J-20 5th Gen Fighter Thread VI

[Brumby]

Finally I get to reply to this post given all the other distractions.

That is exactly what I am saying.
PLA watching is very much about knowing who knows better and who does not. And then there are also people that are not able to identify who does know better and people that aren't able to identify who knows better and who doesn't know better.

If those you consider that knows better cannot provide you with any information beyond rumours that is what you have. I am not saying that is necessarily a bad thing but is just what you have to work with. In the case of the J-20 and the AESA radar, the net outcome so far is a claim based on rumours.

The burden of proof depends on the preceding understanding of assumptions and existing consensus base of knowledge.

The suggestion that J-20 does not have an AESA at this stage or that there is no in service production fighter AESA in the PLA is like suggesting 055 or 052D doesn't have AESAs or that they don't use gas turbines. In these situations the claim being put forward is the one that challenges the known and accepted body of understanding, and suitably credible sources would be needed to back up such major claims.

This is a thread on J-20 and so let's stay on topic. If you wish to talk about the radar features on the 055 or 052D we can at some stage migrate to that thread but in the interim we should stay on topic as the nature of the conversation is specific. .

 

[Blitzo]

Finally I get to reply to this post given all the other distractions.


If those you consider that knows better cannot provide you with any information beyond rumours that is what you have. I am not saying that is necessarily a bad thing but is just what you have to work with. In the case of the J-20 and the AESA radar, the net outcome so far is a claim based on rumours.

The tone with which you are writing makes me feel like you do not appreciate the gravity of "rumours" for PLA watching and the track record that that they have demonstrated over the last decade or more for a variety of projects.

Let me put this in clear black and white:
Rumours from individuals on the Chinese language forums with a demonstrated track record for predicting new developments are one of the best domains of knowledge for PLA developments.


If you are unable to identify who is credible and who is not, that is fine, no one begrudges you for that, you can simply defer to others who are able to identify who is credible and who is not. Over time you will probably develop the ability to track the individuals who are credible and who are not.

This is a thread on J-20 and so let's stay on topic. If you wish to talk about the radar features on the 055 or 052D we can at some stage migrate to that thread but in the interim we should stay on topic as the nature of the conversation is specific. .

No I do not wish to talk about the radar features of 055 or 052D. The reason I bring them up is to illustrate a known and virtually confirmed base of understanding that is equivalent to J-20 using AESAs.


In other words, at this stage no one should be able to reasonably dispute that 055 and 052D uses AESAs and gas turbines. Just as no one should be able to reasonably dispute that J-20 doesn't field an AESA.

The silliness is in the nature of the rebuttal. This is a thread on the J-20 and the subject matter is on whether an AESA radar has been fielded in the J-20. It is a subject of considerable interest and warrant a serious discussion. If the rebuttal attempt is to detract into a conversation of what about the APG-77, it merely projects an inability to articulate a sensible reply beyond degenerating into silliness.

The very fact that you asked the question and the basis of which you are asking it, is considered silly by more than a couple people here.

So, an equally silly question was asked in response to illustrate the way your question has been perceived here.


Over the course of the last few pages myself and others have explained the basis of why it is accepted that J-20 has an AESA radar. You are not new to PLA watching but clearly you have not absorbed the way in which PLA watching occurs and the methods that are used and the sources that are considered credible.
That is fine, you do not have to accept it, but coming here and then ignoring the answers that have been provided and continuing to ask a question which you consider to be "reasonable" and which many others here consider to be "silly"

 

[latenlazy]

Finally I get to reply to this post given all the other distractions.


If those you consider that knows better cannot provide you with any information beyond rumours that is what you have. I am not saying that is necessarily a bad thing but is just what you have to work with. In the case of the J-20 and the AESA radar, the net outcome so far is a claim based on rumours.

Not rumors. Official statements, visual evidence, and information leaks. If you are ruling hearsay as out of line you might as well discard 90% of all knowledge about any military tech from any country that isn’t giving you blueprints for the technology.

Is the F-22 stealthy? Show me the officially verified RCS diagrams or I won’t believe it! Oh you have a diagram? How do I know it wasn’t doctored? (This isn’t what I actually think. Just illustrating what kinds of arguments the standard of proof being used here would validate).

This is a thread on J-20 and so let's stay on topic. If you wish to talk about the radar features on the 055 or 052D we can at some stage migrate to that thread but in the interim we should stay on topic as the nature of the conversation is specific. .

You are asking about whether the J-20 has an AESA. It is not outside the scope of discussion to point to China having the technology as evidence that it is fielding it in other platforms.

 

[Blitzo]

You are asking about whether the J-20 has an AESA. It is not outside the scope of discussion to point to China having the technology as evidence that it is fielding it in other platforms.

Just for the record, the reason I bring up 055 and 052D and AESA and gas turbines is to demonstrate a case where the question is equally silly. It wasn't to talk about Chinese mastery of AESA.


For my intent and purpose, I could have just as easily asked "is water wet?" or something that someone else asked before "is the pope catholic?".

 

[latenlazy]

Just for the record, the reason I bring up 055 and 052D and AESA and gas turbines is to demonstrate a case where the question is equally silly. It wasn't to talk about Chinese mastery of AESA.


For my intent and purpose, I could have just as easily asked "is water wet?" or something that someone else asked before "is the pope catholic?".

I know. I just wanted to establish that I don’t think it’s invalid to point out the possession of a technology in one domain as evidence for the plausibility that it used employed in another. It’s not a strong argument, but it is not invalid to the scope of discussion.

 

[Brumby]

In very brief, given that you’re asking people to compile a decade of evidence buried across thousands of pages of content archived in SDF and CDF...

1) We know having an AESA was in the original design requirements for the J-20. Since the J-20 has entered production PLAAF officials are said to be very satisfied with the J-20 and that it has met or exceeded all performance requirements.

2) We know AESAs were to be first tested and fielded in the J-10B and, given apparent delays, subsequently the J-10C. We have visual evidence of the J-10B during testing phase mounted with some kind of ESA, which was also described and visually identified in a study. The J-10B then went into production, We have further visual evidence of a J-10B/C mounted with a different ESA which clearly looked like an AESA, with sources describing the J-10B’s AESA as being delayed, leading it to use a PESA, but that an AESA would be mounted on a J-10C. Around the same time, we got visual confirmation of the J-10C, with visually identified production planes soon after. The J-10B/C were said to have acted as a testbed for some of the avionics for the J-20.

3) We know that the J-16 was also to field its own AESA with dedicated surface scanning functions, and according to leakers and big shrimps production of the J-16 was delayed after the PLAAF found the performance of the AESA mounted on the J-16 to be unsatisfactory. The J-16 ended up being mounted with a different AESA (if I recall correctly the first AESA was from the 607th institute and the second AESA ended up being sourced from the 14th institute). It is now in production. One big shrimp has on at least two occasions drawn comparisons between the J-16’s AESA and the Su-35’s PESA.

4) We have some early leaked images of what was alleged to be J-20’s radar array that clearly indicate the array will be composed of module elements. The J-20 is now in production.

5) Several at least semi-official sources mention the J-20, J-10C and J-16 all mount AESAs

6) We have some reporting (hard to verify) on the J-20, J-10C, and J-16 conducting exercises where there was explicit mention of how the PLAAF found that the J-10C and J-16’s AESAs were essential to apprehending stealthy adversaries, and that non AESA mounted fighters didn’t have a hope of a chance.

This is the case. Other people have already made similar cases to this, and it’s a bit absurd that you would just ignore them while demanding that a case be made for you, but in case the case wasn’t clear enough, there it is.

Thanks. I appreciate the effort in pulling together a summary. Based on your description of events, it is consistent with what would be expected in a testing and evaluation phase of the program and that the program seems to be well progressed to final form. Whether the program has advanced into series production is difficult to establish short of an official statement. I think you have made a reasonable case in support of your position.

Btw if you have available, I am interested in the comparison details.

One big shrimp has on at least two occasions drawn comparisons between the J-16’s AESA and the Su-35’s PESA.

 

[Blitzo]

Btw if you have available, I am interested in the comparison details.

It was from an insider called yankeesama.

A translation was provided on reddit (incorrectly titled as a PLAAF officer interview), here:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

The comments also provide additional translations of other parts of yankee's post:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

 

[latenlazy]

Thanks. I appreciate the effort in pulling together a summary. Based on your description of events, it is consistent with what would be expected in a testing and evaluation phase of the program and that the program seems to be well progressed to final form. Whether the program has advanced into series production is difficult to establish short of an official statement. I think you have made a reasonable case in support of your position.

A radar is not in testing and evaluation anymore if it has been in production with planes in the number of 200-300 units. That is serialized production.

Btw if you have available, I am interested in the comparison details.

It’s in the Su-35 thread. I linked to the specific posts earlier in this discussion.

 

[Brumby]

I know. I just wanted to establish that I don’t think it’s invalid to point out the possession of a technology in one domain as evidence for the plausibility that it used employed in another. It’s not a strong argument, but it is not invalid to the scope of discussion.

Actually that is considered making a strawman argument. AESA development on a fighter plane is difficult because of weight, space and cooling issues. Installing it on a ship is entirely different to that on a plane. Just ask the Russians.

 

[latenlazy]

Actually that is considered making a strawman argument. AESA development on a fighter plane is difficult because of weight, space and cooling issues. Installing it on a ship is entirely different to that on a plane. Just ask the Russians.

Like I said, by itself it’s a weak argument, but you weren’t making a point about the strength of such an argument. Rather you were trying to argue whether it fell within the scope of discussion. I’m just saying I think it’s within scope.