Shenyang / Chengdu 6th Gen Demonstrators?

[siegecrossbow]

pretty sure the RAM on F-35 and F-22 rear engine blocker could easily sustain the intense heat

I don’t think it is economically feasible to apply to rest of the fuselage.

 

[Nx4eu]

Could it be interim until they have the proper engines for it? Then they will switch to 2 engines

This sounds extremely unlikely, how many fighters do you know had a different number of engines powering the prototype versus the production model? It isn't a swap and go process, in order to do such changes, the whole airframe needs to be redone and tested, basically making a whole entire new aircraft. Note, in the past China was willing to fly with weaker interim engines, why in this case have they decided that couldn't be done too? I think the assumption that it'll be a 2 engine aircraft in the future is complete nonsense.

 

[JFC Fuller]

Carets or DSIs are not good for a wide speed range like TPHuang is talking about. You need a variable inlet, and IIRC the best variable inlet for LO is a spike like the Blackbird (and F-23 EMD).

From the paper @overscan (PaulMM) posted, apologies for the google quality translation:

3) Use variable geometry air inlet schemes, such as adjustable Caret air inlet, three-dimensional adjustable Bump air inlet, etc. Under the above different flight conditions, the air inlet throat area is adaptively adjusted according to the engine flow demand, thereby solving the problem of inlet matching caused by the difference in flow demand under different subsonic and transsonic conditions of the engine, and greatly reducing the overflow resistance of the fighter air inlet. The adjustable Caret inlet has been put into engineering application on the Su-57 fighter jet. By adjusting the compression ramp, the supersonic wave system organization and throat area are controlled, making the inlet prop.

The performance is better, as shown in Figure 8. The adjustable bump inlet is a new technology in recent years. The throat area
can be adjusted by three-dimensionally adjusting the compression bulge or the local profile of the throat section, which can improve the working speed range of the bump inlet. The frontal area of the inlet and the additional resistance can be further reduced byadjusting the matching point of the flight/engine design, as shown in Figure 9. At present, the main difficulty in the practical application of this technology lies in the durability of flexible deformation materials and their repeated deformation in complex mechanical environments.

 

[yeetmahboi]

I don’t think it is economically feasible to apply to rest of the fuselage.

It can be. if you have the *will*. Besides, RAM type and thickness can vary according to how much heat is dumped into specific sections.

 

[sienar]

Regarding the whole is is a bomber or fighter discourse, this old study may be illuminating.

Investigation into the impact of agility on conceptual fighter design - NASA Technical Reports Server (NTRS)

The Agility Design Study was performed by the Boeing Defense and Space Group for the NASA Langley Research Center. The objective of the study was to assess the impact of agility requirements on new fighter configurations. Global trade issues investigated were the level of agility, the mission...

ntrs.nasa.gov

 

[bobbymike]

So does this aviation “surprise” lend itself to China’s stealth bomber being further along then thought?

 

[quellish]

RAM that can withstand the heat at Mach 3 has been around since the 1960s.

Sadly the use of asbestos is now frowned upon, and the types of RAM in use in the 1960s are not effective against modern threats. It would be really interesting to see what a modern solution for a Mach 3 edge treatment would look like though.

 

[_Del_]

So given that the middle exhaust looks identical to other two, does that imply anything with regards to middle engine being in some way different from outer engines?
Which types of different engines can still have the same exhaust, and which types are unlikely to be used, given this same engine exhaust?

That's what struck me about that photo. Probably means same engine.

 

[BullpupRafale]

From the paper @overscan (PaulMM) posted, apologies for the google quality translation:

If that is case for the upper DSI then that perhaps make it plausible future iterations of J-36 could replace caret intake with this type.

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

Carets or DSIs are not good for a wide speed range like TPHuang is talking about. You need a variable inlet, and IIRC the best variable inlet for LO is a spike like the Blackbird (and F-23 EMD).

Did you miss the discussion in the article I posted about variable geometry Caret and DSI intakes? JFC Fuller posted the relevant section.

 

[Sundog]

Regarding the CAC design

1) It isn't a Mach 3 aircraft. Just looking at the two caret inlets and their sweep angle one can easily see it's designed for the Mach 1.6 to 1.8 flight regime. There isn't a reason to be faster. Unless one wants to drive up costs (Purchase and maintenance).

2) It has three engines for commonality with their other combat aircraft (My opinion). Sure, it pays a weight/cost penalty for it, but the overall savings by having the same engine, I assume, as the J-20, can't be underestimated.

3) The third dorsal inlet doesn't aide stability, because it is most prominent near the center of mass. It will make it more susceptible to cross winds, but not as much as a full vertical tail would have.

4) It's a multi-role stealthy medium combat aircraft, although the USAF still classifies it as a bomber in their eyes. I think it's primary mission is long range strike, although it can probably use A2A missiles as well. Not sure why they would need it for the latter when they have the J-20. I view it as a modern stealth version of the F-111. I've yet to see anything that would dissuade me from that notion.

Regarding the Shenyang design, I think it's designed for the same role, but shorter range? I haven't seen enough imagery of this design to be able to make educated guesses. Based on the landing gear, I would say it's J-20 sized at most.

Having said that, it's nice to see mostly rational talk here as opposed to the idiots on Twitter telling me it's a hypersonic multi-thrust vectored 6th gen air dominance fighter with side inlets that close for high speed flight. Yes, people have been trying to tell me that there. I explained to them that if the side inlets are close-able then those engineers are the dumbest engineers I've ever known about, since that means a huge fraction of internal volume would be useless empty space instead of being used for fuel or weapons loads. But no, I just didn't didn't understand the superiority of the Chinese designers is what I was told and their training system. Then I explained that many of those engineers were trained in the U.S., as 50% of the grad students when I was in school in the eighties were Chinese nationals. That didn't go over well either. It's nice to be somewhere where sober analysis can still take place.

 

[DWG]

I much prefer the idea of a pop-up tube launcher than a VLS.

There were SABA variants with both, IIRC, so they're not inconceivable. OTOH SABA was a much slower aircraft and the vertically launched munitions were Merlin MMW mortar rounds, so comparatively short in comparison to an AAM.

 

[DWG]

This sounds extremely unlikely, how many fighters do you know had a different number of engines powering the prototype versus the production model?

Me 262, though that's an extreme example.

 

[DWG]

But just a stupid question, has someone checked it's not AI generated? (I don't hear 3 engines running)

Same number of wings across every image, that makes it generations better than any AI aircraft pics I've see

 

[Ainen]

4) It's a multi-role stealthy medium combat aircraft, although the USAF still classifies it as a bomber in their eyes. I think it's primary mission is long range strike, although it can probably use A2A missiles as well. Not sure why they would need it for the latter when they have the J-20. I view it as a modern stealth version of the F-111. I've yet to see anything that would dissuade me from that notion.

3rd engine is a giveaway.
Strike aircraft, supercruising or not, just won't need it - but it takes helluva fuel and weapon bay volume.
You only need this 3rd engine for onboard power and fighter dynamics.

 

[red admiral]

If that is case for the upper DSI then that perhaps make it plausible future iterations of J-36 could replace caret intake with this type.

You can't replace the Caret intakes with a DSI because it simply won't work as an intake. There's only one edge due to the strake / LERX above so you can't put a F-35 / J-20 type DSI on it

 

[DWG]

I'm not convinced that the missiles in the VLS will eject safely at speed. Remember, as soon as the missiles clear the muzzle, you have 500+kph winds trying to bend the missile over. If you're lucky it just bends. If you're unlucky it gets stuck in the tube. If you're really unlucky, the solid rocket cracks and suffers a rapid unexpected disassembly that takes the plane with it.

Submerged side-firing torpedo tubes had much these issues in cruisers and battleships. Water is much denser, but speeds were sub-30knots. And what happens if you're manouevring during launch? An inclined tube launcher might reduce the issues, but how you're getting the missile out of the tube is also an issue - hot launch? cold launch? You need extra weight that stays with the aircraft for both solutions (gas efflux tubing for hot launch, gas generator for cold launch). In a VLS array that's going to add up.

 

[DWG]

Wang Haifeng (Chengdu, allegedly Chief Designer of J-36)
"Key Technologies for Co-design of High-Performance Fighter and Engine"

高性能战斗机与发动机协同设计关键技术

"The future operational environment imposes higher and more comprehensive requirements for the performance of fighters, calling for deeper integration between fighter airframe and engine"

Which IMO argues strongly against the third engine being a temporary expedient. If your design paradigm is closely dependent on airframe/engine integration, then any prototype with a different number of engines is so unrepresentative as to be useless.

 

[Devin]

Not that it matters because everything is just personal opinions and speculation but if you look at all these "new releases" this year one could hypothesize that the government of china has given weapons manufacturers a list of requirements and a timeline for the "reunification" of Taiwan.
In that case the CAC project might make more sense. If their plans require a stealthy multirole strike aircraft/ medium bomber that can reach Taiwan at high speed and they lack suitable engines, well maybe three existing engines will have to do to make sure there are enough a/c available when the invasion happens.
So basically maybe it's a compromise design that is dictated by a timeline and using what is available instead of going for (and waiting for) the state of the art.
Can this CAC design cross the Taiwan straight at high speed, perform a strike, SEAD/DEAD or recce and return? Can they produce meaningful quantities in a relatively short time? If you don't have to design a new engine that will surely speed up the process.
Combined with the Type 76 Amphibious assault ship (with EM catapult and some sort of arrestor for drones?) and an unmanned aircraft that is allegedly for AEW, it can all tie nicely to a scheduled Taiwan "Special Military Operation".
Or maybe not.

 

[Avimimus]

what if those window are not for the EOTS equivalent but for DEW? and the inlet at the top is actually a ram air inlet purely for DEW?

I really like this. It is very unlikely probably - but the implications if true! It is a really entertaining conjecture!

 

[DWG]

one could hypothesize that the government of china has given weapons manufacturers a list of requirements and a timeline for the "reunification" of Taiwan.

2027 is the target year most often quoted, which at this point pretty much rules out anything not already in inventory.

 

[trajan]

Yeah it will meet the heat barrier which opens a whole can of worms. Unless there is new RAM that can withstand the intense heat. Even then it will light up like a Christmas tree on IR sensors.

If that's the case, then we clearly have a way to fight these Chinese monsters.
In the 1970s, the Air Force tested the AIM97 Foxbat Hunter, a heavy air-to-air missile modified from the Standard 2 air defense missile.
This missile used the anti-radiation missile principle to track the huge electromagnetic signal of the MIG25 radar in the early guidance phase, and infrared guidance at the end. It could intercept a MIG25 flying at Mach 3 at 35,000 feet, 50 nautical miles away.
No doubt similar technology is used today on the Navy's Standard Missile. And we could build the same infrared guided ultra long-range air-to-air missile to suppress the enemy as we did the AIM174.

 

[DrRansom]

I agree with the assessment that the three-engine configuration says quite a lot about the design philosophy:
- Does the plane only make sense if it did not require a new engine? A 200-400 aircraft fleet may be too small to justify a new engine.
- Do they need the plane ready as soon as possible? Then use something off the shelf.

If the plane uses entirely mature technologies - apart from the air frame - then they could possibly get a small fleet ready by the end of 2027.

Lastly, China could be preparing an airforce for the eventuality that a war over Taiwan becomes some protracted conflict. In which case, an advanced design that comes into service later still counts for something.

 

[F-14ATomcat]

Yes but there's a reason the US did it, and the reason they did it, that patent is filed under CAC

there is a saying that says nothing is new under the sun.

We can apply it here too.


That aircraft is a delta winged aircraft.

In order to understand it just remember what delta wings do.

Deltas have long take offs, F-14 transitions from a delta at high sweep to a high aspect ratio wing at low sweep.

MiG-21 has tailplanes, so the trailing edge flaps can be used to generate lift and roll is controlled by the tail.
XB-70 used a very segmented trailing edge ailerons, nothing new under the sun sorry Chengdu, but that idea is not new, however XB-70 had canards so they need to segment the trailing edge much less since part of the trim control was done by the canards and some of the longitudinal yaw control was done by the vertical twin fins.

Ask your self why use canards or an aft tail?
Simple the ailerons and elevons can be partly replaced by the aft tail, it also uses split rudders for yaw control, nothing new too.

https://www.apogeerockets.com/education/downloads/Newsletter15.pdf

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

Regarding the CAC design

1) It isn't a Mach 3 aircraft. Just looking at the two caret inlets and their sweep angle one can easily see it's designed for the Mach 1.6 to 1.8 flight regime. There isn't a reason to be faster. Unless one wants to drive up costs (Purchase and maintenance).

I think its intended to supercruise at Mach 1.6 - 1.8 with maximum speed around Mach 2.0, Mach 2.3 absolute maximum (assuming variable intake geometry as suggested)

2) It has three engines for commonality with their other combat aircraft (My opinion). Sure, it pays a weight/cost penalty for it, but the overall savings by having the same engine, I assume, as the J-20, can't be underestimated.

Agreed, likely WS-10 or WS-15 today and with a future 3 stream VCE that fits all the various platforms including J-20.

3) The third dorsal inlet doesn't aide stability, because it is most prominent near the center of mass. It will make it more susceptible to cross winds, but not as much as a full vertical tail would have.

4) It's a multi-role stealthy medium combat aircraft, although the USAF still classifies it as a bomber in their eyes. I think it's primary mission is long range strike, although it can probably use A2A missiles as well. Not sure why they would need it for the latter when they have the J-20. I view it as a modern stealth version of the F-111. I've yet to see anything that would dissuade me from that notion.

Read the articles I linked. I think they are following the (NGAD initiated) PCA model. PCA is intended to aggressively penetrate enemy airspace and destroy targets on the air and ground using it own weaponry and multiple CCAs. Think flying directly over Taiwan, targeting and destroying AWACS, SAM sites etc. It requires all-aspect stealth, which the J-20 doesn't possess.

In this example its mostly using off-the-shelf hardware to speed up development, again following the announced NGAD plan from a few years ago of rapid prototyping and iterating designs.

Having said that, it's nice to see mostly rational talk here as opposed to the idiots on Twitter telling me it's a hypersonic multi-thrust vectored 6th gen air dominance fighter with side inlets that close for high speed flight. Yes, people have been trying to tell me that there. I explained to them that if the side inlets are close-able then those engineers are the dumbest engineers I've ever known about, since that means a huge fraction of internal volume would be useless empty space instead of being used for fuel or weapons loads. But no, I just didn't didn't understand the superiority of the Chinese designers is what I was told and their training system. Then I explained that many of those engineers were trained in the U.S., as 50% of the grad students when I was in school in the eighties were Chinese nationals. That didn't go over well either. It's nice to be somewhere where sober analysis can still take place.

Yep, the Chinese articles I posted are sober enough about realistic use of technology, and explicitly call out that hypersonics would push things out to 2040.

 

[Blitzo]

Read the articles I linked. I think they are following the (NGAD initiated) PCA model. PCA is intended to aggressively penetrate enemy airspace and destroy targets on the air and ground using it own weaponry and multiple CCAs. Think flying directly over Taiwan, targeting and destroying AWACS, SAM sites etc. It requires all-aspect stealth, which the J-20 doesn't possess.

You're right here, but should have more emphasis on CCAs/UCAVs and enhanced command/networking.

It also won't really be necessary for Taiwan strike missions; its capabilities and in particular its range is somewhat overkill for that role, considering the extent of other fires the PLA possesses for that sort of mission distance. If it's 2nd island chain distances otoh, that would be more on the money.

 

[FlyGuy369]

there is a saying that says nothing is new under the sun.

We can apply it here too.


That aircraft is a delta winged aircraft.

In order to understand it just remember what delta wings do.

Deltas have long take offs, F-14 transitions from a delta at high sweep to a high aspect ratio wing at low sweep.

MiG-21 has tailplanes, so the trailing edge flaps can be used to generate lift and roll is controlled by the tail.
XB-70 used a very segmented trailing edge ailerons, nothing new under the sun sorry Chengdu, but that idea is not new, however XB-70 had canards so they need to segment the trailing edge much less since part of the trim control was done by the canards and some of the longitudinal yaw control was done by the vertical twin fins.

Ask your self why use canards or an aft tail?
Simple the ailerons and elevons can be partly replaced by the aft tail, it also uses split rudders for yaw control, nothing new too.

https://www.apogeerockets.com/education/downloads/Newsletter15.pdf

Oh no I totally get it, it's not reinventing the wheel by any means. I was simply providing words from chengdu on their reasoning as to why from a patent on there own, simple as that! Just trying to give more info is all. I have a background in aero so I am locked in on everything you are speaking of.

 

[Ainen]

Think flying directly over Taiwan, targeting and destroying AWACS, SAM sites etc. It requires all-aspect stealth, which the J-20 doesn't possess.

I don't think direct overflights of such compact, fortified AA regions before supression, relying on VLO, are a bright idea in the first place.

 

[Moose]

So does this aviation “surprise” lend itself to China’s stealth bomber being further along then thought?

The bomber was supposedly being held up by engine development, if the J-36 really is using 3 based of WS-10 then they're still not ready on the next generation engines. There's also the potential that increased resources for these 2 fighter-size aircraft could me less available for the bomber, even China has limits.

 

[Robert]

Alleged second new Shenyang fighter in this video:

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DnIfH3mnREc


Anyone know if this is authentic or if this channel is reliable?

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

Not seen it posted on any Chinese boards yet.

 

[trajan]

New pictures sent by our Chinese friends
These include the X47B-like "Gong Ji" (means "ATTACK") 11 and the WuZheng (means RQ) 9, which acts like a small E7 AWACS, as well as the KJ3000 (the Chinese say it is a super E3 AWACS), which is said to use the latest AESA radar and Y20 chassis (the Chinese call it the Super E7 AWACS).

These will be the main reconnaissance and long-range strike aircraft of the Chinese Air Force in the next 15-30 years.

 

[trajan]

View attachment 754065
New pictures sent by our Chinese friends
These include the X47B-like "Gong Ji" (means "ATTACK") 11 and the WuZheng (means RQ) 9, which acts like a small E7 AWACS, as well as the KJ3000 (the Chinese say it is a super E3 AWACS), which is said to use the latest AESA radar and Y20 chassis (the Chinese call it the Super E7 AWACS).

These will be the main reconnaissance and long-range strike aircraft of the Chinese Air Force in the next 15-30 years.

BTW，where is the X47A？

 

[quellish]

BTW，where is the X47A？

In storage at Palmdale

 

[F-14ATomcat]

Oh no I totally get it, it's not reinventing the wheel by any means. I was simply providing words from chengdu on their reasoning as to why from a patent on there own, simple as that! Just trying to give more info is all. I have a background in aero so I am locked in on everything you are speaking of.

well Physics are the same now and in the future for something are called laws, the J-36 continues following the same rules of any delta wing aircraft.

Nothing new under the sun, what I mean is if its a delta its take offs are long, it lacks tail, so it has to use split rudders for yaw control as any previous flying wing.

If I wanted to make a very fast aircraft I would had followed the XB-1 boom supersonic

A slender circular cross section long Sears-Haack-Von-Karman-Body
pencil shaped fuselage, the three engines are not positioned the same the top intake feeds an engine far aft than the side engines making it much slender thus it will manage to reduce drag of its 3 engines configuration.

It has a large vertical tail, aft tail and a relatively small wing and since it uses flat ramps all intakes are the same



In my personal opinion J-36 uses many solutions but not for aerodynamics, but stealth and in my opinion they have prioritized payload, if it is a fighter it is like MiG-31 a sniper, BVR as priority.

In my opinion, this is no dog fighter, it is an aircraft for BVR combat.

Deltas bleed lift easily in turns without canards or/and aft tail, and without vertical tail, J-36 it will bleed more lift in turns add it is too heavy, so I think the USAF saw that in their project so very likely they want something smaller and B-21 can do the same J-36 will do. That`s my opinion.

 

[FlyGuy369]

well Physics are the same now and in the future for something are called laws, the J-36 continues following the same rules of any delta wing aircraft.

Nothing new under the sun, what I mean is if its a delta its take offs are long, it lacks tail, so it has to use split rudders for yaw control as any previews flying wing.

If I wanted to make a very fast aircraft I would had followed the XB-1 boom supersonic

A slender circular cross section long karman body pencil shaped fuselage, the tree engines are not positioned the same the top intake feeds an engine far aft than the side engines making it much slender thus it will manage to reduce drag of its 3 engines configuration.

It has a large vertical tail, aft tail and a relatively small wing and since it uses flat ramps all intakes are the same
View attachment 754066


In my personal opinion J-36 uses many solutions but not for aerodynamics, but stealth and in my opinion they have prioritized payload, if it is a fighter it is like MiG-31 a sniper, BVR as priority.

In my opinion, this is no dog fighter, it is an aircraft for BVR combat.

Deltas bleed lift easily in turns without canards or/and aft tail, and without vertical tail, J-36 it will bleed more lift in turns add it is too heavy, so I think the USAF saw that in their project so very likely they want something smaller and B-21 can do the same J-36 will do. That my opinion.

I imagine this platform as a long range strike platform, Long range attack for anything at a distance. Whether that's BVR or Anti-ship work, it's there for it. The symbolic debut the day after Christmas sounds to me like a present to the US Navy, to show that our carriers are not safe. China is very smart, especially at peer matching at this rate. The whole game seems more like deterrence than anything. Arguably speaking, our interdependent economies to not want or need a war with one another. The unveiling of the J-something is very impressive and should be taken serious for its perceived capabilities, but I cannot help but feel that this is an arms race at best. Pretty neat looking birds however. I find their use of planform alignment interesting, wonder why the wingtips are rounded.

 

[F-14ATomcat]

I imagine this platform as a long range strike platform, Long range attack for anything at a distance. Whether that's BVR or Anti-ship work, it's there for it. The symbolic debut the day after Christmas sounds to me like a present to the US Navy, to show that our carriers are not safe. China is very smart, especially at peer matching at this rate. The whole game seems more like deterrence than anything. Arguably speaking, our interdependent economies to not want or need a war with one another. The unveiling of the J-something is very impressive and should be taken serious for its perceived capabilities, but I cannot help but feel that this is an arms race at best. Pretty neat looking birds however. I find their use of planform alignment interesting, wonder why the wingtips are rounded.

No one wants war, since war will affect us all and most likely 92% of the world population will perish.
This aircraft I think it is to replace JH-7 and Su-30, in my opinion aircraft like Su-75 make more sense.
What is the point of tailless if you increase the size of the aircraft? yes what ever reflecting area they rest from the tail, they add in size.

Any way most aircraft will fly trajectories where the frontal view will reduce the tail reflecting area, I think in that regard I think the European fighter designs are more logic, you need tails.

Well that is my opinion, I might be wrong but i think the European aircraft make more sense to me.

 

[Nx4eu]

I think its intended to supercruise at Mach 1.6 - 1.8 with maximum speed around Mach 2.0, Mach 2.3 absolute maximum (assuming variable intake geometry as suggested)


Agreed, likely WS-10 or WS-15 today and with a future 3 stream VCE that fits all the various platforms including J-20.


Read the articles I linked. I think they are following the (NGAD initiated) PCA model. PCA is intended to aggressively penetrate enemy airspace and destroy targets on the air and ground using it own weaponry and multiple CCAs. Think flying directly over Taiwan, targeting and destroying AWACS, SAM sites etc. It requires all-aspect stealth, which the J-20 doesn't possess.

In this example its mostly using off-the-shelf hardware to speed up development, again following the announced NGAD plan from a few years ago of rapid prototyping and iterating designs.


Yep, the Chinese articles I posted are sober enough about realistic use of technology, and explicitly call out that hypersonics would push things out to 2040.

Hi, may I ask how someone determines the cruise and maximum speed of an aircraft through visual means only.
Doesn't the F22 have a supercruise of mach 1.6-1.8 and maximum speed of 2.0?

From an amateur perspective, I see the J-36 has lower parasitic drag due to the lack of vertical stabilizers, higher lift from greater wing area, and lower critical mach number from higher wing sweep. Combined with the high thrust of 3x low bypass turbofans, shouldn't the aircraft super cruise better than the f22 and or have a higher maximum speed?

I have also heard that the F22 top speed has been artificially limited the Mach 2 due to possibly damage to the RAM it has. Shouldn't that mean with better material sciences, stealth aircraft wouldn't need to be artificially limited in speed?
Thanks.

 

[icyplanetnhc (Steve)]

Generally, the maximum speed estimates for tactical aircraft (without taking materials into consideration) are from several factors such as nose-to-wingtip angle, various sweep angles, and the inlet design. Regarding a fixed caret inlet as on the F-22, it is capable of efficient pressure recovery above Mach 2, but not significantly so without potentially running into performance or stability issues, or sacrifice efficiency in other parts of the envelope. Perhaps Mach 2.3-2.4 max. Beyond that you would need variable geometry features that can adjust the throat area, but that comes with its own tradeoffs in terms of cost, maintenance, and low observable characteristics. And the J-36 inlet, which appears to be a fixed caret type, appears to have more modest sweep angles.

Top supercruise speed is generally not something you can visually estimate, and for Ps=0 it also depends on the engine cycle and limits (compressor discharge, TIT, FTIT, etc). The only reason we know the F-22’s is that it’s been disclosed to be around Mach 1.8 or so at altitude (I believe Mach 1.76 on standard day, a tad faster on a cold day).

And yes the F-22 is placard limited at Mach 2 due to its RAM coatings, it has plenty of excess thrust at that speed and the structure can handle more. Per test pilot Jim “JB” Brown, at 40,000 ft the aircraft is using 118% throttle out of 150% available (for reference, 100% is full military power or dry thrust, 150% is full afterburner).

 

[Deino]

Alleged second new Shenyang fighter in this video:

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DnIfH3mnREc


Anyone know if this is authentic or if this channel is reliable?

It‘s fake … a certain YouTube video showed it (IMO AI-generated nonsense)