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)

4th or 5th generation

Chinese TV CGTN showed the fighter at the Zuhau airshow, but their own English subtitles read "China's FOURTH generation J-20 fighter jets conquered the skies" etc etc

(source: for example, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YESJAygRpE8)

Same thing for Xinhua, another Chinese agency: they call it a 4th-generation fighter https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P5ux8KP4Uhg.

I have no doubt that China can and will produce excellent aircraft but the J-20 doesn't look very "stealthy" and perhaps they realized it too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.104.21.174 (talk) 15:14, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

The reason they refer to it as "4th generation" is because Chinese classification is different from the western one: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jet_fighter_generations#Chinese_classification -- Nicholas Velasquez (talk) 15:34, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Concur. A couple of IPs from India have been changing the Lead to read "fourth-generation", citing a China Global Times article. What's interesting is that this article lists the HAL Tejas as a "third-plus generation fighter", which the Wikipedia article lists as "fourth generation"! I assume these IPs will have no objection to our changing the Tejas article to read "third-plus generation"? <<Snort-snort>> - BilCat (talk) 07:04, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Yes, this whole "competition" is quite funny. -- Nicholas Velasquez (talk) 11:54, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

It's not likely to end anytime soon. The noted Indian defense and aviation site, Zee News (!), has published an article, China downgrades its Chengdu J-20 'stealth' fighter to 4th Generation but claims IAF Rafales no match for it. No mention in that article of ghr Tejas being "downgraded" by China either. - BilCat (talk) 15:35, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

I actually misread the Global Times piece. It's the Rafale that China listed as third generation. No mention of the Tejas. (It was late at night!) Of course, the Zee News article ignored the China mention of Rafale being 3rd-plus gen, and called it a 4th-plus gen. Pop-culture journalism at its best! - BilCat (talk) 15:42, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Verify Sources on J-20 Top speed

Could someone please fix the Mach 2.55 top speed statement on the J-20's specifications segment?

The number seems ludicrous and upon verification of cited sources, I have found that they either do not support the claim of a M = 2.5 top speed, or have extremely questionable reliability.

The first source from KK news itself cites information from a Chinese Air Force propaganda video that claims the J-20 can "Cruise 52 kilometers in one minute" or at 3120 km/h. They claim that the plane can reach this speed at sea level and reach M = 2.55 and can also obtain this airspeed at 10,000 m, reaching M = 3.0

The second listed source also does not include their estimate or statement on the top speed of the aircraft and should be removed from the citation list accordingly

The third source blatantly includes speculation from a journalist with no degrees or experience in aerospace engineering stating that the plane just might be able to reach M 2.5 with the new WS-15 turbofans. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Flammedice (talk • contribs) 03:56, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

This information sounds extremely questionable, given the WS-15 turbofan can only generate the same thrust as the Pratt & Whitney F119 turbofan, which only pushes the much lighter and smaller F-22 Raptor to Mach 2.25. This compounds on the fact that the J-20 seems to only have tested speeds of the even weaker WS-10 powerplant. Which makes it even less credible that the plane could reach such high airspeeds as Mach 2.55, 2.8 or even 3.0

Please update the Mach number on this page to match more realistic numbers, and try and get original sources on the plane's speed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Flammedice (talk • contribs) 03:51, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

WS-10C now officially powers the J-20 production variant according to Flight Global

Here is the reference.

Chinese airpower reaches for the big leagues in 2021

https://www.flightglobal.com/defence/chinese-airpower-reaches-for-the-big-leagues-in-2021/141314.article#:~:text=The%20development%20of%20Chinese%20airpower,of%20a%20new%20stealth%20bomber.

According to flight global: "China’s premiere fighter, the Chengdu J-20, is flying with a local engine, the Shenyang WS-10 Taihang – early versions used Russian Saturn AL-31s. In November 2020, images emerged of J-20s powered with an updated version of the WS-10, the WS-10C." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:152:4400:5580:A5D2:E6BC:C3D9:1C64 (talk) 04:04, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Since now, it is official that WS-10C has replaced the AL-31FM to power the J-20. I removed AL-31FM in the J-20's specification section and replaced it with WS-10's data.

--2601:152:4400:5580:A5D2:E6BC:C3D9:1C64 (talk) 04:08, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

The claim that the production variant is powered by the WS-10C is not supported by the article. Additional verification is required for that. - RovingPersonalityConstruct (talk, contribs) 04:40, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

I have added plenty of refences in the WS-10 article to support this claim. --2601:152:4400:5580:A5D2:E6BC:C3D9:1C64 (talk) 05:49, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

For Christ sake !! Prototypes using WS-10C engine is still VERY important ! You can NOT just remove that source material ! I added them back and used the word prototype and clarified other sources' thesis and abstracts !

--2601:152:4400:5580:A5D2:E6BC:C3D9:1C64 (talk) 06:17, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

FIX TOP SPEED

The Mach 2.55 figure for the J-20 is blatantly wrong.

Please remove the top speed segment, or set it to unknown, or set it to >= Mach 2.0

The two of the references listed beside the speed listing do not demonstrate that it could reach Mach 2.55, and other one is a blatant propaganda piece.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Flammedice (talk • contribs) 09:14, 18 January 2021 (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)

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)

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)

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)