PLA next/6th generation fighter thread

Blitzo

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Registered Member
NGAD has a cost issue. Till now no tech issues have come up. As far as we know.

I wouldn't be so confident about saying what the actual extent of the "issues" NGAD has are.
While cost is certainly a major element that is disclosed, cost is also very easily related with technology, requirements or capability (in fact, they're arguably all connected with one another)

Probably a good idea to not rule anything out.
However, what we do know is that either way the USAF over the last year seems to be reevaluating just what the actually want out of their NGAD effort.
 

Deino

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Registered Member
Before EOY they claim in the comments section. Will anyone be bold and brave enough to snap a photo?

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Just a perhaps strange question because I may not understand his post (linguistically) correctly:

Does he actually say he was in Chengdu to see the new aircraft or is he expressing more the hope of finally being able to see it?

Or am I completely misinterpreting his post?



IMG_7307.jpegIMG_7308.jpeg
 

Blitzo

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Registered Member
Just a perhaps strange question because I may not understand his post (linguistically) correctly:

Does he actually say he was in Chengdu to see the new aircraft or is he expressing more the hope of finally being able to see it?

Or am I completely misinterpreting his post?

It's better translated as "I will stay/am staying in Chengdu" (current and future) rather than "I stayed in Chengdu" (implying past tense which is no longer the case currently)

As for the actual meaning, it is probably a combination of what you're saying: "I will stay in Chengdu to see the world's first sixth generation fighter" --> subtext being that he expects or hopes to see it in the near future.


Of course given it's cryptic and given the use of doge face, there's no need to read it too much in depth.
Overall IMO there's some collective noise that the new gen/6th gen J-XD might emerge at some point in the short term future.
 

Ironhide

New Member
Registered Member
Or am I completely misinterpreting his post?
Just out of curiosity (I am relatively new here )
Did this Orca dude reveal anything in the past of huge importance or made any prediction that was true (like pop3, yankee) ?

In short Is he really that credible that we should spend days discussing his cryptic post ?
 

GyrfalconFC31

New Member
Registered Member
The doge emoji has a meaning like "dude trust me" in Chinese internet in most cases. So I think we don't have to take orca's comment too seriously.
 

LuzinskiJ

Junior Member
Registered Member
The US has already built an NGAD prototype or tech demonstrator since 2020, so it is not inconceivable that China would follow suit in 4-5 years, given its accelerated fighter development. Huitong interestingly says the following of the Sino-NGAD on his blog:

Nevertheless, the million-dollar question is how closely the Sino-NGAD mirrors the American program in terms of design goals, mission, overall configuration, and technological base. Neither side has an extant frame of reference, so we might see a substantial divergence of such parameters in the two programs.
I wonder if the Chinese NGAD means "Air Dominance" by itself against its adversaries or does it mean "Air Dominance" working in conjunction with its cohort, like the latest American NGAD concept. My unlearned opinion is that an NGAD airframe of any sort, Dorito or otherwise, can dominate any current hostile peer airspace by itself; nor can it carry enough munitions and electronics to do so. Chinese NGAD, in my opinion, would be a team up of manned stealth aircrafts and multiple unmanned stealth UCAVs of, probably, different types. And if the manned-unmanned team up is what NGAD is about, then that manned airframe will probably carry little armament, but lots of sensors and a huge multitude of electronics leaving little space for armament since the actual fighting will have been delegated to its robotic teammates. If that were the case, it is probably no longer a fighter in the sense of Roman gladiators wielding different weapons in a colosseum beating each other to death. Instead, it is now more like a quarterback (in American Football parlance) leading 11 man down the field and choosing the correct offensive pieces and plays to do that. And most quarterbacks don't usually fight for yardage on their own as they usually don't possess the athletic prowess to do so. So the next/6th gen fighter is probably no longer a fighter in the traditional sense, but more like a Battle-Field-Manager riding in a very expensive getaway car. So I am just thinking perhaps the title for this thread should reflect the teamed NGAD concept that and merge the "Chinese Loyal Wingmen" thread into it.
 

Hyper

Junior Member
Registered Member
I wouldn't be so confident about saying what the actual extent of the "issues" NGAD has are.
While cost is certainly a major element that is disclosed, cost is also very easily related with technology, requirements or capability (in fact, they're arguably all connected with one another)

Probably a good idea to not rule anything out.
However, what we do know is that either way the USAF over the last year seems to be reevaluating just what the actually want out of their NGAD effort.
The cost was rumoured to be 250 million. Project may have started with such estimates but when it's time to buy, budget becomes an issue.
 

Blitzo

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Registered Member
The cost was rumoured to be 250 million. Project may have started with such estimates but when it's time to buy, budget becomes an issue.

None of this addresses or refutes my previous post.

I am aware of the same information, my point is we do not know what the actual relationship between cost, capability, and technology is for NGAD as it is, so there is no basis to believe that the reason for NGAD's troubles is due to a "cost issue" without also acknowledging the other related aspects.
 
Top