J-20 5th Gen Fighter Thread VI

[latenlazy]

The report was a debunking as such it depended on details to prove 1) the where. And when.
2) the what.

Doodles don't have solid details other than whatever the artist chooses or has chosen to include. That may result in details or it could be chasing tail.
The Article was a debunking. IE proving it's a fake. Yet it's. Getting attack for taking lengths to cover bases.

Just going by the history of this particular source, I would say the drawings of a prototype J-20 mounted with a stealth optimized WS-10 with the right prototype number, right color, and right engine nozzle shape counts as solid details. As would drawings of the J-10 TVC testbed with the correct shape and form of the TVC nozzles. In the most recent image there were enough details to identify the engines in the picture as AL-31s. Whatever the artist has chosen to include so far, insofar as the most obvious and relevant details of his drawings, has matched up quite accurately to reality. When said cartoonist’s information leads us astray we will reassess the quality of the source. So far that has not happened.

To quote the conclusion of the article,
“There is a small chance this is a remarkable “scoop” of a story, but a much larger chance something else is going on in this photo or with claims of its origin. In any event, this is one of the most bizarre and interesting aviation stories we’ve seen in some time.”

This does not read like a debunking. Rather it reads like an attempt to milk a mystery narrative.

 

[jobjed]

The report was a debunking as such it depended on details to prove 1) the where. And when.
2) the what.
Doodles don't have solid details other than whatever the artist chooses or has chosen to include. That may result in details or it could be chasing tail.
The Article was a debunking. IE proving it's a fake. Yet it's. Getting attack for taking lengths to cover bases.

The article wasted too many words. This is the way it should have been written:

"A low quality mockup of the Chinese J-20 was spotted at a US airbase. It's unclear why it was constructed but it's likely a training aid of some sort."

The effort put into the creation and interpretation of digital media of the latest PLA developments are much more warranted than the waste of oxygen that was the aviationist article. For one, the people who created them actually have important information they want to sneak past censors unlike the aviationist author whose only apparent skill is using fifty words instead of the required five.

 

[TerraN_EmpirE]

David Cenciotti is the owner of the Aviationist, he has been a aviation writer for over two decades now, was one of the first to point out that the chopper tail in Islamabad was not a stock MH60.
He's being very careful.

 

[Blitzo]

[QUOTE="TerraN_EmpirE, post: 534980, member:
I don't put a lot of faith in the grapevine.
Because 1) it's easily manipulated.
2) by this point if the powers that be don't know about it they have to be complete idiots.
[/QUOTE]


Well I think you are wrong. The grapevine has been shown repeatedly to be a reliable source of information when analyzed correctly.

Just because you are unable to tell good information from bad doesn't mean others cannot. Maybe it would be worthwhile deferring to others in that case.

 

[Blitzo]

David Cenciotti is the owner of the Aviationist, he has been a aviation writer for over two decades now, was one of the first to point out that the chopper tail in Islamabad was not a stock MH60.
He's being very careful.

Nah, I think he just hasnt been following J-20 or keeping tabs on what J-20 looks like.

A quick glance from most PLA watchers worth their salt would've been able to easily ID that the aircraft was just a poorly made model.

I'm familiar with the work from the Aviationist, and their pieces on US and European military aviation tend to be far less problematic, with less mistakes, than those about Chinese or russian aviation.

 

[TerraN_EmpirE]

Well I think you are wrong. The grapevine has been shown repeatedly to be a reliable source of information when analyzed correctly.

Just because you are unable to tell good information from bad doesn't mean others cannot. Maybe it would be worthwhile deferring to others in that case.

And I do, but I feel justified in placing as much faith in the direction of poetry about J20 as I do Nostradomus. And the readings of entrails. Give me solid evidence and I am happy.

Nah, I think he just hasnt been following J-20 or keeping tabs on what J-20 looks like.

A quick glance from most PLA watchers worth their salt would've been able to easily ID that the aircraft was just a poorly made model.

I'm familiar with the work from the Aviationist, and their pieces on US and European military aviation tend to be far less problematic, with less mistakes, than those about Chinese or russian aviation.

Everyone has their weak points.
He wanted to 1 make Sure it was where it claimed to be. How many pictures of the B2 have been claimed to be H20 or E2 to be a carrier AEW? Based on a photo out of context or intentionally fuzzy.
Second he called an expert Andreas Rupprecht.
He did due diligence. When the location checked he checked the machine on the one in a billion chance

 

[latenlazy]

David Cenciotti is the owner of the Aviationist, he has been a aviation writer for over two decades now, was one of the first to point out that the chopper tail in Islamabad was not a stock MH60.
He's being very careful.

A bad article is a bad article, no matter who the writer is. The criticism doesn’t have to extend to an attack on the integrity of the writer, and just speaking for myself I see no reason why it should in this case, but that doesn’t change the quality or nature of the content.

 

[latenlazy]

And I do, but I feel justified in placing as much faith in the direction of poetry about J20 as I do Nostradomus. And the readings of entrails. Give me solid evidence and I am happy.

The solid evidence is there. You’re just refusing to acknowledge it.

 

[Blitzo]

And I do, but I feel justified in placing as much faith in the direction of poetry about J20 as I do Nostradomus. And the readings of entrails. Give me solid evidence and I am happy.

You were around in the mid to late 2000s when rumours about J-XX were abound and when they were analyzed to give us clues about what J-20 would look like. Those ended up being true. Same goes for Y-20, for 055, 002 carrier, and every other big ticket project from the PLA.

Those all came from the grapevine.

You've been here longer than I have. I am legitimately astounded if you still do not believe in the fundamental methods that underlies PLA watching.

Everyone has their weak points.
He wanted to 1 make Sure it was where it claimed to be. How many pictures of the B2 have been claimed to be H20 or E2 to be a carrier AEW? Based on a photo out of context or intentionally fuzzy.
Second he called an expert Andreas Rupprecht.
He did due diligence. When the location checked he checked the machine on the one in a billion chance

My point is that the article gave needless credence to the possibility that the aircraft was even real. I think that is a very legitimate criticism.

 

[Klon]

Can a moderator move (or delete) the last three pages of off-topic comments? Thanks.