New J-20 variants aren’t the same as a completely new design. We got one medium quality of image of 2021 where it was hard to tell whether it had sawtoothed nozzles and we didn’t get a confirmation of that for about a year. The Y-20 with WS-20 was flying for months, maybe up to a half year or more, before we got even one very low quality photo confirmation. We had at least two false alarms before then. The first pic of a carrier capable J-15, also low quality, was first leaked something like 4-5 years ago, and then we had a long gap. You’re clearly not paying attention.
J-35 carrier fighter (PLAN) thread
- Thread starter Deino
- Start date
Those pictures were taken days after late December 2010.
By the time those pictures were released onto the internet, the existence of J-20 was already irrefutable, based on the pictures I posted in 1363.
Let me say again -- high quality pictures is not necessary to confirm the existence of a new aircraft.
You've completely missed the point of what I wrote.
Review my explanation for why we are having less pictures good quality images of J-XY/J-35, I will quote myself again:
"1. Pictures at SAC have always been more difficult to come across than CAC -- think about how many high quality ground photos of new SAC Flankers or FC-31 airframes we've had taken from SAC over the years
2. The emerging strategic competition has caused the release of new pictures and new information of weapons developments to be reduced across the board as well across multiple domains."
In other words, any comparison you want to make, should fulfill both of those criteria:
1. Be a new aircraft type being developed at SAC, AND
2. Be a new aircraft being developed within the last few years when the strategic tensions have grown.
Let's review your list:
J-20 -- was developed at CAC, and emerged in late 2010 over a decade ago. Meets none of those two criteria.
J-20AS -- was developed at CAC, and emerged in late 2021. Meets one of those two criteria only.
Y-20 -- was developed at XAC, and emerged in early 2013, nearly a decade ago. Meets none of those two criteria. Additionally, Y-20 being a transport aircraft was given official state media coverage, likely because of its status as a non-weaponized platform and given its status as a "large aircraft" project.
J-15 -- was developed at SAC, and emerged in late 2009 over a decade ago. Meets one of those two criteria only
KJ-600 -- was developed at XAC, and emerged in mid/late 2020, a year and a half ago. Meets one of those two criteria only.
Now, let's review J-XY/J-35 -- was developed at SAC, and emerged in late 2021. Meets both of those two criteria.
But hey, did you know that there's actually another aircraft which also meets those two criteria?
It's J-15B, the production standard version of the J-15T, we actually have a very small number of blurry pictures of it as well, similar to J-XY/J-35 -- and it too was developed at SAC, and emerged in late 2021. It meets both of those two criteria.
So, I'm not sure what else can convince you -- but the pictures that we have for J-XY/J-35 are very much normal given where it is being built/developed and is similar to other aircraft that fulfill those two criteria (J-15B).
As for "where are the other J-XY/J-35 prototypes, because KJ-600 has 3-4 prototypes now" -- well, keep in mind that it has only been 3-4 months since J-XY/J-35 made its first flight, whereas it's been about 1.5 years since KJ-600 made its first flight. We will see additional J-XY/J-35 prototype airframes in time.
As for "where's the PLA emblem on J-XY/J-35" -- it is an aircraft in primer, obviously it wouldn't have the PLA roundel painted on, in the same way that the twin seater J-20AS for its maiden flight didn't have the PLA roundel painted on because it was similarly in primer.
If all of the above explanations and effortposting still doesn't make it click for you, then that is okay, but you have to also choose your battles.
Because at this point your arguments are becoming nonsensical to many of us who have followed these projects for years and years who view J-XY/J-35's emergence and status in a way that is fully expected.
I don't mean to be confronting, and I do mean this in genuinely the most clinical way I can say:
Your skepticism towards J-XY/J-35's existence and suggesting it is "not confirmed," is categorically incorrect, and will be demonstrated so with time. I hope that once you recognize it, you will also re-evaluate the methods and thresholds that you use to establish the existence and confirmed status of new projects.
There is no picture of J-XY/J-35's canopy open, however there have been rumours of people saying that it opens similar to F-35's canopy.
Additionally, based on what we know about the geometry of J-XY/J-35's canopy and the dorsal fuselage hump behind the canopy, even in the absence of rumours, the most logical deduction would be that the canopy opens forward simply based on geometry.
Try comparing the recent appearance of the J-XY and the J-20S, neither have very high-quality photos leaked and both have gone virtually silent after the initial influx of photos.
Since most leaking photos are taken from the ground by fans when the aircraft were in the air, i don't think "new aircraft type being developed at SAC" a necessary condition for witnessing the aircraft. The developers or testers of the aircraft were never the key leakers.
Chengdu and Shenyang are both mega cities with 10m population. When the new aircraft was takeing off or landing, there would be many people see it flying in low altitude. If they takes photos for the low altitude aircraft, it won't be low-res and blurry like the ones FC-31 leaked by now.
As for this pic, I think it's existence is suspicious and inexplainable.
Where was this photo taken from? In another pkane? It's impossible for the testers to leak such highly classified information of a new plane.
If it was taken from a nearby building, then the aircraft must be in a side maneuvering in the low altitude and with the landing gear down. That wasn't the usual operation a new aircraft would be supposed to take.
Last edited:
It is taken from the ground. If I'm not mistaken this is a cropped photo and a J-16 chaser plane is just out of frame.
"New aircraft type being developed at SAC" very much is a prerequisite, because if you've tracked the amount of photos we've had over the last decade of new aircraft flying from SAC (J-16 prototypes, J-11D prototypes, J-15 prototypes, FC-31V1 and V2, J-16D, J-XY/J-35, J-15T, J-15B) -- they are all much more infrequent and much less consistent than photos of new aircraft in development at say, CAC.
That's an undeniable pattern that's been long observed, and is a factor we are obligated to respect.
As for the picture, I'm not sure why you think it is suspicious or inexplainable.
Obviously the picture was taken from somewhere on the ground, and obviously the picture depicts the aircraft during either its maiden flight or an early test flight, which is why the aircraft is at low altitude and has its landing gear extended.
For the maiden flight of a new aircraft -- especially the first prototype of a new aircraft type -- flying at low altitude with landing gear extended is the international industry norm, often with a chase plane alongside. If anything, the first flights of a new prototype being at low altitude with extended landing gear is the "usual operation" that is taken, and it is bizarre to me that you would suggest otherwise. You realize that for the first flights of a new aircraft type and a new prototype that the goal is to demonstrate it can get off the ground and to perform basic flight controls and to land, right? Which is why the first flights are often at relatively low altitude, to mitigate risk and to be able to perform those basic tasks? Which is why the main landing gear is extended throughout the flight, so that if something goes wrong, they can abort and land at short notice, to further mitigate risk?
If anything it would be suspicious and strange for the J-XY/J-35 in its first flights to have flown at high altitude with landing gear retracted!
That picture is zoomed in and was taken alongside a wider shot, where you can see a SAC Flanker acting as chase plane.
I think you are 100% correct; this phantom plane is simply an example of fake-news, and many of us, here, have simply drank the kool-aid of confirmation bias! Those blurry pictures prove nothing!
As a side note (though may not be very useful), as someone who's been priviliaged to visit both Shenyanng and Chengdu, and has been to the location of SAC and CAC, the SAC factory and runway is pretty much impossible, or extremely difficult to say the least, to get sightlines from outside the factory parameters. CAC's runway, on the other hand, is located beside a road with substantial traffic and has multiple places to get a good view of the runway and accompanying infrastructure. This, I think, may to some extent explain why photos from SAC seems quite a bit harder to come by.
I think this put you in a unique and desirable position that many of us are dreaming of.