Shenyang / Chengdu 6th Gen Demonstrators?

4decaa said:
I don’t believe this is a bomber/JH-XX: why not place all of the inlets on the top, and call it a day? Why include as many control surfaces and powerful enough actuators to enable (some) BFM maneuvers?
Click to expand...
Could the top intake be for the middle engine? A more advanced engine might still be in development and the third engine will only be used for the demonstrator? I don't think this is likely as it would require a redesign of the internal structures and would likely negate whatever data that was gathered in the test program.

This thing should be nicknamed Mothra.
 
And another one

www.twz.com

Yes, China Just Flew Another Tailless Next-Generation Stealth Combat Aircraft

In less than 24 hours, two previously unseen Chinese advanced combat jet designs have broken cover and both are already undergoing flight testing. In less than 24 hours, two previously unseen Chinese advanced combat jet designs have broken cover and both are already undergoing flight testing.
www.twz.com www.twz.com
 
Huitong's take

Chinese Military Aviation

China Air Force
chinese-military-aviation.blogspot.com chinese-military-aviation.blogspot.com
The J-36 #36001 (?) prototype/technology demonstrator was photographed over Chengdu during its maiden flight on December 26, 2024. It was first rumored in late 2018 that the 611 Institute had started to develop key technologies for the 6th generation fighter which was expected to enter the service in late 2020s. A satellite image released in October 2021 suggested a full-scale mockup of a technology demonstrator had been built at CAC, showing a tailless diamond wing configuration. As one of the first 6th generation stealth moltirole fighters to have successfully flown, J-36 features a unique "tri-engine" configuration with two Caret engine intakes located underneath the wings and a third dorsal DSI intake behind the cockpit. The engines were speculated to be three WS-15 turbofans, with their exhausts shielded by the trailing edge underneath to reduce the IR signature. There was also a rumor that the #3 engine in the middle could be a TBCC engine but this has not been confirmed. Nevertheless J-36 is thought to be capable of not only super-cruise, but also flying at a maximum speed beyond Mach 2 with all three engines in full afterburning. The aircraft also features a sharp tailless diamond wing configuration with two LEXes extended all the way to the nose, without any vertical or horizontal stabilizers. This suggests that J-36's aerodynamics has been optimized not only for reducing RCS, but also for high speed flight. Consequently J-36 is believed to utilize an advanced digital flight control system with complicated control surfaces along the trailing edges of the diamond wings, including four pairs of split drag rudders at the wingtips and two large main landing gear doors in order to maintain stability at a low speed during landing. Two EOTS windows can be seen on both sides of the nose. Compared to the chasing J-20S during the maiden flight, J-36 appears to be a large and heavy aircraft with ample internal space for fuel and weapons, as suggested by its twin nose wheels and tandem main wheels. One large and two small internal weapons bays are arranged side-by-side between the main landing gear compartments, which could house a variety of air-to-air and air-to-surface weapons including PL-17 VLRAAMs or KF-98A standoff cruise missiles. Consequently it is expected to fly different missions as a long-range interceptor or as a high-speed strike aircraft penetrating deep into the enemy air space. The emergence of J-36 represents China's ambition to gain air dominance over the western Pacific, which is likely to tip the balance in the reginal air powers.
Click to expand...
 
So China has flown a 6th gen tactical bomber/medium attack aircraft and now a 6th gen fighter aircraft and the US is debating what to do or which way to go even though we apparently flew a 6th gen fighter demonstrator some time ago. Now if we are smart (the US), we will keep ours under wraps if ours is moving forward at all and at this point, I don't know.

What is very interesting in regards to China is that whenever and I mean the US primarily comes out with any type of advanced concepts, China seems to say, hey that's looks good to me so let's build one. I hate to say this but I think our good 'ole USG has been setting us up for conflict with China for some time and also to justify that now, we need to rapidly build up to counter the Chinese threat, primarily AF and Naval. Now the complete lapse in F-35 security, no, this had to have been intentional, no B-21 leaks to date that we know of. I hate bash my own country, but dam!

Let the games begin!
 
How do we know the US didn't already know about this ?
Also, everyone's shouting "SHOW US THE NGAD DESIGNS !!!", I would put money on that being the reason behind the Chinese reveal, trying to get the US to show their hand. If it were me, that would be the LAST thing I would do, keep 'em guessing . . .
Also, could this be why Muskie said the F-35 was obsolete ?
Also also, and OT, but wasn't the 'the optimum worst' quote made about the 737 design that had two engines under the wings, like a Tristar or DC-10, because the system runs were spread out all over the airframe, rather than concentrated in the tail . . .

cheers,
Robin.
 
snne said:
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.
Click to expand...
Yes. Certainly a possibility. Or it could be that requirement didn't dictate the number of engines but rather range and speed whatever way you get there. 1 company chooses 3 engines divided into 2 optimizations (efficient cruise low IR signature and high supercruise), the other goes for riskier adaptive cycle engine tech that make 2 engines
 
overscan (PaulMM) said:
Huitong's take

Chinese Military Aviation

China Air Force
chinese-military-aviation.blogspot.com chinese-military-aviation.blogspot.com
Click to expand...
Is J-36 confirmed as its name?
robunos said:
How do we know the US didn't already know about this ?
Also, everyone's shouting "SHOW US THE NGAD DESIGNS !!!", I would put money on that being the reason behind the Chinese reveal, trying to get the US to show their hand. If it were me, that would be the LAST thing I would do, keep 'em guessing . . .
Also, could this be why Muskie said the F-35 was obsolete ?
Also also, and OT, but wasn't the 'the optimum worst' quote made about the 737 design that had two engines under the wings, like a Tristar or DC-10, because the system runs were spread out all over the airframe, rather than concentrated in the tail . . .

cheers,
Robin.
Click to expand...
Or its to send the incoming administration a message on Maos 131st birthday.
 
My 3 cents:
1) What if 3rd inlet is in fact for energy weapon - cooling and energy generator based on smaller jet engine ? Looking from the bottom there is no 3rd exhaust structure.
2) They are flying them at the end of the year because of some 5 year plan coming to the end and rewards that will be paid for meeting the deadlines.
3) What if they want to provoke USA to invest into manned NGAD by putting pressure on manned platform (via showing them) when in fact they already know unmanned CCA is winning move?
 
Hydroman said:
Now if we are smart (the US), we will keep ours under wraps if ours is moving forward at all and at this point, I don't know.
Click to expand...
If the US has carried out extensive flight testing, it's very likely China has much more photographic evidence from recon sats, than what could be gained from a simple public photo op. In this case there would be very little tactical advantage of keeping it secret.
 
Hanz2k said:
My 3 cents:
1) What if 3rd inlet is in fact for energy weapon - cooling and energy generator based on smaller jet engine ? Looking from the bottom there is no 3rd exhaust structure.
2) They are flying them at the end of the year because of some 5 year plan coming to the end and rewards that will be paid for meeting the deadlines.
3) What if they want to provoke USA to invest into manned NGAD by putting pressure on manned platform (via showing them) when in fact they already know unmanned CCA is winning move?
Click to expand...
CCa is a bullshit it will be unable to match the Chinese 6 th gen Demonstrators type, you cant win with slow subsonic drones in face of powerfull supersonic manned fighter.
 
I'm kinda puzzled by the existence of the Shenyang design, since it seems to occupy the same niche as the J-20 (heavy stealth fighter). A couple of explanations I have:
  • Tech development. The J-20's design was probably frozen in the late 2000s, back when Chinese technology was way behind the West, it's possible the all the advancements are impossible to retrofit.
  • Simple competition. Shenyang is a rival corporation, it's free to compete with Chengdu. The fact that it hasn't received an actual J designation (that we know of), might mean that this is just a tech demonstrator made out of Shenyangs initative, and not commissioned by the military and won't necessarily enter service in this form just yet, if at all
  • It serves a somewhat different niche to the J-20 (some people mentioned naval usage)
 
dark sidius said:
CCa is a bullshit it will be unable to match the Chinese 6 th gen Demonstrators type, you cant win with slow subsonic drones in face of powerfull supersonic manned fighter.
Click to expand...
Yeah the idea of cheap wingman drones have sounded iffy to me. A lot actual US and NATO experts have said the natural evolution of aircraft sensors mean each aircraft can see a larger area of airspace, and in order to actually control said airspace, longer range missiles are needed, which mean bigger aircraft to carry them. The physical design of GCAP reflects this.
Additionally, to take advantage of datalink sharing between aircraft radars, the planes need to fly tens or a hundred mile apart, so that their radar bubbles don't overlap. And whether robust and stealthy datalinks can be maintained against a peer adversary with high-end EW capabilities is also an open question.
 
dark sidius said:
CCa is a bullshit it will be unable to match the Chinese 6 th gen Demonstrators type,
Click to expand...
Can you transfer your imaginary conversation with USAF leaders on some other platform? You saw three photos and video of SAC fighter demonstrator, and you already have concluded it overmatch _exactly what_? NGAD FoS? NGAD manned component? What do you know of what have it represented at NGAD demo stage and what it could be in future?
 
paralay said:
wing area 95 m2
volume 75 m3
volume of weapon bay 16.3 m3 (20%)
3 RD-33 x 9500 kgf = 28500 kgf
maximum take-off weight 45 tons

the most likely role is a front-line bomber, an analogue of the Su-34
Click to expand...

Agree; would be in line with predictions of JH-XX. Thought would not preclude a long range A2A role - something like the USAF/USN F-111 concept with both machines rolled into one, since avionics can easily support both roles now.

Disagree on engines; I thing the dorsal mount is a different model from the two side engines. Personal wild ass guess is that the three engines is a range extension measure to duplicate advanced three stream designs being developed in the US. The central engine differs and is perhaps for fuel efficient subsonic cruising by itself (I realize several others have the same thought in previous posts; just reiterating).

The target set is perplexing - 2nd island chain/CSGs? It’s overkill for first island targets and clearly not strategic ranged either. Definitively not a fighter in any traditional sense of the word, but it might still have a secondary long range A2A role against multi engine support aircraft.
 
B2Blain said:
Could the top intake be for the middle engine? A more advanced engine might still be in development and the third engine will only be used for the demonstrator? I don't think this is likely as it would require a redesign of the internal structures and would likely negate whatever data that was gathered in the test program.

This thing should be nicknamed Mothra.
Click to expand...

I thought about that; what if the use of a third engine is just a developmental step? But I cannot see anyone developing an entire airframe around three engines just to redesign it around two at a latter date. That’s a really extreme change that I think is unprecedented, even for what is already a rather unconventional platform.
 
Not a fighter but more a Jh-7 successor.
Also the large delta is probably more for stealth and yaw control than speed as alleged here and there.
If speed was the goal, the dorsal intake would be rather different.
See also the petal ailevons for various actions (yaw pitch and roll) at once.
 
Last edited:
Elysium said:
If the US has carried out extensive flight testing, it's very likely China has much more photographic evidence from recon sats, than what could be gained from a simple public photo op. In this case there would be very little tactical advantage of keeping it secret.
Click to expand...
If that was the case then their should be lots of images from non-Chinese, Nevada test site observers. They know when the recon satellites are going to flyover. The US has done a lot of extensive flight testing for years with no major leaks, just speculations which could not be verified.
 
but all combat aircraft are built from compromises?
wheres that fun cartoon about what planes would look like if every department got their own way again
 
Is this thread being serious it's a 6th gen or we are being sarcastic here trading laughs?
 
Hanz2k said:
My 3 cents:
1) What if 3rd inlet is in fact for energy weapon - cooling and energy generator based on smaller jet engine ? Looking from the bottom there is no 3rd exhaust structure.
2) They are flying them at the end of the year because of some 5 year plan coming to the end and rewards that will be paid for meeting the deadlines.
3) What if they want to provoke USA to invest into manned NGAD by putting pressure on manned platform (via showing them) when in fact they already know unmanned CCA is winning move?
Click to expand...
NO one know these two guys MANNED OR UNMANED OR BOTH AVALABLE.
Maybe like the movie 《STEALTH》？

OTW we can compare with X36/YF118G prototype？
4d086e061d950a7b0424638b09d162d9f2d3c96f.jpeg
 
Hydroman said:
OK everybody, look at some of the previous Boeing, LM and USAF concepts, doesn't this planform/configuration look familiar? Again, need I say more, Jeopardy question and the answer is?
Click to expand...

Absolutely. But the size and intended role might be different.
 
Ainen said:
It isn't a striker. At least the current understanding is that a2a is to be the first focus.
It's inherently multipurpose of course, but this is not JH-XX.
Click to expand...

That looks like a really large and expensive system for a medium range A2A fight, IMO. If you the think that is the intended role, what is the intended target set?
 
My thoughts.

Chengdu JH-36 (or H-36) has a supersonic intake and a thin wing, so it is a supersonic aircraft. It has three weapons bays. The main bay is less than 7.1 metres long. The side bays are less than 4.8 metres long. And I couldn't find a forward-facing radar cone...

Both the Shenyang and the Chengdu prototypes are similar in size. Both are stealthy and supersonic. That is to say, they are competitors of each other. I think Xian H-6 needs an update the most, so either Chengdu or Shenyang would replace it.
 

Attachments

  • 1000007291.jpg
    1000007291.jpg
    33.4 KB · Views: 63
Last edited:
Ainen said:
It isn't a striker. At least the current understanding is that a2a is to be the first focus.
It's inherently multipurpose of course, but this is not JH-XX.
Click to expand...
Some CHN viewer said these 2 are
partner . 3—engine—one like J20/MIG31/F111 which focus on intercept and long range AIR 2 GROUND mission. Smaller 2—engine one focus on A2A and dogfight.
From this hypothetical perspective, there may be a more significant difference in the depth of the built-in magazine between the two aircraft, with the three-engine model likely to have a much higher depth. But I'm afraid from the pictures that have been leaked it's closer to a demonstrator.
Also no external mounting points are visible on either aircraft, which could mean a lower payload, or the design itself uses hard-tube refueling.
 
The second twin engine machine…do we have any sense of scale? Have we definitely seen a cockpit? Perhaps this is a larger CCA type rather than a manned aircraft?
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom