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

overscan (PaulMM) said:
If you accept J-20 is 5th gen, this is a newer generation design. Hence, 6th gen. Whether China agrees with the US definition of what 6th gen is remains to be seen.
Click to expand...

A new design doesn't automatically deserve a new generation designation. New generations are best defined as one or more technologies or capabilities that cumulatively give the aircraft or system a distinct advantage over the previous generation. So, a 5th generation fighter, with technologies such as stealth, sensor fusion, LPI communications, advanced passive sensors, and other capabilities is in a different league from something like an F-16. If this new J-36 only has a different shape, but otherwise doesn't have distinct advantages over other 5th gen fighters such as J-20 or F-35, then it is not a new generation.
 
siegecrossbow said:
SAC’s proposal still focuses a lot on traditional ACM whereas CAC is doubling down on their own interpretation. There is a possibility that one of the proposals is not correct, hence the need two walk with both legs?
Click to expand...
I mean their past efforts. This is their opportunity to change.
 
Ainen said:
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?
Click to expand...

Area dominance aircraft? Missileer?
 
LowObservable said:
Probably not an RJ but there are options if you don't mind the loggies doing a Jacques de Molay and cursing you and everyone who looks like you for 13 generations,,,
Click to expand...
Three engines
 

Attachments

  • img-1735276932739c738d047d203e6400546785fffeaffcff1970663859f96d81d72d0d340bcb894.jpg
    img-1735276932739c738d047d203e6400546785fffeaffcff1970663859f96d81d72d0d340bcb894.jpg
    78.9 KB · Views: 207
Last edited:
People are saying ramjet engines but the biggest rage in the aerospace industries particularly the US and Russia talk about 3 stream cycle adaptive engines or detonation engines for aircrafts as their pursuit, do they have anything that is similar in development like that? Apparently, there are a lot of Chinese users over at sinodefense.net giving some very optimistic timeframes that 6th gen production starts at 2030 which is quite different from the Turks in their KAAN thread at defensehub.live looking at a 2040 timeframe of having their own 5th gens produced with their own domestic engines.

I already have a gut feeling the specs are going to be underperforming to qualify as a 6th gen if they quit 5 years ago from using AL-31s to power their J-20s before, to just make a stealth variation from that same design with the same thrust afterburner thrust performance of 32000lbs. Flying around with 3 WS-15 engines won't qualify it as a full 6th gen if we truly believe the WS-15s have super cruise capabilities but not a 3-stream adaptive cycle engine or a detonation engine. Ramjets operate at Mach 3-6 and I just don't see it with that kind of aircraft design.

Don't get me wrong I am also pessimistic about Rolls Royce making a 6th gen engine if they have never made a stealth engine layout design for the Tempest. So I highly believe Chinas 6th gen and the UK's 6th gen aircrafts will be flying with 4th/5th gen engines by the time they get a 6th gen engine ready for their 6th gen aircrafts. I got higher hopes with Pratt and Whitney or NPO Saturn delivering 6th gen engines before the other 2 6th gen flight demonstrators get theirs.
 
The 3 engines deal is really puzzling, is it because two engines are not powerful enough? Why is the nose so thick, is it a side by side cockpit like the su-34? Are those glass pieces windows? Or sensors??
 
siegecrossbow said:
SAC’s proposal still focuses a lot on traditional ACM whereas CAC is doubling down on their own interpretation. There is a possibility that one of the proposals is not correct, hence the need two walk with both legs?
Click to expand...
Plus, they're not overshadowed at all; in fact they're quite busy with Flankers, GJ-11, J-35/A and now with their own 6th gen in the works.
 
What are the chances there were satellite flyovers we can see publicly and get a definitive answer on its size / wing sweep angles.
 
Regarding the 3 engines - barring something exotic like the Kolesov "dual pipe" RD-107, probably just 3 WS-15.

Kolesov variable bypass engines had effectively a 1:1 bypass turbofan with a second pure turbojet pipe alongside it, fed from the turbofan. In cruise operation it operated only the one core as a high bypass ratio, but for supersonic use half the fan air was diverted to the second core making two low bypass engines.

It seemed a very heavy dead end.
 
overscan (PaulMM) said:
Regarding the 3 engines - barring something exotic like the Kolesov "dual pipe" RD-107, probably just 3 WS-15.

Kolesov variable bypass engines had effectively a 1:1 bypass turbofan with a second pure turbojet pipe alongside it, fed from the turbofan. In cruise operation it operated only the one core as a high bypass ratio, but for supersonic use half the fan air was diverted to the second core making two low bypass engines.

It seemed a very heavy dead end.
Click to expand...
If RD107 we can laugh.However that useless thing can't be chosen
 
trajan said:
(゜ロ゜) What's that
Click to expand...
'That' is a Hawker P.1134. 1 x Avon with reheat and 2 x Bristol ramjets. Technically it is a combination engine as the propulsion system shares common intakes but separate jetpipes.

One of four Hawker combination engine design studies from 1956-ish.

Chris
 
Last edited:
I wonder if three engine cores could allow one to be shut down for cruise - but allow it to be quickly lit in order to obtain higher thrust without needing reheat? Essentially having excess power so as to keep IR signatures low? Then there is the explanation that one of them is being used partly as a generator (e.g. to support a powerful radar)... Finally, the possibility that it ensures controllability after an engine failure (in a design that might use some thrust vectoring).

This is assuming the design is a lot closer to an operational design than an aerodynamic tech demonstrator:
snne said:
Via @Jason_ on Sinodef

View attachment 753797
Click to expand...

I'd assume an operational design might differ in size, sensors, layout etc.
 
6th gen tactical medium theater strike aircraft, probably side by side seating and the three engines probably make sense for their configuration. The second aircraft is the 6th gen fighter escort for the strike aircraft. Their previous UCAV, think equivalent to US CCA. Think about it and it makes sense, conceptual US strike package (USAF B-21, USAF NGAD, USAF CCAs, USAF NGAS). Next will be the Chinese NGAS maybe based upon one of the Boeing or recent LM concepts displayed at ARSAG, stay tuned everyone.
 
Hydroman said:
6th gen tactical medium theater strike aircraft, probably side by side seating and the three engines probably make sense for their configuration. The second aircraft is the 6th gen fighter escort for the strike aircraft.
Click to expand...

At the 5++ generation level - the difference between a supercruising theatre strike aircraft and a supercruising interceptor is... layout of the internal bay? The difference between those and a fighter is... the structural strengthening and aerodynamic optimisation required to pull 8 gees...?
 
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...


I think you should totally redo this … yours is eBay too small!
 
I wouldn't bet on it being a tech demonstrator. J-10 and J-20 were both prototypes reasonably close to production configuration.

Gates said in 2009 that China was not expected to have a fifth-generation aircraft by 2020 and no more than a handful by 2025.
Click to expand...
That statement really is not aging well...
 
I really like the "rotating flaps" solution.
It seems that they can act as small ruders, or small ventral fins, depending on the flight condition and AoA.
They can probably also go to neutral position and flush with the wings.
 
overscan (PaulMM) said:
I wouldn't bet on it being a tech demonstrator. J-10 and J-20 were both prototypes reasonably close to production configuration.


That statement really is not aging well...
Click to expand...
yep. It's not so much that such aircraft exist or flying but that they are SHOWN to the public. No reason to believe their PR department changed tactics from their 5th gen figher reveal.
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom