Shenyang next gen combat aircraft thread

[bsdnf]

Is it so hard for Westerners to understand that China, with its 1.4 billion people, highly trained population and a strong government, has immense human resources, and that for every aerospace engineer produced in the U.S., it can employ at least five—without having to allocate a monstrous share of its budget to the military at the expense of the civilian economy? The military challenge to China was initiated by the U.S., and China is rightly responding by allocating more resources to defense (yet always within the limits of economic sustainability—unlike the USSR). The U.S. is doubly foolish: not only did it launch the provocation, but it’s also unable to keep up with the consequences of its own aggression. They've picked a fight with a creature far bigger than themselves. It's like a dog attacking a Grizzly bear.

Their rhetoric hasn't changed for decades, and it has already bored me to death.

If the opponent has high production output, they dismiss it as inferior products trying to win by quantity. But don’t worry, history proves that winning by quantity always fails. Did we ever win by quantity? First, let’s define what "inferior" means, blah blah blah... Conclusion: It’s a balanced product combining both quality and quantity—definitely not about winning by quantity.

If the opponent has superior quality, first, it’s propaganda—fake news. If it’s actually true, then, at what cost? The opponent must have paid a price far exceeding the gains, then list the reasons abcd (the implicit logic is still the inherent inferiority of the opponent's political system, culture, and race), so in the grand scheme, they’ll still lose to us.

If the opponent has both higher output and better quality, then there must be something inherently wrong with the product itself (e.g., hypersonic weapons). The opponent is essentially wasting time on two fronts—we win twice as hard!

In summary: Jai Hind (Whitewashed Edition)

 

[mond]

**UNSCALED** Side profile-ish comparison between J-XDS and J-20 by @foolsball on twitter


View attachment 153053

Is the canopy frameless? There is something at the front there but it looks awfully far forward... makes me think that's just the HUD instead.

Also wonder what the protrusion behind the canopy bump could be. I somehow doubt it's a lever for the canopy I hope I'm not hallucinating but it looks like there's a divot in the silhouette right behind it. Looks about where a refueling receptacle would be, maybe they are testing flying with it open. Wonder if that would indicate work towards boom refueling, if true.

 

[taxiya]

Might I propose the existence of multiple aircrafts with different seating arrangement?
View attachment 153052

This one's canopy is clearly longer.

I guess you suggest this canopy being longer because the spot reflection of the sun looks like glass therefor part of canopy. Well any finely painted part of fuselage can be that shiny. There isn't any engineering reason to make two variants in this early stage of development.

 

[burritocannon]

i think this is actually gonna be the uglier one of the two. its got a huge shovel nose and vestigial pinhead cockpit and its gonna look like one of those near sightless deepsea fishes.

then again, if it works well the ugliness becomes the new face of beauty.

 

[tphuang]

Yep, that radome on the J-XDS is clearly longer than the J-20's radome, let alone being much wider.

might I also suggest that it would make sense to have conformal antennas along wing's leading edge whether for radar, EW, communication and/or other purpose.

 

[RoastGooseHKer]

This should have been posted under Funny videos thread.

If you could make an evidence-based argument that either or both planes have key strike-bomber roles in them (therefore, should be called JH or H), I would buy it. However, to say that J-36 and J-50 exist just for employment and propaganda purposes (thus, Potemkin villages when it comes actual combat in the 2040s) is akin to saying drinking cow urine will surely cure COVID.

 

[WaterbDoge]

I guess you suggest this canopy being longer because the spot reflection of the sun looks like glass therefor part of canopy. Well any finely painted part of fuselage can be that shiny. There isn't any engineering reason to make two variants in this early stage of development.

It is not about the spot reflection, the edge of canopy in that photo is pretty clear and it is much longer than the one in new photos. We can see CAC developing J20A and J20S, SAC developing J15T and J15D(DT?) at the same time, so I think it is possible if PLA want a twin seat variant from the begining

 

[Gloire_bb]

might I also suggest that it would make sense to have conformal antennas along wing's leading edge whether for radar, EW, communication and/or other purpose.

Yes not just make sense, it's the way it's done. It is normal with 5th gen (making all the antennas, apertures and their covers conformal and electrically uniform was one of the major RnD sinks for the generation).
One may rememeber that early on, leading edges on test tu-204 (for j-20) were hidden more than the main array radome was.

Justin Bronk basically says that the J-50 and J-36 are technology demonstrators flown in open air for propaganda purposes, and that China is keeping two production lines for heavy fighters open out of communist ideology. Do you agree?

I think he was careful enough not directly say that.
And, well, producing real stuff is in the end a communist maxim. I'd say there is nothing bad about it. He himself comes from a country which divested from a lot of redundancies.

 

[WaterbDoge]

I guess you suggest this canopy being longer because the spot reflection of the sun looks like glass therefor part of canopy. Well any finely painted part of fuselage can be that shiny. There isn't any engineering reason to make two variants in this early stage of development.

Ignore what I said, I think you are right. The rear part of the canopy like bump does look a bit different to the front part

 

[taxiya]

It is not about the spot reflection, the edge of canopy in that photo is pretty clear and it is much longer than the one in new photos. We can see CAC developing J20A and J20S, SAC developing J15T and J15D(DT?) at the same time, so I think it is possible if PLA want a twin seat variant from the begining

The photo is very low in quality, so it is people see what they want to see. I am always against overthinking based on low quality input.

This SAC aircraft is at the development stage of the first J15 in 2009 and J-20 2001 in 2011.