Talk:Chengdu J-20/Archive 2

Radar
Does this aircraft have an e-scan radar or a conventional mechanically scanned one? Or is its radar capability totally "anticipated" at this stage? Does it have FLIR? In fact has it got any sensors? Thanks. Wittlessgenstein (talk) 22:57, 11 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes it has sensors. It's got those little air probe things poking out of it.  But these are expected to be removed on the production aircraft.  My question is does it have a wet wing?  Just look at how thin the main wing is.  Hcobb (talk) 23:03, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Very poor quality article compared to other aviation topics
Half the content is criticism about the topic or otherwise POV opinions while the other is unverified speculation. Hcobb seems to be singularly responsible as he is responsible for most of the edits while simultaneously providing all of the POV comments on the talk page. The entire article needs to be rewritten or at least flagged with an NPOV dispute. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.65.64.254 (talk) 03:15, 13 March 2011 (UTC)


 * What the article lacks in quality is made up for in quantity (It sucks, I know... but its all that is available right now). There are several sources and opinions on the fighter from numerous locations that vary from calling the fighter a direct challenge to US air dominance, to calling it an utter piece of crap.  The article is composed of speculation because up to this point only speculation exist.  Perhaps it would be helpful to state at the beginning of the article that it is composed largely of speculation and analysis that is likely to change.

Also, Hcobb's contributions are taken from both sides of the spectrum and everything added to this article is monitored and edited by a fairly large group of users. It would be difficult to prove that one users POV is being pushed throughout the article. -Nem1yan (talk) 04:29, 14 March 2011 (UTC)


 * It's a real easy fix then. All we need is for the PLAAF to release full stats. Hcobb (talk) 04:40, 14 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Seeing how other chinese aircraft articles with speculative elements are still more effectively presented, that sort of argument is rather specious. Aldis90 (talk) 04:41, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Need a source for the engines
According to all the information I can find, China has been reluctant to integrate the WS-10A onto their current fighters yet this one is supposed to be flying with the WS-10 BCDEF G? Also, since most sources I've found list the aircraft in the +60,000 lb/f class the WS-10A seems to be the correct engine to use. -Nem1yan (talk) 13:25, 6 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Why are you conflating the engines troubles they have today with an aircraft design that is realistically more than a decade from completion? The Chinese are sure to make great leaps forwards in engine production by the time they've got the rest of their canards in a row. Hcobb (talk) 14:15, 6 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Yeah, it needs to be sourced regardless. If I changed the Raptor's engines to 45,000 lb/f based on a future upgrade that no one had ever heard of there would be a problem.  Yes speculation is helpful sometimes but lets not forget that we can leave certain specs blank if we, lets face it, have no information. -Nem1yan (talk) 17:31, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Lenght
In the article it states that the plane is 23m long but in the specs it just 19m which is correct ? And how does the sources know this since there are no official statements on the specs ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.118.168.93 (talk) 10:09, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Call sign Annihilator Twenty?
Where did that call sign come from? (Psychoneko (talk) 10:54, 9 March 2011 (UTC))


 * Note: This is a discussion page for improving the article, not a forum for general questions or passing remarks. Best. -- Dave ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 11:15, 9 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Right, and you're saying that adding material from questionable organizations is perfectly fine? I see Fox News being listed.  I see Lexington's assessment being used for the specifications block.  Neither of those organizations are trustworthy and yet people are fine with adding them?  I don't see how the article is improved if questionable organizations are being used for the article.  (Psychoneko (talk) 12:21, 9 March 2011 (UTC))
 * It comes from 殲二十, the name of the aircraft in Chinese. 殲 Jian means "Annihilator aircraft" (as opposed to interceptor, fighter-bomber, strategic bomber, tactical bomber, etc), and 二十 ershi translates to "twenty". --  李博杰   | —Talk contribs email 12:35, 9 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Argh, so it's a direct translation and not a NATO call sign. My bad.  But my issue about Fox News and Lexington being questionable sources still stands.  (Psychoneko (talk) 12:51, 9 March 2011 (UTC))


 * @Psychoneko: 1.) you have the right to remove those questionable sources if you think they are not of reliable standard to be added into the article page; 2.) Just what do you mean by NATO call sign? You're very confusing... are you referring to NATO reporting name???; 3.) As I've said, if what you raised here does not help to improve the article (per WP:Not a forum), then you stand corrected now on all counts. Out. -- Dave ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 13:15, 9 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I believe he was originally implying that the "annihilator" was incorrect because the "A" would mean that it was an attack aircraft in NATO usage. Also removing sourced content from the page should indeed be first brought up on the talks page. -Nem1yan (talk) 18:44, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Where does this call sign J-20 comes from there are no official statements on the plane what so ever ? Is everthing in this article and the sources that it rely's on just speculations ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.118.168.93 (talk) 10:15, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Why is the F-18 called the F-18? Why not W-18? Why not Z-18? Why not the "Mega-Thruster 18000(TM)"? It would sound much more cool that way. --is what I would like to say. In essence, that would be using the same logic that you've shown me. If the Chinese call their plane the 歼-20, does there have to be a reason for it? Why did Bill Clinton's parents name him "Bill"? Why not "Tony"? Why did Sony release the PlayStation? Shouldn't it be better called the "GamerTron-XTREME"? Do you now see my point? A name is a name, what is there to question? --  李博杰   | —Talk contribs email 15:12, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Why should anybody use a crude translation of the Chinese term? The Chinese will use the Chinese form and The West will use J-20 or whatever. Yes we do have to work from imperfect sources like People's Daily, PressTV or even Fox. The fix is to test sources against each other, understand their limitations and not reach too far ahead of ourselves. We can indeed include links to sources that claim more than we report here. Hcobb (talk) 15:52, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
 * But where does the term "J-20" as used in the west come from? Who made it up? Inevitably the Chinese did. "J" is the initial for "Jian" (歼), which means fighter aircraft. Did you think NATO made the term up or something? It's the same reason why the Xian H-6 is called the "H-6": "H" is the initial for "Hong" (轰), which means "bomber" in Chinese.
 * Plus, nowhere in the article does it say that the world-recognised callsign for the plane in English is "Annihilator Twenty". It merely says that it's a literal translation of the Chinese name that is 歼二十 (or 歼-20). The "literal" variable is a part of Template:Zh, and as you can see in all China-related articles, it is standard procedure to provide, more or less, the Simplified Chinese, Traditional Chinese, Pinyin and literal meaning of Chinese terms, as seen at Beijing, Chengdu J-10, Xian H-6, Zhonghua Minzu, Ten thousand years, Tianxia, Three Principles of the People, Battle of Taiyuan, et cetera, through the use of Template:Zh. In fact, practically all China-related articles begin with their first sentence with Template:Zh somewhere. --  李博杰   | —Talk contribs email 16:01, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

jetfight2000@yahoo.com
Is a self-published web page by jetfight2000@yahoo.com really a reliable source for this article? Hcobb (talk) 17:09, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Operational history
Why does a combat aircraft which is still under development, i.e. has not been made operational, have an operational history section? flight testing should be under the development section IMO. --Hj108 (talk) 04:01, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

The J in J-5/6/7/8/10/20

 * For the laymen out there, please note that:
 * 1) Fighter aircraft = zh:战斗机 is the term used by the Chinese speaking world-at-large while zh:歼击机 is the term used mainly in mainland China and is often transliterated as "Annihilator" instead of "Fighter".
 * 2) Interceptor aircraft = zh:拦截机 is the term used by the Chinese speaking world-at-large while zh:截击机 is the term used mainly in mainland China

Another good example to illustrate this type of subtle difference is:
 * 1) Aircraft = zh:航空器
 * 2) Airplane = zh:飞机

Since this article is about a China-made aircraft, it naturally has to follow their naming method. -- Dave ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 02:20, 16 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Huh? It's still a "fighter" and that's the common English term. The details of waht the desingation means are better covered in an article about the PRC's designation systrem. We don't explain that "F" means Fighter on every US military fighter article. No need to do it here, tho we could certainlyt link to such articles. - BilCat (talk) 00:18, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Photographs
Still no PD photographs of the type? I recall the insistence that they'd be becoming available in short order so we had to delete the fair-use photos as they'd be replacable...and nine months later... - The Bushranger One ping only 15:26, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

First flight
Development: The J-20 made its first flight, which lasted about 20 minutes, on 11 January 2011. Flight testing: The J-20 made its first flight, lasting about 15 minutes, on 11 January 2011.

Which? Dawright12 (talk) 10:34, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
 * According to the references in the article, 15 minutes. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 14:37, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

F-35 and J-20 comparison.....
F-35 is in the initial production status....J-20 is still in the development/flighting test....

How do your guys think about? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.82.248.88 (talk) 02:41, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Think about what? --OuroborosCobra (talk) 02:47, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

I would suggest finding suitable refs on this and putting them into the 5th gen article, which naturally covers all 5th gen fighters. We've had more than enough X vs Y pairings in the articles of various 4th gen fighters. Hcobb (talk) 04:37, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

We got tagged
What is the exact nature of the complaint with this article? For the most part we've done what seems to be a fairly good job of tying comments about various aspects to the commentators, without pushing an overall agenda of our own. No? Hcobb (talk) 00:15, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
 * These were my concerns.


 * 1) The article needs some grammar copyediting in places, possibly - I misread the one spot I thought was obvious, though, so I'm removing that tag.
 * 2) "Globalsecurity.org states that China probably declined to participate in joint development and production of a new fifth-generation fighter with Russia" - smells of weasel wording. This is borderline though. Is there a way to say it better without "probably"?
 * 3) Biggest concern...well, I'm going to catch flak for this one, I'm sure. But it's the big, bold "Annhiliator-20" at the top of the page. I looked at a variety of other Chinese aircraft pages. Only three that I saw defined their designation beyond just "letter-number" - the J-10, J-20, and (oddly) the Shaanxi Y-9. The other J- aircraft don't explain that "J for Jian", which seems rather like saying "F-16, meaning Fighter-16". and the Y-9 doesn't define the term beyond "Yun-9". Including "Annhilator-10" and "Annhilator-20", in bold, italic letters in the lede of the two most recent Chinese fighter aircraft looks very, very much like peacocking that "our fighter is badder than yours", I'm afraid. (Also, sorry for the tag-and-run, I meant to post an explanation here but got distracted before I could.) - The Bushranger One ping only 03:57, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

As for the weaseling, why not retitle that section "Unusual outbursts of helplessness", instead of coming up with our own term? Hcobb (talk) 18:13, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Because editing suggestions should be constructive. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 20:01, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
 * But some humour once in a while makes that editing so much more fun :) --Mallexikon (talk) 03:36, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Hcobb isn't joking. He's actually put that type of content in recent editing of other articles. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 16:52, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * LOL! --Mallexikon (talk) 02:44, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Hey I added "Unusual outburst of helplessness" to this article, for balance. (Check the edit logs.) Hcobb (talk) 04:46, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * It's a wildly POV statement. - The Bushranger One ping only 04:47, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * It is specially there to frame Naik's comment. Hcobb (talk) 04:51, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Describing his comment as an "unusual outburst of helplessness" is unencyclopedic and POV. - The Bushranger One ping only 03:33, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Which begs my question again, where is the competence in Hcobb? And as usual, sad to say that this is is beloved way newsdroppings again. Best to ignore him as he's just speaking out for the sake of thinking out aloud and press on with other issues please, thank you. -- Dave ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 07:59, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok, obviously you guys have unfinished business with each other, but this is not the place. @Dave: please stop the ad hominem attacks. @The Bushranger: "unusual outburst of helplessness" was a citation from the Deccan Chronicle, so what's your point? --Mallexikon (talk) 03:41, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Strategic implication
Very little in this article about the strategic implications of the J-20 except possibly some of the material in the "Stealth" section.

Thoughts on this source: ? Academica Orientalis (talk) 18:10, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Landing gear has shifted
The 2002 jet has further back main landing gear, which takes away the Center of Gravity arguments against 2001 and turns this into a more EuroCanard-style control canard fighter than a Chinese-style lifting canard light bomber. Do I delete that part now, or wait for the media to catch up? Hcobb (talk) 16:25, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Overall evaluations
Overall evaluations and other sections appear to be mainly speculations and made up stuff, we need to get back to some facts and tidy up. I will have a go at removing some of the extra unencyclopedic bloat and undue weight, please remember that this is an encyclopedia not a blog page. MilborneOne (talk) 21:54, 21 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Although on reading it again I cant say any of it is particularly encyclopedic and appears to be a synthesis of opinion which probably goes against some wikipedia policy somewhere. Might be better to prune the lot, some other sections dont do much better. MilborneOne (talk) 22:04, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Page protection time?
The natives are starting to party like it's August 1900. Hcobb (talk) 23:53, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

who removed the price tag?? the plane cost 100 million each
last time i remember visiting this article there were a price tag on the info who removed it and why???--Shokioto22 (talk) 15:43, 27 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Do you have a solid ref for that price? And why should it cost in dollars? The only parts of the aircraft the Chinese will pay dollars for are the structure (carbon fiber), electronics, software, etc. Even the engines cost Russian, not American. Hcobb (talk) 17:13, 27 September 2012 (UTC)


 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chengdu_J-20&oldid=508520364#cite_note-3 here some older article and this was the reference http://thediplomat.com/flashpoints-blog/2011/01/31/at-what-cost-stealth/

--Shokioto22 (talk) 04:06, 29 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Your source says

"While a variety of factors make the exact cost extremely difficult to assess, for the purposes of very rough comparison this offers a useful benchmark."


 * Which really doesn't pass the sniff test. Hcobb (talk) 04:22, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Merger proposal
The relationship between J-XX and J-20 is the same as that of Airbus A3XX and A380. Now that the designation of China's fifth generation aircraft is known, the J-XX designation and the J-XX page is not needed anymore. The J-XX page is also redundant since its content is clearly talking about the J-20. These are two main reasons why the two articles should be merged. I propose that the entire J-XX's History section to be merged into J-20's Development sub-section.

174.93.87.30 (talk) 20:52, 30 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Then what of the J-31? Hcobb (talk) 01:09, 31 December 2012 (UTC)


 * There is a J-31 page for that. 174.93.87.30 (talk) 01:54, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

And J-XX covers those bits in common to the Chinese 5th gens. Hcobb (talk) 04:08, 31 December 2012 (UTC)


 * That isn't the case even though I understand why you may think so. The J-XX page describes a joint-effort by Chengdu Aircraft Corporation (CAC) and Shengyang Aircraft Corporation (SAC) to design a fifth generation fighter.  This joint-effort can't be the J-31 because the J-31 is SAC's own project.  What's more, J-31 as a real project is unknown and not predicted by the West until the first aircraft piece was spotted on the road.  In other words, J-XX couldn't be referring to the J-31 at all and it was not the original intention of the J-XX page to mention anything about the J-31.  J-XX has always been a designation referring to the fifth generation fighter from China, not a blanket term for all of China's fifth generation fighter projects. 174.93.87.30 (talk) 05:56, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Developed from Mikoyan Project 1.44
Seems to be very clearly based on the Mikoyan Project 1.44. Hcobb (talk) 17:10, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Based on what evidence? A few quotations from 'various sources' does not make it 'very clear'. Lostromantic (talk) 13:14, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Let's find a better photo of the J-20
Was wondering if we could find a better photo of the J-20. The plane has been flying around for a while, so the artists' impression is slightly out of date. Here's a site with some fairly new pictures:

http://chinadefense.blogspot.com/2012/12/high-quality-photo-of-day-chinese-j-20.html

Lostromantic (talk) 01:25, 1 January 2013 (UTC)


 * We can add a real picture of a J-20 if anybody can find a non-copyrighted that is free to be used on wikipedia, that is unlikely to be found on a blog where the images have no provenance and could have been copied from anywhere. MilborneOne (talk) 10:32, 1 January 2013 (UTC)


 * A quick search on Google yield some pictures with copyright information on them, and might be permitted for use in the article under the Fair use clause.


 * This one is from a magazine. The name of the magazine is at the lower-left corner, and the alias of the photographer is on the top-right.


 * This one comes from a forum. Name of the forum is written below the aircraft and it is explicitly stated at the same location that the photo is "a first upload".  The author's alias is written in seal script on the left wing.


 * Here is one that comes from Chinese version of Twitter, with the user's alias written on the bottom-right corner. There are also this, this, this, this, this, this, and this.


 * This, this, and this come from the same user. The author's alias and logo is on the photo as a watermark.  These photos were uploaded to a forum whose logo is on the bottom right corner.


 * Here is another one coming from a forum, with the forum name and author's alias written at the bottom of the photograph. However, this could be a re-upload and might not be an original work.


 * 64.231.147.236 (talk) 20:33, 1 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I think that the fact the some people have been taking pictures means it would fail the non-free content rules, it means in theory that somebody could take a free image, or be asked to release an image as free. One of the main problems is that most are copied from blog to blog and then claimed as being owner when they clearly are not. MilborneOne (talk) 21:58, 1 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I doubt that we can come across a free-license image in the near future, for a variety of reasons. Due to the rarity of the J-20 and other developmental aircraft from appearing, money is always a factor for photographers, and in most cases copyright holders choose to sell the photographs for money, instead of releasing it under a free license such as Creative Commons. One of the limitations of "free content" is that one really has to be a libre content enthusiast to be willingly give away for free something which they could make plenty of spare cash with. Not everyone in the world is a Richard Stallman, and it's quite natural for people to seek profits out of their work. I am personally acquainted with a university student from Tianjin who is a hobbyist photographer and an aircraft enthusiast; he has taken photographs of the Shenyang J-31 and sold them to establishments such as Reuters and various others. Many of the J-31 images you see in magazines were actually taken by him. If you're going to be enthusiastic about taking photographs of aircraft to the point of spending thousands of yuan to take planes and trains to airshows, it's almost natural to want to make a bit of cash out of it. Just my two cents. --  李博杰  &#124; —Talk contribs email 04:35, 2 January 2013 (UTC)


 * We should use the presumption of innocence; that is we should treat the provenance within a picture as genuine unless proven otherwise. 64.231.147.236 (talk) 22:09, 2 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Images or more exactly copyright is one area where we dont assume good faith. MilborneOne (talk) 21:36, 3 January 2013 (UTC)


 * While I understand your concern, I also have to say that isn't a valid argument since you are demanding proof of a negative. Consider what could happen if somebody does upload a free J-20 image.
 * "Here is a free image of a J-20."
 * "How do we know it is free?"
 * "Because I took it."
 * "How do we know you did? Sorry, but copyright is one area where we don't assume good faith."
 * Any media that has ever been uploaded to Wikipedia could be disputed by your line of reasoning. There would be no end in sight. 64.231.147.236 (talk) 22:36, 3 January 2013 (UTC)


 * True, but I am only reflecting what I have seen in image deletion and copyright discussions and in my own experience with newly uploaded images, in a lot of cases the claims are bogus! Anybody who had really taken an image would find it easy to prove, most bogus uploaders leave lots of clues that ring alarm bells, but this is not the place to cover them. MilborneOne (talk) 22:51, 3 January 2013 (UTC)


 * There are also CG artworks that we can use. Any of the following would be better than what we have got right now in my opinion.


 * Here is one showing J-20's at production configuration launching A2A missiles.


 * The next one shows J-20s flying in formation.


 * This and this have a nice view of J-20 from the front.


 * This, this. this, this, this, and this are made by an artist with an alias of Goshan. He/She is quite famous on Chinese forums. 64.231.147.236 (talk) 21:33, 3 January 2013 (UTC)


 * CG stuff is really original research and should not be used as it could be misleading, in my opinion. MilborneOne (talk) 21:36, 3 January 2013 (UTC)


 * How is that different from what we have right now? 64.231.147.236 (talk) 21:40, 3 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Its not - I dont think we should be using the current image at the moment, how do we know it is accurate? so it could be misleading. Perhaps we should remove it. MilborneOne (talk) 21:43, 3 January 2013 (UTC)


 * What about using extracts from videos as have been done here? It would be easier to trace copyright information on a video than regular images. 64.231.147.236 (talk) 23:14, 3 January 2013 (UTC)


 * 64.231.*.*, I don't think you understand what "free content" means. Wikipedia is a "free encyclopedia", "free" in the sense of libre (自由), not gratis (免费). We only accept content that is libre based on the main, central principles of Wikipedia. We accept free license content because it does not chain anybody to copyrights and ownership laws, not because we only want the encyclopedia to be free of charge. The copyright status of images must be verifiable, and we can't make guesses and assumptions. In the case of user-generated content, we can assume good faith as long as it isn't a blatantly obvious copyright violation, however in other cases we need to concretely verify the copyright status of an image. On the English Wikipedia (and not all Wikimedia projects), we do sometimes accept copyrighted images under fair use, however only when strict criteria is met, one of them being that a free-license image being 100%, completely impossible to obtain. This is more for images of company logos, and people who are indefinitely imprisoned. We do not even have an image of Kim Jong-un strictly because of this. --  李博杰  &#124; —Talk contribs email 03:57, 4 January 2013 (UTC)


 * You will find that your assumption about my lack of understanding in meaning of "free" has been completely misplaced. The issue here is that we are unable to obtain free-license image, so we should look into using available images under the fair use clause.  I am simply coming up with suggestions for us to meet the criteria where we can be absolutely certain of the copyright status of images.  If you have any idea aside from waiting for someone to upload free content, I am all ear. 64.231.147.236 (talk) 04:57, 4 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Like I said, fair use is out of the question, because we're not talking about a criminal in jail or a company here. Wikipedia's fair use policy has rules and limitations. We don't just say "let's use a fair use image" just because we feel like it, there are times when we can and can't use fair use content. --  李博杰  &#124; —Talk contribs email 06:44, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
 * For further information and a comparison with a rather similar situation to the one we have here, see Talk:Kim Jong-un/Archive 2 and the sections above it. --  李博杰  &#124; —Talk contribs email 06:46, 4 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Of course guidelines should be followed, which is why I am participating in this discussions in an attempt to find ways for us to meet those guidelines. I do believe we have some good rationales here to make use of fair use, not just because "we feel like it".  Also, please point out the specific rule where it says fair use is only permitted for a person or a company. 64.231.147.236 (talk) 07:50, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Please think out of the box. I was referring to the non-free content criteria which are linked from the policy page, and they were just two basic examples. See the WP:NFCC link that MilborneOne has pointed out. --  李博杰  &#124; —Talk contribs email 13:55, 4 January 2013 (UTC)


 * WP:NFCC#1 applies to all non-free images No free equivalent. Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose. in this case it is is possible for somebody to take a free image of the aircraft. Not that it only has to be possible the fact you cant find one is not a defence. MilborneOne (talk) 10:16, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Protection request
Can we put this page under protection? There's been a back-and-forth of poorly sourced, anonymous edit-warring going on for the past few days. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lostromantic (talk • contribs) 11:28, 13 January 2013 (UTC)


 * The perpetrator has already been blocked. 174.93.88.126 (talk) 03:01, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Carlo Kopp, credibility
Carlo Kopp is well known to have a very favourable view of the F-22 and is known to regularly present the F-22 positively while using questionable, opinionated analysis. His thoughts may not be appropriate for use in this article as his opinion tends to compromise his work. (203.27.52.243 (talk) 05:17, 28 March 2012 (UTC))
 * Alright! Thanks for the heads-up! Do you happen to have a reliable source for these allegations? --Mallexikon (talk) 07:00, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Isn't he about as credible as any "Lecturer in Computer Science" on defense issues? http://www.gizmodo.com.au/2012/02/i-advised-ncis-la-on-e-bombs-but-theyre-not-a-work-of-fiction/ Hcobb (talk) 09:44, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I would trust the analysis of a random stranger more than the analysis of Carlo Kopp. NobodyMinus (talk) 00:44, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

I've just removed the lengthy para providing Carlo Kopp and Peter Goon's views which is cited to their website as a) this is basically a self published source b) the content was nothing but speculation (given how little is known about this design they seem to be speculating rather wildly about the capabilities of this design and its effects on the balance of power in the Pacific) and c) the credibility issues as noted above. Kopp's not uninformed and does get some things right, but he also has an axe to grind for the F-22 (and various proposals for souped up F-111s) and often engages in fairly out-there speculation so stuff he self-publishes on his website shouldn't be considered a useful source. Nick-D (talk) 10:11, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think speculating is an unique problem associated only with Carlo Kopp. Pretty much all the statements from "experts" within this article is one form of speculation or another.  You should consider removing those statements as well.  174.93.87.30 (talk) 06:11, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Fair point, given that this aircraft's exosure to the West in only recent and there's something of an informational black hole surrounding the subject, but what we do know is that AusAirpower, C. Kopp and P. Goon already have existing credibility issues pertaining to their self published materials and their 'research'. This alone should warrant a significant edit, if not deletion, of that particular section. Hearsay, conjecture and supposition, should not qualify as expert opinion. (203.6.146.5 (talk) 02:52, 25 January 2013 (UTC))

Passive language in the article
Loads of passive language in the article... "there is a belief that..." etc. To clear up the article, I'm going to link these beliefs to sources. If they can't be linked, I'm going to delete them. First among this is the claim that "there is a belief China can't produce high-powered jet engines." By whom? Who has that belief? And how useful is a 2011 article in affirming that belief? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lostromantic (talk • contribs) 01:30, 29 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I think your concern has to do with that particular sentence more than passive languages being used throughout the article. In my opinion, "there is a belief" is a pretty accurate description on the current situation regarding that particular point of view.  There are some five or six articles in the list of references that repeat the same point of view, and more if you count sources not included within the article.  There are enough authors holding this belief that if you have to mention every single one of them, the article will turn into a summary of who-made-what statements instead of a description of the aircraft.  "There is a belief" conveys the current situation to the reader eloquently. 174.93.85.8 (talk) 01:27, 3 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Yeah, but we should lean towards "of whom". Hcobb (talk) 01:56, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Unexplained deletion of sourced material
At the present, there's an edit war going on over the "Engines" section. I'd like to point out once more that unexplained deletion of reliably sourced material is unacceptable behavior. Any kind of objections regarding material or sources should rather be discussed here. Cheers, --Mallexikon (talk) 03:20, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Cleaning up specifications section
Per WP:BOLD, I've removed numerous speculative specifications. This is a developmental aircraft, and yet the speculations had gone so far as to distinguish prototypes and "production" J-20s, detailing everything from the engines to the operational ceiling and MTOW. It is reasonable to retain approximate specifications derived from photogrammetry --- exterior dimensions, primarily, and obvious things like the number of engines --- though to be honest I do not see any evidence in the references that these calculations were carried out in any systematic way. Please add detailed references if including any additional specifications. Much of the rest of the article (and references therein) is also speculative blog-matter, which should probably be cleaned out. Stochtastic (talk) 03:07, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

regarding that drawn picture
I'm sorry but that poorly drawn picture is too far off from the real thing; It's got to go. There are better photos of the plane available from PD. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Warset (talk • contribs) 11:33, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The immaculate "artists rendering" currently displayed also seems questionable. How do we know that is anything other than some dreamed-of stealth plane? It may be misleading to present that image in the manner in which it is presented now, carrying the implicitly influential imprimatur of being in the box at the top.The Sound and the Fury (talk)


 * I would agree that the drawing could be seen as original research but I understand it was used as all the images of the aircraft claimed to be public domain had no proven provenance (mainly copied from blogs) and could not be used. MilborneOne (talk) 21:53, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * It may be better not to use any image than one which may be serving certain propaganda purposes as to the capabilities etc. of this aircraft. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 22:37, 24 February 2012 (UTC)


 * they are American drawings. so they are serving America, just like the photos of the F-22 are propaganda? Dark Liberty (talk) 22:09, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

What is this plane ?
see this pictures.

http://club.mil.news.sohu.com/newclub/show.php?forumid=war_pics&artid=360624&pageid=1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.118.171.9 (talk) 12:31, 26 December 2011 (UTC)


 * This is not an aircraft, it is a series of sketches. I don't think we really cover those here. Hcobb (talk) 16:19, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Is that the Chinese version of Secret Projects, or is it more AboveTopSecret? Anyway, it purports (judging by the only non-Chinese characters in the title) to be the "J-14" (see J-XX for the Wikipedia article covering it). However, that's a Photoshop (note in the lower left the credit even starts "shop.(rest of webaddress)". Nicely done (and looks like they used a YF-23 to start with) but nothing more than vapourware. - The Bushranger One ping only 20:36, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
 * it's a Photoshop, therefore it is not a valid source and does not exist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dark Liberty (talk • contribs) 22:14, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Image
Can someone provide a picture or an artist's rendition to the J-20, as the F-22 already has several outstanding pictures that were nominated?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:F-22_Raptor_Andrews_Air-force_Base.jpg demonstrates the F-22. Dark Liberty (talk) 07:31, 8 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Can't we wait until the J-20 gets out of X-plane status and becomes combat effective? Hcobb (talk) 14:03, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
 * What do either of those have to do with a picture, Hcobb? --OuroborosCobra (talk) 14:11, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

It means that we don't have the final aircraft yet. This is especially troubling for artist drawings as these tend to become very dated very quickly. Hcobb (talk) 15:59, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

The issue is that pictures that are available online all tend to be on blogs and unsourced. There are more than a few pictures that are available, but they are of unknown copyright status. As the editor who put the artist's rendition on this page, I would like to put an actual picture, but wasn't able to find any. --Balon Greyjoy (talk) 04:47, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm sure there is a picture on Google or Bing, it will just take a little bit of time, but I'm sure there is one image out of a thousand. Careful when you click links. Also, there are probably royalty-free images of the J-20 on the Chinese web. Dark Liberty (talk) 05:11, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
 * How would you recommend finding if the copyright is appropriate? My concern is that people are publishing, and releasing, pictures that they don't have the authority to do. --Balon Greyjoy (talk) 06:46, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
 * perhaps type 歼20 on baidu.com. however, I do not know which ones are copyright-free. Dark Liberty (talk) 05:18, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Are these artists part of the program or are they working from mostly uncorrected photographs that have been released into the wild? Hcobb (talk) 17:38, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
 * According to the description page, the author is a Canadian aviation expert who edits Wikipedia regularly. He's not part of the J-20 design team, but it seems like the next best thing. --Balon Greyjoy (talk) 22:23, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Why would that matter to you, Hcobb? Dark Liberty (talk) 00:05, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/fe/J20_impside_art.JPG Dark Liberty (talk) 23:36, 9 February 2014 (UTC)


 * It matters to me if we putting up less informative fantasies replacing actual photographs. Hcobb (talk) 02:32, 10 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Who cares what you think? What matters is that the photo demonstrates what China has Dark Liberty (talk) 22:05, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Change the picture
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/fe/J20_impside_art.JPG


 * Use this one if it follows Wikipedia guidelines. Dark Liberty (talk) 09:56, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

So no one in the world wants to change a simple picture that is misrepresentative of Wikipedia's policies of objectivity.

All of you are incompetent. Shame on you. Dark Liberty (talk) 09:55, 14 February 2014 (UTC)


 * No one is forcing or obligating you to stay in any way. If you don't like it, go have fun over at Baidu Baike like everyone else who's hip and cool. Don't bump your head on the way out, and remember to take your slippers with you. -- benlisquare T•C•E 10:12, 14 February 2014 (UTC)


 * You really have problems in your life, do you? Baidu is not an accurate source, and we are looking to improve the content of the article and the discussion per your violation of WP:SOAP. However, I noticed you have already been warned several times by the moderators. Dark Liberty (talk) 08:11, 16 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm not the one shitting up the place by complaining over trivially inane nonsense instead of realising that as a user-built encyclopedia, content here is exclusively created at the will of the volunteers writing it. Nobody here owes you anything, or is obligated to do anything for you. If you want to improve Wikipedia, do your part and contribute. If you don't, you don't have to. Bullshit like "hurr you're all incompetent, shame on you, why can't you be so amazing and wonderful like me, Dark Liberty" is unnecessary and unneeded here. Instead of being a fucking drama queen and shitting all over other people for the most stupid of reasons here on this talk page, do something that's actually constructive towards this article. We're "incompetent"? Get off your high horse, I'd rather not hear that from someone who does nothing at all, and just complains. -- benlisquare T•C•E 10:17, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

New image
As requested per contributing towards Wikipedia, I have provided a new image for the article. I spent several hours searching for a non-commercial image that was not part of some bulletin board or weblog. Ironically, the engines are RUSSIAN!

The engine petals indicates that it is an AL-31 derivative. The image is suitable for encyclopedic content and properly illustrates the specifications and most importantly, the engines used on the image. No other image on the entire public internet, currently, has the level of detail as found.

Also, a detailed fair-use rationale is provided for the image. A summary of the WP:NFCC is provided under "Other information", and indicates that the image is neither the ownership of a specific web site, nor of "non-commercial only" status. The image falls under the criteria "promotional" as a press release. The image meets the "non-free equivalent" criteria in which it is impossible to properly identify the aircraft's engines and viability by a free version (previous image) with the same effect. The item is of sourced commentary on the Talk page of this article (e.g. speculation on engines), and thanks benlisquare for providing a rational initiative. Dark Liberty (talk) 06:02, 17 February 2014 (UTC)


 * We will have to wait 7 days before the full-resolution image is released. Dark Liberty (talk) 16:41, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Origins Section
The Origins section can be rewritten, while the separate J-XX article can be improved in a future date. Here are a few versions of introduction of the Origins section:


 * The Origins of the J-20 came from the J-XX program which was started in the late 1990s. A proposal from Chengdu Aerospace Corporation, designated “Project 718”, won the PLAAF endorsement in a 2008 competition against a Shenyang proposal that was reportedly even larger than J-20.


 * The Origins of the J-20 came from the J-XX program which was started in the late 1990s. Two designs emerged from this program, one from Chengdu designated “Project 718”, and one from Shenyang, which was reportedly even larger than the J-20. In 2008, the Chengdu proposal won PLAAF endorsement in a competition.


 * two competing designs ... One from Chengdu designated “Project 718”, and one from Shenyang. The Chengdu design was designated “Project 718”, and won the PLAAF endorsement in a 2008 competition against a Shenyang proposal that was reportedly even larger than J-20.

the first version is better, but the second one has a stronger chronological emphasis. Dark Liberty (talk) 21:03, 21 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Now the next step is for us to write a little more about the Origins. I blanked out the Origins section and transferred the useless information to the J-XX article that should be there instead for reference. I also made some minor corrections in the J-XX article prior to the transfer of content.

Dark Liberty (talk) 23:29, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
 * We should keep the article as concise as possible but fresh and informative to aviation experts. Examples that would make it a worthy article is more detail about the 3 different prototypes organized by prototype. that information can be in Origins or in Flight testing, as there is some overlap and ambiguity.

Supermanueverable
there are three articles that strongly suggest that the J-20 is supermaneuverable:

"China’s J-20 Fighter: Development Outlook and Strategic Implications."

"the aircraft’s front canards and movable tail structure suggests that despite the plane’s size, it would be highly nimble - with appropriately powerful engines."

"An Initial Assessment of China's J-20 Stealth Fighter."

"If equipped with suitable engines, a J-20 would be very efficient in supersonic cruise regime"

"Google." "Youtube" Dark Liberty (talk) 22:27, 21 February 2014 (UTC)


 * will place the information in the design section, at some point in the future. Dark Liberty (talk) 22:45, 21 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Not sure they are all reliable sources and as a suggestion they are all a bit speculative, need to find a reliable source before adding anything. MilborneOne (talk) 12:09, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
 * It's not speculative but I'm not going to add anything; it's just not necessary. If we placed supermanueverable, that would indicate that the prototype is supermaneuverable, which is not the case. Dark Liberty (talk) 20:10, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Contrary to popular belief to what seems to be advertised on the media, the J-20 is not intended to challenge the F-22. in one of Carlo Kopp's article 6 roles have been outlined, although the bottom two, EW and ASAT are not really its primary functions. However, to call it just a stealth bomber would be simplistic, because this plane is clearly also designed for air combat.

What could be said about about its role in the greater context of all current and future 5th-generation developments, according to Kopp, "the development of the J-XX represents a well thought out 'symmetrical techno-strategic response' to the United States' deployment of stealth aircraft." As in, the design of the aircraft took into consideration America's F-22 and F-35 fleets.

Dark Liberty (talk) 23:56, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Characteristics Section
Just started on the section so I will not be able to add everything at once, including balance.


 * "at the cost of being a poor dogfighter." it should as good as the F-35, but it's unknown what the role of the J-20 will be. More likely a air superiority / stealth interceptor / stealth bomber. Multirole would be the best word. I know you want to indicate that if the J-20 is built for it strike capabilities, it's air-to-air ability will be compromised.


 * All the sources however, seem to indicate or at least hint that strike and air-to-air are not mutually self-exclusive. The reason is the canards negates the problems that the F-35 would experience. There's only three major weaknesses in the design - the sides of the stealth shaping, the engines, and the shape of the engines. Of course, the main problem is Quality and integration of the components.


 * Aside from the shaping, the other weakness of the J-20, in my opinion, is the holographic HUD and interior, which are components of the avionics and pilot interface. The F-22 has a much better targeting system and interior design; just the quality of the components visually look better.

Dark Liberty (talk) 20:16, 24 February 2014 (UTC)


 * So the design weaknesses are twofold, the curvature on the side and the engines, which can be later developed upon in the stealth section (not in Characteristics), followed by two strengths, which are F-35 style DSI incorporated in F-22 intakes, a hybrid between the two, and the missile launch system on how the missile is extracted internally.

Dark Liberty (talk) 00:14, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Article
Suggestions:


 * "General He Weirong, Deputy Commander of the People's Liberation Army Air Force said in November 2009 that he expected the J-20 to be operational in 2017–2019."
 * shortened to: "[which is] expected to be operational in 2017–2019." while keeping the citations.


 * Origin section is speculation, and has contesting claims from various magazines. The claims should be organized by magazine, while keeping a separate paragraph for Chinese sources.


 * "The prototype's engine is unknown, but is speculated to be either a AL-31 derivative or a version of the domestic WS-10."
 * remove unknown, change to "the prototype's engine is speculated to be ..."


 * the "not being able to supercruise clause" conflicts with Citation 4 and 109

Dark Liberty (talk) 08:19, 18 February 2014 (UTC)


 * "The PLAAF designates the J-20 as "Project 718". The general designer of the aircraft is reportedly..."
 * Project 718 can be moved towards the beginning of the article or under "Origins", and the general designer sentence can be added to the introduction or placed under "Origins"


 * I did some research on the organization called the Global Times. The tabloid-style paper is the organ of the Communist Party, often makes ludicrous remarks, and is not viewed as credible even by the Chinese. removing reference.

Dark Liberty (talk) 14:39, 18 February 2014 (UTC)


 * there is no reference on the entire Internet that the J-20 should have the call-sign Dragon.


 * this phrase keeps cropping up in 3rd-party sources: "However, one of the prototypes uses WS-10G engines with stealthy jagged-edge nozzles and tiles.." I will do some research and see what is the case. Note: One uses the WS-10G, the other the AL-31FN.

Dark Liberty (talk) 02:30, 19 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Technology transfer allegations section is misplaced. It should be in either in the design section or military-political implications.

Dark Liberty (talk) 07:55, 19 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Someone placed the phrase "resembling the F-35" in every single section of the article, some going to great lengths to demonstrate its "resemblance". "a new air intake design that appears to resemble the F-35" - didn't find that on the article medium.com; it didn't mention intakes. "resembling those on F-35" in the Characteristics section - I checked the references and they didn't mention the tail fin. Also, the physical dimensions of the tail fins and the angles are different.

Dark Liberty (talk) 08:35, 20 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I would like to make a new section called Cybersecurity (rename of technology transfer allegations) and move the F-35 connection to J-20 there. Also, I would like to eventually, within a period of time, move the F-117 crash to the Stealth section and write how it may or may not have improved the design for the Stealth coating. Lastly, the Mig 1.44 section should be placed correctly in Origins. I will probably write about how the F-35 has (or may have) influenced the avionics of the J-20, but I will need a source.


 * In the new section called Cybersecurity, I would like to expound the strategic implications of how the compromise of the F-35 it will affect both China and the US, and include views from analysts if possible.


 * Regarding the addition of the HAL / FGFA, I promise to include that once the test flight has been conducted later this year.

Dark Liberty (talk) 00:15, 21 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Someone wanted to change the caption to Chengdu J-20 prototype 2001 in-flight. However we need to double check if that is the 2001, and not the 2002. I was planning to reorganize the information in Origins or flight-testing that describe each model in detail, 2001, 2002, and 2011.
 * Note: the 2001 uses AL-31, and the 2002 uses WS-10A or WS-10B. the 2011 uses WS-10G or WS-15.

Dark Liberty (talk) 05:25, 21 February 2014 (UTC)


 * the sentence that includes "superior to the PAK-FA" seems like peacocking. As noted a few months ago in the talk page, Globalsecurity.org doesn't have credibility. think tanks or analysts (of any of the three major nations) would be a better source.

Dark Liberty (talk) 02:31, 22 February 2014 (UTC)


 * withholding sentence permanently: "The general designer of the aircraft is reportedly Yang Wei, who was the general designer of CAC/PAC JF-17 Thunder." Not only does it not interest anyone who reads the article, but also the information is unsourced.

Dark Liberty 06:58, 23 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Should change the sentence to "uses similar stealth shaping as the F-22." According to Carlo Kopp from aviation.au:


 * The stealth shaping is without doubt considerably better than that seen in the Russian T-50 and, even more so, than the F-35. The design appears to be largely built around the stealth shaping design rules employed in the F-22A Raptor. The nose section and canopy are close in appearance to the F-22, yielding similar signature performance in a mature design.

Dark Liberty (talk) 07:37, 24 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Clarifying any confusion between the intended role of the J-20: "early variants could be employed as strike aircraft, or interceptors, with later variants 'growing' into the air combat role as more powerful engines become available." -Andrew Erickson

Dark Liberty (talk) 06:19, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Military Section
Although this portion appears to be well-written, there are some problems upon closer analysis:


 * the section states that the J-20 is not unlike a "stealth version" of the General Dynamics F-111 Aardvark, and then shifts that the J-20 will be more similar to a MiG-25 with stealth.


 * the Pentagon shifts its tone several times in this article from the J-20 is not a big deal to "a platform capable of long range, penetrating strikes into complex air defense environments." I think the Morrell statement has got to go because first of all, it's a PR statement, and second, that statement cannot be reconciled once the two portions are merged.


 * Carlo Kopp also stated similarities to the F-111, but he specifies "combat radius class" of the F-111 and 6 roles of the J-20, so somehow we have to reconcile all these roles.


 * After we are done elucidating the role of the J-20, we still have to place it into perspective how it is a grand-strategic rather than a tactical piece:
 * "What could be said about about its role in the greater context of all current and future 5th-generation developments, according to Kopp, "the development of the J-XX represents a well thought out 'symmetrical techno-strategic response' to the United States' deployment of stealth aircraft."

Dark Liberty (talk) 02:21, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

I believe I was able to remove the back and forth speculation, adding much more logical flow and chronological emphasis, although there is one section below that I was not able to fully address. The paragraph listed below doesn't seem have a way to credit the source, because of previous references to Carlo Kopp.


 * In the greater context of all current and future 5th-generation fighter developments, according to Kopp, "the development of the J-XX represents a well thought-out 'symmetrical techno-strategic response' to the United States' deployment of stealth aircraft."

Anyways, I'm finished with the section, and that should be the structure that should be worked with future:


 * Chronologically from military intelligence, initial assessments, later assessments, geo-military role, and then finally Pentagon and think tank confirmation.

I've made it easy to insert information. Just place information under the 6 roles of the J-20 paragraph, and the strategic role of the J-20, like information about island chains, etc. If anyone wants to add anything in the future, they can just quote sections without having to edit between older paragraphs.

A Preliminary Assessment of the J-20 Strategic Impact of the J-20

Dark Liberty (talk) 08:23, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Cybersecurity Section
I would like to emphasize the importance of letting readers draw their own conclusion on what the plane resembles.

We're not here to bash China, and we should hope that their civilian leadership becomes more sophisticated and pragmatic when it comes to foreign policy and restrictions on their citizens, and that the United States and China should work on areas of common interest and security concerns, although that is not for me to say.

However, there is a possible connection between the J-20 and the F-35, that compromise of the F-35 data occurred at some point, and that the development of the J-20 seems to have benefited from the F-35 program, in my opinion, in the areas of avionics and the targeting system. Of course there are many other areas that may have benefited, but they are convergent principles, at least in theory.

Changes to the section:


 * Archiving the information on the F-117 connection. It has no bearing on the current situation, and will only adversely effect how America is perceived. Also, the Pentagon filed a report that stated the development of the J-20 had no connection with the F-117.


 * remove the Mig 1.44 Section entirely. (letting readers draw their own conclusion goes both ways)


 * discuss the strategic implications of how the compromise of the F-35 will affect both China and the US both politically and militarily. found this information on the F-35 article: "Other sources suggested that the incident caused both hardware and software redesigns to be more resistant to cyber attack." China's Role In JSF's Spiraling Costs." Aviation Week, 8 February 2012.

Dark Liberty (talk) 08:21, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Actually, if any similarity were drawn here to the F-35, that would be breaking our own rule of letting users draw their own conclusions. The problem here is suggestibility.


 * What would be just and accurate to reality would be to say that information from the F-35 program was compromised, which may have helped the development of the J-20, and then place citations there, which most academic and policy sources will support.

Dark Liberty (talk) 19:34, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Afterthoughts
Ok, finished. there is much to be wanting from the article, I wanted to develop more on the ideas of strategy how the J-20 will be used, as well as how the United States has since improved its security systems in light of the F-35 compromise, and how the development of the J-20 will fundamentally change US-China relations. but these ideas never got around because of the sheer time it takes to write new content.

However, I was able to change fundamentally the article from a chaotic state to a unified one, while retaining neutrality. For example, in the Origins, I moved all the content to the J-XX article, paraphrased everything nicely, without any nonsense to cloud the minds of readers.

I've made the Flight testing schedule extremely precise, consistent, with no errors. there are many other tests that were conducted as well that I could've added but I intentionally left those out and focused on the most important flight tests.

The Characteristics section make sense now, for once, that someone new to aviation or an expert can appreciate.

Engines, well, you know they're going to use the WS-15 or AL-41 now, but not before the writing of the article.

As for Stealth, two sentences from Kopp sums it up:


 * the J-20 has the potential to yield much better stealth performance from the front and sides than the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, and possibly as good as the F-22A Raptor, should Chinese designers master materials and detail design techniques adequately.


 * Any notion that an F-35 Joint Strike Fighter or F/A-18E/F Super Hornet will be capable of competing against this Chengdu design in air combat, let alone penetrate airspace defended by this fighter, would be absurd. The F-35 Joint Strike Fighter and F/A-18E/F Super Hornet are both aerodynamically and kinematically quite inferior to the as presented J-XX/J-20 design.

I shaved more than 10 kilos of fluff, poor wording, random referencing tags, and assorted comments ranging from unsourced to untrue. I reduced the number of references from 110 to 86, while trying to place emphasis on the good links. I apologize for the back and forth editing, but that was necessary because of the state of disrepair the article was originally in.

As for the picture, I uploaded a huge 1367 x 768 picture, but the bastards took it down and replaced it with a neutered and more tame version because "someone will steal it." Yeah right. Most content from China's government falls under the free-use criteria so it can be used. There is probably a workaround to this problem that can be done in the future.

It will be awhile before this becomes a featured article, but I hope that future contributions and edits will make this article even better, and perhaps indistinguishable from the present.

Good luck and happy editing. Dark Liberty (talk) 10:17, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Angled nose cone base
http://theaviationist.com/2014/02/21/j-20-2011-ready/

The angle the base of the nose cone leans back on the second photograph is about what you would expect for an AESA mounting. Has this been covered anywhere? Hcobb (talk) 21:36, 21 February 2014 (UTC)


 * they will repaint the noise cone to make the color uniform. As for the base sphere, we will have to wait for more pictures that are closer to the final production model. Check here. Dark Liberty (talk) 22:09, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

http://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/ain-defense-perspective/2014-02-27/improved-chinese-stealth-fighter-nears-first-flight "The J-20’s radome, with canted bulkhead, almost certainly houses an AESA radar." Hcobb (talk) 22:42, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

References and Speculation
Although I appreciate the article has a lot of information added recently but examination of the references given in a lot of the cases just dont support the facts claimed or are armchair speculation. Please make sure when adding references they actually support the article text, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 16:45, 2 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Can we have some sort of ref by ref review or something? Hcobb (talk) 17:45, 2 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Sure. Dark Liberty (talk) 23:19, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Shaping
Current description:

The J-20 has a long and wide fuselage, with the chiseled nose section and a frameless canopy resembling that of the F-22 Raptor. Immediately behind the cockpit are low observable intakes. All-moving canard surfaces with pronounced dihedral are placed just behind the intakes, and behind these, leading edge extension merging into delta wing with forward-swept trailing edges. The aft section features twin, outward-canted all-moving fins, short but deep ventral strakes and conventional round engine exhausts.

Is this not exactly what the image provided describes, the upturned canards with pronounced dihedral, Russian AL-31 engines with round exhausts, leading edge extensions, and most importantly in the stealth section, the bump surface that reduces the engine's exposure to radar. All the artists renderings do not describe any of the features written in this section; this image, out of a million possible renderings, angles, and time of taking the image, is the one that most accurately represents the aircraft in this context. Note that the image has long since disappeared from the Chinese internet entirely, but luckily, I was able to capture it. Many copies and low-resolution of this image do exist that have been circulating ever since I uploaded it a month ago, but currently, I am the only person in possession of the original.

For reference, the older description is also provided here:

The J-20 has a long and wide fuselage, with the chiseled nose section and a frameless canopy resembling that of the F-22 Raptor. Immediately behind the cockpit are low observable intakes mounted with a pair of upturned canards. They are followed by leading edge extension and a diamond wing. The aft section features canted all-moving fins and conventional round engine exhausts.

Dark Liberty (talk) 03:58, 18 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Do we have any reliable sources for the description ? MilborneOne (talk) 17:19, 18 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Well it has to be from a source that Dark Liberty likes, and not those lamestream western media outlets of course. Right? Hcobb (talk) 19:39, 18 March 2014 (UTC)


 * The Washington Times is a daily broadsheet published in Washington, D.C. It was founded in 1982 by the founder of the Unification Church, Sun Myung Moon, and until 2010 was owned by News World Communications, an international media conglomerate associated with the church. Dark Liberty (talk) 18:10, 19 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Sadly, a Wikipedia editor's claim to possess an original image does not make it a reliable source. OTOH some media hype about an EOTS, whatever that is, hardly qualifies either (I invite you to read the article to which EOTS currently redirects). Good faith, good manners, good luck. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 18:40, 19 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I beg to differ. Do they demonstrate what the object of the article is? That should be the acid test. If you remove the photo, I will remove every single leaked aviation picture on Wikipedia. That's fair game to me. Dark Liberty (talk) 18:45, 19 March 2014 (UTC)


 * The acid test is whether the licensing meets our criteria. Are there other leaked images on the Commons? How does the licensing of those compare? &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 20:34, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Regarding misleading statements
There have been repeated attempts at passing references, claiming them to be from X, when in fact they are from Y. Specifically, we see statement such as "Global Times has said ..." but following the references lead you to news sites other than Global Times. This presents a misleading situation for normal readers.

For a well established news organization such as Global Times, it is a reasonable assumption that the reference links to the original Global Times article in question. Yet in the current state, we have a statement sourcing from a news article that talks about another article. It is like sourcing from Fox News on something that CNN said, which defies common senses. If there is so much trouble finding the original article, then there are cleary verifibility issues, and the source shouldn't be included.

And that leads us to the next issue: when I pull the quotes and look them up on Google, not one of the results actually linked to Global Times. So, even the very existence of the Global Times article is in question. At best, the aricle currently being referenced is merely a re-interpretation of what Global Times said, and that is not equivalent to what Global Times is saying.

One possible solution is to reword the statement in question to better reflect the source being used. However, seeing that approach has been tried before and we come back to the same situation, I am now being bold and removed said statement from the article.

70.27.107.121 (talk) 04:55, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Fighter
Shouldn't it be a interceptor?(Undeadplatypus (talk) 05:33, 17 July 2012 (UTC))


 * Sourcing? From what little I've seen J-20 and T-50 are being sold on their multi-role capabilities. I just wish somebody would pull out some sort of ref about this "variable DSI". I'd love to see even a crude diagram about how that is expected to work. Hcobb (talk) 09:56, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Nope. It's rate-of-climb is a bit low for a interceptor, but it will make a great bomber — Preceding unsigned comment added by Invincible918 (talk • contribs) 22:52, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

A 'purported' 5th-gen fighter
'Purported' in the cited link here:

www.flightglobal.com/articles/2011/01/04/351462/long-march-chinas-fifth-generation-fighter-is-years.html

refers to the images, not the fighter itself -- now we have verified images, so the word 'purported' in the opening sentence is no longer valid by this citation.

What's more, many publications have referred to the J-20 as a 5th-gen stealth fighter.

http://theaviationist.com/2012/02/28/chinas-5th-generation-stealth-fighter-performing-combat-maneuver-tests-over-chengdu/

http://english.pravda.ru/world/asia/21-05-2012/121187-china_fifth_generation-0/

http://www.businessinsider.com/china-buys-su-35s-engines-for-j-20-2012-11?op=1

http://gizmodo.com/5947067/leaked-photos-show-a-new-chinese-fifth-generation-stealth-jet-fighter

I don't see how the J-20 is a 'purported' 5th gen fighter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lostromantic (talk • contribs) 20:20, 8 January 2013 (UTC)


 * It is not an any generation fighter, the term is made up without a proper definition, in other aircraft articles mention of such generations has been removed as it doesnt mean anything. MilborneOne (talk) 20:32, 8 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Then remove it from the F-22, F-35, PAK FA, and HAL FGFA articles. Lostromantic (talk) 21:27, 8 January 2013 (UTC)


 * The "purported" refers to the fighter, not the photo. The articles discusses at length why the J-20 is unlikely to be 5th generation. And it's a reliable source. Cheers, --Mallexikon (talk) 05:15, 9 January 2013 (UTC)


 * It's a reliable source, but unfortunately the wording in the article doesn't support using the specific wording 'purported' in this Wiki entry. Will find other editors to weigh in on this claim.  Cheers, Lostromantic (talk) 07:29, 9 January 2013 (UTC)


 * "Purported" is a weasel word. I say leave it out. 174.95.47.195 (talk) 02:54, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Exactly. Let's just keep things simple, and avoid all this "purported" nonsense. KISS principle applies here. --  李博杰  &#124; —Talk contribs email 03:07, 10 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Purported is no weasel word and it's no nonsense. And I don't see why "the wording in the article doesn't support using the specific wording 'purported'" - after all, the article says: "Images of a new aircraft purported to be China's fifth-generation fighter...". The article also states that "Despite China's clear ambitions to be a leader in both civil and military aviation, other programmes suggest that it lacks the building blocks to create a truly fifth-generation combat aircraft"; it then goes on to elaborate on why (compelling arguments, too). So, we have hints here that the Chinese might well be bluffing (would serve their purpose for sure). Wouldn't it be better for an encyclopaedia to be as skeptical as possible here? --Mallexikon (talk) 05:29, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The wording of the reference is rather ambiguous, and we cannot make assumptions. How can you affirm that "purported" refers to the aircraft's status as 5th-gen, as opposed to referring to the aircraft being depicted in the photo? Remember, at the time, officials were yet to have officially announced the J-20 project, and everything was all speculation from groups here and there. The reference does not support your claim in an 100% unambiguous and verifiable way. "Wouldn't it be better for an encyclopaedia to be as skeptical as possible here?" - that's not Wikipedia's job. We write content based on what is 100% verifiable, as dictated per policy, and not what is right. Wikipedia is not aimed at righting great wrongs; "justice" is not one of the core principles of Wikipedia, things such as verifiability and neutrality are. --  李博杰  &#124; —Talk contribs email 06:00, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
 * No, the wording is far from ambiguous. If you don't want to read the article just read the quotes above. The article is from a reliable source, it's about the J-20, and it makes a rational case as to why it's unlikely that this plane really is a 5th generation fighter. BTW if you have an independent source 100% verifying that the J-20 is a 5th generation fighter, please let me know. Cheers, --Mallexikon (talk) 09:16, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I put four sources in the opening paragraph of this section. What more do you need?  What is your criteria for 100% verifying? Lostromantic (talk) 09:31, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, the source for the opening sentence says: "a large, stealth-like aircraft that, if confirmed, could be the first hard evidence of China's new 5th Genaration multirole aircraft." There is no 100% verification on whether this really is a 5th gen fighter, for obvious reasons. So if we have a reliable source lining up arguments why it's probably not 5th gen we should probably reflect that in the article. Cheers, --Mallexikon (talk) 10:50, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Here's what Business Insider said: "The F-35 is only one fifth-generation fighter project underway in the world right now. The others are Russia's PAK FA T-50, China's J-20 and, really America's F-22 that's still falling from the sky and unable to fly combat missions."
 * Here's what Gizmodo said: "We knew about the Chengdu J-20—China's fifth generation stealth fighter."
 * Here's what The Aviationist said, from February 2012 (not January 2011): "The following videos, once again purposely leaked to impress foreign observers, show China’s 5th generation stealth fighter J-20 at work during test flights at Chengdu." Note that even though the source reeks of POV, it still acknowledges the J-20 as a 5th gen plane.
 * Honestly, what more do you want? Do you need a direct quote that reads "the J-20, we can confirm, is fully 5th-generation"?  Except that's impossible, since by admission on the Fifth-generation_jet_fighter article, the "exact characteristics of fifth generation jet fighters are controversial and vague", which means such a quotation would be intrinsically false.
 * In the end, the burden of proof rests on you to insert the word 'purported' into the opening sentence of the article. Find something more reputable and up to date, and we'll all be happy to change the language. Cheers, Lostromantic (talk) 20:27, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Prototype is sufficient. The J-20 is a prototype for testing out 5th gen features. There is no need to call it a purported prototype. Sorry for the confusion. Hcobb (talk) 22:47, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Damn, you're right. Wasn't reading the sentence closely enough... --Mallexikon (talk) 04:05, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
 * But hang on. If it's just a prototype we can hardly list the F-22, F-35 and T-50 as "Aircraft of comparable role, configuration and era". The J-20 is just not there yet. So I'll delete that little list. Cheers, --Mallexikon (talk) 02:14, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Being a prototype has no contradiction with that prototype being an "aircraft of comparable role, configuration and era". Firstly, the definition of aircraft does not preclude prototypes, and comparison with other 5-th generation fighters is very relevant given the J-20 is designed as a 5-th generation fighter aircraft.  Secondly, with exception to F-22 in your list, T-50 is very much just a prototype while F-35 is still undergoing tests.  Your argument isn't applicable on the latter two aircraft and doesn't justify why the list should be removed.  Thirdly, your reason that "these functioning aircraft are hardly comparable to a prototype" is extremely vague.  The J-20 is very much functional in that there are photographic evidences showing it flies and performs maneuver.  The list should be reinstated. 174.93.88.126 (talk) 04:37, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The T-50 is clearly acknowledged by Russian and Indian sources as a prototype as well. If you'd like to bifurcate *prototype* 5th gen fighters from *operational* 5th gen fighters, you are free to do so; in that case, the T-50, J-20, and J-31 belong together, and the F-35 and F-22 belong together.  Cheers, Lostromantic (talk) 05:58, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Fine. I personally think the T-50 plays in a different league than the J-20 but I acknowledge that's up for debate... Cheers, --Mallexikon (talk) 07:33, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Surely the X-35 and Lockheed YF-22 are comparable, because unlike the F-35, they don't have the stealth coatings or weapons. Hcobb (talk) 08:59, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Put them on the list? --Mallexikon (talk) 09:03, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * As long as it is made clear that the thing that is being compared is the process of development rather than one state at a moment vs. another one. Hcobb (talk) 09:08, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Except the aircraft are being evaluated on whether they share a comparable *role, configuration, and era*--not whether they are at the same stage of development or not. Changing the edit back.  Cheers, Lostromantic (talk) 10:00, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't understand your argument. How can you know what role and configuration an aircraft has if it's not even finished? --Mallexikon (talk) 10:29, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. I've removed the F-22 and F-35 as comparable aircraft from the HAL FGFA and PAK FA.  I've also removed the FGFA, J-20, PAK FA, and J-31 from the F-22 and F-35 comparable aircraft sections.  If any more experienced editors come along and revert back any of those pages, then I will take that to indicate that by the standards of Wikipedia, the J-20 should be listed as comparable to the F-22 and F-35. Cheers, Lostromantic (talk) 20:46, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Also removed the F-35 and F-22 (and J-20, J-31, and FGFA) from the Advanced Medium Combat Aircraft page, as that fighter merely exists as a design and has not yet entered prototyping. Cheers, Lostromantic (talk) 20:50, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Also did mutual removals for the Mitsubishi ATD-X, Mikoyan LMFS, Shenyang J-31, and KAI F-X pages. Now, there is a clear distinction between 5th-gen aircraft in design, prototype, and production phases. Again, if any of these edits get reverted back, then we should acknowledge the J-20 as being comparable to the F-22 and F-35 as well.  Cheers, Lostromantic (talk) 21:12, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, thanks for the effort, mate. I can't really see the rationale for changing our article if there are changes from whoever in any of the other articles you just mentioned, but let's let it be for now. Cheers, --Mallexikon (talk) 01:25, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
 * If aircraft A is comparable to aircraft B, isn't aircraft B then comparable to aircraft A? Comparability is commutative.  It's a basic principle of epistemology.  Cheers, Lostromantic (talk) 22:50, 15 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Sure it is, and since J-20 is projected to be operational in 2017, it

must be comparable to the KAI F-X(projected for 2021) or the Mitsubishi ATD-X (first flight in 2014) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Invincible918 (talk • contribs) 23:25, 24 May 2014 (UTC)