Shenyang next gen combat aircraft thread

[BoraTas]

This

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

might have some relevance here, as China is very, very active in developing and manufacturing

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

for various applications, including radar-evasion. The patented invention is a multi-band stealth metamaterial assembly that is bullet-proof and light-weight.

The requirement for bullet-proofing tells me this might be for helos.

 

[Didida]

Yesterday, Xi Yazhou’s vlog “六代机可不止如此” (“6th-Generation Aircraft Are More Than This”) from his channel 亚洲特快 shared some intriguing new insights:

1. More than Two 6th-Generation Aircraft:

Xi Yazhou suggested that there could be more than two types of 6th-generation aircraft in development. The recently observed 6th-gen-like fighter at the SAC base (measuring approximately 15m x 15m) might represent a different model. He noted that this aircraft is larger (?) than the previously reported SAC 6gen (referred in this thread as J-50), and features a dorsal air intake, indicating that it may not prioritize high maneuverability like the J-50. He the again claimed China has three 6gen aircraft: two manned and one unmanned CCA

2. J-50 is an unmanned CCA:

He explicitly claimed that the precious SAC 6gen is an unmanned CCA (Collaborative Combat Aircraft), while the 3rd 6gen would be a manned counterpart.

3. CCA as Forward Target Detectors:

Xi Yazhou emphasized that unmanned CCAs need to be in the same performance class as their manned counterparts to serve as effective forward target detectors. For example, the PL-17 missile on a 6th-gen fighter might have a range of 1,000 km, exceeding the detection range of onboard radar. In such scenarios, powerful CCAs could act as forward target detectors, relaying information to their manned counterparts.

4. On the Naming System:

Xi Yazhou expressed skepticism about J-36 being the correct designation for the new manned aircraft. He explained that the body number 36011 does not necessarily denote the 11th prototype of the “J-36” model. Instead, “36” might refer to the broader project encompassing all three 6th-generation aircraft. Under this scheme, CAC’s manned 6th-gen aircraft could be designated 3601, while the other two variants might be 3602 and 3603. Hence, 36011 likely indicates the first prototype of the 3601 model, not an 11th iteration.

The vlog:

 

[Deino]

Why the groove? Thought we agreed the grey one is a different airframe

No, we didn‘t … some still think so but there is no consensus and IMO they are the same and the alleged or indeed visible differences can be explained by lighting-conditions, images that were AI-enhanced or „modified“ to try to improve certain details.

 

[Deino]

Yesterday, Xi Yazhou’s vlog “六代机可不止如此” (“6th-Generation Aircraft Are More Than This”) from his channel 亚洲特快 shared some intriguing new insights:

1. More than Two 6th-Generation Aircraft:

Xi Yazhou suggested that there could be more than two types of 6th-generation aircraft in development. The recently observed 6th-gen-like fighter at the SAC base (measuring approximately 15m x 15m) might represent a different model. He noted that this aircraft is larger (?) than the previously reported SAC 6gen (referred in this thread as J-50), and features a dorsal air intake, indicating that it may not prioritize high maneuverability like the J-50. He the again claimed China has three 6gen aircraft: two manned and one unmanned CCA

…

Thanks a lot for the summary, but this one is clearly wrong! The just recently seen model (15x15m) is definitely NOT larger than the first one (J-50 ? And I still don‘t like this designation), which is for sure larger than the J-16 which acted as a chase plane!

As such, at all questioning the statements …

 

[Didida]

Thanks a lot for the summary, but this one is clearly wrong! The just recently seen model (15x15m) is definitely NOT larger than the first one (J-50 ? And I still don‘t like this designation), which is for sure larger than the J-16 which acted as a chase plane!

As such, at all questioning the statements …

Yes that’s one seemingly flaw in his video. One possible explanation is that the 15m x 15m one could be a scaled down demonstrator/prototype for the much larger SAC “tea cup”.

 

[bsdnf]

Xi Yazhou often makes exaggerated arguments in his videos, Ayi and Yankee often joke about this, I suspect that he does this for some clickbait effect. His videos can only be used as a reference, I trust his analysis in the podcast more

 

[GyrfalconFC31]

Yes, Xi Yazhou is not very credible compared to others like Yankee. We shoule take this as a grain of salt.

 

[tphuang]

I think Xi Yazhou's actual qingting fm podcast is not bad at all and his appearances on Shilao podcast is a lot more reserved too. He does seem to engage in too much hyperbole on some of these videos.

I do think it is fair to assume that there will be both manned and unmanned next gen combat aircraft out of SAC. And we do not have conclusive evidence whether the flown aircraft is manned.

I also would be surprised if it is unmanned, because that would be a really large CCA. It looks to have higher MTOW than J-16.

 

[Michaelsinodef]

At least for the claim of 1000km max range of PL17 fired from CAC J36.

Pretty sure he said it was a theoretical max limit against something like the easiest targets (big, slow, non maneuvering).

Which, maybe not 1000km, but if the CAC J36 can indeed achieve mach 3 and 30km height (say in a very short dash), it probably would not be surprising that a PL17 (or a newer, possibly bigger, missile) could hit something like AWACS and Tankers far beyond 400km (say out to 800km, and maybe even beyond).

And he also said against fighters, it might be around the 400km.

All in all, put less emphasis on the exact stated number, but more on the 'general idea' (incredible far BVR hits, possibly even beyond its own radar scan range).

 

[thinkerls]

At least for the claim of 1000km max range of PL17 fired from CAC J36.

Pretty sure he said it was a theoretical max limit against something like the easiest targets (big, slow, non maneuvering).

Which, maybe not 1000km, but if the CAC J36 can indeed achieve mach 3 and 30km height (say in a very short dash), it probably would not be surprising that a PL17 (or a newer, possibly bigger, missile) could hit something like AWACS and Tankers far beyond 400km (say out to 800km, and maybe even beyond).

And he also said against fighters, it might be around the 400km.

All in all, put less emphasis on the exact stated number, but more on the 'general idea' (incredible far BVR hits, possibly even beyond its own radar scan range).

I wonder if the fuselage will be torn apart if the ammunition bay is opened at Mach 3?