Computers will be common to all jets. The real definition should be based on the airframe and propulsion rather than avionics, or even specific types of equipment, like an internal energy weapon.
People's Liberation Army Air Force : News & Discussions
- Thread starter Aashish
- Start date
Computers will be common to all jets. The real definition should be based on the airframe and propulsion rather than avionics, or even specific types of equipment, like an internal energy weapon.
France has never used "generation" to define the Rafale, they used to simply call it "next-gen." Their main marketing term is "ominrole." But when asked about it by the media, they said it would qualify as a 5th gen aircraft due to stealth (it's more accurate to call it semi-stealth), supercruise, and sensor fusion. Similarly SCAF is also simply called "next-gen."
Its IR stealth is excellent. Rafale can fly at 50% power, and the thrust rating is just 50 KN. So each engine only delivers 25 KN thrust, which you can imagine is easily dispered by the environment. Plus the engine is two-stream, so cool air is transported from the inlet to exhaust to further decrease exhaust temperature.
If you compare it to the F-22 and J-20, it exceeds them in some characteristics, but falls behind in some. Like it's obviously cheaper and easier to maintain and can generate more sorties. But when it comes to performance, even if it can supercruise, it will be slower than the F-22/J-20. And the F-22/J-20 can carry more missiles and bombs, while Rafale is only restricted to AAMs and a single drop tank when supercruising.
When it comes to avionics, while the J-20 is unknown, the Rafale is more advanced than the F-22, and is more or less similar to the F-35.
When it comes to combat with the F-22/J-20, the Rafale F4 now comes with cooperating targeting capabilities, where a group of Rafales can detect and target stealth jets from long range using radar, and it has secondary long range passive EO/IR capability that exceeds their BVR requirements. Plus it can automatically shoot down incoming missiles like the PL-15. There are also a bunch of other features that prevent radars from locking on.
So they define the Rafale more around "overall survivability" rather than specific characteristics like stealth. So they say it's jet that can do all missions at the same time, ie, it's ominrole, but cannot easily be shot down.
I agree with points 3 and 4, TVC's main advantage is reduced fuel burn at high speed. And J-36 is most definitely stealthier than the J-20. Whether it will be competitive with Western designs is unknown, so let's ignore that.
But I'm not sure if just broad-spectrum stealth is enough to define 6th gen. That's just one characteristic. There should be a few more defining characteristics than that.
Seems like everything else standards are also malleable in the great Zhongguo. Up until there was no "6th Gen FA" it was hide your strength & bide your time.View attachment 39334
Are you talking about this? This standard is too old. Starting in 2022, the PLAAF began to declare that the J20 is a fifth-generation fighter,And announced the classification method of new fighter aircraft through public channels.
中国空军发言人首提“第五代战机歼-20” 专家解析“新五代划分法”
中国解放军空军新闻发言人申进科9月27日在第14届中国航展新闻发布会上说，“中国第五代战机歼-20已经遍布‘东南西北中’”，这是空军新闻发言人首次使用“第五代战机”表述歼-20，引...www.zaobao.com.sg
The moment "6th Gen FA" made an appearance , CCP immediately upgraded the standards of PLAAF planes.
Hence it can now go around claiming Zhongguo is the first country in the world to fly 2 * "6th Gen FA , " with most lay people unaware of the nuances , they'd treat it as the truth. This is how propaganda is created & disseminated.
It doesn't have to become an operational aircraft, perhaps just a concept design. Plus it's a mock-up.
It was still a design released by AVIC and defined by AVIC as a space and air fighter.
It's unclear if it's a troll design or troll report, but a China-Arms report claimed as of 2022 that the aircraft has already flown multiple times. So if it's fake, it's been going on since quite sometime then. Seems a bit ridiculous to keep it up. Anyway, this jet was mentioned in 2019, not last week.
But at the same time, the technology to do this already exists.
Anyway, this aircraft is, as per AVIC, a part of a much larger project which aims to put such aircraft in space, including a sort of 120T aircraft alongside an even larger mothership, perhaps acting like a space station. Information about this project has been available since 2019.
Maybe it's real or maybe it's just to get the population enthusiastic to gain support for such programs eventually in the future, whatever the case, it's interesting that at least someone is revealing novel concepts like the US used to back in the 60s and 70s.
Lockheed CL-1201 - Wikipedia
Since your interpretation of my sentences are incorrect, you will always come to misunderstanding & wrong judgement.
There is nothing conclude bcoz there is no verifiable data.
When lots of things were claimed in Su-57 PAKFA project but didn't go well & we had to exit the project then why should i being Indian blindly & overconfidently vouch for a Russian product when its basic outline also is yet to be revealed?
Hence rather than blindly believing the claim & do propaganda, i should try to understand more:
> More stealthy than Su-57, sure, but in RF or IR spectrum? from which angle? Such an INTERCEPTOR would use high speed during DASH but it is true that BM launch can be detected at very far distances in IR band so a Ramjet/SCRamjet operation could also be detected. USA claims that F-35's DAS can do it at far distances. How many years would China & India take to develop such sensor? What if J-36 has this telescopic IRST/DAS?
> Everybody is aware that on Wiki & other pages its speed is quoted as high supersonic Mach 4+ & very high altitude but as per Superconic Area Rule the body of jet should be within Mach-Cone.
So the jet has to be a very sleek dart like body. But let's assume it may have variable geometry wing or double delta.
Hence agile means what? Can it dogfight? Can it defeat Su-57 itself? What could be its shortest turning radius?
There are many guesses how the jet looks & many speculated CAD online. Among them i found this one which might reach Mach-4 & might turn similar to MiG-31 but i wouldn't call it agile.
So i'm just responding based on technical stuff available & my understanding of it. There is nothing to blindly assume & conclude.
After all this, other questions still remained unanswered even conceptually which nobody has explained anywhere like
- how much fuel
- how much weapons & what.
- size & weight
- cost & numbers
And then calling it 7gen!!!!!!!
And then stating that IAF should skip 6gen & go for 7gen!!!!
I think it is pretty clear who is assuming & concluding what.
We all are aware that NGAD-PCA will try for higher supercruise & max speed, that's all, again nothing to assume or conclude.
Please take this opportunity to share IAF article or interview so that we can be more convinced. Thanks.
Written by an analyst specialising in the Chinese world:
All I'm saying is this is not BAU practice for them. They're usually very discreet when teasing a new ac design. Initially, it's just a silhouette or blurry/ shot from a distance pic before you'd see any worthwhile details. This reminds me of a CGI fighter from the movie, Stealth..
You bring in so many irrelevant things into the discussion when they don't even need to be brought up. The Russians claim the Mig-41 will be more stealthy than the Su-57, and that's all there is to know about it. The answers will come in time.
> Everybody is aware that on Wiki & other pages its speed is quoted as high supersonic Mach 4+ & very high altitude but as per Superconic Area Rule the body of jet should be within Mach-Cone.
View attachment 39346
So the jet has to be a very sleek dart like body. But let's assume it may have variable geometry wing or double delta.
Hence agile means what? Can it dogfight? Can it defeat Su-57 itself? What could be its shortest turning radius?
There are many guesses how the jet looks & many speculated CAD online. Among them i found this one which might reach Mach-4 & might turn similar to MiG-31 but i wouldn't call it agile.
View attachment 39348
So i'm just responding based on technical stuff available & my understanding of it. There is nothing to blindly assume & conclude.
After all this, other questions still remained unanswered even conceptually which nobody has explained anywhere like
- how much fuel
- how much weapons & what.
- size & weight
- cost & numbers
And then calling it 7gen!!!!!!!
And then stating that IAF should skip 6gen & go for 7gen!!!!
I think it is pretty clear who is assuming & concluding what.
Dogfighting is for drones like FUFA. It's being determined that manned fighters cannot pull the Gs necessary to survive encounters against drones.
So it's a given that next gen aircraft will focus more on running away and letting drones take the fall. Even Su-57 and AMCA are likely to go in that direction, which would explain why AMCA doesn't have side bays.
The assumptions and conclusions have already been done. Supercruise is a necessary feature.
You will have to follow people in the industry, you won't get information in public so easily.
But let's look at the flow of logic. USAF has publicly said NGAD can easily be supplanted by more capable drones within a decade, which is why they are reconsidering their plans. They will either proceed with their $300M goal or stick to a more modest $100M version that can bridge the gap between the F-22 MLU and its next gen expensive drone replacement.
If the US move towards the $100M version, then that would mean they have no confidence in manned planes anymore. If they go ahead with the $300M version, then it either means a drone is another decade away or they want to do both at the same time. So it doesn't dismiss their drone plans. And we are talking about 2030-40 for the USAF, whereas IAF's (or IASF's, upcoming name) next gen plans after AMCA are for 2050+.
We have two main drone programs, both to be ready by 2030 and 2035. By 2040-45, both will become fully autonomous. In the meantime, LCA Mk2 and AMCA will also become optionally manned, so most missions will be conducted in their drone forms. This will be followed by a more advanced common engine for larger twin-engine drones; air superiority and strike, which will be accompanied by smaller drones with a single engine; all fully autonomous. This is 2050+.
Maybe so, but White Emperor came out of AVIC. American Hollywood props come out of their studios.
All their aircraft companies are under AVIC.
You can't accuse members like this. The most irrelevant thing is something which is not defined anywhere.... 7gen HySo Fighter, when everybody is still trying to understand 6gen. If any member will mention something repeatedly then others will try to analyse its aspects, feasibility, etc.
Then that also means MiG-41 itself doesn't need to be agile, simple. Russians are master of super-agility. They may come up with their own Wingman concept for MiG-41. So Russian statements could be contradictory or superficial or preliminary, can change any time, they're not obliged to reveal everyting. So we should not just echo something & not analyse it.
I agree on supercruise, but mach 4+ high supersonic speed is another thing. So you wrongly accused me of making assumption & conclusion. I just tried to analyse +/- aspects related to high speed.
But when you follow people in industry & get info with difficulty then you can share where you got it from. People will praise you for your hard work. Otherwise it is just personal statement which is misleading everybody. IAF chief said just 1 line about 6gen that they have roadmap. 7gen &/or HySo fighter not mentioned AFAIK.
If you suddenly changed the flow of topic then public should not be misleaded on IAF's statements on random undefined things & then linking IAF with RuAF w/o any logic. We should stick to our opinions only.
Sure. But I don't see what F-35's DAS had to do with anything in that post. It was irrelevant because it's common sense to think you get the most stealth when subsonic. And then you posted a DAS image of a ballsitic missile.
Similarly, you get the most agility when you are subsonic, and not just subsonic, but at corner speed.
Similar to the J-36, high turn rates may not be required. But standard levels of fighter level agility will be required, like high G performance. Turn rates specific to high altitudes. And so on.
But it doesn't take away from the factor that with broad-band stealth and high speed, if the Russians drop it first in the bucket and market it as 6G, then that's how it will end up being defined first.
That can't be done. And I'm using publicly known info anyway. The IAF has referred to only next gen, not 6th. But they have suggested AMCA "should" carry 6th gen avionics, like MUM-T and optionally manned capability.
The problem is in the IAF's mind, 6th gen means unmanned. So you can make your own conclusions there. I've already explained that bit.
Based on Firestarter's tweet, the J-36 should be able to land on 2 engines normally. So the middle engine can be turned off during the process.
While I agree with using 4 smaller engines, it's going to be a bit more expensive than 3. We cannot make a conclusion until we see the data on the definitive engine anyway. We don't have airframe data either.
Dunno about the effects on aerodynamics.
While I agree with using 4 smaller engines, it's going to be a bit more expensive than 3. We cannot make a conclusion until we see the data on the definitive engine anyway. We don't have airframe data either.
Dunno about the effects on aerodynamics.
Avionic is as important as fuselage and powerplant in a 6th gen fighter for active stealth, comm security, radar capability and data links. One can do clear assessment on their AI capability based on what their AI policy is. 2025 is a crucial year for China in this domain.
Coming to powerplant, no one knows if they have upgraded their WS15 or it is WS19 engine for this purpose, three engines with one drossle intake. There is no IR image, there are not radar images. Very early to come to correct assessment.
The Ballistic missiles will be intercepted by sm-3, sm-6 and thaad. They will need cruise missiles and drones to do an actual effective hit on Guam.
They still haven't mastered their engine tech. They need more power but can't create it without increasing the size of the engine. This is a Chinese jugaad.Maybe the third engine to keep-up with size, speed & fuel-load/weapons-load demand rather than as a near-space fighter
Whatever you mention becomes relevant but when others try to examine/explore it then it becomes irrelevant. You have commonsense but others don't. I wonder if moderators will caution you or not.
What has F-35 DAS to do?...already answered... how much time India, China, EU will take to develop such sensor & what if J-36 on its nose has it now?
BM's plume is analogous to SCRamjet's plume. We need to have some reference point. Still you can't see.
Ofcourse it's commonsense to know most agility & IR stealth during subsonic but it is also commonsense to know that if/when a HySo fighter is deveoped then it WILL DASH & give away its location or at least direction giving chance to enemy to be prepared once it arrives.
It is also commonsense to think that HySo jet with SCRamjet will need huge amount of fuel hence it will be big jet, may be like SR-71, may be little smaller than it. So frontal stealth might be low but may not be from other angles.
Just like RF trianglation can be done similarly IR triangulation can also be done
And it is also commonsense not to echo something undefined repeatedly otherwise people will go deep into it & also think you are Russian in disguise trying to advertise their upcoming products. LOL!
J-36 design with big wide wings doesn't compare with HySo desgin at all. Keeping Supersonic Area Rule in mind i wonder how can such jet turn even like 4gen jet unless someone can explain.
High altitude requires U-2 like wings for slow speed or SR-71 like dart wings for high speed. But both cannot be combined at high altitude unless someone can explain.
USA is the 1st to reveal 6gen aircraft in general but is 6gen bomber, so it doesn't define entire 6gen like that. Similarly if MiG-41 comes out like quoted then they may label it as 6gen INTERCEPTOR. I don't wanna assume or conclude anything unless they reveal it.
BTW, just for analogy of classification, till this date nobody consideres F-117 as Fighter.
Those are contradictory lines 'can't be done.... publicly known" LOL!
even if you are an insider DoD person.The video of IAF chief is there on YT saying 1 line that they have 6gen roadmap, i think it was Air Force Day speech.
And ofcourse it is important now that AMCA should be made 5.5gen & they're even advertising it like that.
But the point is that IAF has not made any statement on 7gen. And i'm not aware if they said anything to use HSTDV R&D into HySo Fighter in a particular timeline.
In my low IQ understanding, there are tri-jet airliners, although IDK if center top engine is used during takeoff & landing. Subsonic flight would not have any problem.
Supercruise/supersonic flight would be mostly level/stable flight.
But during high AOA there will be aerodynamic shadow creating low pressue at inlet, suffocating engine & stalling the compressors. So J-36 can do BFM (Basic Flight Maneuvers) but carefully limit its AoA.
The following is my poor guess of airflow at 15 degrees of AoA (Angle of Attack). Take it with pinch of salt, pepper, turmeric, chilli powder
Perhaps it could have been like this (edited in MS Paint), allowing free air flow to all engines & hence better agility may be:
Some are calling this as J-50 in Chinese parlance. The H-tail to V-tail shift is simply awesome. Now this is what I'll call proper 6th gen tech.
You should either delete SCAF/FCAS's V-tail or put a shape/position shifting one in it for it to have proper all-aspect broadband stealth. With V tails both SCAF & Tempest/GCAP would be a 5.5 gen fighter rather than a 6th gen one.