Shenyang / Chengdu 6th Gen Demonstrators?

[sienar]

Tankers, C2, earlywarning, EW are all fat targets that might need a long circuitous route to target.

This is a very good point. Being able to threaten those high value targets from many vectors would require the US to spread out its defensive assets across a much greater area or keep those high value assets farther back.

 

[Ozair]

This is a very good point. Being able to threaten those high value targets from many vectors would require the US to spread out its defensive assets across a much greater area or keep those high value assets farther back.

Chinese AAMs are already gusting ranges at which it becomes increasingly difficult to target anyway. PL-17 is 400km or further so HVAA are already significantly at risk irrespective of the launch platform.

 

[FlyGuy369]

A theory for you all, maybe the third engine is meant to serve as a bandaid to provide sufficient thrust for an EMD that will have better engines? Having two different intake types makes no sense and DSI's are cheap and easy to make, not complex. I see the third engine jumping ship come final iteration (if China gets there engine game down packed).

 

[Dreamfighter]

Time again for NATO reporting name suggestions....

If it´s a 'J-36': Fatnose
If it´s a 'JH-36': Fatboy
If it´s a 'H-36': Boxer (as Bill Sweetman came up with)

And just for the eventuality of a future variant without the third engine, respectively:
'Fatnose Slim'
'Fatboy Slim'
'Slim Boxer'

 

[quellish]

Senator Cotton: What is your current assessment of whether the United States Air Force or the PLA Air Force will first field a sixth-generation manned fighter?

Mr. Hunter: My assessment would be that it would be the United States, but the term "pacing threat" is, I think, a very apt term, because it is a race.

 

[BullpupRafale]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1872641250878431445

View: https://x.com/zhengfupaipai/status/1872641250878431445

 

[sferrin]

The more I think about it, I wonder if the top engine is a somewhat larger, higher bypass turbofan for range/loitering, with the others kicking in for sprints. Would seem to check all the boxes for a wide area anti-air and lots of wing area for altitude.

 

[Blitzo]

And yet people keep putting dedicated SRAAM bays in their designs. And even when people have a valid case for 'Is that really necessary', there's considerable institutional inertia around retaining capabilities - cf the RAF, Typhoon, and the internal gun.

Well, F-35 and J-35/A both omit dedicated SRAAM bays.
And for the next generation, the value of dedicated SRAAM bays will have to be determined by whether they're retained by the likes of NGAD (and maybe GCAP, FCAS etc)

But with a free hand you'd also want good external vision without a technological dependency. If you opt not to include that, it tells us things. The interesting point isn't 'they could do that', but 'why did they do that?'.

Except nothing is truly free -- it's all a series of compromises. The question thus being is the value of a canopy with better rearward MK1 eyeball visibility, worth the tradeoffs?

 

[BullpupRafale]

The more I think about it, I wonder if the top engine is a somewhat larger, higher bypass turbofan for range/loitering, with the others kicking in for sprints. Would seem to check all the boxes for a wide area anti-air and lots of wing area for altitude.

Unnecessary complication. Let's say it has 3 times fuel as J-20. Shut off middle engine and have other two at half power. Then at some point other two shut off and middle on is at half, loiter time could be 6 to 8 hours perhaps.

 

[paralay]

Having a third engine for a supersonic aircraft is much more critical than for a subsonic one. We are losing internal volumes to the engine itself and the air intake duct. And there could be fuel there

 

[siegecrossbow]

Well, F-35 and J-35/A both omit dedicated SRAAM bays.
And for the next generation, the value of dedicated SRAAM bays will have to be determined by whether they're retained by the likes of NGAD (and maybe GCAP, FCAS etc)




Except nothing is truly free -- it's all a series of compromises. The question thus being is the value of a canopy with better rearward MK1 eyeball visibility, worth the tradeoffs?

Rumor has it that they wanted a virtual cockpit (no glass, just digital projection) but rejected it because it seemed too radical.

 

[yeetmahboi]

Rumor has it that they wanted a virtual cockpit (no glass, just digital projection) but rejected it because it seemed too radical.

Well if there's still a human inside, then a virtual cockpit is definitely undesirable. Mac did something similar with the early F-4 (RIO was inside a dark space, no windows only control panels) and it turned out really bad.

 

[Scott Kenny]

I'm back!

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?

The experience from the TACIT BLUE was that it's a pain in the butt trying to run two engines through a common inlet. One engine will eat all the airflow and prevent the other one from starting unless you start both within 30sec of each other, every time.

A 21 meter long, heavy and complex CCA platform? I don't think so.

Just means it's not attritable, or at least no more attritable than a manned plane.

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.

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?

Size, mostly.

The X-29 was built on a couple of F-5/T-38/F-20 airframes (I forget which). Those were too small to be a viable fighter at the time, but perfectly adequate for proving (or rather disproving) the benefits of the FSW. Had the USAF intended to push for a direct-to-combat plane demonstrator, they would have used the F-16 FSW instead, since that would allow for going straight to a viable fighter.

The closest this beast is to a test vehicle is in the sense of the YF-22/YF-23, more or less full sized, using the intended engines (or prototypes thereof), and very close to the final form of the actual fighter/bomber.

Two engines - two problems
Three engines - three problems
The required range cannot be achieved with three engines. Have you ever wondered why modern passenger planes have only two engines?

Because CFM56s (and newer engines, but it was the CFM56s that started it) are so absurdly reliable that it literally makes global news when one has to shut down in flight, let alone has more significant issues.

This allowed the certification authorities to relax enough to allow twin engine planes to fly over ocean for long distances.

It depends on how you are approaching air-combat. If you are primarily relying on BVR jousting (and trying to get the first shot off) - your 'close range' might be 50 km or 70 km... ranges where sustained cruise and supersonic turn circles matter more.

That might make sense for a design with a very powerful radar (say, powered by a third engine), VLO (tailless diamond design), super cruise, and VLRAAM missiles...

It is quite possible that the J-20 pilots would end-up using the Mk.1 Eyeball... but this new aircraft might only experience BVR (and could use a degree of sensor fusion if it was ever forced by circumstances into WVR).

Part of me is with you - give me analogue dials as a back-up, maybe a gun in case the missiles run out - but I suspect that we're moving beyond that - and this design could probably coordinate with other assets to make sure it keeps its distance.

The BVR joust concept did not survive contact with reality in the 1960s, and the requirements for a positive visual ID.

Plus, we just had evidence that IFF systems still are not perfect (Super Hornet shootdown).

So I'm expecting a need for hi-def IRST/EODAS systems to make sure you're pointing a missile at a bandit, and not a friendly that happens to be a long way from where they think they are.

Regarding the black canopy, recently PLAN had emphasized heavily in the online press the usage of blinding laser with not an ounce of shame. Seems that would explain the extreme tint of their glazing.

I see they are admitting to intending to commit war crimes. How ... convenient.

Time again for NATO reporting name suggestions....

If it´s a 'J-36': Fatnose
If it´s a 'JH-36': Fatboy
If it´s a 'H-36': Boxer (as Bill Sweetman came up with)

And just for the eventuality of a future variant without the third engine, respectively:
'Fatnose Slim'
'Fatboy Slim'
'Slim Boxer'

I like those!

 

[Scott Kenny]

Here's a nice counter argument for you guys:

https://twitter.com/x/status/1872535461945577902

View: https://x.com/Tas1Bora/status/1872535461945577902?s=19

Long and narrow weapons bay does mean a relatively small bombload, but if it's packing a pair of Kinzhal-like ALBMs that's better than what the H-6 carries. Also, remember that we probably need to stop thinking in terms of 2000lb/14ft long weapons except for special occasions. I fully expect China to field some flat-nosed internal-carriage-only bombs that will stack 2-3x 1000lb into the space of 14-15ft of weapons bay, nevermind sticking 4x SDB equivalents per bay.

 

[Blitzo]

Long and narrow weapons bay does mean a relatively small bombload, but if it's packing a pair of Kinzhal-like ALBMs that's better than what the H-6 carries.

I doubt J-36's weapons bay will be able to carry a Kinzhal like ALBM, let alone two.

But seeing as you mention H-6, the H-6K family are able to carry ALBMs of similar concept, dubbed KD-21

Zhuhai 2022


Zhuhai 2024



Potentially up to four of them (three visible here, perhaps one more is obscured on the starboard middle station):

Also, remember that we probably need to stop thinking in terms of 2000lb/14ft long weapons except for special occasions. I fully expect China to field some flat-nosed internal-carriage-only bombs that will stack 2-3x 1000lb into the space of 14-15ft of weapons bay, nevermind sticking 4x SDB equivalents per bay.

This really depends on the depth of the bay. While I expect they'll probably be able to accommodate a couple of decent sized diameter ALCMs internally, stacking them is a whole other matter and I'm skeptical if the aircraft has the volume for that.

 

[F-14ATomcat]

Unnecessary complication. Let's say it has 3 times fuel as J-20. Shut off middle engine and have other two at half power. Then at some point other two shut off and middle on is at half, loiter time could be 6 to 8 hours perhaps.

that is very impractical since the engine and intake duct add weight and reduce volume for fuel, it is just extra weight that reduces fuel.

By logic that is not practical, the jet uses three engines because it is very heavy and very likely less fuel is less range by it self and add extra weight less range.

Those 3 engines are working all the time, to carry the very weapons it carries in those huge weapons bays.

It uses a DSI because caret intakes are for side intakes but are not practical for a single ventral or dorsal intake, so they added a DSI which they already used on J-10 but instead of ventral it was dorsal.

This machine is not as fast very likely designed for operations of Mach 1.4 at relatively low altitudes because F-111 could surpass those speeds with 2 engines, but such amount of mass, requires lots of thrust at low altitudes, a high altitude striker like F-111 could fly a big mass at high altitude.

 

[Scott Kenny]

This really depends on the depth of the bay. While I expect they'll probably be able to accommodate a couple of decent sized diameter ALCMs internally, stacking them is a whole other matter and I'm skeptical if the aircraft has the volume for that.

I don't mean vertical stacking, I mean that each bomb is only ~5ft long and there's ~3 bombs nose-to-tail in that bay. Same way that the SBDs pack, except that these bombs are the full 18-20" diameter instead of 7". Short and fat like beer cans.

 

[NMaude]

but if it's packing a pair of Kinzhal-like ALBMs that's better than what the H-6 carries.

I doubt J-36's weapons bay will be able to carry a Kinzhal like ALBM, let alone two.

I doubt it would be able to carry the AS-24 Killjoy or its' Chinese analogue.

This machine is not as fast very likely designed for operations of Mach 1.4 at relatively low altitudes because F-111 could surpass those speeds with 2 engines, but such amount of mass, requires lots of thrust at low altitudes

IIRC the F-111 could do 840 knots on the deck.

 

[Blitzo]

I don't mean vertical stacking, I mean that each bomb is only ~5ft long and there's ~3 bombs nose-to-tail in that bay. Same way that the SBDs pack, except that these bombs are the full 18-20" diameter instead of 7". Short and fat like beer cans.

Oh I see what you mean, as in positioning them longitudinally. That could be plausible, though I also think carrying weapons which are "short and fat" (particularly unpowered PGM/glide bomb pattern weapons fitting that description) would probably not be very high on its priority list or mission profile.

The idea of this aircraft getting within even 200km of a ground based target in pursuit of servicing it, seems unlikely to me. Better to allocate that to a flying wing UCAV, or a J-20 or J-35/A, or a SRBM, IRBM or cruise missile imo.

 

[Ainen]

The idea of this aircraft getting within even 200km of a ground based target in pursuit of servicing it, seems unlikely to me. Better to allocate that to a flying wing UCAV, or a J-20 or J-35/A, or a SRBM, IRBM or cruise missile imo.

200km is kinda far, what's the point of all this capabilities if you don't dare to approach into sensor range.

 

[Blitzo]

200km is kinda far, what's the point of all this capabilities if you don't dare to approach into sensor range.

The sophistication, range and quantity of overlapping sensors and weapons (ground, sea, air based) in a modern high end air-naval-missile conflict, imo means the highest intensity conflict will emphasize highly networked system of system confrontations in a distributed and standoff manner. The goal would be to wipe away the outer and most capable layers of the enemies warfighting capabilities while preserving your own -- enabling you to get closer to your enemy's high value targets/force enablers and properly threaten them, without risking your own high value assets in the process.

If it gets to the point where the PLA are confident enough to send J-36s within 200km of a valuable ground based target, then chances are the war would've already basically been concluded in their favour and most of the defenses would've been stripped away.

 

[red admiral]

The few pictures from the back seem to show similar size exhausts, hence most likely to be the same engine type. If not, then similar mass flow rate.

I would very much doubt its for a high speed >>M2.0 engine like a ramjet. Just look at the proportions relative to something like XF-103. High speed means lots of thrust needed and it doesn't look close to being that. Plus the fixed geometry intakes would nose dive in efficiency.

If its a higher bypass ratio engine, then due to the similar mass flow rate, this'll be a much lower thrust middle engine, especially at high altitude and higher speed. Pretty sure it wouldn't have anywhere near sufficient thrust to cruise/loiter in these conditions.

So back to three engines of a common type as most likely. TBD whether afterburning or not, you just can't tell from the available pictures. Either could make sense.

 

[Scott Kenny]

Oh I see what you mean, as in positioning them longitudinally. That could be plausible, though I also think carrying weapons which are "short and fat" (particularly unpowered PGM/glide bomb pattern weapons fitting that description) would probably not be very high on its priority list or mission profile.

The idea of this aircraft getting within even 200km of a ground based target in pursuit of servicing it, seems unlikely to me. Better to allocate that to a flying wing UCAV, or a J-20 or J-35/A, or a SRBM, IRBM or cruise missile imo.

The USAF at least has been declining to consider CCAs for bombing missions. Or even strike missions (tactical bombing).

 

[KHambsch]

The USAF at least has been declining to consider CCAs for bombing missions. Or even strike missions (tactical bombing).

What about this baby? Twin engine stealth? Manned? Quazi Lamda-Cranked Arrow?
....hmmm
Anyone got anything on this bird?

 

[DWG]

Well, F-35 and J-35/A both omit dedicated SRAAM bays.

Yet SRAAMs are still integrated, even when people are screaming for the integration work to cover other weapons.

nothing is truly free -- it's all a series of compromises. The question thus being is the value of a canopy with better rearward MK1 eyeball visibility, worth the tradeoffs?

This is precisely my point! The tradeoffs tell us something about the design philosophy, or indicate an element of it we are not seeing.

 

[DWG]

that is very impractical since the engine and intake duct add weight and reduce volume for fuel, it is just extra weight that reduces fuel.

By logic that is not practical

Yet shutting down an engine to loiter has a long history.

 

[DWG]

The USAF at least has been declining to consider CCAs for bombing missions. Or even strike missions (tactical bombing).

I think that's more philosphical/ethical. The kill-chain ideally needs eyes on target to confirm no civilians in the area for Western ethics, which is more difficult to arrange for strike than for air-to-air. I'm not sure PLAAF consider that an important consideration.

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

What about this baby? Twin engine stealth? Manned? Quazi Lamda-Cranked Arrow?
....hmmm
Anyone got anything on this bird?

Some Chinese netizens seem to think its unmanned, but a manned Shenyang design will be revealed shortly. I don't think you can draw any conclusion from the photos seen so far.

 

[Blitzo]

Yet SRAAMs are still integrated, even when people are screaming for the integration work to cover other weapons.

Well, yes but on external pylons (for the F-35); not dedicated SRAAM bays as you described.
Furthermore, considering the contemporary mission during peacetime, carrying SRAAMs does also makes sense (not every mission or sortie needs a BVRAAM).

This is precisely my point! The tradeoffs tell us something about the design philosophy, or indicate an element of it we are not seeing.

Indeed, and my suggestion is that the design philosophy is one where mark 1 eyeball canopy rearward visibility is not very important for its air to air/"air superiority" mission and conops.

 

[DWG]

I see they are admitting to intending to commit war crimes. How ... convenient.

I read an interesting piece on the Chinese approach to international law a month or so back (I forget where, unfortunately) that said they treat it not as something to be honoured, but as something to be pushed against until forced to stop.

 

[DWG]

Well, yes but on external pylons (for the F-35); not dedicated SRAAM bays as you described.

The choice to devote the finite amount of weapons integration work available is just as much my point as the provision or not of external bays. Whether internal or external, if SRAAM integration is prioritised it tells us post-merge air combat has a significant value within the design process.

 

[BullpupRafale]

The choice to devote the finite amount of weapons integration work available is just as much my point as the provision or not of external bays. Whether internal or external, if SRAAM integration is prioritised it tells us post-merge air combat has a significant value within the design process.

Better to have SRAAM to shoot down subsonic cruise missiles and helicopters than full blown BVRAAM.

 

[Blitzo]

The choice to devote the finite amount of weapons integration work available is just as much my point as the provision or not of external bays. Whether internal or external, if SRAAM integration is prioritised it tells us post-merge air combat has a significant value within the design process.

I suppose if J-36 is intended to serve as a WVR peacetime air policing/visual range interception aircraft, it could carry a couple of SRAAMs externally as well.

However for its primary mission set in a high end conflict, nope.

 

[Mike Pryce]

Boxer (writing yesterday, J-36 very unconfirmed) itself looks very analogous to the first J-20: not quite a pre-production aircraft in every detail, but a full-size prototype rather than a minimal technology demonstrator, to be followed by a low-rate production batch. This process worked well on the J-20 and on the aircraft based on Shenyang’s FC-31.

There was also a lot of "only a tech demo" speculation when the J-20 appeared, and it was dead wrong. It may have originated with people not wanting to admit that Bob Gates had been wrong in 2009:

China, by contrast, is projected to have no fifth generation aircraft by 2020. And by 2025, the gap only widens. The U.S. will have approximately 1,700 of the most advanced fifth generation fighters versus a handful of comparable aircraft for the Chinese.

And IIRC there were comments once J-20 appeared along the lines of 'they will have it in service by 2018' that got a response of 'no way'.

Way.

Demonstrators are a waste of time. EAP delayed Typhoon. Warton are working on one for GCAP. 2035. Really?

To me the new 'Boxer' makes the RAF look obsolete already.

 

[siegecrossbow]

I'm back!


The experience from the TACIT BLUE was that it's a pain in the butt trying to run two engines through a common inlet. One engine will eat all the airflow and prevent the other one from starting unless you start both within 30sec of each other, every time.




Just means it's not attritable, or at least no more attritable than a manned plane.









Size, mostly.

The X-29 was built on a couple of F-5/T-38/F-20 airframes (I forget which). Those were too small to be a viable fighter at the time, but perfectly adequate for proving (or rather disproving) the benefits of the FSW. Had the USAF intended to push for a direct-to-combat plane demonstrator, they would have used the F-16 FSW instead, since that would allow for going straight to a viable fighter.

The closest this beast is to a test vehicle is in the sense of the YF-22/YF-23, more or less full sized, using the intended engines (or prototypes thereof), and very close to the final form of the actual fighter/bomber.




Because CFM56s (and newer engines, but it was the CFM56s that started it) are so absurdly reliable that it literally makes global news when one has to shut down in flight, let alone has more significant issues.

This allowed the certification authorities to relax enough to allow twin engine planes to fly over ocean for long distances.




The BVR joust concept did not survive contact with reality in the 1960s, and the requirements for a positive visual ID.

Plus, we just had evidence that IFF systems still are not perfect (Super Hornet shootdown).

So I'm expecting a need for hi-def IRST/EODAS systems to make sure you're pointing a missile at a bandit, and not a friendly that happens to be a long way from where they think they are.



I see they are admitting to intending to commit war crimes. How ... convenient.




I like those!

And there are two massive windows for them on the cheeks. In fact a small aperture like those on F-35 and J-20 was deemed inadequate that they added two very large windows.

 

[sferrin]

And IIRC there were comments once J-20 appeared along the lines of 'they will have it in service by 2018' that got a response of 'no way'.

Way.

Demonstrators are a waste of time. EAP delayed Typhoon. Warton are working on one for GCAP. 2035. Really?

To me the new 'Boxer' makes the RAF look obsolete already.

Demonstrators have their place. The YF-22/-23 were not merely demonstrators. The X-32/-35 were. The AFTI F-16, and F-111 were. The SMTD F-15 was. If you want to see if a particular technology is worth including on future production aircraft you put it on a demonstrator, not a prototype.

 

[aim9xray]

IIRC the F-111 could do 840 knots on the deck.

IIRC, for about [on the order of] 50 miles.

 

[Ainen]

And there are two massive windows for them on the cheeks. In fact a small aperture like those on F-35 and J-20 was deemed inadequate that they added two very large windows.

Will be quite interesting if side radars and optics are in fact main ones.

 

[FighterJock]

An interesting thought Ainen about side radars. Another thing is EOTS and IRIST sensors to complement the radars, I cannot see either on the prototype so far but I can see both on the fighter once it enters service.

 

[F-14ATomcat]

Yet shutting down an engine to loiter has a long history.

The best is a more efficient engine not adding one and carrying it as dead weight.

In example Mirage Balzac V versus harrier, or Yak-141 versus F-35B.

carrying extra engines shows engine inefficiency.

Add 3 engines increase cross section thus you add extra drag, if the Americans have better engines I doubt they will use 3 engines.

Tristar L1011 vs A-300 showed twin engines are better than 3, because they reduce problems.
Drag is one of them.

To early to say until i see the american or European 6th generation aircraft, but 3 engines are to be used otherwise are a waste of fuel and lack of space, this is contradictory since more space means more volume and more volume translates in weight.

This aircraft unveiling shows more a propaganda stunt than real capacity specially if western aircraft are planned with 2 engines