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

naoseidenada said:
not even the plane´s shadow over the road.
Click to expand...

TomcatViP said:
Very much that.
Click to expand...


The camera is tracking the movement of the aircraft in its frame, so obviously its shadow will be projected forwards/ahead relative to the aircraft itself (and thus out of frame) when one looks at the angle of the shadows cast by other objects like trees, cars etc.


It's truly bizarre that some of you actually think that the video is... not real, or CGI or AI generated, considering:
- geolocation of the road and airfield is already done and entirely consistent with what we know of the CAC factory/airfield and surrounding highway
- the footage itself does not have any obvious oddities; the aircraft and its control surfaces looks entirely consistent with what we know of it, and its landing profile/final approach looks exactly as one would expect for that airfield

The hypothesis that it is not genuine footage, implies that you think someone took substantial effort to drive along the highway next to CAC's factory and... doctor in a highly convincing CGI J-36 landing at the airfield, in footage where the moving footage of the aircraft in movement taken from a car in movement looks exactly how we would expect it to look, for the purpose of... showing off the aircraft landing at its usual airfield (which we know it would've had to do four times already anyway considering it's had four test flights up to this point that we know of)... all while that is not a particularly impressive or dramatic achievement?


I suppose one could make the case that the footage itself looks somewhat dramatic or impressive, but really it's showing something that is utterly pedestrian and arguably unimpressive at this point. It just seems impressive or odd to us because we haven't seen it before, but it's literally just the aircraft on final approach.
 
With how smoggy it is the lighting may be so diffuse that shadows are significantly weakened for anything not immediate to the ground. Interactions between the subject and occluding trees seems convincing to me that this is not CGI.
 
I hope we got top angle photo of Shenyang J-XX soon, and I guess better view of air intake? That should allow fan to make good model like they did with Chengdu J-XX.
 
J36's video isn't fake, the only thing that makes us feel less real may be his huge body... Honestly, this fighter is probably bigger than any of us thought····· Even the pilots in the cockpit looked small
 
SUPER=BUG said:
J36's video isn't fake, the only thing that makes us feel less real may be his huge body... Honestly, this fighter is probably bigger than any of us thought····· Even the pilots in the cockpit looked small
Click to expand...
I would not be surprised if it was over 105klbs/50 tonnes. That's the kind of size I was getting out of the published USAF NGAD requirements.
 
Based on the most recent images, I wanted to make my own sketch of the Shenyang aircraft, and it's possible weapons bay configuration. In my opinion, at best it would have a weapons bay only marginally longer than the J-20. Which I have marked in yellow. The perspective was weird to work with but I think I've got something decently sketched up. IMG_0539.jpg
Edit: The cockpit area looks goofy but there's no information on how that would look other than the peak being in front of the nose wheel so that's the best i've got.
 
Nx4eu said:
Based on the most recent images, I wanted to make my own sketch of the Shenyang aircraft, and it's possible weapons bay configuration. In my opinion, at best it would have a weapons bay only marginally longer than the J-20. Which I have marked in yellow. The perspective was weird to work with but I think I've got something decently sketched up. View attachment 766454
Edit: The cockpit area looks goofy but there's no information on how that would look other than the peak being in front of the nose wheel so that's the best i've got.
Click to expand...
Tip: Its mobile wing tip section should be parallel to the plane itself.There are public papers that can support this point(Careful observation of the wing tip in the photo can also reveal).I hope it will be helpful for your drawing. : ) 1744431978188.png
 
KJL-10B said:
Tip: Its mobile wing tip section should be parallel to the plane itself.There are public papers that can support this point(Careful observation of the wing tip in the photo can also reveal).I hope it will be helpful for your drawing. : )View attachment 766475
Click to expand...
Thank you, even the photo I used as the reference has this parallel wing tip. I must've brushed over it when I was drawing the wing tips. I was far too focused on the weird intake/belly configuration. I will hopefully make my own 3d model as well when I get more time. I also do understand that the tail is also drawn a bit off, that will be fixed as well. 1744434395355.png
 
Nx4eu said:
Based on the most recent images, I wanted to make my own sketch of the Shenyang aircraft, and it's possible weapons bay configuration. In my opinion, at best it would have a weapons bay only marginally longer than the J-20. Which I have marked in yellow. The perspective was weird to work with but I think I've got something decently sketched up. View attachment 766454
Edit: The cockpit area looks goofy but there's no information on how that would look other than the peak being in front of the nose wheel so that's the best i've got.
Click to expand...
The wingtips and nozzles look a tad bit too small IMO (since the reference photo was taken from an angle) and I wonder if the IWB doors are a part of the groove so that one or two PL-17s can fit in the centerline.

But I think you're somewhat right that the separation line (? how else can I call it) between the wing and the wingtip goes inwards a bit before becoming parallel (I think the reference photo does show it), akin to how the J-20's intake outline cants inwards a bit to hide the gap between the canards and the fuselage.
1744445004949.jpeg
 
Alfa_Particle said:
The wingtips and nozzles look a tad bit too small IMO (since the reference photo was taken from an angle) and I wonder if the IWB doors are a part of the groove so that one or two PL-17s can fit in the centerline.

But I think you're somewhat right that the separation line (? how else can I call it) between the wing and the wingtip goes inwards a bit before becoming parallel (I think the reference photo does show it), akin to how the J-20's intake outline cants inwards a bit to hide the gap between the canards and the fuselage.
View attachment 766487
Click to expand...
I agree the nozzles are drawn a bit too small. I personally disagree with the notion of a centerline weapons bay in the groove. Placing a weapons bay in a groove not only is volume inefficient but it also complicates weapon release, and is potentially more dangerous. Secondly I don't believe that doctrinally the J-XDS carrying VLRAAM like PL-17 makes sense, that job is relinquished to it's bigger partner, the J-36. I believe the Shenyang aircraft has a groove due to a structural decision in the airframe and the how it relates to the weapons bay. The shape is of the two sections are very rectangular, design wise, it's almost completely obvious that it has two large weapons bay on each duct structure, especially when you compare the rectangular structure to 5th generation bays that are very rectangular like the F-22, J-20, and J-35. I personally suspect that these two bays while not significantly longer than the ones present on the J-20, are much deeper. Which relates back to my structural point in the beginning. I also believe that the groove serves some aerodynamic purposes, but that's my theory on the distinct design feature.

Edit: I know the Su-57 has a some kind of groove like weapons bay in-between the two engines, I don't believe it's a equal comparison with what's shown here. The gap on the airframe is very small compared to the Su-57, the nacelle design also in my opinion strongly points to weapons bays being in the red locations, this is very different than what is present on the Su-57.

1744451972311.png
1744451990208.png
1744452046560.png
 
Last edited:
Nx4eu said:
I agree the nozzles are drawn a bit too small. I personally disagree with the notion of a centerline weapons bay in the groove. Placing a weapons bay in a groove not only is volume inefficient but it also complicates weapon release, and is potentially more dangerous. Secondly I don't believe that doctrinally the J-XDS carrying VLRAAM like PL-17 makes sense, that job is relinquished to it's bigger partner, the J-36. I believe the Shenyang aircraft has a groove due to a structural decision in the airframe and the how it relates to the weapons bay. The shape is of the two sections are very rectangular, design wise, it's almost completely obvious that it has two large weapons bay on each duct structure, especially when you compare the rectangular structure to 5th generation bays that are very rectangular like the F-22, J-20, and J-35. I personally suspect that these two bays while not significantly longer than the ones present on the J-20, are much deeper. Which relates back to my structural point in the beginning. I also believe that the groove serves some aerodynamic purposes, but that's my theory on the distinct design feature.

Edit: I know the Su-57 has a some kind of groove like weapons bay in-between the two engines, I don't believe it's a equal comparison with what's shown here. The gap on the airframe is very small compared to the Su-57, the nacelle design also in my opinion strongly points to weapons bays being in the red locations, this is very different than what is present on the Su-57.

View attachment 766494
View attachment 766495
View attachment 766496
Click to expand...
I don't think you're getting what I'm trying to get across. I'm not trying to say an individual centreline IWB exists, but rather it as a part of the main IWB. So not a conventional, completely rectangular IWB. The sides are still around the length of the J-20/35's IWB, only the centre part being slightly longer (and deeper relative to the other parts of the IWB to compensate for the groove), kinda like the Chinese character "中". So the IWB doors split at the centreline of the groove but as part of the groove structure when closed.

Like this (obviously, length, shape, serrations isn't accurate but you get the general idea. It could also just purely extend out from the back and uniform at the front but that might take up some engine bay space):
IMG_20250412_224912.jpg
The red outlines are a whole piece (obviously splitting from the middle and hinging on either side's IWB part-door like the ones on the F-22/J-20/35 except just longer in the middle).

Carrying and lobbing multiple PL-17s obviously isn't its main job, but I think it makes sense doctrinally for it to carry just one or two of them to enhance its air superiority capabilities.
 
Last edited:
as far i know, 4 test flights have been performed by the j-36. Any news if they´re planning more flights soon?
 
Nx4eu said:
Based on the most recent images, I wanted to make my own sketch of the Shenyang aircraft, and it's possible weapons bay configuration. In my opinion, at best it would have a weapons bay only marginally longer than the J-20. Which I have marked in yellow. The perspective was weird to work with but I think I've got something decently sketched up. View attachment 766454
Edit: The cockpit area looks goofy but there's no information on how that would look other than the peak being in front of the nose wheel so that's the best i've got.
Click to expand...
Both your drawing and Paralay's look a bit short and 'fat' to me?

1744434395355.png
 
Jackonicko said:
Both your drawing and Paralay's look a bit short and 'fat' to me?

View attachment 766599
Click to expand...
I think it's just a general scaling what the perceived known sizes are like I think I drew the wheels too big. The fuselage probably looks a bit fat from the bottom view because the sides are angled so on a projected bottom view they make the entire fuselage a lot fatter, but in a 3D perspective it doesn't seem to add much width.
 
The absence of a vertical fin with a nose intake is disconcerting.
That configuration aggravates yaw stability problems.
 
Belly shots from SDF.
IMG_20250415_195605.jpg 1000166531.jpg 1000166530.jpg

Edit: One thing I can note is that this thing probably utilises supercirculation lift pretty darn effectively like the Raptor.

The flat rectangular vectoring exhausts seemingly sit only a few percent of chord behind the wing’s trailing edge. That tight chordwise offset is ideal for circulation control. Any high‑energy flow issuing from those nozzles (especially when deflecting) can more readily re‑energize the boundary layer over the flap/wing junction and “wrap” around the wing’s bound vortex. Pretty sure that's how it works on the Raptor, except it has the nozzles beyond the trailing edge and this has the nozzles behind.
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom