Chengdu J-20 pictures, analysis and speculation Part II

Blitzo

CLEARANCE: Secret
Joined
Jun 9, 2011
Messages
362
Reaction score
0
sferrin said:
Blitzo said:
Err kind of old news. We identified the EO PDS sites on J-20 years ago...
I know. That wasn't my question though. Where they've lifted almost everything wholesale from LM I'm wondering if they're tapping their software development team as well as using the same hardware.
Do you actually believe that though?

The physical similarities between J20 and other fighters have often been used as a reason to suggest the cyber espionage of f22 and f35 have assisted J20 development, but considering how open the US has been with the ATF and JSF programmes, much of the observable physical similarities can just be the result of simply taking pointers from open source photos of F22, F35 etc and using those open source cues to feed into their own development.

This isn't to say cyber espionage may not have assisted in J-20s development, but using mere physical similarities or the mere presence of similar subsystems is a poor way of implying it IMO, because those similarities can and probably were reached through much more obvious means that don't require anything as savvy as hacking lock mart... Like flipping through a military aviation magazine, or sending a photographer to an airshow.

Now, if we are able to somehow get our hands on some sort of internal administrative documents from the PLA which linked the hacked F22 or F35 documents or data with J20 development, then that would be another matter...
 

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
11,347
Reaction score
1
Blitzo said:
Now, if we are able to somehow get our hands on some sort of internal administrative documents from the PLA which linked the hacked F22 or F35 documents or data with J20 development, then that would be another matter...
I hope you don't think that just because we don't have notarize documentation that it means it's unpossible. Do I think those sensors on the J-20 say "Northrop Grumman" on the inside? Of course not. But one would have to be a fool to think China hasn't been able to take a peek via cyber espionage. The fact they've been able to cut development time in less than half speaks volumes.

Cyber security in the US:

 

Blitzo

CLEARANCE: Secret
Joined
Jun 9, 2011
Messages
362
Reaction score
0
sferrin said:
I hope you don't think that just because we don't have notarize documentation that it means it's unpossible.
Of course I don't think that.

However, I am saying that the lack of any sort of definitive ties means we shouldn't make the default assumption that the similar design features or subsystems are necessarily the result of espionage... rather than less insidious means such as convergence of form due to similar requirements, or taking cues from open sources photos, etc.
i.e.: the lack of notarized documentation or other evidence for more definitive ties means there's no reason to think it's "likely" (vs "unlikely" vs "possible")


As for US cybersecurity -- if it makes you feel any better, I think China's probably isn't that much better.
 

NeilChapman

Interested 3rd party
Joined
Dec 14, 2015
Messages
880
Reaction score
0
Blitzo said:
sferrin said:
I hope you don't think that just because we don't have notarize documentation that it means it's unpossible.
Of course I don't think that.

However, I am saying that the lack of any sort of definitive ties means we shouldn't make the default assumption that the similar design features or subsystems are necessarily the result of espionage... rather than less insidious means such as convergence of form due to similar requirements, or taking cues from open sources photos, etc.
i.e.: the lack of notarized documentation or other evidence for more definitive ties means there's no reason to think it's "likely" (vs "unlikely" vs "possible")


As for US cybersecurity -- if it makes you feel any better, I think China's probably isn't that much better.

You ever work on a French cars? Panhard, Citroën? That's the difference you get when systems are developed independently.
 

Blitzo

CLEARANCE: Secret
Joined
Jun 9, 2011
Messages
362
Reaction score
0
NeilChapman said:
You ever work on a French cars? Panhard, Citroën? That's the difference you get when systems are developed independently.
Well, J-20 obviously wasn't developed independently -- the US thankfully gave China (and the world) a lot to work with by providing such excellent updates and disclosures for the types of systems and capabilities that F-22 and F-35 were meant to field, as well as many libraries worth of pictures of both aircraft as well. It goes without saying the Chinese Air Force would've used all of that lovely existing, publicly available information to develop some of their own requirements for their own stealth fighter, and 611 would've taken a significant amount of cues from the physical form of F-22 and F-35 as well to help inform principles and R&D for their own aircraft (form is especially important for fighters with rf VLO of course).

That's the problem with the logic I see for people trying to argue that F-35 or F-22 were compromised merely because J-20 fields similar design features -- virtually all of the similarities that are described are features that could have been cued through a few hours of not so intensive research, and are not things that one needs to do cyber espionage to realize that having that feature might be a good idea.


OTOH, if we have any proof of similarities in features or production process that irrefutably could only have been the result of espionage (such as identical lines of code, or a copy+paste of distinct lockmart production line features), then that would be a much stronger base to argue from.

But as it is, saying J-20's canopy looks the same as F-22s and it has a similar looking EO IRST and 360 EO PDS to F-35 doesn't really cut it imo.
 

kaiserbill

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Jun 7, 2006
Messages
1,246
Reaction score
5
Elsewhere on the web...it seems that there is celebration that it is the 6th anniversary of the J-20 first flight...with the first production units already flying/possibly entering initial/squadron service/testing.
A very impressive rate of development.
 

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
11,347
Reaction score
1
Discussion of the fact that much of the knowledge that went into the J-20 was lifted directly from other sources is completely legitimate in an "analysis and speculation" thread on the J-20.
 

latenlazy

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jul 4, 2011
Messages
207
Reaction score
0
sferrin said:
kaiserbill said:
Mods...can't we quarantine this nonsense in THAT thread in the Bar please?
The Chinese Type 052 Destroyer thread below in the Naval forum has been similarly hijacked and has now been steered toward the US Coast Guard and the Zumwalt Class and US navy funding and US politics as is per usual.
http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,26914.0.html

And it is certainly not the only one.

It makes it extremely hard and frustrating for the rest of the forum members who have no personal axe to grind, nor are interested in internal politics from another country to actually follow what the thread is actually about. Much less contribute to it as a result.
There are many posters who have expressed growing disquiet at the various thread hijacks....and are not interested in "driveby shooting" remarks about "they stole our paint" and "they stole our (insert current issue here)".
Reported. Discussion of the fact that much of the knowledge that went into the J-20 was lifted directly from other sources is completely legitimate in an "analysis and speculation" thread on the J-20.
Is that really "fact" though? The timing of the breaches don't comport very well the idea that *much* of the knowledge was lifted from "other sources". There's a whole lot of conjecture in the claim that would need to be qualified before anyone could reasonably stamp it as "fact".
 

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
11,347
Reaction score
1
latenlazy said:
sferrin said:
kaiserbill said:
Mods...can't we quarantine this nonsense in THAT thread in the Bar please?
The Chinese Type 052 Destroyer thread below in the Naval forum has been similarly hijacked and has now been steered toward the US Coast Guard and the Zumwalt Class and US navy funding and US politics as is per usual.
http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,26914.0.html

And it is certainly not the only one.

It makes it extremely hard and frustrating for the rest of the forum members who have no personal axe to grind, nor are interested in internal politics from another country to actually follow what the thread is actually about. Much less contribute to it as a result.
There are many posters who have expressed growing disquiet at the various thread hijacks....and are not interested in "driveby shooting" remarks about "they stole our paint" and "they stole our (insert current issue here)".
Reported. Discussion of the fact that much of the knowledge that went into the J-20 was lifted directly from other sources is completely legitimate in an "analysis and speculation" thread on the J-20.
Is that really "fact" though? The timing of the breaches don't comport very well the idea that *much* of the knowledge was lifted from "other sources". There's a whole lot of conjecture in the claim that would need to be qualified before anyone could reasonably stamp it as "fact".
The only "timing of breaches" ever published would be the ones we actually know about and were released to the public. The likelihood that includes 100% of all breaches is approximately zilch. One only need look at details of the aircraft, look at what they've done in such a short amount of time, to see they got help from somewhere. The Russian experience with the T-50 and it's design features are more what one would expect from a country that didn't have first hand information to work with.

edit: "notion" would be more along the lines of my intent rather than "fact".
 

Arjen

It's turtles all the way down
Senior Member
Joined
Nov 6, 2010
Messages
2,223
Reaction score
1
It is notoriously difficult to prove the non- existence of things, be they security breaches, the F-19 or the Loch Ness monster.

You have conjecture. That's it. There may be something there. And maybe not.
 

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
11,347
Reaction score
1
Arjen said:
It is notoriously difficult to prove the non- existence of things, be they security breaches, the F-19 or the Loch Ness monster.

You have conjecture. That's it. There may be something there. And maybe not.
Well the fact that there have been LARGE data breaches isn't "non-existent". I would be astonished if they collected all that information and then didn't bother to read it. That the J-20's initial canopy was damn near a carbon copy of the F-22's canopy, even down to some of the hardware, is not disputable. (Geometrically at least. Chemical composition can't be eye-balled.)
 

kaiserbill

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Jun 7, 2006
Messages
1,246
Reaction score
5
Deino said:
kaiserbill said:
with the first production units already flying/possibly entering initial/squadron service/testing.
Indeed ... they were handed over in late 2016 !
Thanks Deino...I am being forced to get my info from wider sources recently unfortunately.
Deino, are these in actual squadron usage already, or an Operational Conversion Unit? Is there a most recent indication of how many serial production machines there are?
Either way, as said, it is a mightily impressive pace.
 

latenlazy

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jul 4, 2011
Messages
207
Reaction score
0
sferrin said:
Arjen said:
It is notoriously difficult to prove the non- existence of things, be they security breaches, the F-19 or the Loch Ness monster.

You have conjecture. That's it. There may be something there. And maybe not.
Well the fact that there have been LARGE data breaches isn't "non-existent". I would be astonished if they collected all that information and then didn't bother to read it. That the J-20's initial canopy was damn near a carbon copy of the F-22's canopy, even down to some of the hardware, is not disputable. (Geometrically at least. Chemical composition can't be eye-balled.)
You do know countries conduct espionage for purposes other than reverse engineering right?

Really? We're comparing canopy shapes? Did you know the Su-27 and F-15 look like they have the same canopies too? There are only so many ways you can shape a canopy on a plane.
 

overscan

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Dec 27, 2005
Messages
11,037
Reaction score
8
Locked.

Just to be clear, sferrin left the forum briefly and rejoined in 2011, hence the join date, however he has been a member since the beginning.

Topic continued here with less speculation please :

http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,28479.0.html
 
Top