China's ‘J-50' Tailless Stealth Fighter Seen In New Imagery

Shenyang Aircraft Corporation's tailless stealth fighter has appeared in new photos that offer additional insights into its exotic design. The aircraft, unofficially dubbed the 'J-50,' is one of two Chinese tailless heavy next-generation fighter designs that emerged on December 26th, 2024. The other larger three-engined type, colloquially referred to as the 'J-36,' is built by the Chengdu Aircraft Corporation. You can read our very in-depth previous analysis of both these aircraft here.
It isn't clear if the new image comes from a recent test flight or is from the December 26th sortie. While we have seen proof of the larger J-36 making additional test flights since its first publicly known one, the J-50 has not been spotted in the air for over three months.
The new image shows a clearer side-on view of the advanced jet than any we have seen before. Notable are what could very well be the presence of side weapons bays, broadly similar to those found on the F-22A Raptor and the J-20. We also see an angular bulge under the nose, which could be an opaque placeholder for a faceted electro-optical system, similar to what is found on the F-35 and the J-20.
SAC J-50(?) 6th Gen Fighter Jet Testing Flight pic.twitter.com/JwSv6G2Zmo
— David Wang (@Nickatgreat1220) April 4, 2025
The canopy on this aircraft is just visible in the image, but we still don't have a clear understanding of its shape and how it is blended into the fuselage. Some originally questioned if this aircraft was manned because of the lack of clarity regarding its cockpit area, but all indications point to it being a crewed fighter.
The aircraft's pronounced lambda wing planform is also readily apparent here, and one of the jet's strangest features — articulating wingtips — can also be seen, with the right wing's tip deflected. Two-dimensional engine exhausts, possibly featuring thrust vectoring, are also visible. A two-wheeled nose landing gear is confirmed, with single wheels for the mains. This is not new, but it underscores the weight class difference between this design and Chengdu's very heavy design, which features twin wheels for its main gear arranged in tandem. The nose gear door also gives us new evidence of the ventral centerline 'tunnel' that exists below the fuselage on this aircraft.
The inlets are arguably the most elegant-looking structure on this aircraft. Diverterless Supersonic Inlet (DSI) types that blend directly from the nose, with the trapezoidal inlet structures surrounding the DSI 'hump,' are really apparent here. This arrangement is more impressive than the F-22-like fenced intakes on the J-36, although that aircraft also features a DSI arrangement for its dorsal intake.
In some ways, this aircraft looks more advanced than its Chendgu counterpart, although they are really in different classes just in terms of size and weight. It remains unclear if these designs are tied to a single program and its defined objectives, or are for two separate programs focused on different capabilities sets with some overlap.
You can read all about this and the features described above in our in-depth initial analysis, which everything we are seeing today supports.
China's big next-generation stealth fighter developments come as the U.S. Air Force is now formally pursuing a 6th generation fighter design as part of its wide-ranging Next Generation Air Dominance (NGAD) program under the new F-47 designation. Boeing won that contract and has so far put forward just two renderings of its aircraft, both of which show a low-observable design with canard foreplanes — a feature that is traditionally antithetical to stealth that is missing on both Chinese designs, but does exist on the operational J-20. The Navy is about to announce its own F/A-XX 6th generation fighter selection, as well.
While many have taken to the internet to declare China has overtaken the U.S. in fighter design as they have two tailless stealth fighter aircraft flying and the U.S. has none, this is incorrect. The DoD has been flying at least two NGAD demonstrators, one from Boeing and one from Lockheed Martin, for years now, and those are just the ones so far disclosed. Those demonstrators flew as part of a Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency-led program that also involved the Navy. Other U.S. testing of tailless stealth fighter design concepts date back decades. Still, as we laid out in great detail in our original analysis, China has made incredible progress in their combat aircraft design and manufacturing capabilities in a relatively short amount of time, and that progress is only set to accelerate.
In other words, the gap is closing.
As is always the case with imagery of new high-tech weaponry coming out of China, we should see increasingly detailed offerings of both aircraft as the weeks go on. So, we should be able to glean more from their designs in the near future.
Contact the author: Tyler@twz.com

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

Time​ Magazine

8 hours ago

• Time​ Magazine

Alexandr Wang on AI's Potential and Its ‘Deficiencies'

On June 12, Alexandr Wang stepped down as Scale's CEO to chase his most ambitious moonshot yet: building smarter-than-human AI as head of Meta's new 'superintelligence' division. As part of his move, Meta will invest $14.3 billion for a minority stake in Scale AI, but the real prize isn't his company—it's Wang himself. Wang, 28, is expected to bring a sense of urgency to Meta's AI efforts, which this year have been plagued by delays and underwhelming performance. Once the undisputed leader of open-weight AI, the U.S. tech giant has been overtaken by Chinese rivals like DeepSeek on popular benchmarks. Although Wang, who dropped out of MIT at 19, lacks the academic chops of some of his peers, he offers both insight into the types of data Meta's rivals use to improve their AI systems, and unrivaled ambition. Google and OpenAI are both reportedly severing deals with Scale AI over the Meta deal. Scale declined to comment, but interim CEO has emphasized that the company will continue to operate independently in a blog post. Big goals are Wang's thing. By 24, he'd become the world's youngest self-made billionaire by building Scale into a major player labeling data for the artificial intelligence industry's giants. 'Ambition shapes reality,' reads one of Scale's core values—a motto Wang crafted. That drive has earned him admiration from OpenAI CEO Sam Altman, who lived in Wang's apartment for months during the pandemic. But his relentless ambition has come with trade-offs. He credits Scale's success to treating data as a 'first-class problem,' but that focus didn't always extend to the company's army of over 240,000 contract workers, some of whom have faced delayed, reduced, or canceled payments after completing tasks. Lucy Guo, who co-founded Scale, but left in 2018 following disagreements with Wang, says it was one of their 'clashing points.' 'I was like, 'we need to focus on making sure they get paid out on time,'" while Wang was more concerned with growth, Guo says. Scale AI has said instances of late-payment are exceedingly rare and that it is constantly improving. The stakes of this growth-at-all-costs mindset are rising. Superintelligent Al 'would amount to the most precarious technological development since the nuclear bomb,' according to a policy paper Wang co-authored in March with Eric Schmidt, Google's former CEO, and Dan Hendrycks, the director of the Center of AI Safety. Wang's new role at Meta makes him an important decision maker about this technology that leaves no room for error. TIME spoke to Wang in April, before he stepped down as Scale's CEO. He discussed his leadership style, how prepared the U.S. is for AGI and AI's 'deficiencies.' This interview has been condensed and edited for clarity. Your leadership style has been described as very in-the-weeds. For example, it's been reported you would take a 1-1 call with every new employee even as headcount reached into the hundreds. How has your view of leadership evolved as Scale has grown? Leadership is a very multifaceted discipline, right? There's level one—can you accomplish the things that are right in front of you? Level two is: are the things that you're doing even the right things? Are you pointing the right direction? And then there's a lot of the level three stuff, which is probably the most important—what's the culture of the organization? All that kind of stuff. I definitely think my approach to leadership is one of very high attention to detail, being very in-the-weeds, being quite focused, instilling a high level of urgency, really trying to ensure that the organization is moving as quickly and as urgently towards the critical problems as possible. But also layering in, how do you develop a healthy culture? How do you develop an organization where people are put in positions where they're able to do their best work, and they're constantly learning and growing within these environments. When you're pointed at a mission that is larger than life, then you have the ability to accomplish things that are truly great. Since a trip to China in 2018, you've been outspoken about the threat posed by China's AI ambitions. Now, particularly in the wake of DeepSeek, this view has become a lot more dominant in Washington. Do you have any other takes regarding AI development that might be kind of fringe now, but will become mainstream in five years or so? I think, the agentic world—one where businesses and governments are increasingly doing more and more of their economic activity with agents; that humans are more and more just feeling sort of like managers and overseers of those agents; where we're starting to shift and offload more economic activity onto agents. This is certainly the future, and how we, as a society, undergo that transition with minimum disruption is very, very non-trivial. I think it definitely sounds scary when you talk about it, and I think that's sort of like an indication that it's not going to be something that's very easy to accomplish or very easy to do. My belief is, I think that there's a number of things that we have to build, that we have to get right, that we have to do, to ensure that that transition is smooth. I think there's a lot of excitement and energy put towards this sort of agentic world. And we think it touches every facet of our world. So enterprises will become agentic enterprises. Governments will become agentic governments. Warfare will become agentic warfare. It's going to deeply cut into everything that we do and there's a few key pieces, both infrastructure that need to be built, as well as key policy decisions and key decisions [about] how it gets implemented within the economy that are all quite critical. What's your assessment of how prepared and how seriously the U.S. government is taking the possibility of 'AGI' [artificial general intelligence]? I think AI is very, very top of mind for the administration, and I think there's a lot of trying to assess: What is the rate of progress? How quickly are we going to achieve what most people call AGI? Slower timeframe, faster timeframe? In the case where it's a faster timeframe, what are the right things to repair? I think these are major conversations. If you go to Vice President JD Vance's speech from the Paris AI action Summit, he speaks explicitly to this, the concept that the current administration is focused on the American worker, and that they will ensure that AI is beneficial to the American worker. I think as AI continues to progress—I mean, the industry is moving at a breakneck speed—people will take note and take action. One job that seems ripe for disruption is data annotation itself. We've seen in-house AI models used for the captioning of the dataset OpenAI's Sora, and at the same time, reasoning models are being trained on synthetic self-play data on defined challenges. Do you think those trends pose a threat of disruption to Scale AI's data annotation business? I actually think it's quite the opposite. If you look at the growth in the AI related jobs around contribution to AI data sets—there's a lot of words for this, but we call them 'contributors,'—it's grown exponentially over time. There's a lot of conversation around whether as the models get better does the work go away. The reality is that the work is continuing to grow many fold, year over year and you can see this in our growth. So my expectation actually is, if you draw a line forward, towards an agentic economy, more people actually end up moving towards doing what we'd currently consider AI data work—that'll be an increasingly large part of the economy. Why haven't we been able to automate AI data work? Automating AI data work is a little bit of a tautology, because AI data work is meant to make the models better, and so if the models were good at the things they were producing data for, then you wouldn't need it in the first place. So, fundamentally, AI data is all focused on the areas where the models are deficient. And as AI gets applied into more and more places within the economy, we're only going to find more deficiencies there. You can stand back and squint and the AI models seem really smart, but if you actually try to use it to do any of a number of key workflows in your job, you'd realize that's quite deficient. And so I think that as a society, humanity will never cease to find areas in which these models need to improve and that will drive a continual need for AI data work. One of Scale's contributions has been to position itself as a technology company as much as a data company. How have you pulled that off and stood out from the competition? If you take a big step back, AI progress fundamentally relies on three pillars: data, compute and algorithms. It became very clear that the data was one of the key bottlenecks of this industry. Compute and algorithms were also bottlenecked, but data was sort of right there with them. I think before Scale, there weren't companies that treated data as the first-class of a problem it really is. With Scale, one of the things that we've really done is treat data with the respect that it deserves. We've really sought to understand, 'How do we solve this problem in the correct way? How do we solve it in the most tech-forward way?' Once you have these three pillars, you can build applications on top of the data and the algorithms. And so what we've built at Scale is the platform that first, underpins the data pillar for the entire industry. Then we've also found that with that pillar, we're able to build on top, and we're able to help businesses and governments build and deploy AI applications on top of their incredible wealth of data. I think that's really what set us apart.

CNBC

8 hours ago

• CNBC

China car suppliers can be early winners in the humanoid race, Morgan Stanley says

If the future is all about building mechanical mobility, whether on wheels or robotic legs, auto parts suppliers have a competitive edge. "We believe humanoid robots will bring a third wave of growth for auto parts suppliers," Morgan Stanley analysts said in a June 18 report. The authors include lead autos analyst Adam Jonas, industrial analyst Sheng Zhong and hardware technology analyst Andy Meng. The team upgraded two self-described Chinese Tesla suppliers and maintained a rating of overweight on another given expectations the companies can benefit from the coming rise of humanoids. This would be similar to how auto parts suppliers got a boost from the growth of electric cars and subsequently growth in "smart" cars with driver-assist capabilities. One of the parts companies, Sanhua , is scheduled to list in Hong Kong on Monday in addition to its current listing on mainland China's Shenzhen exchange. Already, at least two automakers — Tesla and Xpeng — are developing humanoid robots. Other car companies such as Zeekr and Volkswagen have teased how they're trying out humanoids at their factories. Auto suppliers "have the chance" to capture 47% to 60% of spending on parts and materials, according to Morgan Stanley estimates. In dollar terms, auto parts suppliers can account for around $15,000, or 60%, of each humanoid's production cost, the firm's report said. Other humanoid components such as screws and bearings aren't commonly used in cars, making machinery companies better poised to supply them, the report said. By 2050, Morgan Stanley predicts the humanoid market will be worth $800 billion in China and $5 trillion worldwide. As it's still early days, the analysts prefer "tier-1" module assemblers such as Sanhua since they "can secure assembly orders no matter which tech path is chosen." That's in contrast with "tier-2" component makers such as lidar or chip producers. A trio of sector picks Here are Morgan Stanley's three sector picks, all currently traded in mainland China: Tuopu — The firm issued a price target of 63 yuan, for upside of nearly 39% from Friday's close. Tuopu makes actuators, which enable mechanical movement in a car , and act as joints and muscles in humanoids. Morgan Stanley trimmed its price target on Tuopu due to softer Tesla orders, but maintained its overweight rating. The analysts expect Tuopu can supply humanoid actuator models as well as dexterous hand models for the robots. Actuator modules account for just under half of a humanoid's total cost, but even when incorporating a price drop, the total addressable market for the modules worldwide is likely to grow by 57% on an annual basis through 2030, Morgan Stanley predicts. "Such a material value composition offers revenue upside to Sanhua and Tuopu," the analysts said. Sanhua — The firm assigned a price target of 30 yuan, reflecting 20% upside from Friday's close. Morgan Stanley upgraded Sanhua to overweight from equal weight, and the firm raised the price target mildly on stronger-than-expected 2025 revenue and expectations for rising electric vehicle penetration worldwide. "We estimate that every 10ppt of global market share in humanoid actuator modules by 2030E would bring incremental revenue to Sanhua equal to 11% of 2024 total revenue," the analysts said. "To mitigate geopolitical risk, Sanhua has been setting up a plant in Thailand, and it expects to start production there from 3Q25." Xusheng — The firm gave the stock a price target of 12 yuan. Shares closed at 12.08 yuan on Friday. Morgan Stanley upgraded the stock to equal weight from underweight on expectations Xusheng's revenue will "recover modestly" as startup automaker Li Auto launches more battery-only electric cars. However, the analysts cautioned that Xusheng may see lower-than-expected revenue from Tesla and other customers. In terms of humanoids, Xusheng can supply casting and torso structural parts, the analysts said. It's still not fully clear how easy it is for the auto parts suppliers to directly shift to making humanoid parts. There are many questions about how quickly and how large the industry of human-like robots will become. The analysts also cautioned that despite Chinese humanoid parts suppliers' cost advantage over overseas peers, U.S.-China tensions could force businesses to choose more expensive alternatives.

Business Insider

9 hours ago

• Business Insider

I'm a retiree living in Mexico who owns a BYD and a Tesla. Here's why I prefer the Chinese car.

This as-told-to essay is based on a conversation with John Romer, a retired radiologist from Huntsville, Alabama, about his BYD Song Plus hybrid and Tesla Model 3. It has been edited for length and clarity. I'm a 73-year-old former radiologist. I retired from practice in Huntsville, Alabama, nine years ago, after working there for 35 years. I retired to Florida, but after a while, my wife and I decided to move back to Alabama, where we bought a small home to be close to our children and grandchildren. But I'm pretty much living in Mexico most of the time now. I've been a resident for eight years, and I spend about nine months of the year in the country, going back to Alabama around four times a year to see family. Chinese cars have become extremely popular in Mexico, so when the time came to buy a new car, BYD was the logical choice. They've come in with a strong presence and have a number of dealerships scattered throughout the country. I test-drove a BYD Song Plus hybrid SUV back in early October and really liked it. I bought one for around 777,000 Pesos ($41,000), and it came in early November. I've had it for six or seven months, and it hasn't had a single issue. It's extremely efficient — I'm probably getting over 40 miles per gallon — and having a hybrid gives me the flexibility of being able to go wherever I want. I would have gone with a pure EV, but Mexico doesn't have the charging infrastructure yet that they have in Europe or the US, so I was more comfortable with the hybrid here. The Song is a very comfortable ride, and it also has a number of safety features that I like. It's very large, which can make it a bit difficult to drive, but it does have blind-spot warning and automatic front and rear braking if there's traffic that you haven't seen in front of you or behind you. Tesla vs. BYD Back home, I have a Tesla Model 3, which I bought two years ago for around the same price as I paid for the BYD Song Plus. Please help BI improve our Business, Tech, and Innovation coverage by sharing a bit about your role — it will help us tailor content that matters most to people like you. What is your job title? (1 of 2) Entry level position Project manager Management Senior management Executive management Student Self-employed Retired Other Continue By providing this information, you agree that Business Insider may use this data to improve your site experience and for targeted advertising. By continuing you agree that you accept the Terms of Service and Privacy Policy . I use it when I go home to Alabama, but for now, it sits in the garage most of the time. I'm probably going to give it to my grandson, who's turning 16 next year. Comparing a hybrid to a fully-electric car is like comparing apples and oranges, but I do prefer the BYD to the Tesla. The Tesla has been a good car, but it is a little bit troublesome. When I'm in Alabama and I drive to see my daughter in Kentucky, I have to stop to recharge it. It's not a huge deal, but it's a little awkward. I'm almost sure that if I had a hybrid, I wouldn't have to stop. I also don't care for Tesla's 'Autopilot' mode at all. I update it regularly, but it has yet to perform the way I think it should. For instance, in my experience, it cannot handle traffic circles, and it struggles around construction work. [Tesla did not immediately respond to a request for comment from Business Insider.] I don't think it's ready for primetime yet. The BYD has a similar setup, which I'm yet to use. The infrastructure in Mexico is not good, and there's a lot of construction around my area, so I'm a bit wary about using it here. The Tesla is also not as well put together, in terms of the finish, as the BYD Song Plus. The BYD feels very solid, the interior is very well upholstered, and in my opinion, it has a better quality of construction than the Tesla. I'm a real tech person, and the BYD has all kinds of advanced technology. As well as a heads-up display and automatic lights, it's got a nice 3D model of the car on the display — Tesla has one too, but it's not as accurate as the BYD one, which is really helpful when parking and maneuvering the car. US drivers miss out BYDs are everywhere in Mexico, and their prices are very competitive. I'm planning to buy my wife the BYD electric Dolphin Mini. We were going to get a golf cart to use around the community where we live, but the golf cart costs about $13,000, and you have to spend about $1,500 every two years replacing batteries. The BYD Dolphin Mini is $21,000 and has an eight-year battery guarantee, so it gives you a lot more flexibility for only $3,000 to 4,000 more. I don't agree with the tariffs on Chinese EVs in the US. I've always believed in free trade. I'm very disappointed in the tariffs that Trump is imposing. I think competition is always good, it encourages the development of new technology and better quality products. I do think that if you can't compete in an industry, then you need to find another industry you can compete in and let things get sorted out, rather than trying to artificially encourage industries with tariffs, which only drives prices up.