Not bad, but the lateral intakes are bog standard caret types, including diverter gaps toward both the fuselage and LERX. As red admiral points out the beam of the main landing gear bogie appears to be on the outside rather than inside, too.
ETA: I must say I'm amused that CAC's newest fighter moves from DSI to caret intakes at least partially - a retrograde step, if certain Chinese fanboys are to be believed. But the fact of the matter has always been that DSIs are not some kind of super-sophisticated, extremely difficult thing and that the choice of intake type ultimately comes down to technical requirements, not fashion trends. Here we have an example that DSIs are not always the optimum solution, even on an aircraft which does have that kind of intake in a different location!
Seems that way to me as well. I agree that, while clearly supersonic, it's probably not as fast as some people appear to think. Going by the relatively steep angles of the caret intake lips (over which the shock will fit like a 'lid' at design Mach), this thing is probably intended to stay below Mach 2.0, but cruise there for long distances. I would not even be greatly surprised to learn that it doesn't have afterburners. That is more in line with a long-range strike aircraft than an interceptor, but of course one has to be wary about extrapolating conventional wisdom to a potentially novel concept. Maybe in an upcoming era of CCAs and possibly eventually DEWs, that's exactly what fighters are like?
With the J-20 not even having reached the end of its development potential, a FB-22/23 seems more likely on balance though.
