Re: New Generation Fighter
For those who think that'd be too much work to go into faking it just to screw Pinkov, perhaps you chaps forgot that bald guy once made a wager in calling China can't roll out 4th-generation fighters within 4 years, and he'd have Kanwa close down the Chinese publishing if he was wrong...if I remember correctly that wager is close to the deadline and I won't be surprised that those in China want to take a swing at someone that draw a lot of their hate.
I doubt the Chinese
military would try to do something as petty as try to shut down an inaccurate publisher on Chinese military affairs no matter the enmity for him in the general public. Maybe you're asserting that the general public is trying to make an attempt, but you'd think that with all the other PSs we've had before that anyone trying would think better than to convince Kanwa with another PS attempt. On the other hand, the pattern of released pictures is very similar to other authentic releases like the J-10B, and too many times pictures have been taken off or withheld, which tells us something's up. In addition, the level of activity seems beyond that of a PS, so either it's a really good sustained effort or it's the real thing.
For one I'm dead broke to make a bet, and for two it's just too early to call it real deal.
See, if they want to give a display for the leaders, if it need not for a demo flight they don't need to toll it outside, just do it inside a hanger would be sufficient; neither would there be any need to toll a mockup outside.
They could have it outside is for a taxi run, but it could also be for actual flight testing.
And not just it's too early to call, the level of wishful thinking displayed here is...disturbing. Besides, the insignia on the tailfin is non-standard, and PLAAF has the standard enforced quite strictly; colors ain't primer and neither the standard air-superiority scheme used across the board. RAM material? Perhaps but why not in the standard air-superiority scheme, like the Americans'?
Until there're clearer pics and better, at takeoff/landing ones, I maintain my stand in not taking them for real.
You're both saying that the insignia on the tailfin is not standard and that we need clearer pictures. I agree with the former so I'm going to assume that the latter doesn't stand logically, since we don't know whether the insignia is just a red star or the actual PLAAF symbol. If it's the latter I see no reason why it can't be on a vertical stabilizer. After all the J-11 has the PLAAF insignia on its tail.
Primer colour is dependent on the material used, and the type of topcoat. It could easily be a different primer because the type of topcoat and/or material underneath is different from what CAC would normally produce. On the other hand, there are no reasons why it can't just be a demonstration colour. After all, why bother with an elaborate scheme when you're merely doing taxi runs and flight tests?
Takeoff landing pics are difficult to take because the process is very short, and people have to be there at just the right time to catch them. On the other hand taxi runs are easy as the plane just sits there and loiters for half the time.
In any case, the level of activity surrounding these pics and the frequency of releases is a pretty clear indication that this isn't a fake, especially if you look at previous release patterns for other controversial projects.
).