Podcast: Dissecting China's New Combat Aircraft Designs

Robert Wall:

Happy New Year and welcome to another year of Aviation Week Check 6 Podcasts. Today we look at not one, but two new Chinese combat aircraft that broke cover on the Internet on December 26. As my colleague Steve Trimble has pointed out, it's become something of a thing for China to show new military equipment to mark the birthday of Chairman Mao. 

To walk you through what is now flying in the skies of China are the before mentioned, Steve Trimble, our Senior Defense Editor, Graham Warwick Aviation Week's Executive Editor for Technology, and London Bureau Chief Tony Osborne. I'm Robert Wall Aviation Week's Executive Editor for Defense in Space and your host for today. 

Steve, maybe start us off and help explain to our listeners who maybe went into news detox over the holiday, what we know about these two new aircraft. What are they called? What is their role and what do we know and what don't we know? 

Steve Trimble:

Okay, yeah, sure. And Happy New Year to everybody out there. I think the best way to start describing this is to kind of go through it chronologically. So you mentioned December 26, Boxing Day in the UK where you are and Chairman Mao's birthday in China. Around 4:00 PM China time, the Chinese social media just sort of lit up with imagery and videos of a new aircraft that we have not seen before in flight alongside a J-20S chase plane over a populated area, which is sort of assessed to be Chengdu just because of the proximity of and the presence really of the J-20S chase plane. 

And this was quite an interesting aircraft and Graham will go into all the nitty-gritty of the technical details. But in broad strokes, it's a tailless aircraft. It's got a delta diamond wing configuration and most interestingly perhaps it's a trijet, three engines with one inlet positioned on top of the aircraft and two on the belly sort of spaced around a fairly large weapons bay.

So that was the first aircraft. And as we were sort of reeling from that, because those images started actually appearing at 4:00 PM in China, it's 3:00 AM here, and I was getting hip to all this as I was waking up very abruptly the day after Christmas. And after a few hours of this, something else started appearing, another aircraft that we also had not seen before. And it was also a tailless configuration. Based on the chase plane, a Shenyang fighter, we thought this one probably comes from the Shenyang Aircraft Research Institute. 

And instead of being a trijet, this was a twinjet. It had a configuration, not unlike that of say the YF-23, the Northrop Grumman YF-23, and had other unique features that again we hadn't seen before. All of this comes as China increasingly is flexing its military modernization muscle, especially with its air power among many other domains.

But it's been quite breathtaking to see since 2004 really when China committed to the Strategic Air Force concept and the reforms of the People's Liberation Army Air Force, what that modernization has produced has been kind of jaw-dropping. Every few years or so we see something new that we just have never seen before. And the pace of that and the scope of it is nothing short of impressive, no matter how you look at it. 

And now another important part of this progression is that you could always sort of knock the Chinese Air Force for being a bit copycat-ish, so if you saw the J-10 back in the day and you said, "Well, maybe that looks a bit like the Israeli Lavi fighter," you were probably right and there was probably a reason for that. And if you looked at the J-20, and you saw something that kind of looked like a McCoy and MiG 144 plan form modified with some stealth features that it seems that they borrowed pretty heavily from the F-35 with the inlets, especially, those forward fuselage chines, that nose area. And then the J-35 itself, which is a carbon copy, let's just say it bluntly, of the F-35 except with two engines and probably some other internal modifications, but looked at from the outside the configuration is almost exactly the same. 

This time though, we're seeing something that we really haven't seen before. So that that's the real progression that we're seeing, it's not just in aircraft, we're seeing it in what the Chinese are doing in space [and] also with UAVs. They're innovating, they're creating, and that is a new step, albeit maybe not necessarily pushing the state of the art beyond what the concepts in the west have already been looking at and demonstrating for some time. It's still another step in their progression that should be noted in addition to just the speed of which they've been progressing and the capacity of their industry to keep up with all these requirements and new demands. So I will stop there and let you take it again. 

Robert Wall:

Yeah, thanks Steve. And we'll talk about obviously missions and potential purposes and how far advanced these systems are in development in a bit. But Graham, maybe you can kind of unpack for us a bit what you found some of the more interesting features and maybe we start with the trijet, A, because it's the trijet, and also because of its size, it looks like quite a significantly sized vehicle. 

Graham Warwick:

So I'll pick up the story from Steve and I woke up at 4:00 in the morning to these pictures because I'm a more normal person, Steve, right? So 4:00 it's more normal than 3:00. 

Robert Wall:

It's all relative. 

Graham Warwick:

So you open the pictures and other than it's tailless and it's a big delta diamond shape, what really hits you is size, right? It's big in comparison to the J-20S chase plane and it has tandem main gear, twin nose gear, tandem main gear, which is generally a sign of a heavy aircraft. So if you take a look at the Sukhoi Su-34 fighter bomber, it's got tandem gears. It's about 25% heavier than the Su-27 on which it's based, so it goes from single gear to twin gear because it's a lot more weight involved. And the aircraft just looks big. I mean mostly analysis, I didn't do any trying to guess length or anything that, but most of the analysts, it's about the size of an F-111 in terms of spread wingspan, lengths of airplanes, at least that size, physical size, it's probably heavier, but it's in that size range. It's a bit airplane, right?

So you have a look at this and you go, "Wow, that's a big airplane." And then you go, "Hang on a minute, that's an inlet on the top and an inlet on the bottom." And then you realize... And there was a lot of debate for a while because we were going back and forward on teams. Is it three engines or is it three inlets for two engines and all that sort of thing. And then of course the picture came out of it on the runway and there you've got three YF-23 style trench nozzles along the trailing edge, all looking the same. So there's speculation the middle engine's a different type of engine, but the nozzles all look exactly the same. So assume it's three engines of the same type.

So you then start asking the questions. You look at the shape and you think stealth, right? There's no vertical tails. It's just got, in essence, three edges onto the planform, three angles on the planform, got big flat bottom, a big weapons bay. Instead of tails, it has the split rudders, redundant split rudders on the wingtips. They're open all the way through the pictures that we see because slow speed, the wheels are down, they're open and they do your control instead of the vertical tails. The other controls look fairly standard. There's some signs on the outboard pair of engines that the lower... because if you think about what a YF-23 nozzle looks like, it's a trench, long lower panel, short upper panel. If you look at the bottom of the presumed Chengdu design, there are air gaps like there are on the control surfaces, which suggests those lower panels may move, which would help with control of an airplane like that that's got all of the control surfaces at the back and the central gravity and everything is well forward. So it needs fairly powerful controls to get that thing to actuate.

The other interesting thing is the top inlet, it's very different to the bottom inlet. The top inlet is kind of in keeping with the upper surface, which is basically featureless. It's very like a B-2, B-21. There's little surface features on the top. Obviously the look down radar suggests low altitude, penetration. Everything's underneath. It has these caret style inlets, very like in F-23 inlets, just plain angled surfaces. As far as we can tell, somebody can disagree with me, there's no sign of what they call a DSI, a diverterless supersonic inlet, which is a hump in the middle of the inlet that gets rid of the slow moving air without having to create sort of a slot that the air would go into. And that's a slot that would create an edge to the radar. And also the hump helps disguise whatever's further down the inlet. There's no sign of that on the bottom. That may be on the top, we don't know, but they're very different. 

So the question then swirls around, it's a big airplane, it's clearly —  you know, an F-111 an Su-34, trhey are about 100,000 pounds — but this thing's heavier than that, right? This thing's maybe 120,000 or something. Three engines, if you look at the J-20, J-20 has got two WS-10 engines. It's about 82,000 pounds. If this thing's 120,000 pounds, it's 50% heavier, which means it needs three of them with WS-10s. So it kind of makes sense, its logic, if they don't have a bigger engine, use three of them. It also offers up some possibilities for how you use that third engine. You may just use it for takeoff and shut it down for cruise, which is what the Martin XB-51 bomber back in the '50s did, it had two engines under the forward fuselage and one tucked in the tail.

Once it off the ground, the inlet rolled over, closed off. That engine shut down. You never used it again until you came around to land. This thing may do the same thing, or it may be there are other things that having three engines... There's no signs to a different engine. There was some early speculation it could be a different type of engine that we didn't give it to it, but it just looks like three of the same engine. Okay, so there I am at 4:00 and as Steve says, like him, I'm on my third cup of coffee and the next one pops up. Well, this is very different stuff. The pictures are really... I mean, we have very little to go on with this thing. The very first image looks like somebody's throwing the porpoise out of an airplane, basically it's so poor.

But then they gradually get better and better, and there's only about three of them. It's a very unusual airplane. I think if we saw it from a different viewpoint, we'd think it very, very differently. We puzzled over this airplane over and over again because I think if you look at it from above, it looks like a lot of the NGAV concepts that we've seen out of the US, basically a rear set what are called lambda wing with a lifting forward fuselage. As Steve says, looking like YF-23 forward fuselage sticking out, but then instead of a trapezoidal wing on the F-23, it has what they call a lambda wing, which is basically swept wing with this big triangular section inboard that gives it this... So then there's all sorts of speculation. Did that triangular area, was that really the fins folded down in normal flight and would they fold up for takeoff and landing, which gives a vertical directional stability? No idea.

The latest images, which have clearly been AI enhanced suggest it's just straightforward trailing edge devices on those and there's nothing fancy going on there. 

There's something weird going on at the wingtips. We can't tell what's going on at the wingtips. So there's lots of lumps and bumps going on at the wingtips. There may be drag rudders, there may be something else. But we looked at that from at the bottom, it's very weird. It's very weird for a few reasons. The inlets look kind of strange. They're like squared off Dassault Rafale inlets. They're triangular and they're tucked really up against the forebody. So they have a kind of triangular inlet and slightly swept. They're quite big, two engines in the back, which appear to have like F-22-style vectoring nozzles with the upper and lower panels that move in concert. It has this big channel down the middle of it where the weapons bay is on the Chengdu design. On the Shenyang design, there's a big channel down the middle where you put a weapons bay. There are flat sections either side of that channel that could be a weapons bay, but that's same areas where the inlet trunking goes, it's where the landing gear goes. And then this airplane has got single landing gear. It looks about the size of the chase plane, which is a J-16. So it's a smaller airplane. Also, if you think supersonic, if the thing is supersonic, all of the area is concentrated in the middle of the airplane. Everything comes together. The engines, the trunking, the bays, the whatever is in there all comes together and it looks really fat in the middle. And that's not good for a supersonic airplane.

So there's some oddness about this airplane that has us questioning. And also the Chengdu airplane looks quite mature. It has sensor windows, it has dielectric panels. There are various lumps and bumps that look like sensor mounts. It could be that the Shenyang airplane is just not as mature. It could be subscale, it could be a prototype. It could be a very different mission, but we have so little good imagery on the Shenyang one that's easier to make deductions about Chengdu than it is about Shenyang. It's a puzzle at the moment. 

Robert Wall:

Yeah, very interesting. And do you think it could be something related to a kind of CCA development except that for now it's flying crude? Or does that really not help? 

Graham Warwick:

I'm not even sure we can say it's flying crewd because none of the images kind of show it from an angle that can see the cockpit. So we don't know what's up there. And even if we see a bump, it might be a satcom antenna. One of the interesting things about, again, it's quite fun living through the moments when these things first... I've never really done this before or I haven't done it in a long time in my career. When the first pictures of the Chengdu design came out, we looked and said, "Is that a single seat cockpit? Is that a tandem cockpit?" Because it's a big black area, it's quite an extensive area of black for an airplane of that size. But you just think ...itt's a very broad fuselage at the front. When you get to the very later images, you can start to see the detail and it looks like an F-111 or an Su-34 side-by-side cockpit basically.

But you only get that as the images kind of get processed and the definition improves. The Shenyang ones, we still don't know. If looked at from above, we'd be saying that's an NGAD type of a... That's a sort of sixth-gen fighter because it has that very clean... Looked at from the bottom, it's a mess underneath. 

Robert Wall:

Right. Tony, you also, pretty early on were saying it really reminded you of the Su-34 configuration, the Chengdu one. Talk to us about... We're also struck by the size, obviously of the vehicle. 

Tony Osborne:

Yes. Not to sort of perhaps niggle with Graham being the Woracle and everything, but I have to say it looks a lot bigger than even an F-111. When you actually look at the dimensions of the F-111 with the J-20, there's not much difference between the F-111 and the J-20. And this is significantly bigger than a J-20. So again, like Graham, I was woken up by Steve's Team's messages on Boxing Day, having had Christmas day the day before, and sort of looking at the images of this. And it's really interesting actually how better images of the Chengdu aircraft have come as the day goes by. As an aircraft photographer, if I'd taken a really good shot of it, my shot would've been on the internet really quickly. But actually the quality of the images has improved in the last few days. And it's quite interesting how that maybe that's been massaged out so far.

So we really had the very small, tiny, low-res images taken from mobile phones. And then it seems to have improved ever so slightly as the days have gone by, we've got ever slightly higher or improved quality images. Now I wonder how that's being influenced by the powers that be in Beijing. But no, the thing that struck me about this airplane was the physical size, that landing gear, the physical width of the front of the fuselage. So it is quite, this is tandem cockpit, so it's almost like an Su-34, but in a different body. You've got that same landing gear. 

Graham Warwick:

Side by side, tandem is one behind the other. 

Tony Osborne:

Geez, side by side seating. Apologies 

[inaudible 00:18:03]

Graham Warwick:

Me, Woracle, me Woracle. 

Tony Osborne:

Yeah, you're the Woracle. So yes, side-by-side seating, which is obviously very unusual, but obviously we've seen it in the F-111 and we've seen it in the Su-34. And the other thing that struck me, as Graham said, was this very large nose and also the sort of various dielectric panels that go around it. And then in some other shots from the underside, you could see an enormous weapons bay. So it makes you think, "Well, hang on, maybe this is going to have a tactical role," as what they in China would be referred to as a JH platform. And I think the US sort of intelligence community has previously referred to a program called JH-XX to replace the JH-7 aircraft that is a fighter bomber, a role that is still considered quite a crucial capability in China. So this might fit that fighter bomber capability. But when you have such an enormous nose, you think that's going to be a big AESA radar that's going to put out a lot of power.

So then maybe that brings you to the thought, "Well, maybe you want three engines because you want to produce a hell of a lot of electrical power to power lots of electrical sensors on board the airplane." Because if you look at sixth-generation programs in Europe and certainly here in the UK, they're talking about the electrical power being one of the key elements of the design. And maybe that's one of the features of having a three engine platform. And that would then allow you to put an enormous AESA radar in the nose. You've got basically a greenfield site to put in potentially an enormous sensor in there. And with that bay you might be thinking of weapons like the PL-17, which is essentially a flying telegraph pole of an air-to-air missile that would then sort of unleash hell out to ranges where AWACS or tankers might be operating.

So this could be a sort of AWACS killer, tanker killer as a secondary role perhaps. So yeah, that was my gut feeling. I think this is going to have a very... I think this is going to be a mixed role for this maybe secondary air to wear primary tactical long-range attack, bit like the F-111 but with that secondary air-to-air role. And I think on the Shenyang, again, I think as Graham says, the pictures of it are so uncertain. Maybe Shenyang has less of a spotter community, but I would say maybe a sixth-generation demonstrator at best, very early days on that one. I think we'd need to start seeing some of the JH quality aircraft pictures to start making some real summations on that one. 

Robert Wall:

I'm just curious really, for all of you guys, but the Chengdu design is particular really interesting. And as Graham pointed out, in a way it looks far more mature and perhaps something... Where would you guys think, where do you think it is in the maturity level? Is it demonstrator? Is it in production, near production? How near-term is it? And perhaps the other question a lot of people here are asking or have been asking is as much as we all admit that these terms, fourth-gen, fifth-gen, sixth-gen, are marketing terms, we do equate them with certain features. In sixth-gen level of LO, low observability beyond what we have now in F-22 and F-25 and perhaps particularly notably in areas that aren't just RF. So how do you guys judge where the Chinese are with this? 

Tony Osborne:

Can I just jump in briefly? I don't know if my colleagues really agree with me, but I think that this is a tactical bomber. Whereas a lot of the initial analysis of this is a six-generation fighter prototype, are we in agreement or are we in disagreement? 

Graham Warwick:

It's not a fighter. So I talked to Darrell Cummings who was the chief configuration designer on the YF-23, and there are many features of that airplane, of both airplanes that kind of come from that thing. And he pointed out that inlet above the airplane doesn't function above 10 degrees of angle of attack. It's not a fighter. As soon as you pitch that airplane up, that inlet is ineffective. I strongly suspect that inlet closes down in cruise and then you are completely featureless, essentially a featureless upper surface if you're going to go be a penetrating counter air type fighter. Maturity, here's the thing. The more you look at the Chengdu airplane, the less advanced it looks, that's kind of a weird thing to say, but there are some aspects to this airplane that are very, very fifth or four and a half generation in a fifth stroke, sixth-generation shape.

It's as if there are some aspects of this design that are very mature. They've just said, "We know how to do that, let's go forward because we've got this really weird shape and we need to make it work." But to me, it's a very mature design. You can't see them, but there are actually little boxes on the sides of the fuselage which clearly there are going to be sensor mounts. You don't get that on a demonstrator, you don't get that even in early prototypes, and you don't get your site dielectric panels or your EOTS windows in an early prototype. This thing is either a late prototype or pre-production or something like that, but it's a mature design. 

Steve Trimble:

I can try to fill in some of the time elements that we have for the Chinese modernization projects. So we know the Pentagon's China military power report that they submit annually to Congress projects that the H-20 should into service by the end of the decade. I guess I'd be a little surprised if this could beat the H-20 at this point. We do know that China has been talking about developing a new fighter for several years. The Chengdu chief designer, Wang Haifeng said in an interview, and I think it was about four or five years ago, that he expected that China would introduce a new fighter before 2035. And I know there is some dispute here about the terminology we're using between fighter and what do you call this multirole aircraft, that kind of thing. But I do think, and also those Pentagon reports and the Defense Intelligence Agency has also been saying since 2019 that China is working on a fighter bomber, a medium range fighter bomber.

And so if you put all those together, I think there's probably some combination between what the Pentagon is calling a fighter bomber and what the Chinese are calling a next generation fighter. And those might be analogous to what we've seen coming out Chengdu, let's put the Shenyang aircraft aside one moment because of the questions about that. But I think that timeframe is worth thinking about. Now, it's possible China isn't trying to be quite as technologically ambitious as the US so maybe they can shrink that timeframe down because they're not trying to be quite so clever, especially with the mission systems, which is really where this stuff gets really, really difficult. And obviously with the flight controls, you can see they've taken some shortcuts with that top mounted inlet, whereas the Air Force, US Air Force program, I mean I'm guessing is looking at something that is much more svelte and conducive of next generation offensive counter air, penetrating counter air type missions.

So I guess that's just one way to think about it. And as far as the role itself, I think it's interesting that the only quasi confirmation that has come from the Chinese government or some kind of official source in the Chinese government came from a video that we saw on New Year's Eve that was posted by the Nanjing based Eastern Theater Command that showed, I mean, it had a lot of different images of the Chinese forces in the Eastern Theater Command doing all their things for the past year. But then there was an image that they just showed very briefly that showed a ginkgo leaf next to this bird, this cartoon bird. The cartoon bird looked exactly like the configuration of the Shenyang aircraft and the ginkgo leaf, there's definitely a similarity there, a resemblance anyway to the Chengdu aircraft. And Eastern Theater Command it's important to note, really has the assignment for Taiwan.

They're opposite Taiwan. And so it is interesting that of all the theater commands, they're the ones who acknowledged the aircraft or sort of quasi acknowledged the aircraft. When you think about the Taiwan scenario, there's a lot of defensive counter-air activity that they would probably be engaged in. One would think that the first thing China would do is obliterate all the runways in Taiwan, so there shouldn't be too much offensive counter air, but a lot of defensive counter air. But then they want to neutralize probably US reinforcements and other types of reinforcements coming out of the second island chain. And Guam is 1600 nautical miles away from China's Eastern coast. So if you're going to address that threat and neutralize it, you're going to need an aircraft that can cover that in combat radius and get back. So probably a 4,000 nautical mile range aircraft at least in order to do that mission. That's a very big aircraft, and that's what we're seeing with the Chengdu configuration.

So I mean, these are all inferences, and I admit this is very speculative, but you can kind of see where all this sort of fits together a little bit based on what we know right now. 

Graham Warwick:

If you go back to the two airplanes that the US studied but didn't go forward with the FB-22 and the FB-23, the FB-23 was actually called a regional bomber, and it was based on the YF-22, but it was quite a bit bigger. If you run the numbers on those, you start to get, in terms of fuel volume and range and payload capability, you start to get closer to what the Chengdu airplane is. They were based on existing [inaudible 00:28:22] they were considerably scaled up. And I think that regional bomber, which is not really talked about as a role anymore, but it was, at the time, it's kind of where I think this thing fits. 

Robert Wall:

Yeah, I mean, one thing I wanted to ask is, a friend of mine was joking. The people who were really releasing these images were Boeing and Lockheed just to give NGAD new life. But joking aside, how do you think this will impact conversations in both about, NGAD, F/A-XX, I guess, and you've got GCAP here, for example, in the UK with the Italians and the Japanese. So I mean, does this meaningfully change the conversation or perhaps not so much? 

Steve Trimble:

Potentially, but just to give readers a refresh on where things stand. NGAD was supposed to go to a contract award. The Air Force leadership started having second thoughts about the configuration that they chose, the requirements that they have, and their other priorities. And so they've got to address those things. But sometimes when the public and Congress sees this other thing and they ask, "Well, what do we have?" Maybe that can change some things and drive some changes in the Air Force's thinking. But at the moment, the Air Force leadership is pretty fixed on this idea that this approach that they adopted for next generation air dominance and looks kind of similar, relatively speaking, to how China's looking at their next generation aircraft requirements, that the US Air Force anyway, really has second thoughts about whether that's a good idea.

And the built to last concept, as the Air Force chief of staff has put it, should give way to this build to adapt concept, which is going to be much smaller aircraft, much cheaper aircraft, not quite disposable, but what they call attritable or something a little bit more than that, something that you can adapt over time and that you're not stuck with for decades like we are with the legacy fighters that we have. 

Graham Warwick:

If you're a big airplane groupie, it's great. So if you are in the GCAP crowd who want to build a fighter of the size of a TSR-2, it's good news. 

Tony Osborne:

And arguably almost sort of nicely timed as well to confirm those, put that push to try and get GCAP probably on contract by the end of the year if you think that this will probably be five years away from entering service. Although I'm not convinced this aircraft is going... Certainly looking at the Chengdu design, do we think that these are going to be purchased in vast numbers and are they going to be aimed at targets like Japan or as you say, the multiple island chains? 

Steve Trimble:

Well, and this is the thing that is so hard to get our head around is just so much is going on in the Chinese defense industry, and particularly with military aircraft. And I mean not even just that, I mean satellites and spacecraft and hypersonics and all that kind of stuff, but also just in aviation. I mean it's incredible, right? I mean, they've got these programs, they've got a huge production program going with J-20s, J-15s, J-16s, J-35s, still J-10s. They've got WS-10s, WS-15s engines in production. They're redefining how they do airlift at the same time producing Y-20s. They've got this whole new concept of logistics that they're trying to do. Meanwhile, we also saw the KJ-3000 on the same day. This is a Y-20 fitted with an AWACS radar, on December 26 that we saw pictures of that for the first time as well. They've shown all these other kinds of crazy concepts, and it's hard to know how much of that is actually real in terms of a funded program with requirements and all that.

But I mean, they've been really cranking this stuff out. I haven't even mentioned the UCAT programs, GJ-11, CS-5000T, FH-97. I mean, it just goes on and on. So it's really amazing. Whereas the US military is thinking, "Well, do we take that money for the Air Force, do we give it to B-21 to accelerate the ramp? Do we give it to NGAD to get it going? Or do we give it to something like NGAL or NGAS, the next generation mobility concept for more tankers and next generation airlifters?" And we are trying to decide which ones we pick, whereas China seems to be both and rather than either or. I don't know how sustainable that is for their industry, where they get the old materials they need and the manpower. They do have a lot of manpower, but still it takes a lot of quality to come up with this kind of stuff.

So, yeah, I mean, that's the thing that... The conversation is just very different and it keeps evolving in very unexpected ways like this. I kind of knew this was coming. We knew they were working on a next generation fighter, whether it's tactical or bomber, but... I didn't even mention H-20, that's also coming down the line as well. 

Robert Wall:

Wow, there’s a year's worth of Check 6 podcast on the Chinese aerospace modernization efforts alone. Well, thanks guys. Let's wrap it here. As Steve mentioned, we've got other things to look forward to if we look at China's military air power, H-20 pictures at some point probably this year, we'll see. 

So thanks, Steve. Thanks Graham, and thanks, Tony. And thanks to our producer, Guy Ferneyhough. And also thank you to our listeners for your time. And don't miss out on being the first person in the new year to leave us a five-star rating on your favorite podcasting app. And don't forget to tune in for our next Check 6 podcast. Thank you very much. 

Speaker 1:

As we enter the new year, are you ready for takeoff? Parker Aerospace is a leader in the production of innovative technology that supports reliable, efficient, and increasingly sustainable flight, including comprehensive aftermarket support. A partner of choice for OEMs and MROs, Parker helps solve complex challenges to achieve the extraordinary. Stay in the know with Parker Aerospace on LinkedIn at Parker Aerospace, or at parker.com/aerospace.