J-36 with new main gear design, previously it was double bogie like Mig-31/Su-34.

[-]

Evilbred@reddit

Tri-engined jet? Very interesting.

Reply

[-]

theaviationhistorian@reddit

I'm wondering if it's to carry heavy loads, engines are underpowered, or if they plan to run soley on engine 2 during cruise to extend it's combat range?

Reply

[-]

Engines are underpowered (at the moment). They've had big issues developing their jet engine technology, particularly the materials science needed. There's absolutely no reason to make a trijet if you had two engines powerful enough.

Reply

[-]

Conscious-Taste-5031@reddit

naw tri engine to power the crazy amount of avionics. there was a thesis posted on it apparently

Reply

[-]

DynasLight@reddit

This is true. Its also true that there's most likely no engine in the world that could support the J-36's design goals with just two engines. People don't get that the J-36 is ginormous, like its way bigger than you think it is. (Rumour has it the LockMart concept was similar to the J-36 and had 4 engines, but this most certainly is a far-fetched rumour.) In any case, the real thing to consider here is the *other* 6th-gen design, the J-50. That design is as big as a Flanker/J-20 but way has more "area" in total due to its lamba wing design, and yet it only has two engines. If they really had inferior engines, the twin-engined J-50 wouldn't exist. If the J-50 had 3 engines then yes, there'd be a good case of engine inferiority, since its a only a "reasonably bit" bigger and heavier than preceding generations (in line with expected growth) instead of being basically a bomber-sized supersonic fighter.

Reply

[-]

Shoddy-You-1245@reddit

People cannot imagine things beyond their own cognition.

Reply

[-]

Conscious-Taste-5031@reddit

real reason why its has 3 engines is to power the shit load of avionics. if it was really underpowered look at the j50

Reply

[-]

Imtherealwaffle@reddit

according to the designers its for sufficient energy generation in addition to thrust requirements. Huge aesa radar, lots of sensors, electronic warfare suite, etc. lots of things to power.

Reply

[-]

DynasLight@reddit

It also opens up the possibility of Directed Energy Weaponry. Modern 5th-generation fighters are typically stretched to the limit with powering support subsystems, let alone trying to turn one into a weapon.

Reply

[-]

Many-Ad9826@reddit

Electrical power The designer released a thesis paper on it

Reply

[-]

theaviationhistorian@reddit

An electrical turbine or an APU? I'll be really fascinated if it's the latter.

Reply

[-]

Remarkable-Refuse921@reddit

It weighs 45 tons. No low bypass turbofan engine in existence to toda can create enough power for this thing with only two engines.

Reply

[-]

drjellyninja@reddit

That sounds like a good guess but we don't know how much it weighs do we?

Reply

[-]

Remarkable-Refuse921@reddit

We don't really know how much it weighs, but it,s definitely very heavy. Some estimates put it at even higher weighs like 50 to 60 tons.

Reply

[-]

theaviationhistorian@reddit

Shit, that's around the weight of your average main battle tank in the 1990s-2000s.

Reply

[-]

IM_REFUELING@reddit

They're probably running 3x WS-10 engines, at least for the prototype. The WS-15 (inasmuch as it actually exists and isn't CCP vaporware that lasts a few hundred hours before needing overhaul) is more powerful but doesn't have enough thrust to replace the third engine, and if we're being honest the Chinese don't have the technology to build an F135-class engine at this point in time. I could definitely see them shutting down the #2 engine during cruise and using it only for takeoff/climb/combat/landing to save some gas, but that's a tremendously inefficient use of an engine since you have to carry the weight and volume of that engine around regardless of if it's running.

Reply

[-]

Banfy_B@reddit

F-135 is ill suited for high speed cruising. It has nearly double the bypass ratio of F-119 for higher efficiency and thrust. Twin engine design is not yet feasible as there is no engine available that can support something the size of J-36 going Mach 2+ while generating enough power for possibly the largest AESA on a fighter.

Reply

[-]

GreyStriations@reddit

Those engines have the same n2 gaspath. The 135 has more bypass for cooling aircraft side things. It has a larger fan to support it.

Reply

[-]

Evilbred@reddit

Larger bypass is primarily for efficiency. turbofan engines primarily produce thrust through sending air back around the engine (the bypass). They're basically ducted turbo-props

Reply

[-]

GreyStriations@reddit

I've built both engines bypass in modern military engines is used for cooling and nothing else. None of the bypass in either engine is used for thrust.

Reply

[-]

PsychologicalGlass47@reddit

Holy hell, have you ever worked with an augmentor once in your life?

Reply

[-]

GreyStriations@reddit

Yup I've been referencing two engines in this thread. In those two neither of them have bypass that create thrust. But please tell me more about some random motor that you know about that doesn't pertain to the thread.

Reply

[-]

PsychologicalGlass47@reddit

Both the F100 and F119 DEFINITELY pertain to the thread as they're direct technical counterparts to the engine the WS-10 was meant to fill in for. Beyond the whole bit of "building a bypass" that you've clearly learned a lot from (congrats on assembling a fan case, you're truly the most experienced technician to ever live), there's a reason why 2/3 of the spray rings are dedicated to enhancing the output of mass flow. Quite literally the one of only a few reasons for current cores to exist is for continuity. The only reference I can find of you mentioning another engine here is a response to somebody else's comment, in which you've only mentioned core flow... Ignoring the MAJOR change in design that granted the F135 a 20% increase in benched thrust. Come back when you've gotten your applied sciences degree, it'll save you some embarrassment.

Reply

[-]

GreyStriations@reddit

I've only been referring to the fact that bypass is not used to create thrust in these engines but thanks for the info. The F135 has more thrust because it dumps more fuel in the combustion chamber.

Reply

[-]

discombobulated38x@reddit

>I've built both engines bypass in modern military engines is used for cooling and nothing else. The EJ200 uses the bypass for cooling, to increase propulsive efficiency (same thrust, less fuel, which is functionally equivalent to more thrust for the same fuel) and also to supply additional oxygen and mass flow for reheat.

Reply

[-]

Evilbred@reddit

Actually doing some more research into this, apparently the cooling piece is more important than I had assumed.

Reply

[-]

latestagepersonhood@reddit

Someone with some actual knowledge will probably chime in here but exhausts that small that close together don't really leave any room for bypass from a turbofan, my (admittedly uneducated) guess is that those are some turbojet. meaning even less efficiency and range. what are the odds this is a demonstrator/testbed/marketing plane and has engines that are just whatever was roughly the right amount of thrust off the shelf?

Reply

[-]

jackboy900@reddit

> my (admittedly uneducated) guess is that those are some turbojet. meaning even less efficiency and range. > > One thing you have to remember is that supersonic flow is really weird, and compressible flow is also really weird, and the two of them together can be very unintuitive. What makes an efficient subsonic engine and what makes an efficient supersonic engine are very different, and aren't going to be apparent to a lay observer.

Reply

[-]

1KgEquals2Point2Lbs@reddit

It's a concept vehicle. China has no knowledge of war. They have no military personnel who've ever fought in a war. Their vehicles are the same. While most western countries have simulators, of vast proportios, and actual vehicles that can, "pretend war", through actually putting their equipment through battle drills, China ain't got that. China builds shit to see how it works, IRL. They're like America in the 50s right now. They're throwing shit at the wall and seeing what sticks. This plane, that plane, ect. It's a weird timeline...

Reply

[-]

RentedAndDented@reddit

There's an element of that perhaps but you can't argue with their pace of progress. I would not be dismissing them easily.

Reply

[-]

RealPutin@reddit

I would be absolutely shocked if it was a turbojet. Supersonic-capable and especially supercruise-capable engines are *extremely* low bypass (for instance the F119 on the F22 is something like 0.3:1). I don't see any reason to expect anything other than a low-bypass turbofan here.

Reply

[-]

latestagepersonhood@reddit

ah, that makes sense. and sort of confirms my line of thinking, if not my hypothesis per se.

Reply

[-]

1II1I1I1I1I1I111I1I1@reddit

Does China even still use the WS-10 on new planes? They already fitted WS-15s in all the J-20s successfully. I see no reason why this prototype doesnt have 3x WS-15 or better.

Reply

[-]

Known-Associate8369@reddit

Are you really saying that the US is behind China in gas turbine/jet engine development, or is that a typo?

Reply

[-]

1II1I1I1I1I1I111I1I1@reddit

Yes. The J-20 and its WS-15s blows away the F-22 in every measurable capacity. Faster, higher altitude, more range, more efficient, everything. The WS-15 makes more thrust than the F-35's F135 while being half the length and weight and having identical fuel economy. As fas as the WS-19 and J-35 go, it blows away its counterpart in the F-35 as well. Fast, longer range, and it can supercruise. China has supercruising carrier aircraft. And this is comparing 5th gen stuff. China is flying the J-50 and J-36 daily at this point, including multiple variants of each, as well as an unknown and unmanned sixth gen fighter than doesn't have a public name yet.

Reply

[-]

Remarkable-Refuse921@reddit

The WS 19 engine is something else. It packs so much power in such a small package.

Reply

[-]

raptor217@reddit

Does it though? The J31 with 2x WS19 engines has a *combined* thrust of 24 tons. The F35's *single* F135 engine has 21 tons of thrust. There's no public information on the size of it, and only a claimed power to weight of >10. It really looks like they claim it's better than everything and conveniently don't prove their claims.

Reply

[-]

Remarkable-Refuse921@reddit

The WS 19 is a medium-sized engine with stats creeping towards heavy fighter jet engine thrust stats of 120kN. It is at 110KN. It also has turbine inlet temperatures that approach the lower limit of engines that power heavy fighter jets, and this is in a medium-sized engine. The previous commenter who is being heavily downloaded is correct. Both the WS 19 and WS 15 engines produce thrust that are mind-boggling for their size (length and weight) China is even aiming to increase the thrust of the WS 15 engime to 197KN without increasing the bypass, ratio, and size of the WS 15 engine and this is with the WS 15 engine already beimg compact amd relatively lightweight for the thrust that it currently produces. If you read Chinese language forums, you will know all this. The previous commenter is absolutely right.

Reply

[-]

raptor217@reddit

I see zero source and you are only claiming some forums as your source. I'd equally reject WarThunder forums as a source. As far as I can tell, every single thing could be fabricated, backed up by "trust me". At best, it's only being written to tow the line of "China is #1" with reality being bent in an attempt to get there. > If you read Chinese language forums, you will know all this. The previous commenter is absolutely right. Ah, so that's the thing. The previous commenter is absolutely ~~right~~ incorrect. All PLA observers agree that China lags behind the US on jet engines. They are catching up, but it is there. That said, everyone has said all this, so you can keep commenting if you want, but you're just towing a propaganda line.

Reply

[-]

Remarkable-Refuse921@reddit

Believe what you want.

Reply

[-]

raptor217@reddit

Are you also planning on farming upvotes and then editing your comment later? I count one edit so far…

Reply

[-]

Remarkable-Refuse921@reddit

?

Reply

[-]

raptor217@reddit

You originally posted just: > believe what you want And it’s now different. The poster you originally replied to did something similar. Some accounts from troll farms (not saying you are) post something to get upvotes, then later edit it to say what they really think. It makes it seem like people agree with you when they do not.

Reply

[-]

Remarkable-Refuse921@reddit

?

Reply

[-]

raptor217@reddit

If I can make a suggestion. Reply when you know what you want to say, and if you need to add more later, use the following from the reddiquette guide: "Edit: {whatever you need to add here}" I've seen your comment change twice already and it's hard to respond when it changes. > All I know is chinese engineers and scientists are not stupid and are creating amazing stuff like advanced jet engines. These can be found in Chinese language forums and journals. They're brilliant, on the topic of jet engines they've advanced 70 years of technology in the last 20 years. They do still have struggles with reliability. > They are not inferior to scientists and engineers from other countries intellectually or racially. Of course! The truth is neither USA or China is #1 at everything. Accepting your own weaknesses makes you stronger, I think.

Reply

[-]

Remarkable-Refuse921@reddit

I never said China or the USA is #1 in everything. I said China could be ahead in low bypass turbofan engines but behind in high bypass turbofan engines and turboprop engines. Although they are making progress in both. I usually edit because of either a typo or missed information, but thanks for the suggestion. The tone of the other guy may have been aggressive, and that may be the reason for the downvotes, but he is right that the WS 15 and WS 19 are exceptional engines. This is even more pronounced with the WS 19 engine. That engine is exceptional. It is not the thrust that makes it exceptional, but it,s crazy compact size and the thrust that it currently produces at that compact size and it,s turbine inlet temperature at that compact size that makes it exceptional. Both engines are compact for the thrust that they produce with a surprisingly high thrust for their size. Whatever Chinese engineers are doing must be cutting edge.

Reply

[-]

Known-Associate8369@reddit

HAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAH \*pause for breath\* HAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAH \*another pause for breath\* HAHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAAHHAHAHAHAAHHAHAHAHAHAHA I will readily admit that I refuse to buy into the anti-China rhetoric that pervades social media, but even I know what the actual reality is. China is currently behind the western world in terms of gas turbine/jet engine efficiency and endurance - sure, they might be able to show a peak thrust which exceeds an equivalent western engine, but they are nowhere near showing anything like an equivalent time on wing or fuel consumption. Its the old "Mig-25 is as fast as the SR-71" crap all over again - sure, the Mig-25 could be shown to go as fast, but it never used the same engines again after that single flight.... While the SR-71 showed that speed with a multi-mission time-on-wing for its engines...

Reply

[-]

raptor217@reddit

Part of the issue is the US undersells its capability, because then its an advantage in a conflict. These state media trolls don't realize that. > Its the old "Mig-25 is as fast as the SR-71" crap all over again - sure, the Mig-25 could be shown to go as fast, but it never used the same engines again after that single flight.... While the SR-71 showed that speed with a multi-mission time-on-wing for its engines... Fun fact, the SR-71 hit >Mach 3.5 in 1986 over Libya. The Mig-25 was always slower, we just don't correct our enemies when they make mistakes. Frankly, I assume these accounts are largely trying to get another "warthunder forums" situation going on where someone has actual access to restricted information and posts it to win an argument.

Reply

[-]

raptor217@reddit

Going to go ahead and quote your whole comment, since you previously edited your previous comment to try and get upvotes and then changed it to a more propaganda specific version. > Yes. The J-20 and its WS-15s blows away the F-22 in every measurable capacity. Faster, higher altitude, more range, more efficient, everything. The WS-15 makes more thrust than the F-35's F135 while being half the length and weight and having identical fuel economy. > > As fas as the WS-19 and J-35 go, it blows away its counterpart in the F-35 as well. Fast, longer range, and it can supercruise. China has supercruising carrier aircraft. > > And this is comparing 5th gen stuff. China is flying the J-50 and J-36 daily at this point, including multiple variants of each, as well as an unknown and unmanned sixth gen fighter than doesn't have a public name yet. Those almost certainly have WS-15s or better. Now, let's break down what you claim: > Yes. The J-20 and its WS-15s blows away the F-22 in every measurable capacity. You're comparing a 20+ year old plane with one <5 years old (while arguing we are 20 years behind). The J-20 has worse maneuverability and stealth. > Faster, higher altitude, more range, more efficient, everything. In a stealth fighter, top speed above Mach 1.5 literally doesn't matter. You melt, ablate, or otherwise destroy the stealth coating. The J20 and F-22 have the same 20,000m service ceiling, and if we're comparing 1,000 ft it really doesn't matter. The J20 range is based on how much fuel it carries. It's a missile truck that cannot dogfight like an F-22. The latest WS-15/J20 also seem to not have working thrust vectoring, but for its role that largely doesn't matter. > As fas as the WS-19 and J-35 go, it blows away its counterpart in the F-35 as well. Fast, longer range, and it can supercruise. China has supercruising carrier aircraft. Your point is? I can't confirm any of your claims, there's no real data on that engine, which seems to be designed to be on par with our 30 year old F18 engine. Aside from supercruise, which has not been confirmed, everything else is just airframe. > And this is comparing 5th gen stuff. China is flying the J-50 and J-36 daily at this point, including multiple variants of each, as well as an unknown and unmanned sixth gen fighter than doesn't have a public name yet. Those almost certainly have WS-15s or better. It's funny how the US has a history of developing the most advanced aircraft capability in secret, huh.

Reply

[-]

raptor217@reddit

They are, it's not the only comment in here saying this. In this case, it looks like the commenter said something to get upvotes, and then edited the text to something blatantly false.

Reply

[-]

raptor217@reddit

Did you edit your post after getting upvoted, because it's quite uninformed. > The U.S. is 20 years behind in jet engine development. That is incorrect, the US is at the front of engine development. China is catching up, but is behind, particularly in engine reliability. [Janes](https://www.janes.com/osint-insights/defence-and-national-security-analysis/feature-china-thrusts-forward-on-military-aero-engine-development) > The reason there isn't a successful 6th gen fighter program is explicitly because the U.S. doesn't have the capacity to build something similar to or better than the WS-15. What are your non-Chinese state media/affiliate sources that we cannot build something better than the WS-15? The nearly 30 year old F119 has similar thrust to weight ratio but far higher reliability/endurance. This isn't exactly a stellar source, but: "It can be said that China's engine technology is about 30 years behind the United States. " "In terms of service life, the service life of F119 is as high as 6,800 hours, while the service life of China's turbofan 15 is only 3,600 hours, which is almost half that of the United States. The American F119 has been around for about 30 years, with a thrust-to-weight ratio of about 10, and the F135's thrust-to-weight ratio is as high as 10-12. " [ws15: GlobalSecurity](https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/china/ws15.htm) Meanwhile the US has moved on to developing Variable cycle jet engines with variable bypass, which is powering the 6th gen fighter. We will see if China will suddenly beat US to delivering a powerplant this advanced, but as of yet everything has been bold claims.

Reply

[-]

1II1I1I1I1I1I111I1I1@reddit

The WS-15 has nearly as much thrust as the F135 and literally just over half as much lmfao. The F135 weighs well over 6000lbs and produces 43000lb-ft with full afterburner. The WS-15 is shorter, smaller, weighs 3500lbs, and produces 41000lb-ft. They have an identical pressure ratio. The F119, which is a cold war relic at this point, weighs 5000lbs and produces only 35000lb-ft at full afterburner. The outcome of this? The J-20 is faster, has a higher service ceiling, and has MORE THAN DOUBLE the range of the F-22 (5500km vs 1800km). The U.S. will need in-air refueling to do anything in the pacific and good luck with that when the PL-17 and PL-21's 400km+ ranges outrange the JATM by 200%, a program that has completely failed and produced zero deployed missiles.

Reply

[-]

raptor217@reddit

Since you have been editing a lot, saving this for posterity/truth's sake: > The WS-15 has nearly as much thrust as the F135 and literally just over half as much weight lmfao > The F135 weighs well over 6000lbs and produces 43000lb-ft with full afterburner. > The WS-15 is shorter, smaller, weighs 3500lbs, and produces 41000lb-ft. It has an identical pressure ratio to the F135. > The F119, which is a cold war relic at this point, weighs 5000lbs and produces only 35000lb-ft at full afterburner. > The outcome of this? The J-20 is faster, has a higher service ceiling, and has MORE THAN DOUBLE the range of the F-22 (5500km vs 1800km). The U.S. will need in-air refueling to do anything in the pacific and good luck with that when the PL-17 and PL-21's 400km+ ranges outrange the JATM by 200%, a program that has completely failed and produced zero deployed missiles. Ok now lets get some facts out there. You have: > The WS-15 has nearly as much thrust as the F135 and literally just over half as much weight lmfao > The F135 weighs well over 6000lbs and produces 43000lb-ft with full afterburner. > The WS-15 is shorter, smaller, weighs 3500lbs, and produces 41000lb-ft. It has an identical pressure ratio to the F135. So weird to compare two different classes of engines, designed for different things, just because you dislike a country not being the best at something. We're informed here and will see the strawman argument for what it is. > The F119, which is a cold war relic at this point, weighs 5000lbs and produces only 35000lb-ft at full afterburner. So weird how you say "The U.S. is 20 years behind in jet engine development." yet you are comparing our 30 year old engine to one <5 years old. The performance is close and we did it 30 years ago. I think you have the country that is 20 years behind mixed up... > The outcome of this? The J-20 is faster, has a higher service ceiling, and has MORE THAN DOUBLE the range of the F-22 (5500km vs 1800km). Now you're comparing airplanes, not jet engines. The J-20's wouldn't survive getting within range of the F-22 and its missile range wouldn't matter since the F-22 would be first to get a lock as its stealth is better. > The U.S. will need in-air refueling to do anything in the pacific and good luck with that when the PL-17 and PL-21's 400km+ ranges outrange the JATM by 200%, a program that has completely failed and produced zero deployed missiles. Not sure about your sources (don't use state media, they love to embellish) but the [AIM-174B ](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIM-174B_Gunslinger) is operational and outranges even the PL-21 (which is not operational). You and I both know nothing about the JATM, so don't make things up.

Reply

[-]

SignificantCaptain76@reddit

This entire comment is hillariously absurd Chinese jingoism

Reply

[-]

Remarkable-Refuse921@reddit

Two F135 engines still won't be enough for the J36 fighter jet. It weighs 45 tons. All low bypass turbofan engines in existence today ate underpowered for the J36 fighter jet

Reply

[-]

Recoil42@reddit

>....and if we're being honest the Chinese don't have the technology to build an F135-class engine at this point in time. China's [notionally ahead](https://ad-aspi.s3.ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/2024-08/ASPIs%20two-decade%20Critical%20Technology%20Tracker_1.pdf?VersionId=1p.Rx9MIuZyK5A5w1SDKIpE2EGNB_H8r) of the US on advanced engines right now. Fwiw, my guess is they're aiming to do supercruise but wanted commonality with the J-20 so triple WS-15s it is.

Reply

[-]

raptor217@reddit

Found the Chinese bot account! You cited who is producing more research papers. Not who produces more advanced engines. The US leads, unequivocally. The gap is narrowing, but theoretical papers do not equal fielded capability. “These challenges mean that China continues to face a significant capability gap compared with international, and particularly Western, aero-engine manufacturers.” [Janes](https://www.janes.com/osint-insights/defence-and-national-security-analysis/feature-china-thrusts-forward-on-military-aero-engine-development)

Reply

[-]

aviation-ModTeam@reddit

Your comment has been removed for breaking the r/aviation rules. This subreddit is open for civil, friendly discussion about our common interest, aviation. Excessively rude, mean, unfriendly, or hostile conduct is not permitted. Any form of racism or hate speech will not be tolerated. If you believe this was a mistake, please message the moderators through modmail.

Reply

[-]

Recoil42@reddit

>You cited who is producing more research papers. I cited the Australian Strategic Policy Institute, which has a complex methodology I just linked out. You can just go read it, like I did. Good news. You have free will.

Reply

[-]

raptor217@reddit

> I cited the Australian Strategic Policy Institute I'm aware, that is what I meant by "You cited who is producing more research papers." > You can just go read it, like I did. I did read it, though I'm thinking you did not. You said "China's notionally ahead of the US on advanced engines right now. " which is incorrect per your own cited source. *Your source actually says* **China is ahead on annual publication rate**. From your own source: "Figure 17: Top 5 countries in advanced aircraft engines (ranked by 21-year performance)" The axis for Figure 17 are Number of Publications and Publication Year. That is number of research papers. That said, I'm done here, nothing further to add since this speaks for itself.

Reply

[-]

Far-Yellow9303@reddit

My assumption is that China appears to be intending to fight over the Pacific ocean at great distances. When aircraft suffer an engine failure, their efficiency is dramatically reduced and so is their range. My assumption is that the J-36 has 3 engines to reduce how much performance would be lost with one engine failing and so give them a better chance of limping back to base were it to happen at extreme range over the ocean.

Reply

[-]

sleepwalker77@reddit

That's a fair reason for 2 instead of 1, but that would be an insanely conservative design choice of that was the logic. Given how rare an engine failure really is, you're better off dumping the payload if you can't get back on 1 engine while fully loaded

Reply

[-]

Far-Yellow9303@reddit

It's a warplane so I'm expecting they're putting a high value on redundancy. And there's sure to be other considerations like the size of the lad, it's an absolute unit.

Reply

[-]

NHinAK@reddit

Tri-jet with maybe an F119ish 2D TV nozzle.

Reply

[-]

generictroglodytic@reddit

Looks kinda weird with this landing gear rather than a double bogie. Perhaps this is a carrier variant

Reply

[-]

IM_REFUELING@reddit

That plane easily weighs over 100,000 lbs loaded up, no way that's going on an aircraft carrier with any useful load.

Reply

[-]

DynasLight@reddit

It would need some monstrously large carrier and ridiculously strong catapults to launch that thing at sea. Certainly no naval variant of the J-36 will exist this side of 2040, if ever.

Reply

[-]

Harold_v3@reddit

So will the loading of each wheel reduce the number of airfields that could handle the plane?

Reply

[-]

generictroglodytic@reddit

Oh I didn’t realize it was that large.

Reply

[-]

G-III-@reddit

For reference, an F-14 MTOW is about 75k, F/A-18 about 50k, and F-35C about 70k I’m not sure if carrier ops change those, but it helps give an idea

Reply

[-]

kaupulehu@reddit

Most of PW J58's thrust emanates from the subsonic intake.....

Reply

[-]

Deer-in-Motion@reddit

That is a big Dorito.

Reply

[-]

DCMETROTECH@reddit

Im glad I found your comment. Definitely has zero knowledge on this realm, I just prefer the A10 myself 😂

Reply

[-]

MapleMapleHockeyStk@reddit

Just paint it high vis orange!!!

Reply

[-]

one_andonly_edward@reddit

It looks like a Dorito lol

Reply

[-]

Desi0190@reddit

This thing is a brick. Fully loaded, it’s not moving. I guess it’s supposed to be like the F-22B but done way wrong

Reply

[-]

Recoil42@reddit

The J-20 is the F-22 counterpart. This is in theory more like a modern Su-34, which has no direct American counterpart.

Reply

[-]

Imtherealwaffle@reddit

not a strike aircraft like the su-34. As far as the general western public knows the intent for this plane is an air superiority platform with long legs (pacific theatre stuff) and the ability to carry long range missles to take down high value targets like aew&c planes.

Reply

[-]

Captain_Mazhar@reddit

That’s my thought as well. Kind of a reimagined heavy fighter. It makes sense with the stealth characteristics and supposedly an enormously powerful AESA radar. It would be equipped with a modernized version of something like a Phoenix, but with the capability to be a scaled down B2.

Reply

[-]

Desi0190@reddit

The Strike Eagle is the direct counterpart of the Su-34. Same role, size and similar everything. This is is closer to the “strike Raptor” that was proposed but never went anywhere

Reply

[-]

Recoil42@reddit

The Strike Eagle is a *derivation* of the US counterpart to the MiG-25. It's an *indirect* counterpart, but all of that is you waving a red flag and distracting away from the fundamental greater easy-to-understand base point that the J-36 is not a derivation of the J-20, and therefore not a counterpart of the F-22 or the conceptual FB-22 derivation which notably *does not exist*. Just say you want to be incessant, annoying, and a pedant rather than having conversation of substance, my dude. We won't entertain you but at least you don't have to lie to yourself that you're doing something here.

Reply

[-]

Desi0190@reddit

K so you’re being pedantic. The F-15E entered service and the Russians immediately began to build the Su-34 to “counter the F-15E” per Sukhoi themselves. Denying facts is a weird thing aviation kids do when they don’t understand what they’re talking about

Reply

[-]

Recoil42@reddit

All this energy being expended just for you avoid acknowledging that the J-20 exists. Remarkable.

Reply

[-]

Desi0190@reddit

Never said anything about the J-20, nor did I deny its existence? This is clearly a continuation from the J-20 line, though not one to see much success if I were to call it now. It’s clearly lacking in several factors: its thrust to weight is going to be abysmal, fully loaded it’s got to be pushing 100,000lbs. The engines it has surely won’t be enough to keep it competitive against the likes if strike aircraft like the F-15E, F-35, Su-34 or even legacy airframes like the A-10 or Su-25

Reply

[-]

Recoil42@reddit

>This is clearly a continuation from the J-20 line Three engines, no canards, a totally different wing profile, and a side-by-side cockpit. But other than that, y'know... a clear continuation from the J-20 line. Brilliant analysis.

Reply

[-]

Desi0190@reddit

Oh so you’re admitting a three engined fighter with the same intake structure, avionics, weapon bay layout, RAM coating and likely engines has no linkage to the J-20? You must be Russian to be that blind to lineage of aircraft

Reply

[-]

Cool-Barber8998@reddit

Ofcourse it shares some lineage. NGAD would share some stuff with the Raptor too obviously

Reply

[-]

Desi0190@reddit

Probably not. The F-22 avionics suite is so unique that Lockheed learned a lot. As a Boeing product, the F-47 is likely not going to share anything. Especially as the F-22 production line has been dead for about 12 years, it’s not going to share much if anything

Reply

[-]

Many-Ad9826@reddit

Airborne cruiser, PLAAF is banking entirely on BVR for future aerial engagement

Reply

[-]

Desi0190@reddit

That’ll go just as well as the F-4 in Vietnam. They’ll learn a lot fast

Reply

[-]

Dizzy_Lengthiness_11@reddit

"Desi". Name speaks for itself. Calm down lil bro them white snow bunnies still won't let you hit 😭

Reply

[-]

aviation-ModTeam@reddit

Banned for racism, r/aviation does not allow hate

Reply

[-]

Desi0190@reddit

26 day old account that’s active in multiple Chinese subreddits. No wonder you hate Indians. Still, that’s not how this works kiddo

Reply

[-]

Dizzy_Lengthiness_11@reddit

I don't hate indians at all. Do you see me criticizing indians at all? You're obviously not white that's for sure and they still won't let you hit 😭

Reply

[-]

Desi0190@reddit

Why does my race matter to you? This is about a shitty Chinese prototype

Reply

[-]

Dizzy_Lengthiness_11@reddit

Did you just... stereotype me? 😱

Reply

[-]

Desi0190@reddit

Not at all. I asked a question

Reply

[-]

Dizzy_Lengthiness_11@reddit

And to answer your question BVR in Vietnam failed because of US air doctrine needing to positively ID aircraft before engaging and the unreliability of early AIM 7s compounded by jungle humidity. BVR is the future lil bro and I'm sure Pakistan proved that a couple of months ago

Reply

[-]

Desi0190@reddit

So what China will experience with an untested, unproven military using tactics they rarely train on. The F-4 of the East. And yeah, Pakistan took a lot of hits but India took more. In fact, Pakistan performed better by flying training sorties against what India flies, giving them an advantage over Rafales and less trained Indian pilots. Glad you agree BVR still needs training

Reply

[-]

raptor217@reddit

In the realm of air vs air, China's largest weakness is complete lack of any combat experience within the last two decades. One can only look so good on paper before experience becomes critical. For BVR combat, China is also at a massive disadvantage because their longer range standard missiles cannot make up for vastly inferior stealth.

Reply

[-]

Desi0190@reddit

Again, points I’ve made. China is untested, unproven and technologically behind. Not far behind, but behind

Reply

[-]

raptor217@reddit

I agree. They'll also have an even harder time force projecting aircraft because they have zero combat experience with carrier operations.

Reply

[-]

Desi0190@reddit

Let alone aerial combat experience. They never do DACT either, creating another huge deficit in their training. Doesn’t matter what tech you have if you can’t use it properly

Reply

[-]

Dizzy_Lengthiness_11@reddit

"that they rarely train on" alright lil bro this has to be rage bait but nice try Desi J10 smoking rafeles with last gen BVR missiles and you're still doubting BVR hardware. 🤣

Reply

[-]

Desi0190@reddit

I literally just said Rafales got smoked kiddo. And India doesn’t train with J10’s, Pakistan trains with Rafales from UAE to get an advantage over India

Reply

[-]

Desi0190@reddit

Not Indian kiddo. More racism from the goons of Reddit. Regardless, if you have to hate Indians instead of making an argument, you’ve shown you have nothing to contribute to

Reply

[-]

Dizzy_Lengthiness_11@reddit

Wtf since when did I say you're Indian? Nah man this is just some self victimization shit and secretly you don't want to be associated with indians. Still my point stands snow bunnies won't let you hit 🥴

Reply

[-]

Desi0190@reddit

I don’t like white woman anyway, yet your defiance proves me right kiddo. Regardless, racism from a Chinese redditor isn’t a surprise

Reply

[-]

NonadicWarrior@reddit

You can tell its a brick based on one static photo? Huge wings and triple engines is a brick how? If anything it probably has pretty low wing loading. And no one expects it to be a dogfighter.

Reply

[-]

Desi0190@reddit

Three engines= massive weight and fuel consumption Massive wing span= high surface area, difficult to turn Intakes likely not designed for high AOA maneuvers so it’ll struggle to evade anything. Not to mention inexperienced pilots, no combat training, inferior avionics and a weight of nearly 100,000lbs. This is a brick simply by looking at it

Reply

[-]

DogWarovich@reddit

And here is our staff HAFO from Texas

Reply

[-]

RyboPops@reddit

Are they trying to make a carrier variant??? Surely it's too large for their current boats...

Reply

[-]

atomatoflame@reddit

Is there a third intake above?

Reply

[-]

Eggonioni@reddit

Just split its needs along each side like 2/3 of one intake goes to one side engine and the last 1/3 feeds to the third engine (since the intake area is the same when combined).

Reply

[-]

atomatoflame@reddit

I just thought supersonic intakes had to be a one per engine design to control the supersonic flow. I guess it could control it and then empty into a big air box or some kind of split. Doesn't seem like a good idea though if one engine has an issue it could affect others.

Reply

[-]

jgmiller24094@reddit

The thing is just odd looking from every angle, I’m not buying that this isn’t some technology demonstrator vs a prototype of an actual production program.

Reply

[-]

Davidoitos@reddit

Just realized that the first prototype has been spotted almost a year ago. Progress sure is fast.

Reply to Post

118 Comments