Consider what happened with the J-20 and the J-31/J-35
The J-35 Air Force variant is in a different fighter niche to the J-20
But they still compete against each other for orders
Shenyang next gen combat aircraft thread
- Thread starter Blitzo
- Start date
Consider what happened with the J-20 and the J-31/J-35
The J-35 Air Force variant is in a different fighter niche to the J-20
But they still compete against each other for orders
Interesting, but I still do not understand d the general configuration of this one? Where are the intakes (?) located?
I thought it's the narrow things laterally under the cockpit. They're just much narrower than the norm for intakes.
But yeah with the side by side F-22 comparison you can see that it looks weird, the intakes are very prominent for the F-22 but not really so for the J-XS. I don't know what the implications of that are.
Late to the party, but this is a truly historical day. CAC and SAC both test flying their (alleged) 6th-gen prototypes on Boxing Day 2024 is not something I would have expected in a million years. And I've heard rumours about XAC possibly flying a prototype as well.
It seems SAC flew theirs a week or so prior but only footage and imagery properly emerging now. They didn't fly on the same day.
Any good quality photos for the SAC 6th gen? Want it to be my display photo
Lethe
Captain
In addition to this aircraft apparently featuring only two engines against three in CAC's design, further suggesting that these aircraft are of different size is that the main landing gear on CAC's design has two-wheel inline bogeys, while that on SAC's has a single-wheel bogey (like J-20).
While it is possible for aircraft of different size and/or thrust to be addressed to the same set of requirements (e.g. XF8U-3 in competition with XF4H-1, or YF-16 in competition with YF-17), it is equally if not more plausible that these designs are addressed to distinct requirements.
While it is possible for aircraft of different size and/or thrust to be addressed to the same set of requirements (e.g. XF8U-3 in competition with XF4H-1, or YF-16 in competition with YF-17), it is equally if not more plausible that these designs are addressed to distinct requirements.
That's just something I speculated earlier. It was clear there will be a program from SAC that served a different role when I made the comment a couple of weeks ago. It just made sense if they had a second program that's smaller, it would also have a naval variant. SAC has also been in charge of all the naval aircraft projects. So I suspect that's what will eventually happen.
alright, I like this photo. Another just humongous head on this aircraft and very fat looking fuselage that will likely hold enormous amount of electronics and fuel. The share depth of its body!
They are really going max here on internal space and high power in 6th gen as I expected.
I guess both SAC and CAC's birds use TVC since they remove most control surfaces like vertical and horizontal stablizers or canards. A paper by Yan Wei talked about it.
[correction]
The source was not Yang Wei, but a paper from BUAA
Translation:
Low aspect-ratio flying wing design has even worse stability at high AOA which necessite TVC and full moving wing tip to provide enough control authority.
High AOA means that the paper was talking about a fighter jet. Full moving wing tip matches what we have seen in CAC bird, so TVC is likely too.
Last edited: