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

Tomboy said:
I do not see a reason for him to lie, it's not like they just came out with "We have flown a 6th gen prototype" without any proof or prior announcement. This is after basically everyone saw the new planes unless your suggesting those are CGI, I don't see where your getting this.
Click to expand...
Simply ranking sources based on their credibility. Do we believe everything or even anything that comes out of the Foreign Ministry of China? Hence comments made by them on the capability of any of these new aircraft are worth pretty much zero.
 
Tomboy said:
Also, someone like him fumbling a bomber or strike aircraft as a fighter seems very unlikely in a publicized speech
Click to expand...
There's a long, long history! See Lyndon B Johnson and SR-71 (reportedly was supposed to be RS-71), and Under Secretary of Defence Pete Aldridge and F-35 (F-24 would be the logical designator, but Pete Aldridge and programme manager Major General Mike Hough had a distinct huddle when asked what it would be and appeared to decide on F-35 on the spot).
 
I would not trust such a statement from the State Department; the PRC hardly has a deeper level of credibility. That doesn’t make it untrue. But I think we are splitting hairs over the term 6th gen or the variation of A2G vs A2A. All of these things are possible at once, depending on how you define those concepts.
 
DWG said:
but Pete Aldridge and programme manager Major General Mike Hough had a distinct huddle when asked what it would be and appeared to decide on F-35 on the spot).
Click to expand...

They should've been publicly put on the spot and reminded that the intended DoD tri services designation was the F-24 NOT F-35.
 
Ozair said:
Simply ranking sources based on their credibility. Do we believe everything or even anything that comes out of the Foreign Ministry of China? Hence comments made by them on the capability of any of these new aircraft are worth pretty much zero.
Click to expand...
Official sources are always more credible on account of having a reputation to protect, if they lie or misconstrue the truth (which they certainly tend to do), they do it in a far more sophisticated manner.
This is the same logic as 'the medical industry is poisoning you with their pills - instead, buy some mystical berries from India!'
 
Elysium said:
Official sources are always more credible on account of having a reputation to protect, if they lie or misconstrue the truth (which they certainly tend to do), they do it in a far more sophisticated manner.
Click to expand...
I'm not talking about lying. The suggestion is we should expect that the definition used by a guy who probably can't tell the difference between two aircraft from 5 meters away, and cares even less, is fundamental to how we categorise the aircraft. They are not a credible source for anything related to the Chinese Military, that isn't their job.

You could even argue that they are in direct competition with the Chinese Military for internal power and attention and therefore what they say in this context is even less authoritative.
Elysium said:
This is the same logic as 'the medical industry is poisoning you with their pills - instead, buy some mystical berries from India!'
Click to expand...
Lol, no not quite. I'm happy to read analysis from people that are credible or display reasoning, this is not that.
 
This is a very pointless discussion, the comment from this official is meaningless and tells us nothing useful about the role of the J-36. Trying to ascertain whether its a demonstrator or prototype, bomber or fighter from the language used by a government official who doesn't even work in the defence sector is about as effective as reading the future in the entrails of a chicken.

I suggest we refrain from posting here until there is something of substance to discuss.
 
Tomboy said:
View attachment 755771
I don't think this has been posted before, but apparently Chinese ambassador Wu Hailong officially confirmed the aircraft flown last year was a 6th generation fighter prototype in a speech 2 days ago. I believe this should be the first official confirmation from the Chinese government about the nature of the aircrafts.
Click to expand...

Civilian officials don’t know jack and are not reliable sources. It will be a while until we have official confirmation, usually when the aircraft is about to enter service. We’ve seen this with J-20 in 2017 and recently J-35 in 2023.
 
Ozair said:
Simply ranking sources based on their credibility. Do we believe everything or even anything that comes out of the Foreign Ministry of China? Hence comments made by them on the capability of any of these new aircraft are worth pretty much zero.
Click to expand...

Seriously though, we should assume that State officials are generally capable of lying (this includes all information about the NGAD - ex. for all we know the announced 'pause' is hiding the fact that a selection has already been made). This doesn't mean they don't sometimes tell the truth or they don't tell lies which can hint at other truths (when motives and context are considered).

Anyway, based on comments from Chinese designers about their understanding of American 6th generation designs, and what has been observed about this design overall, most competent analysis assumes this thing is capable of chucking PL-17 missiles at altitude and at speeds in the M1.8 to low M2 range... which is at the very least an air-to-air combat 'linebacker' or interceptor...

Also, if we're not being silly, we'd conclude that many second and third generation jet fighters (or third and fourth generation in the Hallion scale) are not 'fighters' based on the manoeuvrability WVR requirements that people are using to define this as a 'non-fighter air-to-air' platform...

Anyway, I think it is interesting if there is any Chinese official hinting at a 'J' designation, rather than a 'JH' designation... regardless how whether they can be trusted. However, it is probably irrelevant as this creature is clearly in a new category (likely not a traditional 'J' and probably not a traditional 'JH') as it probably incorporates a lot of sensor warfare goals, acts as a node for networking with other assets etc.
 
Okay, a serious question for those with more aerodynamic knowledge than I have - I know that dorsal intakes tend to run into serious issues at moderately high angles-of-attack... but at supersonic speeds the maximum sustained angle-of-attack is quite low (even at 8 gees)... so, my question is:

Do dorsal intakes impeded supersonic manoeuvrability significantly? How does their AoA performance compare at supersonic speeds to subsonic speeds?
 
Alfa_Particle said:
Just from the screenshot Tomboy posted, they said "六代战机" which translates to "6th Gen fighter." So quite ambiguous in terms of which development stage.
Click to expand...

I agree that it is a fighter but 战机 means warplane in Chinese. A H-6 is technically also a 战机. This is not to mention that the official in question is a civilian and likely does not have military knowledge outside of what he read on social media.
 
Avimimus said:
Okay, a serious question for those with more aerodynamic knowledge than I have - I know that dorsal intakes tend to run into serious issues at moderately high angles-of-attack... but at supersonic speeds the maximum sustained angle-of-attack is quite low (even at 8 gees)... so, my question is:

Do dorsal intakes impeded supersonic manoeuvrability significantly? How does their AoA performance compare at supersonic speeds to subsonic speeds?
Click to expand...
Saab and Northrop both designed dorsal intake manouverable fighters, though neither made it to being built. It is possible, given careful shaping of the fuselage in front of the intake.
 
overscan (PaulMM) said:
Saab and Northrop both designed dorsal intake manouverable fighters, though neither made it to being built. It is possible, given careful shaping of the fuselage in front of the intake.
Click to expand...

I was also thinking about sustained supersonic manoeuvrability (useful in BVR - but with relatively low angle of attacks)... flight regimes where more than 8g and less than 12 degrees angle-of-attack are possible.

Does one really need to pull sharp turns in the subsonic realm if one isn't down to using guns? Given modern sensor fusion and high off-boresight missiles it seems less important. Of course, the effective range of a missile fired forward will be higher - so making a sharp turn and accelerating prior to release could give you a first shot at the edge of WVR (i.e. the 12km-25km range)... so I suppose it is still useful? I wouldn't be surprised if it isn't better to hand-off that type of close WVR to the J-20 and have a more expensive asset focus on BVR only... but that doesn't necessarily mean that it wouldn't be stressed to handle sustained high speed turns.

I'm suppose I'm trying to reason out whether a design focussed on BVR needs high AoA at all.
 
Avimimus said:
Seriously though, we should assume that State officials are generally capable of lying (this includes all information about the NGAD - ex. for all we know the announced 'pause' is hiding the fact that a selection has already been made). This doesn't mean they don't sometimes tell the truth or they don't tell lies which can hint at other truths (when motives and context are considered).

Anyway, based on comments from Chinese designers about their understanding of American 6th generation designs, and what has been observed about this design overall, most competent analysis assumes this thing is capable of chucking PL-17 missiles at altitude and at speeds in the M1.8 to low M2 range... which is at the very least an air-to-air combat 'linebacker' or interceptor...

Also, if we're not being silly, we'd conclude that many second and third generation jet fighters (or third and fourth generation in the Hallion scale) are not 'fighters' based on the manoeuvrability WVR requirements that people are using to define this as a 'non-fighter air-to-air' platform...

Anyway, I think it is interesting if there is any Chinese official hinting at a 'J' designation, rather than a 'JH' designation... regardless how whether they can be trusted. However, it is probably irrelevant as this creature is clearly in a new category (likely not a traditional 'J' and probably not a traditional 'JH') as it probably incorporates a lot of sensor warfare goals, acts as a node for networking with other assets etc.
Click to expand...
MiG-21/J-7 and J-8 Interceptors are still "J"s.

The J-10 and J-20 are considered multirole, but are still "J"s.
 
Tomboy said:
Going off topic, but I was told that the J-20 is able to carry satellite guided bombs and potentially laser guided ones via a buddy pod or ground team.
Click to expand...
I don't see why that isn't possible. But just cause it's possible doesn't mean that it'll happen.

However I was also told that it can't carry 500 kg or larger bombs internally.
 
J-20 airframe certainly does have a lot of potential to be multirole. Whether it is multirole depends on current PLAAF requirements and preferences.

While no one knows if bombs have been integrated and tested, the airframe almost certainly has room to carry them. If it can fit pl-15 missiles, it should fit a gbu-31 sized bomb.
(Pl-15 having 430 mm mid body wing span and 560 mm rear fin span. Gbu-31 having 360 mm body diameter and 500 mm rear fin span.)

Plus there are other measurements of the bomb bay, done using available imagery over the years.

Total length of the bay is around 4.45 meters. Total width of (one) bay around 1 meter (give or take 5 cm)
560mm depth at the deepest point of deepest structural support brace. Of course, only a small portion of the length is that deep, as intakes curve above them. (theoretically something like the tip of a fin might extend into the area between support braces)
Some 3.2 meter long stretch of the bay is 440mm deep (or more)
Some 3.7 meter long stretch of the bay is 380mm deep (or more)
Some 4.3 meter long stretch of the bay is 310mm deep (or more)
 
Desertfox said:
Designators are academic in nature, the Mig-31 which is by all accounts is an Interceptor has only seen combat as a bomber.
Click to expand...
May be better for the J-20 to stick to multi role given it's performance against F-35's just saying...
 
FlyGuy369 said:
May be better for the J-20 to stick to multi role given it's performance against F-35's just saying...
Click to expand...
...which we had no remote idea of except vague statements like "they fly it pretty well." How you arrived at that conclusion is beyond me.

A delta-canard is almost guaranteed to be more maneuverable than the F-35. Laws of physics don't just change if it's Chinese.
 
Alfa_Particle said:
...which we had no remote idea of except vague statements like "they fly it pretty well." How you arrived at that conclusion is beyond me.

A delta-canard is almost guaranteed to be more maneuverable than the F-35. Laws of physics don't just change if it's Chinese.
Click to expand...
Where do you derive delta canard configurations as more maneuverable than a conventional planform layout?
 
FlyGuy369 said:
Where do you derive delta canard configurations as more maneuverable than a conventional planform layout?
Click to expand...
...the fact that (at least the J-20 in particular) they abuse the properties of vortex lift much more than conventional wings?

It's part of the design tradeoffs. You rely on vortex lift for maneuverability and you trade subsonic cruise lift to drag for it.
 
Alfa_Particle said:
...the fact that (at least the J-20 in particular) they abuse the properties of vortex lift much more than conventional wings?

It's part of the design tradeoffs. You rely on vortex lift for maneuverability and you trade subsonic cruise lift to drag for it.
Click to expand...
Okay sure enough, how do you feel the reliance on vortex lift for maneuverability affects its energy bleed when in one or two circle engagements? My largest concern is that.
 
FlyGuy369 said:
Okay sure enough, how do you feel the reliance on vortex lift for maneuverability affects its energy bleed when in one or two circle engagements? My largest concern is that.
Click to expand...
Not negatively, at least to a noticeable degree from what I've heard from pilots.

But I think they're mainly betting on getting the first shot with HOBS missiles.
 
Alfa_Particle said:
Not negatively, at least to a noticeable degree from what I've heard from pilots.

But I think they're mainly betting on getting the first shot with HOBS missiles.
Click to expand...
There is definitely a better chance of first come first kill given the advances in technologies, however, it still sits in the back of my head that this is the F-4's story all over again and we will net zero on BVR, being drawn again into turn fights. The 6th gen CCA wingman concept may remedy this, but we are so smart as humans to keep countering one another until we are drawn again to an old fashioned knife fight in a telephone booth. I have all respect for the Chinese 6th Gen programs, and we certainly (US 6th Gen) will go toe to toe with them over the Pacific, be it actual conflict or more cat and mouse chases, war will always get in close and dirty. History has shown that from the dawn of time to Ukraine now. No amount of technology is going to prevent a close in engagement, so as far as the SAC design appears, the WVR aspect was not neglected, but I can't say with confidence that the J-36 or even the J-20 will be able to out rate the energy fighters we field. I have a sneaking suspicion that any large delta platform is going to have an issue in a turn fight. If the J-20 has found a way around this, it's unbeknownst to I. I deeply respect your stance, deltas are fantastic, they just come with trade offs like you said!
 
Alfa_Particle said:
...the J-20 is considered multirole?
Click to expand...
en.wikipedia.org

People's Liberation Army Air Force - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org
www.airuniversity.af.edu

The Dragon’s Wing: The People’s Liberation Army Air Force’s Strategy

This article indicates that the Chinese air force progressed considerably toward building and fielding a formidable defense/offense force, assumed responsibilities that accompany the projection of
www.airuniversity.af.edu
www.defensenews.com

Zhuhai Airshow display reveals info on China’s J-20, J-16 inventory

The presence of J-20s on static display at the show has allowed photographers to obtain better resolution images of the aircraft than previously possible.
www.defensenews.com www.defensenews.com
 
Scott Kenny said:
en.wikipedia.org

People's Liberation Army Air Force - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org
www.airuniversity.af.edu

The Dragon’s Wing: The People’s Liberation Army Air Force’s Strategy

This article indicates that the Chinese air force progressed considerably toward building and fielding a formidable defense/offense force, assumed responsibilities that accompany the projection of
www.airuniversity.af.edu
www.defensenews.com

Zhuhai Airshow display reveals info on China’s J-20, J-16 inventory

The presence of J-20s on static display at the show has allowed photographers to obtain better resolution images of the aircraft than previously possible.
www.defensenews.com www.defensenews.com
Click to expand...
The Raptor is also capable of ground strikes. Would you consider the Raptor multirole then?
 
FlyGuy369 said:
There is definitely a better chance of first come first kill given the advances in technologies, however, it still sits in the back of my head that this is the F-4's story all over again and we will net zero on BVR, being drawn again into turn fights. The 6th gen CCA wingman concept may remedy this, but we are so smart as humans to keep countering one another until we are drawn again to an old fashioned knife fight in a telephone booth. I have all respect for the Chinese 6th Gen programs, and we certainly (US 6th Gen) will go toe to toe with them over the Pacific, be it actual conflict or more cat and mouse chases, war will always get in close and dirty. History has shown that from the dawn of time to Ukraine now. No amount of technology is going to prevent a close in engagement, so as far as the SAC design appears, the WVR aspect was not neglected, but I can't say with confidence that the J-36 or even the J-20 will be able to out rate the energy fighters we field. I have a sneaking suspicion that any large delta platform is going to have an issue in a turn fight. If the J-20 has found a way around this, it's unbeknownst to I. I deeply respect your stance, deltas are fantastic, they just come with trade offs like you said!
Click to expand...
If it comes to it, the J-20 is still pretty competitive in turn fights. With the WS-15 I don't see why it would be at a noticeable disadvantage.

From what I've read, the J-20's complex control over vortices and their generation should make its high AoA lift to drag pretty decent to say the least. Energy bleed shouldn't be too problematic.
Screenshot_20250117_194503.jpg
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom