I agree fully with this. A radically expanded flight envelope using combined cycle engines is truly worthy of being called a new generation. It's hilarious to think of trying to dogfight such a plane... brb going to space.
PLA next/6th generation fighter thread
- Thread starter Blitzo
- Start date
plawolf
Lieutenant General
Why must such a plane avoid other aircraft or defences?
Nice AWACS/tanker/bomber you got there, let me just delete that with my space fighter real quick.
Say, is that an enemy fighter? Good luck dodging my AAM coming at you at hypersonic speeds with massive KE and good luck to your AAMs trying to reach orbit to get me.
Hell, such a plane might even fundamentally upset MAD if you can send up swarms of thto take out incoming ICBMs en mass.
So if I mount an airborne laser on a Y8, does that make the Y8 6th gen?
Weapons don’t by themselves warrant generational upgrades of the planes they are mounted to.
Eh. I think such an imaginary hypersonic suborbital capable fighter if that even makes sense as a direction would likely be more like 7th gen or later. What determines the characteristics and capabilities of a fighter generation is the technologies available to them at the point of conception, and hypersonic suborbital flight is not a ready technology.
Combined cycle engine.....good luck with your maintenance ,especially with that scramjet part if your turbine is good enough to boost your vehicle so fast that no rocket motor is needed, and if there’s a rocket,it would be using Kerosene&H2O2 (like WZ-8),just imagine using H2O2 on an aircraft
That is why they will be 7th gen or above. The tech needs to mature.
Well, we can come up with some "archetypes" - and see if they match with different airforce requirements.
I won't write "sensor fusion", "integration with loyal wingmen" and "datalinks". That's a given.
By 6th generation for this post, i don't really understand something specific - different countries, different requirements, different everything. Simply a generation of manned stealth fighters, which will appear roughly in 2030...2045. Nothing spectacular, no quantum disintegrators, only tech within a visible event horizon.
For example, imagining a couple:
1. Heavy air superiority/multirole type - basically next-gen evolution of F-15/F-22 line.
Twin engine, 35-40t MTOW class. Likely supercruising/maneuverable, broadband stealth, focused on onboard sensors, larger amount (numerical) of internal armament, and lots of onboard power/(DEW, EA).
Focus: OfCA capability(all engagement ranges).
Likely for PLAAF/PLANAF? No for now, J-20A is new and fresh(the cutout date of 2045 is within 20 years of its introduction).
The likeliest candidate - USAF NGAD obviously, F-22 is close to 20 yrs old and lacks future prospects.
2. Light multirole type - F-16/J-10 replacement, "numbers"/exports fighter. Cheaper to operate than the heavy 5-6 gens and F-35.
Single engine, 20-25t MTOW class. Likely (but not necessarily) all-aspect stealth, missile-focused a2a, everything else - if possible.
Focus: staying within budget; supplementary anti-air and ground strike.
Likely for PLAAF/PLANAF? Yes, for PLAAF. J-10A is 20 years old, some sort of replacement shall appear no later than within 15-20 years. Given the strategic context - much like the J-10 itself, heavier emphasis on a2a as opposed to a2g is quite likely.
Quite likely the USAF will go for such a fighter as well, unless Lockheed will suddenly make F-35 affordable.
3. Heavy multirole/fighter/interceptor type (different from #1) - oversized payloads carrier. Su-27/F-14/Su-57ish probably.
Twin engine, 35-45t MTOW class. Likely less focus on stealth(but still stealth ofc), more - on very large payloads(hypersonic VLR a2a/a2g missiles, EW/ELINT/DEW pods). Otherwise similar to #1(supercruising/maneuverable, onboard sensors, lots of onboard power).
Focus: OtH engagement(DefCA), long-range strike, support of all sorts.
Likely for PLAAF/PLANAF? Yes, for both, but. Yes - because the role is clearly here, J-11/15/16 fleets are here, basic J-11 airframe and design dates back to the 1970s. Also yes because too many things just don't like nor require to be in, but still require an expensive platform that benefits from a crew onboard. Finally, yes because the J-11/16 airframe(hence: role) is clearly liked by PLAAF.
But there are butts.
Firstly, while PLANAF is likely to be in - they probably aren't quite sure themselves, how much. They probably want to understand what J-XY is and what it isn't first. If it'll do great with external payloads, provide enough power, and range will be sufficient - why bother?
Secondly, while J-15/16 airframe ain't new (D versions, in particular, are shiny new!) - there is not too much wrong with it, either.
Then, at least for PLAAF, there is a new shiny J-20S, too. Using it this way sounds a big wasteful/inefficient, but used it can be.
Finally - there is Su-57e available, which looks like a perfect fit for the mission. It isn't 6th gen, but it isn't big deal for carrying boxes. If su-27/30 could become J-11/15/16, so Su-57 can turn into hypothetical J-21/25/26.
Archetype is very like for US as well - USN's NGAD (and F/A-18E/F/G replacement) currently appears to be just that.
...and so on.
I won't write "sensor fusion", "integration with loyal wingmen" and "datalinks". That's a given.
By 6th generation for this post, i don't really understand something specific - different countries, different requirements, different everything. Simply a generation of manned stealth fighters, which will appear roughly in 2030...2045. Nothing spectacular, no quantum disintegrators, only tech within a visible event horizon.
For example, imagining a couple:
1. Heavy air superiority/multirole type - basically next-gen evolution of F-15/F-22 line.
Twin engine, 35-40t MTOW class. Likely supercruising/maneuverable, broadband stealth, focused on onboard sensors, larger amount (numerical) of internal armament, and lots of onboard power/(DEW, EA).
Focus: OfCA capability(all engagement ranges).
Likely for PLAAF/PLANAF? No for now, J-20A is new and fresh(the cutout date of 2045 is within 20 years of its introduction).
The likeliest candidate - USAF NGAD obviously, F-22 is close to 20 yrs old and lacks future prospects.
2. Light multirole type - F-16/J-10 replacement, "numbers"/exports fighter. Cheaper to operate than the heavy 5-6 gens and F-35.
Single engine, 20-25t MTOW class. Likely (but not necessarily) all-aspect stealth, missile-focused a2a, everything else - if possible.
Focus: staying within budget; supplementary anti-air and ground strike.
Likely for PLAAF/PLANAF? Yes, for PLAAF. J-10A is 20 years old, some sort of replacement shall appear no later than within 15-20 years. Given the strategic context - much like the J-10 itself, heavier emphasis on a2a as opposed to a2g is quite likely.
Quite likely the USAF will go for such a fighter as well, unless Lockheed will suddenly make F-35 affordable.
3. Heavy multirole/fighter/interceptor type (different from #1) - oversized payloads carrier. Su-27/F-14/Su-57ish probably.
Twin engine, 35-45t MTOW class. Likely less focus on stealth(but still stealth ofc), more - on very large payloads(hypersonic VLR a2a/a2g missiles, EW/ELINT/DEW pods). Otherwise similar to #1(supercruising/maneuverable, onboard sensors, lots of onboard power).
Focus: OtH engagement(DefCA), long-range strike, support of all sorts.
Likely for PLAAF/PLANAF? Yes, for both, but. Yes - because the role is clearly here, J-11/15/16 fleets are here, basic J-11 airframe and design dates back to the 1970s. Also yes because too many things just don't like nor require to be in, but still require an expensive platform that benefits from a crew onboard. Finally, yes because the J-11/16 airframe(hence: role) is clearly liked by PLAAF.
But there are butts.
Firstly, while PLANAF is likely to be in - they probably aren't quite sure themselves, how much. They probably want to understand what J-XY is and what it isn't first. If it'll do great with external payloads, provide enough power, and range will be sufficient - why bother?
Secondly, while J-15/16 airframe ain't new (D versions, in particular, are shiny new!) - there is not too much wrong with it, either.
Then, at least for PLAAF, there is a new shiny J-20S, too. Using it this way sounds a big wasteful/inefficient, but used it can be.
Finally - there is Su-57e available, which looks like a perfect fit for the mission. It isn't 6th gen, but it isn't big deal for carrying boxes. If su-27/30 could become J-11/15/16, so Su-57 can turn into hypothetical J-21/25/26.
Archetype is very like for US as well - USN's NGAD (and F/A-18E/F/G replacement) currently appears to be just that.
...and so on.
You're looking at a plane significantly bigger than the SR-71. Remember it will have to carry liquid oyxgen tanks for the suborbitals or orbitals and also reach much faster speeds. That says a large, heavy bomber with limited manoeuvrability to me, not a fighter jet.
From a defensive perspective, if laser CIWS on aircraft does work and is effective against incoming missiles, then the entire paradigm of using long-range missiles to shoot down aircraft is obsolete. That is a generational shift in weapons technology.
So now, shooting down aircraft would require a gun cannon or a laser cannon at short-range.
But whilst existing large non-stealthy aircraft could be refitted with defensive laser CIWS, smaller fighters like can't.
And you wouldn't want to send large non-stealthy aircraft to hunt down other aircraft.
For that, you would want a dedicated fighter-sized aircraft that mounted a gun or laser to shoot down other aircraft. So that is what I would call a 6th Gen fighter aircraft.
They tested ground based laser to shot anti-mortar and rocket. In the end they chosen to continue to use missiles and guns. Why ? Because the laser was not able to destroy target with reflective paint...
I think laser is overhyped. You just need a cloud or smoke to deter it. A good old smokey engine and you got laser protection from the rear.
Yes a laser would be able to burn and blind missiles ir sensors but for the rest, it's easily tossed away with some tweaks.
Yes, lasers haven't proved practical yet, particularly on airplanes