Shenyang / Chengdu "6th Gen" Aircraft - News and Analysis

[NMaude]

When the new secretary of the Air Force take his fonctions ?

Um, wut?

 

[dark sidius]

Um, wut?

The new secretary of the Air Force ? wen he will be confirm ?

 

[Tomboy]

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?

Shenyang plane would likely just be 5000X if it indeed is going to be called J-50, since rumors place it behind Chengdu's progress. Chinese prototype numbers starts at XX001

 

[Scott Kenny]

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

Yeah, I knew that. And they count "40" as "4 tens".

When the new secretary of the Air Force take his fonctions ?

He's got to be confirmed by the Senate first. So whenever that happens, hearings and then a vote.

Shenyang plane would likely just be 5000X if it indeed is going to be called J-50, since rumors place it behind Chengdu's progress. Chinese prototype numbers starts at XX001

There's apparently been a change in how they number things, so it'd likely be XX011. XX01 for first design variation (or prototype/EMD), last digit as serial number inside that variation (So 36011 is the 1st serial of 1st variation of type 36).

 

[Tomboy]

There's apparently been a change in how they number things, so it'd likely be XX011. XX01 for first design variation (or prototype/EMD), last digit as serial number inside that variation (So 36011 is the 1st serial of 1st variation of type 36).

There has been no such evidence so far, every prototypes follows serials starting from 01 from the J-10 1001 onward to J-16, J-11D, J-20, Y-20, Z-20 and even more recent J-35s. The change in how they number thing is very speculative and is mostly based on "No way the Chinese progressed this fast, this have to be the first prototype"

 

[Scott Kenny]

There has been no such evidence so far, every prototypes follows serials starting from 01 from the J-10 1001 onward to J-16, J-11D, J-20, Y-20, Z-20 and even more recent J-35s. The change in how they number thing is very speculative and is mostly based on "No way the Chinese progressed this fast, this have to be the first prototype"

There's also no evidence (satellite photos etc) of the other 10 airframes that would exist if 36011 was the 11th airframe.

 

[minimes]

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.

1st, Hezbollah is a bad example. Israel never intend a full scale invasion more like bluffing.
2nd, Russia lack precision attack ability serious undermined the significance of air supremacy.
What happen when your enemy has air supremacy and good precision attack ability?
The modern war is system vs system, now with drones part the system, the cost of winning the war is much higher than before.
It doesn't mean air supremacy is obsolete.

 

[Tomboy]

There's also no evidence (satellite photos etc) of the other 10 airframes that would exist if 36011 was the 11th airframe.

011 doesn't mean the 11th airframe, it means the first prototype of the second variation of J-36. Think of it as a pre-LRIP prototype. For example, J-20 had only 3 airframes in the ＂0＂ series 2001, 2002 and 2003, 2002 was later renumbered 2004 after some modifications and 2003 was a non flying static testframe. Then came in the J-20 2011 prototype which was the first prototype of the second design revision(＂1＂), there was some major changes from the original ＂0＂ series prototypes and after 4 ＂1＂ series prototypes came the LRIP model of J-20. So you were right about the second number meaning which revision the prototype belongs in, its just that the first revision starts from 0 so 1 would actually be the second revision

Edit: At the very beginning of this thread, there was this satellite picture of a tailless plane at CAC. It is very likely that either was a flying prototype or a static test model belonging to the ＂0＂ series of prototype for J-36.

 

[Deino]

There has been no such evidence so far, every prototypes follows serials starting from 01 from the J-10 1001 onward to J-16, J-11D, J-20, Y-20, Z-20 and even more recent J-35s. The change in how they number thing is very speculative and is mostly based on "No way the Chinese progressed this fast, this have to be the first prototype"

There's also no evidence (satellite photos etc) of the other 10 airframes that would exist if 36011 was the 11th airframe.

Pardon, but it seems this is just based on a flagrant "lack of understanding"!

No-one who knows how the Chinese numbering system works would come to the idea to think there are already 11 airframe!

According to what we know from the J-10, J-15, J-15, J-16 & J-20 series, 36011 stands "most likely" for:

36 = designation aka maybe J-36
0 = just a place holder
1 = number of variant .. in fact a mystery but maybe the sub-scale demonstrator we saw on GE was 36001?
1 = number of prototype!

As such 36011 means most likely the 1st prototype of the 1st revised J-36. It as such is equal to the J-20 prototype "2011"

 

[siegecrossbow]

Maybe 36001 is a scaled demonstrator that we’ve seen on satellite photo back in 2021?

 

[Deino]

Maybe 36001 is a scaled demonstrator that we’ve seen on satellite photo back in 2021?

Exactly my point

 

[Blitzo]

Maybe 36001 is a scaled demonstrator that we’ve seen on satellite photo back in 2021?

There's no reason to think they are necessarily related -- chances are there are a half dozen scaled demonstrators out there that were developed and we only happened to get satellite imagery of one.

Also, going straight to 36011 and not having a 36001 is not too odd either.

 

[CIC-TAO]

RAeS Aerospace, just out.

View attachment 761314

 

[VTOLicious]

Here is my latest 3D guesswork in comparison to the RAeS sketch...

Length: 21,5 m
Wingspan: 22 m
Solid Body Volume: 180 m³
Intake Area (3x): 0,655 m²

Notional IWB is about 21m³, which is about 12% of total aircraft volume (180m³).

 

[SUPER=BUG]

I don't think it's going to be officially announced for at least 4 years

 

[TomcatViP]

So what does that tell us about its mission? Is it a Backfire.cn Or a Tu-128 2.0?

I also see that the RAES assume the supersonic capability per se (naming here the bump of the dorsal inlet a supersonic inlet bump) but, as they have a 3D model in hand, did they try to extract the volume profile along the flight axis to see if there is some supersonic cruise drag reduction in the design?

At this stage, it can as well be as fast as an F-117...

 

[Tomboy]

So what does that tell us about its mission? Is it a Backfire.cn Or a Tu-128 2.0?

Neither, its an air superiority platform by common consensus which also includes the USAF.

 

[Tomboy]

At this stage, it can as well be as fast as an F-117...

This is just complete BS. If its subsonic why would it have caret compression intakes. At this point I'm not sure where is this all coming from, is this cope or what. People just desperately wanting this to be a subsonic bomber or what

 

[TomcatViP]

Not BS, observation. For example, the dorsal inlet is just in the plan of wing area change, where the sweep angle is brutally reduced.
Area rules would have had it one or the other staggered along the linear axis.
Same with the inverse Dela sweep at the trailing edge. Even including the exhaust plume of the said so 3 propulsive engines, it's hard to see how you would not have a recompression volume there inducing drag (see how the F-23 is very differently configured)

 

[siegecrossbow]

So what does that tell us about its mission? Is it a Backfire.cn Or a Tu-128 2.0?

I also see that the RAES assume the supersonic capability per se (naming here the bump of the dorsal inlet a supersonic inlet bump) but, as they have a 3D model in hand, did they try to extract the volume profile along the flight axis to see if there is some supersonic cruise drag reduction in the design?

At this stage, it can as well be as fast as an F-117...

This is literally from last page…

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

 

[Tomboy]

Not BS, observation. For example, the dorsal inlet is just in the plan of wing area change, where the sweep angle is brutally reduced.
Area rules would have had it one or the other staggered along the linear axis.
Same with the reflexes Dela sweep at the trailing edge. Even including the exhaust plume of the said so 3 propulsive engines, it's hard to see how you would not have a recompression volume there inducing drag (see how the F-23 is very differently configured)

No one has even *seen* the exhaust of this thing, neither has anyone seen the full topside of this aircraft at all. So any CGI models made right now is probably wildly off. Also if they wanted a subsonic stealth bomber why bother with this design at all why not just a large flying wing? This aircraft not being perfectly area ruled doesn't mean it cannot fly supersonically, the YF-23 prototype had some compromises with area ruling due to installation of a thrust reverser yet it still can supercruise at M1.8, F-35 is also rather non optimal for area ruling yet it still could supercruise provided it push through the transsonic region with AB.

 

[TomcatViP]

You said it... Wing.

China has a very hard time designing wings for heavy airplanes that can sustain the rigor of flight.

They also want a medium heavy plane with that large of a bomb bay. A flying wing configuration would have resulted in an heavier aircraft - delta are so practical and easier)

 

[Tomboy]

You said it... Wing.

China has a very hard time designing wings for heavy airplanes that can sustain the rigor of flight.

I guess the Y-20, Y-9 and their various modifications is CGI or Chinese propaganda. Damn they've gotten good at misinformation these days.

 

[TomcatViP]

Y-9

Development of the Y-9 may have begun as early as 2002 as the Y-8X program. The program was a collaborative effort with Antonov

Y-20: please make the search by yourself.

 

[siegecrossbow]

At this point I’m not sure if the discussion is serious or sh*tposting…

China’s Stealth CH-7 Long-Endurance Drone Emerges

The large flying-wing CH-7 drone has gone through several iterations but is reportedly due to complete its development imminently. The flying-wing drone has gone through several iterations but is reportedly due to complete its development imminently.

www.twz.com

 

[VTOLicious]

No one has even *seen* the exhaust of this thing, neither has anyone seen the full topside of this aircraft at all. So any CGI models made right now is probably wildly off...

Completely agree, the exact shape, especially the topside, is hard to guess. I think this is the best photo that shows at least a bit of the cockpit and the dorsal inlet...

 

[Nx4eu]

View attachment 762216


View attachment 762217

3x 22,000lbf class engines with limited afterburners ?

This graphic is suggesting the J-36 has less thrust performance than J-20 equipped with 2x WS-15 (35,000lbf Conservative Estimate) And roughly equal to 2x WS-10C engines..

 

[Airborne2001]

View attachment 762216


View attachment 762217

Wow, it's actually in the ball park of the B-21 in terms of size. Interesting.

 

[Nx4eu]

Notional IWB is about 21m³, which is about 12% of total aircraft volume (180m³).

400mm diameter seems quite thick, I think other people have estimated the diameter to be closer to 300mm? For the PL-17

I also don't think 3x PL-15's can fit into the side smaller bays, honestly 2 at most, I've seen many CG's that have been exaggerating the size of the bays. Im going off the assumption that the the J-36 is ~22m long not 26m,.. It only appears to be slightly longer than the J-20 based on the videos, well to me atleast.

 

[Training_Dummy]

Regarding the speculation that the third engine is more about power generation than additional thrust, what would feasibly even require so much power?

Re power: baseline F-35 makes 160kW. NGJ can generate 82kW. So power is critical for arrays.

More importantly might be cooling. An advanced cooling system might be vital to enable long range track quality non radar sensors.

 

[Nx4eu]

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?

The nose of the aircraft looks humongous, especially with side by side seating the aircraft is really wide at the front. I estimate the main radar could possibly have ~3400 transmit receive modules. The side Arrays appear to be twice as large in area compared to the side arrays equipped on the SU-57's nose. That could potentially be another ~850+ more modules on each side maybe even more considering it is likely much more advanced than the SU-57 in radar technology. This could in theory total to over 5,000 transmit receive modules on the nose of the aircraft, THAT alone would require a lot of cooling power, this is just based off what can be seen off the airframe currently, packing in AI computing power and other technologies that can't be seen could realistically draw even more power. So even without any DEW it's definitely plausible there is such a high energy demand on this airframe.

 

[Blitzo]

So what does that tell us about its mission? Is it a Backfire.cn Or a Tu-128 2.0?

I also see that the RAES assume the supersonic capability per se (naming here the bump of the dorsal inlet a supersonic inlet bump) but, as they have a 3D model in hand, did they try to extract the volume profile along the flight axis to see if there is some supersonic cruise drag reduction in the design?

At this stage, it can as well be as fast as an F-117...

Think of it as the big long range, premium cost NGAD but emerging before that version of NGAD does -- in the same way that J-16 is like F-15EX but which emerged before F-15EX did.

It'll really be easier for your own psyche in the next 10-15 years if you just speedrun the stages of grief now rather than later, rip the bandaid off in one go.

 

[siegecrossbow]

View attachment 762216


View attachment 762217

Not to comment too much on a lot of other speculative points but the nozzles are wrong. They don’t have round nozzles jutting out above the flaps.

 

[Elysium]

Think of it as the big long range, premium cost NGAD but emerging before that version of NGAD does -- in the same way that J-16 is like F-15EX but which emerged before F-15EX did.

It'll really be easier for your own psyche in the next 10-15 years if you just speedrun the stages of grief now rather than later, rip the bandaid off in one go.

Genuine question - is there any concrete source of how Chinese sensors/electronics stack up the US ones - for example you mentioned the J-16 is roughy equivalent to the F15EX. Is there any source on what kinds of sensors the two aircraft have/don't have and what the performance of said sensors are? It doesn't have to be complete, but as far as I know, there's zero actual info in the open about the capabilities of Chinese tech in particular, all of it is conjecture and speculation. That said, I'm not the most well read on the subject, so perhaps you're aware of some sources?

 

[FighterJock]

It will be interesting to see what type of advanced avionics the J-36 will have compared to the Fifth generation fighters currently in service in the PLAAF and PLAN.

 

[paralay]

J-50

 

[FighterJock]

Interesting to see a rotary missile launcher in the J-50 paralay, where is the second bays for the short range missiles or do you think that it will have a single weapons bay just like the J-35.

 

[paralay]

I'll try to arrange the air intake channels - then it will be clear where the short-range missiles are

 

[Blitzo]

Genuine question - is there any concrete source of how Chinese sensors/electronics stack up the US ones - for example you mentioned the J-16 is roughy equivalent to the F15EX. Is there any source on what kinds of sensors the two aircraft have/don't have and what the performance of said sensors are? It doesn't have to be complete, but as far as I know, there's zero actual info in the open about the capabilities of Chinese tech in particular, all of it is conjecture and speculation. That said, I'm not the most well read on the subject, so perhaps you're aware of some sources?

"Concrete source" is the operative word phrase here.

The information that is from would not be something that would be accepted by a thinktank publication or deemed a worthy citation for a wikipedia article, either because the prerequisite assumptions and knowledge base just doesn't exist in "formal literature" or "established media" or because some information is simply too recent (think only existing within the last 5 or so years) and being RF data would not be shared publicly to begin with.


The flip side of the question also exists -- beyond the brochures and marketing, we generally don't know accurate details of the important metrics for contemporary US or European or Russian subsystems and electronics either.

 

[stealthflanker]

The flip side of the question also exists -- beyond the brochures and marketing, we generally don't know accurate details of the important metrics for contemporary US or European or Russian subsystems and electronics either.

Yeah. Information and technical one especially is hard to find on US system. Russians might be more generous but as soon as one trying to compare figure with US.. they will found nothing on the figure mentioned in Russian system. Making "1:1" comparison impossible.


One can then do research or do his own modeling and establishing a baseline based on his own research... He/she will quickly run into a problem of getting others to understand or even agree to the baseline due to some weird emotional related response when the modeling shows something different than what one believes, even the figure he/she believes doesnt really exist in the open source in the first place. Frustrating the other side who actually spend the effort.