Chengdu next gen combat aircraft (?J-36) thread

[ACuriousPLAFan]

I think you cant accept that you could be wrong.

More like you couldn't resist being a troll and wasting everyone's time and energy on flagship threads, all when everyone else have already explained clearly (and repeatedly) to you why your ideas don't work - And you should've stop then and there.

@Deino @Blitzo @tphuang please.

 

[MC530]

Changes being made during the development phase is entirely normal. Nobody is saying there will not be changes. What we are saying is that this is not proof there are 11 flying prototypes.



I am not sure what you are trying to say here, I think the language barrier is a problem. What do you mean by they are "considered not to be part of the "prototype"."?



Proof of how many prototypes we counted? We only know of 1, maybe 2 if the newer video shows a different one but it could just be the previous flying prototype being modified.



Yes 6-7 over the course of development is much more reasonable. J-36 is not even close to completing development. That is why saying there are 11 flying prototypes right now is not believable.



I don't think they're trying to fool anybody. Any reasonably informed observer would find 11 currently flying prototypes at this stage to be absurd. PLAAF surely knows this wouldn't fool anybody worth trying to fool (like US intelligence community or whatever). The much more likely explanation is just internal quirks of the serial numbering system and not some conspiracy to tell an obvious lie for no gain. In other words, it's a nothing burger, nobody is trying to fool anybody.

I mean you can call them "prototypes" or "initial production batch aircraft", but each modification is not necessarily on the same test aircraft, and just observing the paint by numbers is not reliable. If calculated according to IOC, some of these "initial production batch aircraft" with huge modifications can be considered "prototypes", or they can be considered not prototypes. It depends on what we say, and has nothing to do with PLA or Chengfei
I put double quotes about "fooling". It is just an act that makes us military fans feel unhappy. The PLA should mark these "prototypes" or "non-prototype" improvements accurately and orderly, just like a military parade, instead of repainting numbers like 2004 on them for some "Worthless" purpose.

 

[iBBz]

Why is it unlikely? We have high enough definition image of the flaps to show that it is morphing control surfaces.

No we don't. We have confusing images so far and nothing that proves this claim beyond doubt. Also the fact that there are servo fairings runs counter to your argument. The fairings exist so the servos are able to generate high torque. There would be no need for them if the surfaces were morphing.

This image shows the split flaps are possibly morphing, but not the rest of the surfaces.

The image is real, albeit enhanced. The servo fairings on the right aren't smaller; they're merely less visible due to lighting and poor image quality.

You haven't been following this thread, have you? The joints between the ailerons and wings are in fact gapless, as attested by many other images shared on this very thread. Also, see this Chengdu patent.

There are possible visible gaps in the image I posted. If you're talking about enhanced images, then obviously AI isn't going to invent features that it can't see. The other problem is many of these hi-res images we see here show weirds smudges and artifacts from editing once you zoom in. Also the fairing argument stands. What are they there if these are in fact morphing control surfaces?

 

[valysre]

I think you cant accept that you could be wrong.

Your insistence that "big aircraft must mean big bombs" ignores the fact that long-range AAMs have gotten progressively larger over the past few decades. You've been polluting this thread with "ermahgerd a bomber" with complete disregard for basic reasoning, and it personally really annoys me because I see notifs for this thread, and I click, and it's just you spouting this nonsense. I second the timeout request.

This image shows the split flaps are possibly morphing, but not the rest of the surfaces.

I don't think we've seen any flaps besides the outer two being deployed. I think that they're morphing, but it's certainly not impossible that they are not. The servo fairings does make it seem that way, you can't see any servo fairings under the outer two flaps we know for certain that are morphing.

 

[ENTED64]

I mean you can call them "prototypes" or "initial production batch aircraft"

Well the currently flying aircraft should definitely be called "prototypes" because "initial production batch aircraft" is for after the development is finished, the design is finalized, and the aircraft is being produced for induction in the PLAAF, not for testing. The J-36 is clearly in its development phase not in its initial production phase.

but each modification is not necessarily on the same test aircraft, and just observing the paint by numbers is not reliable.

I put double quotes about "fooling". It is just an act that makes us military fans feel unhappy. The PLA should mark these "prototypes" or "non-prototype" improvements accurately and orderly, just like a military parade, instead of repainting numbers like 2004 on them for some "Worthless" purpose.

I am not sure what you are trying to say here. There could indeed be more than 1 flying prototype but are you suggesting that there are multiple different flying prototypes simultaneously given the same serial number? This seems highly unlikely, what is the benefit of doing this? Not only is this needlessly confusing for the people working on the plane but it is unnecessary. Serial numbers are just a number, why would they do this?

If calculated according to IOC, some of these "initial production batch aircraft" with huge modifications can be considered "prototypes", or they can be considered not prototypes. It depends on what we say, and has nothing to do with PLA or Chengfei

I have no idea what you are trying to say here. I believe IOC means "Initial Operational Capability" which is achieved after development is completed and the aircraft is being produced for actual PLAAF service. Perhaps you mean something different with IOC? Also again "initial production batch aircraft" are the first aircraft that are produced after development is complete and they are intended for actual PLAAF service.

Maybe you are misunderstanding or being overly optimistic about the timeline. The J-36 is not ready right now and it's not even close. If you think the first production J-36 for PLAAF front line use will come in 2025 you are way off on the timeline. We are not even close to that point it will take years more of development.

 

[talonn]

One more thing worth noting is that we didn't see any smoke trails from this badboy. It's so clean unlike J-50 test flight.

I wonder if it's WS-15

 

[Jaym]

Your insistence that "big aircraft must mean big bombs" ignores the fact that long-range AAMs have gotten progressively larger over the past few decades. You've been polluting this thread with "ermahgerd a bomber" with complete disregard for basic reasoning, and it personally really annoys me because I see notifs for this thread, and I click, and it's just you spouting this nonsense. I second the timeout request.


I don't think we've seen any flaps besides the outer two being deployed. I think that they're morphing, but it's certainly not impossible that they are not. The servo fairings does make it seem that way, you can't see any servo fairings under the outer two flaps we know for certain that are morphing

AAM getting larger is because the range of the missile has grown which means more fuel. the explosive amount has stayed about the same... doesnt take too much explosive to disable a jet.

When i say heavier missile i am really considering its explosive payload

 

[Deino]

Upps ... just saw, the video was already posted, but here some stills and improved stills from it:

 

[iBBz]

I don't think we've seen any flaps besides the outer two being deployed. I think that they're morphing, but it's certainly not impossible that they are not. The servo fairings does make it seem that way, you can't see any servo fairings under the outer two flaps we know for certain that are morphing.

Still possible to bury the piston rods between the gaps of the split flaps and keep cylinder barrels hidden inside the wing, so we don't know anything for certain. I'll wait for better images to make that conclusion.

 

[Jaym]

One more thing worth noting is that we didn't see any smoke trails from this badboy. It's so clean unlike J-50 test flight.

I wonder if it's WS-15

I was told that smoke trails is not necessarily a bad thing. It may be normal.