care to explain? Based on the few blurry Images such statements Are at best guesswork.
Shenyang next gen combat aircraft thread
- Thread starter Blitzo
- Start date
care to explain? Based on the few blurry Images such statements Are at best guesswork.
SHAD and CHAD be looking like decepticons next to that j20
Can we, for the love of god, stop calling these aircraft SHAD and CHAD?
It's such a subservient way to name these aircraft by copying US acronyms.
China, it seems, have taken the lead in introducing 6th gen aircraft. How about not falling for the constant western trope of copying and name them something different?
There are plenty of acronyms to go by. Naming them CHAD or SHAD sounds so lazy and stupid.
J-36, J-50, J-XS, J-XC, J-XDS, etc are all better than those stupid xxAD acronyms.
It is a drone CGI, IWB is likely smaller than depicted here.
I believe that the manned 6-gen by Shenyang has no picture yet.
Some final thoughts on the matter before we wait for more photos...
1. The J-50 is actually decently-sized. I'm not sure where the idea that "it is too small for an IWB" comes from, but the only photo that captures both the J-50 and a reference point shows that it is at least as large as a Flanker:
2. I think it's erroneous to judge the size or layout of the airframe just by how "wide" the DSI intakes are. Although it's hard to see, the consensus is that the J-50's air intakes are very narrow, thus necessitating them being extraordinarily wide. Why such wide & thin intakes, you might ask? My theory is that it solves the problem that everybody has been talking about: internal weapons bays. This intake configuration preserves a large portion of the underside to be used for the IWB since the air ducts could minimize its vertical height, which then might curve upwards in order to make room for the IWB.
3. The IWB placement is most likely directly aft of and underneath the intakes. My theory is that the air ducts would immediately curve upward into the upper fuselage to make way for the IWBs. There are likely two smaller IWBs - one aft of and under each intake - rather than one large centerline IWB. I've also heard some people say that, instead of a groove that cuts into the underside of the airframe, it is just an illusion brought about by the two large "bulges" that are spaces for the IWBs.
In summary, I believe that aircraft that we've been seeing is/are manned prototypes rather than a CCA drone, as evidenced by the side photos showing a cockpit. Additionally, there is a possibility that the final configuration could still feature all-moving tailfins, since the white prototype is likely an earlier demonstrator.
Finally, the configuration of the airframes - even of the white one - does not preclude the placement of an IWB.
Last edited:
Change my mind, this is the manned version.unmanned version is close to the picture below, carried by 076.
unmanned version is close to the picture below, carried by 076.
View attachment 142671
Can you stop with that obsession to post and spread any overhyped non-sense? There is no hint at all any of the two seen 6th gen. Types will go onto the 076!
Read it again, that is not what I mean.
Yes, you said an unmanned version of „this“ would go on the 076 but even this is far out of what can be concludes yet. If the one we saw so far is the manned one (which I think), we haven‘t seen the unmanned one yet … but to jump this not yet seen one will go onto the 076 is just guessing even more so since there are more likely options that will go to it before.
My point is not always jumping on any theoretical „maybe-hopefully whatever“ and stick to the few facts we have.
By the way, at the Secret-Projects-Forum there was thsi image posted claiming it would be from an SAC patent? Does anyone know the full patent if it indeed is from SAC?
Tphuang thinks so. Which also goes toward an alternate theory why the two seemingly different J-50s, one is the naval variant and the other is land based?