Ask anything Thread (Air Force)
- Thread starter Jeff Head
- Start date
Are China's claims valid naming it's J-20S variant the worlds first 5.5 gen? If a fleet of UCAVs is controlled by the copilot, is the jump from "5.5 gen" j-20S to a 6th gen only the better RCS?
The J-36 is significantly larger than the J-20S and as such would likely be capable of generating more energy to power a better electronic suite.
As for Shenyang's J-XX, it likely has better kinematics than the J-20S.
The all-aspect/broadband stealth of the 6h gens is, nonetheless, certainly a crucial distinction.
When did China officially claim that J-20S is 5.5?
Drone control is just a small part of 6th gen cause any plane, even 4th gen can do drone control. All it needs is the data link and drone control software.
I think 6th gen should be defined by what China has shown with 2 of its 6th gen planes, it must be tailless, if its not tailless then it cannot be 6th gen. So, being tailless is I think the bare minimum.
Then comes other aspects such as much bigger size and thus bigger radar and ECM output, very high stealth construction with more use of 3d printing and other techniques to make the plane as smooth as possible with no rivets.
In terms of armament, I think AMRAAM or PL-15 sized missiles cannot be the load out for 6th gen. They should have internal bay capacity to atleast hold PL-17 style ultra long range missiles.
Finally, in terms of engine and range, they should have higher range than 5th gen planes and also more efficient engine ideally VCE.
Completely off topic but what are the odds of an aircraft like J-11B, J-10A/B, J-10CE being allowed to be made for a simulator like DCS in high fidelity?
Maybe JF-17C? the JF-17 Block I was allowed but it's obviously a low performance type PLAAF/PLANAF don't use.
Maybe JF-17C? the JF-17 Block I was allowed but it's obviously a low performance type PLAAF/PLANAF don't use.
That's a question about DCS, not the PLA.
How high fidelity DCS developers may create contemporary PLA fighters has no relation to the PLA itself lol
What I mean is many times for these to happen there needs to be access to certain information on radar modes/ranges, fuel burn of an engine in different modes of flight, IRST range, HUD symbology etc which if not open source has to be acquired by contacting CAC/SAC and such.
I guess the question would be how likely is it these companies would release data on WS-10B, PL-15E, HMDS or older stuff like Type 1493 or KLJ-3? (some info on that is known).
I'm aware these are silly questions and that most likely they will not release this type of info in depth for quite a long time, but it's been bugging me so thought I'd ask people who know more than me and didn't know what thread to post it in.
Will delete or move to proper thread if asked.
Who is "they". Do you mean the PLA?
Of course the PLA will not release that sort of information.
If anyone wants to include a PLA aircraft in a video game like DCS (and yes, despite its valiant attempts to be "realistic" it is ultimately just a videogame) they will just have to give it their best estimate, in the same way that all other aircraft in DCS are just their best estimates.
The best way to approach something like DCS is that it has no significant bearing or implication on real world aircraft performance, so therefore who cares if they want to include a PLA aircraft?
