Shenyang / Chengdu 6th Gen Demonstrators?

There is also a hypothesis that these two aircraft are utilizing the technology of the J20 and J35 to validate the flight capabilities and some key technologies of the VI, especially the three-engine version of the J20 that is closer to the delta-wing form .
This could represent a similar mindset to the F22 and YF23: a steady, incremental development / a radical, leapfrog development.
So it's still hard to tell if this is competing with each other or synergizing but models.
Finally there is a worst outcome for us: one air force model and one navy model (#゚Д゚)
 
That looks like a really large and expensive system for a medium range A2A fight, IMO. If you the think that is the intended role, what is the intended target set?
IMHO - it smells literally a "cruiser", PCA in reverse.
US and Soviet Union contemplated something similar with B-1 and Tu-160 fighter versions.
Offensive interdictor platform, raiding bluefor deep rear(which isn't really rear, it is terra nullis). Air, surface, whatever it can hunt down and get away with it.
I. e. interceptor in reverse.

It indeed isn't a fighter in full sense (it likely can't do traditional wvr well, especially one without shooting), but neither were tu-128 or even mig-31.
 
Some CHN viewer said these 2 are
partner . 3—engine—one like J20/MIG31/F111 which focus on intercept and long range AIR 2 GROUND mission. Smaller 2—engine one focus on A2A and dogfight.
From this hypothetical perspective, there may be a more significant difference in the depth of the built-in magazine between the two aircraft, with the three-engine model likely to have a much higher depth. But I'm afraid from the pictures that have been leaked it's closer to a demonstrator.
Also no external mounting points are visible on either aircraft, which could mean a lower payload, or the design itself uses hard-tube refueling.
ONe resource said 3 engine one about 26 meter Twim engine one about 22 meter.
 
Why are you jumping to own desired conclusion?

Because he's not jumping to anything - that *was* the rationale in the case of the HS Trident and Boeing 727. As to whether that reasoning reads across to this Chinese combat aircraft, he made no comment. You are projecting big time there.
 
Some CHN viewer said these 2 are
partner . 3—engine—one like J20/MIG31/F111 which focus on intercept and long range AIR 2 GROUND mission. Smaller 2—engine one focus on A2A and dogfight.
From this hypothetical perspective, there may be a more significant difference in the depth of the built-in magazine between the two aircraft, with the three-engine model likely to have a much higher depth. But I'm afraid from the pictures that have been leaked it's closer to a demonstrator.
Also no external mounting points are visible on either aircraft, which could mean a lower payload, or the design itself uses hard-tube refueling.
For now, I am rather suspicious of bay depth here. Length, no problem, but depth...

Here the space that bombers usually use for deep bay is taken by 3rd engine and its intake system.
Which, by the way, is also a strong indicator against a2g focus.

And, vise versa, bomber doesn't really need that high a T:W ratio.
 
IMHO - it smells literally a "cruiser", PCA in reverse.
US and Soviet Union contemplated something similar with B-1 and Tu-160 fighter versions.
Offensive interdictor platform, raiding bluefor deep rear(which isn't really rear, it is terra nullis). Air, surface, whatever it can hunt down and get away with it.
I. e. interceptor in reverse.

It indeed isn't a fighter in full sense (it likely can't do traditional wvr well, especially one without shooting), but neither were tu-128 or even mig-31.

I think we can agree on cruiser; I am just not seeing why air targets would justify such a long ranged design. That would be a lot of effort to kills some E-2s, or alternatively pick a fight with tankers near Guam. Why would range be necessary over Japanese or Philippine islands, let alone Taiwan?
 
For now, I am rather suspicious of bay depth here. Length, no problem, but depth...

Here the space that bombers usually use for deep bay is taken by 3rd engine and its intake system.
Which, by the way, is also a strong indicator against a2g focus.

And, vise versa, bomber doesn't really need that high a T:W ratio.

I would also add that people thinking this is primarily a bomber are overestimating its size a little bit and underestimating the payload you'd actually want for a proper bomber.

This thing is big yes with a voluminous fuselage and huge wingspan, but it looks only marginally longer than a J-20.



I think we can agree on cruiser; I am just not seeing why air targets would justify such a long ranged design. That would be a lot of effort to kills some E-2s, or alternatively pick a fight with tankers near Guam. Why would range be necessary over Japanese or Philippine islands, let alone Taiwan?


Long range can also equate to long endurance at shorter combat radii missions.

Also, being able to bring the air superiority fight to longer distances (like credibly to second island chain) alongside friendly assets like CCAs and J-20s would be useful too.
 
I would also add that people thinking this is primarily a bomber are overestimating its size a little bit and underestimating the payload you'd actually want for a proper bomber.

This thing is big yes with a voluminous fuselage and huge wingspan, but it looks only marginally longer than a J-20.


Calling this a fighter bomber or strike fighter is not unreasonable, but it is also useful for people to think about whether the next generation of manned air superiority aircraft should be expected to look too different to what a generic theater strike aircraft may look, in context of evolving air to air technologies, systems and platforms (CCAs included).

It very much looks like what some of us thought NGAD would be (though others disagree and might have better research/sources): a large F-111long ranged platform with long ranged sensors and weapons, and CCA taking on the short range IR detection and engagement role along with ESM ECM.

But I do not see a use case for such a platform for the PLAAF: they already have a back yard advantage with regards to range, where as the US needed to cover more ground. The Su-27 series already has about a thousand miles of range there and back. If the combat radius is 1500-2000 miles, what does that put inside unrefueled range?
 
I have a bold idea.
This "third engine" in the center is an optional accessory similar to buying a car.
In the interceptor version, the engine can be installed to get a higher maneuvering speed.
In the bomber version, the engine could be removed and replaced with a tubular bay, like in the A5 attack aircraft, so that it could be loaded with a large strike weapon the size of at least a Dagger missile, or something small
For now, I am rather suspicious of bay depth here. Length, no problem, but depth...

Here the space that bombers usually use for deep bay is taken by 3rd engine and its intake system.
Which, by the way, is also a strong indicator against a2g focus.

And, vise versa, bomber doesn't really need that high a T:W ratio.

er.
 

Not bad, but the lateral intakes are bog standard caret types, including diverter gaps toward both the fuselage and LERX. As red admiral points out the beam of the main landing gear bogie appears to be on the outside rather than inside, too.

ETA: I must say I'm amused that CAC's newest fighter moves from DSI to caret intakes at least partially - a retrograde step, if certain Chinese fanboys are to be believed. But the fact of the matter has always been that DSIs are not some kind of super-sophisticated, extremely difficult thing and that the choice of intake type ultimately comes down to technical requirements, not fashion trends. Here we have an example that DSIs are not always the optimum solution, even on an aircraft which does have that kind of intake in a different location!

Not a fighter but more a Jh-7 successor.
Also the large delta is probably more for stealth and yaw control than speed as alleged here and there.
If speed was the goal, the dorsal intake would be rather different.

Seems that way to me as well. I agree that, while clearly supersonic, it's probably not as fast as some people appear to think. Going by the relatively steep angles of the caret intake lips (over which the shock will fit like a 'lid' at design Mach), this thing is probably intended to stay below Mach 2.0, but cruise there for long distances. I would not even be greatly surprised to learn that it doesn't have afterburners. That is more in line with a long-range strike aircraft than an interceptor, but of course one has to be wary about extrapolating conventional wisdom to a potentially novel concept. Maybe in an upcoming era of CCAs and possibly eventually DEWs, that's exactly what fighters are like?

With the J-20 not even having reached the end of its development potential, a FB-22/23 seems more likely on balance though.
 
Last edited:
But I do not see a use case for such a platform for the PLAAF: they already have a back yard advantage with regards to range, where as the US needed to cover more ground. The Su-27 series already has about a thousand miles of range there and back. If the combat radius is 1500-2000 miles, what does that put inside unrefueled range?
Whole bluefor backyard, with ability to loiter/sweep there.
For example, it's a major complication for FS2030 marines. Heck, it can probably sweep airlift from behind Japan.

Everything visible enough can be suddenly engaged anywhere in theater, and US and allies didn't really investment heavily into attritable tracking of broadband VLOs.
 
Why are you jumping to own desired conclusion?
The question was, why did trijet airliners exist?

Twin engines were not considered safe for overwater flight due to reliability of engines.

This has nothing at all to do with this design. Most likely it is for required thrust without developing a new large engine specifically for it.
 
With the J-20 not even having reached the end of its development potential, a FB-22/23 seems more likely on balance though.
I'd argue it hasn't got to it's original design goal yet, much less potential.
J-20B isn't MLU, it's same as blk.4 - delivering on promises.
 
I guess the brits dont have to worry if the tempest is flying with EJ200 engines, or Turks have to worry about using the kaan with F110 engines because skeptics will be busy berating this aircraft instead.
 
Steve Trimble
December 26, 2024

New Chinese combat aircraft broke cover in a flood of social media photos and videos on Dec. 26 showing them in flight and revealing two new examples of China’s evolution as an aerospace innovator.

One new aircraft appeared in social media posts revealing a large, three-engine warplane with a cockpit and diamond-style wing with no vertical tails. Yaw control appears to be managed by Northrop Grumman B-2-style split rudders.

The engines are fed by a single dorsal inlet and two ventral inlets, the latter using caret-shaped intakes. The dorsal inlet features a stealth-enhancing diverterless supersonic inlet, but not the ventral inlets.

The aircraft’s large ventral fuselage section likely provides room for an internal weapons bay. The main landing gear features two wheels each, a hallmark of heavy fighter-bombers, such as the Sukhoi Su-34.

The apparent test flight over a populated Chinese area included appearances by a Chengdu-manufactured J-20S fighter, possibly flying a chase mission.

“It’s size and arrangement tentatively suggests that this is the long awaited J/H-XX ‘regional bomber’, designed to provide a low observable high altitude precision strike capability against bases and possibly ships throughout the Indo-Pacific,” said Justin Bronk, senior research fellow for Airpower and Technology at the Royal United Services Institute. “However, it remains possible that this prototype represents China’s known 6th Generation fighter program.”

Hours later, further social media posts revealed images and video of a second new Chinese combat aircraft, also in flight test.

The images show a more traditional fighter design with a cranked arrow planform and possibly folding tailfins. It was not immediately clear when these images were captured, but one post marked the picture with a Dec. 22, 2024 time-stamp.

The mystery warplanes emerged on the 13th anniversary of the roll-out of the J-20 stealth fighter, which itself came 13 years after the first flight of the Chengdu-made J-10 in March, 1998. The Dec. 26 date marks the 131st birthday of Mao Zedong, the late founder of the Chinese Communist Party.

The role each of the aircraft would perform is not immediately apparent. No Chinese government or industry channel has acknowledged the imagery on official channels, but there also appears little effort by internal security services to censor the content posted by dozens of people on the ground.

China has been developing the H-20 long-range stealth bomber and the medium-range JH-XX fighter-bomber, according to the annual China Military Power Report published by the U.S. Defense Department. Chinese industry officials also have confirmed that work is underway on a sixth-generation fighter.
 
The question was, why did trijet airliners exist?

Twin engines were not considered safe for overwater flight due to reliability of engines.

This has nothing at all to do with this design. Most likely it is for required thrust without developing a new large engine specifically for it.
Trijets had some history. Some of it was overwater. But there was also United's "Denver rule": the ability to reach either coast out of Denver on a hot day. East was just a long way and a heavy take-off, West was minimum safe altitude over the Rockies if you lost an engine.
As for this thing... could be a lot of reasons.
 
Trijets had some history. Some of it was overwater. But there was also United's "Denver rule": the ability to reach either coast out of Denver on a hot day. East was just a long way and a heavy take-off, West was minimum safe altitude over the Rockies if you lost an engine.
As for this thing... could be a lot of reasons.
Maybe 2 turbo fan 1 ramjet?
 
Sucks to be second best and risk averse, this is their best chance to change.

SAC’s proposal still focuses a lot on traditional ACM whereas CAC is doubling down on their own interpretation. There is a possibility that one of the proposals is not correct, hence the need two walk with both legs?
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom