PLA next/6th generation fighter thread

[Blitzo]

At this modern age is it necessary to have a visual on the near 6 o'clock view of your aircraft? rear radar and optical sensor can warn the pilot much faster of enemy from behind than trying to turn one's hear and shoulder to look behind. (It is impossible to have a 6 o'clock view because of the ejection seat, which was not available to dog fighting pilots during WW2).

If 360 degree view is so necessary, the hump can be made transparent with glass by extending the size of the cockpit canopy to eliminate the metal panel that made the hump, if there is a canopy structure strength issue, a reinforcing bar could be used as in the canopy of J20.

That's the thing -- in this day and age, having legacy rearward visibility for MK1 eyeballs is far less valuable than it once was.


All aircraft designs are a result of tradeoffs for various characteristics in the confines of given resourcing, aircraft engineering footprint.

A slightly worse rearward eyeball visibility is far less important to modern aerial combat than the airframe characteristics for things like aerodynamic drag and thus range performance, or things like internal volume for SWAP-C and fuel.
If you are an aircraft with high end sensors, networking, BVR, VLO, then if you're in a position where your ability to survive an enemy air encounter depends on an extra bit of rearward visibility with your eyeballs, then chances are, all of your other capabilities (the many outer layers of lethality and subsystems) have somehow managed to be neutralised or made redundant, and you probably would have lost the engagement long before your extra bit of rearward visibility would have come into play to begin with.

Given that, sacrificing a bit of rearward visibility for superior drag reduction with the added benefit of increasing fuselage volume for goodies and fuel, seems like a no brainer to me.

 

[Gloire_bb]

If you are an aircraft with high end sensors, networking, BVR, VLO, then if you're in a position where your ability to survive an enemy air encounter depends on an extra bit of rearward visibility with your eyeballs, then chances are, all of your other capabilities (the many outer layers of lethality and subsystems) have somehow managed to be neutralised or made redundant, and you probably would have lost the engagement long before your extra bit of rearward visibility would have come into play to begin with.

J-20A with its perfect 360 deg canopy begs to differ.
Simple answer is that not much has changed here since before - dedicated land-based a2a platform gets one compromise, multirole/carrier - another one (downwards visibility). Aircraft designers were making the same choice since very appearance of enclosed canopies.
Btw, given how high J-35 sits in his cockpit - apparently way higher than in J-31, - I don't think overall FoV reduced - it just shifted forwards.

Given that, sacrificing a bit of rearward visibility for superior drag reduction with the added benefit of increasing fuselage volume for goodies and fuel, seems like a no brainer to me.

Drag reduction was behind the optimization of shapes; there was no paper on the negative effect of transparency(!) on drag.

 

[Blitzo]

J-20A with its perfect 360 deg canopy begs to differ.
Simple answer is that not much has changed here since before - dedicated land-based a2a platform gets one compromise, multirole/carrier - another one (downwards visibility). Aircraft designers were making the same choice since very appearance of enclosed canopies.
Btw, given how high J-35 sits in his cockpit - apparently way higher than in J-31, - I don't think overall FoV reduced - it just shifted forwards.

In the case of J-20, the value of slightly better rearward visibility is still far far less important than the aircraft's sensors, networking, BVR, VLO.

Sure, as a dedicated A2A fighter and as a much larger airframe overall, I expect they were more willing to eke out minute gains in slightly more rearward visibility as a dedicated A2A aircraft. But that extra bit of rearward visibility with Mk1 eyeballs is still not that valuable in the scheme of things.

Drag reduction was behind the optimization of shapes; there was no paper on the negative effect of transparency(!) on drag.

I don't think there is a reasonable basis to expect an aircraft that is the size of J-XY/35 to have a canopy (it would either be a massive single piece canopy extending back, or a two piece canopy ) that large that would have encompassed the revised canopy/dorsal fuselage geometry.



In general, the focus of air to air combat is one where it will look more like starcraft than a first person shooter.

Physically turning your head back to use your eyes to spot an aircraft that might be on your six is far less important than having a god's eye view of the battlefield, networking with dozens or hundreds of friendly sensor and weapons and EW platforms that are attritible and able to allow you to get the first look and first shoot advantage against the enemy even when both sides have tried to smash each other's networks to bits.

 

[Gloire_bb]

In the case of J-20, the value of slightly better rearward visibility is still far far less important than the aircraft's sensors, networking, BVR, VLO.

Sure, as a dedicated A2A fighter and as a much larger airframe overall, I expect they were more willing to eke out minute gains in slightly more rearward visibility as a dedicated A2A aircraft. But that extra bit of rearward visibility with Mk1 eyeballs is still not that valuable in the scheme of things.

It isn't like all of the aircraft's sensors, networking, BVR and VLO are packed behind the pilot.
Thus designers of the a2a plane considered that extra bit of rearward visibility with eyeballs important enough to bother...
J-35 is more multirole&smaller, and aerodynamics required a different form - thus another optimum point.

I don't think there is a reasonable basis to expect an aircraft that is the size of J-XY/35 to have a canopy (it would either be a massive single piece canopy extending back, or a two piece canopy ) that large that would have encompassed the revised canopy/dorsal fuselage geometry.

Strictly speaking, there are relatively modern examples in that exact weight class flying.
But there are other ways - ancient ways, sure, but they still exist - like making transparent windows into the hood.

In general, the focus of air to air combat is one where it will look more like starcraft than a first person shooter.

That's the vision, sure. But there where vision meets reality we can't do it yet.
If you do that now - you'll simply leave pilot half-blind even when aircraft actually can see everything - you simply won't be able to display it in a digestible form. Put yourself into the fighter pilots' seat in a congested a2a scenario.
p.s. there is a good reason why RTS games really (foul word) at representing a2a combat.

Physically turning your head back to use your eyes to spot an aircraft that might be on your six is far less important than having a god's eye view of the battlefield, networking with dozens or hundreds of friendly sensor and weapons and EW platforms that are attritible and able to allow you to get the first look and first shoot advantage against the enemy even when both sides have tried to smash each other's networks to bits.

There is no proper way to fully display that gods' view inside the cockpit of a maneuvering aircraft. At least, not yet.
Problems such as prospective of display, scale and direction come into the game. Thus when you're trying to display all this smart stuff on screen - you still need to do the same in the sphere around the pilot. The second task currently - and for foreseeable future - requires visuals.

Btw, strictly speaking, even overlays (augmented reality) reliant on turning your head are still nowhere near where they should be - F-35s' first gen helmet is a nice example of tech that promised mountains of gold.

 

[Blitzo]

It isn't like all of the aircraft's sensors, networking, BVR and VLO are packed behind the pilot.
Thus designers of the a2a plane considered that extra bit of rearward visibility with eyeballs important enough to bother...
J-35 is more multirole&smaller, and aerodynamics required a different form - thus another optimum point.

I never said that those capabilities were all physically packed behind the pilot.
I said, on J-20 they had a sufficiently large aircraft and an aircraft whose role meant that they were willing to give it that extra bit of rearward visibility -- but that extra bit of rearward visibility is not very useful in the scheme of the variety of capabilities a modern fighter aircraft needs for air combat.

For J-20 it is nice that they have that extra bit of rearward visibility, but it's one of the least important aspects of the aircraft.

Strictly speaking, there are relatively modern examples in that exact weight class flying.
But there are other ways - ancient ways, sure, but they still exist - like making transparent windows into the hood.

But why pursue transparent windows into the hood, when rearward visibility is not that useful to begin with, and when making it part of the rest of the dorsal fuselage means you can use that revised geometry as greater volume for other uses whether it be SWAP-C for avionics or for fuel?

That's the vision, sure. But there where vision meets reality we can't do it yet.
If you do that now - you'll simply leave pilot half-blind even when aircraft actually can see everything - you simply won't be able to display it in a digestible form. Put yourself into the fighter pilots' seat in a congested a2a scenario.
p.s. there is a good reason why RTS games really (foul word) at representing a2a combat.

5th generation aircraft (and modern fighter aircraft in general) are currently already doing this, and they've been doing this for years.
F-22 was the first aircraft that emphasized just what the future of highly networked air to air warfare could look like at a large scale, and F-35 continued that trend even more so. Fortunately for the PLAAF, J-20 seems to have placed significant focus on that domain as well.

Because even a highly networked and sensor integrated aerial force that is significantly degraded and imperfect, will still choose to engage enemies at extended ranges in BVR rather than trying to lure them into some sort of dogfight where they can make use of what little advantage that a slightly bit more rearward canopy visibility can offer.


All that will happen in a congested air to air environment is that sections of fighters will be tasked to deal with their own volumes of air space, but at the theater level they will have sections of fighter aircraft able to communicate with each other as to what the overall disposition in the theater is.


The RTS analogy is actually quite a good one for the way future air combat will go.
A "god's eye" of the theater battlefield is like having the entire map exposed to you, which you as the pilot can access as needed.
In practice of course, the ability of a single fighter or a section of fighters to carry out engagements will need them to monitor a much smaller volume of airspace during the engagement itself (much like how in a RTS during a decisive battle you are tend to flit between the active, relevant parts of the map only rather than looking at the entire map).
However, for all durations of the conflict, whether you are doing an active engagement, or ingressing or egressing, the ability to tap into the overall network and bring up with a section of friendly fighter aircraft hundreds of kilometers away are able to see, means that it improves your overall situational awareness and helps inform your own decision making and real time mission planning and real time development of tactics.

Games that seek to emulate air combat of the future, will be less like ace combat or even DCS -- and more like playing a full, complex real time strategy game in a cockpit with a large screen that just happens to also be part of a game where you're in a stealth aircraft that can pull some Gs and go supersonic.
But pulling on the throttle and shooting missiles at the whites of your enemy's eyes and turning like a madman will all be unimportant -- and instead the game will teach you to tap into friendly assets, checking what's going on over there on the other side of the theater of battle 400km away, positioning yourself for efficient BVR kills, and passing on your own sensor data to allies on the other side of the theater, and selectively emitting your radar and active EW systems.
You won't be playing a traditional popular vision of a fighter pilot so much as a data/networking technician and tactician. And that's going to be great.


As air battles become more complex and large force vs large force air battles become much more messy, the importance of high end networking and network resilience is only going to increase by magnitudes.

There is no proper way to fully display that gods' view inside the cockpit of a maneuvering aircraft. At least, not yet.
Problems such as prospective of display, scale and direction come into the game. Thus when you're trying to display all this smart stuff on screen - you still need to do the same in the sphere around the pilot. The second task currently - and for foreseeable future - requires visuals.

Btw, strictly speaking, even overlays (augmented reality) reliant on turning your head are still nowhere near where they should be - F-35s' first gen helmet is a nice example of tech that promised mountains of gold.

Each fighter section will obviously have its own volume of the airspace with which they will be responsible for, and bring up the information and sensor feeds for their relevant volume when they are operating there. If the mission requires it, they will be able to bring up parts of the theater elsewhere.

(Note, the "god's eye" part I am not even referring to HMD or augmented reality. I'm just talking about sensor fusion, CeC and some slightly larger than normal displays. But this is something which even the F-22 with its four far smaller MFDs was able to do, let alone the large wide displays of F-35 and J-20)

No one is expecting a single fighter aircraft to manage and control the air engagements of an entire theater of battle.

 

[Gloire_bb]

I said, on J-20 they had a sufficiently large aircraft and an aircraft whose role meant that they were willing to give it that extra bit of rearward visibility -- but that extra bit of rearward visibility is not very useful in the scheme of the variety of capabilities a modern fighter aircraft needs for air combat.

That's an assumption, that goes against major fighter design...
There is exactly one* dedicated fully modern a2a fighter(J-20A), it has this view.
*f-22 doesn't count as fully modern anymore(but has it anyways), and Su-57 is multi-role.

5th generation aircraft (and modern fighter aircraft in general) are currently already doing this, and they've been doing this for years.
F-22 was the first aircraft that emphasized just what the future of highly networked air to air warfare could look like at a large scale, and F-35 continued that trend even more so. Fortunately for the PLAAF, J-20 seems to have placed significant focus on that domain as well.

All aircraft from all producers do the exact same - this is the general trend of aircraft evolution. Even if someone will suddenly decide to make a WVR-focused sub-5t swarm fighter right now for some reason - it'll still follow all the same trends (stealth&networking).

It, however, doesn't affect way humans interact with the world, and the limitations of various methods of displaying it.

Thus glassing of cockpits remains just as big as in the previous generation (after making mistake of reducing it in 3rd one), moreover - its methods progressed dramatically. integration of EODAS- and EOTS- type systems into HMD views is just as much of the mainstream as are other aspects of networking/increase in synthetic data.
In the end, the largest screen you'll ever get is the view around you.

Because even a highly networked and sensor integrated aerial force that is significantly degraded and imperfect, will still choose to engage enemies at extended ranges in BVR rather than trying to lure them into some sort of dogfight where they can make use of what little advantage that a slightly bit more rearward canopy visibility can offer.

(1)That's a highly oversimplified assumption. Oversimplified to the degree of basically being as good as wrong.
(2)more rearward canopy visibility doesn't affect all those designs(and didn't before) - but it's still important enough for a dedicated a2a fighter. And will remain so until progress in virtual reality will go much, much forward from there where it is right now...

The RTS analogy is actually quite a good one for the way future air combat will go.
A "god's eye" of the theater battlefield is like having the entire map exposed to you, which you as the pilot can access as needed.

It's also good to note that RTS views (isometric and top-down ones) - are inherently limiting by their very angle. You can play with scales - but that's already a manipulation showing that something always doesn't fit in the first place.
At smaller scales, you get to see a very small patch of the theater battlefield - and even then probably with not enough resolution to avoid the need for generalization. At large scales - congestion leads to such a need for generalization that the human pilot really only gets the overall picture.
Moreover - those are fundamental restrictions, that can't be solved through, say, enlargement of the screen.
Thus, again, the right way is to get god's eye view simultaneously with augmented/synthetic reality through the cockpit.
As "augmented" is much better than pure synthetic, and non-augmented is infinitely better than nothing(when something went wrong) - we still need as much glass area as possible without harming other functions.
J-35 - with its really large glassing, even if tilted forwards(as in all other multirole/ground attack aircraft) - is a nice example of it.

You won't be playing a traditional popular vision of a fighter pilot so much as a data/networking technician and tactician. And that's going to be great.

Tactician approach, of all things, needs the best summ of all views possible - tactics are only as good as summ of decisions that you make from that you know. Yet you're limiting the best available approach as the first step. This doesn't smell future, that smells 1960s.

Also, tacticians still need to defend themselves - at least being able to timely order aircraft to do something is helpful here even if you don't plan to maneuver. And for now maneuver is still the right thing to do.

(Note, the "god's eye" part I am not even referring to HMD or augmented reality. I'm just talking about sensor fusion, CeC and some slightly larger than normal displays. But this is something which even the F-22 with its four far smaller MFDs was able to do, let alone the large wide displays of F-35 and J-20)

Spoiler: sarcastic remark

That F-22 was able to do in 2000s doesn't count as all that much today.
Moreover, while its ability to fuse data(and gather it on its own, at least from the front) - can be considered pretty good, it really struggles in keeping up with display needs - struggles so much in fact that it is apparently the major reason behind its coming downfall.

Irony - updated F-15(1960s design!) can feed fused data through multiple channels to its pilot(and pilots), yet the best fighter in the world can't just 15 years after its introduction. Can't and can't be made into being able to - and cockpit size is the major reason behind it

p.s. when you're talking about god's eye in the overall sense - it makes perfect sense...but augmented reality view (i.e. view through the glass) - benefits from it all the same as the screen view. It's the same benefit - just with much less limited overall "screen size".

 

[Blitzo]

That's an assumption, that goes against major fighter design...
There is exactly one* dedicated fully modern a2a fighter(J-20A), it has this view.
*f-22 doesn't count as fully modern anymore(but has it anyways), and Su-57 is multi-role.

J-20 is no less multirole than Su-57.
A suite of standoff powered air to ground weapons are known to be in development for J-20 for its internal weapons bay use as well (one of which is expected to be similar to Kh-59MK2 and JSM). This is leaving aside internal carriage of SDB type weapons which is also very much expected.

And even if J-20 were a dedicated A2A fighter, that doesn't change my argument which is that the J-20 was a sufficiently large fighter and a fighter with a sufficient emphasis on A2A where slightly better rearward eyeball visibility was deemed useful.
That doesn't mean it's a particularly important capability or characteristic among all of the other characteristics that a modern fighter aircraft has to bring to the A2A battle.

(1)That's a highlyoversimplified assumption. Oversimplified to the degree of basically being as good as wrong.

(2)more rearward canopy visibility doesn't affect all those designs(and didn't before) - but it's still important enough for a dedicated a2a fighter. And will remain so until progress in virtual reality will go much, much forward from there where it is right now...

Tactician approach, of all things, needs the best summ of all views possible - tactics are only as good as summ of decisions that you make from that you know. Yet you're limiting the best available approach as the first step. This doesn't smell future, that smells 1960s.

Also, tacticians still need to defend themselves - at least being able to timely order aircraft to do something is helpful here even if you don't plan to maneuver. And for now maneuver is still the right thing to do.

Spoiler: sarcastic remark

That F-22 was able to do in 2000s doesn't count as all that much today.
Moreover, while its ability to fuse data(and gather it on its own, at least from the front) - can be considered pretty good, it really struggles in keeping up with display needs - struggles so much in fact that it is apparently the major reason behind its coming downfall.

Irony - updated F-15(1960s design!) can feed fused data through multiple channels to its pilot(and pilots), yet the best fighter in the world can't just 15 years after its introduction. Can't and can't be made into being able to - and cockpit size is the major reason behind it

None of this addresses my primary argument which is that in a modern fighter aircraft, the value of mk1 eyeball rearward canopy visibility is far less than that of other characteristics and capabilities in a modern fighter, namely networking, sensors, BVR and VLO which are where the high value and high yield gains of air to air combat/air superiority capability reside.

All aircraft from all producers do the exact same - this is the general trend of aircraft evolution. Even if someone will suddenly decide to make a WVR-focused sub-5t swarm fighter right now for some reason - it'll still follow all the same trends (stealth&networking).

It, however, doesn't affect way humans interact with the world, and the limitations of various methods of displaying it.

Thus glassing of cockpits remains just as big as in the previous generation (after making mistake of reducing it in 3rd one), moreover - its methods progressed dramatically. integration of EODAS- and EOTS- type systems into HMD views is just as much of the mainstream as are other aspects of networking/increase in synthetic data.
In the end, the largest screen you'll ever get is the view around you.

p.s. when you're talking about god's eye in the overall sense - it makes perfect sense...but augmented reality view (i.e. view through the glass) - benefits from it all the same as the screen view. It's the same benefit - just with much less limited overall "screen size".

It's also good to note that RTS views (isometric and top-down ones) - are inherently limiting by their very angle. You can play with scales - but that's already a manipulation showing that something always doesn't fit in the first place.
At smaller scales, you get to see a very small patch of the theater battlefield - and even then probably with not enough resolution to avoid the need for generalization. At large scales - congestion leads to such a need for generalization that the human pilot really only gets the overall picture.
Moreover - those are fundamental restrictions, that can't be solved through, say, enlargement of the screen.
Thus, again, the right way is to get god's eye view simultaneously with augmented/synthetic reality through the cockpit.
As "augmented" is much better than pure synthetic, and non-augmented is infinitely better than nothing(when something went wrong) - we still need as much glass area as possible without harming other functions.
J-35 - with its really large glassing, even if tilted forwards(as in all other multirole/ground attack aircraft) - is a nice example of it.

Augmented reality and advanced HMDs is merely one medium of conveying information.

What is more important is having the sensors, datalinks, processors and sensor fusion among your various aircraft in a theater of battle to begin with. Whether that information is displayed on a HMD with augmented reality or not doesn't really matter.
Heck, one of the current primary means of accessing networked information in battle is through the MFDs in your cockpit, allowing you to zoom in and out of the battlespace as appropriate.

You are absolutely able to access a "god's eye view" of the battlefield without a HMD or augmented reality "through the cockpit".
Heck, in theory if you have the requisite sensors, networking, processing and UI, you can have a "god's eye view" of a theater of battle on a screen that's the size of the smartphone.

That F-22 was able to do in 2000s doesn't count as all that much today.
Moreover, while its ability to fuse data(and gather it on its own, at least from the front) - can be considered pretty good, it really struggles in keeping up with display needs - struggles so much in fact that it is apparently the major reason behind its coming downfall.

Irony - updated F-15(1960s design!) can feed fused data through multiple channels to its pilot(and pilots), yet the best fighter in the world can't just 15 years after its introduction. Can't and can't be made into being able to - and cockpit size is the major reason behind it

What?
Since when was F-22's "coming downfall" due to "struggles in keeping up with display needs"?

There are a significant number of reasons why the F-22 program was not successful as it was, and its future in the USAF remains in a degree of limbo as the USAF seems to change its mind every six months whether it's going to operate their F-22s for a long time with a major MLU versus not.
Inferior networking and sensor fusion capabilities in the existing F-22 in service variants relative to what F-35 can do, is certainly part of the reason why the F-22's future has been considered as a question in the first place, but the F-22's MFDs alone is hardly a decisive issue.

Heck, if you are even making this argument, then doesn't it mean you agree that networking and sensor fusion is a much more important capability than what the F-22 is otherwise most well known for compared to the F-35 (namely F-22's exceptional kinematic performance)??

 

[vincent]

The gist of @Blitzo’s argument is DON’T let enemies get to your six!

 

[Blitzo]

The gist of @Blitzo’s argument is DON’T let enemies get to your six!

Not exactly my argument -- I mean, letting an enemy get behind you was a high priority going back to the WWI air combat.

I'm more saying that the extra bit of rearward visibility afforded by a more 360 degree-ish canopy, provides very minor additional capability to a modern fighter's air to air combat potential, in context of the much higher yield and higher value of networking, sensors, BVR and VLO capabilities, so excess focus on a fighter's rearward canopy visibility is giving it much more weighting and significance than it should deserve.

 

[Gloire_bb]

J-20 is no less multirole than Su-57.
A suite of standoff powered air to ground weapons are known to be in development for J-20 for its internal weapons bay use as well (one of which is expected to be similar to Kh-59MK2 and JSM). This is leaving aside internal carriage of SDB type weapons which is also very much expected.

Let's wait and see for now. F-22 also carries SDBs and killed more than a few people, but it isn't really considered a dedicated multi-role.
For Su-57 we simply know that from both patents and program purposes - it was specifically stated, just with the J-35 patents we're talking about here.

In fact, I personally think that cockpit orientation itself is a good measure of design priorities - simply because Su-57 glassing is...also tilted slightly forwards, at the expense of rear visibility. Despite it being just as large as J-20.

Augmented reality and advanced HMDs is merely one medium of conveying information.

Our whole current argument, IMHO, can be addressed here: conveying information is anything but merely - pilot's decision can be only as good as the sum of information conveyed.
And HMD(augmented reality/targeting)+glassing pair is even more important in sensor fused/data-linked 3D environment, no matter WVR, BVR, ground attack, or simple piloting.
Since effectiveness of this pair depends among other things on the glassed area - it is still a significant metric. Much, much more significant than if you only look at it through "top gun" lense - i.e. WVR visual combat.

What?
Since when was F-22's "coming downfall" due to "struggles in keeping up with display needs"?

(1)EODAS/EOTS were dropped from the aircraft in the late 1990s to keep costs down. Neither can be retrofitted internally into stealth airframe anymore. Without them, the aircraft itself loses much of its 360 deg sensing capability - only its ELINT apparatus remains (that one is still outstanding, though - but obviously needs the opponent to chat something). It can still rely on its formation...but see(3).
(2)Inferior networking - fully capable only within F-22 mesh, and only capable of interacting with wider network through yet-to-be-developed retranslators. Without retranslators (or compromising their stealth) they don't contribute that much to the situational awareness of the others(and vice-versa), and even with that don't work with modern sensor fusion solutions.
(3)HMD integration (tried multiple times) met with major hurdles - as rumors say, due to the size and shape of the glassing. Basically, it's too small and they couldn't cope with desync for years. Thus, even with AIM-9X finally reaching them, forget most of the over-the-shoulder warfare.
(4)yes, small&outdated displays dating back to earlier days of MFD era indeed do not help - though these at least can be updated.

The irony of the best fightah in the world - as it is still probably among the best - better than F-35 - but only when the situation goes as planned. At least against PLAAF. Which is the diametral opposite of what was the case just 5 years ago, and (incurably) worse than F-35/J-20A.

Heck, if you are even making this argument, then doesn't it mean you agree that networking and sensor fusion is a much more important capability than what the F-22 is otherwise most well known for compared to the F-35 (namely F-22's exceptional kinematic performance)??

Well, it's undoubtedly the major reason behind it going down when F-15(!!!) does not.
Huge kinetic performance advantage over F-35 is nice, but it won't fight F-35s.