It's possible 2053 is just a static test airframe, thus it would never be visible to us.
I would expect for J-20A to have at least one static test airframe among the prototypes, given it is a rather significant new variant.
J-20 5th Gen Fighter Thread VIII
- Thread starter Blitzo
- Start date
It's possible 2053 is just a static test airframe, thus it would never be visible to us.
I would expect for J-20A to have at least one static test airframe among the prototypes, given it is a rather significant new variant.
That's out of question, but my point is we have so far never seen such a huge gap between known prototypes - aka no. 01, 02 and then 05 - and the other programs in mind surely also had a static test specimen.
I don't think we have a very big sample to draw on.
For J-20 200X demonstrators, we had confirmed serials for 2001 and 2002, with 2002 supposedly possibly renumbered as 2004, but we don't know how many actual 200X demonstrators were actually built.
And for the J-20 201X prototypes, we had 2011, 2012, 2013, 2015, 2016, 2017, missing 2014.
And for other CAC aircraft or even SAC aircraft, there is nothing that is all encompassing either.
I don't really think there's any precedent or pattern here that we can argue to have to apply for J-20A.
So if the question is "where are 2053 and 2054" for J-20A, there are a few reasonable plausible explanations (combinations of static test frame/s, or choosing to skip a number, or the airframe existing and having flown but for some reason the serial just didn't have photos released to us) that are all within the scope of reality.
I suppose it's only "strange" if we have any expectations to have an accurate record of new prototypes or airframes but I have long since abandoned such hopes.
or
It usually skips the 4 on prototype numbers but not on successive construction numbers
indeed and we should not forget 2004, but overall even if not a strict rule it seems as if they al least try to avoid it …
There is the chance that younger generation got more superstitious and delibrately use xxx4 for destructive static test, so we will never see them out in the open. I hope not but if it is true I would be seriously worried of the future of China.
Being superstitious about things like the number 4 is more of a fun meme thing than a deathly fear thing for younger Chinese.
Just ridiculous. As any fule kno, 4 is OK, 7 is lucky and 13 is very, very unlucky.