The length of the nose is not the whole story of the aerodynamic layout, you can't say it looks like a tailless Su-27 just because it also has a longer nose. they have different intake designs so the gap in the middle of the belly doesn't prove anything either. As for the size of the weapons bay, it can't be assessed yet, but what can be assessed is that it has nothing to do with the Su-27
Shenyang next gen combat aircraft thread
- Thread starter Blitzo
- Start date
Why is it a bad thing that J-XS took inspiration from Su-27?
Flanker is one of the most successful fighter in the world.
Given the history of 601, they might understand the pro and cons of flanker's aerodynamic no less or even better than Sukhoi.
I could be wrong but IMO it's remarkable to able to incorporated on a tailless design. It's not a copy but careful R&D design choice.
Last edited:
We don't have clear pictures yet even more of the top side. Could it have weapon bay/s on topside/wingroot for some short range AA missiles ?
There's a lot of stuff in not a lot of length after the intakes. Beside the weapon bay in the center I cannot see place for secondary weapon bays there, even the main weapon bay look struck a bit.
Maybe size is deceiving and it's bigger than we see it right now.
Last edited:
Again because aerodynamics doesn’t work that way. Just because 601 worked on flankers doesn't mean everything they ever did has to be tied back to it, whether it's good or bad has nothing to do with this, it's untrue, simple as that.
You keep saying J-XDS resembles the flanker, no it doesn’t. Based on your logic that if two jets have similar intake positions they somehow have similar aerodynamic traits, we have the following comparison. Take what you will from the picture, I think this demonstrates that comparing intake positions to argue that one design is "inspired" by another is pure BS. (A big thank you to Nx4eu for the J-XDS schematic)
IWB isn't exactly the bigger the better as it affects things like internal volume, CoG, structural rigidity, etc. What you typically want is as small as possible while as big as required by the design specs. As long as the J-XDS's IWB is big enough to satisfy requirements its fine, saying that it's "sacrificed" makes it seem like you believe it's badly designed somehow, which is hardly the case.
Last edited:
Given the volume and dimension of J-XDS, it's very well capable of bigger IWB than J-20.
I still remember when J-XDS first showed up, people widely believe it can carry PL-17 internally.
Now as more and more pictures reveling the detail, it's more or less the same ballpark as J-20 IWB size which is PL-15 not PL-17.
I think we all can agree J-XDS will be in the PLAAF at least into 2050s.
To say the J-20 IWB big enough is lack of future proofing foresight.
That's why I call it "sacrificed".
VLRAAM isn't the end-all be-all of air combat (think of weight, maneuverability, ease-of-use in combat, and a plethera of other things. Just because there's a 200nm monster of an AAM doesn't mean every platform HAS to have it, especially in the age of high-speed datalinks and CCAs), and a 6-meter long bay with the capacity for it comes with consequences in terms of structural strength, weight, aerodynamic limitations, etc. Without an idea on what role the J-XDS is intended for, nor what is currently being developed for either of the 6th gen fighters to use, it's incredibly bold and incredibly stupid to sentence something to be "lacking future-proofing foresight" based on an outsider's beliefs. This doesn't even go into the fact that we have no idea what the J-XDS's weapons bay layout is and whether it actually can carry PL-17s.
You say that given the J-XDS's volume and dimensions it is capable of a larger IWB than the J20, true, but IWB isn't the only thing that needs space on a fighter jet, maybe they opted for more fuel, or a stronger sensor suite, or more ECM, or better supersonic flight performance, or any number of other things that the design team deemed is more important than a larger IWB. Judging the design of a 6th gen fighter by the length of it's IWB is akin to judging a sandwich by the number of bacon pieces in it, it's one of many metrics and arguably not the most important one.
At the end of the day, if you hyped yourself up to believe that the J-XDS is to be capable of carrying PL-17 when it first appeared, and then go stomp it into the ground because current evidence doesn't align with your beliefs, you have nobody but yourself to blame.
Last edited:
1st of all, I didn't stomp it into the ground. Don't project your emotion into me.
2nd, I just pointed out the obvious but I lack of knowledge& training to understand why SAC make such design choice,
which is position the inlet so much in the back.
It could be all the things you mentioned or like I speculate flanker's aerodynamic still worth it.
3rd, The other examples on your picture lack relevance because none of them require IWB except YF-23.
The choice of inlet position on stealth fighter come with much more significance than none stealth fighter due to the IWB.
Hey you're the one who's arguing that the J-XDS is overly conservative and resembles a 50-year-old jet ever since we found out that it probably cant carry PL-17 internally, not me,
As for the picture yeah most of them had absolutely no relevance because of a number of reasons including the fact that most of them don't need a IWB. The same applies to the flanker in your comparison. Now lets agree that comparing the J-XDS to the flanker makes no sense and leave it at that. As for inlet position affecting IWB length, that is certainly true but it also affects a million different things, saying the J-XDS resembles a flanker because of it, again, makes absolutely no sense.
edit: actually on second thought, the F106 does have IWB, and it doesn't have canards or tailplanes. So J-XDS is a modernized F-106 and would be equipped with double-stacked 2-meter-long nuclear AAMs in its weapon bay confirmed
Last edited:
