J-20 5th Gen Fighter Thread VIII

[james smith esq]

when i first saw this image of the 8 J-20s

i thought, why couldn’t there have been 9.
then, it would’ve been analogous to this one:

Chen Rong’s Nine Dragons Scroll!

 

[Kalec]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1683504768633765890

It is over. No new 61025 here. The narrative has been changed to "there are currently two 61025s in parallel."

It seems that someone observed a new 61025 in CAC so they automatically presumed that the "61025" is the new one but it turned out to be the old one.

My question is if they are indeed sending new built one to upgrade the old brigade, why don't they start with the 1st batch or 2nd batch? I still hold my doubt on whether the "trade-in" theory is real or not.

 

[InfamousMeow]

As far as we know 0260 mean it was aircraft nr 60 and part of batch 3. This air frame was probably produced 2021 or earlier and we can not infer anything about current production or total numbers from it.

Yes, you are right. I memorize the numbers wrong, it should be CB07156.

 

[Deino]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1683504768633765890

It is over. No new 61025 here. The narrative has been changed to "there are currently two 61025s in parallel."

It seems that someone observed a new 61025 in CAC so they automatically presumed that the "61025" is the new one but it turned out to be the old one.

My question is if they are indeed sending new built one to upgrade the old brigade, why don't they start with the 1st batch or 2nd batch? I still hold my doubt on whether the "trade-in" theory is real or not.

In fact this particular J-20 CB0260 seems to be no. 61123 ... and the other one confirmed is CB0257

 

[Kalec]

In fact this particular J-20 CB0260 seems to be no. 61123 ... and the other one confirmed is CB0257

The four J-20 are CB0251/56/57/60.

 

[Deino]

The four J-20 are CB0251/56/57/60.

Thanks!
So, no brand-new aircraft from Batch 09 or even 10 as rumoured and all fit well into the sequence!

 

[ACuriousPLAFan]

The four J-20 are CB0251/56/57/60.

Thanks!
So, no brand-new aircraft from Batch 09 or even 10 as rumoured and all fit well into the sequence!

So that means we got taken around for a ride?

Well played, PLAAF.

 

[byhyew]

8.92 ztE:/ 复制打开抖音，看看【航空工业成飞的作品】且听龙吟，太酷啦！# 歼20 # 长春航空展

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Don't think we've ever seen a J20 do such a small radius turn in public before.
Changchun is pulling all the stops to beat Zhuhai!

 

[plawolf]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1683504768633765890

It is over. No new 61025 here. The narrative has been changed to "there are currently two 61025s in parallel."

It seems that someone observed a new 61025 in CAC so they automatically presumed that the "61025" is the new one but it turned out to be the old one.

My question is if they are indeed sending new built one to upgrade the old brigade, why don't they start with the 1st batch or 2nd batch? I still hold my doubt on whether the "trade-in" theory is real or not.

Well, it has been consistently mentioned that J20s are getting progressively updated throughout the production run with new tech and feedback from operational use, and that currently produced J20s are significantly different from earlier batches internally.

It could be that due to these changes, the upgrades could only be applied to planes after certain production batches since the currently produced versions are too different from the first batches.

Given the differences, as well as the age and likely extensive use the first batches would have had as first in generation birds, it may well be that it is decided a bespoke upgrade package is not worth it just for them.

 

[Gloire_bb]

Honestly, I don't think any home computer is capable of doing meaningful job. The computing power required for a reliable job is probably more expensive than measuring a physical airframe in a radio dark room. Computer simulation is only to assist making the airframe, and it is done by super computers.

F-117, B-2, and even F-22 weren't done by what counts as supercomputers by modern standards.
Provided @Silentflanker's models are close enough to real things in geometry and hotspots (edges, intakes, protruding elements etc) treatments, they can be used at the very least as the best available relative estimates.

At the very least, here we have a consistent and transparent methodology.