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

[Sferrin]

The operational orientation of this aircraft is different from any previous aircraft,

How do we know that?

 

[Scott Kenny]

That top inlet looks off kinda sugests its a a protype till more powerfull engines apear and it goes to being a twin engine design. Given how fast Chinese are evolving their designs i would not be surprised if a twin engine is not already under construction.

With novel aerodynamic configurations , flight hours on such a plane are what they need for refinment of final designs ,.

You'd be pretty much redesigning the whole plane for that. 50% larger engines need 50% larger inlets.

No, I really think the J-36 is a 3-engined ~50ton aircraft.

 

[EmoBirb]

The operational orientation of this aircraft is different from any previous aircraft, and it may not be appropriate to make a similar comparison with the SU34.

I'm aware that the projected role is vastly different, or at least as far as we know so far. I was just curious as a second HUD occurred somewhat redundant to me?

Although with regards to HUDs, it could probably be a feature only on the prototypes. Perhaps serial aircraft ditch them for solutions directly integrated into the advanced helmet. Either way, it's a very exciting turn of events to see such a photo so soon after it's initial spotting.

To channel my inner zoomer, 'China is cooking'.

 

[Tomboy]

You'd be pretty much redesigning the whole plane for that. 50% larger engines need 50% larger inlets.

No, I really think the J-36 is a 3-engined ~50ton aircraft.

I would expect J-36 to be near 60t instead, as a tender from CAC for a tow vehicle capable of atleast 60t was found.

 

[Blitzo]

I'm aware that the projected role is vastly different, or at least as far as we know so far. I was just curious as a second HUD occurred somewhat redundant to me?

Although with regards to HUDs, it could probably be a feature only on the prototypes. Perhaps serial aircraft ditch them for solutions directly integrated into the advanced helmet. Either way, it's a very exciting turn of events to see such a photo so soon after it's initial spotting.

To channel my inner zoomer, 'China is cooking'.

It could make sense for both stations to be "operator agnostic". That is to say, they may have identical controls, displays etc, and either of the pilots could be flying the aircraft and may even switch duties/roles during a sortie.

Given the way this aircraft is expected to operate, the actual flying of the aircraft is unlikely to take up much of the attention of the pilot anyhow.

 

[TomcatViP]

The picture was probably contoured in the original picture and pasted on this background to either hide other hardware or to conceal the exact location where this picture was taken.
The contouring tool generally look for general pattern in color to automatically part object in frame. Using such tools is usually time intensive and requires particular skills to be done properly.
This amateur photographer either did a botched job to hasten the release of the picture, didn't know how to use properly his software or the picture is deliberately compromised to hide a falsification (ex. a scale model being used to portray as a real aircraft).

Regarding the main landing gear doors, given their length and the fact that the landing gear retracts forward, most of their surface is forward of the CG, hence not providing any stability when deployed, on the contrary.

 

[Sundog]

The weird part sticking up is just an artifact of whatever software was used to enhance the original image. Let's not run off the rails based on ghost pixels.

 

[Sferrin]

I'm aware that the projected role is vastly different,

Based on what?

 

[EmoBirb]

Based on what?

Based on what PLA watchers from mainland China have said, some (with good track records) referring to people that work at CAC.

This thread should delve into it more towards the start, alternatively the SinoDefenceForum definitely has it in the dedicated J-36 thread.

It was thus established rather early on that despite some premature claims by western commentators, that this aircraft supposedly isn't a strike fighter or fighter bomber like a Su-34 or F-111, but through and through meant to dominate air combat at long ranges. That's basically the summary of the current consensus as far as I am aware. Blitzo, Deino or Siegecrossbow may be able to expand on it further, given their expertise in the realm of PLA watching.

 

[Sferrin]

Based on what PLA watchers from mainland China have said, some (with good track records) referring to people that work at CAC.

This thread should delve into it more towards the start, alternatively the SinoDefenceForum definitely has it in the dedicated J-36 thread.

It was thus established rather early on that despite some premature claims by western commentators, that this aircraft supposedly isn't a strike fighter or fighter bomber like a Su-34 or F-111, but through and through meant to dominate air combat at long ranges. That's basically the summary of the current consensus as far as I am aware. Blitzo, Deino or Siegecrossbow may be able to expand on it further, given their expertise in the realm of PLA watching.

So basically NGAD?

 

[Avimimus]

As I've said before - if it has sensors, supercruise, and can sustain supersonic turns (i.e. a high supersonic lift-to-drag ratio at low AoA, combined with a high thrust to weight ratio at 2/3rds fuel)... then it has potential to excel in BVR.

Amusingly though, these frontal shots make me think 'bomber'... thus are my actual biases. I suspect that the big deciding factor may be the amount of structural weight spent on structural strength (that said, after burning off half its fuel, and with a relatively low aspect integrated airframe design - getting sufficient structural strength to pull seven gees might not be that hard).

 

[EmoBirb]

So basically NGAD?

More or less, some refer to it jokingly as CHAD because of this, J-XD/J-50 having the humorous nickname of Shengad.

It was either Wang Haifeng or Yang Wei who did a paper on his vision of future air combat. It essentially came down to things like superior power generation to fuel more advanced and capable subsystems and sensors to attain an advantage at super long ranges, networking, cooperation with unmanned assets and other sensory platforms etc. so yes in a way that vision is similar to NGAD. And the J-36 seems to be the child of that philosophy. With the third engine having been attributed to aid in power generation, rather than just being there for thrust reasons alone. It's radar is probably going to be very big and it's cheeks seem to have two large sensor arrays on either side. So power generation, long range, advanced sensor suite are seemingly all present.

But obviously, there isn't anything official yet, just educated guesses

 

[FighterJock]

I can see the point of the Shengad nickname EmoBirb.

 

[elitegamer]

What are the chances that this aircraft(J-36, IMO J-XDS seems too small to pack such a system) will/is equipped with MSDMs like shown in the patent as some credible leaker has been touting, it could potentially act as an APS against missiles and even aircrafts if they somehow got close enough. US has been working on a similar system, although it seems to use a different launch method ie. being carried in a rocket pod instead of being on an internal VLS. Missiles themselves is quite small, estimated to be under 1m in length and lacks a warhead thus relies on direct impact to intercept missiles.


View attachment 772998

This is the Lockheed concept:View attachment 772999
Only 78cm long and 41mm in diameter if PLAAF has a similar missile I think it could be possible to pack a few of these into the fusolage.

This being seen nowadays in the NGRSI is irrelevant its just HGI and other technologies being used to evolve short range air defense, not taking on AAM. Everything ive seen on 6th gen "improvements", on broadband stealth or APS instead of passive anti missile tech is misdirection from actual improvements in the platform. its like the nonsense of f-35 stealth coatings limiting all airframes to 1.6 to degrade the f-35.

 

[Josh_TN]

It looks delightfully futuristic, although would it realistically need two HUDs? Does the Su-34 have two HUDs? The F-111? (Ka-52?)

Given that one person is the pilot and the other a weapons operator, wouldn't it only be necessary for one of them?

I would expect dual controls for long endurance missions. Even F-15EX duplicates full flight controls and displays except for the HUD.

 

[Josh_TN]

So basically NGAD?

..with a heavier focus on extremely long ranged engagements using oversized weapons, yes. For those that were picturing NGAD as a >100,000 F-111 sized ultra long ranged interceptor (myself included), this is kinda what was imagined. F-47 instead seems more of a long ranged air superiority machine that likely has a relatively light f-22 level internal payload which achieves long range with a better fuel fraction and three stream engines. So it looks like the two countries went in very different directions with their long ranged air dominance designs.

 

[Josh_TN]

As I've said before - if it has sensors, supercruise, and can sustain supersonic turns (i.e. a high supersonic lift-to-drag ratio at low AoA, combined with a high thrust to weight ratio at 2/3rds fuel)... then it has potential to excel in BVR.

Amusingly though, these frontal shots make me think 'bomber'... thus are my actual biases. I suspect that the big deciding factor may be the amount of structural weight spent on structural strength (that said, after burning off half its fuel, and with a relatively low aspect integrated airframe design - getting sufficient structural strength to pull seven gees might not be that hard).

I think depth of central bay would definitively define the aircraft. A deep bay that could accept oversized weapons like cruise missiles implies a bomber or at least multiple aircraft; a shallow bay sized for PL-17 or similar would pretty much make it dedicated A2A. Most every assessment seems to indicate this is a heavy interceptor, but that might not exclude a dual role capability.

 

[Blitzo]

..with a heavier focus on extremely long ranged engagements using oversized weapons, yes. For those that were picturing NGAD as a >100,000 F-111 sized ultra long ranged interceptor (myself included), this is kinda what was imagined. F-47 instead seems more of a long ranged air superiority machine that likely has a relatively light f-22 level internal payload which achieves long range with a better fuel fraction and three stream engines. So it looks like the two countries went in very different directions with their long ranged air dominance designs.

I wouldn't say that, given SAC has the J-XDS which is also large but not quite as uber-sized as J-36, and by all accounts the PLA are pursuing both J-36 and J-XDS.

I am sure many of us are eager to see the size of F-47 when it emerged; I for one would not be too surprised if it is about the Flanker-esque size of J-XDS.

 

[Josh_TN]

I wouldn't say that, given SAC has the J-XDS which is also large but not quite as uber-sized as J-36, and by all accounts the PLA are pursuing both J-36 and J-XDS.

I am sure many of us are eager to see the size of F-47 when it emerged; I for one would not be too surprised if it is about the Flanker-esque size of J-XDS.

I was referring specifically to J-36. It is possible both get adopted, but I always thought the J-XDS with the dual nose gear was intended for PLAN.

 

[Scott Kenny]

I would expect J-36 to be near 60t instead, as a tender from CAC for a tow vehicle capable of atleast 60t was found.

? Oh? Holy crap!

Thank you for that piece of information!

So basically NGAD?

Combined response:

..with a heavier focus on extremely long ranged engagements using oversized weapons, yes. For those that were picturing NGAD as a >100,000 F-111 sized ultra long ranged interceptor (myself included), this is kinda what was imagined.

It is almost exactly what I had been picturing for NGAD, minus the 3 engines. I was picturing NGAD running on a pair of 35-45klb engines.

F-47 instead seems more of a long ranged air superiority machine that likely has a relatively light f-22 level internal payload which achieves long range with a better fuel fraction and three stream engines. So it looks like the two countries went in very different directions with their long ranged air dominance designs.

I also suspect that the J-36 has very big bays, which can carry large missiles and bombs. Possibly a rotary rack inside.

While the F-47 has more or less F-22 sized bays (nothing bigger than a 1000lb bomb) with much better fuel fraction and more efficient engines to get the range.***

So the J-36 is likely to be more capable of a striker than the F-47 would be, more in line with the FAXX or possibly better.


*** Side note: An F-22 with internal fuel only is ~65klbs MTOW.

 

[SUPER=BUG]

 

[Scott Kenny]

View attachment 773123

Translation, please?

 

[Elysium]

Translation, please?

It's about a development of a towing vehicle for aircraft - whose weight should not exceed 60t
For reference, the MTOW of the Su-34 and F-111 is about 45t

 

[Scott Kenny]

It's about a development of a towing vehicle for aircraft - whose weight should not exceed 60t

Thank you!

So that gives us a viable upper bound for the J-36's weight. ~132klbs. That's honestly significantly heavier than I expected, I was expecting around 90klbs at 50% fuel, because that would give you a combat TWR of 1.

Let's round down a little, to 130klbs, and then halve that to get an estimated Empty Weight of 65klbs. Guesstimate 10klbs of weapons internal and that gives us 55klbs of fuel.

*blink*

Huh. That does math out to about 103klbs at 50% fuel, and if the engines can do 34klbs thrust (not unreasonable for F110-equivalents) that would give a combat TWR of 1. Why was my brain not grokking that?

====================
Does anyone know how heavy the Chinese VLRAAMs (PL-17?) are? They're not SM6 weight, right? I'm guessing they're more likely Phoenix weight, ~1000lbs?

 

[Josh_TN]

Thank you!

So that gives us a viable upper bound for the J-36's weight. ~132klbs. That's honestly significantly heavier than I expected, I was expecting around 90klbs at 50% fuel, because that would give you a combat TWR of 1.

Let's round down a little, to 130klbs, and then halve that to get an estimated Empty Weight of 65klbs. Guesstimate 10klbs of weapons internal and that gives us 55klbs of fuel.

*blink*

Huh. That does math out to about 103klbs at 50% fuel, and if the engines can do 34klbs thrust (not unreasonable for F110-equivalents) that would give a combat TWR of 1. Why was my brain not grokking that?

====================
Does anyone know how heavy the Chinese VLRAAMs (PL-17?) are? They're not SM6 weight, right? I'm guessing they're more likely Phoenix weight, ~1000lbs?

PL-17 is about 12 inches wide and 20 feet long, so a little thinner and much longer than AIM-174. IMO, probably very similar in weight, north of 1500 lbs. Add in 4-6 PL-15, which are conservatively rated at 400 lbs (inch wider and foot longer than AIM-120) so I think ~10,000 lbs / 5t internal payload is very close.

Per wiki (I know but I have no other quick source for this), J-20 carries 26,000 lbs of fuel. So assuming three engines with roughly 50% more fuel burn, you would likely need ~40,000 lbs for roughly the same cruise range (wiki: 1200 miles). I realize it is a lot more complicated than that, but I would guess consumption at the most fuel efficient power setting roughly works that way. Also if we are assuming WS-15 vice WS-10, then there probably is a ding on endurance - I would expect a supercruise engine to have a significantly lower bypass like F119 (0.3 : 1) which is almost certainly going to reduce subsonic efficiency.

Short version: 55,000 lbs is might be necessary to give it >1000 nm range and supercruise at the same time, especially given three weapons bays, one of which is B-2 ish in length and width. That’s a lot of internal volume, and non trivial structural and auxiliaries weight.

 

[Seragina]

It's almost a flying wing so it should be more efficient than normal.
My guess is for 1000 NM at normal cruise it might only need 31klbs fuel with 100 NM supercruise dash that's about 35klbs.
With 55klbs 1500 NM would be possible. This would make more sense for a medium range multi-role aircraft.

 

[Blitzo]

Keep in mind the above numbers (good estimates imo) would be for interim engines as well -- we know J-36 (and J-XDS) are going to field ACE/VCE as their intended powerplants, which will likely see further gains in range/endurance depending on mission profile.

I also suspect that the J-36 has very big bays, which can carry large missiles and bombs. Possibly a rotary rack inside.

While the F-47 has more or less F-22 sized bays (nothing bigger than a 1000lb bomb) with much better fuel fraction and more efficient engines to get the range.***

So the J-36 is likely to be more capable of a striker than the F-47 would be, more in line with the FAXX or possibly better.

Personally I think with the frontal image perspective now, the likelihood of it having a rotary bay has reduced somewhat -- the fuselage just doesn't seem deep enough for a rotary bay to make use of the actual width of the main bay.

That said, even without a rotary bay, the main central bay is likely deep enough to accommodate some larger diameter strike weapons if needed.

I was referring specifically to J-36. It is possible both get adopted, but I always thought the J-XDS with the dual nose gear was intended for PLAN.

Yeah, I was specifically replying to this part in your previous post: "So it looks like the two countries went in very different directions with their long ranged air dominance designs."

J-XDS seems like it will be adopted by by the PLAAF (land based version -- i.e.: current configuration) and PLAN (carrier based version -- i.e.: they'll need a derivative of the current airframe we see with requisite carrier mods like folding wings, strengthened structure, carrier compatible landing gear etc).

In the future, in terms of the PLAAF and PLAN's "next gen/6th gen" air superiority aircraft, it will be:
- PLAAF: J-36 and J-XDS --> thus the PLAAF and USAF would not have gone very different directions for their long ranged air dominance designs (if F-47 is something J-XDS sized), but rather that the PLAAF have an additional category of long ranged air dominance design (the uber heavy J-36) on top of the regular heavy J-XDS/F-47 category.
- PLAN: carrierborne variant of J-XDS

 

[SUPER=BUG]

It's about a development of a towing vehicle for aircraft - whose weight should not exceed 60t
For reference, the MTOW of the Su-34 and F-111 is about 45t

No, no, no, that place is a bit vague, in fact, the indicator is not less than 60t

 

[Tomboy]

Thank you!

So that gives us a viable upper bound for the J-36's weight. ~132klbs. That's honestly significantly heavier than I expected, I was expecting around 90klbs at 50% fuel, because that would give you a combat TWR of 1.

Let's round down a little, to 130klbs, and then halve that to get an estimated Empty Weight of 65klbs. Guesstimate 10klbs of weapons internal and that gives us 55klbs of fuel.

*blink*

Huh. That does math out to about 103klbs at 50% fuel, and if the engines can do 34klbs thrust (not unreasonable for F110-equivalents) that would give a combat TWR of 1. Why was my brain not grokking that?

====================
Does anyone know how heavy the Chinese VLRAAMs (PL-17?) are? They're not SM6 weight, right? I'm guessing they're more likely Phoenix weight, ~1000lbs?

I did some very rough calculations using the Breguet Range Equation:

Assuming J-36 as a massive, blended body aircraft with large wing area would have a L/D ratio ~30 percent better than J-20(IMO I think it's a bit conservative considering J-36 has 3 times as much wing area, no additional control surfaces, flexible aircraft skin and could use TVC for trim), that J-36 has 55k lbs(25 tons) of fuel and a empty mass(including payload) of 75000lbs(35 tons) and J-36 uses the same WS-10C engine has the base J-20. Also, assuming both J-20 and J-36 would be running their engines at the same power setting.

J-20 right now seems to have a fuel quantity of 26000lbs(12 tons) of fuel and a MTOW of ~82000lbs or 37 tons which means when "empty" the J-20 will have a mass of 56000lbs(25 tons).

Now with this equation:


Since we don't really know the specific fuel consumption of WS-10Cs we could just cancel out the term by dividing them

R(J-36)/R(J-20)=2/3*1.3*(ln(130,000lbs/75,000lbs)/ln(82000lbs/56000lbs))=1.25

J-20 has a combat radius of around 1100nm, so the rough calculations say J-36 would have a combat radius of around 1400nm and this is with old WS-10C. Realistically with intended VCEs, all the aerodynamic trickery and massive use of composites and 3D printed aerostructure I think J-36 could have a combat radius above 2000nm.

IMO, the VCE that is intended to be used by J-36/J-XDS wouldn't have too much of a thrust improvement over WS-15 but would massively focus on cooling capacity/power generation and fuel efficiency. So I think it's pretty reasonable to assume that the new engine would be in the 18tf class(Especially when WS-15 is already in the 160kN-170kN class), accounting in thrust loss from intakes and nozzles etc, this would give J-36 around a TWR of ~1.1 at combat weight. Coupled with very low wing loading(~180kg/m^2 at combat load which is comparable to WW2 era turnfighters ie. Bf-109G's wingloading is 196kg/m^2) should in theory give J-36 a very good sustained turn rate and energy retention although it might be somewhat lacking in instantaneous turn rate and high AoA capabilities.

 

[Scott Kenny]

No, no, no, that place is a bit vague, in fact, the indicator is not less than 60t

Frack!

Doesn't really change the analysis, but does suggest that the J-36 may be even heavier.

PL-17 is about 12 inches wide and 20 feet long, so a little thinner and much longer than AIM-174. IMO, probably very similar in weight, north of 1500 lbs. Add in 4-6 PL-15, which are conservatively rated at 400 lbs (inch wider and foot longer than AIM-120) so I think ~10,000 lbs / 5t internal payload is very close.

AIM-174 is ~1980lbs, so 4x PL-17 is likely 8000lbs.

Sparrows are also an inch wider than AIM-120 and are 500lbs, so I'd guess PL-15s are more like 500-600lbs than 400. That's another ~3000.

So I may have underestimated the AAM weapons weight for the J-36.

 

[lancer21]

Actually, all the hints point that the medium range BVR will be the PL-16, which is said to be comparable to AIM-260. So probably the immediate future AAMs are PL-16 and PL-17 (or more likely an improved hypothetical PL-17B variant, afterall PL-17 is something like a decade old by now, same as PL-15 btw).

 

[Scott Kenny]

Actually, all the hints point that the medium range BVR will be the PL-16, which is said to be comparable to AIM-260. So probably the immediate future AAMs are PL-16 and PL-17 (or more likely an improved hypothetical PL-17B variant, afterall PL-17 is something like a decade old by now, same as PL-15 btw).

Sure, but I'm still thinking that ~12-15klbs might be the more accurate guesstimate for the J-36s' AAM payload weight.

Which suggests that a possible strike weapons loadout would be more like 20klbs, maybe even 25-30k.

edit: formatting changes

 

[Tomboy]

Frack!

Doesn't really change the analysis, but does suggest that the J-36 may be even heavier.



AIM-174 is ~1980lbs, so 4x PL-17 is likely 8000lbs.

Sparrows are also an inch wider than AIM-120 and are 500lbs, so I'd guess PL-15s are more like 500-600lbs than 400. That's another ~3000.

So I may have underestimated the AAM weapons weight for the J-36.

There's solid source for PL-15(E)'s weight


PL-15E is of the same dimension as the normal PL-15 but has less range either due to different propellent used or lack of a dual pulse motor like on the actual PL-15, some even thinks it's actually just a software change, so the missile uses a less optimal trajectory. But point is I think the actual mass of the PL-15 should be close to the PL-15.

As for strike I think J-36 would be at best capable of 2 YJ-21 type air launched BMs which weigh 2000kg or 4400lbs each for the H-6 variant, but I think whatever J-36 would be using probably weigh a bit less and be a bit smaller since they could be launched at supersonic speed, of course also add in 4 PL-15/16 in the side bays. That's ~11k lbs for a long-range strike loadout.

 

[Scott Kenny]

There's solid source for PL-15(E)'s weight

View attachment 773154
PL-15E is of the same dimension as the normal PL-15 but has less range either due to different propellent used or lack of a dual pulse motor like on the actual PL-15, some even thinks it's actually just a software change, so the missile uses a less optimal trajectory. But point is I think the actual mass of the PL-15 should be close to the PL-15.

Huh. Okay, I'll withdraw the 600lb guesstimate. but 450-500lbs is still valid for PL-15-no-suffix.

4x PL17 and 6x PL15 is still ~11klbs.

As for strike I think J-36 would be at best capable of 2 YJ-21 type air launched BMs which weigh 2000kg or 4400lbs each for the H-6 variant, but I think whatever J-36 would be using probably weigh a bit less and be a bit smaller since they could be launched at supersonic speed, of course also add in 4 PL-15/16 in the side bays. That's ~11k lbs for a long-range strike loadout.

I was guesstimating off iron bombs for max weight, not missiles. Or other weapons that fit into the bays, like JASSM-sized cruise missiles.

JASSM-ERs, Tomahawks, and the old AGM-86 ALCMs are ~3000lbs each, I was assuming the J-36 carried at least 4 missiles of that size which puts us at 12klbs plus 4x500lbs of AAMs, 14-15klbs. That load I'd expect to have the full fuel load onboard at takeoff.

Or, it could carry as many as 16x 2000lb weapons if the bay is large enough (~1.5m wide by ~7.9m long). 32klbs of weapons is very probably NOT going to allow for full fuel at takeoff.

 

[Seragina]

J-20 has a combat radius of around 1100nm, so the rough calculations say J-36 would have a combat radius of around 1400nm and this is with old WS-10C. Realistically with intended VCEs, all the aerodynamic trickery and massive use of composites and 3D printed aerostructure I think J-36 could have a combat radius above 2000nm.

IMO, the VCE that is intended to be used by J-36/J-XDS wouldn't have too much of a thrust improvement over WS-15 but would massively focus on cooling capacity/power generation and fuel efficiency. So I think it's pretty reasonable to assume that the new engine would be in the 18tf class(Especially when WS-15 is already in the 160kN-170kN class), accounting in thrust loss from intakes and nozzles etc, this would give J-36 around a TWR of ~1.1 at combat weight. Coupled with very low wing loading(~180kg/m^2 at combat load which is comparable to WW2 era turnfighters ie. Bf-109G's wingloading is 196kg/m^2) should in theory give J-36 a very good sustained turn rate and energy retention although it might be somewhat lacking in instantaneous turn rate and high AoA capabilities.

Nice, thanks for supporting and confirming my guestimate.
I, too believe 2000 NM is the final range for production type. But that likely is still a decade from now.

Or, it could carry as many as 16x 2000lb weapons if the bay is large enough (~1.5m wide by ~7.9m long). 32klbs of weapons is very probably NOT going to allow for full fuel at takeoff.

Raw calculation is good and all but you will always miss the finer details, I recommend to adjust them by 1.111x whichever is more.
Same for unuseable fuel.
The AC likely ends up in the 140klb. But I do see them cheating on low fuel tankage take off weight. Cheating in the military is th rule afterall.

 

[Ainen]

- PLAAF: J-36 and J-XDS --> thus the PLAAF and USAF would not have gone very different directions for their long ranged air dominance designs (if F-47 is something J-XDS sized), but rather that the PLAAF have an additional category of long ranged air dominance design (the uber heavy J-36) on top of the regular heavy J-XDS/F-47 category.

I agree with the post, but there are at least some indications that F-47 is noticeably lighter/smaller than Shenyang aircraft.

I also have personal, thinly substantiated (for now) suspicions that both Chinese aircraft are on a slower end, with much stricter focus on IR stealth (and detection).
F-47, on the other hand, seems likely to be extremely fast (mach 1.5-2) in combat, potentially even in transit.

I.e. both class and view on future of air superiority mission is different even between more comparable Boeing and SAC aircraft.

 

[Blitzo]

I agree with the post, but there are at least some indications that F-47 is noticeably lighter/smaller than Shenyang aircraft.

I also have personal, thinly substantiated (for now) suspicions that both Chinese aircraft are on a slower end, with much stricter focus on IR stealth (and detection).
F-47, on the other hand, seems likely to be extremely fast (mach 1.5-2) in combat, potentially even in transit.

I.e. both class and view on future of air superiority mission is different even between more comparable Boeing and SAC aircraft.

Given how little we know about F-47 at this stage, including its dimensions, I would be surprised at that.

That said, if it is a question of speed, I don't think there's anything about either the CAC or SAC aircraft that makes a mach 1.5-2 speed particularly out of reason, whether it is supercruise or AB.

 

[FighterJock]

Quite agree Blitzo, considering how advanced Chinese engines are getting nowadays

 

[Ainen]

That said, if it is a question of speed, I don't think there's anything about either the CAC or SAC aircraft that makes a mach 1.5-2 speed particularly out of reason, whether it is supercruise or AB.

-A lot of attention to IR masking, well over 5th gen average, despite having it harder(no stabilizers to work with). IR signature just doesn't work together with supersonic flight. Maybe sound as well, btw.
-Both are relatively thick birds, with quite a lot of wing on top. Especially Shenyang one, which more or less shares power rating with J-20(A), yet has way more body to her.
-Neither has vertical stabilizers and neither tries to cheat in a way visible with F-47 render ("V" wing...and that's before we truly know what's there in the back). J-20 (which we know for sure focuses on supersonic fight) had 4 just a decade ago.
-J-36, furthermore, intentionally goes for a really large iwb, i.e. it lets more work to be done by the arrow rather than by the archer.

Those are, of course, just my observations. It's totally reasonable with all that written that both can be faster than I currently assume. Or one of them.

But my current inner understanding is they're normally transsonic/low supercruisers(perhaps up to 1.5 for normal operating envelope, with mean speeds below m=1)), and their high wing sweep is less about speed, more about desired signature reduction.
Then, their power is mostly to help them get out of predicaments (bvr maneuvers, disengaging, slower pursuits), onboard energy/cooling, as well as to ensure fighter class take off and landing performance.
Higher speeds, not so much. They're undesirable, as those are aircraft that really don't want to be found or seen; blinking is not enough. Especially J-36, which is range-bound to keeping very low profile.

 

[Seragina]

But my current inner understanding is they're normally transsonic/low supercruisers(perhaps up to 1.5 for normal operating envelope, with mean speeds below m=1)), and their high wing sweep is less about speed, more about desired signature reduction.
Then, their power is mostly to help them get out of predicaments (bvr maneuvers, disengaging, slower pursuits), onboard energy/cooling, as well as to ensure fighter class take off and landing performance.
Higher speeds, not so much. They're undesirable, as those are aircraft that really don't want to be found or seen; blinking is not enough. Especially J-36, which is range-bound to keeping very low profile.

Yes, supercruise is a tactical option it's not meant to be use just because you want to go around fast.
The F22 and F35 both mostly cruise at economic subsonic as everybody else, too.