Talk:Chengdu J-20/Archive 1

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

=ZERO. The link that is provided itself suggests the J-20 is an area where Chinese military technology has "caught up" to the US rather than as an area where lifting the arms embargo might have a beneficial effect on J-20 development.

All other sources seem to point otherwise, the J-20 is seen to be around the area of the YF-22, not the current US fighters. The article says China is "play[ing] catch-up, as in trying too; not "caught up" as you suggest. And since the J-20 is in still in a state of development and has drawn significantly on technology imports from Russia it is likely that lifting the EU arms embargo would play heavily in the development of the fighter. Also please remember to sign your posts and preferably add new sections at the bottom of the page. -Nem1yan (talk) 14:57, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

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

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)

Does the airplane take a passenger? __

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)

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)

I agree... - Heaney555z (talk) 18:57, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

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)

The

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)

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)

Obviously not

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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.

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.

This is just ludicrously stupid. Information stolen in 2008 by an unknown source (insinuate China here) somehow gets turned into a real live working full blown 5th generation Chinese airplane in less than 3 years. Planes like this don't go from stolen tech to working model in this kind of time. Anyone who believes this tripe is just dumb. Or has an agenda, which is even worse. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.169.82.11 (talk) 10:33, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

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)

Don't forget the inlets of an F-35, albeit with 2 engines. This plane is not a knock off ... But these days knock offs basically don't exist, thanks to the complexity of actually producing the smallest component at that level of detail. You're far better off getting the general gist of another design and making an aircraft to suit your purposes, eg. "they solved this problem this way so we'll do it that way too". The most direct possiblity for cloning though comes from those individual components. Say the Chinese don't know how to make good stealth paint ... if your hackers got lucky they could get into some university or contractors server and download the composition and if they're even luckier the way its distributed to be effective.

However the point stands; to outright clone an aircraft designed for someone elses tools and needs is probably more expensive them to design one from the outset unless you have ever diagram and machine tool in stock.--Senor Freebie (talk) 10:15, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Bleh.....aren't those design files supposed to be "physically detached" from internet? I dont' see why it would be difficult for PRC to develope RAM coating if lesser powers like Turkey are showcasing local production. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.199.41.206 (talk) 12:07, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

We can all agree that the J-20 is not a "real live working full blown 5th generation" jet fighter. It needs little details like sensors, weapons, software, stealth, etc. Right? Hcobb (talk) 14:56, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Well we aren't talking about the little details, are we? The article insinuates several empirically tenuous arguments and strings them together into a single idiotic doubt-casting article that in the end is nothing more than.... insinuation. This is the essence of intellectual dishonesty and agenda-driven sensationalist journalism. Like the hacking. China? Really, you or I or the author know that for sure? Does anyone in the non-spy real world even know exactly what was hacked or whether any of it was actually potentially applicable to the J-20? How about the "eerie similarities to the F-35"? Really? Any fighter with stealth features that include a diamond-shaped chiseled front end is now the result of espionage of the F-35 airframe? And developed into a flying prototype in 2 years, no less? Apparently the Chinese are too stupid to have designed this thing from scratch but not stupid enough to have miraculously turned spy-stuff into advanced airplane doing flight testing in record time. Critics, whatever their agenda, need to pick a logically consistent form of derision and stick with that rather than end up sounding dumb trying a multi-pronged smearfest that contradicts itself more than it accomplishes the goal of denigrating the fighter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.119.68.26 (talk) 22:48, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

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)

You mean for the J-20 or just in general? Because they clearly have midair refueling capabilities for their other platforms. (Psychoneko (talk) 13:13, 6 February 2011 (UTC))

As of only last year!

http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2010/04/chinas-navy-gets-its-act-together-and-gets-aggressive/ The implications of “putting it all together” are significant. The U.S. military’s ability to dominate the skies over any battlefield is not just due to its technological superiority, but its ability to incorporate capabilities together to support one another. Anti-submarine warfare and mid-air refueling are very difficult and complex operations to undertake, requiring good technology, effective command and control, and highly skilled operators. China’s ability to conduct these operations demonstrates a significantly increased prowess in complex military operations.

Hcobb (talk) 19:58, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

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 in the

Remember that the

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)

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 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)

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)

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

Ares on Defense has some nice images up. Let's add them to this page http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/defense/index.jsp?plckController=Blog&plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&newspaperUserId=27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7&plckPostId=Blog%3a27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post%3afea956a2-94a3-4110-a4d2-880ae0b7d3bd&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amraamny (talk • contribs) 07:46, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

It's been days and there's still no detailed information released yet from official authorities? I mean, most of the information so far mostly comes from the Chinese blogosphere, that includes the photos taken from mobile phones... that's not a lot of secure information we can rely on. Even most of the foreign media articles are based on speculations and interpretations. And dammit, there's moe anthropomorphisms of this plane on 2ch already... come on, what the hell... -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 04:16, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

With the flight photos we can see the forward swept intakes so this is a F-35 nose until you get to the canards, not F-22. Hcobb (talk) 17:17, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I have seen some still photo of this plane in flight to me it has some resembles of J-10. Judge you're self http://www.china-defense-mashup.com/chinese-j-20-logs-first-flight.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.21.214.42 (talk) 20:27, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Chengdu J-20 Black Eagle where does this name come from? Since there are no official responses to the aircraft's 'unveiling'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.21.214.42 (talk) 20:14, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I really doubt that the Chinese will use an English name or even a Chinese name with only one possible translation into English. Hcobb (talk) 20:20, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Where are the infrared sensors, or at least spots for them to be located? Hcobb (talk) 21:30, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

It's a prototype, if the information isnt in the article then it is probably still an unknown. -Nem1yan (talk) 20:48, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Since diagrams from paralay have been added for other fighters, namely the T-50, why not add their design for this aircraft?

http://paralay.com/jxx/J20_4.png -Nem1yan (talk) 21:08, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

The only way that one will really judge capability will be to know what's exactly in the cockpit. And the only picture of the cockpit currently available in the public domain seems to be the one that looks like the sort of hardboard static concept demonstrator one might see in a tent at an airshow. All speculation so far. Wittlessgenstein (talk) 22:43, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

this article has way too many references to US and russian planes. i can understand an occasional reference to f-22 or something to make a point but this happens ways too often. also a Specifications section is needs similar to other articles. many specs are available in the considerable analysis done on this stealth jet —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.69.60.181 (talk) 02:49, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

We don't have the exact specs on the prototype and even if we did that might not say much about the production aircraft. Every dog on the net is howling for them to drop airfoils off the jet. Also we don't have a clear statement of intent from the Chinese. Perhaps it's just a flying testbed to develop technologies for an actual fighter that is much smaller. We do have current and historical aircraft that have been designed for certain missions so we can compare those against this and see how it stacks up. Hcobb (talk) 04:12, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Here's an image that Aviation Week has of the J-20's underside during its flight: http://sitelife.aviationweek.com/ver1.0/Content/images/store/0/8/80034035-d3f9-4da9-a83f-fc9460c118d9.Full.jpg

It's from this post: http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/defense/index.jsp?plckController=Blog&plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&newspaperUserId=27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7&plckPostId=Blog:27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post:ada92122-076e-4e2f-894c-ccec75133760&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest (Psychoneko (talk) 06:07, 15 January 2011 (UTC))

I just reverted a suspicious page blank by an IP who might have conflict of interest. Some eyes would be appreciated.--  Novus  Orator  12:19, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Can we start filling in a stat block? There are some items that we have a good handle on now, length, width and maximum speed Mach 2 because of DSI. (Yes, slower than a F-22.) Hcobb (talk) 16:05, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Unless the laws of physics have been repealed, the LockMart patent on DSI still applies:

http://www.patentgenius.com/patent/7207520.html At speeds above Mach 2, mixed compression inlet systems become favorable over external compression systems due to reduced drag.

Hence copying the F-35 inlets limits the J-20 to F-35 speeds. Hcobb (talk) 22:38, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

This is

reliable source stating that Mach 2 is likely to be the J-20's top speed, we can't include this in the article. mgiganteus1 (talk

) 22:43, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

I would agree it is

WP:OR. copying directly from the F-35 inlets may limit it to F-35 speeds; looking similar to the F-35 inlets does not. I am pretty sure they did not use the same molds, and I am quite sure that they don't have a working copy or perfect specification to copy from. The measurements would be different thus making the speed limit change by the laws of physics. —Preceding signed comment added by MythSearcher^talk

01:12, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Look at the LockMart patent. The laws of physics are the same in America and China. The J-20 design is starting to make sense as a single-speed fighter. Where the J-20 can beat the F-22 is in high altitude supercruise. The J-20 isn't worried about anybody looking down on its tails and canards because it will be flying above everything else. It doesn't need to outturn anything, because nothing else comes close to it. Hcobb (talk) 05:27, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

You don't seem to understand. Laws of physics are the same everywhere but the same laws give different results even when the measurements are slightly different. Unless you can prove that the J-20 copied the exact design of the F-35(the patent files do not have exact measurements since it will very highly likely be a military secret) A slight modification to the measurements can give rather different results and specs. For example, a more slender or wide measurement can result in a totally different intake mach number and throw everything off the table. —Preceding signed comment added by MythSearcher^talk 05:45, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Can we at least add in the Mach 1.6 cruise speed that's been suggested by a few sources? Hcobb (talk) 07:19, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

If a reliable source says something about the speed of the J-20, then of course we can include it. What we can't do, however, is take one source that says the J-20 has similar/identical features to aircraft X, a second source that says aircraft X has a maximum speed of Y, and combine these to state that the J-20 therefore has a maximum speed of Y. mgiganteus1 (talk) 08:52, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Should we add this? Since it is of a very similar looking plane but not the same one, it merits discussion. Until then, I am putting a drawing of the J-20 up in the article. This PAK-FA drawing is probably good enough for a general Wikipedia audience.

I posted the link to the diagram of the J-20 from paralay... If anything we should use that one -Nem1yan (talk) 03:50, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

I'll upload a similar diagram of the J-20.--  Novus  Orator  06:11, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

From what official source? Hcobb (talk) 15:56, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Paralay is pretty official, their diagrams have been extremely accurate so far and we use them on the Russian aircraft that are still in development. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nem1yan (talk • contribs) 18:30, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

What's the link for their J-20 diagram? You said you posted it, but I can't find it.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 08:39, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

A diagram certainly wouldn't hurt. Whenever your ready Novus.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 08:37, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Got one off of paralay, here is the link, and I will be uploading it.--  Novus  Orator  06:06, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

The view of the Wikipedia administration is clear. Just because people can't find a free image on the internet doesn't mean that a free image cannot be found. Accordingly I have removed the image as it's inevitable the latest one will also be deleted.

See decisions here and here. John Smith's (talk) 10:09, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/01/23/AR2011012302265.html The Jan. 11 flight was held at an airfield in Chengdu, where prosecutors say Gowadia delivered an oral presentation on classified stealth technology in 2003.

Apparently the lecture made no impact because the J-20 is NOT using a Gowadia nozzle. Hcobb (talk) 22:42, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Since when have we used an aircraft's maximum take-off weight to calculate this ratio? Not having information on the aircraft's loaded weight doesnt mean one can start plugging in numbers wherever he/she sees fit. And the current thrust to weight ratio is calculated at a weight that is higher than MAXIMUM weight. The plane can't even get off the ground at that weight... really people? -Nem1yan (talk) 03:51, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Feel free to change it. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 03:52, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Can we exclude Koop and Goon from all pages then please? Hcobb (talk) 22:33, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

A lot of the numbers here are mighty squishy, but the general consensus reality is that this is not just a supersonic capable design, but a true supercruiser with a cruise speed around Mach 1.5. I can toss in additional refs if you really want. This all assumes working engines and paint that don't peel off, etc. Hcobb (talk) 00:25, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

You're a bit all over the place here ... you suggest earlier that the convention is to include one paragraph of information of theirs and now to remove them? Also, it seems you might be right on the espionage thing ... if that was you that mentioned it. http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2011/01/26/3121944.htm?section=justin --Senor Freebie (talk) 02:13, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

He was kiddin'...FWiW LOL Bzuk (talk) 02:17, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Can we combine all this into one section?

• F-35 program cyber break ins.
• F-117 crash site.
• B-2 engineer provides IR cloaking.

Anything else? Hcobb (talk) 02:45, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

The IR cloak was only one issue, the most prominent covered by the news article. What I think is more significant, at the risk of introducing POV is that there has been a general campaign to 'cut corners' by espionage means. No doubt we won't find out the full extent to which it helped for a long time but the specifics aren't as important as the fact that a campaign exists.--Senor Freebie (talk) 11:36, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

The design philosophy behind the F-117A's stealth is different from what we're seeing from modern stealth fighters and bombers. Also, even the Pentagon has doubts about the F-117's influence on the J-20's design ( http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/26/world/asia/26stealth.html ). I'd wager that the B-2 sellout had a greater influence in the J-20's design than the F-35 hack. Put it this way, the J-20 is currently developed by Chengdu, which also made the J-10, which has DSI inlets. Planform seems to be very reminiscent of MiG 1.42 program. (Psychoneko (talk) 04:36, 28 January 2011 (UTC))

All of this uproar in the American defense community reminds me of the

Funny, because when I first saw this aircraft I thought it looked a lot like a Mig-25 from the front. -Nem1yan (talk) 19:14, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Has any citeable source commented on the supposed similarities between this design and Mig's Project 1.42/4? That aircraft was in a sense the next evolution of the Mig-25/31. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Senor Freebie (talk • contribs) 03:46, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Bill Sweetman on his blog on Aviation Week mentioned something to that effect. (Psychoneko (talk) 04:28, 28 January 2011 (UTC))

One of the news threads is that the American bombing of the Chinese embassy somehow lead to the J-20. Strong enough to include?

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/China/MA29Ad01.html Amazingly, of the 900 target packages executed during the Kosovo war, it transpired that the "mistaken bombing" was the only mission developed by the CIA.

Hcobb (talk) 16:33, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Unlikely. The embassy bombing transpired because the target building (Hotel Yugoslavia) was some 500 meters away from the Chinese embassy itself and both buildings were bombed because they couldn't figure out which one was which. ( http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2000/apr/10/balkans ). Also, the Chinese Embassy Bombing article already covered this. As I see it, the F-117 is an evolutionary dead end and both the Pentagon and Bill Sweetman seem to agree on that as well. (Psychoneko (talk) 04:32, 1 February 2011 (UTC))

What is this website, and why was it used for so many citations? It is clearly a private endeavour and poorly designed. It doesn't look reliable in the slightest to me and shouldn't be used as a source. John Smith's (talk) 23:30, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Yep, it just looks like a guy's personal webpage to me too. We're actually using this as a ref in the infobox - that's not good. Can someone replace it with something that we know qualifies as a reliable source?--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 07:30, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

I've weeded out a couple instances where the ref was just piggy-backing on things that were already cited with reliable sources. What remains is kinda interesting - it's the only ref used in the "Avionics", "Cockpit", and "Armament" sections. Those are pretty key systems! I've tagged those three sections with

template:refimprove. If reliable sources can't be found to verify the claims made in these sections sometime in the near future, then we definitely need to start removing that stuff.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk

) 08:17, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Huitong's site is a most reliable source for dealing with Chinese aviation. Though it is not a professional site, it is closely watched by aviation journalists and is content has credibility. I do agree that the sections would be better if we had additional sources. But most certainly the info should not be removed but supplemented. Amraamny (talk) 18:54, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

I posted this earlier in the discussion:

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)

If it's one of the "most authoritative English language Chinese aviation sources out there" then it should be mentioned in more than someone's blog, right? I'm not saying it isn't regarded as authoritative, just that I haven't really seen much evidence to show it is. This is a pretty high-profile article, so it's up to us to strive for the best sources available.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 05:50, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

http://www.rfa.org/english/east-asia-beat/military-01132011020529.html Some analysts believe Chinese Vice President Xi Jinping, Hu’s heir apparent who recently joined the military commission, coordinated the test flight, which clearly showed that China's military is catching up faster than expected.

Getting a bit third handed at this point. Have we covered this enough? Hcobb (talk) 06:20, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

This seems like complete speculation. Is there any concrete link between the two? For example, has China sought specific components form the EU to arm its J-20? I believe this should be removed until a link can be proven.

Quote by Mr Naik again seems to be quote sensationalistically by Indian media. What is his grounds for that statment. Especially the bold one that no Chinese R&D was involved. A laughable statement indeed. I was unable to find any corroborating source from other Indian media. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.69.61.92 (talk) 18:39, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Both statements are adequately supported by verifiable sources. That is all that is required in order to allow for their use. FWiW, there are numerous other references to "reverse engineering" being applied to the J-20. Bzuk (talk) 19:52, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

I find the notability of Mr Naik to be due to his position. There is a difference between being an uninformed man on the street and being an uninformed air chief of a large neighboring country. Let me look up some more on the EU, but the source I got that from talked about both EU tech help and the J-20. Showing a link between the two concepts might require another source. Hcobb (talk) 01:49, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

You don't need to go any further, just because an anon questions something based on his/her vast knowledge, with damming commentary such as "seems like, seems to be", does not make this a contentious issue. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 14:22, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

While this is all amusing and whatnot, reverse-engineered from what? An F-22A Raptor? Thus far, none of the Raptors have been lost to any hostile action. To reverse-engineer something, wouldn't you need to have the item in question physically available to you? (Psychoneko (talk) 12:02, 14 February 2011 (UTC))

With the recent news of cyber-espionage... no, you do not have to have something physically present to copy it. -Nem1yan (talk) 13:29, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Right, but the fuselage's design is pretty much based on the Raptor and not the JSF (the JSF being the one in the news regarding cyber-espionage). I'm still not convinced that you can reverse-engineer a Raptor from a design that has made compromises upon compromises only to end up with the STOVL variant being the baseline design (aka JSF). (Psychoneko (talk) 00:17, 15 February 2011 (UTC))

If there was a security breach and information was taken I dont think it is wise to limit the amount of information taken to a particular aircraft, especially since the sources dont say the JSF was the only intended target. And while the J-20 maybe be the product of stolen information it isnt simply a reverse engineered F-22 as you seem to be suggesting. The design has far more in common with late-soviet Migs than it does with an F-22. While the front may look similar to an F-22 this isnt the same scenario as the J-11B or J-15. -Nem1yan (talk) 13:15, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

The thing of it is that the primary target of the recent cyber-espionage antics has always been the F-22. The side effect is that the F-35 got hit instead. Also, yes, the J-20's planform is more akin to the MiG 1.42 design than anything else. (Psychoneko (talk) 15:17, 15 February 2011 (UTC))

It's a F-35 with a bigger nose. It has the F-35 DSI, and the F-35 swept back tails. It just doesn't have the F-22's diamond shaped front. Hcobb (talk) 14:09, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Not so sure about the diamond shaped front aspect since both the F-22 and the F-35 are shaped similarly. Regarding the DSI, the inlets are shaped similarly to the Raptor rather than the F-35. I'm not even sure where they got the movable tail-fins idea from nor how they plan to use it. Anyone have any idea on the range of motions that those tail-fins can move? Also, is it even a good idea to quote Fox News? I'm of the impression that Fox News is thoroughly unreliable as a news group. (Psychoneko (talk) 15:29, 15 February 2011 (UTC))

http://www.militarytimes.com/news/2011/02/air-force-deptula-calls-j20-a-wake-up-call-021311w/ Aboulafia shares Thompson’s view that the Chinese lack the systems integration skills and the technology for a true fifth-generation fighter. In particular, he said, the Chinese have difficulties developing engines. One of the J-20 prototypes is reportedly powered by the Shenyang Liming WS-10 engine, which has suffered catastrophic failures in flight; the other by the Russian AL-31 engine from the Sukhoi Su-27, he said.

So do I put Aboulafia's exploding engines comment with his canards comment or move it to the engines section (which doesn't exist on its own yet)? Hcobb (talk) 16:11, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Don't know if it matters but apparently, the prototype that flew was powered by the WS-10 engines. The AL-31F engines have black nozzles whereas the the WS-10 engines have white nozzles. (Psychoneko (talk) 03:31, 21 February 2011 (UTC))

"However, Sivkov warned, China could surpass Russia whose defense industrial sector still relies on Soviet models (Interfax-AVN, January 17). However, Sivkov has no direct access to intelligence on the J-20 and his opinion is by no means a majority one." Taken from here.

1. The person making the statement has no verifiable evidence from which his statement is based.

2. The source from which the statement is taken explains that his opinion is not based in evidence and is not an opinion that is shared by the majority of experts.

3. The statement made in the wiki article compares the J-20 to the PAK FA even though Sivkov is comparing the J-20 to "Soviet models" which does not include the PAK FA.

Like I said before, the statement is biased and taken out of context. -Nem1yan (talk) 18:33, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

The article in question notes that Konstantin Sivkov is the Vice-President of the Academy for Geopolitical Issues, and a former General Staff officer. His opinion, even if it is a solitary one, is based on his background and expertise in current military aviation technology. There is no outside expert that has had first-hand knowledge or access to the J-20 or its design staff. His opinion should be judged as that of an expert and based on the only available data. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 18:55, 21 February 2011 (UTC).

Even so, the statement in question compared the J-20 to the PAK FA, even though the source makes no such comparison and only makes a comparison to "soviet models". If you feel that Sivkov's statement contributes to the article then it shouldnt be taken out of context. I'm sure it wont be the least bit controversial to say that the J-20 surpasses Soviet Russian models. (Well it might be, considering China is purchasing Soviet-Era engines from Russia) -Nem1yan (talk) 19:12, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Sivkov makes a valid analysis on the state of Chinese technology, and the concerns that the US needs to be alarmed at the state-of-progress of military projects. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 20:42, 21 February 2011 (UTC).

http://www.bangkokpost.com/learning/learning-from-news/223475/new-era-for-air-force-with-modern-jets

In the big graphic box note the following two items.

A: J-20 listed as (5)

and

B: In the lower right hand corner: "Note: Ranked by Royal Thai Air Force"

Hcobb (talk) 19:50, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

• <un-lurk>Just my 2 cents: 1.) BKK post might have carried the story but they didn't credit the ranking to anyone except than to RTAF, not something verifiable IMO; 2.) the box was done amateurishly (as do most other newspaper's graphic team), noticed how they had mistakenly put up the photo of a Chengdu J-10 for Dassault Rafale's entry on the seventh spot; 3.) the author is Jon Fernquest (position: Assistant Manager Educational services), not known to be very accurate when it comes to being a defense correspondent. Out. <re-lurk> --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 20:08, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

So do we have a second on globally deleting the Bangkok Post from Wikistan, esp. as concerns the Thai armed forces? Hcobb (talk) 21:12, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

• Be sarcastic for all you want but note that the writer for that article is just an Asst Mgr Edu Svc, nowhere does it says that he is an actual reporter or a defense correspondent (and I don't suppose how you could have missed out on the J-10 image blunder, eh?). Also, there is no offical statement from RTAF to confirm the authenticity of his report. Let's quit adding that in until more references can be found to back it up, shall we? --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 21:26, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Sure Dave, just name a bigger newspaper based in Thailand which would be a more reliable source on statements from the Thai government. Hcobb (talk) 22:46, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

• How about the mouthpiece — "The Bangkok Hcobb Tribunals"? *shrugs* --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 03:08, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Sent to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard and found no objections there to the Post. Hcobb (talk) 20:16, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

LBT has decided that everything we "know" about the J-20 is wrong and since he did such a great job of judging which way the KC-X contract would go, it's time to rewrite the stat block.

http://www.lexingtoninstitute.org/new-details-on-chinas-j-20-fighter-provide-more-nuanced-view-of-threat?a=1&c=1171

• 62 feet long
• wingspan looks to be about 41 feet
• wing area of roughly 630 square feet
• top speed is judged to be below Mach 2
• steady-state thrust ... 29,000 lbs
• maximum thrust of 60,000 lbs
• The J-20 does not have the supercruise feature
• carries about 25 percent less fuel internally than the F-22 (18000 pounds times 0.75 = 13500 pounds. Range would also be reduced to say 300 nmi.)
• experts do not believe Chinese designers will be able to produce an airframe that comes close to matching the maneuverability, survivability, lethality or situational awareness of an F-22 or F-35.

So unless something else pops up I'll do the rewrite of the article. Hcobb (talk) 13:19, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Looks pretty legit to me, i'll try to find more stories that match this one though. -Nem1yan (talk) 22:22, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I've gone through the blogs and photos and my measurements are 66 feet long (raked back tails add in to this) and 40 foot wingspan. Hcobb (talk) 14:31, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

That would be original research. Seriously this is an encyclopedia. Spekulation should only be inlcluded if that is all you got and it should be clearly noted as such. Until we have official figures and facts on the aircraft will EVERYTHING be spekulation by, mostly, western sources. My advice is, for the specification section, to include the numbers at both ends. For example length would be "Between 62-70 feet". Either that or keep from having a section for specification until more is known, that is not speculation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikinegern (talk • contribs) 21:40, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

At this point everything is speculation, and in that case the most recent analysis has the highest chance of being correct. China is still refusing to even acknowledge the jet so it is unlikely we are going to get any information from there anytime soon. (Also sources from China show a pattern of being biased). And the specification section is clearly labeled as preliminary estimates. -Nem1yan (talk) 04:09, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

And we have a second:

http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htairfo/articles/20110306.aspx In other words, it's about 20 meters (62 feet) long, with a wing span of 13.3 meters (42 feet). J-20 has about the same wing area as the F-15C,

So time to change it. Hcobb (talk) 14:34, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Hey Hcobb, have you looked up on the guy who wrote the Lexington Institute article? Dr. Thompson doesn't seem to be a respectable source to be quoting. http://www.ufppc.org/us-a-world-news-mainmenu-35/9670-document-background-a-commentary-the-lexington-institute.html . There's also the issue that Dr. Thompson's specialization is in governance and political science, not engineering. (Psychoneko (talk) 03:56, 9 March 2011 (UTC))

There's also this article that people should consider: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1210/46155.html#ixzz18DK1yuCj (Psychoneko (talk) 04:03, 9 March 2011 (UTC))

Which is why I checked the photos myself. Hcobb (talk) 04:14, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Including these photos?

http://i56.tinypic.com/29c98vl.jpg http://i54.tinypic.com/2qlsr68.jpg (Psychoneko (talk) 04:25, 9 March 2011 (UTC))

The point is to compare the J-20 against things that have been placed next to other things of known lengths. For example that truck has also been parked in front of J-10s. Hcobb (talk) 15:21, 9 March 2011 (UTC)