Chengdu J-20 news and analysis Part III

BL diverter = gap that capture the boundary layer and divert it from the main captured airstream ;)

iu
 
lancer21 said:
Nozzle zoom.
View attachment 799583
Click to expand...
Ah, it just occured to me that this is for sure not a WS-10C2. C2s have the convergent-divergent overlaps highlighted in silver:
IMG_20260125_012223.jpg

Just like WS-10Cs:
IMG_20260125_012257.jpg

While this one is just pure black, which is indeed a WS-15-exclusive trait.
Screenshot_20260125_012522_com_hihonor_photos_GalleryMain.jpg
 
Last edited:
Possibly, but in that case it should cover almost the whole DSI and more symmetric at the nose where it's most critical to set it all up.
 
I’ve been a bit more inactive over the past couple of days, so I was surprised to see that no one had shared these here already (via ACuriousPLAFan/sinodef):

Some close-up shots of a J-20S. Posted by @太湖军I名 on Weibo.
Click to expand...
008ywq9xgy1ia0xcd6pg4j30yw0c7q5e.jpg 008ywq9xgy1ia0xcdj07pj30yw0c1acv.jpg 008ywq9xgy1ia0xcei45nj30yw0cawhe.jpg 008ywq9xgy1ia0xce0xy5j30yw0c1ac4.jpg 008ywq9xgy1ia0xcesqzzj30yw0c9770.jpg 008ywq9xgy1ia0xcf68u1j30yw0c5gn7.jpg 008ywq9xgy1ia0xcflgu8j30yw0ca0vg.jpg


What’s notable from the screenshots, however, is the lack of a radar blocker in the WS-10C2 and how identical the flameholder is to the other WS-10 models on other aircraft (which is as expected!).

Chinese institutions have been working on these enhancements for many years; and the same Sinodef thread also includes screenshots of related research papers, along with an image of a 1:2 test article, whose nozzle petals appear -at least to me- as almost identical to that of the WS-15.
 
Sferrin said:
But it's different when China wants Taiwan, right? ;)
Click to expand...
Mods are probably gonna delete this post but any country that currently has official relations with the PRC does not recognize Taiwan, at least officially, as independent whereas the U.S. has not claimed Canada since the War of 1812 and Greenland since like never.
 
This is supposedly the first confirmed frontline unit with J-20As... although some comments on Weibo suggest it might actually be the third already.

Based on the shelters and other comments, it appears to be the 5th Air Brigade in Guilin.

1770811749001.png
 
Two pairs of them, one with bright and one with black radomes.

But double nose gear - if it is genuine, are we looking at a carrier version?
 
I don't think those pictures are photoshopped.
I think those are different variants of the J-20:
differences_J-20.jpg
These are the differences I can see so far:
- light-colored radomes J-20s - single sensor aperture in front of canopy (red circles), no blade antenna behind canopy (green circles), canards "at rest" sit aligned with the ground, single front wheel landing gear;
- dark-colored radomes J-20s - distributed apertures in front of canopy (3 at least...?), blade antenna behind canopy, canards "at rest" sit tilted, twin-wheel front landing gear.

In pic 1771590994188.png, where both types are visible in the same shot, the frontal landing gear of the dark-colored radome aircraft on the right is conveniently hidden by the body of one of the ground personnel.
 
CiTrus90 said:
I don't think those pictures are photoshopped.
I think those are different variants of the J-20:
View attachment 802976
These are the differences I can see so far:
- light-colored radomes J-20s - single sensor aperture in front of canopy (red circles), no blade antenna behind canopy (green circles), canards "at rest" sit aligned with the ground, single front wheel landing gear;
- dark-colored radomes J-20s - distributed apertures in front of canopy (3 at least...?), blade antenna behind canopy, canards "at rest" sit tilted, twin-wheel front landing gear.

In pic 1771590994188.png, where both types are visible in the same shot, the frontal landing gear of the dark-colored radome aircraft on the right is conveniently hidden by the body of one of the ground personnel.
Click to expand...

Come on, why spinning an absurde and Mist unlikely story why that guy who posted them first is well known for posting AI created or AI-manipulated images.

There are NO different J-20 variants which show these stupid details.
 
Deino said:
Come on, why spinning an absurde and Mist unlikely story why that guy who posted them first is well known for posting AI created or AI-manipulated images.

There are NO different J-20 variants which show these stupid details.
Click to expand...
I have no idea who the original poster is, so if you think he's not a reliable source, maybe you should have pointed that out in your previous message about the images where you responded to TomcatViP (when he was talking about the canards) or even removed them in the first place altogether, since you are a moderator?

As another user pointed out before me, it's certainly a lot of effort to go through to photoshop just those things and trying to keep them consistent between different angles.

And a different way of responding to users might as well be a lot more appreciated and less antagonizing. Something like:
Be aware that the original poster of those pictures on site xyz is known for posting AI-generated pictures or photoshopped images. As far as I am aware, as an expert on Chinese aviation, no J-20s show those details you pointed out.
Click to expand...
The meaning doesn't change but it would certainly hit different than calling everything and everyone absurd and stupid.
 
JetBrain said:
At least the third picture is photoshopped because there are two wheels on the front landing gear.
Click to expand...
Yeah it's really annoying that i haven't noticed that and it's unclear if the images are real but tampered with by AI (to hide real details?) or are entirely AI, though i lean on the former as i don't think AI can create a convincing enough J-20 image from scratch since it seems to be on mushrooms whenever it creates something on it's own (there is another thread on here showing just that).
 
FWIW, I don't think it's AI because the details are consistent on different views, and AI isn't very good at precisely that.

But then, if there is another version with a double nose gear, we'll eventually see other photos of it.
 
Martes said:
FWIW, I don't think it's AI because the details are consistent on different views, and AI isn't very good at precisely that.

But then, if there is another version with a double nose gear, we'll eventually see other photos of it.
Click to expand...
These are AI-enhanced photos, not created by it.
 
snne said:
These are AI-enhanced photos, not created by it.
Click to expand...
Why bother?

Also, even in enhancing photos, you have to very carefully control what AI does, because, again, consistency, especially in small details is not their strong feature. To what end? Drive us crazy over here?

And the correct statement would be "I suspect those may be", not "These are", as of yet.
 
Last edited:
CiTrus90 said:
I have no idea who the original poster is, so if you think he's not a reliable source, maybe you should have pointed that out in your previous message about the images where you responded to TomcatViP (when he was talking about the canards) or even removed them in the first place altogether, since you are a moderator?

As another user pointed out before me, it's certainly a lot of effort to go through to photoshop just those things and trying to keep them consistent between different angles.
Click to expand...

Pics are clearly doctored, PS or AI doesn't matter imho.
As some users incl. mods seem to like AI slop, don't get your hopes up.
 
Martes said:
Why bother?

Also, even in enhancing photos, you have to very carefully control what AI does, because, again, consistency, especially in small details is not their strong feature. To what end? Drive us crazy over here?

And the correct statement would be "I suspect those may be", not "These are", as of yet.
Click to expand...

The answer to "why bother" is "because people are really bored and enjoy baiting/trolling".

There are some people who enjoy making up false images to try and bait people into thinking they are real, even though fabricated imagery does not actually "reveal" thing new.


Scott Kenny said:
4-6 CCAs? That's a bit less than I was expecting. I was expecting a full squadron strike package with only one manned plane.
Click to expand...

Somewhat depends on the complexity of what you expect your accompanying CCAs/UCAVs to do. Also, we should expect CCAs/UCAVs to become more sophisticated over time (as well as increased capability for a single manned aircraft to control more CCAs/UCAVs over time, as improvements in software/processing get rolled out over time).

Controlling 4-6 CCAs/UCAVs at present or for the interim future seems eminently reasonable.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom