Talk:Chengdu J-20

Upload images

if I can just figure out how to upload images. Got some great ones.

Here is the place to upload your images: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Upload Axeman (talk) 02:28, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I will try to upload some who can I attribute the source. Amraamny (talk) 21:39, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Zabania, some of your edits are clearly based your own interpretation. Where do you get 2020 or even worse 2010 introduced from? AV quote the official saying 2017-19. How can you assume that is it directly developed from J7, J-10 etc., when this is altogether a different fighter. Please address this concerns and may I ask you look at the style of other articles here such as the F-22. There is no section on "balance of power" Amraamny (talk) 22:37, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Care to reply Zabanio, so far you have failed to raise any valid answers to my arguments. Amraamny (talk) 19:23, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I am going to remove some of the amateurish blogs such and websites that have been used by Zabanio such as Pak1stanfirst and asian-defence blogspot. I deem this not up to snuff. Again I cited Bill Sweetman, one of the most noted aviation journalists in the world, who has been closely following the J-20's unveil at Chengdu. Zabanio has not even bother to attempt to say why he believes his sources are even close to being as credible as mine. Amraamny (talk) 19:27, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Here is an article on J-20 from the Russian point of view (ignore the image of the J-10 at the top of the page; the article is about the J-20): http://en.rian.ru/analysis/20101229/161986565.html Axeman (talk) 03:01, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

It is permissible to put a link to where you can find pictures but putting a non-free use (essentially stolen) picture and saying it can't be replaced is not very honest. Pictures of planes are common. Just wait a while and one will certainly be available. Hakkapeliitta (talk) 01:13, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

• I'm afraid it seems you completely misunderstand his fair-use works. It's not stolen. It's used under a fair use rationaile. The photo can't be replaced at this time, no free-use photographs are available and none likely will be for quite some time. When they are, by all means replace it. Until then, Fair Use is a valid Wikipedia practice. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:31, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

The free use line drawing is a first start and should be here. Ryan White Jr. (talk) 03:46, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

• Er...I'm afraid not? That 'line drawing' is anything but encyclopediatic, and would only add to the ammunition of people who view Wikipedia as a laughingstock. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:57, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Passenger?

Does the airplane take a passenger? __meco (talk) 13:27, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

No, it appears to be a single-seater, unless a forthcoming two-seat version is to be unveiled later. Additionally, as it is a fighter jet, if there were a second person aboard, that person would be a crewmember with duties, rather than a passenger. Axeman (talk) 21:20, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Weapon's bays?

Are all missiles carried on wing hardpoints? Hcobb (talk) 17:07, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

There seems to be some very visible hardpoints but I believe it has been stated that it does have weapons bays. -Nem1yan (talk) 20:12, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

I believe the "very visible hardpoints" may just be bulges for the aileron servo housings, you can find them on the F-22 as well: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:F-22_Raptor_Internal_Weapons_Bay.jpg Lm2f (talk) 05:10, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

The bulges on the F-22 are nowhere near that size, neither are the ones on the T-50. -Nem1yan (talk) 21:00, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Right. The J-20 is simply the least-stealthy "stealth" aircraft. That's all. Hcobb (talk) 21:04, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Hcobb ... it seems like a bit of a pattern of yours to come to wiki articles like this and drop POV statements regarding aircraft. I'm not sure what your goals are but it hardly makes for a valuable contribution to discussion.--Senor Freebie (talk) 05:16, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

How can it land?

The current design has got about a decimeter clearance between the rear wheel doors and the ground. If the shock absorbers move at all it will scrape the ground and lose control. Hcobb (talk) 17:21, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Talk pages are not forums for disussing the topic. Has a reliable source actually raised this issue? - BilCat (talk) 17:35, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

We really should delete this page until some RS has solid numbers for things like wingspan. Hcobb (talk) 20:32, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

No we should not delete the article! Zabanio (talk) 21:38, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Those are maintenance hatches, not landing gear doors. 204.197.182.225 (talk) 07:47, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Even if they were gear doors, the explanation is a simple one. Sometimes aircraft will have the gear doors hooked to the hydraulic system, in a fashion that, when there's no pressure in the system, the doors 'bleed down' on the ground, rapidly closing again when the plane is powered up. In this case, the assumption would be that the hydraulic system needs more work before the first flight, so the doors are hanging open. However I have to agree that they're probably maintiance hatches left open for whatever reason - at a glance it looks like the main gear retracts forwards into them, but a closer look appears to show inner gear doors between the wheels. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:38, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Eurofighter Typhoon

The Eurofighter Typhoon was added under the heading of comparable aircraft, the ET is a fourth generation jet fighter and the J-20 is a fifth generation jet fighter, so I do not think it is comparable enough to be included in the article. What do others think? Zabanio (talk) 18:29, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Both the Europeans and the Chinese have drawn up their own "fifth generation jet fighter" checklists which include their own designs and each other's. Hcobb (talk) 20:31, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Again, we don't have a formal definition for what exactly makes an aircraft "comparable". Mission? Ability? Age? Competition in the market? I'm REALLY getting tired of having this same discussion for every single new aircraft that gets announced... --Gamerk2 (talk) 14:50, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

The eurofighter isn't "edgy-looking"... Which is pretty much the only design element found in all fifth-gen fighters that is still unique to fifth-gen fighters. -Nem1yan (talk) 15:21, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Besides the Typhoon is a 4.5th generation fighter... supercruise, rcs reduction, upcoming aesa etc. And YES, the Thyphoon is able to supercruise with AA-loadout. But that's not the topic of this "discussion"... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.159.182.185 (talk) 01:58, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Fake?

So far there are only a few pictures available. Even if they are not from Photoshop, how to make sure the pictures are not made for propaganda or misinformation? It is believed the Chinese can not make engine for this kind of fighters and the Russians are unlikely to sell their engine to help Chinese to make the powerful weapon that they don't have themselves yet. I think it is good idea to address this possibility of the fake model while keeping the rest part of the article. 87.227.113.42 (talk) 23:03, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

What's your source then? One thing that's clear about the American, Russian and Chinese 5th generation jet fighter programs is that none of them have completed the software. The Russians and Chinese have shown reasonable shapes, but none of their prototypes have the completed finish of a stealth aircraft and both the T-50 and J-20 are lacking WRT the Raptor's all aspect stealth shaping. Hcobb (talk) 01:43, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

The prototypes dont have the "completed finish" because they are prototypes. Also I dont see how you addressed his question. While there is a significant amount of evidence implying that China does not yet possess the technology to put the aircraft into production there is no real reason to believe that there is not a model performing taxi test. Considering that China has continued to push out designs like the J-10B and J-11B, despite several problems like engine performance, it is feasible that the J-20 model would appear even though it faces similar problems. -Nem1yan (talk) 20:30, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

This would imply, IMO, the prototype of the stealth jet could never become a real fighter until 1) the Russians would generously help them to build the weapon, or 2) they hack the right computers somewhere in US or Russia and take the tricks for making engines in time. "Never" is an exaggeration word of course, however, handling the highly sophisticated engine technology in a short time by themselves is not so easy, especially they did not have successful records previously. They did not manage to make the engines for J10 but chose Russian ones. J20 is among the 5th generation that Russian are not in advance yet, I am not sure the Russian have the same interests to help them. The estimated period between prototype and final stage could be considerably longer comparing to the F22/F35 productions, namely, 2017-2020 might be over "optimistic". This one of the reasons, (I read somewhere) a certain Russian expert did not exclude that this model might be just a PSYOP thing. There are other reasons (such as unofficial way to publish of the photograph etc.) PSYOP is a just speculation of course, but 2017-2019 is also, although perhaps a more plausible or reasonable one.87.227.113.42 (talk) 21:59, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

• The whole "Chinese vs Russian engines" thing has been pretty conclusively debunked by experts as...Russian propaganda. I don't have an RS since it was on a military discussion board, but the whole thing about how the Chinese engines are junk, is bunk. -The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:33, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

We've got a bunch of RS about hundreds of jet engines being sold by Russia to China. All of these reports are fakes? Hcobb (talk) 04:30, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

No, that's not fake. What is fake is the claims that Chinese jet engines are still crap like they used to be, and therefore if they don't use Russian engines in their new aircraft it's a mistake/evidence of fakery/etc. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:27, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

actually china has cleared production for jet engine for twin configuration for some year, the J-10 problem is distinctly one found in single engine design. from what we know, the J-20 already has engine installed and can move on it's own power in taxi, all they have to do is to uprate it, it not like this plane is going into production next year, they got time. ain't we running ahead of ourselves assuming that if we see a prototype, it must mean production must be near? 218.186.8.234 (talk) 04:17, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

There are some differences. US and Russia have accumulated techniques of engines even before the cold war. Their engineers can well inherit knowledge and experience from their older generations. In some fields where information exchange and espionage are available, the Chinese don't have to start from scratch, otherwise, it is already hard enough to learn how the sophisticated mechanisms work without someone systematically educate them. Other than that, even if they are incredibly smarter than anyone else to handle the mechanism (IMO pure nonsense), no one can escape from long-time of fail and trial procedure especially in case that a lot of elements (not all of them) have to start from scratch.

Their J-10 is an example: they got design from Israel and engine from Russian and they have to take 15 years to solve other problems. Considering they start from a very low level, they already did a very good job, but they are human too and I don't see any reason why they should do better than others especially comparing to Americans and Russians. Just a few days ago, I read an article from Washington Post which indicated that the Chinese can not manage to make engines for their new fighters so that they have to buy from Russians. The Chinese indeed alleged they make their own engines but reportedly elsewhere their engines do not meet the requirement at this point.The WP article also said Chinese have a tradition to overestimate themselves; I think their allegation are not always reliable especially in the fact they have never shown any success previously in this field.

Considering right now there is a crisis in Korea and the US is sending 3 aircraft carriers to the region near China, the unofficial announcement of J-20 could be use as a good PSYOP in the subtle situation. Hisfun (talk) 16:12, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

the J-10, despite rumours is not based on the lavi, chengdu was already working on a canard plane before the lavi program. the fact that you bring this up, raise question on sources of information, i hope it is not wikipedia :) Chengdu actually got technology from US (before USSR collapse, US allow chinese engineer to come to US and work with US defence contractors, this is documented) and Russia (after). both transfer were however incomplete and Chengdu had to adsorb the technology, the fact that they got input on modern technology form the 2 major power, is what make it logical that they can develop modern planes now.

but seeing is believing, we have video of a thottle up, thottle down test on landing http://www.tudou.com/programs/view/VDrpLi8EER0/ showing it has operational engine. also the article you read is regarding J-10 problem which is unique to single engine planes. the J-11b has been equipped with chinese engine and flying in the elite unit near beijing, it hard to dispute something already in service.

again i remind that this is just a prototype, it is not a production type. no one here suggest they can make a 100 of these economically. but making 1 working prototype is not that hard; remember that F22 prototype emerge years before US has the ability to mass produce them, that is the whole point of making prototypes, to solve problems. i really don't understand why some are acting like the existence of prototype must mean China has reach the same level as US, that just crazy thought. 218.186.8.234 (talk) 00:57, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Specs

Can we start filling in a specs block now?

http://www.defense-update.com/products/j/29122010_j-20.html 32,000-pound thrust 117S engines for the J-20, which would be adequate for an aircraft in the 80,000 pound class

So that's thrust to weight ratio of 0.8 Hcobb (talk) 15:41, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Black Eagle

RS enough for the name? http://translate.google.com/translate?prev=/language_tools&u=http://www.ftd.de/unternehmen/industrie/:konkurrenz-fuer-west-modelle-asiatische-kampfflieger-heben-ab/50210767.html Shortly before the first flight is in China as the previously secret fighter J-20 Black Eagle. Hcobb (talk) 23:07, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I do not think one citation of "Black Eagle" is adequate. Let's wait awhile and see if there is an actual name assigned to it by China. Currently, they have not announced anything about the naming of the J-20. Zabanio (talk) 12:47, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Huitong, a estimable Chinese source, has referred to the J-20 as the Black Eagle. It is one of the most authoritative English language Chinese aviation sources out there. See this post by Flight Global's Stephen Trimble http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/2010/12/j-20-even-better-than-the-real.html Amraamny (talk) 20:03, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

AusAir as a source

Aside from not having a neutral point of view everything taken from that site is backed only by the authors opinion. The statement "By the time the F-35 makes IOC (if it ever does) it will be, to use that well-known technical term, ‘toast’." has absolutely no foundation whatsoever. The J-20 has not even made a confirmed flight so how can one predict that it can outperform other designs, especially when all available information points to the contrary? The J-20's weight makes for a sub-par T/W ratio unless China develops an engine that surpasses that of any other twin-engined fighter. Also it was been argued that the rear design of the J-20 isnt very stealthy (along with its canards). Per WP:NOR "Articles may not contain any new analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not clearly advanced by the sources." And that is exactly what AusAir does. -Nem1yan (talk) 20:48, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes I agree Carlo Kopp has a very particular perspective that reflects in all his works that the F-35 is garbage and the F-22 is needed for Australia. Nevertheless he is somewhat of an expert. His analysis or speculation as it is would be no worse than the speculation found from the RIA Russian military commentator. Well my preference would be to have analysis from reliable aviation experts like Bill Sweetman as well as definitive Chinese sources.Amraamny (talk) 20:56, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

So far we've been keeping the Kopp/Goon team to one mention in every article. Combine with one from Pike, one from his old FAS buddies (if they care) and one from each member of the Lex Luther Institute and mix well for balance. Hcobb (talk) 22:35, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

RCS vs aerodynamics

The Koop comment is gushing about aerodynamics and is placed right between two warnings about excessive airfoils. Can we reorg a bit to have performance at airshows split off from big fat manned target drone in combat please? Hcobb (talk) 23:49, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Taxing test?

Some Chinese military forums have reported that J-20 is undergoing its first taxing test in Chengdu at 2:32 p.m., Jan 6, 2011. Two J-10 were flying from 1:20 p.m. to 1:54, but the J-20 did only ground taxing. It is reported some military leaders come, also more than a hundred fans gathered outside to watch. There may be some photos later because the guards do not stop them. One of the forum's website is http://www.fyjs.cn/bbs/htm_data/27/1101/302124.html (Chinese). However there was no offical report yet, neither any report from state-own news agency.

Stealing the American design that everybody hates

http://www.examiner. com/military-technology-in-chicago/new-chinese-stealth-fighter-testing-phase In 2008 a successful cyber attack on the Pentagon resulted in 'cracking' the codes of the worlds most secure servers. The target was the secret guidance and engineering schematics of the now 5th Generation Stealth F-35 Joint Strike Fighter. With the unveiling of China's J-20 stealth fighter and its eerie similarities to the F-35, it would not be a far-fetched idea that the recent craze for Chinese reverse engineering might have also included other internationally known or stolen airframe schematics.

So if the F-35 itself is no good, a cheap Chinese knock-off should be even better? Hcobb (talk) 21:09, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

...er...aside from the tail fins, the J-20 looks much more like the F-22 - which was, as it happens, apparently the cyberespioage target, at least according to Bill Sweetman - crossed with a Sukhoi T-50. Which, I beleive, is already mentioned in the article... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:17, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm willing to bet Russia had a couple cyber attacks as well. Still is there a good picture of this aircraft from the top? All the models have wings that look drastically different from any American or Russian designs. Its like the nose of an F-22, the rear of the T-50 and the wings from a J-10.. -Nem1yan (talk) 21:35, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Ref for range?

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/jan/5/inside-the-ring-442522451/?page=2 "With refueling, this fighter can carry the fight out to Guam," Mr. Fisher said.

Seems like the only case for a huge forward-sector-only-stealth fighter bomber. Sneak up to American bases, launch long range air to ground missiles then declare war on the trip back home. But of course the Chinese will need to demonstrate a midair refueling capability first. Hcobb (talk) 23:42, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Mainstream press late

Well it seems the mainstream press is again late to the game, coming up with a trove of articles 2 weeks after photographic evidence of the prototype first surfaced in Chinese boards and was covered by Bill Sweetman from AW. It appears that the front page story of the J-20 on the Wall Street Journal finally got the mainstream press buzzing. Amraamny (talk) 02:27, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Remember that the Lamestream press follows our work here at Minitrue. Our pledge is to rewrite history even faster than it changes. Hcobb (talk) 02:31, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Indeed we have proven our worth. Now that this has caught the attention of the mass public, we should be mindful of separating the wheat from the chaff. I found this alarmist (and frankly fantastical) report from Fox News quite amusing. http://www.foxnews.com/world/2011/01/07/chinas-new-fighter-jet-pose-terrifying-challenge-fleet/

I particularly like laughable ending quote by a decorated US Navy fighter pilot :"We used be No. 1 at having the leading technology. ... Now, we’re kind of in catch-up mode, where we’ve never really been before.”Amraamny (talk) 03:01, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

The humpbacks

Look at the F-22 and the T-50. Follow the tip of the nose, the chines along the cockpit and the edges of the wings. In each case this is a straight line from the nose to the tail.

Now compare to F-35 and J-20. Both of them have nose points below the wingline and chine lines that go from the nose to above the wingline.

Is this a side effect of using the DSI bumps or just straight copying off the F-35? Hcobb (talk) 03:44, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Split role from design?

Split off the "what is it supposed to be used for" from the "what sort of design elements are in it" comments? Hcobb (talk) 15:09, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

NATO Reporting name

I've seen reference to the NATO reportingname allocated to the J-20 being "Firefang". Can anybody provide a reliable source for this? regards, Lynbarn (talk) 15:13, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

The Black Horizon blog referred mentioned the reporting name as a Firefang. I cannot vouch for the quality of the source. I believe we should wait for a more credible, preferably official, source.Amraamny (talk) 18:44, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

In flight photo

The "in flight" photo "shows" the aircraft from a different angle and those canards are looking even less feasible, set back from the lip of the engine intakes. Also it has like two feet wide horizontal tails? Hcobb (talk) 20:53, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

What in-flight photo? Regards, Lynbarn (talk) 21:11, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Photoshopped, obviously: http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2011/01/dont-panic-chinas-new-stealth-jet-takes-to-the-air/ Hcobb (talk) 21:13, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Informed sources have it that it made its first flight just minutes ago. It is currently still in the air.Amraamny (talk) 04:57, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

We need to double check that. I've added verification tags just in case.--  Novus  Orator  05:04, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Indeed the flight of this plane has been closely watched by aviation writers such as Sweetman. Would expect an article from him shortly.Amraamny (talk) 05:10, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Lets get that article as soon as he posts it.--  Novus  Orator  05:17, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

The in flight photo may have been tampered with. Do not re add until we can confirm that it really flew.--  Novus  Orator  06:18, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Its been confirmed by multiple sources that it has indeed made its first flight. This is now beyond a doubt. Amraamny (talk) 06:24, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

The Post: Chinese stealth fighter makes first test flight http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/01/11/AR2011011100300.html