China could dominate the sky with two flying sixth-generation fighter jets as the US struggles to design one

[j_hungary]

Gave me a chuckle - you saw the crappiness of the engine?

Talked about it with a previous post, read post 112. Normal engine today don't smoke like that when they are supposed to have more than enough low FAM (Fuel-Air Mixture) ratio. It takes a very serious condition (Acute bank angle/high g or anything that diverted the airflow) to limit the FAM and smoke come out.



In 5th gen, your engine needs to be able to withstand very low FAM by pass, if you smoke like that everytime you put down your throttle, you are not stealth because you are going to get a lot of accel/decel time on an engine. So I wouldn't call this a 5th gen engine if they smoke like that during a horizontal run, in this video, they call it "Smoking like a F4" and these are ex-fighter pilot and my explaination of engine is coming form another fighter pilot, that's my brother, who incidentally is a Trent Engine tech working for Rolls Royce after decade of working for Boeing.

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

And most 6th gen you would need to have high efficiency engine to operate in any flight profile, also able to use DEW, so I would say for sure you won't see that engine in the actual 6th gen.

Agreed.


None of these things would be visible on a random cellphone video - same would most likely go for a NGAD video of similar quality. Otherwise agreed. Considering most of these features would not be visible on video asking for visual proof is a silly catch-22. Hence we speculate.

Hence I don't like to speculate.

But you acknowledge tailless does give an edge in stealth no mater how small. I don't see any canards on J-36. It uses these tail fins for maneuverability:
View attachment 94153
Expanding surface area doesn't necessarily reduce stealth especially if that new surface area is in the same (mathematical) plane as the rest of the plane, unlike canards.

It has to be either canard or expanded flight surface, that's why this is delta shape, what you lose in reflection from the tail fin you gain from the increased delta shape wing. It didn't matter if the extra surface is in the same area, because you don't just cut the beam from 90 degree angle. It bounces off everywhere, otherwise the bigger platform would have been stealth if you only cut the beam from 90 degree

More or less agreed. That's why I think discussing about what does and does not qualify as 6th gen is mere semantics and should be ignored. A more productive discussion is why you think it is or it is not 6th gen.

Again, as I said, I don't think that's 6th gen just by the stuff that I see, again, unless China define their 6th gen is simply just tailless delta and thrust vectoring, because that's the only thing I see in those videos.

And again, as I said, can they use this as a 6th gen platform? Sure, why not, everything can be used as 6th gen platform, but again, I would need more context, like this.

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

We know this is a video of a plane dogfighting another plane, but the context of that is this is a X-62, and they are using AI to dogfight, if such context does not exist, I wouldn't buy AI can be used to dogfight either, now whether you believe this actually happen is another issue, but this is the context of this video.

We don't give the same luxury when saying China copied F-35 or "copying" any of the other planes. Now the shoe is on the other foot.

Again, as I said, if this is the case, then wouldn't China be copying X-36 and RQ-180? I mean they wouldn't be one day waking up without any input with both platform and say we should put tailless design in our next gen fighter, it has to come from somewhere. I mean sure, you can say it's a "coincident" that they also come up with Tailless design after X-36, B2, B21 and RQ-180 already hit the market, but that probably is too much luxury........

 

[Antonius123]

Talked about it with a previous post, read post 112. Normal engine today don't smoke like that when they are supposed to have more than enough low FAM (Fuel-Air Mixture) ratio. It takes a very serious condition (Acute bank angle/high g or anything that diverted the airflow) to limit the FAM and smoke come out.

View attachment 94154

In 5th gen, your engine needs to be able to withstand very low FAM by pass, if you smoke like that everytime you put down your throttle, you are not stealth because you are going to get a lot of accel/decel time on an engine. So I wouldn't call this a 5th gen engine if they smoke like that during a horizontal run, in this video, they call it "Smoking like a F4" and these are ex-fighter pilot and my explaination of engine is coming form another fighter pilot, that's my brother, who incidentally is a Trent Engine tech working for Rolls Royce after decade of working for Boeing.

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

And most 6th gen you would need to have high efficiency engine to operate in any flight profile, also able to use DEW, so I would say for sure you won't see that engine in the actual 6th gen.

I have addressed this before.

The smoke visible in the photo is a normal occurrence during acceleration and is not indicative of any engine problem. During rapid acceleration, even advanced 5th-generation engines can emit a brief puff of smoke. This happens because the engine is burning a richer fuel-air mixture to deliver the necessary power. However, this is a short-lived event, and the engine does not continuously emit smoke. Thus, there is no issue with the engine's performance or operation.

Hence I don't like to speculate.



It has to be either canard or expanded flight surface, that's why this is delta shape, what you lose in reflection from the tail fin you gain from the increased delta shape wing. It didn't matter if the extra surface is in the same area, because you don't just cut the beam from 90 degree angle. It bounces off everywhere, otherwise the bigger platform would have been stealth if you only cut the beam from 90 degree



Again, as I said, I don't think that's 6th gen just by the stuff that I see, again, unless China define their 6th gen is simply just tailless delta and thrust vectoring, because that's the only thing I see in those videos.

And again, as I said, can they use this as a 6th gen platform? Sure, why not, everything can be used as 6th gen platform, but again, I would need more context, like this.

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

We know this is a video of a plane dogfighting another plane, but the context of that is this is a X-62, and they are using AI to dogfight, if such context does not exist, I wouldn't buy AI can be used to dogfight either, now whether you believe this actually happen is another issue, but this is the context of this video.

LOL. Then please explain why you dont think the J36 and J50 are not 6th generation fighters?

Again, as I said, if this is the case, then wouldn't China be copying X-36 and RQ-180? I mean they wouldn't be one day waking up without any input with both platform and say we should put tailless design in our next gen fighter, it has to come from somewhere. I mean sure, you can say it's a "coincident" that they also come up with Tailless design after X-36, B2, B21 and RQ-180 already hit the market, but that probably is too much luxury........

 

[j_hungary]

I have addressed this before.

The smoke visible in the photo is a normal occurrence during acceleration and is not indicative of any engine problem. During rapid acceleration, even advanced 5th-generation engines can emit a brief puff of smoke. This happens because the engine is burning a richer fuel-air mixture to deliver the necessary power. However, this is a short-lived event, and the engine does not continuously emit smoke. Thus, there is no issue with the engine's performance or operation.

That's not how Engine work....

I should say that's not how modern engine work. Modern Engine like F135 and XA-101 work in different stage. It's called variable/adaptive cycle engine.

Adaptive Versatile Engine Technology - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

F135 engine is a double bypass engine, while XA-101 is a 3-stream engine

You don't just smoke when you accelerate anymore. Because if you do, then literally EVERYTIME you accelerate you are detectable because there is going to be a plume of smoke that lit up heat signature every time you accelerate.......So the question is, how often do you accelerate?

Was going to explain a bit more but then I remember you show me a pic of F-35 firing its internal gun and say this is engine smoke.........

LOL. Then please explain why you dont think the J36 and J50 are not 6th generation fighters?

Again, that's depends on what you mean by 6th gen.

If your "6th gen" is tailless and boomless design with a thrust vectoring engine, then yeah, that' s "6th gen" otherwise there aren't anything new with this aircraft in term of aircraft design.

And your argument is "well, we already have 2 5th gen, so this must be 6th gen"

Well, I already have a Xbox Series X and PlayStation 5 (Both 9th gen console), the next console I am getting now is going to be 10th gen because I can't be stupid enough to buy another 9th gen console........even tho 10th gen did not exist

But again, you believe what you want to believe, I am simply saying there are no evidence anyhow these two platforms have any new technology in it. Again, unless you can show me what is different between this and other 5th gen platform and make it 6th gen.

 

[Antonius123]

That's not how Engine work....

I should say that's not how modern engine work. Modern Engine like F135 and XA-101 work in different stage. It's called variable/adaptive cycle engine.

Adaptive Versatile Engine Technology - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

F135 engine is a double bypass engine, while XA-101 is a 3-stream engine

You don't just smoke when you accelerate anymore. Because if you do, then literally EVERYTIME you accelerate you are detectable because there is going to be a plume of smoke that lit up heat signature every time you accelerate.......So the question is, how often do you accelerate?

Was going to explain a bit more but then I remember you show me a pic of F-35 firing its internal gun and say this is engine smoke.........

J50 is still using interim engine, most probably WS10C, just like J20 used AL31 during the prototype version.

Again, that's depends on what you mean by 6th gen.

If your "6th gen" is tailless and boomless design with a thrust vectoring engine, then yeah, that' s "6th gen" otherwise there aren't anything new with this aircraft in term of aircraft design.

And your argument is "well, we already have 2 5th gen, so this must be 6th gen"

Well, I already have a Xbox Series X and PlayStation 5 (Both 9th gen console), the next console I am getting now is going to be 10th gen because I can't be stupid enough to buy another 9th gen console........even tho 10th gen did not exist

But again, you believe what you want to believe, I am simply saying there are no evidence anyhow these two platforms have any new technology in it. Again, unless you can show me what is different between this and other 5th gen platform and make it 6th gen.

As I said before 6th gen fighter have all spectrum stealth, more advanced / next level sensors & data fusion, AI assisted operation, direct energy weapon, could be also hypersonic.

What make you think J36 or J50 will not have those?

 

[Snake]

Talked about it with a previous post, read post 112. Normal engine today don't smoke like that when they are supposed to have more than enough low FAM (Fuel-Air Mixture) ratio. It takes a very serious condition (Acute bank angle/high g or anything that diverted the airflow) to limit the FAM and smoke come out.

In 5th gen, your engine needs to be able to withstand very low FAM by pass, if you smoke like that everytime you put down your throttle, you are not stealth because you are going to get a lot of accel/decel time on an engine. So I wouldn't call this a 5th gen engine if they smoke like that during a horizontal run, in this video, they call it "Smoking like a F4" and these are ex-fighter pilot and my explaination of engine is coming form another fighter pilot, that's my brother, who incidentally is a Trent Engine tech working for Rolls Royce after decade of working for Boeing.

I haven't seen much of this plane, that is a smokey engine, I have been referencing only the J-36 so far.

Hence I don't like to speculate.

Since we're on a forum and not planning war for any real army speculation is fine. This very thread began as speculation that turned out to be true. If you don't want to speculate that's fine feel free to not do so.

It has to be either canard or expanded flight surface, that's why this is delta shape, what you lose in reflection from the tail fin you gain from the increased delta shape wing. It didn't matter if the extra surface is in the same area, because you don't just cut the beam from 90 degree angle.

Not exactly - if the added surface area exists in the same plane the RCS is significantly less than compared to canards unless you're flying 90 degrees above the radar. Especially with the tiny rotating tail fins for maneuverability.

Again, as I said, I don't think that's 6th gen just by the stuff that I see, again, unless China define their 6th gen is simply just tailless delta and thrust vectoring, because that's the only thing I see in those videos.

You admitted it's not possible to see the other 6th gen classifiers on video. Nothing I can do about that.

And again, as I said, can they use this as a 6th gen platform? Sure, why not, everything can be used as 6th gen platform, but again, I would need more context, like this.

That video could be easily faked.

Again, as I said, if this is the case, then wouldn't China be copying X-36 and RQ-180?

You're looking at those designs without stealth. Adding stealth and keeping those qualities makes it something new entirely.

 

[j_hungary]

I haven't seen much of this plane, that is a smokey engine, I have been referencing only the J-36 so far.

That is the smaller one, which is the one people claim to be J-36.

The bigger one is the one with the 3rd engine on top, people (I don't like to use the word netizen) claim to be JB-XX

Since we're on a forum and not planning war for any real army speculation is fine. This very thread began as speculation that turned out to be true. If you don't want to speculate that's fine feel free to not do so.

That's just me, I don't like to speculate, on the internet or for real.

Not exactly - if the added surface area exists in the same plane the RCS is significantly less than compared to canards unless you're flying 90 degrees above the radar. Especially with the tiny rotating tail fins for maneuverability.

First, you assume the vertial tail is 90 degrees almost none of the modern aircraft is. F-22 tail is something about 25 degree, F-18 tail is about 70 degree for example.

And you also need to know how much area you add in the wing area.

You admitted it's not possible to see the other 6th gen classifiers on video. Nothing I can do about that.

That video could be easily faked.

Fake or not, it's the context that's what I was talking about.

And as a matter of fact, I know someone from both the team that work with X-62 as I myself worked in AI field for a while, and also know someone from CNET, so I can tell you this is not fake, but whether or not you believe it is up to you.

You're looking at those designs without stealth. Adding stealth and keeping those qualities makes it something new entirely.

I am not saying stealth is not considered, I am saying Stealth is not all that require, stealth is a concept that is always going to be a used by date attached to it, it would be naive to bank on future generation warfare with stealth alone.

On the other hand, new design is more important than stealth or being tailless. If I have a fighter and a drone both with stealth and both tailless, the drone is ALWAYS going to be more advantageous because A.) It is cheaper, B.) It is smaller so if the parameter is the same, the drone is going to be harder to detect than the fighter, which mean it would have been a step down......

 

[Snake]

First, you assume the vertial tail is 90 degrees almost none of the modern aircraft is. F-22 tail is something about 25 degree, F-18 tail is about 70 degree for example.

Nope I was referring to a vertical tailless design. Thanks for sharing the angles of the other planes. If a plane has no tail it's true it would require more surface area but the new surface area would be in the same (mathematical) plane as the planes wings which would be more detectable as the fighter approaches 90deg above the radar.

That is the smaller one, which is the one people claim to be J-36.

The bigger one is the one with the 3rd engine on top, people (I don't like to use the word netizen) claim to be JB-XX

The less smokey one is the J-36

I am not saying stealth is not considered, I am saying Stealth is not all that require, stealth is a concept that is always going to be a used by date attached to it, it would be naive to bank on future generation warfare with stealth alone.

We agree on this.

If I have a fighter and a drone both with stealth and both tailless, the drone is ALWAYS going to be more advantageous because A.) It is cheaper, B.) It is smaller so if the parameter is the same, the drone is going to be harder to detect than the fighter, which mean it would have been a step down......

This doesn't relate much to sixth gen fighter capabilities though. Any true sixth gen fighter, tailless or not, will beat any sixth gen drone. It may be more advantageous to have a drone in some situations but not all.

 

[j_hungary]

Nope I was referring to a vertical tailless design. Thanks for sharing the angles of the other planes. If a plane has no tail it's true it would require more surface area but the new surface area would be in the same (mathematical) plane as the planes wings which would be more detectable as the fighter approaches 90deg above the radar.

The less smokey one is the J-36
View attachment 94792

Again, it depends on how much surface area you gain, and it really don't matter which way you are facing, now the beam bombardment is almost 3D.

And I don't know, someone told me this is the JB-XX and the smaller one is J-36. But then as I said we don't know much about the video. However, this plane is chased by J-20, and it is bigger than the J-20, if this is the case, I don't see how effective they are as a fighter

We agree on this.


This doesn't relate much to sixth gen fighter capabilities though. Any true sixth gen fighter, tailless or not, will beat any sixth gen drone. It may be more advantageous to have a drone in some situations but not all.

How so on the bolt part? That's another assumption here...

On the other hand, judging by the price tag, you are talking about for the price of 1 true 6th gen fighter you can make 5 "6th gen drone" (Comparing project price between XQ-28 and NGAD) Even if you can beat it 1 on 1 (I was assuming they are with the same parameter before), that wouldn't matter as drone will win out at the end because it is cheaper to produce

 

[Snake]

How so on the bolt part? That's another assumption here...

On the other hand, judging by the price tag, you are talking about for the price of 1 true 6th gen fighter you can make 5 "6th gen drone" (Comparing project price between XQ-28 and NGAD) Even if you can beat it 1 on 1 (I was assuming they are with the same parameter before), that wouldn't matter as drone will win out at the end because it is cheaper to produce

There're several reasons why a fighter would have advantages over a drone but essentially it boils down to "the human element"

- Drone has network delay to account for where the operator has to respond to an incoming threat at a handicap compared to the pilot.
- Fighter pilot can assess the variables much better than sensor input that has to be processed by an operator
- Fighting to survive can be a powerful motivator as opposed to the drone which can be sacrificed without much consequence. The USAF follows this approach over a willingness to die but not by a huge margin - 50.01 : 49.99 (survive : die to achieve mission)
- Fighters can resort to gun battle in case they're out of normal munitions. A drone would be ineffective in such a fight.

etc. etc.

 

[j_hungary]

There're several reasons why a fighter would have advantages over a drone but essentially it boils down to "the human element"

- Drone has network delay to account for where the operator has to respond to an incoming threat at a handicap compared to the pilot.
- Fighter pilot can assess the variables much better than sensor input that has to be processed by an operator
- Fighting to survive can be a powerful motivator as opposed to the drone which can be sacrificed without much consequence. The USAF follows this approach over a willingness to die but not by a huge margin - 50.01 : 49.99 (survive : die to achieve mission)
- Fighters can resort to gun battle in case they're out of normal munitions. A drone would be ineffective in such a fight.

etc. etc.

Well, all I can say is there are also argument on the other side (such as Human intervention can also be error prone, for example) so as I said, at best, this is another assumption, and as I said, I don't like to assume anything.

 

[Snake]

Well, all I can say is there are also argument on the other side (such as Human intervention can also be error prone, for example)

The other side of this argument imo is the East Asian (Chinese) philosophy of war.

Out of curiousity would you choose a robot or a trained pilot to protect your country?

 

[j_hungary]

The other side of this argument imo is the East Asian (Chinese) philosophy of war.

Out of curiousity would you choose a robot or a trained pilot to protect your country?

Depends on what do you mean by "protect" your country.

Humans are NOT condition for war, and robot are NOT conditioned to make decision.

In an ideal world, you don't have human at engagement level, but you don't have robot making critical decision.

 

[Snake]

Depends on what do you mean by "protect" your country.

Humans are NOT condition for war, and robot are NOT conditioned to make decision.

In an ideal world, you don't have human at engagement level, but you don't have robot making critical decision.

As we don't live in the ideal world, by protect, I mean if you had to choose a fleet of manned sixth gen fighters or unmanned sixth gen drones.

 

[j_hungary]

As we don't live in the ideal world, by protect, I mean if you had to choose a fleet of manned sixth gen fighters or unmanned sixth gen drones.

If you are talking about similar in number, then I would want a fleet of 6th gen fighters. If not, if the difference is small, still fighter, but if the gap is large, like 1 to 4 or 5, I like the odds with drone.