Shenyang / Chengdu 6th Gen Demonstrators?

[Scott Kenny]

What are you estimating the wings-folded width to be? ~7.5m?

 

[VTOLicious]

I believe that the J-36 is running 3x WS-10 engines, same engines as in the J-11/15/16 and J-20. So, large production run, lots of spare parts, and getting the incremental cost down to a minimum.

That would give roughly 90klbs thrust, and suggests a MTOW in the neighborhood of 125klbs. (It's got landing gear like a Su-34 + 25% for IWBs etc based on difference between F-15 and F-22)

WS-15 will become the main engine of J-20 and most likely J-36 as well.

 

[paralay]

What are you estimating the wings-folded width to be? ~7.5m?

11.5 м

 

[Nx4eu]

WS-15 will become the main engine of J-20 and most likely J-36 as well.

WS-15 and WS-10C will be interim engines, I believe VCE engines will be integrated when matured. Refer to point 7.

 

[thanix01]

WS-15 and WS-10C will be interim engines, I believe VCE engines will be integrated when matured. Refer to point 7. View attachment 754616

I think by the time it is in service it should atleast have WS-15. I am unsure if they will get VCE done in time. Perhaps initial production will use WS-15 then upgrade to VCE?

I don’t think any production model will use WS-10C, but WS-15 might still be possible.

 

[quellish]

And that gives the PLAAF a road map to an inventory of 100% stealthy combat aircraft.

“Stealthy” is relative. Just how stealthy are they? F-117 stealthy? F/A-18E stealthy? None of the above?

How were their computational models validated? On a range where the models were strung on cables? Was there a cell tower across the street? Maybe their measurements were less than optimal?

 

[Scott Kenny]

“Stealthy” is relative. Just how stealthy are they? F-117 stealthy? F/A-18E stealthy? None of the above?

How were their computational models validated? On a range where the models were strung on cables? Was there a cell tower across the street? Maybe their measurements were less than optimal?

Having LO-shaped aircraft is better than ones that were designed without any thought of reducing RCS. Even if that only gives you a single order of magnitude of RCS reduction! I suspect that proper shaping should give you several orders of magnitude RCS reduction.

I mean, the basics of LO are something that I believe any modern computer graphics card is capable of modeling, the math is fairly simple. But yes, the question of their models' validation is important.

 

[Jackonicko]

For some reason Western Analysts just can't comprehend that China could build a different kind of fighter platform, there's been plenty of information pointing to this not being a simple 'medium-range bomber'.

Well said.

 

[Hydroman]

US LO and VLO platform capabilities are closely guarded secrets and the only ones who know are and were the ones cleared and involved in the design and development at these levels (i.e. Have Blue, F-117, Tacit Blue, TSSAM, JASSM, B-2, Polecat, GD/McAir A-12, N-ATA, YF/F/NATF/FB-22, YF/F/NATF/FB-23, X-45A, X-45C Phantom Ray, Bird of Prey, X-47A/B, B-21, and many others not disclosed, if you were not cleared to any of these programs at the appropriate level(s) then external comments and external analysis are pure speculation, also the NG work to determine the RCS of the Horten Gotha 229. In regards to China, Russia or any other country, who knows how good they are, only they do.

 

[Jackonicko]

Attack aircraft since the early 20th century were multi-engined aircraft.

Hope the A-7, F-105, Su-7 et al read that memo and are suitably chastened,

 

[Trident]

The fuselage is still not very fine, and with quite a bluff nose, regardless of the exact sweep on the wing.

Well, the F-35 certainly isn't very fine, either. For the kind of Mach number range the intake lips indicate it should be good enough?

I hate to say "think lasers" but it may be time to think lasers...

China's big new combat aircraft: an airborne cruiser against air and surface targets | The Strategist

The speed, agility, range and stealth of an individual aircraft type are still important, but they’re no longer the whole story of air combat. Advances in sensing, processing and communications are changing military operations. The ...

www.aspistrategist.org.au

The idea has been raised in this thread before, and I thought it interesting, but I've since discarded it. At the kind of power that would justify the term "high-energy", require a third engine for generating capacity and amount to more than laser DIRCM, I don't see how you're going to get away without a turret. Actually, even the vast majority of comparatively low-power DIRCM systems are still turreted, even if melting the window isn't a concern, optical quality (beam refraction/diffusion) apparently is.

I suspect passive sensors (FLIR/IRST/MAWS/LWR) intended to combine wide FOV and stealthy integration.

 

[Hydroman]

China, Russia, Europe, Japan and South Korea have very smart and intelligent scientists and engineers, they can and will at some point could and may have LO levels at least equivalent to current US platforms (probably not in relation to the B-21 however) if they are willing to spend the money and do the R&D but remember historically, the US invested and developed this technology many decades ago so we had a tremendous lead so if we are smart (the US) and the rest of the world has caught up then hopefully, the US has already developed the next level of technologies that others may only be thinking or dreaming about.

China may have made some errors in being very bold in showcasing and touting their new platforms so soon but again, I do not know their true capabilities.

 

[Hydroman]

Well, the F-35 certainly isn't very fine, either. For the kind of Mach number range the intake lips indicate it should be good enough?



The idea has been raised in this thread before, and I thought it interesting, but I've since discarded it. At the kind of power that would justify the term "high-energy", require a third engine for generating capacity and amount to more than laser DIRCM, I don't see how you're going to get away without a turret. Actually, even the vast majority of comparatively low-power DIRCM systems are still turreted, even if melting the window isn't a concern, optical quality (beam refraction/diffusion) apparently is.

I suspect passive sensors (FLIR/IRST/MAWS/LWR) intended to combine wide FOV and stealthy integration.

I think the F-35 has always been the compromise in regards to just enough related to LO, performance, capabilities including exportability. The F-22 was never intended to export but we the US made the error in not purchasing at least 300 to 400 and we only got less than 200 jets and now we are debating NGAD and CCAs as examples.

 

[paralay]

The maximum angle of the F-22 air intake is 43 degrees, which corresponds to the speed:
43 : 59 (MiG-29, Su-27) * 2500 km/h = 1822 km/h or M=1.72

 

[Scar]

Numerology FTW

 

[Geo]

https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/shenyang-chengdu-6th-gen-demonstrators.40872/post-741913

In this image, the view of the J-36 completely matches the photo, so I trust the image of the J-50 as well

With 23100 kgf / 14250 kgf engines, the J-50 gets a maximum speed of 1,900 km/h, a cruising speed of 1,500 km/h, a range without an additional tank of 3,000 km, with an additional tank of 4,000 km, a supersonic range of 1,600 km

A real picture is perhaps better for determining the length.

 

[totoro]

A real picture is perhaps better for determining the length.

yeah, that's really the only image of the plane that's even remotely useful for determining size. others lack a reference point. Even so, the subjects in the image are tiny so margin of error is pretty big.
That being said, assuming J16 is 21.9 m long and 14.7 m in wingspan, I'm getting some 22.5 m in length and a wingspan of 16.5 m. Considering we saw that pretty wide fuselage from the front - that plane is looking to be a heavyweight. (Fuselage width at the inlet seems to be 4 meters near the wings and 3 meters at the bottom. And probably still 2 meters wide at the cockpit area.) I'd say it's probably heavier than the J-20. Lets say somewhere in between, weight wise of J-20 and the so called J-36.
Concerning J-36, I also don't get which images can yield wingspans of 24 meters. My measurements don't get anywhere close to said figure.

 

[Ainen]

China, Russia, Europe, Japan and South Korea have very smart and intelligent scientists and engineers, they can and will at some point could and may have LO levels at least equivalent to current US platforms (probably not in relation to the B-21 however) if they are willing to spend the money and do the R&D but remember historically, the US invested and developed this technology many decades ago so we had a tremendous lead so if we are smart (the US) and the rest of the world has caught up then hopefully, the US has already developed the next level of technologies that others may only be thinking or dreaming about.

China may have made some errors in being very bold in showcasing and touting their new platforms so soon but again, I do not know their true capabilities.

B-21 isn't that different in basic geometry, it's trying as close as possible to ideal(hopeless diamond) everyone knows anyway, while still flying.
The difference is particular solutions, as well as just pure quality of execution (going back to bird of prey etc).

Furthermore, there's reason. Stealth investnment makes sense only as much as you're willing to risk the aircraft. Going deep, personally into modern IADS bubbles is one level of intention. Going over neutral waters with occasional enemy fighters and ships is another. Loitering over friendly territory, only having to deal with enemy penetrators while they're at strong emission disadvantage is 3rd one.

F-117s did remarkable job over Iraq, but i doubt anyone could seriously guarantee that no losses will happen; it's an outcome.
Can modern european airforce afford to lose a bunch of fighters per sortie once in a while? Not really, it's a disaster.
Obviously, such missions won't be risked, unless in despair.

 

[Rhinocrates]

One bigger than just using 3 engines. You'd also lose at least 1/3 the thrust of the engine in the ductwork.

That energy doesn't go nowhere. I presume it would be lost as heat? That would be a problem.

 

[dark sidius]

China, Russia, Europe, Japan and South Korea have very smart and intelligent scientists and engineers, they can and will at some point could and may have LO levels at least equivalent to current US platforms (probably not in relation to the B-21 however) if they are willing to spend the money and do the R&D but remember historically, the US invested and developed this technology many decades ago so we had a tremendous lead so if we are smart (the US) and the rest of the world has caught up then hopefully, the US has already developed the next level of technologies that others may only be thinking or dreaming about.

China may have made some errors in being very bold in showcasing and touting their new platforms so soon but again, I do not know their true capabilities.

What technology are you talking about ? for instance we don't see a lot in the air , the B-21, is a b-2 2.0 and not able to fry every thing in the air , so I don't see what technology, there was the SR-72 project but it is nowhere since the public show in 2013 and surely not in the sky.This time China make a big slam at every Air Force in the world, for the Europe totaly out of the game for the decades who come. Saddly I prefered that it was a USAF NGAD we saw the 26/12 instead of a China one, but it is not.

 

[Deino]

yeah, that's really the only image of the plane that's even remotely useful for determining size. others lack a reference point. Even so, the subjects in the image are tiny so margin of error is pretty big.
That being said, assuming J16 is 21.9 m long and 14.7 m in wingspan, I'm getting some 22.5 m in length and a wingspan of 16.5 m. Considering we saw that pretty wide fuselage from the front - that plane is looking to be a heavyweight. (Fuselage width at the inlet seems to be 4 meters near the wings and 3 meters at the bottom. And probably still 2 meters wide at the cockpit area.) I'd say it's probably heavier than the J-20. Lets say somewhere in between, weight wise of J-20 and the so called J-36.
Concerning J-36, I also don't get which images can yield wingspans of 24 meters. My measurements don't get anywhere close to said figure.

But what is this? I'm still not sure in what way this image shows the J-XDS??
It looks almost as if it has canards or even more as if it is flying upside-down?

In no way I get a match to what we otherwise know from it!

 

[Deino]

The problem with the original artwork is IMO that they were just rough sketches made from the very first blurry images and even more so showing - esp. the J-36 - not exactly from below.

 

[paralay]

It's strange that they match perfectly

 

[red admiral]

Well, the F-35 certainly isn't very fine, either. For the kind of Mach number range the intake lips indicate it should be good enough?

Not many people are claiming F-35 supercruises at M1.8 though . From intake geometry then you can only read out the shock on lip Mach this creates. This may or may not be the maximum speed. Thrust still needs to >= drag.

Tailless aircraft are generally higher sweep than "necessary" to get acceptable stability and control characteristics. I don't think it'd be wise to read too much into it.

I suspect passive sensors (FLIR/IRST/MAWS/LWR) intended to combine wide FOV and stealthy integration.

I still don't understand the cheek windows, if that is what they are. Field of View will be much worse than for a J-20 style mount (apart from very high elevation angles)

Maybe the tailless configuration simply doesn't have sufficient yaw stability / control power to have a J-20 style mount? It's basically like a nose mounted fin which will be destabilising.

 

[red admiral]

But what is this? I'm still not sure in what way this image shows the J-XDS??
It looks almost as if it has canards or even more as if it is flying upside-down?

Nose landing gear in lowered position at low resolution? Feels most likely that the aircraft is in a similar orientation to the chase plane.

Or maybe its R2D2 sticking its head out? Difficult to make conclusive statements.

 

[Deino]

It's strange that they match perfectly

When you use a real image of an aircraft flying overhead but it is not perfectly aligned vertically above you you have certain distortions and if yu then use the same image as a basis for your sketch, it is no wonder they fit perfectly ... but that does not mean it is correct since now the distortion is also included in your sketch.

 

[Geo]

But what is this? I'm still not sure in what way this image shows the J-XDS??
It looks almost as if it has canards or even more as if it is flying upside-down?

In no way I get a match to what we otherwise know from it!

View attachment 754633

We probably won't solve this seriously enough, Deino.
Does this look like a J-16? More like a MiG-29 meets a Toucan.

 

[FighterJock]

I think that the fighter in the photo is the J-16 at least that is what it looks like to me at this time. But why is it such a poor photo?

 

[VTOLicious]

My attempt

This 3D model is based on the planform @paralay posted previously. It is a solid body with a volume of 218,55 m³ (!) Further, please note that all three air intakes have the same area of 0,656 m², which equals a circle of 0,914 m (36") diameter.

 

[totoro]

But what is this? I'm still not sure in what way this image shows the J-XDS??
It looks almost as if it has canards or even more as if it is flying upside-down?

In no way I get a match to what we otherwise know from it!

View attachment 754633

I don't know. Sadly, image is just of too poor resolution. It could even be doctored, and we wouldn't know. We know from other images that it doesn't have canards. I guess, as someone said, it could somehow be the landing gear?
I can't explain the white parts, though. Sure, some of it should be fuselage, lit by sunlight. But the areas are still too large, especially on the new plane. Maybe some weird lighting bloom effect, due to materials?

 

[Deino]

My attempt

This 3D model is based on the planform @paralay posted previously. It is a solid body with a volume of 218,55 m³ (!) Further, please note that all three air intakes have the same area of 0,656 m², which equals a circle of 0,914 m (36") diameter.

Hats off! Well done my friend!!

 

[Elysium]

“Stealthy” is relative. Just how stealthy are they? F-117 stealthy? F/A-18E stealthy? None of the above?

How were their computational models validated? On a range where the models were strung on cables? Was there a cell tower across the street? Maybe their measurements were less than optimal?

I never understood why it's the prevailing belief among a lot of people that stealth is the pinnacle of aircraft technology, and its the benchmark by which a nations aerospace technology level is to be judged. Not engines, avionics, aerodynamics, airfame construction. I just simply thinks it's not true. Producing VLO designs is not as hard either from shaping or materials perspective, as, for example designing top of the line engines. The physical laws governing RCS are well known, and there are a bunch of tried and true shapes that are known to work.

This makes me think of the following Douglas Adams quote:

“I've come up with a set of rules that describe our reactions to technologies:
1. Anything that is in the world when you’re born is normal and ordinary and is just a natural part of the way the world works.
2. Anything that's invented between when you’re fifteen and thirty-five is new and exciting and revolutionary and you can probably get a career in it.
3. Anything invented after you're thirty-five is against the natural order of things.”

I'd guess the majority of people on this forum fell into that 15-35 age bracket when stealth had the peak hype in the mid 2000s when the F-22 and F-35 dominated the news cycle.

 

[The K2]

We probably won't solve this seriously enough, Deino.
Does this look like a J-16? More like a MiG-29 meets a Toucan.

It’s got to be a Shenyang aircraft. My first impression was the J-16.

 

[Trident]

Not many people are claiming F-35 supercruises at M1.8 though . From intake geometry then you can only read out the shock on lip Mach this creates. This may or may not be the maximum speed. Thrust still needs to >= drag.

Tailless aircraft are generally higher sweep than "necessary" to get acceptable stability and control characteristics. I don't think it'd be wise to read too much into it.

Well, neither am I, to be clear Especially if it has afterburners I could see it hitting that sort of speed, perhaps even Mach 2.0, in a dash, but cruise is definitely going to be lower than that, 1.4-1.6 if I had to guess. Which, if it can fly the entire mission at that speed and has a payload & radius greater than existing smaller fighters flying subsonically while doing so, is plenty good enough to give it an advantage in a Pacific setting.

Concur also on the planform, it's a point I made myself to others earlier in the thread.

I still don't understand the cheek windows, if that is what they are. Field of View will be much worse than for a J-20 style mount (apart from very high elevation angles)

Maybe the tailless configuration simply doesn't have sufficient yaw stability / control power to have a J-20 style mount? It's basically like a nose mounted fin which will be destabilising.

There are precedents for the IRST hypothesis (YF-12 and one of the ATF submissions, GD IIRC?). Your point on the J-20 goatee is certainly a plausible theory for this particular application.

 

[paralay]

Hats off! Well done my friend!!

Why didn't you post these drawings from the Chinese forum here?

 

[minimes]

Through out history the concept of fighter has changed and there have been many types of fighters.
From BF-110 which was a heavy fighter to Do-335 which was also another type of heavy fighter.
Later You have aircraft like Yak-28 or Tu-128.

However a fighter should be agile (at least in the main concept) I do not think it is about western analysts, but more about the landing gear J-36 has in the nose landing gear two wheels and so are the main landing gears, they also have two wheels.

This suggest a very heavy aircraft, so when you have heavy weight aircraft it is hard to think J-36 is a fighter, at least not a nimble one.

MiG-25 is a fighter, well an interceptor but is heavy same MiG-31, but it seems J-36 weighs much more than these two aircraft, I have no idea about the weight but my guess is this aircraft J-36 weighs around 24,000 to 26,000kg. empty weight. The F-22 is 19000kg and the MiG-31 around 22000kg but MiG-31 has no internal weapons bays and it has only 2 engines.

So i would say it weighs more than a MiG-31 at max take off, MiG-31 goes up to 46000kg.

So I would consider it needs lots of fuel to power 3 engines so a max take of of 55000kg could be possible.

At that weight, has a weight of a bomber, lots of weight means basically at 6Gs or 8Gs the structure will be under high stress, so I think this aircraft has a 3G to 5G limit.

So in my humble opinion this is a very heavy interceptor akin to Tu-128

"While delta wings are critical to achieving high lift for supersonic flight, they also have a number of disadvantages for less high-performing aircraft. They require high landing and takeoff speeds and long takeoff and landing runs, are unstable at high angles of attack, and produce tremendous drag when "trimmed" to keep the plane level. Of these disadvantages, pilots and designers usually consider the high landing and takeoff speeds the most important because they make flying the plane dangerous. Indeed, when the Concorde had its first ever crash in 2000, after two decades of safe operations, the high-speed takeoff was a factor in this terrible accident, for the plane's high ground speed before becoming airborne placed major stress upon the aircraft's tires, which exploded upon striking an object on the runway."

Delta Wings

MiG-25 is a bad example. it is an aircraft built primarily using stainless steel to withstand the Mach 3 heat so the structure weight is relative low yet it has a 4.5G limit and you call it a fighter. Not to mention the structure design and material advanced so much in the past 50 years.

With your estimate, the F-22 is 19000kg and J-36 weighs around 24,000kg, only 26% weight increase but with 33% thrust increase the third engine bring, even with more weapon and fuel, the T:W would be roughly the same.
Or 26,000kg on the high side, T:W is slightly worse than F-22. but with much bigger wing area comes lower wing loading enough to compensate the added weight.

Look at the fighter development history , it's grown bigger and heavier each generation. So weight alone is not a deciding factor.
IMO, the aerodynamic and fly control are the bigger factor for J-36 G limit.

Finally, if your definition of fighter is solely base on sub sonic dog fight ability, you live in the past.
Remember to come back to this tread see if your comment age well after NGAD reveal.

 

[Deino]

Why didn't you post these drawings from the Chinese forum here?

Since in the end they turned out to be too speculative and not entirely correct!

 

[Avimimus]

For some reason Western Analysts just can't comprehend that China could build a different kind of fighter platform, there's been plenty of information pointing to this not being a simple 'medium-range bomber'.

The really striking thing, from my perspective, is that the design matches what we've been told a sixth generation fighter would look like. Almost all NGAD reporting suggests:
- Larger and longer ranged than past fighters.
- Enhanced power generation to allow a suite of sensors and communication devices (allowing to act as its own drone controller and mini-AWACs if needed).
- A tailless design with reduced signature (albeit probably the NGAD will be much stealthier in spite both aircraft using a tailless layout and sacrificing conventional aerodynamics for stealth).
- A design that doesn't act quite like a normal fighter (e.g. larger, possibly sacrificing manoeuvrability, possibly a second crewmember to control drones).
- Supercruise (but likely not faster than the F-22).

I can't think of single design point that has been described as likely for NGAD that this hasn't hit (although possibly just not doing some of these things, like stealth, quite as well). The only possibility is if we include adaptive cycle engines as part of the sixth generation definition.

...and then you have all of these people falling over themselves in a rush to say "we don't know what a 6th gen design looks like, only the Americans can make a 6th gen design - and it is probably a bomber because it has x] features"... and then they list only features which NGAD has already been hinted to have as their evidence that it isn't a fighter.

 

[quellish]

I never understood why it's the prevailing belief among a lot of people that stealth is the pinnacle of aircraft technology, and its the benchmark by which a nations aerospace technology level is to be judged.

I would say that the people who think that "stealth is the pinnacle of aircraft technology" are probably also the people who ascribe almost magical properties to radar absorbing materials that defy the laws of physics.

Stealth is important. Anything that makes it harder for an adversary to shoot at and hit your aircraft is a good thing.
It's also very misunderstood. Without appropriate tactics it's useless. The investment required to get the engineering of even "tried and true shapes" is not insignificant. And it is very easy to screw up so badly that your "VLO" design ends up being a max-signature design (like the A-12 and many others).

For example, a (hypothetical) aircraft may have what appear to be many "stealth" design features visible. But they don't work in isolation. Maybe the aircraft has super-stealth serrations on its landing gear doors, but then it doesn't have any treatment on the canopy and canopy frame. All this effort to "stealth" one thing, that makes no sense unless they do this other thing, which they didn't. There is a lot of that out there.

 

[BDF]

I would say that the people who think that "stealth is the pinnacle of aircraft technology" are probably also the people who ascribe almost magical properties to radar absorbing materials that defy the laws of physics.

Stealth is important. Anything that makes it harder for an adversary to shoot at and hit your aircraft is a good thing.
It's also very misunderstood. Without appropriate tactics it's useless. The investment required to get the engineering of even "tried and true shapes" is not insignificant. And it is very easy to screw up so badly that your "VLO" design ends up being a max-signature design (like the A-12 and many others).

For example, a (hypothetical) aircraft may have what appear to be many "stealth" design features visible. But they don't work in isolation. Maybe the aircraft has super-stealth serrations on its landing gear doors, but then it doesn't have any treatment on the canopy and canopy frame. All this effort to "stealth" one thing, that makes no sense unless they do this other thing, which they didn't. There is a lot of that out there.

i.e. the devil is truly in the details...