Shenyang / Chengdu 6th Gen Demonstrators?

Hydroman said:
Looks like this platform has a blended canopy with possibly limited pilot visibility instead of a bubble-type canopy found on other fighters. Won't know until we get better images of what the upper surface looks like. Is this possibly unmanned?
Click to expand...

It looks more unmanned from those new photos, but not enough data. Would it at least be fair to say pilot visibility was not considered a major requirement?
 
Last edited:
Josh_TN said:
Stealth is a pyramid scheme!

:)
Click to expand...
A pyramid has facets, triangular, depending on the angle they behave in the same way F-117 radome behaves, basic principle of Math and optics

Facet
one side of something many-sided, especially of a cut gem.
dictionary.cambridge.org

facet

1. one part of a subject, situation, etc. that has many parts: 2. one of the…
dictionary.cambridge.org dictionary.cambridge.org
can you see the apex too? F-117 has it on the top of the canopy same as a pyramid
1736029122621.png

A pyramid is a three-dimensional shape. A pyramid has a polygonal base and flat triangular faces, which join at a common point called the apex. A pyramid is formed by connecting the bases to an apex. Each edge of the base is connected to the apex, and forms the triangular face, called the lateral face. If a pyramid has an n-sided base, then it has n+1 faces, n+1 vertices, and 2n edges.
byjus.com

Pyramid (Definition, Types, Formulas & Examples)

A pyramid is a three-dimensional structure whose base is a polygon and its base and top forms a triangle. Visit BYJU’S to learn the different types of pyramid shapes, formulas with many solved examples.
byjus.com byjus.com


1736029154851.png


F-117 has an apex too, on the top of the canopy
To understand what I said was if you have a real B-2 and a 1/114 B-2 model from afar the eye can see the bigger one, the formula says wattage divided by squared meters.
If the base of the pyramid is in a triangular shape (base with 3 sides), then the pyramid is called a triangular pyramid
Do not ask me more, math does not lie, despite you want to ridicule me there are triangular based pyramids. exactly like F-117.
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-r2n6Am7aC4

J-36 will be detected rest assure because radar range also is related to power density and the wave length.
 
Last edited:
jmspeedfreak said:
That's the sad thing sferrin, there are probably many people like me who have been on this site a long time, but we don't say anything because as you say the response is STFU. For what it's worth I generally expect to see it and honestly it was there 5 years ago too (just go look), but maybe 15 years ago it read as quite civilised and cloisterly!

At least it's not just aerospace forums this happens, it's everywhere, and in the workplace too to a good degree. It's human nature.
Click to expand...

My experience as a non engineer is that occasionally people can be a little curt or caustic, but so long as you ask questions or post your speculation as a possibility or question, there is a lot more patience. I think the most infuriating thing to some of the forum members is stating something as fact or even likely if you do not have the knowledge/sources to back it up (a long winded, diplomatic way of saying “if you are wrong”).

There also is a competing problem of the most knowledgeable members of the forum being mined for information by low rent publications, and to the the extent some responses might seem a little unhelpfully sounding like “do your own research” even when you do not have the time or background to do so, that is why. Any 2 bit publication can point an AI at this forum’s threads and generate low to mid quality articles on subjects people here take a lot of time and effort understand.
 
jmspeedfreak said:
I thought the same. Always going to be a trade-off.

China's strategists maybe deciding a puff the chest out and look fierce is the best strategy to encourage the west to think more than twice about escalating a defence of Taiwan. There is a benefit to having Excaliber hidden away so that your enemy doesn't have free reign to develop a counter strategy but equally a couple of gatling guns on your front porch is quite a good burgler deterent. Might also be as simple as domestically this is a good lift for Xi and plays well politically with Trump taking the reins soon.
Click to expand...

This might go a bit OT, but most PRC military reveals do not seem gauged to be disarming; rather the opposite. It generally seems calibrated to instill a feeling of efficiency and inevitability.

Regardless, certainly the decision to reveal the existence of these aircraft took place at a level high above any strictly military personnel; this was a political decision. The PRC is hardly unique that way either historically or in terms of contemporary peers.
 
Josh_TN said:
This might go a bit OT, but most PRC military reveals do not seem gauged to be disarming; rather the opposite. It generally seems calibrated to instill a feeling of efficiency and inevitability.
Click to expand...

I think the word you're looking for is cavalier.

Ultimately the messaging the PLA itself directly provides for new projects like this is relatively minimal and hands off -- the amount of details which we do not know for all the projects they have either in the works, in testing, or in service, are very very few. Both positive details/milestones and negative details/milestones are all equally unknown.
And the amount of baseline secrecy for most of their projects means when something does emerge some people view it as a "shock". For example, the fact that they are allowing the existence of J-36 to be known to the public (albeit without any useful details or good quality imagery) is less revelatory than what they are actually keeping from us.


That blank slate in turn leaves people to project their own priorities and worries onto them.
 
Deino said:
IMG_8363.jpeg
Click to expand...
Is it a drone? Whats the size? The design layout looks familiar.
1736035553440.png
 
Someone has already raised the question of how much it will cost? 3 jet engines are, on the one hand, unification, and on the other hand, these are 3 expensive parts that could be used to create, for example, 3 Su-75 fighters. Given the history when each successive generation was 3-4 times more expensive than the previous one, which means that their number decreased proportionally, does it make sense to go further up the ladder of generations at all? For example, China will buy 50 aircraft, of which 25 will be on alert, does it make sense or is it better to buy 200 j20? If something is wrong, I'm sorry, it's a Google translator.
 
jmspeedfreak said:
For what it's worth (not a huge amount), I'm a professional engineer developing systems for F1, Indycar and road going sportscars so I know a fair amount about high power propulsion (used to design engines including aero-engines, later electric machines) and I have a very substantial library with many of the books people recommend on this site.

I get (and made originally) the point about the complexity of sealing an intake door. I don't doubt it. I also know as does everyone else here that weapon bay doors are also complex, and also solveable. So my take is that isn't a showstopper but it certainly is a challenge.

The angle of the closed inlet is not bluff or perpendicular to the airflow, and in the loitering mode the speed is relatively low (or at least IAS is) so the drag is hardly a given to be higher than the intake duct viscous drag / crubbing losses or the drag of windmilling turbines.

The SFC of these engines operating at 66% output is far lower than all three at 22%, that is my expectation based on normal turbomachinery characteristics. I apprecate what inlet guide vanes and variable stator blading can do to broaden the efficiency map, but I would be very interested if anyone here knows a lot about the thrust specific fuel consumption benefits or otherwise of shutting down engines for loiter. I've done plenty of efficiency / fuel consumption analysis in the past for turbomachinery in aerospace so very interested to hear if the forum can explain why this wouldn't be extremely beneficial to reduce fuel consumption at low speeds - just to be clear I'm talking about the loiter segment of a CAP, not trying to go M1.5 on 1 engine!

I appreciated Paul's point that a well designed inlet with suitable RAM and/or Compressor shielding technologies should do the job perfectly well. I take that and I accept that might be fact (and would definitely be the position of the airframe team unless there were really compelling benefits), but I also consider it not a certainty that the component of the RCS due to reflections from inside the duct is perfectly attentuated (unless Quellish or Hydroman for instance confirm otherwise). It may well be that this is the case, but a lot of work is put into this detail so I don't know whether or not it's possible to improve the RCS with a 'total blocker' as opposed to the existing solutions. This is basically my question open to all, and not the typical statement of an opinion being a prediction - I'm just interested if there is an angle here. Since I bought a second hand copy of the Future Fighters Salamander back in the late 80's there have been plenty of aircraft with dorsal as opposed to convential intakes. To have both seems like an unexpected outcome and not one the designers would have decided upon lightly. To have this just to support the third engine seems a bit like shallow foundations. Normally in this space you need several good reasons to underpin a design decision, not just one.

Airbus A340's point about the complexity of challenging the B-21 is perfectly valid. If I were in the PRC shoes though I wonder if they would be so comfortable (betting there kids lives as someone said today) on just letting it operate unchallenged. The other targets for this aircraft are difficult for me to justify a whole new aircraft over say more J-20's. What is this aircraft bringing to the fight that is unavailable in an adequate capability level in a lower cost and in greater numbers.

Is it the size - longer ranged, UHF band benefits as Quellish's explanation would support this larger aircraft having some scale advantage compared to J-20?. If it's just to be longer legged to strike ground targets in the enemy operating bases why not 100% dorsal intake, and for that matter why not two engines if it's a glorified modern day Vigilante or FB-111 analogue.

I think a concept that fits with the observed features could be.... Design aircraft to transition at high speed (to get substantially east of Taiwan) at supercruise speeds (with all engines running and all inlets open, to be clear) and then loiter for as long as reasonable on one engine in an attempt to act as pickets using IRST to identify B-21's at high altitude (which may have a harder time identifying and avoiding the threat than 4th or 5th gen fighters). Then the aircraft could restart the engines and operate on all three engines with all inlets very much open. The supercruise is also obviously a strong benefit for lob range of AAMs etc etc as well as allowing groups of these aircraft to revector/pivot once a set of targets are identified. Clearly whether or not intake doors are shut, open or flapping about in the wind(!) is hardly a key point, but it's interesting to me because I'm interested in the RCS discussions to (and always have been).

Please bear in mind I am not hammering on about this at of some narcisistic design to be right, or to proclaim that this is the gospel according to me. In engineering there are some certainties and then there are many cases where it's a case of deciding how to make a best stab of optimising for complex and usually very interesting trade-offs, primary and secondary benefits and so-on. I am interested in your opinions mainly because I find the details very interesting in a purely engineering context.

I definitely wasn't thinking the dorsal inlet would need to be sized for all engines demand, only the centreline unit.

I do think there is thrust vectoring but I suspect they could make a case for only caring much about deflecting in pitch up and that pitch down doesn't need to be as effective given the other limits of negative g and the concept to operate primarily at high altitude where upward IR emissions might not be their concern.

Lastly (and back to A340's point) if they're right then does this mean the B-21 is welcome to know on China's door with impunity and do they have a different strategy to deal with B-21 or can someone elaborate?
Click to expand...
Occam's razor applies. The simplest explanation is more likely. More likely, it needs more thrust than 2 WS-10/WS-15/WS-19 engines can provide, rather that a convoluted idea of blocking off intakes and shutting down engines in flight to conserve fuel.

You could also just throttle the 3 engines to a lower setting.

Not sure why fitting 3 engines is an enabler when you are suggesting to shut down 2 engines for a 66% thrust loss. In that case, use two engines and shut down one seems preferable.

Alternative Explanation 1

Chengdu want to build an aircraft which needs 50% more power than 2 of existing Chinese engines ccan produce. The options are 1) develop a new engine with 50% more thrust or 2) use 3 engines. Its a near term development, and commonality viewed a bonus. The third engine cannot have a ventral intake without eliminating the weapons bay, so they put the intake above.

Alternative Explanation 2

The three engines are non-afterburning, so the third engine was required to get sufficient thrust for supercruise. (See Northrop-Dornier ND-102 for a non-afterburning supercruise design).

I don't feel there is any compelling evidence for any of these at this point.
 
Red_air said:
Someone has already raised the question of how much it will cost? 3 jet engines are, on the one hand, unification, and on the other hand, these are 3 expensive parts that could be used to create, for example, 3 Su-75 fighters. Given the history when each successive generation was 3-4 times more expensive than the previous one, which means that their number decreased proportionally, does it make sense to go further up the ladder of generations at all? For example, China will buy 50 aircraft, of which 25 will be on alert, does it make sense or is it better to buy 200 j20? If something is wrong, I'm sorry, it's a Google translator.
Click to expand...

The PRC has no shortage of manufacturing capabilities or money in this regard. Three engines might be a bit of a compromise in complexity and maintenance, but it probably saves a huge amount of money in development and perhaps more importantly, time. One might read a bit of downward pressure to produce a design as quickly as possible or else an effort to standardize on a single engine size/family, but either way it skips one of the more time consuming development steps. And think it would be fair to say that if there’s any field that the PRC still lags behind the U.S. in with regards to combat aircraft development, it is engines.
 
Alex Hollings from Sandboxx has put out a video concerning these new "6th Generation" aircraft that China ha revealed:


Last week, China revealed not one, but two, new stealth aircraft to the world through what appeared to be a carefully staged series of test flights over populated areas that were sure to produce a slew of images and videos that would find their way onto the handful of social media platforms that currently dominate global discourse.
Click to expand...
Let's talk about what these aircraft mean for China's future airpower and American Defense.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Well since I am bored, do they add infrared systems later, DIRCM, MAWS? Or is it just guaranteed it has like 240-degree AESA radar coverage?
 
Unless this aircraft has been under development for the past ten or so years I doubt that it's prototype but is instead a demonstrator aircraft (PRC X-plane).
 
NMaude said:
Unless this aircraft has been under development for the past ten or so years I doubt that it's prototype but is instead a demonstrator aircraft (PRC X-plane).
Click to expand...
Serial number on that plane is pretty much confirmed to be 36011, which means its the 1st aircraft of the second batch of prototypes according to PLAAF conventions. There should be a 36001 technology demonstrator parked somewhere inside CAC's facilities and probably a few more prototypes ie. 36002, 36003 as well. J-20 had 3 200X prototypes before they moved on to the 201X prototypes, so the J-36 prototype we saw is definitely not a technology demonstrator but in fact a pre-LRIP prototype. As for the Shenyang AC prototype, there just isn't enough information about it so it could potentially be in an earlier stage of development compared to CAC's plane.
 
Tomboy said:
Serial number on that plane is pretty much confirmed to be 36011, which means its the 1st aircraft of the second batch of prototypes according to PLAAF conventions. There should be a 36001 technology demonstrator parked somewhere inside CAC's facilities and probably a few more prototypes ie. 36002, 36003 as well. J-20 had 3 200X prototypes before they moved on to the 201X prototypes, so the J-36 prototype we saw is definitely not a technology demonstrator but in fact a pre-LRIP prototype. As for the Shenyang AC prototype, there just isn't enough information about it so it could potentially be in an earlier stage of development compared to CAC's plane.
Click to expand...


I wouldn‘t rate thsi as a proof, but indeed a hint and so maybe that strange delta-shaped „something“ we saw at CAC is this 36001 demonstrator? But that does not necessarily means there must be more than one.
 
NMaude said:
Elaborate please.
Click to expand...

Not much to elaborate on, just that their PLA reporting is generally below that of their reporting on other military forces (US, other western nations). That's not specific to sandboxx, it's just the case for most outlets because PLA matters is its own bag of chips.
 
VTOLicious said:
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.
Click to expand...
Which means engine inlet diameter of what, ~42" or so?

Sounds like at least a WS-10 class engine to me.



Airbus A340 said:
The criticism I have of your idea is that the Chinese will be going after the weak links in the US system. The B-21 in flight is probably the strongest link. It is essentially untouchable and sending an expensive interceptor to go looking for it is a waste of resources. The same plane could be sent on another mission that is more likely to succeed.
Click to expand...
While I agree that it's not ideal to try to hunt down the B-21s, you do need something to stop them from just crapping all over your front lawn with impunity.



totoro said:
I have a question that I was wondering about.
Imagine you're the head of the PLA. You're developing new generation of combat planes. You're possibly in midst of an arms race with the US.

Why do you go so public about it all, the way China has gone public? Why don't you you try to test fly those things as covertly as possible?
What is it to be gained from being so open about it?
Sure, the US intelligence community might be tracking your progress nevertheless. Though it's doubtful they'd necessarily get as good photos of the prototypes through their regular spy channels this quickly and this easily.

But why show it off to the wider audience? Doesn't that only create further political pressure on the US congress and then the DoD so US next gen programs get more financing and get a kick in the butt? How does that benefit you, as the head of PLA who presumably wants to win the next war?

Lets for a moment forget the inner chinese politics and grandstanding angle of it all. If that stuff is excluded, what palpable benefit does PLA get in going public? How does going public in this way help you win that next war?
Click to expand...
It's not like China has a good equivalent to Edwards, let alone Groom Lake, for their highly-classified flight testing.

So if you know that the first flights will be seen regardless, you can 1) aim for internally-significant days like Mao's Birthday and 2) aim for externally-significant events like shortly before the new POTUS takes over. The POTUS who seems to have a really bad knee-jerk reflex to having to be the best.



wuguanhui said:
Obviously the PLA chief desperately wants the US to spend $300+ million per NGAD fighter (before cost overruns). Either to bankrupt the US through excessive defence spending or he just owns a lot of shares in Lockmart.
Click to expand...
Or both. Chinese do like to make money while screwing their opponents.


Josh_TN said:
It looks more unmanned from those new photos, but not enough data. Would it at least be fair to say pilot visibility was not considered a major requirement?
Click to expand...
Sure seems that way.

Could mean heavy reliance on some flavor of synthetic vision, whether virtual canopy or HMD/HMS.
 
Null said:
Is it a drone? Whats the size? The design layout looks familiar.
Click to expand...

Similar except for the number of engines, the location of the air intake, the wing shape, the fuselauge shape...

I kind-of feel like these things look 'similar' the same way all 'tractor' airplanes looked 'the same' in 1912. Your Blériot, Antoinette, Taube, even Avro triplanes look 'the same' in a world dominated by Farmans/Box Kites/Curtis biplanes, along with a few simplified pusher derivatives of those types (abandoning the foreplanes).
 
overscan (PaulMM) said:
Occam's razor applies. The simplest explanation is more likely. More likely, it needs more thrust than 2 WS-10/WS-15/WS-19 engines can provide, rather that a convoluted idea of blocking off intakes and shutting down engines in flight to conserve fuel.

You could also just throttle the 3 engines to a lower setting.

Not sure why fitting 3 engines is an enabler when you are suggesting to shut down 2 engines for a 66% thrust loss. In that case, use two engines and shut down one seems preferable.

Alternative Explanation 1

Chengdu want to build an aircraft which needs 50% more power than 2 of existing Chinese engines ccan produce. The options are 1) develop a new engine with 50% more thrust or 2) use 3 engines. Its a near term development, and commonality viewed a bonus. The third engine cannot have a ventral intake without eliminating the weapons bay, so they put the intake above.

Alternative Explanation 2

The three engines are non-afterburning, so the third engine was required to get sufficient thrust for supercruise. (See Northrop-Dornier ND-102 for a non-afterburning supercruise design).

I don't feel there is any compelling evidence for any of these at this point.
Click to expand...
Agreed, all plausible explanations and discussed earlier in the thread. I appreciate the points and don't disagree.

I don't think any of these arguments wouldn't be part of the decision making process. On the NGAD discussion we already had many posts debating how to address the propulsion requirements with similar points about all new engine development cycle vs nearer term solutions, even using F135 etc.

We'll see eventually, but for now no clear evidence.

Thanks for the feedback.
 
axlzed3301 said:
Eastern Theater Command Video
Click to expand...
Seems like J-36 they find similiar enough leaf, but I guess for SAC aircraft they can’t find any similiar shape bird to lambda wing aircraft and just use AI bird lol (thats what I assume anyway).
 
Josh_TN said:
My experience as a non engineer is that occasionally people can be a little curt or caustic, but so long as you ask questions or post your speculation as a possibility or question, there is a lot more patience. I think the most infuriating thing to some of the forum members is stating something as fact or even likely if you do not have the knowledge/sources to back it up (a long winded, diplomatic way of saying “if you are wrong”).

There also is a competing problem of the most knowledgeable members of the forum being mined for information by low rent publications, and to the the extent some responses might seem a little unhelpfully sounding like “do your own research” even when you do not have the time or background to do so, that is why. Any 2 bit publication can point an AI at this forum’s threads and generate low to mid quality articles on subjects people here take a lot of time and effort understand.
Click to expand...

The issue is how to communicate with new generation of enthusiast (okay I am old).

We have all been through the period of everything is possible (youngsters), then gaining solid knowledge of not everything is possible (probably with our experience in adult real life), then experiencing breakthroughs in technology. We have all been through the cycle, how to guide the next generation with past knowledge without doing too much harm is crucial.

But first you need to acknowledge physics instead of magic :cool:.

Tomboy said:
Serial number on that plane is pretty much confirmed to be 36011, which means its the 1st aircraft of the second batch of prototypes according to PLAAF conventions. There should be a 36001 technology demonstrator parked somewhere inside CAC's facilities and probably a few more prototypes ie. 36002, 36003 as well. J-20 had 3 200X prototypes before they moved on to the 201X prototypes, so the J-36 prototype we saw is definitely not a technology demonstrator but in fact a pre-LRIP prototype. As for the Shenyang AC prototype, there just isn't enough information about it so it could potentially be in an earlier stage of development compared to CAC's plane.
Click to expand...

Although there are traditions of aligning the first prototype with the bort number '01', the current Chinese administration do like some change in practice (or breakthroughs as they would like to call), so it won't be surprising that they will play the trick of changing the starting sequence of bort number, to be stand out and confuse the intelligence community.
 
Tomboy said:
Serial number on that plane is pretty much confirmed to be 36011, which means its the 1st aircraft of the second batch of prototypes according to PLAAF conventions. There should be a 36001 technology demonstrator parked somewhere inside CAC's facilities and probably a few more prototypes ie. 36002, 36003 as well. J-20 had 3 200X prototypes before they moved on to the 201X prototypes, so the J-36 prototype we saw is definitely not a technology demonstrator but in fact a pre-LRIP prototype. As for the Shenyang AC prototype, there just isn't enough information about it so it could potentially be in an earlier stage of development compared to CAC's plane.
Click to expand...
I would err on the side of caution, simply because we know too little regarding this program, and I'd rather wait for more evidence to come out than make guesses on my own. It may very well be a pre-LRIP prototype, but there are equal chances that it could be a demonstrator at this stage (as in, something like YF-22/23 vs. F-22/23, rather than EAP vs. EFA). We know that development was started/was ongoing in 2016, and there remains the possibility that studies were conducted earlier in response to the USN drawing up "6th gen" fighter studies in the early-2010's. If the reports that NGAD demonstrators were flying in 2020 are to be considered true, assuming that development started around 2013, then both NGAD and the Chinese equivalents would be rather similar in terms of development times. Now, this is a huge guess on my part, and does not take into account the diffferences in Chinese and American procurement systems, testing, politics, etc. which will all inevitably effect aircraft development times. Whatever the case, I don't think we're seeing a finished product. Following progress on both projects is hard due to the secrecy. The US program is discussed more openly, but the fine details are still up to the imagination at this point. Even if the NGAD is behind, it wouldn't be the the first time the US was not "at the forefront" so to speak; the best example of this was the time between the MiG-25 and F-15 entering service respectively. The USAF seems to be willing to bet on new technology to open a gap between it and its competitors, and whilst the issues with NGAD are not just limited to technology, the USAF might want to wait for certain technologies to mature whilst rolling out other tech on the F-22, F-35 and B-21 fleet in order to prepare the way for the manned component of NGAD. The Chinese are far from stupid, and I would be surprised they weren't doing something similar to the US.

www.twz.com

The U.S. Air Force Has Secretly Flown A Demonstrator For Its Next-Generation Fighter

Little is known about the actual aircraft or who even built it, but it's a sign that the next-generation fighter effort is rapidly accelerating.
www.twz.com www.twz.com

www.twz.com

F-22 Being Used To Test Next Generation Air Dominance 'Fighter' Tech

The F-22 is being used to test Next Generation Air Dominance (NGAD) capabilities and Raptors will also receive tech from the NGAD program.
www.twz.com www.twz.com

www.defenceconnect.com.au

Just a reminder: US Air Force has already flown a full-scale NGAD prototype as sixth-gen fighter race heats up

Following the startling flight demonstration of two, seemingly “sixth-generation” fighter aircraft by the People’s Liberation Army Air Force, questions have been raised about how far behind the curve the US and other Western nations are.
www.defenceconnect.com.au www.defenceconnect.com.au
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom