← Home ← Back to /k/

Thread 64079266

28 posts 18 images /k/
Anonymous No.64079266 >>64079295 >>64079301 >>64079338
New Chinese Stealth Tactical Jet Breaks Cover
>Recently emerged imagery largely confirms that China is now test-flying another tailless stealthy combat jet, although it isn’t clear if this is a crewed design or one of its new advanced drones.
>A high-performance, highly autonomous uncrewed combat air vehicle (UCAV) with collaborative ‘loyal wingman’ capabilities is a major possibility. Still, based on the design, this could very well be yet another 6th-generation crewed jet — one that is similar to, or even would compete more directly with Shenyang’s J-XDS (also nicknamed the J-50 by some) fighter rather than Chengdu’s massive J-36 super-heavy tactical jet.
>This latest development once again underscores the frantic pace of Beijing’s military aerospace developments, which include activities across a wide range of drone programs as well as advanced crewed types.
>The aircraft seen in the recently emerged images has a notably pointed forward fuselage and nose section that blends into the mid-set wing midway down the fuselage. The highly swept wing has cropped tips, and the trailing edge features a prominent triangular extension, with a ‘w’-like configuration. There are no vertical stabilizers or other separate tail surfaces. The broad fuselage would appear to offer a fairly significant capacity for internal fuel and stores, although details of a weapons bay are not apparent in the available underside view.
>In all views thus far, the aircraft is seen with its tricycle-type landing gear extended, and it may feature twin-wheel nose gear, which would be indicative of a heavier design, or perhaps one intended for carrier operations.
Implessive:
https://www.twz.com/air/new-chinese-stealth-tactica-jet-breaks-cover
Anonymous No.64079276
J-69 Fukyamuda
Low altitude penetrat0r
Anonymous No.64079294 >>64079371
Genuinely interesting. Is the PLAAF still having issues with engines like they’ve had in their past aircraft? This could either be a real threat (or close to it) or chink plasticware. Who knows
Anonymous No.64079295
>>64079266 (OP)
Personally I'm excited to see these dogshit photos in at least two threads on the board at all times for the next several months. Even better if they're accompanied by unverifiable claims regarding the design or capabilities of this aircraft.
Anonymous No.64079301 >>64079315
>>64079266 (OP)
clearly this is a JH-1000 hypersonic fighter-bomber
Anonymous No.64079303
it's a rather clean looking design as shown. i'm guessing this might be competition to the j-50. it looks like china is going all into stealth since there's no canards for increased maneuverability.
Anonymous No.64079315
>>64079301
i don't think they even need to develop their own stealth bomber since they have the j-36, which is functionally a super heavy fighter and similar to theater level bombers like the f-111.

naturally, they'll probably develop one, but it's mostly a waste for them.
Anonymous No.64079324
Impressive.

As recently witnessed, such developments signal a piecemeal but inexorable movement towards a global Sino-centric model.These tremendous triumphs of Chinese technology accurately represent the outstanding prodigy of the Chinese mind, and serve as flattering and positive laurels for her society. The continuing rot of the lesser cultures and nations, such as those in the west and of our ailing sister nation to the north have opened the space for a new power to steward this grand global project known as humanity.

With China, eschaton shall be made immanent.
Anonymous No.64079338 >>64079340 >>64079347 >>64079369 >>64079370 >>64079519
>>64079266 (OP)
Implessive copying of the 1994 McDonnell Douglas NASA study designs.
Anonymous No.64079340 >>64079367 >>64079369 >>64079370 >>64079519
>>64079338
Anonymous No.64079347 >>64079389
>>64079338
I had a similar thought. Like they're just going through building prototypes of every design in those old papers.
Anonymous No.64079367 >>64079370 >>64079519
>>64079340
https://web.archive.org/web/20100520190158/http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19950005539_1995105539.pdf
Anonymous No.64079369 >>64079373
>>64079338
>>64079340
Did the MDD design have a variable sweep wings for carrier ops?
Anonymous No.64079370 >>64079379
>>64079338
>>64079340
>>64079367
Anonymous No.64079371 >>64079379
>>64079294
there's only one engine in the world that has a TWR of 10. Hint: it's not in NATO
Anonymous No.64079373 >>64079379 >>64079384
>>64079369
No, and neither does this chinsect copy. Your fanfic twatter CGI isn't real life.
Anonymous No.64079379 >>64079384 >>64079387
>>64079371
Let me guess, the source is the CCP with their totally trust us bro tier evidence?
>>64079370
>>64079373
Nice Weibo fanfic art.
Anonymous No.64079384
>>64079379
This >>64079373 is from the aforementioned McDonnell Douglas/NASA aerodynamics studies back in the 90s

I recall seeing one with a much larger variety of planforms as well.
Anonymous No.64079387 >>64079393 >>64079396
>>64079379
idk man. One has real things in the sky. The other has impressive ppt slides.
Anonymous No.64079389 >>64079515 >>64079523
>>64079347
Pretty much. The overall designs can be traced back to US MIC design studies, and any tech the shills brag about can be found in those studies, too. Like all moving wing tips, continuos mold line technology, etc. It's quite sad how chiner and its shill boast about mid 90s US tech rip-offs like they're the second coming of Mao.
Anonymous No.64079393 >>64079500
>>64079387
NGAD demonstrators first flew over 5 years ago.
Anonymous No.64079396 >>64079500
>>64079387
Why would the US build inferior designs from the mid 90s? Only chiner who is 30 years behind would think a 90s throw away design is something to brag about and worth the billions of USD they're sinking into building them.
Anonymous No.64079500 >>64079511
>>64079393
>>64079396
can I see it?
Anonymous No.64079511 >>64079525
>>64079500
The inferior design from a 1994 MDD study for NASA? Sure, chiner is wasting billions of USD and years of effort on making said inferior design. KEK.
Anonymous No.64079515
>>64079389
how many people are gonna know that though? just blasting out sound bite and buzzwords is a sadly effective strategy
Anonymous No.64079519
>>64079338
>>64079340
>>64079367
it's none of those, anon.
Anonymous No.64079523
>>64079389
the designs are nothing alike.
Anonymous No.64079525
>>64079511
I don't care about impressive designs/diagrams. Just post 1 honest jet.