Now for a more coherent thread on my observations on the new Chinese planes.
The first thought is that these are not related aircraft at all. One appears to have optimized internal bay space and the other does not have the same internal bay optimization.
The higher resolution images provide some interesting details about the first one.
There are two smaller bays, indicated by the green arrows. The central bays, indicated by white arrows are an extra third longer.
The shiny spots on the sides of the nose make more sense now that we have higher resolution images. I believe these might be infrared apertures. Depending on the scanning systems to enable coverage, these might be able to overlap across the nose, much like the IRSTs on YF-12.
The patches indicated with yellow arrows could either be service panels or some kind of conformal radar array. I can't tell, but they are unusual. If I had to guess, side-looking conformal radar array.
The intakes and engine situation is confusing. There are two splitter plate intakes rather than DSIs on the lower chin that seem to feed the side engines, but the top of the aircraft appears to have a DSI. People have theorized that DSIs perform worse at high speed.
I'm not an aero expert, but this doesn't make a ton of sense to me. Why would you have different types of intakes with different advantages on the same aircraft? wouldn't that only get you the worst of both worlds?
As for the number of engines, my guess is that they are diameter-limited, and thus could not get two engines into the space they need.
The next thing to get to is the size. This is massive. The J-20S chase plane is behind it somewhat, but even adjusting for that mentally, this is huge. J-20 is in the same size class as F-22, with a 13m wingspan, and this new jet appears to have a 20m-ish wingspan.
The DSI on top also appears to start near the end of the weapons bay. This makes me think that the main bay may extend to the top of the fuselage, and may even contain a rotary munitions dispenser.
The end of the munitions bay doors are about where the wheel doors end.
I think this jet is is JH-XX.
JH-XX is supposedly a strike-focused aircraft, with nuclear delivery in mind.
I do not believe that this is a "sixth generation fighter." I believe it is strike-focused, with a possible secondary A2A role, mostly for tanker/AWACS hunting.
The second jet is both more and less interesting. This is not a tailless design. It appears to have folding vertical stabilizers for different modes of flight, as this design seems to relatively closely match the one in the quoted post.
It's also much smaller, has two engines rather than three, and has intakes on only the bottom of the aircraft. I think these are DSIs rather than splitter plate intakes.
I don't see any placement for weapons bays (yet), but no higher resolution images exist yet.
Here you can see what appears to be the folding tails in a more lowered position. Like with what I think is JH-XX, this was flown for a short time with the gear extended.
Both of these appear to be initial test flights.
Given how close it seems to relate to existing ideas that Shenyang has publicly shared before, I think this is more likely to be a technology demonstrator. It's possible that this is a new A2A platform, but I'm not sure yet. I think this is is manned.
Both jets seem to have lots of radar signature reduction features, and likely have infrared signature reduction features.
I can't make any guesses about RCS or infrared signature strength (and neither can you), but they do seem to be competently designed with LO in mind.
I am not worried about them, but I do take them seriously.
If you have any comments or suggestions please leave them in the replies, I'm greatly enjoying discussing this topic.
Oh and don't follow me if you're pro-PRC, you'll hate me and my opinions. I don't do this kinda analysis on western aircraft.
Get lost chicoms I will start blocking some of you
Three engines. Why are there three engines? Why are two intakes below and one above? Maximizing weapon bay space?
Why does it look like these are splitter plate intakes and not DSIs? Assuming this is a Chengdu product, they should be very familiar with DSIs.
Some other external features of note are the patches on the side of the nose, indicated by red arrows. Radar? Just plain 'ol paint?
The green arrow indicates what I think is the weapons bay, which takes up a significant portion of the large fuselage.
December 24, 1968, 2130E. The klaxon in the barracks of the 27th FIS sounds.
Pilots, awoken mere moments before, sprint towards their aircraft. F-106es.
Upon entering their aircraft, they don their helmets and start their engines, before exiting their hangar into the frigid air.
Taxiing out onto the runway, they hold their brakes as they let their engines spool up. At full power, they engage their afterburners, and wait.
A little over a second later, a loud bang is accompanied by a jolt, as the afterburner engages and they begin their takeoff run.
A minute later, the flight of two F-106es levels out around 10,000 feet and 400 knots, and the lead pilot radios down to the ground for target information.
"One unknown, coming in fast south of Greenland. The 57th couldn't catch it. Not Soviet, and not friendly."
The irony of this comment is that the rejection of the F-35 and stealth technologies is just that -- a reflection of a lack of information in regards to battlefield realities.
I think this deserves a thread to inform.
Photo credit for all F-35 pictures used:@SR_Planespotter
The first point to cover is radar stealth. Stealth is a bit of a silly term in some ways. A better term for this is "very low observable." What that means is that effort is made to reduce the radar signature of the aircraft, often combined with infrared signature reduction.
VLO technology is NOT infallible, and much of the criticism of the stealth comes from the misunderstanding that we assume it is perfect.
It has its limitations, but it does what we expect it to, which is why adversary nations are investing in it too. See the Chinese Chengdu J-20.
The A-10 began development during the Vietnam War. Its first flight, in 1972, occurred a day after the start of Operation Rolling Thunder.
It was designed to fit into existing Close Air Support doctrine, but with little foresight into the changing CAS mission of the future. A🧵
Even before the American entry into Vietnam, Forward Air Controllers began operating in the theater. These were necessary to coordinate air support to ground troops in the dense jungle, which prevented pilots of larger, faster aircraft from effectively spotting their targets.
Throughout the war, FAC was an integral mission to effective air support, though it was lacking in numbers, equipment and sophistication until the later '60s with the introduction of the OV-10 Bronco, one of the only planes designed primarily for FAC.
What was going on with the pistol used in the NYC assassination?
I believe it was a Browning-Whiting tilting barrel action that was improperly configured to run subsonic ammunition.
A short 🧵
A Browning tilting barrel action is a short recoil action where, under recoil, the barrel unlocks from the slide and the rear tilts down on a pivoting link.
The locking lugs can be seen above the chamber fitting into the slide and the pivoting link can be seen below.
The Whiting design comes from the Webley Self Loader pistol, designed by John Whiting, another short recoil design where the barrel slides up and down diagonally instead of tilting, and the barrel locks into the slide on the ejection port rather than separate locking lugs.
During the development of the Airborne Missile Control System(AMCS) for the F-4 Phantom, interest was shown in an Infrared Search and Track(IRST) system to permit tracking of targets when the Radar could not detect them.
This produced the Avion AN/AAA-4, an F-4B exclusive IRST.🧵
The first thing to clear up is how to identify whether or not these IRSTs were fitted to an F-4. First, does the aircraft have a chin pod, and second, is the tip of the chin pod reflective or dull?
The AAA-4 had an IR anti-reflective coating that was reflective in visible light.
There appears to have been two dull covers. One, a protective temporary coating to prevent damage on the ground, and two, a nearly identical permanent cover in aircraft where the AAA-4 was removed or never fitted.