Wikipedia

Talk:Chengdu J-20/Archive 3

< Talk:Chengdu J-20
Latest comment: 2 years ago by 2601:85:C101:C9D0:D454:650:1A03:EDF7 in topic Number in service
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

Archived Content

Latest comment: 9 years ago4 comments1 person in discussion

I plan to develop some of these ideas in the future. This section is for removed content, for reference.

  • The J-20 may become the first operational combat aircraft that carries sufficient fuel to supercruise throughout its missions, doubling its sortie rate.
  • Roger Cliff, senior political scientist at the RAND Corporation, states that "What we need is to be able to put 25 jets in the air and take down 75 of theirs, without many losses. But it’s just not going to be that one-sided anymore" and "We have become accustomed to a world where our air power is dominant, but that dominance is now in question."
  • Trimble, Stephen (9 February, 2011). "J-20: China's ultimate aircraft carrier-killer?". www.flightglobal.com. Reed Business Information. Retrieved 23 February 2014. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

Dark Liberty (talk) 07:45, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Here is content mostly pertaining to alleged technology transfer, daqi.com and rian.ru can be useful for future research.

Dark Liberty (talk) 09:44, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Dark Liberty (talk) 22:24, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

  • was compromised by unknown attackers allegedly appeared to originate from China, although the article stated the ease of masking identities.

Dark Liberty (talk) 17:29, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Images

Latest comment: 9 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

Sorry Dark Liberty but I have removed the image again, it clearly can be replaced with a free image and to keep uloading can be seen as being disruptive. The fact you cant find a free image is not an excuse for using a non-free image just the fact that a free image can be taken. MilborneOne (talk) 18:52, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

It's no problem. I think you have the evidence that it was the original, just go to the first uploaded image and check the Source section, under the Non-free-use tag, it will show you the link where it came from. If the information is still there, all you have to do is check the deletion log.
Also, it's your responsibility to replace it with a free image, not mine. Remember a few years ago we were debating about whether to wait for a real photo of the J-20 to come out before we stick up an artist's rendering that even a retard could make. That day has already come, and gone. I merely offered what you requested, an original. Now, we are still waiting. Dark Liberty (talk) 19:02, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
it's your responsibility to replace it with a free image, not mine - I dont think so it is up to the uploader to make sure that any image is properly licensed and fit for purpose, no a CGI image is not suitable either. We are not in a rush if a free image cant be found then we can wait. MilborneOne (talk) 19:15, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

I've done extensive research on image copyright status. I uploaded a picture of the J-20 almost a year ago from cctv.com. Since then, the image no longer exists. I believe the image passes the fair-use clause. And, I don't think China has a concept of intellectual property rights.

According to WP:NFCC#1, "in theory that somebody could take a free image, or be asked to release an image as free." -MilbourneOne, that means any civilian can take a picture of the J-20. however, there isn't another copy of the picture, even if a thousand years pass. the reason is you cannot reproduce another picture taken of the prototype taken from a J-10 chase plane.

Dark Liberty (talk) 05:28, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

there are four main components to the Fair-use criteria.

Purpose and Character: the first criteria is whether an image can be used for the general education and enrichment of the public rather than profit. 99% of images fail this in this regard, because they are used for profit. Other images fail the character clause, because the image does not demonstrate the discussion or content of the article in question, or does not do so in a clear manner.

Nature of the copied work: the picture is non-fictional, and not an artistic work. It is a photograph, and to forensic scientists, trained artists, as well as military experts can confirm that indeed the the image is real. I think... Of course, by offering it available on Wikipedia...

Amount and substantiality and Effect upon work's value: The picture does not infringe upon the the copyright owner's ability to exploit his or her original work.

In conclusion, despite being fair use, I will not re-upload of the image because of the controversy and possible copyright violation it may generate. However, if someone can research the copyright status laws for images from government sites other than the United States, it would be appreciated.

Dark Liberty (talk) 05:39, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Darkness falls over Taiwan press

Latest comment: 9 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chengdu_J-20&oldid=602827473&diff=prev

No Taiwanese source is acceptable? Hcobb (talk) 13:11, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

The problem with Taiwanese sources as well as South China Morning Post is that they are written by very, very angry Chinese, and do not offer any original information or research. basically they regurgitate whatever American sources put out, in their own angle, for whatever reason they have. Dark Liberty (talk) 05:46, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
We can use American, UK, and Australian sources. Dark Liberty (talk) 05:50, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

William Sweetman - Aviationist links

Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

Someone removed the Sweetman references because the links are dead. that's really nice, but the problem is that A lot of the content of the article cite Sweetman. Also, he is one of the top aviation experts. Can someone find his articles on any web archives? Thanks. Dark Liberty (talk) 05:28, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Or at the very least, show me where the web archives for Aviationist links are located. Dark Liberty (talk) 05:51, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Notice

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Article has been thoroughly infiltrated by Chinese trolls seeking to portray the fighter jet as either amazing or something revolutionary, which isn't the case, as the technology isn't exactly groundbreaking. Nothing wrong with trying to advance a POV with genuine intentions, but they need to understand the editing process, or risk being banned. The current editors are just trying to maintain the article.

SundayRequiem (talk) 00:40, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

The article is basically crap

Latest comment: 12 years ago6 comments5 people in discussion

Looks to me the article is written by someone with some serious inferiority complexity towards China and Chinese.

There is no solid evdience about technical transfer occured in this fighter, all from baseless funny soap-grapes claims with no evidence.

There is also no Chinese side of story shown in the article, mostly from the west soap grapse who can not accept that Chinese are simply smarter than them thus can get things done way quicker.

Check the PAK-FA's wiki article, and you can clearly see there is no place for such splectations (You know the American Airforce generals dont think very high about PAK-FA, and nobody put a full sections covering these american generals' POVs).

Basically the article is a piece of crap, first, tech-transfer section is based on pure sepelcations, thus should be removed completely, seconldy, some editors of this article, namely, Hubb somethings, obviously has a strong POV, most likely, sourced from his deeply rooted inferiority complex, should be banned from edit this article.

Time to site tech transfer?: http://www.defensetech.org/2016/03/23/chinese-man-pleads-guilty-to-hacking-us-military-aircraft-data/ jrn-hsv 17:04, 31 March 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jason.r.newell (talk • contribs)

Wiki is not a source for you to try to bury others' heads into the sands, just bury yourselves and stop misleading others, many thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 111.193.201.129 (talk) 23:19, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Well if you believe that this article needs work, then by all means be bold, create an account for yourself, and make your own contributions to the article, given that they are verifiable and well sourced. I for one would welcome any contributions that would improve this article. As for POV within the article, it would be better off to address the POV content of the article, rather than to put the blame at solely one editor; many editors have collaboratively joined in on writing this page, and if there is POV its unlikely that its only one person to be blamed. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 01:40, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Hey Beijing user. Would you mind going down to Chengdu and using a tape measure to find the exact sizes please? And BTW, I've been fairly harsh on all the fifth gens. Note my addition of the upgrade section for the F-22 to show what work it needs to become combat ready some day. Hcobb (talk) 05:01, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

I seriously doubt you have been as harsh with the F-22 as you have with the J-20, even though you know FAR less about the latter than you know about the former.

Just a note about the 1st flight test date: 2011-01-11. This is not any offense to any american, it's just simply a nice date. Chinese people are very meticulous when they elect the date for something important, studying if it is an auspicious date or not. They like dates like "11/1/11", or "8/8/8" (remember olympics?). It sounds as the project leaders have thougth about making its first test on a good date, while it is not as significant to inform prime minister... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.77.16.215 (talk) 12:13, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, this article is seriously POVed. From the POV of a neutral observer (myself), you'd think that a pack of editors with a massive chip on their shoulders descended upon this page and set out to systematically destroy the rep of this aircraft based solely on speculation. The 'calls' from the most vocal editors on this page for people to 'contribute' their own speculation as a means to ameliorate their own blatant biases does less than nothing to hide their POV slants that are spread all over this page. It's so blatant it makes this article somewhat surreal in the volume of negativity heaped upon the aircraft, and all based on completely unsubstantiated speculation that just happened to be uttered by someone perceived to be important yet no less ignorant than any other commoner, and BAM! it gets highlighted and slapped onto this page like it was Gospel. This article is just sad.
I agree. And is the same in any article about anything that could possibly be better than the "almighty" Americans. 200.189.118.162 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:17, 19 August 2011 (UTC).

NO F-22 is clearly 1000 times better than j-20. And if there was a war between the lying Chinese and the US and her allies,F-22 will quickly annihilate the J-20. I guess that is why it is called annihilator 20. And it is obvious that the Chinese stole the info about F-22 and F-35 and than lied. I don't know why the stupid american congress is ordering the weak F-35 that will get torn apart. The US Military should have atleast 750 raptors to win a war. 1 F-22=20 F-35s. 1 F-22=3 J-20(Im not American.)

Wikipedia is not a forum. If you want to talk about military aircraft and discuss "mine is better than yours" in a phallus-waving contest, by all means do so on a military internet forum. If you want to troll people into thinking you're an expert in weaponry, [http://boards.4chan.org/k/ I suggest you go to /k/] instead. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 02:17, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Additional Resources

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

These are the best resources. Note that Aviationist articles are subject to linkrot and should be backed up in the future.

http://www.andrewerickson.com/2011/01/j-20-fighter-development-outlook-strategic-implications/

http://www.jamestown.org/programs/chinabrief/single/?tx_ttnews[tt_news]=37903#.UxJgSayfF9Q

http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-J-XX-Prototype.html

http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-NOTAM-090111-1.html

https://medium.com/war-is-boring/6b8ebf775795

http://www.informationdissemination.net/2011/01/my-thoughts-on-j-20.html

http://aviationintel.com/chinas-j-20-new-missionized-configuration/

http://www.defensetech.org/2016/03/23/chinese-man-pleads-guilty-to-hacking-us-military-aircraft-data/

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Dark Liberty (talk • contribs) 17:41, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Technology transfer section

Latest comment: 12 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion

I think the technology transfer section should be removed it is full of speculation and gossip that was spread very soon after the J-20 taken it's first flight. It's lacks all forms of credibility. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.118.168.184 (talk) 12:50, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

I'll move it to J-XX as Chinese piracy is not specific to this one fighter. Then we can add in the ways they're ripping the Russians off also, instead of wasting money on researching what others have already done. Hcobb (talk) 13:44, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
It's rather hard NOT to accuse you of obvious POV, since you blatantly state, as if fact, that "Chinese piracy is not specific to this one fighter" and yet have provided absolutely NOTHING in the way of verifiable evidence from any source whatsoever to substantiate Chinese piracy of any part of the J-20, including the stuff that is already present in the "Technology Transfer" section, which is itself nothing but pure speculation tripping over more speculation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.169.82.11 (talk) 20:01, 8 August 2011

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/aug/18/russia-china-fight-jet-technology Independent analyst Adil Mukashev, who specialises in ties between Russia and China, suggested there had been a financial transaction. "China bought the technology for parts, including the tail of the Mikoyan, for money," he said.

Good enough to add? Hcobb (talk) 23:55, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
Nope. The strongest words in that piece are "suggested" and "looks like", which means it's still just speculation. - BilCat (talk) 00:11, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
Yes, good enough. Feel free add it, Hcobb. This comes from a reputable news agency, has received broad coverage, and is much more informative than the speculation already present in that section. There are no policies on Wikipedia that say something has to be definitive to be added to an article. That's a rule someone with an agenda invented. When we're dealing with military technology, especially top secret matters, rarely is anything definitive. If military analysts speculate that there was transfer of technology, that's about as good as it will get. It isn't as if the Chinese would come out and admit if this were the case. --24.17.63.79 (talk) 02:47, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Looks like we need to site the truth in tech transfer and espionage: http://www.defensetech.org/2016/03/23/chinese-man-pleads-guilty-to-hacking-us-military-aircraft-data/ jrn-hsv 17:07, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Chengdu J-20. 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:

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) 06:31, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Chengdu J-20. 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:

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) 06:42, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Chengdu J-20. 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:

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) 19:02, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Chengdu J-20. 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:

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) 19:55, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Citekill

Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

You've got several statements that have four or even six source citations. This is probably too many. See WP:CITEKILL. Kendall-K1 (talk) 15:31, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. Freikorp (talk) 00:11, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Strategic implications - Political

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The section about political impact is an example of the result of our 24 hour news entertainment and the resulting over the top speculation and over-interpretation. In this case sources are worthless, they are not credible, only back-traceable. Thanks to the internet one can find a source for anything.
To give an analogy: We could quote religious "scholars" in articles about certain types of cancer about the religious meaning of these diseases or we could list "famous" people who had these, somehow we do not. Instead of making this article about US politics as if everything is about it,
it should be about aerodynamics, trim drag, turn performance, unrefueled ranges; all at various altitudes and speeds. Or in short, it should be about the facts of an aircraft, not about speculation stemming from the egocentric world view of a nation.
"Observers were not able to reach a consensus on J-20's primary role" A true expert would know all about the mission of this aircraft by looking at it. Having data on the existing, known engines, aircraft area, wing area and distribution, size and number of the vertical stabilizers, leading edge sweep, inlet type, does allow informed speculation. Canards might be used for a number of effects, given their large separation from the main wing and their peculiar Dihedral something must follow. We also know the geography, current capabilities, ambitions, threads and thus needs of the Chinese military.
I am for the deletion of the political section and for a review of the used sources. The inlet design and the Wings sweep are at odds with the claim of: "Maximum speed: 2,750 km/h (1,709 mph; 1,485 kn) Maximum speed: Mach 2.8" Other discrepancies might be found, but some design inconsistencies will be because growth was designed into the airframe, they might have used larger stabilizers on the early models and so forth. --Moritzgedig (talk) 15:58, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

4th or 5th generation

Latest comment: 3 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion

Chinese TV CGTN showed the fighter at the Zuhau airshow, but their own English subtitles read "China's FOURTH generation J-20 fighter jets conquered the skies" etc etc

(source: for example, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YESJAygRpE8)

Same thing for Xinhua, another Chinese agency: they call it a 4th-generation fighter https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P5ux8KP4Uhg.

I have no doubt that China can and will produce excellent aircraft but the J-20 doesn't look very "stealthy" and perhaps they realized it too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.104.21.174 (talk) 15:14, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

The reason they refer to it as "4th generation" is because Chinese classification is different from the western one: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jet_fighter_generations#Chinese_classification -- Nicholas Velasquez (talk) 15:34, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
Concur. A couple of IPs from India have been changing the Lead to read "fourth-generation", citing a China Global Times article. What's interesting is that this article lists the HAL Tejas as a "third-plus generation fighter", which the Wikipedia article lists as "fourth generation"! I assume these IPs will have no objection to our changing the Tejas article to read "third-plus generation"? <<Snort-snort>> - BilCat (talk) 07:04, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
Yes, this whole "competition" is quite funny. -- Nicholas Velasquez (talk) 11:54, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
It's not likely to end anytime soon. The noted Indian defense and aviation site, Zee News (!), has published an article, China downgrades its Chengdu J-20 'stealth' fighter to 4th Generation but claims IAF Rafales no match for it. No mention in that article of ghr Tejas being "downgraded" by China either. - BilCat (talk) 15:35, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
I actually misread the Global Times piece. It's the Rafale that China listed as third generation. No mention of the Tejas. (It was late at night!) Of course, the Zee News article ignored the China mention of Rafale being 3rd-plus gen, and called it a 4th-plus gen. Pop-culture journalism at its best! - BilCat (talk) 15:42, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Verify Sources on J-20 Top speed

Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

Could someone please fix the Mach 2.55 top speed statement on the J-20's specifications segment?

The number seems ludicrous and upon verification of cited sources, I have found that they either do not support the claim of a M = 2.5 top speed, or have extremely questionable reliability.

The first source from KK news itself cites information from a Chinese Air Force propaganda video that claims the J-20 can "Cruise 52 kilometers in one minute" or at 3120 km/h. They claim that the plane can reach this speed at sea level and reach M = 2.55 and can also obtain this airspeed at 10,000 m, reaching M = 3.0

The second listed source also does not include their estimate or statement on the top speed of the aircraft and should be removed from the citation list accordingly

The third source blatantly includes speculation from a journalist with no degrees or experience in aerospace engineering stating that the plane just might be able to reach M 2.5 with the new WS-15 turbofans. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Flammedice (talk • contribs) 03:56, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

This information sounds extremely questionable, given the WS-15 turbofan can only generate the same thrust as the Pratt & Whitney F119 turbofan, which only pushes the much lighter and smaller F-22 Raptor to Mach 2.25. This compounds on the fact that the J-20 seems to only have tested speeds of the even weaker WS-10 powerplant. Which makes it even less credible that the plane could reach such high airspeeds as Mach 2.55, 2.8 or even 3.0

Please update the Mach number on this page to match more realistic numbers, and try and get original sources on the plane's speed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Flammedice (talk • contribs) 03:51, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

WS-10C now officially powers the J-20 production variant according to Flight Global

Latest comment: 3 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

Here is the reference.

Chinese airpower reaches for the big leagues in 2021

https://www.flightglobal.com/defence/chinese-airpower-reaches-for-the-big-leagues-in-2021/141314.article#:~:text=The%20development%20of%20Chinese%20airpower,of%20a%20new%20stealth%20bomber.

According to flight global: "China’s premiere fighter, the Chengdu J-20, is flying with a local engine, the Shenyang WS-10 Taihang – early versions used Russian Saturn AL-31s. In November 2020, images emerged of J-20s powered with an updated version of the WS-10, the WS-10C." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:152:4400:5580:A5D2:E6BC:C3D9:1C64 (talk) 04:04, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Since now, it is official that WS-10C has replaced the AL-31FM to power the J-20. I removed AL-31FM in the J-20's specification section and replaced it with WS-10's data.


--2601:152:4400:5580:A5D2:E6BC:C3D9:1C64 (talk) 04:08, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

The claim that the production variant is powered by the WS-10C is not supported by the article. Additional verification is required for that. - RovingPersonalityConstruct (talk, contribs) 04:40, 15 January 2021 (UTC)


I have added plenty of refences in the WS-10 article to support this claim. --2601:152:4400:5580:A5D2:E6BC:C3D9:1C64 (talk) 05:49, 15 January 2021 (UTC)


For Christ sake !! Prototypes using WS-10C engine is still VERY important ! You can NOT just remove that source material ! I added them back and used the word prototype and clarified other sources' thesis and abstracts !

--2601:152:4400:5580:A5D2:E6BC:C3D9:1C64 (talk) 06:17, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

FIX TOP SPEED

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The Mach 2.55 figure for the J-20 is blatantly wrong.

Please remove the top speed segment, or set it to unknown, or set it to >= Mach 2.0

The two of the references listed beside the speed listing do not demonstrate that it could reach Mach 2.55, and other one is a blatant propaganda piece. 

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Flammedice (talk • contribs) 09:14, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Someone deleted my Cost Information in the Right Banner

Latest comment: 3 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Who keeps on deleting the "Per Unit Costs (LRIP)" estimated cost information in the Right banner? I worked very hard to piece and source that, why do you think it's not reasonable to include it?Rwat128 (talk) 21:19, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

@Rwat128: Several weeks ago, the cost parameters were disabled in {{Infobox aircraft type}} so that they no longer work, after a discussion at WT:AIR about abuse of these parameters. You can add the information to the body of the article in an appropriate section in suitable prose if you want, as the data is still in the article's history. BilCat (talk) 23:46, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
@BilCat: To be honest, I knew the LRIP cost information in general is bullshit and crap. I'm surprised Wiki actually did something about it. Kudos to you and the team for clearing up junk. Like how do you know Su-57 is really $40M vs. FC-31 that is $70M vs. J-20 that is $110M? Nobody knows. Rwat128 (talk) 02:20, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 September 2021

Latest comment: 2 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Change "Length: 20.3 m" to "Length: 21.2 m" Change "Wingspan: 12.88 m" to "Wingspan: 13.01 m" Change "Height: 4.45 m" to "Height: 4.69 m" Change "Maximum speed: Mach 2.5" to "Maximum speed: Mach 2.0" [1] Ajx245wzp (talk) 18:58, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://news.sina.com.cn/c/2021-09-27/doc-iktzscyx6669627.shtml
The page already reflects the edit request changes. The status of this request has been updated to "answered". Heartmusic678 (talk) 13:44, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 March 2022

Latest comment: 2 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Strategic Implications > Military > Paragraph 5 > Sentence 1. Correct "avation" to "aviation.

Aviation researchers believe that J-20 signifies China had surpassed Russian military in the application of contemporary AVIATION technologies such as composite materials, advanced avionics, and long-range weapons systems. WoodjaCoodja (talk) 14:30, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

  Done ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:30, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Number in service

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

https://www.albanyherald.com/news/china-is-sending-its-most-advanced-fighter-jet-to-patrol-disputed-seas/article_10808c01-beb9-543c-9c5c-d81d4bf0c998.html#:~:text=With%20some%20200%20J%2D20s,Griffith%20Asia%20Institute%20in%20Australia.

The above source states 200 J20s in service. Think of that what you will, but in service J20s probably amounts to 150-200. Open to criticism of source. 2601:85:C101:C9D0:D454:650:1A03:EDF7 (talk) 21:12, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Chengdu_J-20/Archive_3&oldid=1219267537"