Shenyang / Chengdu 6th Gen Demonstrators?

Things are looking like they did in 1973 when we first saw the MIG25, and I think it's a good thing to maintain that fear and eagerness because of which we built the F15 and ruled the skies for the next 30 years.
I have to admit that a long history of arrogance has caused us to lose our sense of aw
dark sidius said:
What I was saying ? China is ready for 6th gen, USAF wake up. Like 2010 J-20 was a paper plane , it is time to stop the BLA-BLA-BLA and go full speed in NGAD. One year lost on the NGAD just for no decision good job....
Click to expand...

e
 
Ares said:
Yeah, 2035 is too~ late. GCAP must be battle ready by 2029.
Click to expand...
Are you talking about cartoons of that funny outdated plane that will end flight testing by the time the Chinese have real sixth generation machines in operational use and working on something we can't even dream of today?
 
It's like 1973 when we first saw the Soviet MIG25, and I think it's good to keep that fear and desire alive.
Because of that fear and desire, we built the F15 and dominated the skies for the next half century.
At the same time, it has to be recognized that a long history of arrogance has caused us to lose our sense of awe and enterprise.

These are not the days of blowing up tents in the desert,
dark sidius said:
China win , stop the BLA-BLA-BLA in USAF and go straight on NGAD instead China will be the first power on earth.
Click to expand...

A NEW ERA, TWO SAME EMPIRES represent the times when communism and capitalism respectively are at war in the world, and the time has come for drastic advances in military and civilian technology, just as in the Cold War.
 
4decaa said:
Look at the second photo -> think the B-2 split rudders, but 4 of them, causing the vertical line in the image you provided.

also, any good rear aspect shots? let's figure out how these engines look
Click to expand...

I can't help but wonder if there might also be fluidic controls or flow control effectors somewhere as well... It is hard to imagine high angle-of-attack manoeuvrability while relying only on split rudders and flaperons. I suppose it is possible though.
 
Sevrent said:
PLAAF really dropped this present at the best time as NGAD decision/debate nears its conclusion soon :p

Hopefully lights a fire underneath DoD and congress that this is no time to play around anymore
Click to expand...
And yes waste on time with no decision it make that.
 
what’s gonna happen with that third (dorsal) engine when we get into high AOA? I’m no expert, but might there be some implications with losing 1/3 of your thrust midway through a manouvre?
 
That third engine must be there for a reason other than just extra thrust. I.e. lasers or phasers or whatever we want to call it.
 
BullpupRafale said:
If engines used for it was for example WS-15 without afterburner them 300KN/30 ton force dry thrust.
Click to expand...
Most likely WS-10 here but even then is that much thrust really needed? im so curious, will certainly help with accelerating but idk about top speed. But the fact they decided the extra cost/weight of a third engine was worth it is perplexing. Some say for power generation but 2 is plenty for 1MW+ so that cant be it either.
 
Sevrent said:
PLAAF really dropped this present at the best time as NGAD decision/debate nears its conclusion soon :p

Hopefully lights a fire underneath DoD and congress that this is no time to play around anymore
Click to expand...
Yes they take that in the face now it is time to go in full speed in NGAD,and showing the Skunk Works black programs.
 
So will the americans show theirs ? Now that China plays "i'll show you mine..." Bewildering to see China more open than the americans, China now goes in history as the first power to ever unveil a 6th generation fighter, actually two of them.
 
Last edited:
This might just a dumb theorycraft, but what if instead of going the variable bypass route, they had 2 low bypass turbofans for takeoff/supercruise/manuevering conditions, and one high bypass one optimized for efficient subsonic cruise?
On takeoff/ low speed manuevering, they might be using all 3 simultaneously for maximum power.

Edit: If fww115's picture is the real thing, the middle engine seems to have a rather short intake combined with a sizeable hump, meaning it could indeed be housing a high-bypass turbofan.
 
Last edited:
Sevrent said:
Most likely WS-10 here but even then is that much thrust really needed? im so curious, will certainly help with accelerating but idk about top speed. But the fact they decided the extra cost/weight of a third engine was worth it is perplexing. Some say for power generation but 2 is plenty for 1MW+ so that cant be it either.
Click to expand...
It is probably more about range be it subsonic or supersonic.

If it does not have afterburner section on engines then those are lighter thus perhaps 25 percent less gross weight than those that have it. Often heavily loaded fighter jets use afterburner to have shorter take off distance, but that is very inefficient as it can consume 2.5 times more fuel per generated thrust kilogram for kilogram while actual fuel consumption when taking account increased thrust is 4 times greater per second. Take off with afterburner active for at least a minute could consume amount of fuel that is equivalent in weight of a jet engine.

Mike Pryce said:
Wasn't it someone in Boeing who said 'three engines are the optimum worst' when they first saw this design?

View attachment 753697

Then they built the 727.

What were the arguments/reasons for trijets?
Click to expand...
Issue is not amount of engines as is position of those.

This CAC 6th generation aircraft is being efficient in placement of such.
 
donnage99 said:
Trump likes winning in the shallowest form so I wouldn't doubt he comes in and declassify those prototypes they flew a few years ago.
Click to expand...
We will have to look at his rhetorics last term. There was certainly lots of sensationalist stuff pushed around (SupaBug instead of F-35 etc) but does any of that comes close to unveiling a program of this level of importance?

Also those exhausts nozzle on the CAC design kinda remind me of the X-45. Fluidic TVC anyone?
 
donnage99 said:
Not just 1 but 2 different prototypes. Most likely demonstrators/prototypes from 2 competing companies much like the yf-22 vs yf-23 flyoff.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1872238962649305094
View: https://x.com/OedoSoldier/status/1872238962649305094/photo/1

https://twitter.com/x/status/1872248626933817527
View: https://x.com/OedoSoldier/status/1872248626933817527/photo/1
Click to expand...
CAC's J-XD1 is a 3 engined fighter bomber whereas SAC's J-XD2 is a twin engine " potentially naval-capable" heavy fighter. This competition is more akin to J-20 vs FC-31 than YF-22 vs YF-23.
 
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...
Yeah, and from these photos, one should wonder when we'll get to know if these planes are TDs, or "TDs" as you've put it. Same for NGAD TDs, which we have even less information for. My original point of not jumping to conclusions still stands, and if anything, more prudent than ever.

Mike Pryce said:
Wasn't it someone in Boeing who said 'three engines are the optimum worst' when they first saw this design?

View attachment 753697

Then they built the 727.

What were the arguments/reasons for trijets?
Click to expand...
Those were solely due to ETOPS. As soon as engine and aircraft manufacturers started figuring out how to make a long-haul twin-jet work if a single engine fails they alleviated ETOPS for single engine cruise. From that point on, the likes of B767 significantly harmed the case for trijets. Hence they were the "optimum worst".

yeetmahboi said:
We will have to look at his rhetorics last term. There was certainly lots of sensationalist stuff pushed around (SupaBug instead of F-35 etc) but does any of that comes close to unveiling a program of this level of importance?
Click to expand...
Well, not a programme, but he revealed satellite images of Iraninan launch sites presumably taken by KH on Twitter of all places. Don't underestimate the stupidity of that man.
 
Last edited:
The Raptor uses thrust vectoring for high speed high altitude maneuvering.

The YF-23 used gigantic control surfaces

The J-20 and Eurofighter used long arm canards

How does this jet?
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom