The funny part of this is, that we had exactly the same rumours about "possibly two" J-20 prototypes also both numbered '2001' in the very early days of the J-20 flight testing.
Chengdu next gen combat aircraft (?J-36)
- Thread starter Blitzo
- Start date
The funny part of this is, that we had exactly the same rumours about "possibly two" J-20 prototypes also both numbered '2001' in the very early days of the J-20 flight testing.
Quick simple question, why is it not possible to implement the modifications in a short time frame. If all the parts were prepared before hand, and the aircraft was from day 1 was designed to be modular. Why is swapping out parts a completely impossible endeavor to perform?
J-36 was spotted at Lop Nur by the TWZ team on august 27th 2025. The "new" prototype was spotted in Chengdu on October 28th 2025. There is a 2 month gap between these two events.
Last edited:
Imo considering how fantastically complicated modern aircraft are, especially their electronics, controls and the degree of integration of even the smallest subsystem, to change the engines, change the intakes, change the gear, and then test everything to make sure it works right in just one month or even two is imo impossible nowadays. It probably takes months and months (and even more) of ground tests alone to get those kinds of mods verified, nevermind doing the actual airframe mods.
This is honestly just a subjective opinion. We have no idea what kind of schedule or timeline engineers at Chengdu are pulling. We've seen how rapid they have been moving with the frequent flight tests of the early prototype. What's important is the the airframe is sound and all the original flight systems worked with the first set of parts. Modular and rapid design, It's not exactly easy to explain, but if from the very beginning the J-36 was designed to use both troughs/2D TVC, caret/DSI, bicycle/tandem. Preliminary tests could move much faster than otherwise possible.
The whole engineering is complicated thus it's not possible, ironically is just a gross oversimplification of what can actually be achieved through different design approaches.
Last edited:
Certainly the simpler explanation. But I'm just peeved that others are ruling out part modification just because of vibes and it's hard and stuff.
Honestly the modifications wouldn't be too hard to perform, especially if they were planned from the beginning. Although, I think (if it really is numbered 36011), that this is a funny joke from the people at CAC.
The simplest answer is that the number probably isn't 36011 and we should await better pictures.
We should also avoid calling it "36011" in any form until we have definitive imagery because it will just cause unnecessary confusion.
Just call it "prototype with new intakes and nozzles" instead.