Shenyang / Chengdu 6th Gen Demonstrators?

Fascinating. Three air intakes, wrapped round a central weapons bay (there lines on the fuselage underside between the nose and about where the engines would be), feeding three engines at the rear. The wing reminds me of the FB-22 proposal, and the fuselage reminds me of this British FOA concept, albeit with a third engine fed from the over fuselage intake. To me, it screams long-range, high-speed cruise, strike aircraft - perhaps the JH-XX that US intelligence has referred to?

Something about the cockpit area looks "off" perhaps painted to avoid showing window panels? Unmanned flight without any transparencies installed? It does potentially look wide enough for two crew side-by-side though?
 
Last edited:
3 engines, Caret inlet, two side and one upper intake (independent ducts for each engine), ~20m width with ~21m length and split flaperons.

This thing is clearly meant to fly high, fast and for long durations AND generate lots of power for onboard systems.

Explains why the US felt this sudden need to re-evaluate their programs.

It's a game changer, really...

1000007245.jpg 1000007246.jpg 1000007247.jpg 1000007248.jpg 1000007251.jpg


We also need to emphasize that this tech demonstrator is more along the lines of J-20 2001 than US 6th gen demonstrators (that are more like X-planes than established prototypes.) USAF needs to select a design first.

In this sense, PLA has leaped ahead of the US Military for the first time in history.
 
Last edited:
Obviously the optimization is for supersonic performance. The real question is I haven’t seen clear enough images of the side profile to tell whether there are vertical slabs.
 
Big boy :oops:

What do you think its purpose is? Is this something like F-111 Aardvark or is it more like Mig-31? Or both?
 
siegecrossbow said:
Obviously the optimization is for supersonic performance. The real question is I haven’t seen clear enough images of the side profile to tell whether there are vertical slabs.
Click to expand...

I feel somewhat confident there are no vertical tails/v tails; what we do see are split flaps on the trailing edge, not dissimilar to what is seen on some other flying wing airframes in the world.

1735211446108.png
 
snne said:
3 engines, Caret inlet, two side and one upper intake (independent ducts for each engine), ~20m width with ~21m length and split flaperons.

This thing is clearly meant to fly high, fast and for long durations AND generate lots of power for onboard systems.

Explains why the US felt this sudden need to re-evaluate their programs.

It's a game changer, really...
We also need to emphasize that this tech demonstrator is more along the lines of J-20 2001 than US 6th gen demonstrators (that are more like X-planes than established prototypes.) USAF needs to select a design first.

In this sense, PLA has leaped ahead of the US Military for the first time in history.
Click to expand...
No jumping to conclusions now. NGAD prototypes already flew. It's just that the DoD decided not to reveil them unlike PLA. Saying thay China leaped past US just from a set of photos (and a video) is wild.

kqcke for you said:
Doesn't really seem like 3 engines but it kinda has a vertical tail? Or an very big antenna...View attachment 753658
Click to expand...
kqcke for you said:
View attachment 753661
I know they have them but they are / should be mutch further too the front and in can see the end of the wing. I stand by it but then again the resolution ain't great.
Click to expand...
There's nothing much to stand by. In the picture you've first quoted, the aircraft is banked to the left and the photo is taken slightly from the behind, diagonally facing the aircraft. What you think is a vertical structure is just the ruddervator/split rudder of the starboard wing.
 
Im curious whats going on with the coloring of it, almost looks like some sort of camo scheme but im sure its various primer/exposed surfaces maybe?
 
Blitzo said:
I feel somewhat confident there are no vertical tails/v tails; what we do see are split flaps on the trailing edge, not dissimilar to what is seen on some other flying wing airframes in the world.

View attachment 753673
Click to expand...

In that case the flaps can be used for yaw control. All aspect RCS reduction across radar bands is the focus for this design.

Depending on whether there is TVC the design may actually be more maneuverable than people give it credit for. True it is probably a 40-50 ton monster, but don’t forget that it has three engines.
 
Last edited:
TomcatViP said:
Probably split flaps/ailerons hinged diagonally to raise in their extreem open position and act as rudders.

Notice, I count only 2 engines. Could someone point where they see a 3rd one?
Click to expand...
In between those two is the supposed "third" engine for which the the "extra" air intake on top is. But im with you too me it looks like 2 engines but maybe they have an extra power / cooling unit there.
 
Maro.Kyo said:
No jumping to conclusions now. NGAD prototypes already flew. It's just that the DoD decided not to reveil them unlike PLA. Saying thay China leaped past US just from a set of photos (and a video) is wild.
Click to expand...

I think the real question if one wants to compare this J-XD airframe and the NGAD demonstrator that the DoD said had flown, depends fundamentally on how representative the respective aircraft are/were of the final intended production aircraft.

There are technology demonstrators, and there are "technology demonstrators" after all.
 
What the... is it certain this is real and not some kind of very elaborate hoax? My aviation fanboy jaw is certainly dropped, if this is indeed real, holy mother ...:oops:
 
The image is a bit blurry but is each flap actually a “split flap”? Looks like they open both top and bottom. Could be used as effective air brake despite lack of vertical control surfaces.
 
The straight conclusion b/w the number of intakes and engines is too an hasten one IMOHO.

They can have 2 side inlets for max power situation and the top one for stealthy cruise.
 
Blitzo said:
I think the real question if one wants to compare this J-XD airframe and the NGAD demonstrator that the DoD said had flown, depends fundamentally on how representative the respective aircraft are/were of the final intended production aircraft.

There are technology demonstrators, and there are "technology demonstrators" after all.
Click to expand...
Given US is currently at cusp of EMD contract, that should be equivalent to wrapping up ATF fly off of YF-22 / YF-23 in terms of what stage of development are they at. EMD for F-22 was awarded as its respective flyoff ended. EMD implies both competitors have a final design in mind and are ready to move to full scale development/produciton
 
TomcatViP said:
The straight conclusion b/w the number of intakes and engines is too an hasten one IMOHO.

They can have 2 side inlets for max power situation and the top one for stealthy cruise.
Click to expand...
The extra intake could be for so many things. Airframe cooling, cooling the exhaust or avionics and maybe even boundary layer or air flow control .
 
Sevrent said:
Given US is currently at cusp of EMD contract, that should be equivalent to wrapping up ATF fly off of YF-22 / YF-23 in terms of what stage of development are they at. EMD for F-22 was awarded as its respective flyoff ended. EMD implies both competitors have a final design in mind and are ready to move to full scale development/produciton
Click to expand...

That partly depends on how the NGAD program is structured versus ATF.

Considering much about NGAD remains inconclusive for now (including what the actual recommended airframe it is that they'll go with and how similar it is to the demonstrator that flew in years past), it's all a bit unknown.
 
archipeppe said:
Anyway the main landing gear reminds me really the MiG-31's one....
Click to expand...
I think TSR2 style in line wheels, but on the inside of the gear leg from the few pictures. Probably a fairly straight rotate upwards/forwards.

They need to add a few more trailing edge control segments if they want to beat XB-70 number
 
Blitzo said:
That partly depends on how the NGAD program is structured versus ATF.

Considering much about NGAD remains inconclusive for now (including what the actual recommended airframe it is that they'll go with and how similar it is to the demonstrator that flew in years past), it's all a bit unknown.
Click to expand...
The unknowns are just what the USAF is thinking during the pause but EMD is still EMD. It has a very specific definition/implication in regards to 'what stage of development are we in'. If they award EMD in the coming months after new admin is in, then they must've settled on a finalized design period. If they decide to re haul with a new design then EMD will likely be delayed quite a bit.
 
Someone said this is 3 engine plane which the third engine similar to the italian ARIETE have aa freely switchable engine intake that opens only when extra thrust is required
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom