Shenyang / Chengdu 6th Gen Demonstrators?

[Ozair]

I do not see a reason for him to lie, it's not like they just came out with "We have flown a 6th gen prototype" without any proof or prior announcement. This is after basically everyone saw the new planes unless your suggesting those are CGI, I don't see where your getting this.

Simply ranking sources based on their credibility. Do we believe everything or even anything that comes out of the Foreign Ministry of China? Hence comments made by them on the capability of any of these new aircraft are worth pretty much zero.

 

[DWG]

Also, someone like him fumbling a bomber or strike aircraft as a fighter seems very unlikely in a publicized speech

There's a long, long history! See Lyndon B Johnson and SR-71 (reportedly was supposed to be RS-71), and Under Secretary of Defence Pete Aldridge and F-35 (F-24 would be the logical designator, but Pete Aldridge and programme manager Major General Mike Hough had a distinct huddle when asked what it would be and appeared to decide on F-35 on the spot).

 

[Josh_TN]

I would not trust such a statement from the State Department; the PRC hardly has a deeper level of credibility. That doesn’t make it untrue. But I think we are splitting hairs over the term 6th gen or the variation of A2G vs A2A. All of these things are possible at once, depending on how you define those concepts.

 

[NMaude]

but Pete Aldridge and programme manager Major General Mike Hough had a distinct huddle when asked what it would be and appeared to decide on F-35 on the spot).

They should've been publicly put on the spot and reminded that the intended DoD tri services designation was the F-24 NOT F-35.

 

[Josh_TN]

They should've been publicly put on the spot and reminded that the intended DoD tri services designation was the F-24 NOT F-35.

Of all the issues DoD has right now, that is hardly a hill I would die on.

 

[Alfa_Particle]

Thank you!

Do we know which word was used in the Chinese press release?

Just from the screenshot Tomboy posted, they said "六代战机" which translates to "6th Gen fighter." So quite ambiguous in terms of which development stage.

 

[NMaude]

Of all the issues DoD has right now, that is hardly a hill I would die on.

I was talking about back then not now.

 

[Scott Kenny]

Just from the screenshot Tomboy posted, they said "六代战机" which translates to "6th Gen fighter."

Thank you!

So quite ambiguous in terms of which development stage.

Indeed.

 

[Elysium]

Simply ranking sources based on their credibility. Do we believe everything or even anything that comes out of the Foreign Ministry of China? Hence comments made by them on the capability of any of these new aircraft are worth pretty much zero.

Official sources are always more credible on account of having a reputation to protect, if they lie or misconstrue the truth (which they certainly tend to do), they do it in a far more sophisticated manner.
This is the same logic as 'the medical industry is poisoning you with their pills - instead, buy some mystical berries from India!'

 

[Ozair]

Official sources are always more credible on account of having a reputation to protect, if they lie or misconstrue the truth (which they certainly tend to do), they do it in a far more sophisticated manner.

I'm not talking about lying. The suggestion is we should expect that the definition used by a guy who probably can't tell the difference between two aircraft from 5 meters away, and cares even less, is fundamental to how we categorise the aircraft. They are not a credible source for anything related to the Chinese Military, that isn't their job.

You could even argue that they are in direct competition with the Chinese Military for internal power and attention and therefore what they say in this context is even less authoritative.

This is the same logic as 'the medical industry is poisoning you with their pills - instead, buy some mystical berries from India!'

Lol, no not quite. I'm happy to read analysis from people that are credible or display reasoning, this is not that.

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

This is a very pointless discussion, the comment from this official is meaningless and tells us nothing useful about the role of the J-36. Trying to ascertain whether its a demonstrator or prototype, bomber or fighter from the language used by a government official who doesn't even work in the defence sector is about as effective as reading the future in the entrails of a chicken.

I suggest we refrain from posting here until there is something of substance to discuss.

 

[siegecrossbow]

View attachment 755771
I don't think this has been posted before, but apparently Chinese ambassador Wu Hailong officially confirmed the aircraft flown last year was a 6th generation fighter prototype in a speech 2 days ago. I believe this should be the first official confirmation from the Chinese government about the nature of the aircrafts.

Civilian officials don’t know jack and are not reliable sources. It will be a while until we have official confirmation, usually when the aircraft is about to enter service. We’ve seen this with J-20 in 2017 and recently J-35 in 2023.

 

[Avimimus]

Simply ranking sources based on their credibility. Do we believe everything or even anything that comes out of the Foreign Ministry of China? Hence comments made by them on the capability of any of these new aircraft are worth pretty much zero.

Seriously though, we should assume that State officials are generally capable of lying (this includes all information about the NGAD - ex. for all we know the announced 'pause' is hiding the fact that a selection has already been made). This doesn't mean they don't sometimes tell the truth or they don't tell lies which can hint at other truths (when motives and context are considered).

Anyway, based on comments from Chinese designers about their understanding of American 6th generation designs, and what has been observed about this design overall, most competent analysis assumes this thing is capable of chucking PL-17 missiles at altitude and at speeds in the M1.8 to low M2 range... which is at the very least an air-to-air combat 'linebacker' or interceptor...

Also, if we're not being silly, we'd conclude that many second and third generation jet fighters (or third and fourth generation in the Hallion scale) are not 'fighters' based on the manoeuvrability WVR requirements that people are using to define this as a 'non-fighter air-to-air' platform...

Anyway, I think it is interesting if there is any Chinese official hinting at a 'J' designation, rather than a 'JH' designation... regardless how whether they can be trusted. However, it is probably irrelevant as this creature is clearly in a new category (likely not a traditional 'J' and probably not a traditional 'JH') as it probably incorporates a lot of sensor warfare goals, acts as a node for networking with other assets etc.

 

[Avimimus]

Okay, a serious question for those with more aerodynamic knowledge than I have - I know that dorsal intakes tend to run into serious issues at moderately high angles-of-attack... but at supersonic speeds the maximum sustained angle-of-attack is quite low (even at 8 gees)... so, my question is:

Do dorsal intakes impeded supersonic manoeuvrability significantly? How does their AoA performance compare at supersonic speeds to subsonic speeds?