Heck, propeller planes have evolved and become so advanced between the first flight and the end of world war two that they alone can be divided into 6 or 7 generations based on how the powerplant, construction techniques, weapons, and aerodynamics have changed and/or been implemented.
“Some science fiction fans even argue that sixth-generation fighters should be capable of sub-orbital flight, but I’ll be honest, I wouldn’t hold my breath on that one.” Was that a pun?
Hopefully this starts to turn into something that makes sense, rather then pure marketing, like the jump between prop planes to jet or other major shifts, rather then something more iterative like rivets becoming smooth rivets, or radar upgrades, changes in stealth.
At the end of the video. I think you actually inadvertently discovered exactly what the criteria for the next 6 gen fighters should be. They should be able to enter the battle space out numbered in orders of magnitude by the enemy’s current generation of aircraft and win. It should be able to defeat all currently known air to air targets at scale. It should have available solutions that are ready to defeat low cost “depth of magazine” attacks against itself and/or friendly assets. In other words, to even put up a meaningful resistance to the aircraft, our adversaries would need to develop new air fighting capabilities that require a significant qualitative leap in multiple technologies that only when effectively fielded together can compete with our 6th gen fighter.
@RedXlV But the 6th Gen, by definition, should be able to take out F35's and F22's as easily as clubbing baby seals. Direct-ish quote from a F22 pilot in a red flag war games, and said "it was like clubbing baby seals", referring to their outrageously lopsided kill ratio, and were frequently only "killed" after they were out of missiles and ammo. So it has to be THAT good to knock F35's and F22's out with ease and lack of effort. It's a tall order, and have a hunch china's display of their "6th gen" fighters don't come close to that, otherwise they'd move on Taiwan in a second, yet they don't, and posture and yell instead, I'm sure the Taiwanese are terrified 😆
In DCS simulations, it is surprisingly possible for a P-51 to shoot down an F-4. An F-15, skillfully flown, can take down an F-35. Combat is chaotic. Old platforms were fully optimized for their day and should not be underestimated.
There was a recent video with Justin Bronk where he described what China was looking for in its “5th/6th Gen” fighters/bombers. He said their goal is to be able to reach out and destroy US tankers. China’s overwhelming cruise/hypersonic/ballistic missile force, can neutralize the local island chain/Japanese bases. So they weren’t looking to exceed or equal the stealth or EW capabilities the US fighter force has, but good enough to let them get close enough (and far enough) to destroy US tanker aircraft. He said the Achilles heal of the F22 and F35 (in stealth config), is range. If China can reach out and destroy the tankers, they can blunt any U.S. offense across the Pacific.
Definitely makes the most sense, and why these new Chinese jets are less Fighters and more long-range missile trucks designed to come and fly in from the flanks. Not be head-on adversaries.
Same for the USAF. Defense Intelligence Agency and DoD already classify Chinese J-20 and FC-31 as fifth generation, because it can be roughly compared to F-22/F-35 and that's enough. It's much more common to see people have no idea about aviation using the generations for di*k-measuring contest ("J-20 has canard therefore its' not 5th gen"), while professionals just assign the most appropriate designation because they have more important things to do.
It's worth thinking about what particular set of capabilities exist in a particular generation. And I think basing in on things like avionics and what sort of wingmen it will enjoy is not particularly useful. I think it has to be based on physical design characteristics only. Because everything else is just modules that get plugged in, or software that gets loaded in, and modern planes of any recent generation can do any of those things. Heck, you can put in an EW suite onto a bizjet if you really felt like it. Generational differences must be defined by things you can't change without significant modifications to the airframe itself. 4th gen can be defined by its focus on maneuver performance. Some had better or worse radars. Some had better or worse strike capability. But basically it came down to dogfighting as a way of winning against other fighters. Therefore the distinguishing factor for 5th gen is specifically its decreased emphasis on maneuvering in exchange for stealth. That didn't mean they couldn't maneuver, it just wasn't the primary concern. Even things like range and speed took a backseat. Therefore the distinguishing factor for 6th gen must be something other than stealth. I would suggest it's going to be speed, range, and altitude. Stealth will improve because there's no reason not to. Avionics will improve because there's no reason not to. But these planes will be designed around that speed and range and altitude. In the process of achieving those things they'll get physically larger, and have more power available to put into things like more powerful radars and electronic warfare suites and maybe even lasers. But those things will just be the consequence of the airframe design and having better engines.
Good video overall as I've personally listed all of those points myself. i. e. Full 6th gen jet: 1 No tails. 2 Ability to control swarms of drones/ other crafts. 3 Improved radar, improved engine, improved stealth, improved missiles etc. That's the basic criteria for the 6th gen. Everything else is debatable.
@@korana6308 I don't think tails has anything to do with it. If you can field better RAM, whether it does or doesn't have a tail would probably be negligible for it's RCS. Additionally, many 5th gens already fulfill the requirements of being able to control drones swarms. Lastly, 5th gens are already being upgraded with avionics, engines, and missile systems. For example, the block 4 F-35, F-22 upgrade program, J-20A and J-20S, and the Su-57M.
Tail is definitely irrelevant. Size of the RCS is what matters from whatever angles. Losing the tail is just one way to get there. I think the real metric of 6th gen is going to be a combination of speed, range, and altitude, combined with basically all the modern electric warfare and stealth stuff that you'd expect, plus probably being a quarterback for a bunch of drones and optionally manned. Gen 5 that has some of this stuff will be called 5+, but those older airframes that can't get very high, can't fly very far, and can't get there in a hurry will still not earn the 6th gen moniker. Those flight characteristics just can't be added to older airframes after the fact. We'll see more deltas and diamonds and the like. Planes will get bigger. Maneuverability won't be considered a high priority. That's the real difference from 5th gen. All modern planes are so upgradeable now that simply going off of things like receivers, emitters, and software doesn't make sense. 5th gen was different because of the stealth characteristics in the physical design. 6th gen can only be differentiated by talking about some aspect of the physical design that didn't exist in 5th gen.
The "no tails" thing comes purely from a Boeing concept drawing for the F/A-XX program over a decade ago. Which has led to everybody seeming to assume that a "6th gen" jet *must* use that configuration. That would be like assuming that only jets that copy the basic configuration of the F-22 can be 5th gen...which would exclude the Chengdu J-20 despite it probably being closer in overall performance to the F-22 than any of the other 5th gen fighters.
I mean, pretty sure a legit 6th gen fighter, the NGAD, is only 20 billion more dollhairs. While we're at it, the rest of that 480 billion can be used to build 1600 NGAD!!! The military budget has it, if I'm not mistaken, but the Army, Marines, and Navy will be pissed and broke for a while, while the Air Force has their cake AND get to eat it(wait, don't they already?)
Currently, the fifth gen fighters can still be detected by long wave length radar. The sixth gen fighter will use more advanced radar absorption materials covering the plane.
Low-frequency radar detects current stealth designs. Was responsible for targeting and shooting down a f117 over Yugoslavia. On 27 March 1999, during the NATO bombing of Yugoslavia, a Yugoslav Army unit shot down a Lockheed F-117 Nighthawk stealth ground attack aircraft of the United States Air Force by firing a S-125 Neva/Pechora surface-to-air missile. It was the first ever shootdown of a stealth technology airplane.
@@Make-Asylums-Great-Again Complacency and luck were responsible for the downing of that ONE, SINGLE, FIRST GEN STEALTH, not a type of radar that can't offer a firing solution. I suggest you research more about that incident, it isn't the accomplished everyone thinks it is, although itmt is still an accomplishment nonetheless, that's only happened one time...
You raise an important point towards the end: That greater numbers of arguably less capable aircraft can beat a smaller force of more advanced aircraft. Certainly, given likely attrition in a high end conflict, an adversary with sufficient resources can overwhelm qualitative advantage with sheer numbers. As the saying goes, “quantity has a quality all its own.” And the arguments for simplicity and quantity versus smaller numbers of technologically superior aircraft have been going on for decades. And not that it is a “simple” aircraft, but the F-15EX demonstrates that you don’t necessarily need to have something fresh off the drawing board to field a high capability tactical aircraft. Given fiscal constraints, it might be prudent to field greater numbers of upgraded F-15s and F-16s than the NGAD. But that will be decided at either end of Pennsylvania Avenue and in Arlington…
I would say it's good to have the right aircraft, or more correctly the right mix of aircraft, for each particular mission. The Chinese seem to be developing a range of different aircraft to be used in different missions, in their specific environment.
Also games like Ace Combat and Strike Commander played a very important role in spreading the generational nomenclature. They had the generations tagged on radar. So a Phantom II would have like, three dots next to it, whereas as F-16 would have four, or some other system like that.
I've literally never seen those additional radar tags in Ace Combat, and I've played every mainline game plus Assault Horizon since AC4. The only additional info you might get from the radar screen is if the marker is fading in and out (stealth aircraft), it's red and has a ring around it (mission target), or has a box around it (priority target/ targeting drone).
@@griffinfaulkner3514 Hmmm. Maybe I’m thinking of Air Force Delta Strike. It was definitely something on the PS2 that I’m thinking of, although now I’m doubting my memory of Strike Commander.
The caracteristic sub-orbital fligh was added to the the wikipedia page a couple of weeks ago and is based on someone guessing that's something Chinese new 6th gen fighter might be capable of. I find it very difficult believe it would actually be capable of that but it might explain the strange engine configuration. Also i would argue it would be more accurate to call it 5.5th gen instead considering most if not of the new features (barring sub-orbital flight) could be added to 5th generation fighters in an upgrade package.
The explanation for the strange engine configuration is that China still can't build a modern jet engine, and need to put three old Soviet designs in there, barely upgraded, just to get the thing in the air. It's a technology demonstrator not a real design for an actual war plane. In theory, they'll end up building some kind of two-engine design using some of what they learned from this thing, if they manage to build good enough engines for it.
Tempest design is still evolving , I would not be surprised if the standing tails remain, are removed or are retracted. If they remain it will be for a good reason as all three of the Tempest partners are more than capable of field a tail less jet,
There was a time when the F-16 was testing something akin to open software architecture (OSA). At one point, I recall reading an article about how an F-16 had been modded such the various systems on it were using a system called CORBA (you can look that up on wikipedia). Basically, you have standardized data formats for passing stuff around and a large number of different software processes running, able to query data from other processes, send data to other processes and trigger remote processes. The various processes don't have to be written in the same language, nor do they have to be running on the same hardware. This is important because Ada (the usual language for DoD-related stuff) stores data differently from Java, Perl or Python and an ARM processor stores data differently from an x86. So far as I'm aware, the effort went nowhere, beyond a couple proof-of-concept flights (yeah, we can do it, but it's not as easy as we hoped and it doesn't seem to provide benefits so scrap it). CORBA, unfortunately, is rather burdensome in its implementation so it likely wasn't the best approach; it was the cool new software tech, at the time, and one of the few which promised that kind of distributed processing capability. Modern web services, with JSON, are much more efficient.
One of the issue that I see coming is "Stealth". I could see things having powerful radars and sensors being the new generation of fighters. This would be a split but that is where we are, as you get less armed planes sneaking, you see more armed planes looking. And still, you are moving this massive plane by pushing are, that noise is.
Alex, thank you for this! A voice of reason must come forward and you have, again. This is why I am a subscriber. You and very few others defy Mark Twain's famous quote, "If you don't read the newspapers (he wrote this in the 1800s) you are uninformed. If you do read the newspaper you are misinformed."
I do blame this on the NGAD, since it got the word Next Generation in the name, suggesting it’s one generation above the current one, you get 6th gen. It’s more of a buzzword to secure funding. The J36 resembles the description of Penetrating Counter-Air (PCA), the manned fighter centerpiece of NGAD program, thus often referred as 6th gen.
But NGAD should be a generational leap ahead of the F22. The F22 was designed. In the 90s and built in the 2000s. Dude, it’s PS2 and Xbox tech. If you don’t think what the US is building now is a generation better, then im not sure what to tell you. China, on the other hand, hasn’t even built a real 5th gen jet. They stole a bunch of tech and cobbled together a 4.25th gen jet. No way they will jump right to 6th. And them acting like they can catch up THIS FAST is absurd.
NGAD and its Navy counterpart F/A-XX are also why it's so widely assumed that "no tail = 6th gen". Boeing put out a concept drawing in 2013 of a tailless stealthy-looking fighter that *might* be along the lines of what they're going to enter into those competitions. And since that was the first visual to exist that's in any way connected to "6th gen", people are just automatically calling these Chinese prototypes "6th gen" because they have no tails. Despite us knowing absolutely nothing about either the capabilities or the intended roles of the new Chinese jets. We don't even know if they're proper fighters at all; they might even just be tech demonstrators like Japan's Mitsubishi X-2 or the Boeing X-45 drone.
@ exactly. And having a plane without vertical tails is neither new, nor 6th gen. The B2 has been doing it for almost 40 years. What would make a tailless plane like the NGAD special would be the fact that it’s incredibly stealthy due to the lack of that tail, AAAANNNNNNDDDD the fact that it would handle like a fighter. A tailless plane is not new. A tailless fighter jet is.
True, but what these wonks are talking about are aircraft that can fly above the Kármán Line, or roughly 100,000 meters. This is ridiculous. The SR-71 has difficultly flying at 26,000 meters, and it's the highest fastest _jet aircraft_ we've produced so far. A couple of fighter aircraft have flown higher, but only as part of a parabolic "zoom climb." I think the highest any of them have achieved is about 36,000 meters, but don't quote me. Once you get above about 26,000 meters control surfaces stop working, which is another problem.
Regardless of if it could compare to a US (or European) 6th Gen design (and it probably can’t) it’ll likely be broadband stealthier than any current fighter in service just due to the planform. It’ll be a peer adversary for the F-22… 30 years later. Still a threat, but I’m sure FA-XX, Tempest, and FCAS will render the Chinese jet more of a “5.5 generation” plane. China’s manufacturing tolerances are already tight enough for the platform to not be let down by gaps and rivets-the J-20’s skin is smooth af (contrast with SU-57 lmao). BUT the main thing I’m fascinated by on the Chinese jet is the dorsal air intake. It’s so smart. On a high altitude platform where you’re not concerned about being seen from above, if you need a third engine, just stick the intake on top of the plane and you don’t have to worry about perfecting another serpentine duct. It’s a really elegant solution for not having powerful enough engines.
It would be a great achievement if an aircraft this big in size had the same stealth performance as the F-22. I believe that you need a tail-less design to achieve that with an aircraft of this size! As for the third engine, what is genius, I think, is that by using this three-engine configuration, they improved the profile stealth properties of the aircraft, because its profile is slimmer than it would be if they had used two, bigger engines instead..
The first criteria for the sixth generation fight airplane is its higher level stealth capacity than the fifth generation , preventing it from all spectro electriomeganetic radar detection. Unlike the fifth generation, which still can be detected by meter wave length of radar, the sixth generation uses specific radar absorption material on the surface of airplane plus flat shape body shape to greatly reduce radar reflection areas. The second criteria is more advanced flight control system and detection system.
When the F22 Raptor was just being released, an experiment was conducted. Five F15s went against one F22 and in each iteration, the F22 won simply because of the groundbreaking possibilities stealth opened to the latest generation of fighter aircraft thus demarcating what a "5th" gen fighter aircraft means from a 4th gen. The F22 in this case was a force multiplier. Unless there is some major breakthrough that enables one 6th gen fighter aircraft to become a force multiplier against a 5th gen fighter, we can say with high confidence that any supposed 6th gen aircraft is no more than vaporware that goes into hot air balloons and popping when its true capabilities are revealed like it was the case with the Mig-25 back in the day. Today the most important is IR stealth, automation and sensor fusion. For a fighter to be 6th gen, the higher each of those specifications will be (especially IR stealth) - the wider the gap against a 5th gen fighter, the bigger the force multiplier.
Omnidirectional broadband stealth + AI assistance + command of more loyal wingmen + both manned and unmanned driving modes + longer range + greater power generation (in terms of electronic warfare) + greater altitude and speed, what else?
A simple question that's contains a simple answer. The success rate after some trial and error, of the P51 Mustang v.s. the Messerschmitt 262 was a huge gen gap. Everyone should know who won that competition. Peace
6th gen fighters are more about marketing than strict tech specs! With each nation setting their own standards, it's fascinating to see the debate unfold. From AI-controlled drone wingmen to adaptive engines, who knows what will define the next big leap in aviation? 🤔
6th gen will be defined by physical characters of the planes that can't simply be bolted on to a 5th gen airframe. Everything else is just noise. A new generation has to be something requiring a new plane, or else it's cheaper and easier to simply upgrade the current generation with those new capabilities. Things like avionics, or slightly better stealth aren't worth it, unless you get them along with entirely new capabilities that let you fight with them in new ways. 6th gen will be defined by its range, speed, and altitude, things that can't be achieved with software upgrades or new coatings or a new module plugged into some available space. And rather than relying mainly on stealth to win wars, 6th gen will be the speedy interceptors that respond to immediate threats, and use their high-flying, long-loitering capability to maintain a longer line-of-sight for sensors and data links to take and hold territory in the sky. Because of the shapes that do best for achieving range, speed, and altitude, they'll be quite stealthy too, more stealthy than 5th gen. But that won't be the emphasis. That's just had for "free". Same with better avionics. Better more powerful engines means more power available for fancy new electronic gizmos. And bigger planes to give them more range and loiter time also makes for bigger sensors and transceivers too. Those three attributes, range, speed, and altitude, are required for a war in the Pacific, and that's what everyone's preparing for. Those are the things 5th gen is deficient in. If the next war was expected to be fought over Europe against a Soviet-style threat, they'd just stick with 5th gen, and work on modest upgrades to drone-fighting capabilities.
Thank you for making this video. Ive been telling people there is no such thing as a International Board of 5th and 6th Gen fighters. That they are no more than Labels, more so for recent and obvious marketing / propaganda.
Third generation is a jet that flies Mach ii and is equipped to deploy the aim 7 sidewinder like the f4 phantom ii, the f 104 star fighter, and the f8 crusader variation with giant ventral fins that lost to the f4 phantom ii.
If they want it to mean something, they could focus on an actual number. You'd want stealth to be an order of magnitude better than the f22, possibly even disappearing off low band radar. imo, the loyal wingman thing seems kind of like a gimmick, certainly useful, but I don't think it's important for every fighter in the category to have that ability. It's a role, in the same way ground attack, interception, and ewar are roles. (It's the same reason super cruse wasn't good enough to keep the f35 off the fifth gen list.) Abilities like space flight, visual cloaking, thermal cloaking, plasma shields, ect. are all still a bit science fiction, but they are things that could be worth applying to a 6th gen designation if the theories and tech matures.
Stealth will improve regardless, and things like drones and avionics are also not really relevant, you can do that stuff on a 4th gen plane if you wanted to. 6th gen will be differentiated by its unique flight characteristics brought about by its physical design. Some of those will naturally, as a consequence, improve stealth. Some of those will naturally, as a consequence, improve available power to make for better electronic gizmos. 6th gen will be defined by its emphasis on range, speed, and cruising altitude. Achieving those things will naturally lead to shapes that are more stealthy. Achieving those things will require better engines that have more power for avionics. Incremental improvements across the board will come with, simply by being a newer plane built with the lessons learned by previous planes, improvements in material science, improvements in manufacturing techniques, and improvements in computer-aided design. Why range, speed, and cruising altitude? Because people are looking at a war in the Pacific. Those are the attributes that make sense. The Pacific is huge, so you need to travel a long way from islands or aircraft carriers, rather than flying from bases close by in Europe against targets in Europe. You need to go fast, because you have to respond to threats quickly and because missiles are getting faster. And you need altitude because you have to fly at lower air densities to achieve the other two things, as well as give yourself a better view of the area around you, and because there's no terrain to hide behind so you must fly higher up away from sea-based air defense systems. You can't suddenly turn a 5th generation fighter into a plane with lots more range, speed, and altitude, even if you can add better stealth coatings, and plug in some new avionics. Just as you couldn't suddenly turn a 4th generation fighter into a 5th gen fighter, they're just not built to be particularly stealthy. The lines of demarcation seem clear.
No. There will be no lasers for several reasons. First it doesn't need them, or at least not with this gen. Second, it's very hard to do and it's practicality is debatable ( not being able to shoot through the clouds unlike missiles). And lastly, there's not enough energy to generate onboard of a fighter jet for a laser.
@@korana6308 I don't disagree with you as far as burning laser to shoot down missiles or aircraft. but lasers design to jame IR guided missile are already used on some military cargo aircraft (and some Israeli cicalen aircraft) and they are planed for the block 5 f 35 and su57 so I feel like it's possible that we'll see jamming laser on sixth gens. now CWIS type lasers that burn stuff out of the skies definitely not though the US has experimented with it with the SHiELD program
I agree with your last statement. We need to start from scratch and see what capabilities one jet has verses what the other has. Either way it's a very expensive chess game as we really didn't know what our adversaries have in there arsenal until a real war brake's out. That's something no one wants to see hut until then its only a one sided expensive guessing game.
Honestly, given what features were originally suppose to define "5th generation fighters", a good case could be made that the F-22 Raptor is *still* the only one (and possibly the J-20). After all, supercruise was originally hyped as being a core feature, until the JSF program deemed it superfluous and produced the F-35 that can't supercruise. At which point, since it was Lockheed Martin that coined term in the first place, they unilaterally changed the definition so the F-35 also counts. And "6th generation" is even less meaningful than "5th generation", because it literally just means "the designers claim it surpasses the F-22".
Nah, 5th gen includes all fighters designed with stealth as the primary consideration, designed to defeat more maneuverable planes from a distance without being seen. 6th gen will be defined by its emphasis on some other physical traits. Maneuverability will continue to be even less important. Stealth will improve, but really just as a side-effect, and because the technology has improved so it might as well get improved. The key factors will be range, speed, and altitude. These factors will drive the design of larger planes, that just happen to also be better at stealth due to the sort of shapes that fly best at high speed at high altitude efficiently (for range). And within a certain distance with favorable conditions, 5th gen probably will be able to beat 6th gen, just as 4th gen is able to beat 5th gen within a certain distance with favorable conditions. But the 6th gen fighters will be intended to fight in a way that 5th gen wasn't, just as 5th gen was intended to fight in a way that 4th gen wasn't, and on it goes back through the generations. All these planes are intended to fight as part of a larger organized campaign in support of each other with specific roles and missions. They will all try to fight unfairly, fighting when and where and how as to give themselves the most advantages. We need to get away from this idea that a generational leap is an automatic I-win button. It's much more about tactics and design emphasis. With modern-day avionics, you can pretty much plug anything into anything, if you're willing to spend the money. But some capabilities just can't be bolted on without a near-total redesign of the airframe. 4th gen will always have a huge RCS. 5th gen will always have relatively fuel-guzzling engines and shorter range. There will be some issue that 6th gen has that 7th gen will solve with some entirely new airframe design or construction, and that new emphasis will make it better or worse at various things than the 6th gen planes. But, like all the generations before it, it'll be used in a novel way that plays to its strengths.
Selling the US on the idea of China's superior aircraft could be a critical mistake. Last time the Soviets did that, we ended up with an F-15 and later the F-22.
What do you mean sell the idea? We have known that they have been working or a 6th gen aircraft since 2016. There are multiple reports on this, both within China and within the US.
To be honest with you I would agree to that. If they just keep it quite and not revealed this until they have 100 production units out the us would probably already still hesitate on continuing the ngad program. The way i see this, it would just going to speed up ngad program. The just like f15 and f22 they would over engineered the ngad a lot to make sure it superior in every way to what the Chinese have. Just like the mig 25 and f15 back in the days.
@innocentpasserby9632 I don't understand this Mig-25 comparison. 1. The F-15 wasn't designed to beat the Mig-25, that is a myth. 2. Even if the myth was true, how does building a multi-role fighter to combat an interceptor compare to building a 6th gen platform to exceed another 6th gen platform. 3. This isn't some new found secret, anyone who has been keeping up with Chinese aviation development knows that they have been developing their 6th gen since 2016, and proposals went out in 2018.
@@voidtempering8700 hmm? 1. For information can you provided any citation from us government or military that clarified the changes in f15 final design (of original f15, not later 21st century upgrades) is not a reaction to mig 25 reveals? 2. Also for information please provide any citation from the us military or government that clarified the final design (of original f15, not later 21st century upgrades) is of actual multi role fighter and not air superiority fighter? 3. How does this turn into us reacting to Chinese 6th gen fighter with us 6 gen fighter? Just as many commented on this video, generation stamp is just marketing gimmick. It's really not that weird for rival countries to try to up each other everytime the other reveal a new weapon. Even when both weapon already in development at the same time. Just by one side finished faster the other ones would speed up on their and make sure theirs are superior.
@@innocentpasserby9632Before I even begin, if you made this clear. You don't need a source to believe a myth, but when you need to believe something else, you need a source? 1. Before I even list a source, I would say this first part is common sense. The development of the F-X was mostly done by the time Mig-25 was first seen. What the Mig-25 did help with, was ensuring that the F-X program continued. When it comes to the source, the declassified documents for the F-15s development, the Mig-25 isn't listed as a serious concern, or that the F-X program. While it can be said that the Mig-25 is partially responsible for the USAF procuring the F-15, the F-15s overall design had extremely minor, if any influence based on the Mig-25(PG.65-66). The Mig-25 was more a tool of propaganda to help the USAF and USN to speed along the procurement process of the F-15 and F-14 than an actual aircraft they were designed to compete with. 2. Per the same document, the F-X program is stated to be looking multi-role combat aircraft, as those were some of the requirements (PG.14).
For me jet generations are more correlated to time and common features, like generations for all other things. 5th gen was from a certain period where certain things were possible and implemented, and 6th gen will be from a certain time where certain things can be implemented.. but if you're a country who's behind, and you develop an F16 equivalent, we'll call it on par with 4th generation aircraft
I always believed that since the US has almost always led the aeronautics of the world, it was determined by our designate of Gen, by cycle of redesign and mass production of said design.
I concur that what’s needed to determine fighter “generation” qualifications is a respected and recognized authority to make the call as to what capabilities and technologies define each “generation”. I hereby nominate Alex Hollings to be the ultimate arbiter of fighter generations, as well as what qualifies as a “fighter aircraft”. I also acknowledge that the “generational” qualifications will likely have to be judged somewhat in retrospect. 😉👍
IMHO there are only two possible distinguishing features of a 6th generation fighter: A conformal mobile skin on the outer layer of a fighter making any other movable surface on the aircraft obsolete ; A laser approaching one mega-Watt intensity, able to shoot down A2A missiles and fighters at 30 kilometers. One mega-Watt lasers are a frightful thing at 35,000 feet, high above thick atmosphere and high humidity.
@@YSKWatch China is decades behind the US in producing fighter turbines powerful enough to be classified as 5th generation. China's WF-15 jet engine is now just coming into service, 25 years after the F-22's Pratt & Whitney F119. How good is that engine? No one knows.
6th gen fighter should be capable of defeating any air to air missile, drone or any air threat. In the terms of capability, and the level of incompetence with DEI hires, they have settled on disposable aircraft. That has always been the generation leap, from speed, to missiles, to maneuvering and to stealth. 6th generation fighter, should simply be able to engage air to air missiles fired at it, defeat it, and keep flying towards the target. This would require greater payloads, more sophisticated weapons and the capability to merge and win dogfights. All while leveraging low observability so its not overwhelmed with thousands of ground to air missiles.
China's new "stealth" fighter looks like a missile truck that won't be able to turn on a merge. the lack of a vertical stabilizer and no elevators is a death sentence in a merge.
6th generation is just whatever the US says it is. So we'll see what the F/A-XX is, and NGAD whenever that comes along too. And that will be called 6th gen. And the rest of the world will struggle to catch up and start to approach it just in time for the US to reveal 7th gen.
For me a "next generation fighter" is an aircraft designed to replace another fighter, or multiple fighters, that came before it. Nothing more nothing less.
I think the premise of generational labels is when technological advancements make older planes unable to compete with newer ones, such as the F-22 dominating the F-15, or the F-15 dominating the F-4. Advancements in missiles and sensors will be important, but I doubt we are going to see these same generational gaps, and the generational labels are going to become more meaningless than before.
6th generation needs to soak up missiles in a contested environment, period. Its no longer about precious strikes on strategic locations. Its the turtle tank of the air, taking all the hit, absorbing all the missiles so the strike package following can do its job.
Their job will be to push out ahead, extending the range of the data network and preventing enemy fighters from getting close to more vulnerable assets behind them. They'll need to have a lot of range, a lot of speed, and fly at high altitudes to see farther over the horizon and have line-of-sight with more friendly data links in the theater. As a consequence of airframes designed to fly at such speeds and ranges, they'll be very stealthy too. In addition to their low RCS and high-flying nature, they'll use speed as a defense, being able to spot attacks from farther away and outrun them if necessary, and they'll have a lot of power for their electronic warfare suites. They'll call in long-range attacks from shorter-ranged, less stealthy missile trucks behind them, while also having the strike capability to attack ships and ground-based missile platforms with large, long-range hypersonics to continue degrading the enemy's ability to deny access.
we just don't know if this is a symmetrical or asymmetrical response. we can't really say much about it's mission except that it's probably not a 'fighter'. and while I'm not trying to correct this video at all, adaptive cycle engines have been 'almost ready' for decades. they just can't figure them out, or have them in operation and don't want the world to know. I'm betting on the first.
You could do that on 5th gen. Heck, 4th gen. A distinguishing feature of 6th gen would have to be something 4th and 5th gen are incapable of achieving through any upgrade program, without significant redesign of the airframe. You can't make a 4th gen fighter all that stealthy, but 5th gen was designed for stealth, to fight using stealth as its primary advantage. The 4th gen was designed around high maneuverability. You don't fight with a 4th gen fighter the way you fight with a 5th gen fighter. 6th gen will be fought with in a way that 5th gen can't. Expect 6th gen to be built around range, speed, and altitude: things 5th gen can't do without completely replacing the body of the aircraft, replacing the engine with a totally different shape, having a completely new inlet design, and of course having bigger internal fuel stores by making the plane much bigger. As a consequence, 6th gen will also have better stealth. Planes that can fly fast, high, and long are naturally pretty stealthy. And it'll have better avionics, just because manufacturing is better, and more power will be available on the plane with its better more powerful engines. All the other incremental improvements will come along for the ride, because they're available and there's no real reason not to improve those things when designing a brand new plane.
I think the 6th-generation fighter will be like a Klingon Bird of Prey. It will be able to cloak, deploy a deflector shield, be armed with photon torpedoes, and smell like Gagh. Range won't be an issue if we discover how to perfect a matter/anti-matter warp drive.
Generational definitions should really include the first fighters of World War 1. Personally I go by... First generaiton: Triplanes and biplanes of WW1. Second: Monoplanes of WW2. Third: The first jet fighters (WW2-Korea). Fourth: Jet fighters which carried guided missiles (approximately Vietnam). Fifth: Jet fighters with both stealth and supercruise capability. Just stealth, alone, shouldn't be what defines a fifth generation, otherwise the F-117 and B-2 would have already qualified.
Here are my definitions of fighter generations: -First: Propeller Biplanes (WW1) -Second: Propeller Monoplanes (WW2) -Third: Jet-powered planes that use guns as their weapons. -Fourth: Have Guided Missiles as their main weapons and on-board radar -Fifth: Stealth. -Sixth: AI Piloted Drone.
Sixth generation will be about range, speed, and altitude. You kinda need to fly at altitude to get the range and speed you want. But you want altitude for seeing farther over the horizon with your sensors and data links. You get stealth kind of for free in such a design philosophy. The sorts of planes that fly that high and over such long ranges are naturally good shapes for that, and incremental improvements are gained through better material science and manufacturing methods anyway. Because you want that range, you also want a bigger plane, which means more room for better avionics, and you can power them with the higher performance engines. You can make literally anything an AI piloted drone. There'd be no reason to call that a new generation, and no reason to build a new plane. Cheaper and easier to just add some software to the fly-by-wire system that's already present.
So, KC-135s refueling aircraft and E-3s airborne early warning aircraft are all 6th gen aircrafts, even ground control towel station can be considered to be a 6th aircraft because they are all ONE TOOL AMOUNT MANY
I think 6th generation or possibly 7th (I doubt it) would be a - modular design, so easy to replace parts - IR signature being as noticeable as clouds in the sky - All aspects stealth. - fuel efficient. That's my take at least
Modular design is not a generational thing, it depends on the planes design. There's no real reason improving stealth. Obviously there would be a better engine. Every gen it's 20% higher thrust, so at least that, but probably some perks too as per this video...
If you can add a capability to a previous-generation airframe, then it's not worth calling that a new generation. What differentiated 5th gen was the emphasis on stealth. It was designed around stealth, and the previous generation couldn't just suddenly be more stealthy without significant physical changes. Put a stealth coating on an F-14 or F-15, it's still going to be a pretty big RCS. What will differentiate 6th gen is going to be another noticeable, measurable physical difference that can't simply be backported. It seems to me those qualities are going to be based on range, speed, and altitude. The planes will be bigger, have designs that operate better at higher speeds and altitudes, and be more fuel efficient so they can travel farther with their larger fuel tanks. Everything else you'd want, from stealth, to avionics power, and the many incremental improvements possible by advances in material science, manufacturing technology, and electronics, will come as a side-effect, rather than an emphasis. And to prove the point, 4th gen was differentiated from 3rd gen by its emphasis on maneuverability. 3rd gen was differentiated from 2nd gen by its emphasis on multi-role capability with greater hardpoints and larger multi-mode radar systems. And 2nd gen was differentiated from 1st gen with its emphasis on speed and (therefore by necessity) missile warfare. Each of these generations required significant physical changes in design.
Shifting to match makes sense. There should be no definitions per se, more the classification is based on does this group have a massively unfair advantage over this other group? If so it’s a generation ahead. That could be sensor fusion, super cruise, stealth, whatever. It’s getting harder though with the ever decreasing gap between fighter, strike, attack and bomber roles. I also believe there is room for an aircraft moving up if later revisions gain new features. Today’s F16s with better avionics and new stealth coatings are a world apart from the original F16. Those should be in different generations or at least I guess the .5 designation we’ve apparently adopted.
Alex, I'm about to commit a grievous "Internet Sin" and express AN OPINION. I know this can get me into trouble these days, but here we go. First, I think these classifications are (as you point out) next to useless in their sheer vagueness. Second, if we are classifying FIGHTERS and not just AIRCRAFT then we need to limit the classification to fighter-to-fighter engagements. If not, we are lumping attack aircraft into this, too, and that is not really fair, as they have different roles to play with different limitations and strengths. I would prefer us to call them AIRCRAFT generations, as everything seems to be morphing into a one-stop-shopping platform that eventually will become large fighter-bomber-attack-interceptors and small fighter-bomber-attack-interceptors. We are already pushing for the B-2 to be tasked with a sort of fighter-esque role, so why not? Here is how I would like to see generational dividers placed: If two pilots of equal training, operational experience, luck, whatever, engage one another a new generation is declared when a plane will win 75 times out of a hundred, every time. To me - THAT is a generational change in technology - two essentially equal pilots, with one winning at least 75% of the time equals a new generation of aircraft. When the "loser" comes up with something that can more or less compete equally they have achieved that new generational level. All other generational blather about this piece of tech or this software package, or the modularity of whatever is smoke and mirrors used by sales reps. A GUARANTEED 3:1 kill ratio (or perhaps better?) equals a new generation of technology, IMHO. Great video. I look forward to your nest one.
![Seungmin "그렇게, 천천히, 우리(As we are)" | [Stray Kids : SKZ-PLAYER]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/kAzmhLHePqU/mqdefault.jpg)
Heck, propeller planes have evolved and become so advanced between the first flight and the end of world war two that they alone can be divided into 6 or 7 generations based on how the powerplant, construction techniques, weapons, and aerodynamics have changed and/or been implemented.
Yeaaaa... No...
@@PikkuKani why no?
@@PikkuKani Ooh, how brave, such a stunning counter argument, whatever shall they do?
@@PikkuKani
Wai you so mean to me 😔
Deffo.
Okay, I'll be that guy. Technically, all planes are capable of suborbital flight. The term you want is suborbital spaceflight.
Pigs will fly suborbital if given sufficient thrust, but do not stand under the flight path.
“Some science fiction fans even argue that sixth-generation fighters should be capable of sub-orbital flight, but I’ll be honest, I wouldn’t hold my breath on that one.”
Was that a pun?
Sub-orbit plane will be the seventh generation fighter.
J50 with 3 engines. Middle engine is a ramjet
Big Pun
@@larryc1616 nope
Thank you! This was long overdue.
The denial here is at 7th gen caliber.
He makes a video on this same topic like every other month.
Hopefully this starts to turn into something that makes sense, rather then pure marketing, like the jump between prop planes to jet or other major shifts, rather then something more iterative like rivets becoming smooth rivets, or radar upgrades, changes in stealth.
At the end of the video. I think you actually inadvertently discovered exactly what the criteria for the next 6 gen fighters should be. They should be able to enter the battle space out numbered in orders of magnitude by the enemy’s current generation of aircraft and win. It should be able to defeat all currently known air to air targets at scale. It should have available solutions that are ready to defeat low cost “depth of magazine” attacks against itself and/or friendly assets. In other words, to even put up a meaningful resistance to the aircraft, our adversaries would need to develop new air fighting capabilities that require a significant qualitative leap in multiple technologies that only when effectively fielded together can compete with our 6th gen fighter.
Agreed. If it can confidently dominate all of the current aircraft, then It could be considered a new generation
The F-22 has been able to do all of those things for over 20 years.
@RedXlV But the 6th Gen, by definition, should be able to take out F35's and F22's as easily as clubbing baby seals. Direct-ish quote from a F22 pilot in a red flag war games, and said "it was like clubbing baby seals", referring to their outrageously lopsided kill ratio, and were frequently only "killed" after they were out of missiles and ammo. So it has to be THAT good to knock F35's and F22's out with ease and lack of effort. It's a tall order, and have a hunch china's display of their "6th gen" fighters don't come close to that, otherwise they'd move on Taiwan in a second, yet they don't, and posture and yell instead, I'm sure the Taiwanese are terrified 😆
@@southtxgunner2388 This
In DCS simulations, it is surprisingly possible for a P-51 to shoot down an F-4. An F-15, skillfully flown, can take down an F-35. Combat is chaotic. Old platforms were fully optimized for their day and should not be underestimated.
There was a recent video with Justin Bronk where he described what China was looking for in its “5th/6th Gen” fighters/bombers. He said their goal is to be able to reach out and destroy US tankers. China’s overwhelming cruise/hypersonic/ballistic missile force, can neutralize the local island chain/Japanese bases. So they weren’t looking to exceed or equal the stealth or EW capabilities the US fighter force has, but good enough to let them get close enough (and far enough) to destroy US tanker aircraft. He said the Achilles heal of the F22 and F35 (in stealth config), is range. If China can reach out and destroy the tankers, they can blunt any U.S. offense across the Pacific.
Why would China want to defeat our land, sea and air defense systems? What's in it for them? World dominance similar to Hitler? Then what?
Definitely makes the most sense, and why these new Chinese jets are less Fighters and more long-range missile trucks designed to come and fly in from the flanks. Not be head-on adversaries.
Same for the USAF. Defense Intelligence Agency and DoD already classify Chinese J-20 and FC-31 as fifth generation, because it can be roughly compared to F-22/F-35 and that's enough. It's much more common to see people have no idea about aviation using the generations for di*k-measuring contest ("J-20 has canard therefore its' not 5th gen"), while professionals just assign the most appropriate designation because they have more important things to do.
True, but the new J-36 (?) has excellent stealth, apparently, with an advanced stealth coating that is flexible.
@@brianboye8025 : It would want to be a lot better than the J20 which shows up on Taiwan's commercial radar.
Thank you for making a video on this.
Definitely AI generated channels declaring the US has lost its crown of air dominance. 😂
China builds an X-44 MANTA ripoff and they think they're better.
lol
Yes , they are heavy on the propaganda
I thought I was the only one that could see that 💯
The worst type of channels. Most just out right steal articles.
I have a 13th generation tooth brush. Seriously, I think all of these designations mean nothing. The only thing that matters is winning the fight.
It's worth thinking about what particular set of capabilities exist in a particular generation. And I think basing in on things like avionics and what sort of wingmen it will enjoy is not particularly useful. I think it has to be based on physical design characteristics only. Because everything else is just modules that get plugged in, or software that gets loaded in, and modern planes of any recent generation can do any of those things. Heck, you can put in an EW suite onto a bizjet if you really felt like it. Generational differences must be defined by things you can't change without significant modifications to the airframe itself.
4th gen can be defined by its focus on maneuver performance. Some had better or worse radars. Some had better or worse strike capability. But basically it came down to dogfighting as a way of winning against other fighters.
Therefore the distinguishing factor for 5th gen is specifically its decreased emphasis on maneuvering in exchange for stealth. That didn't mean they couldn't maneuver, it just wasn't the primary concern. Even things like range and speed took a backseat.
Therefore the distinguishing factor for 6th gen must be something other than stealth. I would suggest it's going to be speed, range, and altitude. Stealth will improve because there's no reason not to. Avionics will improve because there's no reason not to. But these planes will be designed around that speed and range and altitude. In the process of achieving those things they'll get physically larger, and have more power available to put into things like more powerful radars and electronic warfare suites and maybe even lasers. But those things will just be the consequence of the airframe design and having better engines.
Good video overall as I've personally listed all of those points myself. i. e. Full 6th gen jet:
1 No tails.
2 Ability to control swarms of drones/ other crafts.
3 Improved radar, improved engine, improved stealth, improved missiles etc.
That's the basic criteria for the 6th gen. Everything else is debatable.
@@korana6308 I don't think tails has anything to do with it. If you can field better RAM, whether it does or doesn't have a tail would probably be negligible for it's RCS.
Additionally, many 5th gens already fulfill the requirements of being able to control drones swarms.
Lastly, 5th gens are already being upgraded with avionics, engines, and missile systems. For example, the block 4 F-35, F-22 upgrade program, J-20A and J-20S, and the Su-57M.
Tail is definitely irrelevant. Size of the RCS is what matters from whatever angles. Losing the tail is just one way to get there. I think the real metric of 6th gen is going to be a combination of speed, range, and altitude, combined with basically all the modern electric warfare and stealth stuff that you'd expect, plus probably being a quarterback for a bunch of drones and optionally manned. Gen 5 that has some of this stuff will be called 5+, but those older airframes that can't get very high, can't fly very far, and can't get there in a hurry will still not earn the 6th gen moniker. Those flight characteristics just can't be added to older airframes after the fact. We'll see more deltas and diamonds and the like. Planes will get bigger. Maneuverability won't be considered a high priority. That's the real difference from 5th gen. All modern planes are so upgradeable now that simply going off of things like receivers, emitters, and software doesn't make sense. 5th gen was different because of the stealth characteristics in the physical design. 6th gen can only be differentiated by talking about some aspect of the physical design that didn't exist in 5th gen.
The "no tails" thing comes purely from a Boeing concept drawing for the F/A-XX program over a decade ago. Which has led to everybody seeming to assume that a "6th gen" jet *must* use that configuration.
That would be like assuming that only jets that copy the basic configuration of the F-22 can be 5th gen...which would exclude the Chengdu J-20 despite it probably being closer in overall performance to the F-22 than any of the other 5th gen fighters.
a lot of people talking about 6th gen aircraft that don't even know the differences between the 5th and 6th thanks for the info as always
6th Gen fighter? J-36??? AAAAH! It’s too scary! $500 billion in R&D to Lockheed Martin now!
Honestly
I mean, pretty sure a legit 6th gen fighter, the NGAD, is only 20 billion more dollhairs. While we're at it, the rest of that 480 billion can be used to build 1600 NGAD!!! The military budget has it, if I'm not mistaken, but the Army, Marines, and Navy will be pissed and broke for a while, while the Air Force has their cake AND get to eat it(wait, don't they already?)
A 6th gen shape with 4th gen avionics. Nothing to worry about.
Nice work on this one, Alex.
Currently, the fifth gen fighters can still be detected by long wave length radar. The sixth gen fighter will use more advanced radar absorption materials covering the plane.
So it's really just 5+.
Low-frequency radar detects current stealth designs. Was responsible for targeting and shooting down a f117 over Yugoslavia.
On 27 March 1999, during the NATO bombing of Yugoslavia, a Yugoslav Army unit shot down a Lockheed F-117 Nighthawk stealth ground attack aircraft of the United States Air Force by firing a S-125 Neva/Pechora surface-to-air missile. It was the first ever shootdown of a stealth technology airplane.
@@Make-Asylums-Great-Again Complacency and luck were responsible for the downing of that ONE, SINGLE, FIRST GEN STEALTH, not a type of radar that can't offer a firing solution. I suggest you research more about that incident, it isn't the accomplished everyone thinks it is, although itmt is still an accomplishment nonetheless, that's only happened one time...
Maybe the real 6th generation fighters are the friends we made along the way
You raise an important point towards the end: That greater numbers of arguably less capable aircraft can beat a smaller force of more advanced aircraft. Certainly, given likely attrition in a high end conflict, an adversary with sufficient resources can overwhelm qualitative advantage with sheer numbers.
As the saying goes, “quantity has a quality all its own.” And the arguments for simplicity and quantity versus smaller numbers of technologically superior aircraft have been going on for decades. And not that it is a “simple” aircraft, but the F-15EX demonstrates that you don’t necessarily need to have something fresh off the drawing board to field a high capability tactical aircraft.
Given fiscal constraints, it might be prudent to field greater numbers of upgraded F-15s and F-16s than the NGAD. But that will be decided at either end of Pennsylvania Avenue and in Arlington…
That’s a similar problem with hypersonic missiles. For the price of one hypersonic you could field hundreds to thousands of more conventional systems.
I would say it's good to have the right aircraft, or more correctly the right mix of aircraft, for each particular mission. The Chinese seem to be developing a range of different aircraft to be used in different missions, in their specific environment.
By that logic, quantity of quality wins out.
Glad you’re feeling better, AH! Thanks for constant, badass content!
Also games like Ace Combat and Strike Commander played a very important role in spreading the generational nomenclature.
They had the generations tagged on radar. So a Phantom II would have like, three dots next to it, whereas as F-16 would have four, or some other system like that.
We gonna have Arsenal Bird soon
I've literally never seen those additional radar tags in Ace Combat, and I've played every mainline game plus Assault Horizon since AC4. The only additional info you might get from the radar screen is if the marker is fading in and out (stealth aircraft), it's red and has a ring around it (mission target), or has a box around it (priority target/ targeting drone).
Effing gamers.
@@griffinfaulkner3514Ditto no idea what he’s talking about
@@griffinfaulkner3514 Hmmm. Maybe I’m thinking of Air Force Delta Strike. It was definitely something on the PS2 that I’m thinking of, although now I’m doubting my memory of Strike Commander.
The caracteristic sub-orbital fligh was added to the the wikipedia page a couple of weeks ago and is based on someone guessing that's something Chinese new 6th gen fighter might be capable of. I find it very difficult believe it would actually be capable of that but it might explain the strange engine configuration. Also i would argue it would be more accurate to call it 5.5th gen instead considering most if not of the new features (barring sub-orbital flight) could be added to 5th generation fighters in an upgrade package.
The explanation for the strange engine configuration is that China still can't build a modern jet engine, and need to put three old Soviet designs in there, barely upgraded, just to get the thing in the air. It's a technology demonstrator not a real design for an actual war plane. In theory, they'll end up building some kind of two-engine design using some of what they learned from this thing, if they manage to build good enough engines for it.
@@fakecubed Your knowledge has not been updated for at least 10 years. Search Wikipedia for answers.
It’s called a “6th gen” because it’ll take US taxpayers six generations to pay for it
America's military spending counts for .. **checks notes** 3.45% of GDP.
Three **point** four five percent.
I think we're good for it.
😂
comment of the day!🏆
Closer to reality than many want to admit.
@@AvocadoAfficionado And how many trillions in the hole?
The b21 is a 6th gen fighter?
yes is the first i think...
Wrong as the B21 is a bomber.
Alex did another vid on the B-21 taking over the air dominance mission.
The B-21 is 6th generation bomber not fighter
The confusion is over the fact that it will able to use air to air missiles from its self defense bays
@verdebusterAP good luck with its sub Mach speed.
Such a good topic to augment the media literacy for folks actively being propagandized by the CCPs shenennigans
Tempest design is still evolving , I would not be surprised if the standing tails remain, are removed or are retracted. If they remain it will be for a good reason as all three of the Tempest partners are more than capable of field a tail less jet,
There was a time when the F-16 was testing something akin to open software architecture (OSA). At one point, I recall reading an article about how an F-16 had been modded such the various systems on it were using a system called CORBA (you can look that up on wikipedia). Basically, you have standardized data formats for passing stuff around and a large number of different software processes running, able to query data from other processes, send data to other processes and trigger remote processes. The various processes don't have to be written in the same language, nor do they have to be running on the same hardware. This is important because Ada (the usual language for DoD-related stuff) stores data differently from Java, Perl or Python and an ARM processor stores data differently from an x86. So far as I'm aware, the effort went nowhere, beyond a couple proof-of-concept flights (yeah, we can do it, but it's not as easy as we hoped and it doesn't seem to provide benefits so scrap it). CORBA, unfortunately, is rather burdensome in its implementation so it likely wasn't the best approach; it was the cool new software tech, at the time, and one of the few which promised that kind of distributed processing capability. Modern web services, with JSON, are much more efficient.
One of the issue that I see coming is "Stealth". I could see things having powerful radars and sensors being the new generation of fighters. This would be a split but that is where we are, as you get less armed planes sneaking, you see more armed planes looking. And still, you are moving this massive plane by pushing are, that noise is.
Excellent explanation. I was definitely thinking about this.
Alex, thank you for this! A voice of reason must come forward and you have, again. This is why I am a subscriber. You and very few others defy Mark Twain's famous quote, "If you don't read the newspapers (he wrote this in the 1800s) you are uninformed. If you do read the newspaper you are misinformed."
kinda like 2G,3G,4G,4Glte,5G none of the criteria was ever met for any of them but that didn't stop them from using the terms in marketing.
I do blame this on the NGAD, since it got the word Next Generation in the name, suggesting it’s one generation above the current one, you get 6th gen. It’s more of a buzzword to secure funding.
The J36 resembles the description of Penetrating Counter-Air (PCA), the manned fighter centerpiece of NGAD program, thus often referred as 6th gen.
“Marketing”
But NGAD should be a generational leap ahead of the F22. The F22 was designed. In the 90s and built in the 2000s. Dude, it’s PS2 and Xbox tech. If you don’t think what the US is building now is a generation better, then im not sure what to tell you. China, on the other hand, hasn’t even built a real 5th gen jet. They stole a bunch of tech and cobbled together a 4.25th gen jet. No way they will jump right to 6th. And them acting like they can catch up THIS FAST is absurd.
NGAD and its Navy counterpart F/A-XX are also why it's so widely assumed that "no tail = 6th gen". Boeing put out a concept drawing in 2013 of a tailless stealthy-looking fighter that *might* be along the lines of what they're going to enter into those competitions. And since that was the first visual to exist that's in any way connected to "6th gen", people are just automatically calling these Chinese prototypes "6th gen" because they have no tails. Despite us knowing absolutely nothing about either the capabilities or the intended roles of the new Chinese jets. We don't even know if they're proper fighters at all; they might even just be tech demonstrators like Japan's Mitsubishi X-2 or the Boeing X-45 drone.
@ exactly. And having a plane without vertical tails is neither new, nor 6th gen. The B2 has been doing it for almost 40 years. What would make a tailless plane like the NGAD special would be the fact that it’s incredibly stealthy due to the lack of that tail, AAAANNNNNNDDDD the fact that it would handle like a fighter. A tailless plane is not new. A tailless fighter jet is.
Music was a bit distracting. Felt like I was in a 9 minute supercut montage of me selecting and loading dozens of weapons before going into battle.
😂
Aren't all planes technically suborbital?
True, but what these wonks are talking about are aircraft that can fly above the Kármán Line, or roughly 100,000 meters. This is ridiculous. The SR-71 has difficultly flying at 26,000 meters, and it's the highest fastest _jet aircraft_ we've produced so far. A couple of fighter aircraft have flown higher, but only as part of a parabolic "zoom climb." I think the highest any of them have achieved is about 36,000 meters, but don't quote me. Once you get above about 26,000 meters control surfaces stop working, which is another problem.
If you fly like Maverick.......it wouldn't matter what Gen fighter the enemy has. They will lose! Love the content! Keep up the good work!
Regardless of if it could compare to a US (or European) 6th Gen design (and it probably can’t) it’ll likely be broadband stealthier than any current fighter in service just due to the planform. It’ll be a peer adversary for the F-22… 30 years later. Still a threat, but I’m sure FA-XX, Tempest, and FCAS will render the Chinese jet more of a “5.5 generation” plane. China’s manufacturing tolerances are already tight enough for the platform to not be let down by gaps and rivets-the J-20’s skin is smooth af (contrast with SU-57 lmao). BUT the main thing I’m fascinated by on the Chinese jet is the dorsal air intake. It’s so smart. On a high altitude platform where you’re not concerned about being seen from above, if you need a third engine, just stick the intake on top of the plane and you don’t have to worry about perfecting another serpentine duct. It’s a really elegant solution for not having powerful enough engines.
It would be a great achievement if an aircraft this big in size had the same stealth performance as the F-22. I believe that you need a tail-less design to achieve that with an aircraft of this size! As for the third engine, what is genius, I think, is that by using this three-engine configuration, they improved the profile stealth properties of the aircraft, because its profile is slimmer than it would be if they had used two, bigger engines instead..
The first criteria for the sixth generation fight airplane is its higher level stealth capacity than the fifth generation , preventing it from all spectro electriomeganetic radar detection. Unlike the fifth generation, which still can be detected by meter wave length of radar, the sixth generation uses specific radar absorption material on the surface of airplane plus flat shape body shape to greatly reduce radar reflection areas. The second criteria is more advanced flight control system and detection system.
If they want to play the numbers game, then F117 - 5th gen,
F22 - 6th gen
B2 - 6th gen
F35 - 7th gen
B21 - 7th gen
NGAD & FA-XX - 8th gen
Exactly Chyna is a joke 😂
But they have the White Emperor! 😂
Key word “fighter”
@@CivisMilitarum - you mean that guy walking around with "invisible clothes"? Literally a perfect comparison
When the F22 Raptor was just being released, an experiment was conducted. Five F15s went against one F22 and in each iteration, the F22 won simply because of the groundbreaking possibilities stealth opened to the latest generation of fighter aircraft thus demarcating what a "5th" gen fighter aircraft means from a 4th gen. The F22 in this case was a force multiplier. Unless there is some major breakthrough that enables one 6th gen fighter aircraft to become a force multiplier against a 5th gen fighter, we can say with high confidence that any supposed 6th gen aircraft is no more than vaporware that goes into hot air balloons and popping when its true capabilities are revealed like it was the case with the Mig-25 back in the day. Today the most important is IR stealth, automation and sensor fusion. For a fighter to be 6th gen, the higher each of those specifications will be (especially IR stealth) - the wider the gap against a 5th gen fighter, the bigger the force multiplier.
Omnidirectional broadband stealth + AI assistance + command of more loyal wingmen + both manned and unmanned driving modes + longer range + greater power generation (in terms of electronic warfare) + greater altitude and speed, what else?
A simple question that's contains a simple answer. The success rate after some trial and error, of the P51 Mustang v.s. the Messerschmitt 262 was a huge gen gap. Everyone should know who won that competition. Peace
I'VE BEEN SAYING THIS TO EVERYONE!! Just because it's flat doesn't make it 6th gen!
We need a low-frequency stealth design.
6th gen fighters are more about marketing than strict tech specs! With each nation setting their own standards, it's fascinating to see the debate unfold. From AI-controlled drone wingmen to adaptive engines, who knows what will define the next big leap in aviation? 🤔
6th gen will be defined by physical characters of the planes that can't simply be bolted on to a 5th gen airframe. Everything else is just noise. A new generation has to be something requiring a new plane, or else it's cheaper and easier to simply upgrade the current generation with those new capabilities. Things like avionics, or slightly better stealth aren't worth it, unless you get them along with entirely new capabilities that let you fight with them in new ways.
6th gen will be defined by its range, speed, and altitude, things that can't be achieved with software upgrades or new coatings or a new module plugged into some available space. And rather than relying mainly on stealth to win wars, 6th gen will be the speedy interceptors that respond to immediate threats, and use their high-flying, long-loitering capability to maintain a longer line-of-sight for sensors and data links to take and hold territory in the sky. Because of the shapes that do best for achieving range, speed, and altitude, they'll be quite stealthy too, more stealthy than 5th gen. But that won't be the emphasis. That's just had for "free". Same with better avionics. Better more powerful engines means more power available for fancy new electronic gizmos. And bigger planes to give them more range and loiter time also makes for bigger sensors and transceivers too.
Those three attributes, range, speed, and altitude, are required for a war in the Pacific, and that's what everyone's preparing for. Those are the things 5th gen is deficient in. If the next war was expected to be fought over Europe against a Soviet-style threat, they'd just stick with 5th gen, and work on modest upgrades to drone-fighting capabilities.
Three engines screams "kludge."
Yeah, absolutely no way they would have made a three engine design if they were capable of building decent modern engines.
Thank you for making this video. Ive been telling people there is no such thing as a International Board of 5th and 6th Gen fighters. That they are no more than Labels, more so for recent and obvious marketing / propaganda.
What makes a 6th gen fighter? Not china lmao
Never underestimate any country
Classic!
"nEvEr uNdErEsTiMaTe"
-literally every china bot ever
@@iamscoutstfu or every person with a brain
@@iamscoutstfu sounds like coping when other opinions are bot. USAF doesn't think that way.
Third generation is a jet that flies Mach ii and is equipped to deploy the aim 7 sidewinder like the f4 phantom ii, the f 104 star fighter, and the f8 crusader variation with giant ventral fins that lost to the f4 phantom ii.
AIM 7 sparrow. Star Fighter and Crusader were sidewinder AIM 9 only, nor radar guided ie 2nd Gen
VTEC kicks hard, yo!
It sure did in my old Honda!
I think the big capability you missed is probably directed energy capable
The differences numbers.
If they can saturate an area,, it'll become a defensive operation.
If they want it to mean something, they could focus on an actual number. You'd want stealth to be an order of magnitude better than the f22, possibly even disappearing off low band radar.
imo, the loyal wingman thing seems kind of like a gimmick, certainly useful, but I don't think it's important for every fighter in the category to have that ability. It's a role, in the same way ground attack, interception, and ewar are roles. (It's the same reason super cruse wasn't good enough to keep the f35 off the fifth gen list.)
Abilities like space flight, visual cloaking, thermal cloaking, plasma shields, ect. are all still a bit science fiction, but they are things that could be worth applying to a 6th gen designation if the theories and tech matures.
Stealth will improve regardless, and things like drones and avionics are also not really relevant, you can do that stuff on a 4th gen plane if you wanted to. 6th gen will be differentiated by its unique flight characteristics brought about by its physical design. Some of those will naturally, as a consequence, improve stealth. Some of those will naturally, as a consequence, improve available power to make for better electronic gizmos.
6th gen will be defined by its emphasis on range, speed, and cruising altitude. Achieving those things will naturally lead to shapes that are more stealthy. Achieving those things will require better engines that have more power for avionics. Incremental improvements across the board will come with, simply by being a newer plane built with the lessons learned by previous planes, improvements in material science, improvements in manufacturing techniques, and improvements in computer-aided design.
Why range, speed, and cruising altitude? Because people are looking at a war in the Pacific. Those are the attributes that make sense. The Pacific is huge, so you need to travel a long way from islands or aircraft carriers, rather than flying from bases close by in Europe against targets in Europe. You need to go fast, because you have to respond to threats quickly and because missiles are getting faster. And you need altitude because you have to fly at lower air densities to achieve the other two things, as well as give yourself a better view of the area around you, and because there's no terrain to hide behind so you must fly higher up away from sea-based air defense systems.
You can't suddenly turn a 5th generation fighter into a plane with lots more range, speed, and altitude, even if you can add better stealth coatings, and plug in some new avionics. Just as you couldn't suddenly turn a 4th generation fighter into a 5th gen fighter, they're just not built to be particularly stealthy. The lines of demarcation seem clear.
Saw it with zero views and a few seconds ago, amazing.
A lot of people claim 6th generation fighters will have lasers though I don't think they will aside from a jamming laser for short range missiles
Possible to damage thermal sensors on other planes also
No. There will be no lasers for several reasons. First it doesn't need them, or at least not with this gen. Second, it's very hard to do and it's practicality is debatable ( not being able to shoot through the clouds unlike missiles). And lastly, there's not enough energy to generate onboard of a fighter jet for a laser.
@@korana6308 I don't disagree with you as far as burning laser to shoot down missiles or aircraft. but lasers design to jame IR guided missile are already used on some military cargo aircraft (and some Israeli cicalen aircraft) and they are planed for the block 5 f 35 and su57 so I feel like it's possible that we'll see jamming laser on sixth gens. now CWIS type lasers that burn stuff out of the skies definitely not though the US has experimented with it with the SHiELD program
I agree with your last statement. We need to start from scratch and see what capabilities one jet has verses what the other has. Either way it's a very expensive chess game as we really didn't know what our adversaries have in there arsenal until a real war brake's out. That's something no one wants to see hut until then its only a one sided expensive guessing game.
I thought the one that was bigger was their first 5th gen bomber😂
Honestly, given what features were originally suppose to define "5th generation fighters", a good case could be made that the F-22 Raptor is *still* the only one (and possibly the J-20). After all, supercruise was originally hyped as being a core feature, until the JSF program deemed it superfluous and produced the F-35 that can't supercruise. At which point, since it was Lockheed Martin that coined term in the first place, they unilaterally changed the definition so the F-35 also counts.
And "6th generation" is even less meaningful than "5th generation", because it literally just means "the designers claim it surpasses the F-22".
Nah, 5th gen includes all fighters designed with stealth as the primary consideration, designed to defeat more maneuverable planes from a distance without being seen.
6th gen will be defined by its emphasis on some other physical traits. Maneuverability will continue to be even less important. Stealth will improve, but really just as a side-effect, and because the technology has improved so it might as well get improved. The key factors will be range, speed, and altitude. These factors will drive the design of larger planes, that just happen to also be better at stealth due to the sort of shapes that fly best at high speed at high altitude efficiently (for range). And within a certain distance with favorable conditions, 5th gen probably will be able to beat 6th gen, just as 4th gen is able to beat 5th gen within a certain distance with favorable conditions. But the 6th gen fighters will be intended to fight in a way that 5th gen wasn't, just as 5th gen was intended to fight in a way that 4th gen wasn't, and on it goes back through the generations. All these planes are intended to fight as part of a larger organized campaign in support of each other with specific roles and missions. They will all try to fight unfairly, fighting when and where and how as to give themselves the most advantages.
We need to get away from this idea that a generational leap is an automatic I-win button. It's much more about tactics and design emphasis. With modern-day avionics, you can pretty much plug anything into anything, if you're willing to spend the money. But some capabilities just can't be bolted on without a near-total redesign of the airframe. 4th gen will always have a huge RCS. 5th gen will always have relatively fuel-guzzling engines and shorter range. There will be some issue that 6th gen has that 7th gen will solve with some entirely new airframe design or construction, and that new emphasis will make it better or worse at various things than the 6th gen planes. But, like all the generations before it, it'll be used in a novel way that plays to its strengths.
Selling the US on the idea of China's superior aircraft could be a critical mistake.
Last time the Soviets did that, we ended up with an F-15 and later the F-22.
What do you mean sell the idea? We have known that they have been working or a 6th gen aircraft since 2016. There are multiple reports on this, both within China and within the US.
To be honest with you I would agree to that. If they just keep it quite and not revealed this until they have 100 production units out the us would probably already still hesitate on continuing the ngad program. The way i see this, it would just going to speed up ngad program. The just like f15 and f22 they would over engineered the ngad a lot to make sure it superior in every way to what the Chinese have. Just like the mig 25 and f15 back in the days.
@innocentpasserby9632 I don't understand this Mig-25 comparison.
1. The F-15 wasn't designed to beat the Mig-25, that is a myth.
2. Even if the myth was true, how does building a multi-role fighter to combat an interceptor compare to building a 6th gen platform to exceed another 6th gen platform.
3. This isn't some new found secret, anyone who has been keeping up with Chinese aviation development knows that they have been developing their 6th gen since 2016, and proposals went out in 2018.
@@voidtempering8700 hmm? 1. For information can you provided any citation from us government or military that clarified the changes in f15 final design (of original f15, not later 21st century upgrades) is not a reaction to mig 25 reveals? 2. Also for information please provide any citation from the us military or government that clarified the final design (of original f15, not later 21st century upgrades) is of actual multi role fighter and not air superiority fighter? 3. How does this turn into us reacting to Chinese 6th gen fighter with us 6 gen fighter? Just as many commented on this video, generation stamp is just marketing gimmick. It's really not that weird for rival countries to try to up each other everytime the other reveal a new weapon. Even when both weapon already in development at the same time. Just by one side finished faster the other ones would speed up on their and make sure theirs are superior.
@@innocentpasserby9632Before I even begin, if you made this clear. You don't need a source to believe a myth, but when you need to believe something else, you need a source?
1. Before I even list a source, I would say this first part is common sense. The development of the F-X was mostly done by the time Mig-25 was first seen. What the Mig-25 did help with, was ensuring that the F-X program continued. When it comes to the source, the declassified documents for the F-15s development, the Mig-25 isn't listed as a serious concern, or that the F-X program. While it can be said that the Mig-25 is partially responsible for the USAF procuring the F-15, the F-15s overall design had extremely minor, if any influence based on the Mig-25(PG.65-66). The Mig-25 was more a tool of propaganda to help the USAF and USN to speed along the procurement process of the F-15 and F-14 than an actual aircraft they were designed to compete with.
2. Per the same document, the F-X program is stated to be looking multi-role combat aircraft, as those were some of the requirements (PG.14).
Thanks Alex for telling us what the truth is!
Thank's Sandboxx, 👍🇺🇸
For me jet generations are more correlated to time and common features, like generations for all other things. 5th gen was from a certain period where certain things were possible and implemented, and 6th gen will be from a certain time where certain things can be implemented.. but if you're a country who's behind, and you develop an F16 equivalent, we'll call it on par with 4th generation aircraft
What is up with the audio?
I always believed that since the US has almost always led the aeronautics of the world, it was determined by our designate of Gen, by cycle of redesign and mass production of said design.
One of the "5th" gen features you missed is the ability to carry weapons internally...
That's a requirement of stealth aircraft. 5th gen was designed around stealth.
Well done break down
I concur that what’s needed to determine fighter “generation” qualifications is a respected and recognized authority to make the call as to what capabilities and technologies define each “generation”. I hereby nominate Alex Hollings to be the ultimate arbiter of fighter generations, as well as what qualifies as a “fighter aircraft”.
I also acknowledge that the “generational” qualifications will likely have to be judged somewhat in retrospect.
😉👍
So what would a f117 be ? It was the first gen of stealth.
IMHO there are only two possible distinguishing features of a 6th generation fighter: A conformal mobile skin on the outer layer of a fighter making any other movable surface on the aircraft obsolete ; A laser approaching one mega-Watt intensity, able to shoot down A2A missiles and fighters at 30 kilometers. One mega-Watt lasers are a frightful thing at 35,000 feet, high above thick atmosphere and high humidity.
3 engines can produce 3 times electricity produced by 1 engine. not only for laser / EW, the latest radar need so much electricity.
@@YSKWatch China is decades behind the US in producing fighter turbines powerful enough to be classified as 5th generation. China's WF-15 jet engine is now just coming into service, 25 years after the F-22's Pratt & Whitney F119. How good is that engine? No one knows.
2:28
That basically means China itself wouldn't even consider their new fighter 6th generation.
The point is that the designation is not helpful or useful for bragging rights. BTW China counts their planes. Maybe 300 J-20s with 100 new each year.
Well, it depends. Their 5th gen is our 6th gen. Although when speaking internationally, they do use our generations.
@@voidtempering8700 Their fifth gen isn't even our 4th gen.
@fakecubed Your opinion doesn't make reality. There is not a single official NATO report or document that says that.
6th gen fighter should be capable of defeating any air to air missile, drone or any air threat.
In the terms of capability, and the level of incompetence with DEI hires, they have settled on disposable aircraft.
That has always been the generation leap, from speed, to missiles, to maneuvering and to stealth.
6th generation fighter, should simply be able to engage air to air missiles fired at it, defeat it, and keep flying towards the target.
This would require greater payloads, more sophisticated weapons and the capability to merge and win dogfights. All while leveraging low observability so its not overwhelmed with thousands of ground to air missiles.
How many times do we have to go over this for people?
Have we seen any of the flying wings do barrel rolls or other tactical maneuvers?
I would think high Velocity speed with low visibility and a massive payload.Drone would be more effective for defense and a lot of them.
China's new "stealth" fighter looks like a missile truck that won't be able to turn on a merge. the lack of a vertical stabilizer and no elevators is a death sentence in a merge.
6th generation is just whatever the US says it is. So we'll see what the F/A-XX is, and NGAD whenever that comes along too. And that will be called 6th gen. And the rest of the world will struggle to catch up and start to approach it just in time for the US to reveal 7th gen.
It's the man in the box. Top Gun: Maverick
I'd hold my breath
For me a "next generation fighter" is an aircraft designed to replace another fighter, or multiple fighters, that came before it.
Nothing more nothing less.
I think the premise of generational labels is when technological advancements make older planes unable to compete with newer ones, such as the F-22 dominating the F-15, or the F-15 dominating the F-4. Advancements in missiles and sensors will be important, but I doubt we are going to see these same generational gaps, and the generational labels are going to become more meaningless than before.
6th generation needs to soak up missiles in a contested environment, period. Its no longer about precious strikes on strategic locations. Its the turtle tank of the air, taking all the hit, absorbing all the missiles so the strike package following can do its job.
Their job will be to push out ahead, extending the range of the data network and preventing enemy fighters from getting close to more vulnerable assets behind them. They'll need to have a lot of range, a lot of speed, and fly at high altitudes to see farther over the horizon and have line-of-sight with more friendly data links in the theater. As a consequence of airframes designed to fly at such speeds and ranges, they'll be very stealthy too. In addition to their low RCS and high-flying nature, they'll use speed as a defense, being able to spot attacks from farther away and outrun them if necessary, and they'll have a lot of power for their electronic warfare suites. They'll call in long-range attacks from shorter-ranged, less stealthy missile trucks behind them, while also having the strike capability to attack ships and ground-based missile platforms with large, long-range hypersonics to continue degrading the enemy's ability to deny access.
6th Generation means it costs more than the obscenely expensive F-35.
Invisible, fires missiles via Aperture Labs Portal technology.
we just don't know if this is a symmetrical or asymmetrical response. we can't really say much about it's mission except that it's probably not a 'fighter'. and while I'm not trying to correct this video at all, adaptive cycle engines have been 'almost ready' for decades. they just can't figure them out, or have them in operation and don't want the world to know. I'm betting on the first.
X-302 is where things should be at.
Exactly my thoughts as well.
Voice operated, how would that work? 'Hey Lockheed, can you drop a jdam on target 3' '
Fighter Aircraft Eras (simplified)
WW1 Era
Inter-war designs
WW2 Era
Korean Era
Vietnam Era
Desert Storm Era
Post-Cold War Era
Thanks ALEX👍🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸
Seems like ideally a 6th gen fighter would have a fairly high degree of software and hardware modularity -- easy, low-cost upgrading.
You could do that on 5th gen. Heck, 4th gen. A distinguishing feature of 6th gen would have to be something 4th and 5th gen are incapable of achieving through any upgrade program, without significant redesign of the airframe. You can't make a 4th gen fighter all that stealthy, but 5th gen was designed for stealth, to fight using stealth as its primary advantage. The 4th gen was designed around high maneuverability. You don't fight with a 4th gen fighter the way you fight with a 5th gen fighter. 6th gen will be fought with in a way that 5th gen can't.
Expect 6th gen to be built around range, speed, and altitude: things 5th gen can't do without completely replacing the body of the aircraft, replacing the engine with a totally different shape, having a completely new inlet design, and of course having bigger internal fuel stores by making the plane much bigger. As a consequence, 6th gen will also have better stealth. Planes that can fly fast, high, and long are naturally pretty stealthy. And it'll have better avionics, just because manufacturing is better, and more power will be available on the plane with its better more powerful engines. All the other incremental improvements will come along for the ride, because they're available and there's no real reason not to improve those things when designing a brand new plane.
I think the 6th-generation fighter will be like a Klingon Bird of Prey. It will be able to cloak, deploy a deflector shield, be armed with photon torpedoes, and smell like Gagh. Range won't be an issue if we discover how to perfect a matter/anti-matter warp drive.
But will it be able to hold two humpback whales inside its hull and do a time warp flying around the sun?
“Generation Zero Fighter”. Brilliant and funny
Generational definitions should really include the first fighters of World War 1. Personally I go by...
First generaiton: Triplanes and biplanes of WW1.
Second: Monoplanes of WW2.
Third: The first jet fighters (WW2-Korea).
Fourth: Jet fighters which carried guided missiles (approximately Vietnam).
Fifth: Jet fighters with both stealth and supercruise capability.
Just stealth, alone, shouldn't be what defines a fifth generation, otherwise the F-117 and B-2 would have already qualified.
Engines, stealth coating, AI, control surface design, man and un maned systems, modularity.
Here are my definitions of fighter generations:
-First: Propeller Biplanes (WW1)
-Second: Propeller Monoplanes (WW2)
-Third: Jet-powered planes that use guns as their weapons.
-Fourth: Have Guided Missiles as their main weapons and on-board radar
-Fifth: Stealth.
-Sixth: AI Piloted Drone.
Sixth generation will be about range, speed, and altitude. You kinda need to fly at altitude to get the range and speed you want. But you want altitude for seeing farther over the horizon with your sensors and data links. You get stealth kind of for free in such a design philosophy. The sorts of planes that fly that high and over such long ranges are naturally good shapes for that, and incremental improvements are gained through better material science and manufacturing methods anyway. Because you want that range, you also want a bigger plane, which means more room for better avionics, and you can power them with the higher performance engines.
You can make literally anything an AI piloted drone. There'd be no reason to call that a new generation, and no reason to build a new plane. Cheaper and easier to just add some software to the fly-by-wire system that's already present.
How about price?
I was always imagining the gen after 5th to be Autonomous Jets (AI controlled)
So, KC-135s refueling aircraft and E-3s airborne early warning aircraft are all 6th gen aircrafts, even ground control towel station can be considered to be a 6th aircraft because they are all ONE TOOL AMOUNT MANY
I think 6th generation or possibly 7th (I doubt it) would be a
- modular design, so easy to replace parts
- IR signature being as noticeable as clouds in the sky
- All aspects stealth.
- fuel efficient.
That's my take at least
networking and drone wingman coordination seems to be what they're aiming for (including everything from prior generations)
7th gen are what UFOs are today.
Modular design is not a generational thing, it depends on the planes design.
There's no real reason improving stealth.
Obviously there would be a better engine. Every gen it's 20% higher thrust, so at least that, but probably some perks too as per this video...
If you can add a capability to a previous-generation airframe, then it's not worth calling that a new generation. What differentiated 5th gen was the emphasis on stealth. It was designed around stealth, and the previous generation couldn't just suddenly be more stealthy without significant physical changes. Put a stealth coating on an F-14 or F-15, it's still going to be a pretty big RCS.
What will differentiate 6th gen is going to be another noticeable, measurable physical difference that can't simply be backported. It seems to me those qualities are going to be based on range, speed, and altitude. The planes will be bigger, have designs that operate better at higher speeds and altitudes, and be more fuel efficient so they can travel farther with their larger fuel tanks. Everything else you'd want, from stealth, to avionics power, and the many incremental improvements possible by advances in material science, manufacturing technology, and electronics, will come as a side-effect, rather than an emphasis.
And to prove the point, 4th gen was differentiated from 3rd gen by its emphasis on maneuverability. 3rd gen was differentiated from 2nd gen by its emphasis on multi-role capability with greater hardpoints and larger multi-mode radar systems. And 2nd gen was differentiated from 1st gen with its emphasis on speed and (therefore by necessity) missile warfare. Each of these generations required significant physical changes in design.
Shifting to match makes sense. There should be no definitions per se, more the classification is based on does this group have a massively unfair advantage over this other group? If so it’s a generation ahead. That could be sensor fusion, super cruise, stealth, whatever.
It’s getting harder though with the ever decreasing gap between fighter, strike, attack and bomber roles.
I also believe there is room for an aircraft moving up if later revisions gain new features. Today’s F16s with better avionics and new stealth coatings are a world apart from the original F16. Those should be in different generations or at least I guess the .5 designation we’ve apparently adopted.
“ if you can’t dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshit”.
Alex, I'm about to commit a grievous "Internet Sin" and express AN OPINION. I know this can get me into trouble these days, but here we go. First, I think these classifications are (as you point out) next to useless in their sheer vagueness. Second, if we are classifying FIGHTERS and not just AIRCRAFT then we need to limit the classification to fighter-to-fighter engagements. If not, we are lumping attack aircraft into this, too, and that is not really fair, as they have different roles to play with different limitations and strengths.
I would prefer us to call them AIRCRAFT generations, as everything seems to be morphing into a one-stop-shopping platform that eventually will become large fighter-bomber-attack-interceptors and small fighter-bomber-attack-interceptors. We are already pushing for the B-2 to be tasked with a sort of fighter-esque role, so why not?
Here is how I would like to see generational dividers placed: If two pilots of equal training, operational experience, luck, whatever, engage one another a new generation is declared when a plane will win 75 times out of a hundred, every time. To me - THAT is a generational change in technology - two essentially equal pilots, with one winning at least 75% of the time equals a new generation of aircraft. When the "loser" comes up with something that can more or less compete equally they have achieved that new generational level.
All other generational blather about this piece of tech or this software package, or the modularity of whatever is smoke and mirrors used by sales reps. A GUARANTEED 3:1 kill ratio (or perhaps better?) equals a new generation of technology, IMHO. Great video. I look forward to your nest one.
8:20 Honestly? It’s like the “Would you rather fight 100 duck-sized horses or a horse sized duck?”
Context matters.
Is it possible that the B21 along with its dedicated drone fighters equal the US sixth gen. Fighter?