Chengdu J-20 news and analysis Part III

[Hyperwarp]

Production J-20A with WS-10C

 

[pegasus]

interesting but canards are also position related, the ideal canard is above wing level like in Rafale, J-20 then needs dihedral in the canards creating an additional reflecting surface, furthermore a delta canard like that of the viggen AJ-37 is the best one for vortex creation but at low AoA this canard generates more drag so canards tent to have slightly less swept than a very high swept delta.

On J-20 the canard pushes the wing position further aft increasing its relative size, ideally the wing should be further forward and then the canard can be positioned like Eurofighter typhoon on the forebody nose for low drag, but in the chinese machine J-20 that is not possible.

So while is possible to improve the RCS of its canards the general aerodynamic result is poor, and even its dihedral on the canards will increase its RCS, the F-22 and F-35 designers also did study canards but these were discarded because in reality the compromises in aerodynamic do exist and the Russians used LEVCONs to avoid such penalties, thus a LEVCON is far far much better solution than canards.

The J-20 uses old solutions, on F-22 TVC nozzles basically fix any disadvantage of the conventional design, the LEVCON fixes two main drawbacks canards have, first it is part of the wing, second it controls the vortex like a canard would do in aircraft like Su-37, but without the additional problem position canards generate, controlling the position of the vortex means basically pitching or rolling with much more freedom than with a canard with lesss compromises between aerodynamics and RCS

 

[kaiserd]

Not sure a lot of that makes much sense.
You can’t divorce a specific canard design and position from the overall design, not aware of any “ideal canard” in that context.
Sounds more like parroting non-factual pro-Su57 talking points while pushing some weird kind of anti-J20 agenda.
I really don’t care about the J-20 but let’s try to keep postings at least somewhat factual.

 

[pegasus]

Not sure a lot of that makes much sense.
You can’t divorce a specific canard design and position from the overall design, not aware of any “ideal canard” in that context.
Sounds more like parroting non-factual pro-Su57 talking points while pushing some weird kind of anti-J20 agenda.
I really don’t care about the J-20 but let’s try to keep postings at least somewhat factual.

actually read aerodynamics of Rafale and you will understand, your anti-Russian stance does not make a good explanation of what are its advantages among them is the asymmetrical use of lecvons for roll which basically means different pitch control of each wing, without reduced lift at low AoA flight of the canard wing combination and without compromises such as positioning the canard above wing level or closer to the wing, basically avoiding all the disadvantages of canards remember Su-37 had canards but Su-57 has not but has much better aerodynamics, in fact Su-57 does not have ventral fins contrary the J-20 or Su-37 increasing stealth.


In fact if you want i can give at least 10 aerodynamic studies that prove my points, if you leave your anti-russian bias you will start to see how great the idea of Levcons are, and how advanced is Su-57, at least in aerodynamics is the best 5th generation fighter now, and you will see J-20 has drawbacks that any honest person can see

 

[Deino]

..
In fact if you want i can give at least 10 aerodynamic studies that prove my points, if you leave your anti-russian bias you will start to see how great the idea of Levcons are, and how advanced is Su-57, at least in aerodynamics is the best 5th generation fighter now, and you will see J-20 has drawbacks that any honest person can see

NO, please not again!

 

[Fluff]

..
In fact if you want i can give at least 10 aerodynamic studies that prove my points, if you leave your anti-russian bias you will start to see how great the idea of Levcons are, and how advanced is Su-57, at least in aerodynamics is the best 5th generation fighter now, and you will see J-20 has drawbacks that any honest person can see

NO, please not again!

Damn it, I go away, come back 3 months later, and the same RCS/aerodynamics arguments are still raging, so much hate for a little bit of black paint......

Anyone want my 38 page summary as to why it should be white paint?????

 

[Sundog]

Damn it, I go away, come back 3 months later, and the same RCS/aerodynamics arguments are still raging, so much hate for a little bit of black paint......

Anyone want my 38 page summary as to why it should be white paint?????

Don’t be daft, it’s not supposed to be either black or white. It’s supposed to be gray, and according to the Have Glass paint scheme the proper shade is...

Same internet, different day.

 

[Fluff]

Damn it, I go away, come back 3 months later, and the same RCS/aerodynamics arguments are still raging, so much hate for a little bit of black paint......

Anyone want my 38 page summary as to why it should be white paint?????

Don’t be daft, it’s not supposed to be either black or white. It’s supposed to be gray, and according to the Have Glass paint scheme the proper shade is...

Same internet, different day.

one mans grey is another mans battleship

 

[pegasus]

..
In fact if you want i can give at least 10 aerodynamic studies that prove my points, if you leave your anti-russian bias you will start to see how great the idea of Levcons are, and how advanced is Su-57, at least in aerodynamics is the best 5th generation fighter now, and you will see J-20 has drawbacks that any honest person can see

NO, please not again!

View attachment 623963

take it like a good advice not everyone is interested in counting bort numbers, that is good, true, counting bort numbers is good, recently in Japan in one of the most popular magazines they made an analysis on the 2020 February issue and they said China only has 10 J-20s probably operational aircraft, regardless if it is an accurate figure or not it shows how inaccurate picture analysis to find bort numbers is.

Aerodynamic analysis can not give also the whole picture, but you can find at least the ideas behind the design, the J-20 has old ideas, canards do have limitations in RCS thus the latest French-german and the British or Japanese concepts lack them, to think the Chinese paper is the last word is very simplistic because the same studies were made in other countries and canards have known constraints regardless you understand or not aerodynamics or you use them or not well it is a fact J-20 is a 1990s concept which has been already surpassed, yes it is much modern than a late 1960s or early 1970s design concept like F-15 or Su-27, or a 1980s Rafale or Lavi concept, but for a 2020 concept such as the latest British 6th generation fighter, well it is old, thus the document posted by overscan still does not rule as the latest word in aircraft concept design, people liked my critic or not well surely i do not care, the fact is all designs have design ideas related to a time period, like F-86 is a 1940s concept, MiG-21 a 1950s concept, well J-20 is a late 1990s concept already surpassed by new aerodynamic concepts such Levcons, people want to see that or not well it is personal but the latest trend in 6th generation fighters are deleting tails either aft tails or foretails, and there are reasons and it is basically RCS considerations.

Be open saying not again is rude, is like i say why all the J-20 thread have to counting numbers just to please your interests? if i was the moderator i would say not again counting numbers so boring, but nor me or you own the thread in order to be polite we should respect others i will not participate beyond what the flow of ideas are in the thread but i suggest you be as equally respectful and kindly i ask you stop harassing me please too the threads are not your property you also make them bore if you only try to please your interests.

 

[Deino]

take it like a good advice not everyone is interested in counting bort numbers, that is good, true, counting bort numbers is good, recently in Japan in one of the most popular magazines they made an analysis on the 2020 February issue and they said China only has 10 J-20s probably operational aircraft, regardless if it is an accurate figure or not it shows how inaccurate picture analysis to find bort numbers is.

Aerodynamic analysis can not give also the whole picture, but you can find at least the ideas behind the design, the J-20 has old ideas, canards do have limitations in RCS thus the latest French-german and the British or Japanese concepts lack them, to think the Chinese paper is the last word is very simplistic because the same studies were made in other countries and canards have known constraints regardless you understand or not aerodynamics or you use them or not well it is a fact J-20 is a 1990s concept which has been already surpassed, yes it is much modern than a late 1960s or early 1970s design concept like F-15 or Su-27, or a 1980s Rafale or Lavi concept, but for a 2020 concept such as the latest British 6th generation fighter, well it is old, thus the document posted by overscan still does not rule as the latest word in aircraft concept design, people liked my critic or not well surely i do not care, the fact is all designs have design ideas related to a time period, like F-86 is a 1940s concept, MiG-21 a 1950s concept, well J-20 is a late 1990s concept already surpassed by new aerodynamic concepts such Levcons, people want to see that or not well it is personal but the latest trend in 6th generation fighters are deleting tails either aft tails or foretails, and there are reasons and it is basically RCS considerations.

Be open saying not again is rude, is like i say why all the J-20 thread have to counting numbers just to please your interests? if i was the moderator i would say not again counting numbers so boring, but nor me or you own the thread in order to be polite we should respect others i will not participate beyond what the flow of ideas are in the thread but i suggest you be as equally respectful and kindly i ask you stop harassing me please too the threads are not your property you also make them bore if you only try to please your interests.

No, there is one important difference: Indeed I am too much interested in serial numbers, construction numbers and detailed close-up photographs - maybe even annoying to others - but I don't post endless pages of lecture-like only to convince anyone on my opinion. Additionally, even more in contrast to You I do not re-open this can of worms only to lecture again and again and most of all I don't mix it with personnel issues like "any honest person can see", what directly implies than anyone, who does not agree with You is dishonest, especially if several other members with much more knowledge in aerodynamics and stealth have proven You wrong.

Therefore: No thanks, not again... just accept like others - including me - that there are other opinions out there and that between your world of black & white only there are many shades of grey in between. So in short: Not again this endless list of arguments; we all read them.


By the way just to stay on topic: Why don't you post this Japanese analysis, on why the PLAAF has only ten J-20s operational?! That would be something worth to discuss.

Best and happy new year with a great shot right from the dragon's nest.

 

[Deino]

...
By the way just to stay on topic: Why don't you post this Japanese analysis, on why the PLAAF has only ten J-20s operational?! That would be something worth to discuss.
...

Now at least 18 individual ones are confirmed by their serial number !

 

[Jemiba]

Personal discussions can and should be argued out via PM or email, not in via posts in the thread. It's much less
interesting to other members, than many would think ...
And the theme here is the Chengdu J-20, so the appropriate personal pronoun is "it", not "you" or "me" !

 

[stealthflanker]

Given the Chinese access to other programs, one can argue that they see a merit in the layout to solve problem that cant be solved otherwise. Might as well wait for the answer to reveal itself.
---

More than that.. does any weight estimates released so far ? like say Operating empty weight.

 

[totoro]

We haven't had OEW published even for j10 in its export variant. I don't think we'll see such figure disclosed for j20 for at least a decade.

 

[helmutkohl]

We haven't had OEW published even for j10 in its export variant. I don't think we'll see such figure disclosed for j20 for at least a decade.

on a related note.. will the J-10 ever be exported? we know China is open to it, but seems like there's no demand for it
customers seem to want the JF-17 instead and perhaps one of the stealth planes.

 

[totoro]

Impossible to say whether it will ever be exported, as the future is not set. Certainly the J-10CE variant meant for export only appeared in the brochures recently. And the domestic engine is to be put into mass service on PLAAF planes. So I wouldn't expect domestic engines to be offered for export variant for another year or so. Without the domestic engine, J-10 has weaker chances for export, as Russia always has a say in any possible contract.

I'd say we will eventually see some sales, but it may not be tomorrow, so to speak, and I don't see hundreds of them sold over the next few decades. Perhaps several dozen? Reason being that the number of countries that might be interested in somewhat limited. First off, all countries that are western aligned are unlikely to buy it. Then, of all the countries remaining, a lot of them don't have the money. Those that do have some money but are still fairly pressed for money make up the most of those remaining countries and are more inclined to go for JF-17 or even cheaper planes. Than there are some countries that could afford the plane and do have the need for such a plane but are perhaps more aligned towards Russia, so they'll rather buy their planes instead. And by that point we're talking perhaps of half a dozen countries remaining. Some of which are even rich enough to skip the J10 and go straight for something more advanced from China, like a FC-31 based design.

 

[helmutkohl]

Impossible to say whether it will ever be exported, as the future is not set. Certainly the J-10CE variant meant for export only appeared in the brochures recently. And the domestic engine is to be put into mass service on PLAAF planes. So I wouldn't expect domestic engines to be offered for export variant for another year or so. Without the domestic engine, J-10 has weaker chances for export, as Russia always has a say in any possible contract.

I'd say we will eventually see some sales, but it may not be tomorrow, so to speak, and I don't see hundreds of them sold over the next few decades. Perhaps several dozen? Reason being that the number of countries that might be interested in somewhat limited. First off, all countries that are western aligned are unlikely to buy it. Then, of all the countries remaining, a lot of them don't have the money. Those that do have some money but are still fairly pressed for money make up the most of those remaining countries and are more inclined to go for JF-17 or even cheaper planes. Than there are some countries that could afford the plane and do have the need for such a plane but are perhaps more aligned towards Russia, so they'll rather buy their planes instead. And by that point we're talking perhaps of half a dozen countries remaining. Some of which are even rich enough to skip the J10 and go straight for something more advanced from China, like a FC-31 based design.

I had the same exact sentiment as yours. Those that have smaller budgets will go for JF-17. Those that got bigger, will aim for the FC-31.
especially since the JF-17 seems to had some good success recently in Pakistan.

 

[TomcatViP]

Some "Western aligned" countries could be interested by the cost of the airplane reaching performances capabilities at a low purchase price for air policing missions.
Look at a country like Austria. They fly (flew to be exact) Saab antics trainer at certainly a significant price when they could mull such plane at a better mission efficiency for the same budget.
To me Teja should take those market but the operational constraints and political bias would certainly open opportunities for a Chinese Delta.
It's not like "western aligned" countries never did such (Migs).

 

[kaiserd]

Some "Western aligned" countries could be interested by the cost of the airplane reaching performances capabilities at a low purchase price for air policing missions.
Look at a country like Austria. They fly (flew to be exact) Saab antics trainer at certainly a significant price when they could mull such plane at a better mission efficiency for the same budget.
To me Teja should take those market but the operational constraints and political bias would certainly open opportunities for a Chinese Delta.
It's not like "western aligned" countries never did such (Migs).

Is that really a remotely realistic or likely proposition?
And increasingly drifting off topic (J-20).

 

[TomcatViP]

It substantiated the theme above related to foreign sale in western countries. I am not sure that it could be classified as off-topic but obviously I would gladly adhere mod's opinion.

 

[pegasus]

By the way just to stay on topic: Why don't you post this Japanese analysis, on why the PLAAF has only ten J-20s operational?! That would be something worth to discuss.
...


Now at least 18 individual ones are confirmed by their serial number !

Consider you will need to read this magazine on the article world's fighters 2020, like i said regardless the accuracy it shows the difficulty of getting an accurate number.

https://www.amazon.co.jp/J-Wings-ジェイウイング-2020年2月号/dp/B082BVCQNF

 

[Deino]

By the way just to stay on topic: Why don't you post this Japanese analysis, on why the PLAAF has only ten J-20s operational?! That would be something worth to discuss.
...


Now at least 18 individual ones are confirmed by their serial number !

View attachment 624096

Consider you will need to read this magazine on the article world's fighters 2020, like i said regardless the accuracy it shows the difficulty of getting an accurate number.

https://www.amazon.co.jp/J-Wings-ジェイウイング-2020年2月号/dp/B082BVCQNF

Thanks for the reply but I'm sure you know that I'm not able to read Japanese and I'm sure I'm not alone here.

Therefore please enlighten us with a summary or at leat explanation, why they found aot that there is a"difficulty of getting an accurate numbers"? So either they rely on old data and have not all 18 individual J-20s in their list, or they assume them to have only 10 operational but are faking them by renumbering to higher numbers ... or why?
And that please - as per the forum's rules - in English.

 

[pegasus]

Thanks for the reply but I'm sure you know that I'm not able to read Japanese and I'm sure I'm not alone here.

Therefore please enlighten us with a summary or at leat explanation, why they found aot that there is a"difficulty of getting an accurate numbers"? So either they rely on old data and have not all 18 individual J-20s in their list, or they assume them to have only 10 operational but are faking them by renumbering to higher numbers ... or why?
And that please - as per the forum's rules - in English.

I did not buy the magazine, so physically I do not have it, I was in the subway waiting for my daughter, when i gave a brief reading to the article where they have three sections: 3rd generations fighters MiG-23 or F-4J, fourth generations fighters F-15J, F-2 and Su-27/J-11, and fifth generation J-20, F-35 basically all the aircraft in operation in the JSDF and main world powers, the magazine is a really good one if you are interested in knowing about japanese airspace industry, for example they have in the January issue the test pilots of the Japanese air force and obviously about the Shinshin and F-2.

I was a bit shocked since the japanese F-15 do intercept Russian and Chinese aircraft regularly so in Japan we are very interested in J-20.

But do not read beyond the numbers, the J-20 article is small, just main data and a small historical review, but they say only 10 aircraft, i did not read the whole issue since basically my daughter came, so we went to the place we needed to go.


Are they wrong? i do not know, was a very professional article? i do not know perhaps was a sloppy one, who knows, but the magazine claims only 10, perhaps they are wrong perhaps it was sloppy reporting or who knows, the point is simply calculate how many is tricky, at least i do not think you have ever seen 20 J-20s together, who knows they might be wrong, sloppy writter or i do not know i just told you what it says.

 

[Hood]

I don't see that it matters whether they have 10, 18 or 40 at this stage. The fact is they have invested into the J-20 and continuing to refine and improve it and sooner or later much larger numbers will be in service as production ramps up.

 

[Deino]

....
But do not read beyond the numbers, the J-20 article is small, just main data and a small historical review, but they say only 10 aircraft, i did not read the whole issue ....

Are they wrong? i do not know, was a very professional article? i do not know perhaps was a sloppy one, who knows, but the magazine claims only 10, perhaps they are wrong perhaps it was sloppy reporting or who knows, the point is simply calculate how many is tricky, at least i do not think you have ever seen 20 J-20s together, who knows they might be wrong, sloppy writter or i do not know i just told you what it says.

Thanks for Your reply, but I must admit, isn't this a bit lame?? You made quite a bolt statement especially against my own numbers:

...counting bort numbers is good, recently in Japan in one of the most popular magazines they made an analysis on the 2020 February issue and they said China only has 10 J-20s probably operational aircraft

... but now you tell us it is only a brief report you only overflew and did not read properly, You do not know if it is based on reliable recent data but it "looks professional"!!

Come on, no reason is given, no explanation, why positively identified bort numbers should be wrong or what other reason they have to assume only about half the fleet as known by others only "since it looks professional"!

 

[Deino]

I don't see that it matters whether they have 10, 18 or 40 at this stage. The fact is they have invested into the J-20 and continuing to refine and improve it and sooner or later much larger numbers will be in service as production ramps up.

I have to contradict, since it gives us an idea of the production rate, overall CAC's manufatcuring capacity and the time it needs from first sight of a new sub-type to service introduction. As such the current number of three units - 176th, 172nd and 9th Brigades - fit quite nice to the expected number of aircarft from the first batch and also fits quite fine to LRIP capacity. Now it would be interesting to know, if the first WS-10C-powered one which were now posted (in fact even last year in summer) are still the same or if they are only ramping up production ... and as such it will be interesting to see, when the first unit will gain this new variant.

 

[totoro]

Right now there are images of 17 planes with different serials in 3 different units. There are gaps in some of those serial ranges, and it's possible not all planes had pics taken of them. If all those unphotographed numbers are assumed as planes then there are at least 20 serials out there. Od course, there may be more at this point. This is also 3rd year of serial production so it would be expected that they have ramped up the production to a dozen per year by now.

 

[pegasus]

... but now you tell us it is only a brief report you only overflew and did not read properly, You do not know if it is based on reliable recent data but it "looks professional"!!

Come on, no reason is given, no explanation, why positively identified bort numbers should be wrong or what other reason they have to assume only about half the fleet as known by others only "since it looks professional"!

Please see i did not write the article, plus in every book store in Japan they have Jwings magazines, since i did not write article you can not blame me for it, second the article has production numbers for different aircraft, among them J-20 and Su-27 or MiG-29, in fact they have production numbers for several aircraft, now if you do not agree that is fine, that is what was written by Japanese writers in Jwing magazine which is one of the best magazines for Japanese aerospace, but it is not the best for Chinese aviation.

You can buy it and ask a friend to translate it, if you do not believe what it says, my daughter, wife and son speak perfect Japanese, i do read it to some degree, and if I want my son who reads perfect Japanese can translate it to me whatever i can not translate, but it says what i told you, just take it as it is, it says that and in Japan every one reading the magazine is reading that, now if it is accurate or not well it is another issue.

 

[Deino]

... but now you tell us it is only a brief report you only overflew and did not read properly, You do not know if it is based on reliable recent data but it "looks professional"!!

Come on, no reason is given, no explanation, why positively identified bort numbers should be wrong or what other reason they have to assume only about half the fleet as known by others only "since it looks professional"!

Please see i did not write the article, plus in every book store in Japan they have Jwings magazines, since i did not write article you can not blame me for it, second the article has production numbers for different aircraft, among them J-20 and Su-27 or MiG-29, in fact they have production numbers for several aircraft, now if you do not agree that is fine, that is what was written by Japanese writers in Jwing magazine which is one of the best magazines for Japanese aerospace, but it is not the best for Chinese aviation.

You can buy it and ask a friend to translate it, if you do not believe what it says, my daughter, wife and son speak perfect Japanese, i do read it to some degree, and if I want my son who reads perfect Japanese can translate to me whatever i can not translate, but it says what i told you, just take it as it is, it says that and in Japan every one reading the magazine is reading that, now if it is accurate or not well it is another issue.

Then - especially since you constantly mention it - be HONEST! Be honest with your own judgement and as such to us if a certain statement given by an unknown source is reliable or not and at lest explain the circumstances. It is dishonest to say "Japanese analysts say, there are only ten in service and THIS report clearly shows that counting bort numbers is unreliable" and then after some research you must admit, it is a popular magazine, not specifically related to defence matters, You not even read it completely nor can you say anything about its credibility, but "it looks" professional.
I take this as a direct personnel insult and offence to discredit my research based on your feelings against better knowing since it tells me that You trust your own "feeling" and a japanese fan-magazine more than you were even willing to discuss in earnest and HONEST what information is more reliable: Either mine proven by individual numbers or a "Japanese magazine that looks like".

I'm really pissed off, since this is always the same with your bolt statements, your analysis based on "academic papers" and so on ... oh YES, You have read them and only You understood them. Bun in the end it questions your whole credibility as vaporware.

 

[Sundog]

Deino, the best thing to do is not argue with him. We know who you are and are familiar with your work and it’s excellent. Stop arguing with someone who simply doesn’t know.
It works for me.

 

[totoro]

Just to mention F-22 and F-35 procurement contracts, as a comparison. Of course, in the end its about the money and product type and maturity, so these two may have NOTHING to do with actual J-20 production ramp-up, but still.

F-22 contracts
2 in 1999 (test vehicles, but not protypes)
10 in 2001 (start of actual serial production)
13 in 2002
21 in 2003
22 in 2004
24 in 2005

Note that these seem to be contract years. NOT deliveries in a given year.


F-35 contracts (LRIP only, not including prototypes)
14 in 2007
18 in 2008
32 in 2009
zero in 2010
32 in 2011

F-35 actual deliveries per year
unknown number up to 2010. Possibly zero as 2011 was the year USAF got its first plane.
9 in 2011
29 in 2012
35 in 2013
36 in 2014
45 in 2015

Or we can go the Russia route. Here's their deliveries per year:
Su-34
3 in 2009 and earlier
4 in 2010
6 in 2011
10 in 2012
14 in 2013
18 in 2014 and so on.

Su-30SM
2 in 2012
14 in 2013
21 in 2014
27 in 2015

Su-35
2 in 2012
8 in 2013
24 in 2014

Again, there's factors such as maturity, needs of the air force, budget, etc.

But IF there's enough money behind a clearly stated need and IF J-20 is deemed as a mature product, there's very little stopping it from having a ramp up like this one, for example:
a few in 2016
4+ in 2017
8+ in 2018
12+ in 2019
around 20 in 2020
20-30 in 2021
And so on.

The actual needs of PLAAF and the money are certainly the biggest factors here. There's little stopping PLAAF from getting even 30+ planes per year soon, IF both are there.
Also, if there are technical issues then the production ramp up might be very slow, more comparable to Su-34. But given the pics of J20 serials, that doesn't seem to be the case.
If the product is mature, quick ramp ups such as with Su30SM and Su-35 may also be realistic.

 

[TomcatViP]

we don;t know Totoro. They might have component issue such as part/material sourcing, reliability or cost that could slow down airframe output. There are no norm for Chinese Stealth fighter independently pursued. It's not like they have yet a mature industry there. It could take time. It could even never happen beyond a few billion $ prestige airframe.

 

[pegasus]

if you want to continue the conversation PM me i can keep the conversation private otherwise agree to disagree and let us conclude here.

 

[kaiserd]

Deino is an acknowledged expert on Chinese aviation whose knowledge and expert opinions on this topic many users (including myself) highly respect.
One single contributor who does not have nearly that level of knowledge, or respect in this forum or in the wider world, appears to more highly rate their own recollection of a rushed read of an article in a Japanese magazine they didn’t even bother to buy (?), which conveniently few if any of us could actually read, and then wonders why such opinions aren’t accredited with the same credibility or respect by other users of this forum (or the wider world).
Politely this is not a case which anyone apart from that one single contributor considers to be suitable for agreeing to disagree.
While given the limited sources everyone are operating with 100 percent certainty is not possible it is important to note the simply massive difference in credibility between the estimates of Deino versus those of the other contributor referenced above.
Not all opinions deserve equal weight.

 

[Deino]

Deino is an acknowledged expert on Chinese aviation whose knowledge and expert opinions on this topic many users (including myself) highly respect.
One single contributor who does not have nearly that level of knowledge, or respect in this forum or in the wider world, appears to more highly rate their own recollection of a rushed read of an article in a Japanese magazine they didn’t even bother to buy (?), which conveniently few if any of us could actually read, and then wonders why such opinions aren’t accredited with the same credibility or respect by other users of this forum (or the wider world).
Politely this is not a case which anyone apart from that one single contributor considers to be suitable for agreeing to disagree.
While given the limited sources everyone are operating with 100 percent certainty is not possible it is important to note the simply massive difference in credibility between the estimates of Deino versus those of the other contributor referenced above.
Not all opinions deserve equal weight.

AMEN to this ... and now back to the topic

 

[Jemiba]

if you want to continue the conversation PM me i can keep the conversation private otherwise agree to disagree and let us conclude here.

That sounds like an excellent idea to me !
When someone posts extremely long explanations, graphs or tables, perhaps only interesting to those, with deeper
insight and interest in a theme, widespread annoyance perhaps can be avoided by putting that stuff into, say, a pdf file and post
it as an attachment ?
And for those, not interested in posts and opinions of certain members, I would recommend the "ignore" function, to be found
by clicking on the user name and then on "Ignore".

 

[Hood]

I have to contradict, since it gives us an idea of the production rate, overall CAC's manufatcuring capacity and the time it needs from first sight of a new sub-type to service introduction. As such the current number of three units - 176th, 172nd and 9th Brigades - fit quite nice to the expected number of aircarft from the first batch and also fits quite fine to LRIP capacity. Now it would be interesting to know, if the first WS-10C-powered one which were now posted (in fact even last year in summer) are still the same or if they are only ramping up production ... and as such it will be interesting to see, when the first unit will gain this new variant.

Indeed yes, from an intelligence and analysis standpoint it does matter and such information is important for filling in the gaps in the known information, which we all know is rather sketchy for Chinese military systems. But for the general enthusiast I see little to argue about. We can't easily verify the Japanese article, we don't even know when the author prepared the article, it may well have been written some time ago.
I must confess I am not a serial number hunter and that does tend to skew my viewpoint.

 

[pegasus]

We can't easily verify the Japanese article, we don't even know when the author prepared the article, it may well have been written some time ago.
I must confess I am not a serial number hunter and that does tend to skew my viewpoint.

You can verify the article very easily, first it is for sale online, second if you know the production numbers of aircraft like MiG-29, F-16 or Su-27 the article offers you a list of aircraft and production with operational numbers, easily without even knowing Japanese you can verify it says 10 J-20 have been produced according to them because they consider only operational and serial produced aircraft.

My point was knowing the exact number is an inference, why? first inference is all the aircraft made so far have been shown on pictures, if that is the case then the inference is correct, there are 20 J-20s made so far.

Now from the military point of view, the Chinese will use it as propaganda tool for the national audience, and potential rivals, but have they really made 20 J-20s?
that can not be verified with a 100% confirmation, of course you can think it is the most likely number due to low production numbers.

Now if we think the Chinese really are as fool to base J-20s in known bases does not make sense from the military point of view, why? simple air bases can be attacked and as the 1967 war between Israel and the Arabs showed, you can wipe out an entire air force if you destroy it on the ground.

If you build many aircraft the risk of losing the entire fleet well is reduced, but if they build few, well with modern hypersonic weapons you can render the J-20 fleet useless easily.


are there 20 J-20s build so far and are all operational aircraft? i doubt it because some are prototypes, the article claims there are 10 aircraft operational, and that is very likely the true, since the early prototypes are very likely not operational and the airticle says only 2000+ F-16 are operational and every body knows there have been made more than 4000 built but the reality many have been retired, same is MiG-29, more than 1200+ have been made but they list less than 800, that is not the case of J-10s that they claim around 250+ aircraft operational and made, or aircraft like Rafale that the number between operational and produced aircraft almost match.

So can you conclude 20 J-20s made are a definitive number? no because you only see the aircraft China wants you to see, only Chengdu knows the exact numbers, the rest is inference, that limits the accuracy of non official estimates.
For a nation like Japan, it is if primordial inportance to know the exact number of J-20 because they have a territorial dispute with China on the senkaku/daiyou Island archipelago, but if they have been built 20 and 10 are operational at this moment there is parity with China because Japan is receiving F-35s and the USA has some F-35 in Japan. So militarily speaking there are other ways to confirm how many J-20s are operational and they need them in order to keep parity

 

[Hyperwarp]

Some of the IDed J-20 serials (This is excluding the tech demonstrators and prototypes ) - http://chinese-military-aviation.blogspot.com/p/gallery-i.html#J-20

EDIT:

The majority are in Flight Test & Training Bases

 

[Blitzo]

Trying to estimate how many J-20s have been produced in service brings up the same challenge as trying to estimate how many other Chinese combat aircraft (or aircraft overall) have been produced or are in service.

Counting serials provides a definitive floor for the number of aircraft in service, but the actual number in service at any one time is likely greater than the serials confirmed to us at anyone time.
For example in July 2019 we got the first photo (official release) confirming J-20 serial 62001 at 9th brigade which is a regular combat unit.

... However early 2019 we had pictures and videos taken on the ground showing J-20s were already flying over the skies of Wuhu, and a satellite picture in April captured three J-20s at 9th brigade's base out in the open, virtually confirming that at least three J-20s at the time were already present at 9th brigade.

But it took until July for them to confirm the chronological "first" J-20 in service at 9th brigade.

In late 2019 we had more pictures of serials at 9th brigade, up to 62009 (of which 6 serials from 62001 to 62009 were visually confirmed), but which taken together suggests that at least 9 J-20s are in service with 9th brigade.



Dingxin has serials 78271 to 78278 all confirmed, meaning at least 8 J-20s are present.
Cangzhou has serials 78230 to 78233 all confirmed, meaning at least 4 J-20s are present.
And Wuhu has serials 62001 to 62009 seen of which 6 are confirmed but which we can interpret as at least 9 J-20s are present.


So, that makes at least 21 J-20s in service of which at least 9 are in a regular frontline combat unit (9th brigade at wuhu).
But the real question is how many J-20s are we not seeing?

Or rather, asking it another way -- how many J-20 serials are the PLA deliberately hiding from us?
It is an established fact that Chinese aircraft spotters take great care to avoid giving away serials of aircraft until a unit is well established and even then it is done in a way that it is basically impossible for us to judge how many aircraft are definitively in a unit at any one time. (e.g.: it is rare that they give us the "highest chronological serial" of an aircraft in a given unit)
The PLA themselves are of course even more careful to avoid giving away serials of aircraft in a manner that could allow for an accurate estimate of how many aircraft exist.


However, based on the estimated sizes of relatively recent production aircraft like J-16 and J-10B/C, the rate of "confirmed serials" to "estimated production run" was about 1 in 3; i.e.: for every three airframes produced and subsequently in service, perhaps we would get 1 confirmed serial.

So the question is -- what is the ratio for J-20s?