Shenyang / Chengdu 6th Gen Demonstrators?

[BullpupRafale]

So this must be what was referred to as the H-20 bomber?

H-20 is subsonic bomber akin to B-2 or B-21 and not this supersonic fighter or fighter bomber depending who's opinion you ask for.

 

[Nx4eu]

Now, with a wingspan of 24 meters and a length of 22.5 meters, we get a suitable volume.

If I may suggest, I believe your engines are too far back in your drawing. Perhaps something like the image down below.

 

[lancer21]

Rick Joe's article on J-36

J-36: Assessing China’s New Generation Combat Aircraft

What we know – and what we don’t know – about the next-generation fighter that made its first public appearance over Chengdu.

thediplomat.com

 

[Blitzo]

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.

I was thinking, if one wants to consider a two syllable name for this thing for NATO purposes, if they come around to its role as an A2A aircraft, maybe they could consider "Feather" -- a reference both to this thing flying on Mao's birthday (the Chinese character for his name being the same as feather), as well as the trailing edge control surface sort looking like a feathered wing.

 

[lancer21]

On a lighter note, baby Fightercruisers for everyone.

六代机率先“量产”_哔哩哔哩_bilibili

模型名称：中国第六代战斗机模型ID：772844（上 makerworld.com.cn 搜索即可获取）模型作者：大嘴猴MakerWorld中国站, 视频播放量 81794、弹幕量 155、点赞数 3870、投硬币枚数 190、收藏人数 973、转发人数 588, 视频作者 Bambulab拓竹科技, 作者简介...

www.bilibili.com

 

[lancer21]

This has been posted on SDF, at least there is a sketch of the J-50(?) as well, giving a little bit more understanding of it's peculiar (to me at least) intake configuration.

 

[Sprues]

There is no solid proof.

But the same sources that predicted this for the last year, and which predicted J-20 14 years ago before it emerged, and predicted every other major PLA project in the interim, are saying it's less a test vehicle and more of a production intended demonstrator ala J-20 s/n 2001.

============

It's been 14 years since J-20 came onto the scene, you'd think people would've picked up that perhaps the best question to ask is not "where is the proof" but rather "what is the Chinese language grapevine saying".

I'm no chinese aviation expert, but as I understand it China tends to do a soft disclosure. Where they don't release any details, but also don't try to keep the matter secret. I think you right in that sometimes Chinese bloggers are a good source of information if that is the case.

Kinda big and expensive for a test article, obvious sensor windows and IWBs.
Also, its flight was used as a political declaration. You don't declare things with flying an X-29 on Mao's birthday before Trump's innaguration.

Interesting, I hadn't considered the political context of the flight. Thank you.

 

[FlyGuy369]

Here's some SAC goodies I dug up today.

 

[LowObservable]

Further investigations.

China’s big new combat aircraft: a technical assessment | The Strategist

China’s aircraft industry celebrated Mao Zedong’s birthday in style, unveiling three aircraft developments that will comprise an air warfare family of systems for the 2030s and beyond. One, from Shenyang, looks like a demonstrator for ...

www.aspistrategist.org.au

 

[NMaude]

Here's some SAC goodies I dug up today.

Are these images from a patent?

On another note IMO I think that the J-36 is the PLA:AF's version of the NGAD.

 

[FlyGuy369]

Are these images from a patent?

On another note IMO I think that the J-36 is the PLA:AF's version of the NGAD.

Yes, from several, I searched the companies under the assignee tabs in patents.

 

[NMaude]

Yes, from several, I searched the companies under the assignee tabs in patents.

Do you have links to them, please?

 

[Kat Tsun]

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.

They would literally just make a new plane. China isn't the United States where it takes 30 years to make an aircraft from design to metal.

 

[FlyGuy369]

Do you have links to them, please?

I can share them tomorrow, I need to compile them.

 

[Josh_TN]

They would literally just make a new plane. China isn't the United States where it takes 30 years to make an aircraft from design to metal.

To be fare, the B-21 hardly had that life cycle nor did CCA Incr1. In fact as a counter point, one could ask where H-20 is.

 

[Kat Tsun]

To be fare, the B-21 hardly had that life cycle nor did CCA Incr1. In fact as a counter point, one could ask where H-20 is.

B-21 is probably the exception and, perhaps, is older than it seems given LRS-B/LRB and P-ISR/Sensorcraft stretch back to the 1990's.

I don't think the PLAAF has been thinking about new planes and waiting on industry or budget approvals for three decades. They probably thought they'd have like a J-10 with a F110 in 2024, at best, back in 1999.

 

[Josh_TN]

B-21 is probably the exception and, perhaps, is older than it seems given LRS-B/LRB and P-ISR/Sensorcraft stretch back to the 1990's.

I don't think the PLAAF has been thinking about new planes and waiting on industry or budget approvals for three decades. They probably thought they'd have like a J-10 with a F110 in 2024, at best, back in 1999.

I do not think that B-21 is exceptional, given the overall various rapid capabilities offices. The U.S. has in five years created a hypersonic IRBM and a MRC just after leaving the INF treaty. The B-21 is an intercontinental stealth bomber that no one can replicate so far, and it is on time and budget more or less.

The U.S. has definitely been slow as shit on many of its products historically, and the USN most notoriously is fucked. But the U.S. has managed to unfuck its procurement process more recently for the other services. CCA definitely is something flying now. I have not seen a PRC equivalent, unless it is one of the most recent things that is a full sized aircraft. Perhaps the PRC can achieve density that way, but I think the US is winning on small cheap UCAVs right now.

 

[Christmas Day dumplings]

The RCS values of several combat aircraft and missiles are known from the documents of the Russian air defense systems. For example, the RCS of a Su-27 without external suspensions is 5 m2, with a maximum combat load of 15 m2, the RCS of a cruise missile and an F-117 aircraft is 0.2 m2. "The RCS of a fifth-generation fighter cannot be less than 0.3 m2, due to its design features." Let's assume the minimum value for the F-22 is 0.3 m2.
The next step is to select the formula and incoming data for these values. In the paralay-table, this is row 92-98.

paralay-tab

The calculation of "combat effectiveness" is achieved by comparing a group of parameters of a fighter with the Su-27 with the same parameters of the aircraft under study, an attack aircraft with the Su-24.
MiG has published an efficiency comparison for the MiG-29M
Let's compare their results with the tabular ones.
The MiG-29M surpasses the MiG-29 in air combat by 1.5 times, when working on ground targets by 3.8 times.
The F-18C surpasses the MiG-29 in air combat by 1.15 times, when working on ground targets by 3.75 times.

In the MiG-29 table, 0.856 and 0.484, MiG-29M 1.161 and 1.719, F-18S 0.976 and 1.751
MiG-29M surpasses MiG-29 1.161 : 0.856 = 1.36 and 1.719 : 0.484 = 3.55
F-18C surpasses MiG-29 0.976 : 0.856 = 1.14 and 3.62

1.5 or 1.36, 3.8 or 3.55
1.15 or 1.14, 3.75 or 3.62

that is, the table slightly underestimates the efficiency of aircraft, or is MiG overestimating, you can slightly adjust the coefficients.

 

[trajan]

This has been posted on SDF, at least there is a sketch of the J-50(?) as well, giving a little bit more understanding of it's peculiar (to me at least) intake configuration.View attachment 754148

Regarding the SDF data, I found a possible design line diagram on a Chinese website, from an excerpt of an article from around 2010. It mentions a next-generation fighter program proposed by the 6xx Research Institute (most likely 601, or SAC) in 2009.
The section of the article also enlarges on this program to design a strategic bomber with six WS15 engines that can fly at high speeds.

 

[trajan]

Regarding the SDF data, I found a possible design line diagram on a Chinese website, from an excerpt of an article from around 2010. It mentions a next-generation fighter program proposed by the 6xx Research Institute (most likely 601, or SAC) in 2009.
The section of the article also enlarges on this program to design a strategic bomber with six WS15 engines that can fly at high speeds.
View attachment 754170

I think there are some general indications from this in relation to the two VI aircraft that were sighted 15 years later

 

[trajan]

I think there are some general indications from this in relation to the two VI aircraft that were sighted 15 years later

CAC also possible

 

[Kat Tsun]

I do not think that B-21 is exceptional,

Well, no, because it dates back to the late 1990's for the Long Range Bomber, yet B-21 only just flew last year. That's 24 years. China's F-22 analog, the J-20, emerged at about the same time (the late 1990's) and still popped out of the oven a decade faster than Raider in terms of overall time spent.

China simply moves faster than America in a lot of these areas. They can make fighter sized LO aircraft now. H-20 is probably going to end up taking longer due to needing to spool up massive composites fabrication. A non-trivial task but one that has potentially become a bit closer than before.

It may take a decade or it may show up next August.

Perhaps the PRC can achieve density that way, but I think the US is winning on small cheap UCAVs right now.

China is getting rid of its 'grandpa' fighter jets, but they may make a comeback for a one-way mission against Taiwan

China has developed 54 variants of the J-7 during the jet's 60 years in service, and there may be one last conversion in the works.

www.businessinsider.com

Was this not a thing? Technically they could be CCAs minus the "LO" aspects that America seems interested in.

 

[F-14ATomcat]

Characteristics of the J-36M serial version (J-36 demonstrator)

Length 20 m
Wingspan 21 m
Height 3.5 m (4 m)
The wing area is 174 m2
Volume 94 m3
The volume of weapon bays is 16.3 m3 (17.4%)

Weight:
Maximum 58,500 kg
Normal 38,500 kg
20,000 kg of fuel (in two hanging tanks in 10,000 kg weapon compartments)
Loads of 13,500 kg
Empty 25,000 kg

Engines:
Thrust 2 x 23100 kgf / 14250 kgf (3 x 15400 kgf / 9500 kgf)
Fuel consumption 0.57 kg/kgf*h (0.67 kg/kgf*h)

Maximum speed 2200 km/h (M-2.1)
Cruising speed 1800 km/h (M=1.7)

Flight range:
Subsonic 4,500 km (3,900 km)
Supersonic 2,900 km (2,500 km)
Subsonic with one tank in weapon bays 5,300 km (4,500 km)
Subsonic with two tanks in weapon bays 5,800 km (5,000 km)

Operational overload 6g
RCS 0.2 m2 (0.23 m2)

Total combat effectiveness 3.975
J-20 – 1.9, F-22 – 2.14, NGAD – 3.74, GCAP - 3.54, Su-57 – 3.24

I think it is longer than 21 Meters length for sure, the F-111 was 22.4 meters and with wings fully swept was less than 10 meters wing span.

In my opinion and I say guessing that aircraft should be in the range of 23-26 meters long and 20 meters wing span.

It has 3 engines and it is as wide in fuselage like an F-14 as a minimum, the wing span of an F-14 is 11 meters if the J-36 has a 20 meters wing span and has a fuselage as wide as an F-14 it should be much longer

 

[alberchico]

An interesting look at how this platform could be deployed in a hypothetical Taiwan conflict.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1873944807024058811

View: https://x.com/Aryan_warlord/status/1873944807024058811

And on the lighter side, there are already bootleg models of this aircraft being made in China.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1873681066021773637

View: https://x.com/thebestkirin87/status/1873681066021773637

 

[yeetmahboi]

The model is nice but

An interesting look at how this platform could be deployed in a hypothetical Taiwan conflict.

Most of those inforgraphics are either wrong or insanely confusing.
I'd preface that throughout the history of aviation no strategic bombing attempt has been defeated. And not Vietnam, cuz politics.
There are supersonic A2A CCAs in the work.
The flanking J-36s are straight up pipe dream. So the PLA can mass force undetected but the bomber escort cannot? And where are the AMDR vessels?
Frontline airbases being left intact when you're sending multiple Raider wings to strike the mainland is ridiculous. Those Raiders would be carrying nukes and the airbases would be wiped out by hypersonic attacks. Total misunderstanding of the level of escalation to enable these scenarios.

 

[BullpupRafale]

Seen this floating around online... IDK who actual author.

 

[donnage99]

An interesting look at how this platform could be deployed in a hypothetical Taiwan conflict.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1873944807024058811

View: https://x.com/Aryan_warlord/status/1873944807024058811

Replace "interesting" with "uninformed." Let's have our stealthiest and most expensive asset advertising its location against advanced geolocating capable RWR by enemies by radar scan the entire airspace and also flying at infrared signature vulnerable angle just to make sure if they miss J-36 in one spectrum they'll see it in another.

 

[paralay]

In my opinion and I say guessing that aircraft should be in the range of 23-26 meters long and 20 meters wing span

At the moment, the best data is given by a length of 23 meters and a span of 24 meters. I am confused by the width of the small weapons bay, now the medium-range missiles do not fit there.

What are China's most advanced air-launched missiles?

 

[quellish]

Seen this floating around online... IDK who actual author.
View attachment 754180

Someone who does or does not understand 4 spikes versus…. 18? 37? spikes.

Keep on doing what you’re doing guys! MORE SPIKES IS MORE STEALTHS!

 

[Blitzo]

At the moment, the best data is given by a length of 23 meters and a span of 24 meters. I am confused by the width of the small weapons bay, now the medium-range missiles do not fit there.

What are China's most advanced air-launched missiles?

In your images, you seemed to have used the PL-12 missile as the depicted normal sized BVRAAM. PL-12 has been offered for export as SD-10A in the past, with dimensions below:


It has a larger wingspan than the current most capable normal sized BVRAAM in service which is PL-15.
Using PL-12 for your drawing will mean the missile has a larger horizontal footprint/wingspan. PL-12 and PL-15 have the same overall missile fuselage diameter and a very similar length, but PL-15 has a narrower fin/wingspan.

PL-12 is not carried internally by any aircraft.


PL-15 is the baseline BVRAAM for internal carriage by PLA stealth fighters currently.

There is an export version with downgraded capabilities but the same dimensions called PL-15E, as follows:


In J-20's weapons bay:



However, at Zhuhai this year they showcased a new version of the PL-15E with folded wings that reduces its footprint, which should allow J-20 and J-35/A to carry six internally, and chances are it is a downgraded export version based off a more capable domestic PL-15 folding wing variant.






So for your drawing, you should use the PL-15 instead of PL-12 as the basic BVRAAM model which will have a narrower wingspan/horizontal footprint, or alternatively you can try to model the PL-15 with folding wings which has an even narrower wingspan/horizonal footprint.
The folding wing PL-15 may look something like this



=====

We also have strong indications that a new normal sized BVRAAM is being developed as well to replace the PL-15 family overall.


(This isn't including the extra large PL-17 VLRAAM)

 

[Sprues]

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 somethin

I think you may be onto something here. The lack of new engine may be because China seems to take a graduated approach to procuring a specific capability by using individual platforms as stepping stones. The best example of that is their carrier force. Going from the Liaoning, a soviet bought design, to a domestic built copy to a conventional flat top and now possibly aiming for a flat top with a nuclear power plant. We could be seeing the aerial equivalent of that. 200 now as an interim force, then more of the aircraft that is able to incorporate lessons learned from this design and benefit from the industry spun up to produce it.

 

[trajan]

At the moment, the best data is given by a length of 23 meters and a span of 24 meters. I am confused by the width of the small weapons bay, now the medium-range missiles do not fit there.

What are China's most advanced air-launched missiles?

I posted Kinzel—like（2PZD—21），AAM are PL17 ULRAAM（longest white） and PL15 LRAAM（medium one）

 

[Blitzo]

I posted Kinzel—like（2PZD—21），AAM are PL17 ULRAAM（longest white） and PL15 LRAAM（medium one）View attachment 754197

That's probably somewhat unrealistic considering the sheer size and diameter of the KD-21.




That image also makes it look like J-20 can carry eight folded wing PL-15s internally, which almost certainly isn't th case.

I do not consider those image comparisons particularly viable.

 

[SUPER=BUG]

I remember a book published by AVIC that stated that the J20 project was established in 2008

 

[BullpupRafale]

That's probably somewhat unrealistic considering the sheer size and diameter of the KD-21.

View attachment 754198


That image also makes it look like J-20 can carry eight folded wing PL-15s internally, which almost certainly isn't th case.

I do not consider those image comparisons particularly viable.

Is that BRE8 aka King Dragon 480 derivative?

 

[Blitzo]

Is that BRE8 aka King Dragon 480 derivative?

Not sure, there's quite a lot of similar missiles with similar appearances and the lineage (if any) is difficult to trace

 

[paralay]

KD-21 shortened

 

[Deino]

At the moment, the best data is given by a length of 23 meters and a span of 24 meters. I am confused by the width of the small weapons bay, now the medium-range missiles do not fit there.

What are China's most advanced air-launched missiles?

The PL-15 + PL-10 (IR-AAM) and its improved variant PL-15E (IMO PL-16) and the ULR-AAM PL-17



As a CG


real one:

 

[zebra159357]

Well, no, because it dates back to the late 1990's for the Long Range Bomber, yet B-21 only just flew last year. That's 24 years

Not really, the not-too-similar predecessor NGB program was cancelled in 2009 by Robert Gates (who else ?). Successor program LRS-B conceived in 2011, that makes it roughly 12 years to first flight. B-21 is an exception though, it's one of few programs executed on time and budget.

 

[Deino]

If I may suggest, I believe your engines are too far back in your drawing. Perhaps something like the image down below. View attachment 754145

Found this on a Chinese post