Looks to be a rear view of the 2nd J-36 prototype. Posted by @chaoyinsukandao on Twitter.
Chengdu next gen combat aircraft (?J-36)
- Thread starter Blitzo
- Start date
Oh, let‘s summarise since I‘m confused:
- we have a chart image of the first prototype clearly with no. 36011
- we have several images of a 2nd aircraft and the amount of changes suggest it is a different aircraft
- now we have a „clearer“ image of the same one suggesting it is likely also no. 36011 (@huitong)
Why? Just to confuse us there are two nos. 36011? Or was the first 36011 heavily modified to be now the second 36011 (IMO unlikely)
Any other theories & explanations?
This can't be 36011 because when this is flying 36011 was in Xinjiang
Exactly my point! So is the number seen on this J-36 wrong due to being too blurry, AI-enhanced or is it indeed 36011 and then WHY?
Buried exhaust for jh-36 and 2dtvc for j-36. Yeah I'm trolling.
Would be interesting to know if the one with buried exhaust still fly ? We just seing some picture of the modified for quite a while.
Can it be a modified first prototype with some switchable parts for testing ? Landing gear is harder to switch but I wonder with the short time between the two iterations.
Last edited:
Original J-36 is in Xinjiang for flight tests, so presumably they are still running tests on it or why would they ship it all the way out there
The first 2 digits are undiscernible, but the last three I'd say are fairly clearly "011". The last digit especially is definitely "1" in the same font as the first prototype's bort number.Am I trippin' or does this also look like 36011?
Edit: the more i squint , the more it looks like 34011. J-34 anyone?
View attachment 165097
This is unexpected though. We know the first prototype was "36011". Is this the same airframe with inlets and nozzles changed? I'd have thought they were separate airframes at least, given the large changes.
The other possibility is that the second prototype actually isn't "J-36" as all, in terms of the first two digits. I don't know how rigid PLA bort nomenclature is for prototype airframes, but its possible that a different design goal (lets say, a tactical bomber/striker?) isn't "J-36" but another number? So you could have the first prototype being "36011" and the second being "37011" or something. With the "010" of each series being a non-flying static prototype (that we haven't seen).
Also, I find it strange that both flying prototypes of the J-XDC have bort numbers but the J-XDS simply hasn't, as we could see with the high-quality ground photos of it a few months back. Different conventions by CAC and SAC, or different levels of programme maturity?
Apart from trolling enthusiasts and foreign intelligence, what would be the purpose of having two different airframes with the same bort number? The latter probably has enough intelligence from elsewhere to not be fooled by such a basic deception anyway. CAC could have just done the same as SAC and not given their next-gen prototype airframes a bort number.
Since J-36 no. 1 was spotted in Lop Nor in August or September there is no way it was modified by October, obviously no. 2 is a different airframe, and anyway chinese sources clearly said it's a different prototype. So the likely explanation is either CAC is just doing a bit of trolling with the numbering, or the image is tampered with. Another option being of course the image is still not clear enough to see the actual number.