Thank you Raytheon!!

https://youtu.be/vCHun6rxQm0?si=vjN4u6CSzyTNv-zm&t=22

>>63891623 (OP)
Ah yes, the critical design feature that jets have engines an exhausts!

>made by Boeing
SAAR

>cg of vaporware

>>63891623 (OP)
Why do you think this is a leak and not an approved release of information?

>>63891623 (OP)
the absolute need for the US to prop up boing boing at all costs will surely not have consequences

>>63891623 (OP)
That looks like it’s more or less the render Collins Aerospace made to represent NGAD and has been using for years now. Nothing new. We have no idea how closely it ends up resembling the final product

>>63891623 (OP)
>"This is AWACS. Listen up, Galm 1! We've completed analysis of the enemy craft. Codename: Teflon Don."
>"This plane is protected by an ECM defense system. Its only weak point is the front air intakes. You'll have to attack it head-on. Go! Take down that F-47."

china: copy the flippers copy the damn flippers!
all according to plan.

Is this true?

>>63892305
It isn’t the design. It’s a 3rd party model that’s been floating around for probably half a decade at this point being used for engine marketing. There’s no new information here about the airframe.

>>63892305
The 3 engine plane thr chinks made has that large intake at the top what the FUCK is this bitch talking about? Also most if their aircraft, especially the ones flying from carriers are flankers which says enough

erm actually our old design was better and our new design is better, checkmate westies

>>63891623 (OP)
The nozzle design is quite interesting.
Obviously, seems like a major step up on the heat signature and performance (sacrifice) part from typical stealth slit nozzles.
But what really picks my interest is the rear RCS reduction it seems to achieve. It's not unlike an elaborate S-duct, just at the turbine's outlet instead of the inlet, covering up all the nasty bits. Material engineering and manufacturing (minding the quite elaborate shape) must be something major here to make it work, certainly.
The X-36-like design is hardly a surprise, I've been saying for a good decade that any properly designed 6th gen will look like that. But the engine... holy shit. I did not see that coming, anticipated MHD flow control (not excluded, but still), but not this here.

>>63892305
No.
A well designed canard will have negligible impact on stealth but a major performance benefit for maneuverability and some flight regimes, along with better payload distribution flexibility.
Mind you, a well designed one.

>>63892428
ah yes, american exceptionalism
Now lets see who is the best in mathematics...

>>63891623 (OP)
>leak
No. Even the chinks can figure out the flat exhausts on the B-2 means a nozzle that flattens the exhaust this is nothing new.

>>63892421
Now that I think of it MHD on the nozzle is probably the way they get away with having a fixed one.
I'll think it through the night and maybe come back with some more insight on all of this.

>>63892441
That's significantly different than the traditional slit nozzle. I've seen some crazy shit both through the academic and commercial part of the industry, including the engines (maybe on some other day I could tease you with some stuff on external combustion ramjets), and I did not see that one coming.

>>63892457
>external combustion ramjets
Interesting, I'll have a read up on "Flaming Pumpkin Seeds" later.

>>63892305
chinks on suicide watch
and of course it's the engines that got them seething
I'd be too if my jet had a third engine awkwardly glued on because they're too shitty for two to be enough

>>63891623 (OP)
they better get this shit out AND QUICK
some majorly questionable gambles have gone down
give the American SU-57/Mig-31 combo or whatever China's got but "in black"

>>63892305
>literally who chinkoid WOMAN talking about anything

uh, no

>>63891782
don't bother, this is an agenda thread

>>63891623 (OP)
>design leak
>it's an object's external shape
Thirdy thinking at work.

>>63892305
>female
The reason canards suck for stealth is because they create a bunch of new surfaces for radar reflections. The F-47 mitigates that by positioning them such that radar reflections are mostly dumped into the engine intake. It has absolutely nothing to do with feature size/wavelength, it's simple arithmetic; two is more than one, three is more than two, and so on.

The ideal number of control surfaces for stealth is zero, but that's not feasible, so the next ideal is one, but that's not feasible; you iterate on this until you have a workable flight control model with as few features as possible. Anything you add to this you need to mitigate with geometries/configuration which return a low RCS.

>>63892439
>Now lets see who is the best in mathematics...
China's latest jets got redeemed by Indian radar from over 300 miles away. The F-35 just SEADed Iran apart without being detected (as far as we know, which is likely reality because muslims are retarded and would boast about detecting an F-35).

>>63892530
>China's latest jets got redeemed by Indian radar from over 300 miles away
>Luneburg lens says 'good morning saaar'

>Although many aviation experts have penned extensive analyses of the F-47 images, particularly of the canards—the use of which would be difficult to square with the notion of the F-47 as an “extremely low observable” design—they should be “taken with a large grain of salt,” an Air Force official said.
>“We aren’t giving anything away in those pictures,” he said. “You’ll have to be patient” to see what it really looks like, he said, adding “Is there a resemblance? Maybe.”
>A former senior Pentagon official, asked at the time of the F-47 announcement about the unusual canard and wing configuration, replied, “Why would you assume that’s the actual design?”

>>63892305
no, it's wrong. the priority for minimizing RCS will always be the front because it's the side that will be facing radars the most. you try to minimize RCS everywhere but in the end the front is the most important part and this will lead to some compromise in other parts

>>63892279
>>63891623 (OP)
The actual F-47 won't have canards.

>>63892305
That's a lot of words just to spell c o p e

>>63891623 (OP)
Why does it have canards?

>>63893236
american engeneers aren't up to par. The brownification of their country is the end of them

>>63893236
Increased manoeuvrability.

>>63893622
nope, increased manouverability (high speeds) is given by the delta design. the canards are to give the aircraft at least some manouverability at low speed.

>>63892305
Considering China thought the CGI test plane from Top Gun Maverick was real, you tell us?

What if retractable canards

>>63891623 (OP)
>oh no
>it's canarded

>>63892305
>chinese post
Probably no, but I'd like a second opinion that isn't Chinese or Chinese shill.

>>63891623 (OP)
>canardfag is back
don't you have /pol/ threads to shit up?

>>63891883
>dodges 34 times
HOW!?!

>>63891623 (OP)
>guys we accidentially made a marketing clip
Is this what we call a leak now?

>>63893633
>Considering China thought the CGI test plane from Top Gun Maverick was real, you tell us?
The plane in Top Gun Maverick is "fake", yes, but it's based on the real SR72, which could already be in production right now.

Bring vertical stabilisers back, planes without them look odd.

Street shitter plane.

>>63894878
wasn't it supposed to fly for the first time this year?

>>63894903
I agree. How a plane looks is more important than anything else. This is why the F-16, B1 and F-22 are the bestest.

>>63892305

The F-47 has canards to keep from stalling because it's already overweight for the available thrust.

why not have variable sweep canards that can be concealed?

>>63893236
why does this shit have 3 engines? are you seriously telling me they couldn't make 1-2 engines powerful enough without melting?

>>63897822

For the same reason the Tri-jets had three engines. Engine out margin for overwater flights.

Say goodbye to Guam.

The leak was from a famous leaking website called Mianus btw.

>>63892439
A lot of the metrics showing China as being an educational superpower are kind of doctored. For instance, in 2018, the last year that China took the PISA, China got an average math score of 591, while the US had an average score of 478, which looks worse by an insanely huge margin.

However, China only reports Pisa scores for Beijing, Shanghai, Jiangsu, and Zhejiang, which are all wealthy parts of China. Additionally, because Chinese schools operate on a hukou system, migrant workers who perform menial labor are not allowed to send their kids to public schools, and have to go to shitty migrant schools instead. I think these kids probably don’t get assessed, either. If China didn’t cherry pick like this, their scores would likely drop.

Additionally, the US experiences a wide range of scores between different races. While the national average math score was just 478, American whites had an average score of 503, and American Asians have an average score of 539 (the later of which is largely in line with the other east Asian countries). Blacks and hispanics drag down the American average, but there still exist pools of decently educated people.

>>63898087
Anecdotally, I have 3 cousins in China, none of whom is academically successful. One runs a business where he and 2 friends hire some teachers to teach students calligraphy and such (having been fired from a corporate job that his mom got him for laziness), but doesn’t make much money. One is a trainer at a gym that he and his buddy own, which does okay, and also runs a small fast food place that is only profitable because he has his mom do all the cooking and doesn’t pay her. The third is a chain-smoking, alcoholic middle school dropout who has never managed to hold down a job for more than a year, and who lives in his grandmother’s condo. He has been a bartender, a lights guy for concerts, and most recently a tour guide (he has stayed at the latest job for over 6 months, but has recently started showing up to work drunk). Also, while Chinese schools in big cities are often very high quality, that quality often does not extend very far. The third cousin’s schools had an average classroom size of 80 students per teacher.

I do think that this board has a tendency to be irrationally overconfident in the superiority of American systems and to dismiss Chinese designs as tofu dreck without consideration. There are a ton of very smart and hard working people in China, and they can probably make some good stuff. But there is a strong tendency to cover up shortcomings (one uncle, a tax collector who regularly took free meals from restaurants hoping to get less taxes, got an award for not being corrupt). In conclusion, I think that China is stronger than most of this board thinks, but not as strong as wumaos claim.

>>63897594
Absolute retard. Most fighters since the 90's have had a TWR>Total weight...

Even single engined fighters have a TWR>1, or by extension craptasticly engined Soviet fighters. You know nothing and are a turbofaggot.

>>63897822
Because their engines are measurably worse than western (and even in some cases, Russian) designs. Three engines could provide a fallback if one engine fails, and the maximum thrust required could very well only be supplied by three engines.

Tri-jets aren't a widely pursued design choice (outside of airliners) due to endurance and improvements in (most) manufacturers engine designs, allowing both lighter weights, higher thrust, and better reliability. When the J-36 was revealed, a common consensus was that the third engine was a ramjet for high speed cruising/dashes. I do believe, however, that it is just three 'regular' after burning jet engines.

Most aircraft didn't use the third engine to provide increased speed per se, but it seems the J-36 almost definitely has the third engine for increased cruise and top speeds. Perhaps they hope a combination of speed and low RCS will provide advantages which a pure stealth approach wouldn't have (more than likely price, but I digress)...

>Picrel, XB-51, faster than many early fighters of the era, but compared to most contemporary bombers, it lacked long range endurance and survivability .

>>63898141
that middle engine will be a pain in the dick to work on

>>63898157
It will be a hangar queen, surely... If they reach operation, I doubt they will be rolled out very often.

>>63895168
>wasn't it supposed to fly for the first time this year?
Just like the 71, they're trying to keep it "secret" for as long as possible, so they're not saying much about it, at least through official channels.
The expert speculation is that the prototypes have already been flown, might have been flying for a while, and that it's already in production.

It can go up to Mach 6 at least, and also has a special hypersonic missile being developped alongside it to go with, to shoot while going at Mach-fuck..
The point being to strike anywhere in the world within 30 to 45 minutes, making it possible to quickly react to intelligence about a target being somewhere and acting on it immediately.
The message being sent to America's ennemies is that they are not safe anywhere out in the open.

The SR72 really doubled down on the speed strat. Hypersonic + Stealth means by the time they might detect the Son of Blackbird, it's already left that section of the airspace.
Pure Speed might be one of the valid strategies for 6th gen aircraft to not get shot down".

>>63898167
even as a hangar queen you are going to have to take it into account so it will have an impact on operations.
But I can't help but think about how bad my buddies mood gets when he has to take an engine out never mind do the work on it.
Anything other than a check up is going to have them remove the middle one possible also one of the others to get to it.
That's going to fuck china over in how much it will be able to contribute to their operations

>>63898176
The only hope they have is that Chinese engineers decided to make the center engine easy and relatively quick to remove and reinstall (they didn't).

>>63898186
that's not for the engineers to decide though and the people that did decide aren't thinking about ease of maintenance but about making it as flashy as they can so they can get promotions in the Party

>>63898186
also need photo of a Ethiopian in Italian service I assume based on the uniform

>>63893236
My best guess would be low landing speed so they don't need to fuck about with a "B" this time.

>>63898095

"Under" is not a synonym for *less than 1". And since the requested specs for the engine prototypes are very aggressive, contractors are habitually unable to meet specs, and we're 10 years from serial production of the aircraft, don't bet against disappointment.

>>63897594
>and other chink coping mechanisms you can use on yourself.

>>63893236
vely imlessive, papeh tigeh

>>63898192
>the people that did decide aren't thinking about ease of maintenance but about making it as flashy as they can so they can get promotions in the Party
lol the F47 do be like that^

>>63898832
meanwhile the F35 is not impossibly hard to maintain
yes thirworlder i know you can stop screeching now.

>>63898845
>meanwhile the F35 is not impossibly hard to maintain
lmao, except it is exactly precisely that

if chinas military was actually good they would be invading russia

>>63898845

Oh Google AI, what do you think?

> The F-35 fleet across all three services (Air Force, Navy, and Marine Corps) has consistently failed to meet desired mission-capable rates for several years. The Air Force's F-35A, for example, achieved only 51.9% mission capable rate in 2023, well below the 80% target.

>>63899824
GROK NO IS THIS TRUE
DONT YOU TELL ME OF THE LIES GROK
YOU TELLING ME OF THE REAL TRUTH RIGHT NOW YOU BITCH

>>63891623 (OP)
The retardation needed to not realize this video had to have gone through about a 100 people including military officials for approvals before being released to the public. Lol. Nothing leaked here

>>63898832
hi helmettard, having another melty?

>>63899926
>Boyko Nikolov
Ah so bulgarianmilitary.com

>>63899824
>>63899926
Please provide a reliable independent source showing J-20 readiness rates so we have something to compare it to.

>>63900585

> 50% readiness for the the F-35 is great! I love it!

>>63891623 (OP)
looks like this other supposed NGAD thing

>>63899926
>By Boyko Nikolov
Mr. Nikolov Stepanovich has no relation to Russia, a country that has no interest in tarnishing the F-35 or the US' reputation

>>63900525

> The U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) in April 2024 reported that the cost to sustain the fleet of aircraft through 2088 would be $1.58 trillion, a 44% increase over GAO’s 2018 estimate. GAO attributed the cost increase to several factors, including the Air Force’s intent to operate the F-35 11 years longer than previously planned and the fleet’s failure to meet performance goals for availability, reliability, and maintainability.

>>63901077
>through 2088

>>63897822
Despite China's impressive industrial output, some things are just really hard to get into if you don't have a long line of institutional knowledge behind it. Even with all the tech from Russia they're still likely using MiG-29 engines for the ~le 6th gen~ fighter. Which is honestly pretty sad considering even Russia can make new engine designs for their new planes.

>>63897822
Forget China, a lot of countries cannot. Whatever country even Japan making a new jet will need American power plants. That shit is the secret sauce of specific companies, you won’t get new American companies independently making it into the market either.

>>63891623 (OP)
fixed it for you.

>>63891623 (OP)
fuck it

>>63901454
Another example of this would be CPUs. There are precisely two companies in the world that can make high performance/efficiency x86_64 architecture CPUs and they are AMD and Intel. Everyone else has to try to cope with making ARM work. Despite China being the world's premier electronics manufacturing hub, their best chips can maybe match AMD/Intel stuff from 10-15 years ago.

>>63901466
Sort of, I think lithography machines from ASML is the primary bottle neck for the tech gap. It’s like saying China can’t learn to draw as well as you, but you also banned them owning pencil and paper. Point still stands, certain industry has very specific techs that not anyone can replicate, not even other advanced western democracies

>>63901466
China has decent CPUs with their own uarch (based on the RISC-V specifications) that matches the IPC (benchmarks) Intel CPU 1-2 years older.
They licensed Zen (AMD) too.

>>63898087
>Tfw American Educated white
>Tfw bullied by my South Korean friend for being bad at math
He was genuinely appalled when I told him I didn't know how to do long division in my head, and that most Americans didn't know their times tables. I blame this mostly on the American Education system being absolute dogshit though. Euros probably know this stuff better.

Idk why Asians are so cracked at mathematics though. Gotta be cram-school cock and ball torture or something like that.

>>63901573
>I didn't know how to do long division in my head, and that most Americans didn't know their times tables.
I think you might just be retarded.

>>63901466
You are retarded. China can mass produce those GPU or CPU if they don't abide the contract, which means they don't need western permission to make their own chips during wars.

>>63902202
>Russia can totally produce advanced thermal sights and drones and tanks and planes and everything if they were at war
I can't wait for year 2 of 30 minute Special Chinese Reunification Operation when Pooh will beg Iran to lend them some Shaheds.

>>63900967
this conversation has been had thousands of times already
you don't know what fully mission capable means, you're too retarded to even comprehend why almost all of those not fully mission capable jets are basically perfectly useable in a real fight.
>b-but they're not fully mission capable
and you're not smart enough to know what that means.

>>63902251

> this conversation has been had thousands of times already!!!

Not our fault you're a slow learner.

>>63902262
>n-no you're stupid
>I DON'T NEED TO UNDERSTAND WHAT THESE WORDS MEAN
alright little guy

>>63902266

You're claiming expertise in evaluating defense programs beyond that of the GAO who are literal Gods among mere mortals for this kind of analysis. It's all on you to provide that you know more than they.

>>63903979
>completely misunderstands point being made
embarrassing lol
i'll give you a hint, an F35 that's missing a working light will already be marked as not fully mission capable.
figured it out yet?

>>63903979
He's got a point. By US standards, every other country on earth is lucky to have readiness levels above the single digits.

>>63900967
If half of all F35s are active that would still mean the US has infinitely more active 5th gen combat assets because it is infinitely larger than 0. This has been your helpful math tip of the day

>>63904096

We're not paying for 50% readiness. We're paying for 80% minimum and not getting it.

>>63892491
>I'd be too if my jet had a third engine awkwardly glued on because they're too shitty for two to be enough
muh engines
Can you show the american engines capable of 250-300 kN? (soviets had those)
The closets thing in service was the J58, the closes prototype were the scaled up J79 (YJ93, GE4) far simpler than a turbofan.