I don't think there will be two variants of the same aircraft differentiated by nozzles. They are in the process of making a choice.
Shenyang next gen combat aircraft (?J-XDS)
- Thread starter Blitzo
- Start date
Thinking conservatively (which is the PLA's preferred mode), I'm inclined to agree with you. It would simplify logistics and reduce costs. The innate multirole nature of more advanced generations of fighters also means there's less sense for different variants (with different roles) of the same aircraft to be in parallel production.
However, I believe this is fundamentally a cost vs efficacy problem, and that as with all things a sufficiently large budget allows for more options and marginal gains in efficacy even if doing so is suboptimal to costs. I believe the discussion of generalist vs specialist platforms was already had on the J-36 thread nearly a year ago.
Depending on how much emphasis the PLA puts on the J-36 programme, its possible we could still see an Air Superiority -focused variant (outwardly identifiable with 2D TVC) and a Strike-focused variant (outwardly identifiable with trench exhausts). This is on the reasonable assumption and requirement that a specialised variant would outperform a general variant at an acceptable magnitude of increased cost, and that the total cost falls within the allocated budget.
As for the J-XDS, I don't believe we'll see a separate Air Superiority vs Strike variant that is separated on the basis of that focus, except that we're likely to see a land-based variant (that will naturally be more for Air Superiority given the existence of other land-based Strike assets) and a CATOBAR-capable variant (that will naturally be more for Strike given the lack of support from land-based Strike assets). This would be the same dynamic as J-35A vs J-35, and I remember the debate over the need for J-35A's existence before its reveal in 2024.
As an aside, I've revisited my speculations from last year in light of new information.
One was on the separate variants of the J-36 (with 2D TVC) vs JH-36 (with trench exhausts), which I see has reappeared and been discussed again.
Personally I'm actually more against this speculation than last year since it would need to be supported by continued test overflights (highlighting parallel development tracks) of both the exhaust trench variant and the 2D TVC variant. But as photo/video evidence has proved, the succeeding prototypes have all had 2D TVC and we haven't seen the trench variant in a while (but its possibly in Xinjiang for other testing). So it seems they're moving towards committing to 2D TVC.
I also agree with taxiya that once an exhaust type is installed the airframe is stuck with it until at least an MLU, but at the very least the platform design could be modular even if individual airframes are not. Given sufficient airframe production rate, this may be an acceptable level of "modularity".
Notably I only made the above speculation in December 2025. Since then the number of flying J-36 prototypes has potentially doubled (!) from 2 to 4. The pace of development has greatly exceeded my expectations.
The other was the idea that the J-XDS/50 side bays were for novel short-ranged munitions to defeat CCA/drone swarms that have sufficient stealth to enter WVR ranges.
Since May 2025, we've seen the reveal of Chinese high-end UCAVs now dubbed UADFs. Rather than merely collaborative UCAVs that function as extensions of a manned fighter, these seem like unmanned replacements for manned light fighters and possibly the final solution to WVR dogfighting, given a drone's ability to sustain far higher Gs and operate whilst under pressure. This would be a departure from the previous idea that WVR engagement scenarios are wholly outdated and would not occur.
Chinese military procurement generally treats the US as a rational actor and template to beat. I imagine they expected the US to pursue UADF development as well. While swarms of small CCAs are not worth the attention (a limited resource) of top-end manned fighters, highly stealthy enemy UADFs could pose a sufficient threat that needs SRAAMs to answer. The reveal of LockMart's Vectis shows the US is moving towards larger CCAs, although not J-10 -sized UADFs yet. If the J-XDS is envisaged as a forward-placed platform in the order of battle, then its likely to run into stealthy UADFs that could outmaneuver even PL-15/16 BVRAAMs and would need (IR-guided) WVRAAMs to contest in turning fights.
One was on the separate variants of the J-36 (with 2D TVC) vs JH-36 (with trench exhausts), which I see has reappeared and been discussed again.
Personally I'm actually more against this speculation than last year since it would need to be supported by continued test overflights (highlighting parallel development tracks) of both the exhaust trench variant and the 2D TVC variant. But as photo/video evidence has proved, the succeeding prototypes have all had 2D TVC and we haven't seen the trench variant in a while (but its possibly in Xinjiang for other testing). So it seems they're moving towards committing to 2D TVC.
I also agree with taxiya that once an exhaust type is installed the airframe is stuck with it until at least an MLU, but at the very least the platform design could be modular even if individual airframes are not. Given sufficient airframe production rate, this may be an acceptable level of "modularity".
Notably I only made the above speculation in December 2025. Since then the number of flying J-36 prototypes has potentially doubled (!) from 2 to 4. The pace of development has greatly exceeded my expectations.
The other was the idea that the J-XDS/50 side bays were for novel short-ranged munitions to defeat CCA/drone swarms that have sufficient stealth to enter WVR ranges.
Since May 2025, we've seen the reveal of Chinese high-end UCAVs now dubbed UADFs. Rather than merely collaborative UCAVs that function as extensions of a manned fighter, these seem like unmanned replacements for manned light fighters and possibly the final solution to WVR dogfighting, given a drone's ability to sustain far higher Gs and operate whilst under pressure. This would be a departure from the previous idea that WVR engagement scenarios are wholly outdated and would not occur.
Chinese military procurement generally treats the US as a rational actor and template to beat. I imagine they expected the US to pursue UADF development as well. While swarms of small CCAs are not worth the attention (a limited resource) of top-end manned fighters, highly stealthy enemy UADFs could pose a sufficient threat that needs SRAAMs to answer. The reveal of LockMart's Vectis shows the US is moving towards larger CCAs, although not J-10 -sized UADFs yet. If the J-XDS is envisaged as a forward-placed platform in the order of battle, then its likely to run into stealthy UADFs that could outmaneuver even PL-15/16 BVRAAMs and would need (IR-guided) WVRAAMs to contest in turning fights.
TVC allows for quite elegant trimming to compensate center of lift shift when transitioning to supersonic flight, I think I read the F-22 TVC contributes significantly to supercruise efficiency. In regular planes horizontal stabilizers induce negative lift (drag) canards induce positive lift, but obviously the J-36 lacks those. TVC is another way of doing the same thing with a weight penalty but less stealth implications than a control surface for sure, since the nozzle will mostly be masked by the fuselage anyways.
I could imagine the TVC being also considered for this aspect.
I would not imagine the J-36 overflying targets or significant air defence directly when used in a strike role, I would imagine it would launch stand-off munitions from significant ranges. Shielding IR from ground seems a low priority given it would mostly fly over empty ocean.
Remember supercirculation lift guys, the TVC deflecting (particular flat TVC) and energising the air over the trailing edge of the wing is a very helpful thing.
Tbh i don't quite get the differentiator.
It doesn't take some special difference to perform light fighter functions; those are not that complex, most of the time.
At the same time, lack of human presence onboard (los command w/o ping; command node) is not somehow disquualified.
Human(pilot/operator) onboard xpeng flying spider thing isn't in any sense unequal to a human onboard J-36.