J-20 5th Generation Fighter VII

Status
Not open for further replies.

ougoah

Brigadier
Registered Member
Nice strawman.

No it's called sarcasm in pointing our your flawed logic where you assume DT is able to verify "ex-military". I do not doubt for a second there are ex-military on DT. The problem with your claims is that there is no way to determine if the members who commented on AusAirDefence article are ex-military and if they are verified ex-military by DT which itself is a fallible organisation that can get these things wrong and have no reason to be accurate or honest.

On top of this, you also failed to address the bigger issue which is how do we know ex-military are right and know anything about the topic? Grunts are often extreme failures within US society. They are also often just above morons in IQ. Even IF I consider DT ex-military comments made for AAD is true, how do we even begin to evaluate their opinions? People who can barely get through high school let alone understand even the most basic physics concepts.

Anyway I won't comment further on this. DT as some authority is HILARIOUS. Mostly morons who don't know the first thing about anything technical. There are like 10 members who are barely technically literate. The rest is political jingoism and propagating racist attitudes. It is the exact same crowd as F-16.net and TDW where 90% are morons who repeat racist attitudes and repeat soundbytes that have long been debunked and proven false beyond any doubt. I mean only 15 years ago this is the same crew said China would never ever be able to even make a flying aircraft themselves, despite that already being false back then.
 

ougoah

Brigadier
Registered Member
I believe they're officers.

The rest doesn't really address my original question.

Cheers.

Believe whatever you want. It doesn't make it true or accurate. Furthermore even if true those comments on DT about the AAD assessment are made by real officers, it still doesn't mean those officers know what they're talking about. Many military officers have zero background in STEM. What makes us so sure these particular self claimed officers do know anything about RCS testing? You have attacked plenty of members in the past for much smaller lapse in logical judgement but here you are doing this.

For the record, I'm absolutely doubtful of AAP's assessment of ... well everything. But it is one of the more academic and sensible (and relatively impartial) looks at aircrafts like Flankers and J-20 prototype. Overall I don't think their conclusions are really worth placing significant trust in.
 

Deino

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Registered Member
Oh well ...

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

... if this is the USAF's official understanding on the PLAAF's J-20, so what what an epic fail!

1. Not sure, what Zhuhai Airshow they saw, but 15 J-20s in a formation? Here on earth? What?
There were only two and no "additional group of the aircraft parked on the runway."...

But even more:

2. Why still citing SCMP? Minnie Chan is probably the most unreliable source and this report was criticised as simply wrong. To claim there are 150 J-20s in service is ridiculous all the more in "four air regiments, most operating in the interior of the country"
At best there 60-70 J-20s in service yet and the PLAAF operates them in Brigades!

As such, PLEASE beware of such reports and even more the mentioned "source".

In fact, I rate her the most unreliable "source" at all; I would even go as far that she has no true internal PLA-related sources at all. All she does is lurking around at some certain social media platforms and picks up the most obscure rumours, she then hypes as "based on internal contacts ...".

So, by my understanding, she's simply not able or willing to differ between reliable and unreliable internet rumours and to put them into the correct context.
 

SandMan

Just Hatched
Registered Member
I thought the 1st 9th and 85th were operational with J-10. Along with the ones with training with 172nd and 176th. Thats more than 76?
 

Deino

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Registered Member
I thought the 1st 9th and 85th were operational with J-10. Along with the ones with training with 172nd and 176th. Thats more than 76?


No, the 1st at Anshan and the 9th at Wuhu, YES - the 85th at Quzhou was a misinterpretation since the 9th was temporarily relocated due to AB-renovations - and indeed the 172nd at Cangzhou and the 176th at Dingxin.

However - at least IMO - the misconception is, that not all four units are fully equipped with three daduis (flight groups of 10 J-20s each). IMO the one at Dingxin has only one, the one at Cangzhou also even if the serial numbers may hint towards a second one, the 9th at Wuhu has indeed most likely a full complement of 30 J-20s but the 1st by all I know currently at best only one.

In summary, based on my own estimation, I think that the ...:

- 172nd AB at Cangzhou operates one Dadui J-20As = 10x
- 176th AB at Dingxin operates one Dadui J-20s = 10-12x
- 9th AB at Wuhu operated three Daduis J-20s = 30 (confirmed are 13 individual aircraft with no. 27 the highest one making 30 not unlikely)
- 1st AB at Anshan operates one Dadui J-20As by now = 10 (eventually gaining another Dadui by year's end... so maybe = 20)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Altogether this would sum up to 40 J-20s (using the original Russian engine) and 20-22 (maybe 30-32 until 2022) J-20As (+ WS-10C) or 60-62 today, maybe 70-72 until 2022.

But surely not 150, since again IMO any number of J-20s beyond the 100 marks would require the creation of a full third operational unit (9th, 1st & an unknown one), for which we have no report or rumour yet and based on any previous unit - be that Dingxin, Cangzhou, Wuhu or most recently Anshan - we had such hints almost one year before the first aircraft was noted or even confirmed.

But maybe others have a different or even better estimation.

Best,
Deino
 

11226p

Junior Member
Registered Member
Oh well ...

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

... if this is the USAF's official understanding on the PLAAF's J-20, so what what an epic fail!

1. Not sure, what Zhuhai Airshow they saw, but 15 J-20s in a formation? Here on earth? What?
There were only two and no "additional group of the aircraft parked on the runway."...

But even more:

2. Why still citing SCMP? Minnie Chan is probably the most unreliable source and this report was criticised as simply wrong. To claim there are 150 J-20s in service is ridiculous all the more in "four air regiments, most operating in the interior of the country"
At best there 60-70 J-20s in service yet and the PLAAF operates them in Brigades!

As such, PLEASE beware of such reports and even more the mentioned "source".

In fact, I rate her the most unreliable "source" at all; I would even go as far that she has no true internal PLA-related sources at all. All she does is lurking around at some certain social media platforms and picks up the most obscure rumours, she then hypes as "based on internal contacts ...".

So, by my understanding, she's simply not able or willing to differ between reliable and unreliable internet rumours and to put them into the correct context.
The 15 J-20s are from the centenniel fly over when they practiced
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top