We don't know what the energy requirements are for the 'J-36'. China could be maxing out all 3 engines with multiple generators in order to meet demand, Not to mention ACE engines are supposedly intended in order to generate even more power so it's hard to say if 2 engines could really match the energy demand. Despite the technological superiority of American engines, the current ones can't match the dry thrust of 3x WS-15 class engines, let alone 3x Chinese adaptive cycle engines in development, that would seriously hamper what seems to be one of the key design goals of the aircraft, supercruise and supersonic performance.
Shenyang / Chengdu "6th Gen" Aircraft - News and Analysis
- Thread starter tequilashooter
- Start date
- Joined
- 17 October 2006
- Messages
- 2,393
- Reaction score
- 1,188
Please repeat that without a pseudonym, snot-for-brains.
siegecrossbow
I really should change my personal text
- Joined
- 12 March 2012
- Messages
- 658
- Reaction score
- 1,854
One thing people need to realize is that the max thrust at sea level figure is not really that important.
WS-15 should have better high speed performance than F135 because of it's lower bypass ratio no? Yes I'm simplifying. WS-15 should be specifically optimized for supercruise and thus provide better dry thrust at supersonic speeds. I'm confused, could you elaborate your comment that:
F135's low bypass ratio has less high speed performance? Wouldn't it be it's higher bypass ratio than say the WS-15 and F119 lend itself to worse high speed performance?
siegecrossbow
I really should change my personal text
- Joined
- 12 March 2012
- Messages
- 658
- Reaction score
- 1,854
I got it backwards. I meant F-135 has higher bypass ratio than F-119. Brain not working today.
siegecrossbow
I really should change my personal text
- Joined
- 12 March 2012
- Messages
- 658
- Reaction score
- 1,854
To the genius who laughed at my comment — most planes are not ground effect vehicles. The reason that F-119 and F-135 are a generation above older engines is not solely dependent on maximum thrust.
It's bold to assume that two F135s or two A100/101s would offer sufficient thrust and power generation capability relative to J-36's target requirements.
Scott Kenny
ACCESS: USAP
- Joined
- 15 May 2023
- Messages
- 10,693
- Reaction score
- 12,562
More to the point, you trade off some fuel economy, which hurts range. 2x F135s means 36klbs of fuel just to roughly equal F35 range. So it'd require A100/101s to give that much thrust without strangling range.
If 90+klbs of thrust is not enough for your airframe, WTF do you need for thrust? This isn't a scramble interceptor that needs a T:W greater than 1 at takeoff, it's a BARCAP type long endurance interceptor that only needs a T:W greater than 1 at 50% fuel or so.
Hence why the USAF went from the A100/101s being F135 size/power to the A102/103s being more like F119 size/power.
Because it isn't just about thrust at takeoff, but also about having the ability to supercruise and also sufficient manuverability all in the same large airframe, while possessing sufficient capacity and growth capacity for cooling and power generation in the same airframe footprint through future upgrades going for 3-4 decades into the future.
All while keeping in mind that this aircraft is intended to be powered by ACEs/VCEs as its target powerplant -- i.e.: three ACEs/VCEs, likely of a similar size/footprint to WS-15.
The A102/103 may be useful -- think about what sort of performance and capacity an aircraft powered by three A102/103s may have, and you may reach a reasonable conclusion about the sort of target performance that J-36 may seek with its target engines.
- Joined
- 1 April 2006
- Messages
- 11,285
- Reaction score
- 9,594
I wouldn't be surprised if you would like to apologize.
Attachments
Sorry? To whom exactly, and why should i apologize for my personal opinion?
I'm bewildered by your post. How exactly a member insulting another is not a reportable offense? He could have said 100 other things, simply "i don't agree" or "i think you're wrong" or whatever.
- Joined
- 27 December 2005
- Messages
- 17,543
- Reaction score
- 24,893
Well, you suggested Bill Sweetman had probably stolen the world of a Chinese CGI artist when in fact he worked with Joe Picarella, a world famous cutaway artist (https://thecutawaycompany.com/gallery/) to make the art for his article so I'm not sure what reaction you expected to receive from him. As insults go, "snot-for-brains" is fairly tame.
Oh so this is what's all about? His post simply says RAeS Aerospace, just out. It doesn't say me, Low Observable and Picarella made this drawing. Had no idea about their connection with RAeS and who they actually are, don't care now really after this. Was all this spectacle necessary then? You could have sorted it if you just deleted my reply and his with an explanatory note.
Last edited:
- Joined
- 27 December 2005
- Messages
- 17,543
- Reaction score
- 24,893
I only just joined the topic ten minutes ago.
It's fair enough that you were unaware of the connection between the poster and the article's author, but why you expected an article by a respected journalist and author in a magazine published by the Royal Aeronautical Society to steal artwork is unclear to me.
Anyway, no harm done to anyone. Read the article, judge for yourself.
It's fair enough that you were unaware of the connection between the poster and the article's author, but why you expected an article by a respected journalist and author in a magazine published by the Royal Aeronautical Society to steal artwork is unclear to me.
Anyway, no harm done to anyone. Read the article, judge for yourself.
Last edited:
- Joined
- 27 December 2005
- Messages
- 17,543
- Reaction score
- 24,893
A lot of authors and journalists are here, many anonymously. Some have 'outed' themselves in previous posts. I would not divulge identities otherwise, but in this case I think it made things clearer.
Thanks for your fair assessment, perhaps better get back to J-36. What i really wanted to post here before seeing that post by LowObservable was that apparently the PL-16 is the PLAAF equivalent of AIM-260/JATM, and apparently is already in service on J-20 (!). So that in itself is major development that is hardly talked about.
- Joined
- 24 November 2008
- Messages
- 1,495
- Reaction score
- 2,286
What's your source of information?
Posters on SDF which in turn took that info from chinese fora.
Chinese air to air missiles
Orca claims that PL-16 has similar configuration to AIM-260. Only problem? It has been in service for a couple years already. https://m.weibo.cn/detail/5138230127363485 Which specific post (text) is that, for the purpose of our record keeping? The part linked: "吹了三年多牛逼呢，造出来一看霹雳16" -- I...
www.sinodefenceforum.com
- Joined
- 27 December 2005
- Messages
- 17,543
- Reaction score
- 24,893
Unconfirmed internet speculation on SDF based on arguing about exact meaning of posts by apparent 'insider' accounts on Chinese sites.
PL-15E compressed carriage version is likely in-service on J-20, but there's no evidence yet to suggest PL-16 is in service, or its capability level. Its apparently going to be wingless, which isn't much of a surprise, and aims to match AIM-260 in capability, which is also not much of a surprise, given PL-15 already matches (or perhaps outmatches on paper at least) latest AIM-120.
Possibly this discussion should be moved to a Chinese AAM topic?
- Joined
- 24 November 2008
- Messages
- 1,495
- Reaction score
- 2,286
Thx for the info!
Feel free to move it, it may be better suited there indeed.
So interesting that when there are news about AIM-260, some fanboys would jump out with creditable rumors
siegecrossbow
I really should change my personal text
- Joined
- 12 March 2012
- Messages
- 658
- Reaction score
- 1,854
Colonial-Marine
UAVs are now friend, drones are the real enemy.
- Joined
- 5 October 2009
- Messages
- 1,453
- Reaction score
- 1,278
Regarding the speculation that the third engine is more about power generation than additional thrust, what would feasibly even require so much power? The only thing that immediately comes to mind is viable laser weaponry, but I'm a bit skeptical that the PLA has made some huge advancement over the rest of the world's developments in that area. I'm not sure what else might require such a drastic leap in requirements for electrical power.
If the requirements are for high performance, like what is desirable for an air-superiority fighter or interceptor, then why what looks like side-by-side seating for the crew? Based on past trends I think that would suggest more of a focus on air-to-ground missions, which normally wouldn't need a third engine for something of this size. Even with large fuel tanks in the wing it would lose a lot of range and endurance compared to something with just two. I suppose theoretically you could shut off that middle engine and only use it when needed, but is that really all that useful?
Question,
Aren't the engines placed far too aft of the airframe on your graphic, at least from judging at where the main landing gear position is. Anecdotally since it seems to have the same exhaust trench layout as the YF-23, i would expect the engines to be much more in the middle of the airframe than at the very back of it.
I'm unsure if I should be moving this conversation to the discussion and speculation thread but I also believe the engines should be buried deeper into the airframe and not possess symmetrical nozzle on top of the asymmetrical nozzle depicted in that graphic not just because of com concerns but also due to the fact that the YF23 also relied on it's large V-tail to block the IR signature from the side of it's exhaust trenches. Due to the tailless configuration this aircraft doesn't have that luxury, by having deeper engines it can have a more sophisticated cooling system in it's trench to make up for that deficiency. I see no point in the engine ending right at the tail.
Weapons bay depth would likely be the main factor. Moving the engines further into the airframe may impact potential depth of the weapons bay and therefore restrict the size of munitions the aircraft would be capable of operating.
It's not just about power generation, but rather power generation, thrust and cooling.
In terms of power generation, it's not just DEW that matters but sensors, EW, processing, automation/AI.
Because the airframe is of such a large size that they are able to fit a side by side seating arrangement which is preferable for allowing both crew to coordinate with each other for commanding drones, commanding friendly manned assets, doing EW, while simultaneously maneuvering and conducting its own engagements as well, supported by further advancing onboard automation.
Putting it another way, in 5-10 years it should be a default assumption for a high end air superiority platform to have high end command/control, EW and AEW capabilities, on top of the usual kinematic maneuvering and ability to engage targets yourself.
Relevant somewhat to this topic regarding the roles of these two aircraft... an opinion from Gen. Wilsbach.
It'll really be easier for everyone just to come around to this already.
www.defenseone.com
It'll really be easier for everyone just to come around to this already.
‘No more viable option than NGAD,’ Air Force says as decision rests in new hands
With China unveiling its new sixth-gen designs, the service can’t do nothing, officials say
www.defenseone.com
sf7pakistan
ACCESS: Restricted
- Joined
- 7 August 2019
- Messages
- 7
- Reaction score
- 29
China’s Sixth-Gen Fighters: Heralding Beijing’s Ambitions for the Future
On the 26th of December 2024, two never-before-seen aircraft took flight in the skies of China. Onlookers gazed in amazement
moderndiplomacy.eu
Here's something me and my friend wrote on these new jets, would be happy to hear you guys' thoughts on the piece
Tomboy
ACCESS: Confidential
- Joined
- 4 January 2025
- Messages
- 78
- Reaction score
- 280
记者提问说起六代机，空军副司令王伟喜悦根本藏不住：你们都看到啦？哈哈哈！_哔哩哔哩_bilibili
记者提问说起六代机，空军副司令王伟喜悦根本藏不住：你们都看到啦？哈哈哈！, 视频播放量 275263、弹幕量 46、点赞数 23262、投硬币枚数 375、收藏人数 1121、转发人数 688, 视频作者 环球网, 作者简介...
Copied this over from an SDF post, would you guys consider this a "official" confirmation on this plane being 6th generation fighter prototypes? Considering this is the Deputy commander of PLAAF talking
siegecrossbow
I really should change my personal text
- Joined
- 12 March 2012
- Messages
- 658
- Reaction score
- 1,854
记者提问说起六代机，空军副司令王伟喜悦根本藏不住：你们都看到啦？哈哈哈！_哔哩哔哩_bilibili
记者提问说起六代机，空军副司令王伟喜悦根本藏不住：你们都看到啦？哈哈哈！, 视频播放量 275263、弹幕量 46、点赞数 23262、投硬币枚数 375、收藏人数 1121、转发人数 688, 视频作者 环球网, 作者简介...www.bilibili.com
Copied this over from an SDF post, would you guys consider this a "official" confirmation on this plane being 6th generation fighter prototypes? Considering this is the Deputy commander of PLAAF talking
Official confirmation of their intent with the design, yes. Unlike the civilian official this one has weight.
- Joined
- 27 December 2005
- Messages
- 17,543
- Reaction score
- 24,893
China’s new sixth-generation aircraft likely for air superiority role: USAF
Sixth-generation aircraft that appeared in the skies over China in December 2024 are likely intended for an air superiority role.
That is the conclusion of the general in charge of the US Air Force’s (USAF’s) fighter fleet, who spoke at an Air & Space Forces Association event in Denver, Colorado on 4 March.
“Those sixth-generation aircraft, we believe, are for air superiority,” said General Kenneth Wilsbach, head of Air Combat Command, which manages the USAF’s fighter, reconnaissance and electronic warfare fleets.
Two previously unknown jet types were seen in-flight in December, with one documented over the western city of Chengdu, home of Chinese fighter developer Chengdu Aerospace Corporation. The Chengdu aircraft’s designation is unknown, but internet pundits have labeled it ‘J-36’.
Source: Chinese Socal Media
The mystery Chinese aircraft labeled ‘J-36’. Two advanced Chinese aircraft were recorded in-flight in December 2024, with both featuring attributes associated with nascent sixth-generation fighter concepts also being developed in the USA
The other, smaller aircraft appeared in the skies over Shenyang. As witht the J-36, it has no official designation, but pundits have labelled it ‘J-50’.
Footage of both appeared on Chinese social media on 26 December 2024. Since that time, no further images or videos have emerged.
Both designs included low-observable features such as a lack of vertical stabilisers, internal weapons bays and blended-wing fuselages. Communist party authorities in Beijing have not officially acknowledged the new jets, nor offered any hints as to their intended purpose.
Little is also known about the actual capability of the two aircraft, other than what can be inferred based on images and video posted to Chinese social media. The larger of the two aircraft featured an unusual triple-engined configuration, with three air intakes and thrust outlets visible, leading to speculation it is meant to be a new deep penetration strike platform.
Source: Chinese Social Media
The mystery aircraft labelled ’J-50’. While Beijing has not formally acknowledged the existence of the two new jets, senior US Air Force leaders believe they are air superiority platforms
Whatever their mission, the appearance of new advanced combat aircraft appears to be weighing on the minds of key figures in Washington, who are awaiting a decision on the future of the USAF’s own sixth-generation development initiative.
That programme, known as Next Generation Air Dominance (NGAD), is currently in limbo as the Trump Administration’s nominee to be the civilian leader of the air force awaits confirmation by the US Senate.
Speaking on 3 March, USAF chief of staff General David Allvin said the new air force secretary will review the programme and decide its future. Former secretary Frank Kendall paused the NGAD development effort in 2024, citing per-aircraft costs that were unacceptably high.
Kendall had described NGAD as “essentially an F-22 replacement”, exactly the type of platform that would be used to counter advanced Chinese aircraft in an Indo-Pacific conflict.
“We have some choices to make as we observe what China has produced,” Wilsbach says. “What are we going to do about it? I don’t believe that nothing is an option.”
Wilsbach, who is rated on the Boeing F-15C, Lockheed Martin F-16C and F-22, and other senior USAF leaders in Denver made the case that Washington still needs to invest in air superiority, despite a wide advantage in fielding fifth-generation aircraft.
“Fiscal constraints do not change what it takes to win,” says Major General Joseph Kunkel, who oversees force design and wargaming for the air force.
“If America doesn’t want to make those investments, then we’ll take more risk,” he adds.
The two officers cite the ongoing war in Ukraine, which both describe as a stalemate, as a cautionary tale for what happens when neither side in a conflict can achieve air superiority.
“If one side had air superiority, the fight would have ended in three days,” Kunkel argues.
Source: Boeing
Conceptual renderings of sixth-generation fighters released by Boeing and Lockheed Martin include features similar to those observed on Chinese designs, such as delta wings and tailless fuselages
Wilsbach notes that although air superiority conjures images of dogfighting and air-to-air combat, what it really means is denying an adversary the ability to manoeuvre troops, resupply forces and conduct naval operations.
“If you don’t have air and space superiority, you will not be able to, or you will have a very difficult time, achieving any of those other objectives,” he says.
Retired Lieutenant General David Deptula, a former F-15C pilot who now manages the Mitchell Institute for Aerospace Studies think tank, notes air superiority is also key to “denying the adversary the ability to conduct an effective defence”.
While stopping just short of outright advocating for a revival of the stalled NGAD fighter, the rhetoric is clearly intended to generate support for the programme, as Donald Trump’s Pentagon moves to cut overall spending and reallocate existing funds within the Department of Defense.
The key decision comes as the top US officer in the Indo-Pacific recently warned that Chinese military forces are now preparing for a campaign to forcibly bring Taiwan under Beijing’s control.
“It’s no longer training, it’s rehearsal,” said Admiral Samuel Paparo at the Honolulu Defense Forum in February.
Other senior officials at that event told FlightGlobal on background that such a campaign would likely begin with a Chinese blockade of the disputed island, at which point Washington would have to decide whether or not to come to Taiwan’s aid.
Such a contingency would put the USAF’s theories on air superiority to the test, with China’s numerically superior and increasingly modern air force seeking to establish dominance over Taiwan’s defenders in the air and on the ground.
China’s new sixth-generation aircraft likely for air superiority role: USAF
The general in charge of the US Air Force's fighter fleet says the Pentagon believes the sixth-generation aircraft seen over China late last year are intended to provide air superiority, as Beijing continues to expand its military readiness.
www.flightglobal.com
Scott Kenny
ACCESS: USAP
- Joined
- 15 May 2023
- Messages
- 10,693
- Reaction score
- 12,562
Oh, right.
The Chengdu plane we've seen photos of showing a 36011 buzz number on the inlet. So calling it the J-36 in the generic or Article 36011 in the specific is reasonable, based on prior examples from the PLAAF. (J10, J20, FC31, J35)
Have we seen any equivalent photos of the Shenyang plane? Anything saying 50011 or whatever?
The Chengdu plane we've seen photos of showing a 36011 buzz number on the inlet. So calling it the J-36 in the generic or Article 36011 in the specific is reasonable, based on prior examples from the PLAAF. (J10, J20, FC31, J35)
Have we seen any equivalent photos of the Shenyang plane? Anything saying 50011 or whatever?
no the term J-50 is made by fanboys and the reasoning I believe is to skip the 40 series as 4 sounds like the word for death in Chinese and is unlucky
Joint Soviet Fighter
ACCESS: Confidential
- Joined
- 14 January 2025
- Messages
- 196
- Reaction score
- 166
With all due respect, these guys are clearly not paying attention. I mean, Ukraine would probably be far better in applying air power in a way that The West understands, yes, but the numbers, both in pilots & planes, were simply never there in order for them to be able do so, & Russia wouldn't know as to what to do with having achieved air supremacy even if that were to eventually occur, as the overall doctrine just isn't there.
These views don't align with the current realities that come with the advent of drones, as you can now have complete air supremacy & still be annihilated by these gnats. Look at Israel - they had total command of the skies from the traditional standpoint over Hezbollah right from the jump & yet only managed to take, ummm, one border village in Lebanon after a month of combat, with fpv drones also inflicting damage in Gaza. Until someone finds a way to completely nullify drones, future wars will likely never be conducted as they evidently still are in these simulations.
Hopefully, these officers are not representative of our military as a whole, as these dudes are two steps behind, at best.
dark sidius
ACCESS: Top Secret
- Joined
- 1 August 2008
- Messages
- 1,133
- Reaction score
- 949
When the new secretary of the Air Force take his fonctions ?China’s new sixth-generation aircraft likely for air superiority role: USAF
The general in charge of the US Air Force's fighter fleet says the Pentagon believes the sixth-generation aircraft seen over China late last year are intended to provide air superiority, as Beijing continues to expand its military readiness.
Similar threads
-
-
Shenyang FC-31 demonstrators / J-35 naval fighter / J-35A land-based version
- Started by Foxglove
- Replies: 949
-
-
-
Chinese test of Fractional Orbital Bombardment System- Started by Flyaway
- Replies: 100