Chinese 6th Generation Aircraft News & Discussions

A J-36 was allegedly seen yesterday

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.
 
j-50 from yesterday.

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.
 
I believe the main reason both Chinese 6th-gen prototypes (J-36 and J-50) went tailless is to achieve true all-aspect broadband stealth, minimizing RCS from the front, sides, and rear. Traditional vertical and horizontal tails create 90° corners and strong specular reflections—major RCS contributors even on the F-22. Tailless flying-wing designs, with their smooth blended shaping, edge alignment, serrated edges, and heavy use of RAM, can reduce RCS dramatically (potentially 10–20 dB lower than the J-20). AVIC’s own 2023 concept papers explicitly linked diamond/lambda planforms to scattering X-band energy forward or away from the threat.

Beyond stealth, tailless designs offer other big advantages:
  • Very low parasitic drag
  • Better structural efficiency (distributed loads reduce bending moments, cutting empty weight ~10–15% compared to tailed deltas, which allows larger internal bays—reportedly 8–12 missiles on the J-36)
  • Superior supersonic performance (blended shapes push drag divergence past Mach 2.5)

It looks extremely stealthy and cool, but everyone knows tailless aircraft are inherently unstable in all three axes—no vertical stabilizer for yaw, no horizontal stabilizer for pitch, easy departure, pitch breaks, etc. So the big question: do the stealth and drag benefits really outweigh the enormous stability and control challenges?

For the J-50, I kind of get it: the lambda planform plus all-moving wingtips (AMWT) can provide both stability and insane maneuverability (though mastering AMWT for primary control is still insanely hard). But the J-36? Just a big diamond wing and a third central engine. No lambda, no obvious AMWT. How does that thing stay controllable in a hard dogfight? The third engine adds thrust, not stability. It looks risky as hell.

Also, people say “tailless = maximum stealth,” yet the J-50 adds moving wingtips—doesn’t that reintroduce gaps, actuators, and discontinuities that hurt stealth again? We removed the tail to eliminate corners, then immediately add new ones?

History isn’t encouraging either: the F-16XL in the 1980s, the X-36, Boeing’s tailless studies in the 90s, and various USAF/NASA programs all eventually gave up because they couldn’t simultaneously achieve stability, supercruise, and high-g maneuverability with the flight-control technology of the time.

If China actually makes the J-36 and J-50 work reliably, that would mean they’ve leapfrogged everyone in advanced aerodynamics, multivariable flight-control systems, and actuation technology by a huge margin.

What do you guys think—are the benefits worth the risks, or is this still too ambitious? or maybe they are public for deception and their actual 6th gen has been completely secret?

@Deino @Michael @FHN @yusheng @Quwa @Ak01 @JamD @Bilal @Oscar
@HemlockKhalid/AeronautIR

P.S. Here’s an excellent video by an aeronautics professor that explains very clearly why the J-50 combines a lambda wing with all-moving wingtips:

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.
 
Last edited:
Shui said:
j-50 from yesterday.

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.
Click to expand...


That's not the J-50. Very obvious different planform.

That's one of the smaller UADFs or one of the CCAs.
 
Tariq Habib Afridi said:
I believe the main reason both Chinese 6th-gen prototypes (J-36 and J-50) went tailless is to achieve true all-aspect broadband stealth, minimizing RCS from the front, sides, and rear. Traditional vertical and horizontal tails create 90° corners and strong specular reflections—major RCS contributors even on the F-22. Tailless flying-wing designs, with their smooth blended shaping, edge alignment, serrated edges, and heavy use of RAM, can reduce RCS dramatically (potentially 10–20 dB lower than the J-20). AVIC’s own 2023 concept papers explicitly linked diamond/lambda planforms to scattering X-band energy forward or away from the threat.

Beyond stealth, tailless designs offer other big advantages:
  • Very low parasitic drag
  • Better structural efficiency (distributed loads reduce bending moments, cutting empty weight ~10–15% compared to tailed deltas, which allows larger internal bays—reportedly 8–12 missiles on the J-36)
  • Superior supersonic performance (blended shapes push drag divergence past Mach 2.5)

It looks extremely stealthy and cool, but everyone knows tailless aircraft are inherently unstable in all three axes—no vertical stabilizer for yaw, no horizontal stabilizer for pitch, easy departure, pitch breaks, etc. So the big question: do the stealth and drag benefits really outweigh the enormous stability and control challenges?

For the J-50, I kind of get it: the lambda planform plus all-moving wingtips (AMWT) can provide both stability and insane maneuverability (though mastering AMWT for primary control is still insanely hard). But the J-36? Just a big diamond wing and a third central engine. No lambda, no obvious AMWT. How does that thing stay controllable in a hard dogfight? The third engine adds thrust, not stability. It looks risky as hell.

Also, people say “tailless = maximum stealth,” yet the J-50 adds moving wingtips—doesn’t that reintroduce gaps, actuators, and discontinuities that hurt stealth again? We removed the tail to eliminate corners, then immediately add new ones?

History isn’t encouraging either: the F-16XL in the 1980s, the X-36, Boeing’s tailless studies in the 90s, and various USAF/NASA programs all eventually gave up because they couldn’t simultaneously achieve stability, supercruise, and high-g maneuverability with the flight-control technology of the time.

If China actually makes the J-36 and J-50 work reliably, that would mean they’ve leapfrogged everyone in advanced aerodynamics, multivariable flight-control systems, and actuation technology by a huge margin.

What do you guys think—are the benefits worth the risks, or is this still too ambitious? or maybe they are public for deception and their actual 6th gen has been completely secret?

@Deino @Michael @FHN @yusheng @Quwa @Ak01 @JamD @Bilal @Oscar
@HemlockKhalid/AeronautIR

P.S. Here’s an excellent video by an aeronautics professor that explains very clearly why the J-50 combines a lambda wing with all-moving wingtips:

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.
Click to expand...


I suspect X-36 RC sized concept plane did not have the available technology in that era to produce results that are still valid today. It must be possible to create tailless supersonic dogfighting capable fighters otherwise the J-50 would not be a program.

The J-36 however is probably not for dogfighting. It can maybe turn about as well as JH-7 but can turn well enough in supersonic speeds. I just don't see the J-36 being a capable dogfighter at all with so much weight. To me, the J-36 is intended as a fast dasher with great range and available energy. Basically carry a lot more fuel, a lot more missiles, larger longer ranged missiles and power more capable electronic warfare equipment.

With an additional engine, it can perform dashes like interceptors, tactical bombers or use the additional generated power for next generation electronics that fry through opposition equipment. On top of that, it offers payload that no other fighter has. It offers turning capability no bomber has. It is supersonic cruise capable (possibly mach 2+ supercruise with 3rd engine and VCE). Oh and basically the next gen J-20S for close MUM-T UADF and CCA coordination.
 
niubi said:
I suspect X-36 RC sized concept plane did not have the available technology in that era to produce results that are still valid today. It must be possible to create tailless supersonic dogfighting capable fighters otherwise the J-50 would not be a program.

The J-36 however is probably not for dogfighting. It can maybe turn about as well as JH-7 but can turn well enough in supersonic speeds. I just don't see the J-36 being a capable dogfighter at all with so much weight. To me, the J-36 is intended as a fast dasher with great range and available energy. Basically carry a lot more fuel, a lot more missiles, larger longer ranged missiles and power more capable electronic warfare equipment.

With an additional engine, it can perform dashes like interceptors, tactical bombers or use the additional generated power for next generation electronics that fry through opposition equipment. On top of that, it offers payload that no other fighter has. It offers turning capability no bomber has. It is supersonic cruise capable (possibly mach 2+ supercruise with 3rd engine and VCE). Oh and basically the next gen J-20S for close MUM-T UADF and CCA coordination.
Click to expand...
That make sense to me.. J-36 is the new 6th generation bomber but kind a fast.. J-50 though still confuses me how it will stabilize and fly normally.. its testing will take a lot of time until it is cleared for production. Oh and its fly by wire will be one hell of problem to make it right i guess
 
Last edited:
niubi said:
That's not the J-50. Very obvious different planform.

That's one of the smaller UADFs or one of the CCAs.
Click to expand...
It is J-50, you have to looks at the altitude and light reflection man.
 
Tariq Habib Afridi said:
I believe the main reason both Chinese 6th-gen prototypes (J-36 and J-50) went tailless is to achieve true all-aspect broadband stealth, minimizing RCS from the front, sides, and rear. Traditional vertical and horizontal tails create 90° corners and strong specular reflections—major RCS contributors even on the F-22. Tailless flying-wing designs, with their smooth blended shaping, edge alignment, serrated edges, and heavy use of RAM, can reduce RCS dramatically (potentially 10–20 dB lower than the J-20). AVIC’s own 2023 concept papers explicitly linked diamond/lambda planforms to scattering X-band energy forward or away from the threat.

Beyond stealth, tailless designs offer other big advantages:
  • Very low parasitic drag
  • Better structural efficiency (distributed loads reduce bending moments, cutting empty weight ~10–15% compared to tailed deltas, which allows larger internal bays—reportedly 8–12 missiles on the J-36)
  • Superior supersonic performance (blended shapes push drag divergence past Mach 2.5)

It looks extremely stealthy and cool, but everyone knows tailless aircraft are inherently unstable in all three axes—no vertical stabilizer for yaw, no horizontal stabilizer for pitch, easy departure, pitch breaks, etc. So the big question: do the stealth and drag benefits really outweigh the enormous stability and control challenges?

For the J-50, I kind of get it: the lambda planform plus all-moving wingtips (AMWT) can provide both stability and insane maneuverability (though mastering AMWT for primary control is still insanely hard). But the J-36? Just a big diamond wing and a third central engine. No lambda, no obvious AMWT. How does that thing stay controllable in a hard dogfight? The third engine adds thrust, not stability. It looks risky as hell.

Also, people say “tailless = maximum stealth,” yet the J-50 adds moving wingtips—doesn’t that reintroduce gaps, actuators, and discontinuities that hurt stealth again? We removed the tail to eliminate corners, then immediately add new ones?

History isn’t encouraging either: the F-16XL in the 1980s, the X-36, Boeing’s tailless studies in the 90s, and various USAF/NASA programs all eventually gave up because they couldn’t simultaneously achieve stability, supercruise, and high-g maneuverability with the flight-control technology of the time.

If China actually makes the J-36 and J-50 work reliably, that would mean they’ve leapfrogged everyone in advanced aerodynamics, multivariable flight-control systems, and actuation technology by a huge margin.

What do you guys think—are the benefits worth the risks, or is this still too ambitious? or maybe they are public for deception and their actual 6th gen has been completely secret?

@Deino @Michael @FHN @yusheng @Quwa @Ak01 @JamD @Bilal @Oscar
@HemlockKhalid/AeronautIR

P.S. Here’s an excellent video by an aeronautics professor that explains very clearly why the J-50 combines a lambda wing with all-moving wingtips:

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.
Click to expand...

This has been a very popular topic since the J-36/J-50 first appeared last year.

How do they fly?

On the internet, many experts and "self-proclaimed experts" have been conducting extensive analysis and research.
Many aviation model enthusiasts have also built scale models and attempted to fly them. Some succeeded, others failed......

You can find many videos like this on YouTube.

If you want to obtain authoritative, professional, and academic knowledge, you can try searching for information here.
Michael

Post in thread 'A Guide for Non-Chinese Speakers Accessing Chinese Online Military Information'

Professional websites for aviation/aerospace technology:
1764305778396.png
This website is a professional academic website in this field in China. It requires visitors to have a certain level of professional knowledge.
=====================================================
This website offers both Chinese and English versions. However, the vast majority of the papers on it are in Chinese and do not have English versions. These Chinese texts contain a large number of technical terms that cannot be accurately translated by translation...
  • Love
 
Tariq Habib Afridi said:
Oh and its fly by wire will be one hell of problem to make it right i guess
Click to expand...
Actually this is something that Chinese enthusiasts worried the least, both J-20 and J-36' chief designers were aerodynamic experts before they became the leader of the projects and has a nickname 气动仙人(aerodynamic God/master).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 4 (members: 0, guests: 4)

Pakistan Defence Latest

Country Watch Latest

Latest Posts

Share this page

Back
Top