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

overscan (PaulMM) said:
I'm interested by a few details.

The combination of 2 x Caret and 1 x DSI intake is odd - I thought immediately that the Caret intakes suggests speeds above Mach 1.8 would be in play but then the top DSI inlet makes less sense.

Despite the radically different shape it does have something of a J-20 feel about it, so I wonder if there is some elements of commonality under the skin.

My gut feeling is this is something conceptually like the Sukhoi T-60 but designed with a greater understanding of stealth, but then I can't see the need for three engines. T-60 made do with 2 AL-31F for 60,000kg class aircraft. Maybe 3 x WS-19?

Brute force supercruise? But then why not make it longer and more slender?

T-60 early version:

View attachment 753834
Click to expand...
T-60 was to be a bomber. 250 kn of thrust is enough for a missile/bomb delivery mission profile, especially with swing wings to help with takeoffs. Also, did not the T-60S, later variant, have more powerful engines planned for it?

3 engines, or 500+ kn of thrust for this J36 plane might make sense if one looks at it as a multirole fighter. That it absolutely needs to accelerate like hell, gain altitude quickly, fly high, cruise supersonically, perform well on a broad range of altitudes and speeds and use short runways on top of everything. Given the obvious range and payload requirement, to pull all that off, only a very very large plane would suffice. And to keep it fighter like, two engines simply might not have sufficed.

Alternatively, maybe it's not such a high performance fighter but then some engine/s are really there to be used for certain flight segments while others are used for remaining flight segments. It's highly inefficient, of course, wasting so much weight and room, but we don't know the requirements. It may've made sense to the customer and the desingers of the plane.
 
As said before, if that is a tri-engined aircraft, probably a twin Turbojet with a turbofan. You would use the fan as range extender and keep the Jets burning for performances domain (TakeOff, acceleration, combat).

Then if a twin, the dorsal inlet might add the airflow needed for cruise, keeping the carret inlets small enough to make the S-duct compatible with volume restricted arrangement.

Then people see the dorsal as a DSI. But if that was simply a wall that separate airflow from the left and right engines?
 
overscan (PaulMM) said:
I'm interested by a few details.

The combination of 2 x Caret and 1 x DSI intake is odd - I thought immediately that the Caret intakes suggests speeds above Mach 1.8 would be in play but then the top DSI inlet makes less sense.
Click to expand...

Caret intakes are not inherently more suitable for higher speeds, both types can basically be designed for whatever operating point is desired. The problem (shared by both) is that they are fixed-geometry, which means their performance deteriorates in off-design conditions, so if they (either type) are optimized for Mach >2.0, efficiency at M1.5 might drop to an unacceptable level. In aircraft expected to spend substantial amounts of of time cruising in the latter regime, accommodating speeds above M2.0 is probably not going to happen, or some form of variability needs to be introduced.

What type you choose mainly comes down to other requirements, including airframe integration. With the result that you might easily go for a different type on the same aircraft, depending solely on where it is located.

overscan (PaulMM) said:
My gut feeling is this is something conceptually like the Sukhoi T-60 but designed with a greater understanding of stealth, but then I can't see the need for three engines. T-60 made do with 2 AL-31F for 60,000kg class aircraft. Maybe 3 x WS-19?

Brute force supercruise? But then why not make it longer and more slender?

T-60 early version:

View attachment 753834
Click to expand...

I agree that the design intent probably parallels the T-60 closely, but the greater emphasis on stealth here forces certain departures from that mold. Planform alignment makes VG wings a non-starter, but the supersonic requirement means high-aspect ratio - so how do you maintain decent field performance? Especially if, as I suspect, the engines are non-reheated for low signature and efficiency.

Think F-111 (VG wings, moderate thrust turbofans) vs. TSR.2 (fixed delta wings with blown flaps and markedly more powerful turbojets). More than one way to skin that particular cat!
 
Last edited:
Archibald said:
The chinese are not wasting a single minute, in mad rush toward a 6th generation combat plane.
Click to expand...
Yeah, the third engine seems to me to be a symptom of great haste; they're sticking with three reliable engines (given the difficulties in developing advanced adaptive cycle turbofans, that's probably a huge issue) instead of developing a pair of properly sized next generation engines. Heck, you might even be able to turn one or two off to improve cruise range or smthg! Which is... ?kinda-sorta adaptive, but so blursed?
They want something flying by the end of the decade.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Scott Kenny said:
That's one hell of a redesign, though...
Click to expand...
Adding inlets for a new engine would be a #$%, but "fixing" it by removing an engine and resizing the inlets would be comparatively easy. New inlets and a different aft fuselage plug. Were this scenario true, they already did the design work for a twin with more powerful engines. The difficult redesign work was to add the engine/inlet area.
 
It will be interesting to see what happens when the PLAAF finally releases some decent photos of the plane siegecrossbow, then we will be certain as to whether it is manned or unmanned.
 
chimeric oncogene said:
the last five-to-ten-year window for the Americans to blow the Chinese to bits
Click to expand...
Colour me eccentric, but this is the kind of comment I find disturbing.

"The supreme art of war is to subdue the enemy without fighting" - Sun Tzu
"Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent" - Isaac Asimov
 
Last edited:
Josh_TN said:
I cannot imagine cargo aircraft of opportunity are the desired targets, or that looping around or overflying Japan unescorted is a particularly heathy way to operate such a large and almost certainly expensive platform. I’m still leaning towards strike being the primary role.
Click to expand...
Tankers, C2, earlywarning, EW are all fat targets that might need a long circuitous route to target.
 
Arjen said:
Colour me eccentric, but this is the kind of comment I find disturbing.
Click to expand...

Sorry about the rather cavalier wording, force of habit from reading too much Herman Kahn and Henry Kissinger. I have tried to improve the wording.

Yes, the Chinese are also very disturbed, hence the "point of maximum danger". It's not unreasonable for them to move forward quickly with a new fighter-bomber program in view of the situation. Officials in Beijing have many sleepless nights worrying about potentially destabilizing American incentives.

As noted above, the long pole is probably the adaptive cycle engine. Over in the NGAD thread, one common attributes of the next generation is said to be adaptive cycle engines; this might be the next best thing. If one argues that adaptive cycle is a defining characteristic of a next generation aircraft, you can even make the argument that this is not a sixth generation aircraft, although there is controversy over the term (and it is ill-defined, as I understand it).
 
Last edited:
Bounce said:
Hopefuly not too long until we get some clearer pics.

View attachment 753853
Click to expand...
That's such an impressive aircraft.

If the canopy is really that black thing and it's not painted over to hide details, they might have come up with something different (better?) than thin layers of gold or indium tin oxide.
 
Calculated characteristics in the AF column: J-36

The maximum speed is not more than M = 2.1 / 2230 km/h. Cruising speed of at least 1.5 M / 1593 km/h
In the future, with two 14250 kgf / 23100 kgf engines, this aircraft will replace the J-20.
 
Last edited:
I’m thinking this is a technology demonstrator, with the relatively known caret intakes in a low risk area, with the ventral DSI intake (kind of looks like an upside down Su-75 intake) in the high risk location. Simulations may say it works, but you don’t know how it will really behave at off design conditions. If the center engine stalls due to excessive inlet distortion, you have the two outboard engines to bring you back home. The upper inlet may even be designed as a modular system, where you can swap different variations for performance validation.
 
yeetmahboi said:
Incredible that if we remove one engine and cut off the "neck" of the SAC J-XD planform, we can arrive at this design that Boeing thought out... 20 years ago! Convergent engineering indeed.
Click to expand...

No, the Boeing design uses edge and planform alignment. Big difference.
 
paralay said:
Calculated characteristics in the AF column: J-36

The maximum speed is not more than M = 2.1 / 2230 km/h. Cruising speed of at least 1.5 M / 1593 km/h
In the future, with two 14250 kgf / 23100 kgf engines, this aircraft will replace the J-20.
Click to expand...


Why again such errors? It clearly has three engines! ...
 
paralay said:
Calculated characteristics in the AF column: J-36

The maximum speed is not more than M = 2.1 / 2230 km/h. Cruising speed of at least 1.5 M / 1593 km/h
In the future, with two 14250 kgf / 23100 kgf engines, this aircraft will replace the J-20.
Click to expand...
Your calculated characteristics rely on what exactly?
What you choose to be its powerplant? WS-10 or WS-13 or WS-15 or WS-19?
What you choose as weight of aircraft? 30~40 or 40~50 or 50~60 tons
What made you believe will have two engines?
 
snne said:
A 21 meter long, heavy and complex CCA platform? I don't think so.
Click to expand...

How big is S-70? Different countries have different requirements. But the only reason I think anyone thinks it’s a UCAV is because there is no footage of a canopy. Probably best to wait for more photos.
 
F119Doctor said:
I’m thinking this is a technology demonstrator, with the relatively known caret intakes in a low risk area, with the ventral DSI intake (kind of looks like an upside down Su-75 intake) in the high risk location. Simulations may say it works, but you don’t know how it will really behave at off design conditions. If the center engine stalls due to excessive inlet distortion, you have the two outboard engines to bring you back home. The upper inlet may even be designed as a modular system, where you can swap different variations for performance validation.
Click to expand...

It seems to have bomb bays and nose mounted sensors. That seems like a lot for a TD, though perhaps those areas are mock ups just for intimidation. But would not so many operational looking features suggest more of a prototype?
 
I'm seeing alot of speculation, but what's the solid proof that this is an actual fighter design and not just a test vehicle like the x-29?
 
Sprues said:
I'm seeing alot of speculation, but what's the solid proof that this is an actual fighter design and not just a test vehicle like the x-29?
Click to expand...

There is no solid proof.

But the same sources that predicted this for the last year, and which predicted J-20 14 years ago before it emerged, and predicted every other major PLA project in the interim, are saying it's less a test vehicle and more of a production intended demonstrator ala J-20 s/n 2001.

============

It's been 14 years since J-20 came onto the scene, you'd think people would've picked up that perhaps the best question to ask is not "where is the proof" but rather "what is the Chinese language grapevine saying".
 
Sprues said:
I'm seeing alot of speculation, but what's the solid proof that this is an actual fighter design and not just a test vehicle like the x-29?
Click to expand...
Kinda big and expensive for a test article, obvious sensor windows and IWBs.
Also, its flight was used as a political declaration. You don't declare things with flying an X-29 on Mao's birthday before Trump's innaguration.
 
Yes, if you wanted to build a proof of concept, you'd come up with something minimalist and subscale, like the X-29 or ATD-X (using parts of existing donor aircraft) or even go unmanned, like the X-36. Certainly not a 50t, twin-seat behemoth with a full sensor suite, an internal weapons bay and 3 of the most exquisite engines in your inventory...
 
Trident said:
Yes, if you wanted to build a proof of concept, you'd come up with something minimalist and subscale, like the X-29 or ATD-X (using parts of existing donor aircraft) or even go unmanned, like the X-36. Certainly not a 50t, twin-seat behemoth with a full sensor suite, an internal weapons bay and 3 of the most exquisite engines in your inventory...
Click to expand...

As an aside, I don't think this specific airframe has any mission sensors installed, which is normal for the first prototype/demonstrator.
 
Blitzo said:
As an aside, I don't think this specific airframe has any mission sensors installed, which is normal for the first prototype/demonstrator.
Click to expand...
Those optics/radar cheecks may in fact be not empty. Otherwise could've been simply covers.
 
Airborne2001 said:
There is a very clear picture somewhere on the internet. I'm at work so give me some time before I can find it lol.
Click to expand...
doesn't worth it as this is just enchanced or ai-ted original
 

Attachments

  • Gf0LBkhbEAAMDJJ.jpg
    Gf0LBkhbEAAMDJJ.jpg
    33.7 KB · Views: 261
Last edited:

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom