Shenyang / Chengdu "6th Gen" Aircraft - News and Analysis

Nieuport said:
太多的人错过了显而易见的事情。

这是一架非常大的飞机，有一个非常大的武器舱-它当然不是用于格斗，甚至不是中程轰炸机 (lol)，但是在巡航中两个外部引擎关闭的情况下，这将有一个史诗般的范围 -- 足以从美国意想不到的方向对美国发动攻击，比如东海岸或墨西哥湾，来自中国的地下基地，美国甚至还没有确定。认为中国人会犯一些基本错误，例如将附近的电力线纳入其RCS的评估中，这无非是种族主义，这种想法的结果导致了俄罗斯在1905年袭击日本时遭受的灾难。低估亚洲人的危险。中国的大学技术毕业生比美国的大学毕业生多，几十年来，中国一直在与西方电子产品相匹配，在某些情况下，它要复杂得多，比如几年前他们对主板进行的微观添加，导致数千台关键服务器过早退役，因为中国人正在阅读所有流量-西方甚至缺乏复制的能力，因为它不仅需要在很短的时间内对电路板进行逆向工程，但是对它的理解足够好，可以进行不留下任何痕迹的修改。想象他们在某种程度上落后于美国整整一代，这是一种妄想。你也不能根据美国的想法来判断中国人的想法，因为他们没有朝着同一个方向前进。

从19 40年代到19 70年代，许多射程最长的飞机通常会关闭发动机以增加射程，但在一台发动机中关闭一台发动机，而该发动机的间距很大。比如在一个典型的隐形战斗机上，它们之间有一个大型武器舱，会导致它螃蟹-从而增加阻力。拥有三个引擎可以让他们关闭两个外部引擎，并且仍然有足够的动力进行巡航，同时燃烧很少的燃料，相对而言，而且不需要容易追踪的油轮。当他们需要加速或达到穿透速度时，他们会启动另外两个引擎。

与此同时，美国与所有冲突的物理隔离使得许多脆弱的基础设施完全得不到保护 -- 在许多情况下是无法保护的。长期以来，电网一直没有得到充分的维护来提高短期利润，因此它有数千个脆弱点，其中许多很容易引发2003年停电的重演，而炼油厂也很脆弱。即使有两个关键的飓风使汽油价格飙升了几个月。想象一下，如果一打永久停止使用？美国大约有120家炼油厂，尽管许多是专门从事塑料或化肥生产的。其中一个中队可能会破坏美国经济，并且可能会持续数十年-成千上万的桥梁，石油储存和分配，铁路和其他系统都非常脆弱-甚至在您增加对准时运输的依赖之前，如果出现任何情况，这保证了普遍的短缺。
Click to expand...
Sir, as a Chinese, I don't think it makes sense to attack American territory, why do you think so?Are you sure you're not kidding?
 
I think the whole turning the inner engine off, or turning the outboard engines off or the third middle engine being a different type of engine is all complete nonsense. Why must there be such a debate for a tri engine plane.

How about the third engine is there because the aircraft needed more power and thrust for it's objectives, and it was not willing to trade it's size and capability or kinetic flight performance that a dual engine setup could not achieve. I also don't buy the Chinese engine technology is weak so it had to compensate with a third engine. There is not an engine, even the NK-32 nor any future engine programme of any nation in the world that can produce as much supersonic thrust as this three engines aircraft with only 2 engines, if the use of WS-15 class engines are to believed.
 
Not to mention the current research and development work for variable cycle engines, and the mention by the chief designer that the aircraft is meant to feature such next generation engines, the thrust figures and efficiencies at all speeds will drastically improve further increasing the kinetic performance gap between a twin engine versus tri engine layout.
 
Please, visit the CRANE thread before you arrest your opinion. Aside of the lack of sufficient thrust, this is the onky probable case for this configuration.
 
Nx4eu said:
I think the whole turning the inner engine off, or turning the outboard engines off or the third middle engine being a different type of engine is all complete nonsense. Why must there be such a debate for a tri engine plane.

How about the third engine is there because the aircraft needed more power and thrust for it's objectives, and it was not willing to trade it's size and capability or kinetic flight performance that a dual engine setup could not achieve. I also don't buy the Chinese engine technology is weak so it had to compensate with a third engine. There is not an engine, even the NK-32 nor any future engine programme of any nation in the world that can produce as much supersonic thrust as this three engines aircraft with only 2 engines, if the use of WS-15 class engines are to believed.
Click to expand...
Thing is, China does not have F135 equivalent engines. They do have F100/F110 equivalents in the WS10. They may have an F119 equivalent engine in the WS15, but I'm not sure it's being fielded yet. IIRC the J-20s are still flying on WS10s.

Assuming that Article 36011 is using WS10s because nothing newer would be ready in time, it's got about 90,000lbs thrust. The WS15-powered version that I expect them to use later on would have about 105klbs thrust.
 
Scott Kenny said:
Thing is, China does not have F135 equivalent engines. They do have F100/F110 equivalents in the WS10. They may have an F119 equivalent engine in the WS15, but I'm not sure it's being fielded yet. IIRC the J-20s are still flying on WS10s.

Assuming that Article 36011 is using WS10s because nothing newer would be ready in time, it's got about 90,000lbs thrust. The WS15-powered version that I expect them to use later on would have about 105klbs thrust.
Click to expand...
WS-10C already provides around 35.000lbf of thrust in exchange for a slightly reduced MTBO. Though not quite the equivalent of either of them, WS-15 is more similar to the F135 in characteristics than to the F119.
 
snne said:
WS-10C already provides around 35.000lbf of thrust in exchange for a slightly reduced MTBO.
Click to expand...
Still puts it at roughly F110 equivalent unless it's got some adjustments for supercruise. Late-model F110s are pushing 32k, GE could probably dial up their fuel controls to 35k at the expense of reduced TBO.


snne said:
Though not quite the equivalent of either of them, WS-15 is more similar to the F135 in characteristics than to the F119.
Click to expand...
So, less capable of supercruise?
 
Scott Kenny said:
Still puts it at roughly F110 equivalent unless it's got some adjustments for supercruise. Late-model F110s are pushing 32k, GE could probably dial up their fuel controls to 35k at the expense of reduced TBO.



So, less capable of supercruise?
Click to expand...
Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't supercruise mainly about dry thrust? The change from WS-10B to C is the result of the appliance of 5th gen technologies and J-20 with WS-10C is known for being downright supercruise capable.

In-fact WS-10C incorporated components which were supposed to used in the early WS-15 engine. WS-10C currently uses DD9 3rd generation single crystal alloy which has been used in this engine since 2020.

Scott Kenny said:
Still puts it at roughly F110 equivalent unless it's got some adjustments for supercruise.
Click to expand...
WS-10's core was originally developed from CFM56.
Scott Kenny said:
So, less capable of supercruise?
Click to expand...
What does it have to do with "less supercruise"? I meant this in the context of "ahead of F-119 but behind F-135 in terms of some specifications and components."

Still, all I do is follow speculations to the best of my ability (as one must do wrt to the PLA) since I'm not an engine guy and my knowledge is limited.. Moreover, engines are not necessarily a main topic of interest for me.
 
Last edited:
Trident said:
Interesting take on the buried axisymmetrical nozzles.
Click to expand...
Yeah they're absolutely nonserious about it.

GfuVaczWwAAAGYI.jpeg
471926435_928318099273188_7397850979877147972_n.jpeg
 
Nx4eu said:
A Chinese CAD modeler did this better than them
Not sure if I can paste the SDF link here or not but there is 40 images im not posting them all here.
Click to expand...
I wouldn't be surprised if they just lifted the drawings from the chinese CAD artist and "adapted" them. The initial drawings have been online for several weeks/months by now.
 
Scott Kenny said:
Thing is, China does not have F135 equivalent engines. They do have F100/F110 equivalents in the WS10. They may have an F119 equivalent engine in the WS15, but I'm not sure it's being fielded yet. IIRC the J-20s are still flying on WS10s.

Assuming that Article 36011 is using WS10s because nothing newer would be ready in time, it's got about 90,000lbs thrust. The WS15-powered version that I expect them to use later on would have about 105klbs thrust.
Click to expand...

1. We do not know definitively what engines the J-36 has flown with thus far. It could either be a WS-10 variant or WS-15. It's far from out of the question for them to fly J-36 with WS-15, because even though J-20A has yet to enter frontline service with it, there are a couple of J-20A prototypes that have flown with WS-15s and indicators are that it is essentially on the cusp of entering production with WS-15s.

2. Regardless of whether J-36 is using WS-10 right now or WS-15 right now, it will almost certainly continue to have three engines now and into the future even when more capable engines are available. I.e.: when the PRC aeroengine industry have their ACE/VCE ready, J-36 will still use three such appropriately sized ACE/VCEs.

A better question for people to ponder is whether J-36 could be suitably powered by two F135 equivalent engines to begin with -- or heck, when we know what NGAP is like, whether J-36 could be suitably powered by two NGAPs to begin with? It may well be that there is no appropriately sized engine that can be reasonably developed in the next few decades (regardless of whether it's by the US or PRC) where they could allow J-36 to be powered by two engines, and that they would have to go with three regardless.
 
snne said:
Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't supercruise mainly about dry thrust?
Click to expand...
It also means a lower overall pressure ratio inside the engine (to allow for the air temperature increase from slowing supersonic air in the inlet without exceeding turbine max temps), which means lower SFC.


snne said:
What does it have to do with "less supercruise"? I meant this in the context of "ahead of F-119 but behind F-135 in terms of some specifications and components."
Click to expand...
Means instead of being able to zoom around at Mach 1.8, you're down at M1.4 or so.
 
Scott Kenny said:
It also means a lower overall pressure ratio inside the engine (to allow for the air temperature increase from slowing supersonic air in the inlet without exceeding turbine max temps), which means lower SFC.
Click to expand...
We don't have official figures for the final engine design they have settled on, but an early figure of 28.71 was floating around a couple of years ago. As I mentioned, this is one of the characteristics that makes it similar to the F135 in this case. However, the engine has undergone significant redesign since then (around 2017-18 or 19 IIRC).

As is the nature of observing the PLA, we have to rely on years of speculation and careful observation. This means that any sources or small indicators we have, if any, tend to accumulate into a pile of doom over time.
 
snne said:
We don't have official figures for the final engine design they have settled on, but an early figure of 28.71 was floating around a couple of years ago. As I mentioned, this is one of the characteristics that makes it similar to the F135 in this case. However, the engine has undergone significant redesign since then (around 2017-18 or 19 IIRC).
Click to expand...
Right, but high OPR means good SFC, while low OPR means relatively poor SFC. And poor SFC means lower range than what you could have if you gave accepted a much lower supersonic cruise speed or up on supercruise entirely.
 
Nx4eu said:
I think the whole turning the inner engine off, or turning the outboard engines off or the third middle engine being a different type of engine is all complete nonsense. Why must there be such a debate for a tri engine plane.

How about the third engine is there because the aircraft needed more power and thrust for it's objectives, and it was not willing to trade it's size and capability or kinetic flight performance that a dual engine setup could not achieve. I also don't buy the Chinese engine technology is weak so it had to compensate with a third engine. There is not an engine, even the NK-32 nor any future engine programme of any nation in the world that can produce as much supersonic thrust as this three engines aircraft with only 2 engines, if the use of WS-15 class engines are to believed.
Click to expand...
Pretty sure a pair of GE4s could. ;)
 
sferrin said:
Pretty sure a pair of GE4s could. ;)
Click to expand...
I know you're being sarcastic but a single GE4 engine is as heavy as 3 WS-15 class engines. It's fan diameter is also humongous so the entire airframe would be reinforced and be completely bloated massively increasing the size of the plane, which then makes it even larger and heavier which would require larger ducting and making an s duct that large would need more volume which would be heavier etc etc.
 
Nx4eu said:
I think the whole turning the inner engine off, or turning the outboard engines off or the third middle engine being a different type of engine is all complete nonsense. Why must there be such a debate for a tri engine plane.

How about the third engine is there because the aircraft needed more power and thrust for it's objectives, and it was not willing to trade it's size and capability or kinetic flight performance that a dual engine setup could not achieve. I also don't buy the Chinese engine technology is weak so it had to compensate with a third engine. There is not an engine, even the NK-32 nor any future engine programme of any nation in the world that can produce as much supersonic thrust as this three engines aircraft with only 2 engines, if the use of WS-15 class engines are to believed.
Click to expand...
A pair of NK321s can match the power of a trio of F119s. 55klbs thrust in full afterburner each, 30klbs in MIL.
 
Scott Kenny said:
A pair of NK321s can match the power of a trio of F119s. 55klbs thrust in full afterburner each, 30klbs in MIL.
Click to expand...
It probably doesn't meet the reliability and efficiency expectations of modern China.

Also, three WS-15s/WS-10s/ACEs still provide more dry thrust (and likely more power generation). Remember, this is the most important design objective for this jet according to its chief designer.

So, if America wants to counter this aircraft with a similarly capable NGAD manned component, I believe they will most likely have to go the same tri-engine route as well. (That is, If they don't want to develop a "modern NK-32" that'll bloat the budget and take a loong time to develop.).
 
Last edited:
snne said:
It probably doesn't meet the reliability and efficiency expectations of modern China.

Also, three WS-15s/WS-10s/ACEs still provide more dry thrust (and likely more power generation). Remember, this is the most important design objective for this jet according to its chief designer.

So, if America wants to counter this aircraft with a similarly capable NGAD manned component, I believe they will most likely have to go the same tri-engine route as well. (That is, If they don't want to develop a "modern NK-32" that'll bloat the budget and take a loong time to develop.).
Click to expand...
I am not really sure if that would happen. China seems to have pretty unique idea on what they want out of next generation military aircraft. So perhaps their won’t be any sort of equivalence since they may not have the same vision for the future.
 
thanix01 said:
I am not really sure if that would happen. China seems to have pretty unique idea on what they want out of next generation military aircraft. So perhaps their won’t be any sort of equivalence since they may not have the same vision for the future.
Click to expand...
Everything they've said so far points to the same requirements, just different design objectives.

Shenyang's tailless J-50/J-XDS already aligns with what we estimate the 'expensive NGAD' and the F/A-XX would look like if they ever materialize. It is slightly longer and wider than the J-16, which is already huge.
 
VTOLicious said:
Based on the assumption that PL-15 and -17 are the main armament, I try to determine the required size of the IWBs...

Can anyone provide more details on the size of the PL-17?

View attachment 761573
Click to expand...

PL-15 probably won’t be main armament since J-20 started moving to PL-16 already. Unfortunately we don’t have photos/videos since weapons bay is closed most of the time. Maybe we’ll get lucky when they start carrying it in “beast mode”?
 
As
siegecrossbow said:
PL-15 probably won’t be main armament since J-20 started moving to PL-16 already. Unfortunately we don’t have photos/videos since weapons bay is closed most of the time. Maybe we’ll get lucky when they start carrying it in “beast mode”?
Click to expand...
I'm not sure if the folding-fin version of the PL-15 is designated PL-16. Some people seem to consider the PL-16 to be the successor to the PL-10 (short range, comparable to ASRAAM, Sidewinder,...).
Interestingly there is photos showing the folding-fin version with PL-15E markings on it... The specs of "E" is what I have used as a reference (see my previous post).

1735629904655.png
 
VTOLicious said:
As

I'm not sure if the folding-fin version of the PL-15 is designated PL-16. Some people seem to consider the PL-16 to be the successor to the PL-10 (short range, comparable to ASRAAM, Sidewinder,...).
Interestingly there is photos showing the folding-fin version with PL-15E markings on it... The specs of "E" is what I have used as a reference (see my previous post).
Click to expand...

The folding fin PL-15/E is not considered by anyone to be PL-16 or the genuine next gen BVRAAM.

The PL-16 designation in the past has been used as a stand in to variously refer to the next gen BVRAAM or the next gen SRAAM for the PLA, but in the last little while it seems like the community has coalesced on using PL-16 as the name for the next gen BVRAAM.
 
VTOLicious said:
As

I'm not sure if the folding-fin version of the PL-15 is designated PL-16. Some people seem to consider the PL-16 to be the successor to the PL-10 (short range, comparable to ASRAAM, Sidewinder,...).
Interestingly there is photos showing the folding-fin version with PL-15E markings on it... The specs of "E" is what I have used as a reference (see my previous post).

View attachment 761588
Click to expand...

It isn’t. Credible rumor is that PL-16 adopts similar configuration to PL-17 but is much smaller.
 
snne said:
It probably doesn't meet the reliability and efficiency expectations of modern China.

Also, three WS-15s/WS-10s/ACEs still provide more dry thrust (and likely more power generation). Remember, this is the most important design objective for this jet according to its chief designer.

So, if America wants to counter this aircraft with a similarly capable NGAD manned component, I believe they will most likely have to go the same tri-engine route as well. (That is, If they don't want to develop a "modern NK-32" that'll bloat the budget and take a loong time to develop.).
Click to expand...
Disagree, the US could run a pair of F135s or A100/101s and just install bigger generators. The US has access to much higher capacity lightweight motor/generators than China does. Or two generators per engine if they need that much electrical power.

That's 85-90klbs of thrust in two engines.
 
Scott Kenny said:
Disagree, the US could run a pair of F135s or A100/101s and just install bigger generators. The US has access to much higher capacity lightweight motor/generators than China does. Or two generators per engine if they need that much electrical power.

That's 85-90klbs of thrust in two engines.
Click to expand...

If you run something like F-135 which has relatively low bypass ratio then you tradeoff some high speed performance.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom