PLA next/6th generation fighter thread

[Blitzo]

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.

I don't necessarily have any disagreements with this, but it is unrelated to my argument.

Our whole current argument, IMHO, can be addressed here: conveying information is anything but merely.
And HMD(augmented reality)+glassing pair is even more important in sensor fused/data-linked 3D environment, no matter WVR, BVR, ground attack, or simple piloting.
And since effectiveness of this pair depends among other things on the glassed area - it is still a significant metric.

(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(4)yes, small&outdated displays dating back to earlier days of MFD era indeed do not help - though these at least can be updated.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.
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.

All of this is at best tangential, but ultimately doesn't address my primary argument, which is:
"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."

 

[Gloire_bb]

"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."

Yes, I understood your point. Is it lower than higher tear capabilities? Undoubtedly - if anything, because it's a small (though important) part of just one capability, compared with whole other capability sets.
Equal level comparison right now perhaps is the presence of, for example, of both upper hemisphere far- IRST and lower hemisphere med- EOTS onboard(as opposed to just one of them), like Turkish fighter has.
Is it an advantage? Yes, undoubtedly. Is it decisive? Hardly.

But key argument here is that canopy visibility coverage is part of wider situational awareness scheme: as data received through networking, sensors, as it used in tactical maneuvering, BVR/WVR combat needs to be displayed to the pilots.
Since eyes+canopy+HMD trio is a major and inseparable part of all 3, and HMD transmits less information, worse through opaque angles (artificial reality with no eye input vs. augmented reality with huge eye input) - basically, glassing is a major part of the scheme, and shouldn't be viewed as something out of the past age.

 

[ACuriousPLAFan]

Interesting illustration by AVIC on how China's 6th generation fighter could look like.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1564520000786137088

Apart from the Adaptive Cycle Engine, said 6th gen fighter would also include fuel cell and electric motor, giving the impression/hint of hybrid power system onboard.

 

[theforgotten0007]

Interesting! Thanks for sharing.

It does resemble the preliminary renderings for US' 6th gen. NGAD apart from the tail fins though so I suspect China's stealth design research isn't quite up to par with american engineers. Previous attempts of minimising J-20's RCS still can't compete with LockMart's F-22/35s but I'm sure they'll get there eventually with enough experience.

For now, I reckon they'll have to find ways to compensate for this particular shortfall. Perhaps with onboard electronics/drone wingman system or some such.

 

[manqiangrexue]

Interesting! Thanks for sharing.

It does resemble the preliminary renderings for US' 6th gen. NGAD apart from the tail fins though so I suspect China's stealth design research isn't quite up to par with american engineers. Previous attempts of minimising J-20's RCS still can't compete with LockMart's F-22/35s but I'm sure they'll get there eventually with enough experience.

For now, I reckon they'll have to find ways to compensate for this particular shortfall. Perhaps with onboard electronics/drone wingman system or some such.

Comes down to design philosophy; you can remove the vert slabs but that makes the jet less maneuverable. It can still fly but everything else equal, in a dogfight, a jet like this will have a solid edge over any bat wing or some other fluke-looking fighter. Everything else equal, it would have a slight disadvantage in BVR to have verts but here is the gamble. If stealth detection radar advances to a point where stealth fighters can detect each other in BVR and this makes a difference allowing the slightly stealthier design to fire first and stay out of range while this jet remains blind, then the gamble fails. But if radar technology doesn't get there and stealth fighters don't detect each other until they're basically in WVR, then a dogfight will ensue, and this design will have a marked edge in maneuverability. Right now, it's not looking like the radars on fighters are going to be able to detect a truly stealth-oriented design from a meaningful distance so this is how this prototype is gambling... assuming that it's representative of anything at all and not just some internet pic.

J-20 doesn't employ all aspect stealth like F-22 in order to maximize engine power but its stealth against that of the F-35, I wouldn't conclude anything with a decisive margin just looking at their designs.

 

[Blitzo]

Interesting illustration by AVIC on how China's 6th generation fighter could look like.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1564520000786137088

Apart from the Adaptive Cycle Engine, said 6th gen fighter would also include fuel cell and electric motor, giving the impression/hint of hybrid power system onboard.

Interesting! Thanks for sharing.

It does resemble the preliminary renderings for US' 6th gen. NGAD apart from the tail fins though so I suspect China's stealth design research isn't quite up to par with american engineers. Previous attempts of minimising J-20's RCS still can't compete with LockMart's F-22/35s but I'm sure they'll get there eventually with enough experience.

For now, I reckon they'll have to find ways to compensate for this particular shortfall. Perhaps with onboard electronics/drone wingman system or some such.

Eurgh.
Eurgh.

No.

Remember how every time an industry made representation of a USAF 6th gen fighter is released by the likes of Lockheed or Northrop or Boeing, everyone cautions it with "the real thing is not likely to look like this"?

Well the same applies for the PLAs 6th generation fighter.

The high level of secrecy for this project means that any depictions they give us at this stage is highly highly derivative and any similarities that might end up existing with the real thing (when it emerges) would be far outweighed by all of the other red herrings that are present.


Any depiction of a 6th generation fighter that is posted for now and for the next few years has to be accompanied by "generic representation only" and ideally also be "don't exaggerate its significance "...

That twitter account is not helping, by making it seem like those depictions may have any sort of meaningful relationship to the future PLA 6th gen.


In fact, all I will say with these generic future fighter depictions, is that it shows AVIC are sufficiently far along with their 6th gen development, that they are willing to even acknowledge they are doing work on it, at air shows... Which in a way is big news.
But the details and configuration of the aircraft is not valuable, and may be actively misleading.


Also, this particular future fighter depiction is not new. We've seen it before.

 

[latenlazy]

Eurgh.
Eurgh.

No.

Remember how every time an industry made representation of a USAF 6th gen fighter is released by the likes of Lockheed or Northrop or Boeing, everyone cautions it with "the real thing is not likely to look like this"?

Well the same applies for the PLAs 6th generation fighter.

The high level of secrecy for this project means that any depictions they give us at this stage is highly highly derivative and any similarities that might end up existing with the real thing (when it emerges) would be far outweighed by all of the other red herrings that are present.


Any depiction of a 6th generation fighter that is posted for now and for the next few years has to be accompanied by "generic representation only" and ideally also be "don't exaggerate its significance "...

That twitter account is not helping, by making it seem like those depictions may have any sort of meaningful relationship to the future PLA 6th gen.


In fact, all I will say with these generic future fighter depictions, is that it shows AVIC are sufficiently far along with their 6th gen development, that they are willing to even acknowledge they are doing work on it, at air shows... Which in a way is big news.
But the details and configuration of the aircraft is not valuable, and may be actively misleading.


Also, this particular future fighter depiction is not new. We've seen it before.

lol they probably haven’t even decided on a planform or the aerodynamic design principles they want to employ.

 

[Blitzo]

lol they probably haven’t even decided on a planform or the aerodynamic design principles they want to employ.

It's 2022 now so I suspect they have probably narrowed the field down quite substantially, and may have even chosen one to go with.

But these CGI depictions are useless for our purposes.

 

[latenlazy]

It's 2022 now so I suspect they have probably narrowed the field down quite substantially, and may have even chosen one to go with.

But these CGI depictions are useless for our purposes.

I think narrowing down the field is probably right. But who knows if they’re close to committing.

 

[Blitzo]

I think narrowing down the field is probably right. But who knows if they’re close to committing.

Given the timeline for when the 6th gen fighter has been described as intended for service, I imagine they should be pretty darn close, unless they've gotten much faster with development cycles (and even then, this aircraft is likely to be the most challenging fighter aircraft project yet, or even the most challenging aircraft project yet).