Talk:J-XX

Picture vs. Discription

I understand that other designs have not been ruled out, however, the picture of the fighter and the main discription of the fighter is contradictory. Maybe we should change the discription? --Steven 21:37, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Could possibly use the line drawing from SinoDefence.com? Any copyright issues regarding that? I'm still relatively new; somebody else should decide and act on decision. --83.67.208.250 14:35, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

The drawing on SinoDefence is a MiG MFI. The article claims that a Chengdu J-13 is under development, and that it 'resembles' an MFI. I'm not sure how useful that is. Joffeloff 17:42, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Sound to me its the Super-10. It looks alot like the MFI....

Chengdu is working on the Super-10. Shengyang is working on a different plane. This plane..

What about this? http://img508.imageshack.us/img508/2590/19bh1.jpg shouldn't it be used in the article if at all?--Lan Di (talk) 13:47, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

It is being used extensively in the article; everything referenced to Coniglio is referring to this very article from Miltech. --Rlandmann (talk) 02:57, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the image http://img508.imageshack.us/img508/2590/19bh1.jpg, I've heard that it was a fake. More CGI images of that model can be found on the internet apparently. Thats what I've heard, at least. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.60.202.221 (talk) 04:27, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps; but it's the article content contained in that scan that's being referenced, not the image. --Rlandmann (talk) 05:22, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

How much of this plane is Chinese reverse Engineering?

Any input on how much technology etc of this plane is either the atypical Chinese reverse engineering job of Russian technology or whether sub-components are license built yet locally made, and or variant of Russian technology? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.161.141.148 (talk) 16:40, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Why mention comparable aircraft

Given that the design hasn't even been finished, let alone a working prototype, does it even make since to list comparable aircraft? Chinese design intentions aside, the J-XX is still very much a paper airplane at this stage.216.181.47.130 (talk) 19:05, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Hehe, J-14 is flying in the sky now, but the Western still regard it as a paper plane at the imagination stage. There must be one living in the imagination: either the Western or the J-14. It seems that nobody here can read the news report in Chinese in the Internet. ——Nussknacker胡桃夹子^.^tell me... 22:16, 3 August 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nutcracker (talk • contribs)

If the J-14 exists then military enthusiasts from around the world would love to know more details about it. The problem is that for every verifable new program out there, there are countless other claims made by nationalist fan boys, like yourself. This makes it all the more difficult to evaluate legitimate claims of proposed aircraft capabilities. For now, propaganda not withstanding, the J-XX, remains a program, not a prototype. When it shows up in Janes, I'll believe you.216.181.47.130 (talk) 13:34, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

That's great! The moment we have that information from a Reliable Source, we'll be sure to feature it right here. --Rlandmann (talk) 00:45, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

What about the J-20?Staygyro (talk) 23:29, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Speculation

The whole article for the J-XX is really speculation, the government hadn't formally said anything about it ( I doubt they will, like the J-10 they'll acknowledge it's existence once it's in service) so shouldn't we be able to add pieces to the article based on speculation? (Not from forums of course, but there should be a good few non forum sites about the J-XX I think, so shouldn't speculation from those sites be added to the article?) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.57.50.156 (talk) 02:18, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

No problem – if the speculation comes from a Reliable source, such as Jane's Defense Weekly, AW&ST, or any similarly authoritative publication. On the other hand, speculation from privately-published sources such as blogs, forums, and private websites doesn't meet Wikipedia's standard for inclusion. --Rlandmann (talk) 03:02, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

And that's exactly what we're getting lately, along with photoshop. Hcobb (talk) 23:14, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Dates

Rather than setting up the dates as being in conflict, why not show their agreement? The Chinese prototype will fly in 2017 with some hope for a limited capability in 2020, while the Americans agree with the first flight date but suggest that full development will take a decade. So even with the T-50 flying in 2010 and deployed in 2020, while the J-XX flies in 2017 and deploys in 2025, they will have been developed much more quickly than the F-22 and F-35. Hcobb (talk) 20:31, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Because they are actually in conflict. We should present the information as our various sources do and accurately reflect that chaotic and speculative nature of these predictions. --Rlandmann (talk) 08:37, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Content dispute

I have semi-protected the article pending discussion regarding continual removal of cited content. Any disputed removal or otherwise really needs consensus. Thank you. MilborneOne (talk) 09:14, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

China's generation gap

Lots of examples out there.

http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/90001/90776/90786/6822507.html As to the classification of fighter generations, the world's military powers are varied. The U.S. defines F-15, F-16 fighters with the characteristics of transonic speed in medium-low altitude as third generation fighters and F-22, F-35 fighters with good performance in stealth, super sonic cruise and super maneuverability as fourth generation fighters.

I'm still not sure if this is a translation issue or missing a generation during the Cultural Rev. Hcobb (talk) 05:55, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Do you mean the difference betw Russian and U.S. nomenclature about the aircraft generation? ——Nutcracker胡桃夹子^.^tell me... 22:11, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

No, it's a China problem.

Shenyang J-8 due to political turmoils such as the Cultural Revolution, the J-8 was not produced until 1979 and entered service in 1980.

Hcobb (talk) 05:11, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

China groups what the West and Russia as 3rd Generation as 2.5th Generation fighters. The rest of the world's 4th Gen then becomes China's 3rd Gen and 5th Gen becomes China's 4th Gen and so on so forth.Staygyro (talk) 23:34, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Pelikan tail

Does it really have a Pelikan tail? According to this image, it seems to have a V-tail. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 01:54, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

That's the Northrop YF-23. Has Northrop moved to China? Hcobb (talk) 14:43, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Photoshop fun

This newest picture is very interesting. The aircraft is so stealthy that it moves the direction the Sun shines down on it. Hcobb (talk) 23:21, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Please elaborate. I am no Photoshop expert. This picture looks ok to me, but it could very well be a clear fake in the eyes of an expert. I have my suspicions, mostly because it is posted on the English version of the People's Daily network but also because the proportions are so similar to F-22, which is strange for a canard-configuration. Duduong (talk) 08:32, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Start with the "canard". What angle is it at? Hcobb (talk) 13:52, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I cannot identify it, but that may be a result of the angle. I cannot identify the elevator either. In the end, this is just an airframe. They could be missing just like the radar. The question is: is this an airframe of an F-22 photoshopped to a background of an H-6 or that of a canard-design which simply looks similar.Duduong (talk) 21:50, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Janes

Rumors and rumors. Can Janes be considered a reputable source when it repeats internet rumors? 12:53, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

9-Dec-2010 Russia, China push fifth-generation fighter programmes to meet year-end milestones

Reuben F Johnson JDW Correspondent - Kiev

A second prototype of the Sukhoi T-50 (PAK-FA) fifth-generation fighter aircraft will make its first flight by the end of this year, according to Russian defence industry spokespersons.

As with the first prototype, this aircraft will be flown initially from the Dzemgi aerodrome adjacent to the Komsomolsk-na-Amure Aviation Production Association. After initial-acceptance test flights, it will be transferred to the Gromov Flight Research Institute in Zhukovsky.

Sukhoi's general director, Mikhail Pogosian, stated that a T-50 will also be flown in a display at the MAKS International Aviation and Space Salon in August 2011.

A source close to the programme told Jane's that "the end-of-the-year deadline may not be met, but the aircraft will fly very soon - either before the end of 2010 or just after the [beginning of the] new year". Russian aircraft programmes - even in Soviet times - have often had year-end deadlines for first flights that came down to near photo finishes.

Meanwhile, rumours have emerged from China's Chengdu Aerospace Corporation (CAC) and the adjoining Aircraft Plant 132 that a Chinese-developed fifth-generation fighter prototype may also fly by the end of the year. Reportedly, two airframes - numbered 2001 and 2002 - have been assembled at the plant.

According to Russian industry sources, the programme - sometimes referred to as 'J-20' - is a joint design effort between CAC and the Shenyang Aircraft Corporation, with Chengdu taking the lead on the development. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.186.8.229 (talk) 12:53, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

J-20

We need an article for the J-20 prototype which has been officially confirmed as doing taxi flights. http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/defense/index.jsp?plckController=Blog&plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&newspaperUserId=27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7&plckPostId=Blog%3A27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post%3A39676d78-1d53-4723-a2f6-1461d18bc6b1&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest

First flight seems imminent. This is one of the most important landmarks events in aircraft development this year. /endcomment —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.65.23.90 (talk) 20:25, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Sure, what's the max weight, engine thrust, max speed, weapons, crew, etc? Answer those and I'll be happy to help make the page. Hcobb (talk) 19:53, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

If this is the same aircraft, should this article be retitled or adjusted to incorporate the new designation? --Daysleeper47 (talk) 15:24, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Better res images have emerged. Looks long and menacing. Impressive, I must say. Enough evidence has been reveiled that this has been reported in multiple publications.

Bill Sweetman has given his thoughts speculating "lower supercruise performance and agility than an F-22, but with larger weapon bays and more fuel" and suggesting a lambda wing platform. http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/defense/index.jsp?plckController=Blog&plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&newspaperUserId=27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7&plckPostId=Blog%3a27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post%3acaf36660-d425-4fbc-a284-008017b2b444&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest

http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2010/12/is-this-chinas-first-stealth-fighter/

http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2010/12/27/first-chinese-stealth-fighter-ready-for-takeoff/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.69.63.10 (talk) 18:51, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, looks big and easy to spot with lots of widgets reflecting on its high observability. Hcobb (talk) 19:33, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

I suspect lower stealth than the F-22 Raptor, though we are early on the details and specs. Although, this is still quite a feat. Supposedly, they had rejected Russia offer to subsidize their program because they thought this design would be superior to the PAK FA. Time will tell. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.69.63.10 (talk) 19:54, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

One thing about the photo's is that the plane is not flying this is a initial mock up of the plane it will take year's before this plane will fly and maybe a decade or so before it will be pressed in to service —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.21.214.42 (talk) 19:45, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Latest BBS postings

We take BBS postings as refs these days?

Very well, remove the J-XX from the list of fighter aircraft then.

Why?

Because it has no room in the nose for a radar. Hence it is not a fighter aircraft. Hcobb (talk) 21:30, 26 December 2010 (UTC) Was J-XX a program name like Advanced Tactical Fighter USA or an an actual plane's name. I thinks its the former so please do not delet until sure — Preceding unsigned comment added by Simonstone (talk • contribs) 19:08, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

My bad. I thought it was a fighter along the lines of the F-22 or F-35. Instead it is this huge huge target along the lines of the F-111. So it's still not a fighter, but it does have room for a radar. Hcobb (talk) 20:19, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Canards

Does anybody have any reference for some sort of breakthrough that would allow for canards on low-RCS aircraft? Every reference I've seen shows how they can be used on meter-scale RCS 4.5th gen aircraft, but not down into the centimeter-scale RCS of stealth aircraft. Hcobb (talk) 15:51, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

According to this post (http://military.china.com/critical3/27/20101230/16319592_1.html), Chengdu has employed plasma stealth at the twisting joints of both the canards and the tails. Duduong (talk) 09:33, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 77.103.45.44, 28 December 2010

{{edit semi-protected}}

External links

• Sinodefence J-XX
• Shenyang J-XX Stealthy Fighter Aircraft
• [1]

77.103.45.44 (talk) 15:14, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

 Not done The additional link you provided doesn't meet our external links guidelines. The content provided is very short and it doesn't provide any additional info that can't be incorporated into the article's text. ThemFromSpace 15:33, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Possible pictures

There are pictures of the J-20/J-XX circulating on enthusiast forums, perhaps we can add these to the article?

Specifically post #603 http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?191146-J-XX-renamed-to-J-20-rumors-says-it-had-its-maiden-flight-on-December-5th./page41

And #597, 600 http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?191146-J-XX-renamed-to-J-20-rumors-says-it-had-its-maiden-flight-on-December-5th./page40 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.190.79.216 (talk) 11:34, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Sure. Just get the person who took the picture to sign a release form. Hcobb (talk) 19:55, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

J-20

Is this Chengdu J-20 the same aircraft - do we need two articles? MilborneOne (talk) 20:09, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Merge. 99.236.221.124 (talk) 01:43, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

The J-XX or XXJ refers to multiple fifth generation stealth programs by the PRC (J-12, J-13, J-14, J-20 etc). J-20 article refers to th specific recent prototype which doubtless will be improved over time before it enters service.Amraamny (talk) 03:56, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

anhedral wings

How can the anhedral angle be different in front and rear photos? Hcobb (talk) 22:15, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

The anhedral main wing and the dihedral canards are not a coincidence. I think this lay-out allows the vortex generated by the canards to enhance the lift on the main wing. If true, this would be a significant innovation. This J-20 is full of surprises. Duduong (talk) 09:42, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

I mean the main wings. Look at the rear photograph and you will see that the wingtips and wingroots all form one straight line. Now look at any other photograph and you will see that each wing angles downward from the wingroot to the wingtip and so the two wings are at an angle with respect to each other. How is this possible with any physical object? Hcobb (talk) 16:16, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

I suspect that the wings are level with zero anhedral angle, but that the angles the plane was photographed from mislead me. Hcobb (talk) 21:13, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

No first flight for J-20

I have seen zero refs for this.

http://en.rian.ru/analysis/20101229/161986565.html

The word "flight" occurs zero times in the article text. Hcobb (talk) 20:17, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

I have seen no evidence that it has flown, towed around and run up the engines maybe but the aircraft in the image doesnt appear to have flown. Lots of assumptions that it is a J-20 in the images being linked to but again no evidence it is actually a J-20. MilborneOne (talk) 20:23, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Combine/Join with Chengdu J-20

If Chengdu J-20 has really exist, how if we join J-XX to Chengdu J-20. Gsarwa (talk) 01:18, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

No! Now we have a second aircraft under the J-XX program.

http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/2011/09/imgages-shenyang-f-60-ucav-ste.html

Yay! Hcobb (talk) 14:14, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

J-18 is the code for F-35B in PLAN service?

http://www.wantchinatimes.com/news-subclass-cnt.aspx?id=20131002000137&cid=1101

So the PRC is putting USMC logos on their aircraft now? Hcobb (talk) 18:25, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

No just really bad journalism. MilborneOne (talk) 18:27, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

SCMP

South China Morning Post is not a credible source, as it is the equivalent of yellow journalism, except that the authors are Chinese. for example, the headlines today read "China to create new [religion]". Also, that section has nothing to do with the J-XX program. Dark Liberty (talk) 21:13, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

J-26 yet?

http://www.navyrecognition.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2723

Are we ready for another article? Hcobb (talk) 18:00, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Not even slightly. The only reference in that article to calling it a "J-26" is the caption of a fanart drawing. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 18:40, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, it seems to be the J-18, not J-26.

• http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/china/j-18.htm
• http://nationalinterest.org/feature/look-out-america-china-wants-its-own-vertical-takeoff-jets-15220
• http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/06/05/go-ahead-china-copy-our-crappiest-warplane.html

Hcobb (talk) 19:29, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm going to suggest holding off on anything. Spit balling out two very different designations in the space of less than an hour does not inspire confidence in any of them. This may not have enough official confirmation to go with anything yet. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 22:37, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on J-XX. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20100126025452/http://space.tv.cctv.com:80/video/VIDE1257691556223886 to http://space.tv.cctv.com/video/VIDE1257691556223886
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20081211042549/http://www.sinodefence.com:80/airforce/fighter/jxx.asp to http://www.sinodefence.com/airforce/fighter/jxx.asp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:53, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on J-XX. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091112184628/http://news.ifeng.com/mil/2/200911/1109_340_1426743.shtml to http://news.ifeng.com/mil/2/200911/1109_340_1426743.shtml
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.janes.com/defence/air_forces/news/jdw/jdw021210_2_n.shtml
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100228043004/http://www.defense.gov/speeches/speech.aspx?speechid=1369 to http://www.defense.gov/speeches/speech.aspx?speechid=1369

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:17, 16 April 2017 (UTC)