... it reminds me of the small bays of the PL-10!,
I believe you have confused the refueling probe hatch with an IWB hatch.
I don't see how there is a convention or rule where an IWB must look like an IWB, and vice versa.
As per explained by @Kejora above.
Shenyang next gen combat aircraft thread
- Thread starter Blitzo
- Start date
I believe you have confused the refueling probe hatch with an IWB hatch.
I don't see how there is a convention or rule where an IWB must look like an IWB, and vice versa.
As per explained by @Kejora above.
Oh, well, I know, but J-35 has much less visible one's, and I just thought they all look oddly the same, as missile shaped. Though it's most likely maintenance hatches, yet I wouldn't understand why the J-50 would need a refuelling probe, considering it's most likely carrier based. But the F-18 has a refuelling probe even if it doesn't make sense, better to have it than not, after all.
I certainly don't see how the outer two hatches on this B-2 are IWBs, despite them being also "missile-shaped", if not also being long enough to fit missiles.
You do need to study more photos on contemporary combat aircrafts in general to avoid commenting like this.
If anything - Carrier-based fighters very much demand refueling probes, as land-base refueling facilities (i.e. friendly air bases) are more often than not very scarce, very far away and very far apart in regions where they most often operate in (i.e. wide open ocean).
In fact, unless you want your carrier-based fighters to become mere "tower defenders", then having refueling probes equipped is very much a compulsory requirement for any carrier-based fighters of today and going forward.
Last edited:
2 wheels on the front landing gear even though it's not that big. Could it be for carriers?
The bottom perforation makes sense for boundary layer control, but if I may, I'm going to be bold and speculate the topside perforation is for some form of Active Flow Control for further aerodynamic performance.
This has been discussed in the past.
None of the details like the landing gear or the panels on this aircraft are new to us, we've seen it all before in past photos.
To answer your question, yes the dual nose gear and its overall geometry could allow it to be viably be developed into a carrierborne variant, but obviously the aircraft as is, is not "for carriers" given there are no features like a catapult launch bar, tailhook, or folding wings.
Might work in tandem for a number of different purposes actually, since ultimately the principles here are about manipulating the local pressure and flow conditions.
Is there a chance the PLAAF procures only one of the J-36 or J-XDS? I'm wondering if they will eventually determine that the J-36 is too expensive or the J-XDS is not ambitious enough. Both programs seem so deep into testing, but to think they would eventually enter service at around the same time feels almost too good to be true.