to do anything about.

I'd call this a completely different class of (strategic/regional) bomber, because it is designed to avoid other aircraft or defences.

If pressed, I would argue that continuing LO and going tailless isn’t really worthy of a generational jump. At most it’s equivalent to going from 3rd to 4th gen, but won’t be as revolutionary and game changing as the leap from 4th to 5th. So I would suggest calling tailless LO as 5.5 gen while reserving hypersonic, orbital capable fighters as truth 6th gen.

I'd go with tailless LO and/or adaptive engines as 5.5 gen for fighters.
But if airborne lasers for fighter jets work out, then that would be 6th Gen.