J-20 5th Gen Fighter Thread VI

[Deino]

FYI, I'm not continuing this petty discussion here. Let's wait and see what happens; i.e, if you look at Popperian falsifiability, both your hypothesis and mine are falsifiable. If the J-20 starts flying the WS-15 in the next 3 years, on the level of testing, your interpretation is wrong. If it doesn't, I'm wrong. Wait and see.

Then please do us that promised favour and stop this discussion.

IMO it is more than amazing how and even questionable how vehemently you ignore arguments that have been refuted several times to cling to more than questionable sources, how You try to teach Chinese native speakers, how to translate and interpret Chinese texts, how you mix multiple levels of discussion (reliability of sources, translations, technical details ...) even though they have nothing to do with each other, and above all, how you reverse the chain of evidence ... IMO, it's just plain unobjective.

Therefore, the request to all: are all the arguments on the table ... and now it is enough.

 

[Hendrik_2000]

I don;t know it is Minnie Chan again So here it is, since you are fan of Minnie Chan Now can we settle this never ending discussion She is now contradict herself after bad mouthing J20 for years

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

China ‘nearing mass production’ of J-20 stealth fighter after engine problems ironed out

Improved power train will give Chinese jet ability to fly undetected at supersonic speeds, on par with United States’ F-35

PUBLISHED : Wednesday, 05 September, 2018, 3:01am
UPDATED : Wednesday, 05 September, 2018, 3:25am

The WS-15 engine features cutting-edge single-crystal turbine blades and has been in development for several years, but Chinese technicians have struggled to get it into mass production.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

However, many of the problems – which largely related to blades overheating at top speeds – have been ironed out in ground tests and trial flights, putting the goal of a consistently high quality product in sight, sources told the South China Morning Post.

Beijing is keen to have a stealth aircraft capable of competing with the best in the world as tensions rise in the Asia-Pacific and the United States ramps up deployment of its F-22 and F-35 fighters in the region.

“The WS-15 is expected to be ready for widespread installation in the J-20s by the end of this year,” one of the sources said.

Although some “minor problems” remained, these should be resolved once the engine had been more “extensively run in the aircraft”, the source said.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Beijing-based military expert Zhou Chenming said China expected the US to deploy between 200 and 300 F-35s – its most advanced stealth fighter – in the Asia-Pacific by 2025, which meant “China needs a similar number of J-20s, or at least 200”.

Twelve F-35s arrived at the Kadena Air Base in Japan in November, while South Korea said it planned to take delivery of 40 of the fighters this year.

A second military source said the problems with the WS-15 needed to be resolved before large numbers of the J-20 could be manufactured.

“China currently has about 20 J-20s, which is far from enough,” the source said. “[Having] a home-grown engine is a must for the J-20 to enter mass production, as no other country would be prepared to give China such cutting-edge technology.”

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

The sources’ claims add weight to an April report by state broadcaster China Central Television (CCTV) that said Chengdu Aerospace Corporation, which manufactures the J-20, was set to open a fourth production line for the stealth fighter in 2019.

And just last month, CCTV reported that China’s air force had stepped up its training programme for J-20 pilots.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

The People’s Liberation Army said the J-20 entered combat service on February 9 and had been working alongside other fourth-generation aircraft, such as the J-16 and J-10 fighters, and H-6K strategic bomber. In May it took part in island encirclement drills around Taiwan.

The Post reported in February that the J-20 at that time was fitted with a “stopgap” engine.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

One of the military sources said the public could get its first glimpse of the new stealth fighter, complete with its upgraded engine, at the China International Aviation & Aerospace Exhibition later in the year.

The event, which is held every two years, is set to run from November 5 to 11, in Zhuhai, southern China’s Guangdong province.

 

[plawolf]

Glaring errors in the byline says it all. F35 cannot supercruise, also, even without supercruise, the J20 could still fly undetected at supersonic speeds.

Supercruise is much more about range and fuel economy than stealth. Yes, it will also help with IR stealth, but a good stealth fighter buyer pilot wouldn’t allow an enemy to get within IRST range of itself with or without afterburners to start with.

 

[Blitzo]

I don;t know it is Minnie Chan again So here it is, since you are fan of Minnie Chan Now can we settle this never ending discussion She is now contradict herself after bad mouthing J20 for years

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

China ‘nearing mass production’ of J-20 stealth fighter after engine problems ironed out

“The WS-15 is expected to be ready for widespread installation in the J-20s by the end of this year,” one of the sources said.

Yeah, I'll believe it when I see it

 

[Hendrik_2000]

Yeah, I'll believe it when I see it

Hey I have no problem with that let see if pan out. we will know soon

 

[Blitzo]

Hey I have no problem with that let see if pan out. we will know soon

Considering the nature of the claim and considering it's from Minnie Chan, I have a problem with it.

Just because for once in forever it is a claim that is "good news" about a PLA related project from the SCMP, doesn't mean we should accept it. It must be treated with the same scrutiny that is applied as others. I.e.: the track record of the author, and more importantly whether the claims that are made line up with information that we know.


And at this stage there are no indications that WS-15 is ready for anything near "widespread installation in J-20s"

 

[Hendrik_2000]

Considering the nature of the claim and considering it's from Minnie Chan, I have a problem with it.

Just because for once in forever it is a claim that is "good news" about a PLA related project from the SCMP, doesn't mean we should accept it. It must be treated with the same scrutiny that is applied as others. I.e.: the track record of the author, and more importantly whether the claims that are made line up with information that we know.


And at this stage there are no indications that WS-15 is ready for anything near "widespread installation in J-20s"

I have no opinion on this I say I have no problem with your OPINION. You can interpret whatever you want smart alec.. You are as good as anybody here So don't show off your high horse here. It pissed me off
You with your over analyzed convulsing mumbo jumbo. Send email to Minnie Chan complaining about the article ! or better write an open letter to SCMP

 

[Blitzo]

I have no opinion on this I say I have no problem with your OPINION. You can interpret whatever you want smart alec.. You are as good as anybody here So don't show off your high horse here. It pissed me off
You with your over analyzed convulsing mumbo jumbo

Actually your opinion is that you think the article is making claims that could be entertained.

I'm saying that if we apply the same standards to the article as we do to other articles, that the claims should be considered doubtful at best.
It's fairly simple -- look at the author's track records of their past claims, and consider if their current claims line up with what we know about a given topic from known-reliable sources.

 

[Inst]

Ummm, the idea that certain sources are making completely useless claims is stupid. It's like the fake news nonsense stateside; people believe the sources they want to believe and ignore everything else. It's an excessive dependency on Ethos; like saying because Hitler was a dog-lover, we should all become Korean-style dog torturers.

Minnie Chan is a Hong Kong journalist working for the paper of record in HK. Generally, what I see her shtick as is that she does her research, but because she's attached to the traditional English-speaking Hong Kong establishment, she consults both sources in the West and in China, and from what we can tell, she doesn't have the technical background to properly evaluate her sources, hence claims such as "being undetectable in supersonic like the F-35", when both the F-35 and J-20 become IR-visible at supersonic speeds.

The use of Minnie is the same as say, Wikipedia; you don't cite her directly, but you include her claims in a drawer, after filtering them for whether they make fundamental sense, then cross-check them against other claims from other sources.

I mean, objectively, look at this from an outside perspective. You are choosing to believe internet sources that claim to be official leakers, over established journalists working for major newspapers. If this were any other context (say, Japanese, American, Russian), we would consider you a conspiracy theorist. Or, consider if you were writing a paper for graduate school. Since Minnie Chan is an established journalist and Gongke et al are pseudo-anonymous internet sources, you would be more comfortable citing Minnie Chan than Gongke, and if you were to privilege the latter, you would be obligated, every time you did so, to spend a considerable amount of text explaining why you did so. In our specific context, we might have reasons to accept your valuation of sources, but it is still "weird" and requires prolonged justification.

Regarding this specific article, the claims that require sustained evaluation are, as always, from Chinese sources. For instance:

"Beijing-based military expert Zhou Chenming said China expected the US to deploy between 200 and 300 F-35s – its most advanced stealth fighter – in the Asia-Pacific by 2025, which meant “China needs a similar number of J-20s, or at least 200”."

Who is Zhou Chenming? Is he credible? Do we have him on record making this claim, or is Minnie Chan the sole source for this claim?

Alternately, she's citing unnamed sources (i.e, her own leakers) for claims that the WS-15 will be ready for installation by year-end. These, if possible, should be cross-checked against other sources.

 

[Blitzo]

Ummm, the idea that certain sources are making completely useless claims is stupid. It's like the fake news nonsense stateside; people believe the sources they want to believe and ignore everything else. It's an excessive dependency on Ethos; like saying because Hitler was a dog-lover, we should all become Korean-style dog torturers.

That is a gross exaggeration and misrepresentation of the thought process.

Minnie Chan is a Hong Kong journalist working for the paper of record in HK. Generally, what I see her shtick as is that she does her research, but because she's attached to the traditional English-speaking Hong Kong establishment, she consults both sources in the West and in China, and from what we can tell, she doesn't have the technical background to properly evaluate her sources, hence claims such as "being undetectable in supersonic like the F-35", when both the F-35 and J-20 become IR-visible at supersonic speeds.

The use of Minnie is the same as say, Wikipedia; you don't cite her directly, but you include her claims in a drawer, after filtering them for whether they make fundamental sense, then cross-check them against other claims from other sources.

Which is exactly what was done.
Basically, for any claim that's made (whether it's from SCMP, or strategypage or if it's form a well reputed big shrimp on cjdby or fyjs), go through this simple two step process
Step 1: consider the author and their track record for their past predictions, including their selection of sources (and the track record of said sources)
Step 2: consider the claim itself and whether it jibes with the existing understanding of the topic in question
Then form a conclusion as to how seriously the claim should be taken at the time.

I mean, objectively, look at this from an outside perspective. You are choosing to believe internet sources that claim to be official leakers, over established journalists working for major newspapers. If this were any other context (say, Japanese, American, Russian), we would consider you a conspiracy theorist. In our specific context, we might have reasons to accept your valuation of sources, but it is still "weird" and requires prolonged justification.

Actually, I would say that for PLA watching, it is standard to value the credibility of online leakers and insiders more than traditional news media. If PLA watching or disclosure of PLA information were similar to the way in which US military, JSDF or Russian military information was released then you'd be right.
But it is generally rare for certain domains of PLA related news to be given to us via the standard media means for US/Japanese/Russian/international military developments (except for certain things like export products or if there is a unique project that the PLA signs off to release information).

So it actually requires little to no justification for experienced PLA watchers to value certain types of sources more than others or certain authors more than others. If anything, it is most traditional news media reports on the PLA that require justification more than anything.