J-20 5th Generation Fighter VII

Status
Not open for further replies.
plawolf

plawolf

Lieutenant General
Often, western confusion about what message China is trying to send them can be easily and eloquently explained by the simple fact that the message isn’t fucking intended for you.

This flyover is first and foremost for the benefit of the Chinese people and not to send cryptic messages to America. If China wants to send America a message, all it needs to do these days is send them a tweet.
 
Blitzo

Blitzo

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Registered Member
Deino said:
„2x24 combat flight group“ is a too high estimate IMO given the fact that Anshan just received its first J-20s early this year.

Also I think both training units have a slightly higher number - I expect 8 each aka 2 flights of 4 each - … as such I think the 176th and 172nd both have 8 J-20s, the 9th at Wuhu I expect to have about 12-16 (confirmed are 10) and the 1st I expect maybe one flight of four right now, making 32-36 operational today.

As such all these strange rumours about 4 production lines building them like dumplings with 12 each per year since 2019 are completely exaggerated.

But that‘s just my guess.
Click to expand...

For new fighter types historically, I recall we tended to use a "1:3" ratio -- i.e.: for every one positively identified unique serial number, the true number in service was often three times that number.
That was what we used for J-10C and J-16 years ago when they were first being introduced in the first couple of years and is still used to an extent now.

I'm not sure if there's a reason why we are deviating from that for J-20, apart from the fact that we are wanting to be more careful/conservative given the relative importance of J-20 as a fighter type.
 
Deino

Deino

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Registered Member
Bltizo said:
For new fighter types historically, I recall we tended to use a "1:3" ratio -- i.e.: for every one positively identified unique serial number, the true number in service was often three times that number.
That was what we used for J-10C and J-16 years ago when they were first being introduced in the first couple of years and is still used to an extent now.

I'm not sure if there's a reason why we are deviating from that for J-20, apart from the fact that we are wanting to be more careful/conservative given the relative importance of J-20 as a fighter type.
Click to expand...


Agreed, but I tend to this rather careful estimation indeed due to two reasons. 1. the one you mentioned above in red and 2. since the PLAAF is surprisingly open with confirmations of units. As such, even if we know rumours concerning Anshan since late 2019 I don't expect the unit already at full strength and even less likely I expect a third frontline unit already secretly ready without any previous reports.
 
Blitzo

Blitzo

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Registered Member
Deino said:
Agreed, but I tend to this rather careful estimation indeed due to two reasons. 1. the one you mentioned above in red and 2. since the PLAAF is surprisingly open with confirmations of units. As such, even if we know rumours concerning Anshan since late 2019 I don't expect the unit already at full strength and even less likely I expect a third frontline unit already secretly ready without any previous reports.
Click to expand...

Like I said, I appreciate the caution taken for J-20 in this case given how important it is as an aircraft.

But let's be honest -- in the past, we were happy to use the "1:3 ratio" for J-16 and J-10C at their similar levels of introduction, but for J-20 we are not applying the same rules.
Given the different infrastructure that J-20 uses compared to the previous fleet (relative to J-10C and J-16 versus the existing fleet of J-10s and Flankers at the time), I do think that's understandable.

But I imagine there should still be some sort of multiplier applied for the "true" number of J-20s, maybe not 3, but perhaps 2.5, or even 2.
 
AssassinsMace

AssassinsMace

Lieutenant General
by78 said:
More images of a rehearsal formation.

View attachment 73630
51257994637_e6efee1809_k.jpg
Click to expand...
Remember the good ole days when there was a pic that had two J-10s in it, there would be questions if it was photoshopped?
 
siegecrossbow

siegecrossbow

General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Deino said:
Guys … STOP it!

J-20A serial number 62002 from the 9th Air Brigade.

(Image via @斯文的威猛 from Weibo)

View attachment 73663
Click to expand...

It is one of the parade birds. You can tell because of they put yellow tapes on the plane, which are used to help other aircraft keep track of relative positions during formation flight.

What do you think the protrusion is at the spot where the luneburg lens is usually found? Is it a new type of luneburg lens or is it a camera?
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top