J-20 5th Gen Fighter Thread V

[Blitzo]

For all we know it could just be a magazine or newspaper clipping next to a model at a store or mall.

Yes, obviously the location where the photo was taken is important.

I'm willing to give the OP the benefit of doubt, for the purposes of discussion, which is that I think even if it were taken at CAIC, it probably is not directly reflective of any actual carrier variant J-20 R&D that we know likely has occurred.

 

[Equation]

For all we know it could just be a magazine or newspaper clipping next to a model at a store or mall.

Or at a display at CAIC conference meeting.

 

[Totoro]

Idea: High politics should really force a decision upon SAC and CAC to open a second j-20 manufacture line at SAC. And spend money that'd otherwise be spent on *some* flanker derivatives, on additional j-20. It's not without precedent, as such move was done before with giving CAC and Guizhou j6 and j7 production at a time when SAC originally did development work on them and had the original production lines.

I accentuated *some flankers* because maybe not all flankers to be would benefit from being turned into j-20. But ones made for air superiority or even deep ground strike missions certainly would. Total cost difference wouldn't even be so hugely different, as even if pricetag of plane itself is 2-3 times more costly, when overall cost of PLAAF is included, from manpower, training, infrastructure, maintenance - the difference would be rather small as plane purchase cose is a drop in the bucket compared to overall costs.

 

[siegecrossbow]

Idea: High politics should really force a decision upon SAC and CAC to open a second j-20 manufacture line at SAC. And spend money that'd otherwise be spent on *some* flanker derivatives, on additional j-20. It's not without precedent, as such move was done before with giving CAC and Guizhou j6 and j7 production at a time when SAC originally did development work on them and had the original production lines.

I accentuated *some flankers* because maybe not all flankers to be would benefit from being turned into j-20. But ones made for air superiority or even deep ground strike missions certainly would. Total cost difference wouldn't even be so hugely different, as even if pricetag of plane itself is 2-3 times more costly, when overall cost of PLAAF is included, from manpower, training, infrastructure, maintenance - the difference would be rather small as plane purchase cose is a drop in the bucket compared to overall costs.

I am pretty sure that 5th gen fighters will be significantly more maintenance heavy. In fact, so much so that the over all maintenance and support cost will overwhelm other advantages. That said, I think that 4th and 4++ gen fighters will satisfy China's needs for a long time. It's unlikely that every country within China's vicinity will magically acquire fifth gen fighters.

 

[kriss]

That 1:48 on the image should clear all the theory of it been a serious carrier born J-20 variant.

 

[taxiya]

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Is this legit? Keep in mind that the photographer took this at CAIC.

I have read the fyjs link. In it there is another photo of J-20 model in the same photo set.

In the background on the glass door, there is texts "中航城市广场", which translates to "CAIC City Plaza". A baidu "pedia"

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

says that it is a CBD building open to be rent. It is developed by CAIC owned property developer.

Another photo shows J-31 naval model

On the right side the plate says "If needed, ???????" I guess, the rest of the texts are "please contact xyz".

My conclusion is that, the photos are not taken inside CAIC, these models are there as advertisement by model making companies (related or not related to CAIC), they do not confirm or deny anything. I am not going to say the existence of naval J-20 project is legitimate or not, but I must say that the location where the picture of the model was taken does not add any legitimacy to support the existence of an ongoing naval J-20 project.

 

[Air Force Brat]

I have read the fyjs link. In it there is another photo of J-20 model in the same photo set.

In the background on the glass door, there is texts "中航城市广场", which translates to "CAIC City Plaza". A baidu "pedia"

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

says that it is a CBD building open to be rent. It is developed by CAIC owned property developer.

Another photo shows J-31 naval model

On the right side the plate says "If needed, ???????" I guess, the rest of the texts are "please contact xyz".

My conclusion is that, the photos are not taken inside CAIC, these models are there as advertisement by model making companies (related or not related to CAIC), they do not confirm or deny anything. I am not going to say the existence of naval J-20 project is legitimate or not, but I must say that the location where the picture of the model was taken does not add any legitimacy to support the existence of an ongoing naval J-20 project.

Exactly, there is very likely NO ongoing carrier conversion of the J-20, just a model makers flight of fancy at present. Now I'm not ruling it out in the future, but as of now, there is no reason to believe CAC would dilute their ongoing J-20 project with more problems/engineering challenges, that's not the way world class aerospace projects reach completion.

 

[Quickie]

Exactly, there is very likely NO ongoing carrier conversion of the J-20, just a model makers flight of fancy at present. Now I'm not ruling it out in the future, but as of now, there is no reason to believe CAC would dilute their ongoing J-20 project with more problems/engineering challenges, that's not the way world class aerospace projects reach completion.

According to the information panel in the display, the aircraft is a variant of the J-20 with quite different dimensions, i.e a shorter length, relatively bigger wing area and, on the whole, smaller in size than the J-20. If there's such a project, it would be entirely separate from that of the J-20.

Come to think of it, this reminds me of the satellite picture of a supposedly new prototype closely resembling the J-20 just weeks ago.

 

[Air Force Brat]

According to the information panel in the display, the aircraft is a variant of the J-20 with quite different dimensions, i.e a shorter length, relatively bigger wing area and, on the whole, smaller in size than the J-20. If there's such a project, it would be entirely separate from that of the J-20.

Come to think of it, this reminds me of the satellite picture of a supposedly new prototype closely resembling the J-20 just weeks ago.

I've always said you are a very bright lad quickie, and we differ on very few things. What you are suggesting is entirely plausible, and as I was posting the above, I'm actually thinking??? hummmhhh Mr. Brat??? isn't that exactly what LockMart has done with the F-35 A's, B's, and C's?????? well yeah! you are indeed right!

 

[delft]

I've always said you are a very bright lad quickie, and we differ on very few things. What you are suggesting is entirely plausible, and as I was posting the above, I'm actually thinking??? hummmhhh Mr. Brat??? isn't that exactly what LockMart has done with the F-35 A's, B's, and C's?????? well yeah! you are indeed right!

That should mean you are wrong and not plausible. The conflation of the several strike fighter requirements has led to an increase in the development time and the aircraft resulting are compromised by requirements that are foreign to their own needs. It is much better to take all experience won and start a new project for the aircraft with different requirements. That is especially valuable for China that has no previous experience with developing a low observable aircraft.