Shenyang / Chengdu 6th Gen Demonstrators?

Interesting to compare the J-20 and the J-36 Deino. It is not as long as I was thinking against the J-20.
 
I wonder what the Western-allied response will be in the short and long term. I can definitely see an NGAD funding increase and perhaps making some of the work more public (like the demonstrators reportedly flying since 2020 or AIM-260).
 
via @siegecrossbow at the SDF:

In the latest talkshow Yankee says:

1) J-36 will not be a Mach 3 capable aircraft.
2) Yankeesama has talked briefly with J-36 Chief Designer Wang Haifeng.
3) Chief Designer care not much about hard specs such as top speed, max thrust, etc. The important criteria of the fighter is instead power generation capability.
4) J-36 can serve as EW and AWAC to some capacity.
5) No pulsed detonation engine or ramjet on J-36. They can’t provide enough power to even existing fighter aircraft avionics, let alone something as sophisticated as CHAD.
6) Engine design no longer focuses on thrust alone. What’s more important is subsystem for power generation under whole flight envelope. Power regulation system is therefore of foremost importance. An example would be NEV vs ICE or F-15 vs MiG-25.
7) Variable cycle engine will conform to J-36’s design.
8) Yankee once again agrees with SDF assessment that the J-36 is not a simple fighter, fighter bomber, bomber, etc. but a new system altogether. It is more akin to an air based cruiser.
 
Jason Dykstra (Wyvern) said:
I wonder what the Western-allied response will be in the short and long term. I can definitely see an NGAD funding increase and perhaps making some of the work more public (like the demonstrators reportedly flying since 2020 or AIM-260).
Click to expand...
Not sure why the west needs a response, this is unlikely to be a surprise to US military decision makers. The proof will be in the production aircraft and what happens 20000ft above the Taiwan strait, not what the blogosphere chooses to misinterpret...
 
Deino said:
via @siegecrossbow at the SDF:

In the latest talkshow Yankee says:

1) J-36 will not be a Mach 3 capable aircraft.
2) Yankeesama has talked briefly with J-36 Chief Designer Wang Haifeng.
3) Chief Designer care not much about hard specs such as top speed, max thrust, etc. The important criteria of the fighter is instead power generation capability.
4) J-36 can serve as EW and AWAC to some capacity.
5) No pulsed detonation engine or ramjet on J-36. They can’t provide enough power to even existing fighter aircraft avionics, let alone something as sophisticated as CHAD.
6) Engine design no longer focuses on thrust alone. What’s more important is subsystem for power generation under whole flight envelope. Power regulation system is therefore of foremost importance. An example would be NEV vs ICE or F-15 vs MiG-25.
7) Variable cycle engine will conform to J-36’s design.
8) Yankee once again agrees with SDF assessment that the J-36 is not a simple fighter, fighter bomber, bomber, etc. but a new system altogether. It is more akin to an air based cruiser.
Click to expand...
An interesting set of comments. It tends to gel with the expectation that the 6th gen will forego maneuver for better systems and reliance on power generation. Beyond EW it feels like DEW is the system that will benefit the most from this focus and increase.

Air based cruiser, does that make the B-21 a battleship?
 
Deino said:
via @siegecrossbow at the SDF:

In the latest talkshow Yankee says:

1) J-36 will not be a Mach 3 capable aircraft.
2) Yankeesama has talked briefly with J-36 Chief Designer Wang Haifeng.
3) Chief Designer care not much about hard specs such as top speed, max thrust, etc. The important criteria of the fighter is instead power generation capability.
4) J-36 can serve as EW and AWAC to some capacity.
5) No pulsed detonation engine or ramjet on J-36. They can’t provide enough power to even existing fighter aircraft avionics, let alone something as sophisticated as CHAD.
6) Engine design no longer focuses on thrust alone. What’s more important is subsystem for power generation under whole flight envelope. Power regulation system is therefore of foremost importance. An example would be NEV vs ICE or F-15 vs MiG-25.
7) Variable cycle engine will conform to J-36’s design.
8) Yankee once again agrees with SDF assessment that the J-36 is not a simple fighter, fighter bomber, bomber, etc. but a new system altogether. It is more akin to an air based cruiser.
Click to expand...
Makes sense. Point 7: maybe they don't want to develop two VCEs...
 
Last edited:
@trajan The passage was by fans design, claimed based on real aircraft

@Kat Tsun J-10 can date back to 80s, with a few photos showing concept models around 1988. However it is undeniable the procurement of US armed force after the Cold War was, and still is, fucked

@Deino Point 4 and 8 are quite similar to NGAD then, system of systems
 
paralay said:
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.
Click to expand...
Can you provide the source document please ?
 
Ozair said:
An interesting set of comments. It tends to gel with the expectation that the 6th gen will forego maneuver for better systems and reliance on power generation. Beyond EW it feels like DEW is the system that will benefit the most from this focus and increase.

Air based cruiser, does that make the B-21 a battleship?
Click to expand...
B-21 is a bomber , just a bomber.
 
Is it true that Shenyang's new fighter is called the J-50? That will be so confusing once the H-50 bomber is revealed.
 
Ozair said:
An interesting set of comments. It tends to gel with the expectation that the 6th gen will forego maneuver for better systems and reliance on power generation. Beyond EW it feels like DEW is the system that will benefit the most from this focus and increase.

Air based cruiser, does that make the B-21 a battleship?
Click to expand...
Somehow when i read it the first thing that comes to my mind is F-35. While not to that extrem it does fit (loosely) into those points.
 
GTX said:
www.armyrecognition.com

Exclusive Report: Secrets Technology and Design of New China's Shenyang J-50 Stealth Fighter Revealed

Exclusive Report: Secrets Technology and Design of New China's Shenyang J-50 Stealth Fighter Revealed
www.armyrecognition.com www.armyrecognition.com
Click to expand...

Man that images feels lazy. ripping off this guy's image, and the article seems AI made.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1873225168451190870
View: https://x.com/Rational314159/status/1873225168451190870


zebra159357 said:
Can you provide the source document please ?
Click to expand...

From Document on modernization for SA-3/S-125
 

Attachments

  • 2_2_3.pdf
    382.6 KB · Views: 27
paralay said:
ЭОП, ЭПР - RCS source
Click to expand...
Thanks. Is there additional context available as to the measured(calculated) RCS numbers of named aircraft ? Is it an average value(at what frequency ?) from all angles, or just certain sectors ?

Besides, it seems foolish to me to take those numbers seriously considering the documents are well over 20 years old, featuring doubtful assertions without much context. If those values were anywhere close to reality, then stealth would not present a revolutionary way of warfighting as it's been repeatedly proven in various instances. Just take the RCS(0,3m2) of F-22 implied by that document. If it was accurate, then F-22 would achieve "merely" 2-3times detection distance reduction compared to F-15. Tikhomorov NIIP claims Irbis-E detection distance of >200km(400km in narrow search) against a 3m2 target, which would allow the Su-35S to detect the F-22 at a range exceeding 110km .. well within and beyond the engagement envelope of available AAMs.

Yet, we have had reports by F-15C pilots being unable to lock on the Raptors even within visual range during exercises.
 
zebra159357 said:
Yet, we have had reports by F-15C pilots being unable to lock on the Raptors even within visual range during exercises.
Click to expand...
The MiG-31 could not be captured by the Tu-95MS radar when it turned on its electronic warfare systems. There are other ways to counter capture besides low visibility

I gave a link to a search query, there are a lot of interesting things there, but in Russian. I have not seen any more recent, "tearing off the covers" data.
 
paralay said:
The MiG-31 could not be captured by the Tu-95MS radar when it turned on its electronic warfare systems. There are other ways to counter capture besides low visibility
Click to expand...
Well, there is an old "send return signal in counter-phase" trick, used by AN/ULQ-6 naval jammer, for example. The real return echo was "cancelled" and the fake one was inserted, with slight delay - so the enemy radar would "see" the target beyond its real position.
 
stealthflanker said:
Man that images feels lazy. ripping off this guy's image, and the article seems AI made.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1873225168451190870
View: https://x.com/Rational314159/status/1873225168451190870




From Document on modernization for SA-3/S-125
Click to expand...

The max mach of 2.5 associated with the CAC J-36 is far in excess of reality. I suspect the max mach is in the 1.6 to 1.8 range given the geometry that has been gathered to date, and that is assuming the engines have reheat. An argument could be made the engines do not have reheat. But that is a discussion for another day.
 
djfawcett said:
The max mach of 2.5 associated with the CAC J-36 is far in excess of reality. I suspect the max mach is in the 1.6 to 1.8 range given the geometry that has been gathered to date, and that is assuming the engines have reheat. An argument could be made the engines do not have reheat. But that is a discussion for another day.
Click to expand...
Is this based on the assumption that the caret intakes are fixed? There could be an assumption based on a paper done by the Chief designer of the J-36 Wang haifeng, that it could incorporate a variable caret intake bump design. GgJHzSUXYAA_ykE.jpg
 
siegecrossbow said:
Think they’ll go nuts and incorporate VLS on this bird?

View attachment 754019
Click to expand...
A thought occurred to me - if these systems are indeed real and installed on the J-36, then they would render the idea of dogfighting utterly impossible - these missiles, even though they were designed to shoot down other missiles, would do just as well against aircraft, should they come into range of probably not more than low tens of kilometers.

There's no point in dogfighting a plane that can throw three dozen missiles at you. And considering this, all the traditional considerations of fighter design (AoA, ITR, STR, max G-s) go out the window.
 
Elysium said:
A thought occurred to me - if these systems are indeed real and installed on the J-36, then they would render the idea of dogfighting utterly impossible - these missiles, even though they were designed to shoot down other missiles, would do just as well against aircraft, should they come into range of probably not more than low tens of kilometers.

There's no point in dogfighting a plane that can throw three dozen missiles at you. And considering this, all the traditional considerations of fighter design (AoA, ITR, STR, max G-s) go out the window.
Click to expand...

There will still be important elements of kinematic maneuvering for an A2A aircraft including for J-36, but I suspect they would be meant to maximize its ability to exploit superior sensing+networking+weapons at range, and I don't only mean increased altitude and speed to gain better weapons range.

I am also thinking of being able to see the other guy earlier than they see you, to send your friendly UCAVs/CCAs and other tacair allies to shoot down the enemy before they know where you are, all while positioning yourself in the most advantageous position for a shot before they get into WVR, and retaining the ability to accelerate and avoid an engagement, disengage, or gain superior energy for another shot if things get into a WVR.

And if the enemy has managed to get through all of that yet still be able to do a proper WVR "dogfight" with you, then chances are you have much bigger problems than what your WVR maneuverability is like, because to get through all of those hurdles means the enemy has superior sensors, EW, situational awareness, speed and kinematics, as well as the ability to clear through all of your friendly aerial assets (UCAVs/CCAs, friendly 5th gen tacair).


djfawcett said:
The max mach of 2.5 associated with the CAC J-36 is far in excess of reality. I suspect the max mach is in the 1.6 to 1.8 range given the geometry that has been gathered to date, and that is assuming the engines have reheat. An argument could be made the engines do not have reheat. But that is a discussion for another day.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't take that graphic too seriously. It's some personal speculation of that person, at this stage we don't have any good estimates as to what the top speed of this thing is.


LowObservable said:
View attachment 754272

www.aspistrategist.org.au

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 www.aspistrategist.org.au
Click to expand...

Nice article.
I will be interested to read part 2, on your views of its role.
 
NMaude said:
Do you have links to them, please?
Click to expand...

CN113636089A - Slender double-engine air inlet structure and assembling method - Google Patents

The invention belongs to the field of aircraft structure design, and particularly relates to a slender double-engine air inlet channel structure and an assembly method. The double-engine air inlet channel comprises two symmetrically arranged air inlet channels, the two air inlet channels are...
patents.google.com

One of the ones I could find for now, I have beena way today.
 
FlyGuy369 said:

CN113636089A - Slender double-engine air inlet structure and assembling method - Google Patents

The invention belongs to the field of aircraft structure design, and particularly relates to a slender double-engine air inlet channel structure and an assembly method. The double-engine air inlet channel comprises two symmetrically arranged air inlet channels, the two air inlet channels are...
patents.google.com

One of the ones I could find for now, I have beena way today.
Click to expand...

Thanks:).
 
paralay said:
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.
Click to expand...
Gotta be folding fins in that case.

If the side bays are big enough for PL15s, what does that make the overall length of the aircraft?


djfawcett said:
The max mach of 2.5 associated with the CAC J-36 is far in excess of reality. I suspect the max mach is in the 1.6 to 1.8 range given the geometry that has been gathered to date, and that is assuming the engines have reheat. An argument could be made the engines do not have reheat. But that is a discussion for another day.
Click to expand...
The idea of a fighter without afterburner, whether for faster takeoffs or for going supersonic, is kinda ludicrous.
 
Scott Kenny said:
Gotta be folding fins in that case.

If the side bays are big enough for PL15s, what does that make the overall length of the aircraft?
Click to expand...

PL-15s are basically the same length as PL-12s (a couple of millimeters longer). It doesn't particularly change the estimates of the overall aircraft length that we have thus far -- likely anywhere from 22-24m.
 
sferrin said:
Now do the angles for the F-117.

View attachment 754239
Click to expand...
You or him are not wrong, remember these 2 factors, F-117 has no afterburner.
And Intakes are designed for several speeds, the intake on F-16 can go from 0 to Mach 2, its efficiency is what matters.

At Mach 1 the intakes works well, but by Mach 1.3 the intake will lose efficiency, thus you have ramps or sliding spikes or semi cones to move the supersonic shocks and reduce the intake throat.
 
paralay said:
missile
Click to expand...

Nice, though not sure if the relationship between PL-17 and PL-15 lengths is quite that large

The ratio of PL-17's length to PL-15's length seems like 1.39:1 -- whereas your ratio is more like 1.59:1

1735686948276.png
 
Nx4eu said:
Is this based on the assumption that the caret intakes are fixed? There could be an assumption based on a paper done by the Chief designer of the J-36 Wang haifeng, that it could incorporate a variable caret intake bump design. View attachment 754271
Click to expand...
a variable geometry bump, sorry to say it is a very difficult task; on a caret they use mechanically actuated ramps, like on any other fighter such as Panavia Tornado or F-15, I mean they have several ramps and the mechanisms to move it.

DSI are fixed because the skin of the aircraft, the fuselage itself is fixed, there are no mechanical actuators nor ramps on the bump,

Theoretically seems easy but in reality is a different issue, I am almost 99% this is pure theory, because a real intake needs to narrow the intake throat and move the shocks.

1735687443114.png


If you care to see, you will see the entrance or gap that allows air to enter reduces size a lot, on F-14 you can see barely the engine fan face, so I would like to know how to make the skin of the DSI bump expand and do the same without sliding and moving back and forth as on SR-71 or making a smaller gape as on F-14 based upon what material that can increase size at will almost like human skin, honestly I doubt it is possible to make, at least I do not think the Chinese can really make it beyond theory.

In my opinion that aircraft is slightly supersonic, but it does not go very fast it lacks also big vertical tails and fast aircraft always needs some way to control the aircraft at mach 3 even at Mach 2, in my personal opinion is not really supersonic it might go around Mach 1.3 and barely will be controllable on wing trailing edge elevons, ailerons and split rudders, sorry but I think all that info that it goes Mach 3 seems Walt Disney or transformers fantasy

1735687479383.png
 
Last edited:
F-14ATomcat said:
a variable geometry bump, sorry to say it is a very difficult task on a caret they use mechanically actuated ramps, like on any other fighter such as Panavia Tornado or F-15, I mean they have several ramps and the mechanisms to move it.

DSI are fixed because the skin of the aircraft, the fuselage itself is fixed, there are no mechanical actuators nor ramps on the bump,

Theoretically seems easy but in reality is a different issue, I am almost 99% this is pure theory, because a real intake needs to narrow the intake throat and move the shocks.

View attachment 754287


If you care to see, you will see the entrance or gap that allows air to enter reduces size a lot, on F-14 you can see barely the engine fan face, so I would like to know how to make the skin of the DSI bump expand and do the same without sliding and moving back and forth as on SR-71 or making a smaller gape as on F-14 based upon what material that can increase size at will almost like human skin, honestly I doubt it is possible to make, at least I do not think the Chinese can really make it beyond theory.

In my opinion that aircraft is slightly supersonic, but it does not go very fast it lacks also big vertical tails and fast aircraft always needs some way to control the aircraft at mach 3 even at Mach 2, in my personal opinion is not really supersonic it might go around Mach 1.3 and barely will be controllable on wing trailing edge elevons, ailerons and split rudders, sorry but I think all that info that it goes Mach 3 seems Walt Disney or transformers fantasy

View attachment 754288
Click to expand...
I don't even believe that it is high Mach capable.
https://twitter.com/x/status/1874087980492792145
View: https://x.com/RupprechtDeino/status/1874087980492792145

It's almost confirmed that the J-36 is not meant to fly high supersonic given the information we have and from this post by Deino.

I'm just wondering why can't the caret intake have a flexible portion/bump in the throat itself that can change it's size and geometry sort of like a ramp to control the supersonic flow. Since it's already being studied in China, yes it's theoretical. But what makes you believe it's 99% pure theory and cannot be implemented in the real world?
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom