ludasmatyi
Junior Member
Looks real enough for me
J-20 5th Gen Fighter Thread IV (Closed to posting)
- Thread starter siegecrossbow
- Start date
- Status
Looks real enough for me
It looks like I called B.S. too early. The official cjdby blog is reporting, and they posted more than one photo too. Link here:
*Note: some big shrimps are saying that this is simply the repainted 2002. No wonder there isn't any major change!
*Note: some big shrimps are saying that this is simply the repainted 2002. No wonder there isn't any major change!
Last edited:
Didn't we see 2004 a few months ago? Why is this big news?
But what is still a mystery is why they'd want to repaint 2002... I suppose now if we see a 2002 still flying it means there were indeed two 2002s built all along.
But what is still a mystery is why they'd want to repaint 2002... I suppose now if we see a 2002 still flying it means there were indeed two 2002s built all along.
I guess this confirms the two of everything rumour?
Can anyone give a summary since I'm not a member there.
But to admit this whole renumbering-story does not make any sense !
Why should they do this ? ... only to fool us ??
It only - and IMO even this does not make any more sense - if there were already from the beginning two 2001 and two 2002 of which now now one became 2004 and the other ??
Can anyone help to explain ??? ... since I simply don't get it.
Deino
But to admit this whole renumbering-story does not make any sense !
Why should they do this ? ... only to fool us ??
It only - and IMO even this does not make any more sense - if there were already from the beginning two 2001 and two 2002 of which now now one became 2004 and the other ??
Can anyone help to explain ??? ... since I simply don't get it.
Deino
I did that just now.
Please keep this thread to J-20 and take your analysis of F-22 RCS to the stealth thread!
Just a shotgun theory, but maybe the numbers indicate the kind of testing each frame is supposed to undergo. When a frame moves on to to something else they change the number?Can anyone give a summary since I'm not a member there.
But to admit this whole renumbering-story does not make any sense !
Why should they do this ? ... only to fool us ??
It only - and IMO even this does not make any more sense - if there were already from the beginning two 2001 and two 2002 of which now now one became 2004 and the other ??
Can anyone help to explain ??? ... since I simply don't get it.
Deino
kwaigonegin
Colonel
I was actually thinking the same EXACT thing or more specifically a set of training procedures and milestones. maybe 2001 is airworthiness, flight profiles, characteristics, 2002 is avionics and sensors, 2003 weapons, 2004 weapons seperation, flight refueling etc.
Ditto. Maybe we're onto something.
- Status