Shenyang / Chengdu 6th Gen Demonstrators?

Scar said:
IMO it's a bomber.
Click to expand...
Carrier hunter. Supersonic to the area, physically close off the 2 lower intakes for stealth, bumble around subsonic on the top engine only, then call in its mates with enough missiles to defeat the VLS of the carrier fleet.
 
F-2 said:
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?
Click to expand...
When considering, No-VT/HT, Upper-Inlet position, and its massive size, I would bet on it would not go to hand-to-hand combat
 
IMHO.

This aircraft seems to have very long weapon bay, so I think it carry PL-17, very long AAM for sniping US high value air asset, and chinise version of SiAW for sniping US high value surface asset.

Also, its massive size means Chinise now want those things near Guam.

(combination of much powerful version of J-20 and Stealth JH-7)
 
litzj said:
When considering, No-VT/HT, Upper-Inlet position, and its massive size, I would bet on it would not go to hand-to-hand combat
Click to expand...
It’s not just for close in though. At 40000ft/12000m an F-15 sustains 3.6G, a Eurofighter with its canards can do 4G in the same conditions. That has huge implications for BVR. I don’t think this is likely a fighter.
 
F-2 said:
It’s not just for close in though. At 40000ft/12000m an F-15 sustains 3.6G, a Eurofighter with its canards can do 4G in the same conditions. That has huge implications for BVR. I don’t think this is likely a fighter.
Click to expand...
if it act like MiG-31, it does not have to
 
The fact that the USAF cannot run a half-way decent fighter program does not prevent China from doing so.

The CAC design is what everybody with half a brain has been demanding for at least a decade: a F-111 sized air-superiority / strike aircraft designed for the Pacific Theater. China has better basing options than the US, so can choose a more conventional design, but the three engine choice is very intriguing.

A historical note, the MIG-25 crisis had a MIG-25 fly about a year before the F-15. Unlike then, there is no sign of any USAF program that'll produce a first-flight next year, or three years from now. America's social/industrial/technological situation is completely different and we cannot make any comparison between then and now.
 
Arjen said:
Ahem. Not every military aircraft is a fighter. In the same way that not every military ship is a battleship.
Click to expand...
So, Chengdu is developing a tactical bomber, and SAC is developing an air superiority/multi-role fighter. Is that correct?
 
Nart said:
So, Chengdu is developing a tactical bomber, and SAC is developing an air superiority/multi-role fighter. Is that correct?
Click to expand...
We do not know.

For all we know CAC is making stealthy missile carrier for PL-17 LRAAM's that could carry four of them and hit AWACS and aerial fuel tankers from few hundred kilometers away.
 
Nart said:
So, Chengdu is developing a tactical bomber, and SAC is developing an air superiority/multi-role fighter. Is that correct?
Click to expand...
As BullpupRafale wrote:
BullpupRafale said:
We do not know.
Click to expand...
Many years ago, I admonished the other kids that not every jet overhead was a Starfighter. I feel quite young again, now.
 
Elysium said:
Looking at the size of the Shenyang version, even if it's a bit smaller, there's no way it would fit onto any existing carrier's elevator.
Click to expand...
No one ever said it was made for carrier operation.

No one ever considered that, aside from you.
 
To me this looks like 2 separate programs. One long range fighter/strike aircraft, the other a fighter. I wonder if the third engine is different from the other 2. High efficiency hence the top intake since it is not meant to operate at high aoa; then the other 2 for maneuvering with lower intake. This kinda leaves Russia so behind; they only have the su-57; china already has shown a lot of new designs.
 
Nart said:
So, Chengdu is developing a tactical bomber, and SAC is developing an air superiority/multi-role fighter. Is that correct?
Click to expand...
I don't think term bomber is applicable, when it is understood to be antiair platform first; it deserves a new term.

It isn't interceptor, it isn't defensive counter air bird, even if it probably will be excellent at it.
I am not sure it counts as a fighter in traditional sense; it is rather unlikely this is intended to fight up close.
it's almost reliably a multipurpose aircraft - similar to larger PCA.

Destroyer or maybe cruiser is a better term?


Shenyang aircraft will probably be positioned as a direct flanker replacement?
 
Ainen said:
I don't think term bomber is applicable, it deserves a new term.

It isn't interceptor, it isn't defensive counter air bird, even if it probably will be excellent at it.
I am not sure it counts as a fighter in traditional sense; it is rather unlikely this is intended to fight up close.
it's almost reliably a multipurpose aircraft - similar to larger PCA.

Destroyer or maybe cruiser is a better term?
Click to expand...
Fightercruiser (shamelessly borrowed from the Jachtkruiser Fokker G1 of WW2 fame)
 
Mike Pryce said:
https://twitter.com/x/status/1872278065432473782
View: https://x.com/MichaelJPryce/status/1872278065432473782
Click to expand...
I'm far from convinced as they have much lower fineness ratio and definely non-optimal area ruling. I would not expect great supersonic performance - possibly needed to add the third engine to get sufficient thrust? I also really doubt long range - with those intake ducts and engines and payload bay then I'd think fuel fraction would be low simply from running out of volume.

To me then these say TDPs - wonder whether they are demonstrating anything other than a "medium fineness" tailless configuration, like X-36 did back in the 90s
 
lancer21 said:
Fightercruiser (shamelessly borrowed from the Jachtkruiser Fokker G1 of WW2 fame)
Click to expand...
Hi! For me, the term that best applies to these sixth-generation fighters is "Predator." I always imagined something like this when it began to be said a few years ago that the new designs would not have tails. Whenever I uploaded one of my models, I was showered with messages saying how they are going to fight another plane if they do not have tails. And I always responded that for me they would not be fighters, but "predators" like the ones in the movies: they would destroy their enemy without the enemy knowing when the shot came, "predating" everything in their path. Even the evaluation of the B-21 as a fighter suggests this idea. China seems to have achieved what the United States is delaying in deciding: doing something completely new, introducing a new category of aircraft beyond the new generation. At least that is my humble opinion.
 
Looking at the SAC bird, it really does not look that much bigger compared to the J-11 chasing it. Which reinforces the theory that it might be aimed at PLANAF (either primarily or as well as PLAAF) as a J-15 replacement.
 
I’m of the opinion that thinking of this aircraft in line with traditional fighter aircraft is not the correct approach. It may very well fill a niche not current aircraft occupies. Maybe that is what constitutes as a generational difference?
 
Looking at the size I think this is a strike fighter, analogous to the b-21 but faster. Might be more like a modern tu-22 design. What are the shinny windows on the side? Sensor windows? Side radars? Or actual windows?
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom