J-20 5th Gen Fighter Thread VI

anzha said:

USAF Confirms: The Chinese J-20 Spotted In Georgia Is a Mock-Up Used For Training by the U.S. Marine Corps

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Click to expand...

In all seriousness, what could a poorly-made mockup be useful for? The only logical reason would be A2G target identification or as a prop to simulate parked J-20s.

Meaning that it could indicate that the US plans to destroy J-20s on the ground as its primary means of defeating the J-20 threat. Purely speculation though, and perhaps far-fetched in that sense.

Yes insinuation is the correct term since the question was asked if it were real. A mockup is not newsworthy and not surprising of the purpose. Now those wishing it were real, my prediction now is they will believe the US is planning to steal a J-20 from the Chinese hence the training prop. But those that don't think just like believing it were stolen hence an admission of the J-20's superiority to risk WWIII, the Marines wouldn't admit there was a J-20 mockup for training purposes if they were planning to steal one.

SinoSoldier said:

In all seriousness, what could a poorly-made mockup be useful for? The only logical reason would be A2G target identification or as a prop to simulate parked J-20s.

Meaning that it could indicate that the US plans to destroy J-20s on the ground as its primary means of defeating the J-20 threat. Purely speculation though, and perhaps far-fetched in that sense.

Click to expand...

If the mock-up was really cheap and quick to assemble, the cost value balance for putting one together just to start visual ID training can work I think. Not much utility outside of that but if they wanted to do RCS and aerodynamic tests on the J-20 they may not even need a full sized mock up, or a mock up at all these days.

latenlazy said:

If the mock-up was really cheap and quick to assemble, the cost value balance for putting one together just to start visual ID training can work I think. Not much utility outside of that but if they wanted to do RCS and aerodynamic tests on the J-20 they may not even need a full sized mock up, or a mock up at all these days.

Click to expand...

RCS studies require a very precise mockup, not a crude toylike model of the #2001 demonstrator.

SinoSoldier said:

RCS studies require a very precise mockup, not a crude toylike model of the #2001 demonstrator.

Click to expand...

I think Latenlazy is saying that if they wanted to do RCS studies they didn't necessarily need a full size model. Of course any RCS model (full size or smaller sized) would have to be quite precise.

SinoSoldier said:

In all seriousness, what could a poorly-made mockup be useful for? The only logical reason would be A2G target identification or as a prop to simulate parked J-20s.

Meaning that it could indicate that the US plans to destroy J-20s on the ground as its primary means of defeating the J-20 threat. Purely speculation though, and perhaps far-fetched in that sense.

Click to expand...

The real problem is that the paint job is all wrong... It is based on the 2001 demonstrator. I think that using it as A2G target identification is actually misleading.

siegecrossbow said:

The real problem is that the paint job is all wrong... It is based on the 2001 demonstrator. I think that using it as A2G target identification is actually misleading.

Click to expand...

Nah, J-20 prototypes s/n 2001/2002 would clearly be HVTs during a conflict.

SinoSoldier said:

RCS studies require a very precise mockup, not a crude toylike model of the #2001 demonstrator.

Click to expand...

Bltizo said:

I think Latenlazy is saying that if they wanted to do RCS studies they didn't necessarily need a full size model. Of course any RCS model (full size or smaller sized) would have to be quite precise.

Click to expand...

What Blitzo said, *but* I also mean it’s possible to do an RCS study all through digital simulations now. This choice depends more on cost than capability.

They can do a lot of the stealth characteristics study these days with computers. And confirmation with a model, not nessisarily 1:1.

siegecrossbow said:

The real problem is that the paint job is all wrong... It is based on the 2001 demonstrator. I think that using it as A2G target identification is actually misleading.

Click to expand...

Doesn't need to be accurate, just look alien. Same for Dissimilar air combat doesn't need to be accurate to potential foes just look and preform akin to.