Talk:Chengdu J-20

fuel in kg?....2400 L x tank external?,...really?....19.000kg?=25.000 liters,THIS IS UNREAL.....

25.000 l of fuel ,imposible,false.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.223.15.103 (talk) 22:30, 26 October 2017‎

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Chengdu J-20/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Freikorp (talk · contribs) 10:29, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   "twinjet, all-weather, stealth fifth-generation" - four wikilinks in a row is a bit much. Consider rewording somehow.

   Are the citations in the lead really necessary? See WP:LEAD.

   The development section needs reworking. Merge most of the single/double sentence paragraphs in together to form a bit more of a narrative rather than a bullet point style list of updates.

   LRIP needs to be unnabreviated in its first appearance in the Development section. It then needs to be abbreviated only in the Production section.

   "The main weapon bay is capable of housing both short ..." - this one sentence paragraph appears to be unreferenced. Incidentally you should merge it with the one sentence paragraph below it. Also does this aircraft not feature some kind of cannons? I note the armament section at Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor, a good article, is significantly larger than the armament section at this article.

   Try and merge the one-sentence paragraphs in the 'Engines' section.

   Saturn AL-31#117S - I really don't think this is how this link should be displayed. Can you pipe it to something better?

   The dates seem too specific in the 'Flight testing' section. Do we really need to know the first test was on 11 January 2011? Why not just January 2011? This wouldn't be a problem if the entire section wasn't jammed packed with specific dates. Actually the dates seem too specific overall. In the 'Development' section we have "On 22 December 2010, the first J-20 prototype underwent high speed ..." - I'd shorten this to just December 2010, and repeat the process for the whole article unless it is of particular importance to mention the exact day,

   "This particular aircraft, numbered '2011' ..." - This sentence and the one after it are unreferenced.

   "took to the sky" - this seems a bit too colloquial to me, but up to you

   "At least six J-20s are in active service" - as of when?

   "On 9 March 2017, Chinese officials confirmed that the J-20 had entered service in the Chinese air force." - unreferenced

   Single sentence paragraphs in the Deployment section could use some merging.

   "that China needs proper training for J-20 fighter to ensure its air domination over India on "Tibet Plateau" - please try and reword this, it reads poorly

   "Western analysts clarified that the training took part" - define Western

   "and Pakistan shares strong interest in acquire hardware and software assistance from China regarding the technologies involving fifth-generation fighters. Though unconfirmed, Several Chinese media published this news in the form of embrave" - the English here is quite poor too. I'm starting to think this whole article may need a copyedit before it could be considered for promotion.

   "Robert Gates downplayed the significance of the aircraft" - when did this happen?

   "More recent speculations" - see WP:REALTIME

   "The J-20 could threaten vulnerable tankers and ISR/C2 platforms, depriving Washington of radar coverage and strike range" - according to whom?

   There's an unsigned comment on the article's talk page raising questions about the accuracy of the fuel tank specifications. Normally I wouldn't give a complaint such as this much weight but when I compare the fuel capacity of this aircraft to the Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II and the Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor I'm seeing some drastic differences. Are you absolutely certain the fuel capacity specifications are accurate?

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. Has an appropriate reference section:

   Checklinks finds an awful lot of problems that need fixing: [1]

   Copyright detection finds some pretty major problems as well: [2]

   There's several bare URLs, and at least one violation of MOS:ALLCAPS.

   There's several violations of WP:OVERCITE. Unless a citation is particularly controversial or likely to be challenges, you shouldn't need more than three sources, if that. We've got a few instances of four and at least on of six. Freikorp (talk) 22:34, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

   There's an overwhelming amount of inconsistency in the references. Dates formatted in the "11 January 2011" format, others in "2017-03-10" format. Some works are given by their common name (I.e Fox News), while others are given by their base url (I.e baidu.com). I could go on but I'll leave it here for now.

   B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:

   As noted above

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

   Looks OK in general in regards to these points, though as noted above the size of the armament section is small in comparison to others; if all other issues are addressed I may ask for a second opinion on this

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail: Placing on hold. To be honest I'll be surprised if these issues can all be addressed in one week, but best of luck. Freikorp (talk) 11:13, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

   @L293D: Just a reminder we're now about half-way to the point where this will be closed; I note no changes have yet been made to the article. Let me know if you're not intending to address the issues in which case I'll close it now otherwise I'll leave it open for the next 3-4 days to allow you to work on it. Freikorp (talk) 14:20, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for reminding me. I'll start right now. L293D (☎ • ✎) 14:23, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

A handful of positive changes have been made to the article, and accordingly I've struck some of my original concerns. The overwhelming majority of concerns, however, still remain. I didn't think one week would be long enough to address this amount of issues even if a concerted daily effort had of been made. Unfortunately I'm going to have to close this now, but you've at least got some idea of what needs to be addressed before it is renominated and can work on the issues at your leisure. Freikorp (talk) 04:33, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

The empty weight of Chengdu J-20

The empty weight of Chengdu J-20 in English language is wrong. 19391kg is the empty weight of earlier model, later its empty weight reduced to 17000kg then reduced to about 15000kg. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ronaldlwang (talk • contribs) 03:49, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Do you have a source for this. I was able to find where the 17000kg claim claim from but not the 15000kg one. also the source for the 17000kg reads like propaganda. YEEETER0 (talk) 00:20, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Stealth of Chengdu J-20

Chengdu J-20 is the first stealth aircraft using meta-material as stealth technology. China built the world's first production line of meta-material, and applied meta-material on its stealth aircraft. Its stealth technology leads the US one generation. It can also be seen from the stealth coating. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ronaldlwang (talk • contribs) 03:59, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

The only articles that I was able to find about this were speculative about possible effects if meta-materials were used. YEEETER0 (talk) 00:22, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

About top speed again

One of the pilot of Chengdu J-20 once talked on the state media about the maximum speed of Chengdu J-20 is 52km/s, which means the top speed of Chengdu J-20 is above 2.5469 Mach. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ronaldlwang (talk • contribs) 04:14, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

You cannot use Propaganda as a source. YEEETER0 (talk) 00:21, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Someone deleted my Cost Information in the Right Banner

Who keeps on deleting the "Per Unit Costs (LRIP)" estimated cost information in the Right banner? I worked very hard to piece and source that, why do you think it's not reasonable to include it?Rwat128 (talk) 21:19, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

@Rwat128: Several weeks ago, the cost parameters were disabled in {{Infobox aircraft type}} so that they no longer work, after a discussion at WT:AIR about abuse of these parameters. You can add the information to the body of the article in an appropriate section in suitable prose if you want, as the data is still in the article's history. BilCat (talk) 23:46, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

@BilCat: To be honest, I knew the LRIP cost information in general is bullshit and crap. I'm surprised Wiki actually did something about it. Kudos to you and the team for clearing up junk. Like how do you know Su-57 is really $40M vs. FC-31 that is $70M vs. J-20 that is $110M? Nobody knows. Rwat128 (talk) 02:20, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

false information

It says that the dual canards wouldn't interfere with stealth, and uses the YF-23 as an example to attempt to prove this point. However, why link to that source, which is offline? The article on the YF-23 has photographs of the craft; it doesn't have the canards in question! There is a some peculiar propaganda mixed into this article.71.63.160.210 (talk) 01:58, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Do you have any conflicts of interest you'd like to disclose? 2600:387:15:917:0:0:0:B (talk) 06:17, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

YF-23 has vertical stabilizers, which are protruding vertical tail fins in rear. Dual canards are just rear horizontal stabilizers/fins in a different position, yet nobody says YF-23's vertical stabilizers or F-22's vertical+horizontal stabilizers interferes with stealth. Plus, canards that are locked in horizontal plane with rest of aircraft at max cruise speed can significant minimize reflection. Canards are helpful at close engagements where AoA matters, so stealth matters little in WVR combat.Rwat128 (talk) 16:16, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 September 2021

Change "Length: 20.3 m" to "Length: 21.2 m" Change "Wingspan: 12.88 m" to "Wingspan: 13.01 m" Change "Height: 4.45 m" to "Height: 4.69 m" Change "Maximum speed: Mach 2.5" to "Maximum speed: Mach 2.0" Ajx245wzp (talk) 18:58, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

References

The page already reflects the edit request changes. The status of this request has been updated to "answered". Heartmusic678 (talk) 13:44, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 March 2022

Strategic Implications > Military > Paragraph 5 > Sentence 1. Correct "avation" to "aviation.

Aviation researchers believe that J-20 signifies China had surpassed Russian military in the application of contemporary AVIATION technologies such as composite materials, advanced avionics, and long-range weapons systems. WoodjaCoodja (talk) 14:30, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

 Done ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:30, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Number in service

https://www.albanyherald.com/news/china-is-sending-its-most-advanced-fighter-jet-to-patrol-disputed-seas/article_10808c01-beb9-543c-9c5c-d81d4bf0c998.html#:~:text=With%20some%20200%20J%2D20s,Griffith%20Asia%20Institute%20in%20Australia.

The above source states 200 J20s in service. Think of that what you will, but in service J20s probably amounts to 150-200. Open to criticism of source. 2601:85:C101:C9D0:D454:650:1A03:EDF7 (talk) 21:12, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Wrong link in references?

I noticed a reference with a "cite journal requires journal=" error:

Heath, Timothy R.; Gunness, Kristen (17 March 2018). "Understanding China's Strategy". RAND Corporation. Retrieved 17 March 2018.

Looking closer, I found that the URL goes to a completely different article "The PLA and China's Rejuvenation" with a different date and 2 of the 3 authors the same. I suspect the URL is wrong, but I don't know, so I'll leave the fix for someone else. KenShirriff (talk) 05:48, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

Comparable stealth to F35/F22 Claim

"while being more comparable to the American F-22 and F-35, and its stealth profile could be further enhanced as the program matures." neither of the sources provided back up this claim; they only speculate that it would be better than the su57. Claim should be removed or a new source should be found. YEEETER0 (talk) 17:46, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Noted and changed. It seems the author Alex Hollings also altered his article sometimes after the publication (without mentioning on the PopSci website), which now included substantially different languages comparing to his original stored on the archive. Loned (talk) 06:40, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 January 2023

Operational History > Deployment > 6th Paragraph > Correct "portal" to "patrols"

In April 2022, Chinese state media reported J-20 started regular patrols in the South China Sea. Stealpoint (talk) 03:49, 10 January 2023 (UTC)