PLA next/6th generation fighter thread

[iewgnem]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1852423299134787715

reading this, it would seem to me that NGAD and CCA aren’t close to happening. I would guess closer to 2040 than 2030. Which means, China is essentially going to be defining what 6th gen look like.

chinese UCAV will be very interesting as I said before. The engine choice, size and speed and design have to revolve around your 6th gen philosophy.

Kendall wants NGAD cost to be cut to below F-35, down from current 200M to 300M, a 75% cost reduction can only means total redesign. The fact that they're even pretending to study how to make it happen is insane.

They also seem to be modelling CCA cost as fixed, and don't seem to realize the more stuff they put into CCA and more NGAD components they shift to CCA, the more expensive CCA gets. CCA is just going to be USAF's Constellation class.

NGAD basically mirror US automotive industry, they're thinking only of cost when their problem is value, they can't compete because their only choices are between build the same product as China at a much higher cost, or spend the same as China and build a much inferior product. When US do come up with a NGAD design that's cheaper than F-35, and it'll probably be some sort of manned CCA, they're going to find it useless and go on to add more and more capabilities to it, until cost $200M again.

This is just US imperial ambitions hitting the wall of their imperial reality. The real size of the US economy, without fake GDP from lawyers, for-profit healthcare and USD printing, is simply too small to compete with China in anything that's based on the real world.

 

[ZeEa5KPul]

Further, one has to define what "all aspects stealth" actually means

There are two independent attributes 6th generation fighters ought to have:

1. What's usually called "all aspect" stealth, meaning low RCS no matter the viewing angle, with a few possible exceptions like looking from directly below. 5th generation fighters more or less already meet this criterion. 6th generation aircraft are expected to have fewer of these hotspots.
2. Broadband stealth, meaning low RCS across the radar frequency range. No 5th generation fighter has this property as all of them can be detected at range using low frequency radars.

 

[Blitzo]

There are two independent attributes 6th generation fighters ought to have:

1. What's usually called "all aspect" stealth, meaning low RCS no matter the viewing angle, with a few possible exceptions like looking from directly below. 5th generation fighters more or less already meet this criterion. 6th generation aircraft are expected to have fewer of these hotspots.
2. Broadband stealth, meaning low RCS across the radar frequency range. No current 5th generation fighter has this property, as all of them can be detected at range using low frequency radars.

I understand the meaning of the term in general use, but he doesn't specify the case of it in his context nor do we have any clear definition as to what the specific stealth goals 6th generation fighters will have from the various air forces of the world, apart from "better than 5th gen".

I also think the term "broadband stealth" is used a little bit too flippantly in the general discourse as well. Often it seems to just be people thinking of a flying wing tailless configuration as meeting the threshold for "broadband stealth" and I am cautious if the differences are really that simple.


Circling back to the original point -- omitting "improved stealth" as one of the major differentiating/defining features between 6th and 5th gen fighters seems pretty reasonable to me.

 

[Deino]

Guys … keep out the Russians and even more Ukraine War OUT of this thread!

 

[siegecrossbow]

I understand the meaning of the term in general use, but he doesn't specify the case of it in his context nor do we have any clear definition as to what the specific stealth goals 6th generation fighters will have from the various air forces of the world, apart from "better than 5th gen".

I also think the term "broadband stealth" is used a little bit too flippantly in the general discourse as well. Often it seems to just be people thinking of a flying wing tailless configuration as meeting the threshold for "broadband stealth" and I am cautious if the differences are really that simple.


Circling back to the original point -- omitting "improved stealth" as one of the major differentiating/defining features between 6th and 5th gen fighters seems pretty reasonable to me.

Yankee does talk about it in the podcast. All aspect stealth is important since signature management (angle of approach) is a pretty important and stressful part of fifth gen tactic curriculum. If you have same general level of RCS reduction 360 degrees around it can pave the way for new and exciting tactics.

 

[Blitzo]

Yankee does talk about it in the podcast. All aspect stealth is important since signature management (angle of approach) is a pretty important and stressful part of fifth gen tactic curriculum. If you have same general level of RCS reduction 360 degrees around it can pave the way for new and exciting tactics.

If anything that just demonstrates the premise of this discussion was incorrect,
I.e. that improved signature reduction was mentioned. (#870)

But it all sounds like it's done in a manner which is obvious -- again, everyone expects the next generation manned fighter to have better signature reduction than the preceding generation/5th gen. Naturally it would enable new tactics and capabilities.

 

[tphuang]

i would be curious what additional type of sensors would be employed to detect VLO platform. It seems like in the future, network of sensors from many different aircraft is needed along with advanced sensor fusion algo & AI. But certain sensors may well track VLO platforms better than others on stand alone basis.

If they get something that's an order of magnitude more stealthy than J-20 into even testing, they can really test out some of these concepts. Even at this point, detecting F-35 around China should be quite straightforward. But any future Chinese 6th gen system would have to be able to work together to detect B-21s and NGAD much further out. That would probably also require different types of radar, IR, satellite and maybe even ultra long range Lidar sensors be installed on different platforms. It's kind of like how submarines gotten so quiet that the best way to detect them is just by increasing the density of sensors. Once you have 6th gen fighter and UCAVs that have much longer range and patrol time, you can greatly increase the sensor density once you start expecting incoming enemy forces in a certain direction (like they took off from certain airport at a time flying in certain direction).

 

[ACuriousPLAFan]

TBH I would consider such a system to be relatively minor. Such a system would be more of a last ditch self defense weapon as part of the aircraft's self defense/countermeasures suite (think of it as a hit to kill version of chaff and flares). There's also no reason why 5th generation fighters couldn't necessarily be fitted with such a system either, depending on the space and cooling it requires.

IMO it will probably be better to view the "6th generation" of fighters as being greater than the sum of its parts.
What I mean, is if you take the below factors individually, they all seem one to one as relatively minor:
- Greater range
- Greater internal volume, weapons bay size
- Emphasis on system of systems/MUMT subsystems
- More potent networking, sensors and avionics with power generation and cooling for it and for future upgrades
- New propulsion system (such as VCEs)
- Improved self defense suite (including possibly hard kill self defense suite)
- Improved stealth

If you give a 5th generation fighter one or two of those factors then one might just consider to be an "improved 5th generation" aircraft, but instead, perhaps what you need is for all of those factors to be present together to better characterize a 6th generation aircraft.

Please do excuse my little brain-fart.

All of which revolves around the 6th-gen being a "system" instead of a mere "fighter".

Say, if/once the current 5th-gen fighters (J-20, J-35), 4.5th-gen fighters (J-16, J-15B), bombers (H-6K/J/N) and special mission (Gaoxin) aircrafts across the PLAAF and PLAN can be upgraded to support these systems-of-systems type of aerial warfare operations, the impact will be gargantuan. They will never become pure 6th-gens, of course - But they will become part-and-parcel of an entire 6th-gen system.

(Sounds like a mumble-jumble of gimmick-y words. I'm not particularly good at it.)

I made a rough table.

Features	Probability and degree of upgrade implementation for previous (4.5th, 5th)-gen fighters
Weapons bay size	Fixed, cannot be changed.
Internal volume	Largely fixed. Some degree of more efficient rearrangement of the components inside the airframe and/or swapping certain components with smaller-sized replacements may be possible to allow additional components to be placed inside the airframe.
System of systems/MUMT subsystems	Non-negotiable. A must-have for 6th-gen systems, even if only equipped with lower degree of performance capabilities when compared to proper 6th-gen fighters.
Networking, sensors and avionics with power generation and cooling for it and for future upgrades	Non-negotiable. A must-have for 6th-gen systems, even if only equipped with lower degree of performance capabilities when compared to proper 6th-gen fighters.
Propulsion system	Upgrading or swapping the original engines with more powerful, durable and/or efficient engine(s) is certainly viable.
Stealth	Largely fixed. Better cooling networks around components that are both placed closer to the skin of the airframe and emits great amount of heat should be possible, which may help with certain degree of IR signature reduction.
Self defense suite	Largely fixed. Laser weapons are impossible for application. However, micro-SSMs that can be carried inside the weapons bay (for 5th-gens) or weapon racks (for 4.5th-gens) is possible. Upgrades to sensory and guidance systems for these micro-SSMs will be needed.