Chengdu J-20 news and analysis Part III

[sferrin]

Uhhh yeah that wouldn't fly in *any* of my science or math classes. You'd get zero points for getting the right answer with the wrong approach.

Uhhh, just because *you* think it's the "wrong approach" doesn't make it so. Maybe when you get out of school, and in the real world, you'll learn there's more than one "right" way to do a thing. I came to the same conclusion your so-called "right" approach did. That is not open to dispute.

Oh they're the same canopies are they? Where's your evidence? Or is this one of those magical eyeball facts? Ever heard that it's often better to not presume if you don't have food facts?

Go back and read the relevant threads. It's been done to death here. P.S. you should follow your own advice.

 

[latenlazy]

Uhhh yeah that wouldn't fly in *any* of my science or math classes. You'd get zero points for getting the right answer with the wrong approach.

Uhhh, just because *you* think it's the "wrong approach" doesn't make it so. Maybe when you get out of school, and in the real world, you'll learn there's more than one "right" way to do a thing.

I've been out of school for years now, and have seen that attitude lead to many problems in my professional life...of course there are multiple "right" ways to do things, but they all entail sound reasoning behind their method. Arbitrarily choosing a standard ruler that you don't actually know with any certainty is a standard ruler doesn't count as a good method.

Go back and read the relevant threads. It's been done to death here.

In case you forgot, I was a participant in those "relevant threads". Then, as now I asked people to provide evidence for their conjectures, and they all came empty handed, which basically renders those conjectures more or less baseless.

 

[sferrin]

I've been out of school for years now, and have seen that attitude lead to many problems in my professional life...of course there are multiple "right" ways to do things, but they all entail sound reasoning behind their method. Arbitrarily choosing a standard ruler that you don't actually know with any certainty is a standard ruler doesn't count as a good method.

There was nothing "arbitrary" about it. It's what was available. And in your "professional life" you should have also learned you don't always have the luxury of waiting until all the data is in, or a perfect solution is handed to you on a silver platter. Sometimes you have to go with what you have and make the best of it. You almost sound bitter that I got as close as I did.

In case you forgot, I was a participant in those "relevant threads". Then, as now I asked people to provide evidence for their conjectures, and they all came empty handed, which basically renders those conjectures more or less baseless.

Then you weren't in the right threads. I provided evidence. If you require network logs showing a Chinese incursion into LM and subsequent Chinese CATIA files used to produce the J-20s canopy as your "standard" then I'm sorry, can't help you. Feel free to continue ignoring the obvious just because it doesn't sit well with you.

 

[Mike Pryce]

All modern aircraft have four dimensions: span, length, height and Photoshop.

 

[latenlazy]

There was nothing "arbitrary" about it. It's what was available.

Assuming that the canopies of two different planes have identical dimensions (their shapes aren't even congruent), and using an *illustration* rather than photos is pretty arbitrary.

And in your "professional life" you should have also learned you don't always have the luxury of waiting until all the data is in, or a perfect solution is handed to you on a silver platter. Sometimes you have to go with what you have and make the best of it.

In my professional life, when I have to make do I make the caveats very clear and don't assume the figures are any good (a lot of my work is data intensive). Besides, when you did your estimates we already had *two* other methods with known reference objects (the satellite pic and the truck in front of 2001 when the plane first came out, both of which yielded rather precise estimates).

You almost sound bitter that I got as close as I did.

Being a bit presumptuous there aren't we?

Then you weren't in the right threads. I provided evidence. If you require network logs showing a Chinese incursion into LM and subsequent Chinese CATIA files used to produce the J-20s canopy as your "standard" then I'm sorry, can't help you. Feel free to continue ignoring the obvious just because it doesn't sit well with you.

Ah yes, of course. Because China hacked F-22 data, they chose to adopt the *exact* same canopy design dimensions and all, never mind that they were sticking it on a different plane with different dimensions. That's how engineering works after all. Just cut and paste. The "obvious" doesn't suggest what you may seem to think it does.

 

[sferrin]

There was nothing "arbitrary" about it. It's what was available.

Assuming that the canopies of two different planes have identical dimensions (their shapes aren't even congruent), and using an *illustration* rather than photos is pretty arbitrary.

And in your "professional life" you should have also learned you don't always have the luxury of waiting until all the data is in, or a perfect solution is handed to you on a silver platter. Sometimes you have to go with what you have and make the best of it.

In my professional life, when I have to make do I make the caveats very clear and don't assume the figures are any good (a lot of my work is data intensive). Besides, when you did your estimates we already had *two* other methods with known reference objects (the satellite pic and the truck in front of 2001 when the plane first came out, both of which yielded rather precise estimates).

You almost sound bitter that I got as close as I did.

Being a bit presumptuous there aren't we?

Then you weren't in the right threads. I provided evidence. If you require network logs showing a Chinese incursion into LM and subsequent Chinese CATIA files used to produce the J-20s canopy as your "standard" then I'm sorry, can't help you. Feel free to continue ignoring the obvious just because it doesn't sit well with you.

Ah yes, of course. Because China hacked F-22 data, they chose to adopt the *exact* same canopy design dimensions and all, never mind that they were sticking it on a different plane with different dimensions. That's how engineering works after all. Just cut and paste. The "obvious" doesn't suggest what you may seem to think it does.

Ye Gods. You're really bothered by this aren't you? Let it go. We'll just have to agree to disagree.

 

[latenlazy]

There was nothing "arbitrary" about it. It's what was available.

Assuming that the canopies of two different planes have identical dimensions (their shapes aren't even congruent), and using an *illustration* rather than photos is pretty arbitrary.

And in your "professional life" you should have also learned you don't always have the luxury of waiting until all the data is in, or a perfect solution is handed to you on a silver platter. Sometimes you have to go with what you have and make the best of it.

In my professional life, when I have to make do I make the caveats very clear and don't assume the figures are any good (a lot of my work is data intensive). Besides, when you did your estimates we already had *two* other methods with known reference objects (the satellite pic and the truck in front of 2001 when the plane first came out, both of which yielded rather precise estimates).

You almost sound bitter that I got as close as I did.

Being a bit presumptuous there aren't we?

Then you weren't in the right threads. I provided evidence. If you require network logs showing a Chinese incursion into LM and subsequent Chinese CATIA files used to produce the J-20s canopy as your "standard" then I'm sorry, can't help you. Feel free to continue ignoring the obvious just because it doesn't sit well with you.

Ah yes, of course. Because China hacked F-22 data, they chose to adopt the *exact* same canopy design dimensions and all, never mind that they were sticking it on a different plane with different dimensions. That's how engineering works after all. Just cut and paste. The "obvious" doesn't suggest what you may seem to think it does.

Ye Gods. You're really bothered by this aren't you? Let it go. We'll just have to agree to disagree.

Not really. I have a habit of pointing out bad logic when I see it though.

Besides, who dug up old posts to complain about being poo-pooed, exactly? :

 

[sferrin]

Not really. I have a habit of pointing out bad logic when I see it though.

And insulting those who disagree with you apparently as well. The least you could do is not put words in my mouth.

Who dug up old posts to complain about being poo-pooed, exactly? :

Which apparently triggered you into an extended fit. And it wasn't a complaint, it was amusement. Now, can we put our big-boy pants on and let this little tiff go?

 

[latenlazy]

And insulting those who disagree with you apparently as well. The least you could do not put words in my mouth.

You think questioning the quality of your arguments is insulting? Where did I put words in your mouth?

Who's sounding bitter now?

Which apparently triggered you into an extended fit. And it wasn't a complaint, it was amusement. Now, can we put our big-boy pants on and let this little tiff go?

Ah, it takes two to tango friend. Anyways, I'll agree to let this one go here if you will.

 

[LowObservable]

All modern aircraft have four dimensions: span, length, height and Photoshop.

Indeed. It seems I was about right on the length three years ago, but gave it a bit too much span, according to these photos. I can't put my hand on my notes right now so I am not sure why I did that.

Fortunately the important bit in this case is the length, and most particularly not the LOA but the length from nose tip to the ends of the exhausts.

 

[Blitzo]

Then you weren't in the right threads. I provided evidence. If you require network logs showing a Chinese incursion into LM and subsequent Chinese CATIA files used to produce the J-20s canopy as your "standard" then I'm sorry, can't help you. Feel free to continue ignoring the obvious just because it doesn't sit well with you.

Considering how much all the burgeoning new stealth fighter programmes in Japan, SK, Turkey, India, are all looking increasingly like F-22/35, I actually think it's a fairly reasonable request, otherwise the only logical conclusion derived from your position is that all those nations have had access to Lockmart's inner sanctum as well...

Whereas in reality, as Reaper logically said in the Japanese next gen fighter thread:

Similar requirements + available technology result in similar looking concepts. And normally you pick the more conventional/proven configuration, since things get difficult at later development stages anyway (see X-35 vs X-32).

Actually, if you really want to argue your position, what you'd really want is some proof in Chinese networks indicating that they have actually integrated the data regarding F-35/22 attained by espionage, into developing their own fighters.

Hacking each other's networks should be no surprise -- I expect the US to have hacked CAC and AVIC to gain as much information about J-20 as China would have done for F-35/22. Cyber espionage is a thing, I don't think anyone disputes that.

But to argue for proof that one side has integrated the hacked info into their own product needs something a bit more substantial than "they look very similar," considering how many products of this category do seem to look very similar to each other.

 

[sferrin]

Similar requirements + available technology result in similar looking concepts.

You mean like the YF-22 and YF-23? Or the X-32 and X-35? Or the F-16 and J-10? Or the YF-16 and YF-17? Or the A-9 and A-10? Or the Convair 200 and the XFV-12? Or the Lockheed Blackbird and the Convair Kingfish? If you really want to beat this dead horse, you're welcome to go look at all the previous threads. It's all there.

 

[latenlazy]

All modern aircraft have four dimensions: span, length, height and Photoshop.

Indeed. It seems I was about right on the length three years ago, but gave it a bit too much span, according to these photos. I can't put my hand on my notes right now so I am not sure why I did that.

Fortunately the important bit in this case is the length, and most particularly not the LOA but the length from nose tip to the ends of the exhausts.

If I recall correctly you and I both put the span at somewhere around 13.5 meters. Given that we were working with satellite photos that was entirely within the very large margin of error we had. That said, I think there's still an off chance that the wingspan might be a bit bigger than 13 meters given the potential for different image distortions. Given the margins of error we're working with a difference of 1 or 2 pixels can skew measurements just enough to be of notice.

 

[latenlazy]

Similar requirements + available technology result in similar looking concepts.

You mean like the YF-22 and YF-23? Or the X-32 and X-35? Or the F-16 and J-10? Or the YF-16 and YF-17? Or the A-9 and A-10? Or the Convair 200 and the XFV-12? Or the Lockheed Blackbird and the Convair Kingfish? If you really want to beat this dead horse, you're welcome to go look at all the previous threads. It's all there.

Nothing will stop a man from insisting that a cat and a dog are uncannily similar if they're committed to the notion.

 

[LowObservable]

Clearly China has had an effective cyber-espionage program for many years.

Unfortunately, Western programs have expanded their attack surface by forming worldwide networks of small companies to build political support, and some of these have not been as cyber-aware as they should be.

However, when it comes to appearances: as the man said, stealth is "shape, shape, shape and materials", so high-rez photos tell their own story. And finally, there are advantages to being the "fast follower" rather than the trail-breaker.

Conclusion: cyber-exploits have probably helped, but in areas we can't see in photos.

 

[latenlazy]

Clearly China has had an effective cyber-espionage program for many years.

Unfortunately, Western programs have expanded their attack surface by forming worldwide networks of small companies to build political support, and some of these have not been as cyber-aware as they should be.

However, when it comes to appearances: as the man said, stealth is "shape, shape, shape and materials", so high-rez photos tell their own story. And finally, there are advantages to being the "fast follower" rather than the trail-breaker.

Conclusion: cyber-exploits have probably helped, but in areas we can't see in photos.

I have no doubt espionahe helped immensely, but the idea that entire parts were copied to the letter reflects a caveman's understanding of engineering. If the espionage is for improving your own technology, the value is in the basic research and science that stolen designs can tell you, not the particular solutions that were derived from that body of knowledge. China is very clearly inventing their own solutions at this point. Anything they've taken from other countries emerges digested and reformulated when employed into their own designs. That doesn't mean they didn't benefit immensely from stolen information. It just means they're not as crude and unsophisticated in their efforts as some would like imply. No matter how much they benefited from stolen knowledge they still built a different plane.

 

[Blitzo]

Similar requirements + available technology result in similar looking concepts.

You mean like the YF-22 and YF-23? Or the X-32 and X-35? Or the F-16 and J-10? Or the YF-16 and YF-17? Or the A-9 and A-10? Or the Convair 200 and the XFV-12? Or the Lockheed Blackbird and the Convair Kingfish? If you really want to beat this dead horse, you're welcome to go look at all the previous threads. It's all there.

Or how about KFX, F-3, TFX, AMCA, FC-31...?


Keep in mind, I'm not saying that there is 0 chance of any hacked F-35 or F-22 info that could've been used in FC-31 or J-20, but I am saying that if the foundation of that argument is because J-20 and FC-31 look very similar to F-35 and F-22 then the argument is a very weak one, when considering how all the other nation's stealth fighter programmes also look like F-35 and F-22.

 

[Blitzo]

Clearly China has had an effective cyber-espionage program for many years.

Unfortunately, Western programs have expanded their attack surface by forming worldwide networks of small companies to build political support, and some of these have not been as cyber-aware as they should be.

However, when it comes to appearances: as the man said, stealth is "shape, shape, shape and materials", so high-rez photos tell their own story. And finally, there are advantages to being the "fast follower" rather than the trail-breaker.

Conclusion: cyber-exploits have probably helped, but in areas we can't see in photos.

I think that is a reasonable argument. Either directly or indirectly I expect the espionage has helped to inform and accelerate China's stealth programmes to some degree.


I just find the argument of "they look similar therefore it's proof they've applied hacked data" to be flimsy.

 

[kcran567]

Well in the case of the J-11 it was more than just "looking similar" so they do have a history of directly copying whatever they can.

 

[latenlazy]

Well in the case of the J-11 it was more than just "looking similar" so they do have a history of directly copying whatever they can.

In the case of the J-11 the entire internals of the plane were reworked.

 

[Blitzo]

Well in the case of the J-11 it was more than just "looking similar" so they do have a history of directly copying whatever they can.

There are many more examples of REing products -- J-15, Z-8, Z-9, Y-8, H-6, J-7 etc depending on how far you want to go back.


But we're talking about J-20 and FC-31 here.
Unless a person is going into it with the prior assumption of "it's a Chinese product, therefore it must involve copying in some form," then I can't see how one could use the basis of similar appearances to argue that hacked information was used, given how similar all other stealth fighters under development look to F-35/22.


Or I suppose a better question is, do they deserve the benefit of doubt for each individual product in a case by case basis unless otherwise suggested -- or is an inference going to be made based on past products that all Chinese products involve copying and thus presume that it will be involved for every other product of theirs in the present and in the future unless proven otherwise?

 

[kaiserd]

Clearly China has had an effective cyber-espionage program for many years.

Unfortunately, Western programs have expanded their attack surface by forming worldwide networks of small companies to build political support, and some of these have not been as cyber-aware as they should be.

However, when it comes to appearances: as the man said, stealth is "shape, shape, shape and materials", so high-rez photos tell their own story. And finally, there are advantages to being the "fast follower" rather than the trail-breaker.

Conclusion: cyber-exploits have probably helped, but in areas we can't see in photos.

I think that is a reasonable argument. Either directly or indirectly I expect the espionage has helped to inform and accelerate China's stealth programmes to some degree.


I just find the argument of "they look similar therefore it's proof they've applied hacked data" to be flimsy.

Agreed.
The Chinese aviation industry will have learned from its international contemporaries from various legitimate and not-so-legitimate information sources. It will also have learned from its own experience and research.
The fruits of this collective knowledge is then seen in its products.
For example, in a different time and context, the variable inlets of the J-8 II probably owe a lot to Egyptian MIG-23s sold to China. But it’s massively simplistic to say that these inlets (or the overall J-8 II) is a copy of the MIG-23; they’ll be a whole lot of information and experience from other sources involved.

In any case historic claims of one country copying (without license production or similar intentional consensual technical exchange) another countries aircraft have tended to be exaggerated and overblown; how many times were Cold-War Soviet aircraft inaccurately described as copies of Western equivalents?
In the Cold War such claims tended to relate at least as much to a psychological need to minimize an adversaries perceived technical skill and capabilities (while trying to maintain a sense of your own aviation industry’s superiority) as it did to any legitimate examples of espionage.
Such propaganda said a lot about the propagandist.

 

[sferrin]

But we're talking about J-20 and FC-31 here.

I never said anything about the FC-31 but was speaking of the J-20 specifically (and not the newer ones with the new canopy).

 

[sferrin]

Well in the case of the J-11 it was more than just "looking similar" so they do have a history of directly copying whatever they can.

There are many more examples of REing products -- J-15, Z-8, Z-9, Y-8, H-6, J-7 etc depending on how far you want to go back.

If you go into other areas you can add the RAM (short range naval SAM), Goalkeeper, Mk41 VLS (hell, many of the bolt patterns are even the same on that one), S-300, Brahmos, etc. etc. etc.

 

[Blitzo]

But we're talking about J-20 and FC-31 here.

I never said anything about the FC-31 but was speaking of the J-20 specifically (and not the newer ones with the new canopy).

My argument still stands.

 

[sferrin]

But we're talking about J-20 and FC-31 here.

I never said anything about the FC-31 but was speaking of the J-20 specifically (and not the newer ones with the new canopy).

My argument still stands.

Not really. Short of getting your hands on the Chinese CATIA files, and throwing them into the LM files for comparison, you're not going to get better. And if that's your metric for "not flimsy" then nobody ever copied anybody, which obviously isn't the case.

 

[Blitzo]

But we're talking about J-20 and FC-31 here.

I never said anything about the FC-31 but was speaking of the J-20 specifically (and not the newer ones with the new canopy).

My argument still stands.

Not really. Short of getting your hands on the Chinese CATIA files, and throwing them into the LM files for comparison, you're not going to get better. And if that's your metric for "not flimsy" then nobody ever copied anybody, which obviously isn't the case.

I think that's a pretty reasonable burden of proof that your argument demands.


But at the very least, the premise of merely looking similar is a flimsy one for your conclusion... unless you want to go into it with the presumption leaning towards "guilty until proven innocent" rather than "innocent until proven guilty".

 

[sferrin]

But at the very least, the premise of merely looking similar is a flimsy one for your conclusion... unless you want to go into it with the presumption leaning towards "guilty until proven innocent" rather than "innocent until proven guilty".

So let's hear what your criteria would be for "a virtual certainty they based A on B", short of engineering files. I'm all for making a convincing argument but some would be satisfied with nothing short of engineering drawings.

 

[Blitzo]

Well in the case of the J-11 it was more than just "looking similar" so they do have a history of directly copying whatever they can.

There are many more examples of REing products -- J-15, Z-8, Z-9, Y-8, H-6, J-7 etc depending on how far you want to go back.

If you go into other areas you can add the RAM (short range naval SAM), Goalkeeper, Mk41 VLS (hell, many of the bolt patterns are even the same on that one), S-300, Brahmos, etc. etc. etc.

HQ-10, sort of not really -- the missile itself traces a different lineage to RIM-116. The launcher and concept is very similar, but that's about it. The HQ-10 missile itself doesn't even roll like the RAM does afaik.

Type 730, sort of not really -- they had assessed the samos system back in the day, which probably provided the basis for Type 730 and Type 1130 afterwards to be developed. Advancement of the samos derivative and adding on their own FCS incidentally led to a similar configuration to goalkeeper, but you'd be hard pressed to argue it's a goalkeeper copy.

VLS -- lol if only the 054A's VLS was as large as the Mk-41 VLS, then they possibly wouldn't have had to develop the new universal VLS for 052D/055.

HQ-9 -- probably the closest one could come to arguing it is a copy of S-300, in the same manner that HQ-16 is a copy of Shtil, though both are systems which are significantly modified from their original versions that were imported not only internally but externally as well.

CX-1 -- multiple supersonic AShMs of Russian descent or influence adopt that kind of configuration.


There are more solid examples of direct copying that are easier to demonstrate in a black and white way which I listed in my previous post, but the systems you list stand on much more shaky ground which are from a much more recent era compared the most of the ones I listed, back in the day when actual full RE and copying was still the primary mode of acquiring new systems.

 

[Blitzo]

But at the very least, the premise of merely looking similar is a flimsy one for your conclusion... unless you want to go into it with the presumption leaning towards "guilty until proven innocent" rather than "innocent until proven guilty".

So let's hear what your criteria would be for "a virtual certainty they based A on B", short of engineering files. I'm all for making a convincing argument but some would be satisfied with nothing short of engineering drawings.

"Based A on B" is a loose way of describing it.
I'm sure that CAC designed J-20's canopy based on and derived from what they saw on F-22's canopy, which wasn't exactly difficult given the amount of public images and appearances that F-22 made over the years.


But from what I understand, your argument is that they integrated hacked data from F-22/35 into the J-20's development process or design, based on the appearance of say, the canopy, which IMO is a different claim to make.
So, in my last reply I expressed that I believe engineering drawings would be a reasonable level of proof for the claim you're making.
That would be my criteria. Or perhaps, if we had some sort of internal correspondence in AVIC or CAC along the lines of "we hacked F-22's canopy, let's use it on J-20".

 

[sferrin]

VLS -- lol if only the 054A's VLS was as large as the Mk-41 VLS, then they possibly wouldn't have had to develop the new universal VLS for 052D/055.

Jeez, and here I thought we were having a serious discussion. Ah well. For your perusal, two completely unique VLS systems:

 

[Blitzo]

VLS -- lol if only the 054A's VLS was as large as the Mk-41 VLS, then they possibly wouldn't have had to develop the new universal VLS for 052D/055.

Jeez, and here I thought we were having a serious discussion. Ah well. For your perusal, two completely unique VLS systems:

And I thought we were too.

As far as eight grid hot launch module with a central vent can look unique from their deck top appearance -- yeah there are differences we can see just by eyeballing.


If you want to push your case, you're better off trying to find evidence about how both are the same size, dimensions, with the same under deck structure, launch control units, if you can get it. If the location of four bolts for each module is your argument that they are identical systems then I half expect you to argue the 052D and Burke are the same ship class because both have their radar arrays in the same configuration around their deckhouse.

 

[Triton]

Released on October 20, 2017 from PLAAF weibo social media account of four J-20 stealth fighter jets flying in formation.

Source:
https://www.sinodefenceforum.com/j-20-5th-gen-fighter-thread-vi.t8169/page-44

 

[sferrin]

If you want to push your case, you're better off trying to find evidence about how both are the same size, dimensions, with the same under deck structure, launch control units, if you can get it. If the location of four bolts for each module is your argument that they are identical systems then I half expect you to argue the 052D and Burke are the same ship class because both have their radar arrays in the same configuration around their deckhouse.

And that's just it. You're not going to come up with the same bolt patterns in the same locations on the same design by chance. Sure, they used socket-head caps instead of hex head, and changed a few minor details but it's obvious they started with the real deal and worked from that. If you don't want to believe that, that's fine with me. Frankly I don't care.

 

[Deino]

Released on October 20, 2017 from PLAAF weibo social media account of four J-20 stealth fighter jets flying in formation.

Source:
https://www.sinodefenceforum.com/j-20-5th-gen-fighter-thread-vi.t8169/page-44

Here even 5.

 

[stealthflanker]

So The good value we can work for to the dimension of J-20's are about 21 meter length and 13 meters of wingspan. is that so ?

 

[kaiserd]

VLS -- lol if only the 054A's VLS was as large as the Mk-41 VLS, then they possibly wouldn't have had to develop the new universal VLS for 052D/055.

Jeez, and here I thought we were having a serious discussion. Ah well. For your perusal, two completely unique VLS systems:

By your logic did the French (and British & Italians) also “copy” the US with their VLS system;
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sylver_Vertical_Launching_System
(I am not pretending to be a VLS expert, for a good explanation of the differences between these system please see http://ukarmedforcescommentary.blogspot.ie/2013/10/vertical-launching-systems-and-type-26.html?m=1).
Did the Europeans copy the US? Did the Chinese copy the US or the Europeans, or neither or both?
Or does similar technology end up looking similar because different parties are looking for very similar solutions for very similar problems, and are more likely to go for solutions that have previously been proven?

By your logic it would seem every US jet engine is a copy of British jet engines and every US jet aircraft is a copy of WW2 German aircraft because both historically incorporate a lot of technical research data, experience etc. from these non-US sources. And every aircraft flying today is a rip-off of the Wright Brothers.

No one is denying that the Chinese have and continue to undertake a lot of cyber espionage (likely all the major and some of the more minor powers do, if not to the same scale). If you have an issue with that perhaps another topic room or forum is the best place to expand on this.
By hook or by crook they will have learned from the lessons that lead up to and include the F-22 and F-35 and other contemporary advanced aircraft projects (probably including the likes of the Super Hornet, Eurofighter Typhoon, Rafale etc.) and are further down the road then they would otherwise have been with their own projects like the J-20. And they may apply certain identical technical solutions to specific issues or specific aspects of design.
But attempting to label emergent Chinese aircraft designs as “copies” is not accurate in this context.

We can have an interesting sociological conversation on why in specific contexts there is a drive by members of one group to downplay the abilities and achievements of members of another group, if you would like. Again probably best done in another topic room or forum.

 

[latenlazy]

But we're talking about J-20 and FC-31 here.

I never said anything about the FC-31 but was speaking of the J-20 specifically (and not the newer ones with the new canopy).

My argument still stands.

Not really. Short of getting your hands on the Chinese CATIA files, and throwing them into the LM files for comparison, you're not going to get better. And if that's your metric for "not flimsy" then nobody ever copied anybody, which obviously isn't the case.

We don’t need to go that far. Your specific claim, unless you’re moving the goalpost, was that the J-20’s canopy was *identical* to the F-22’s. Not *derived*, but *identical*. Comparing exact shape and measure of both canopies (no eyeballing here) would be a very direct way to either disprove or provide strong evidence for that point. The original claim was not a loose claim by any means. It is a very sweeping and specific one, so the burden of proof is commensurate. It is *not* obviously the case that there was some copying going on. We have no reason to doubt a lot of data was stolen. We do not have cause to narrow down how that information was used. If copying was so evident...then we’d be seeing copying wouldn’t we? Why isn’t China putting together F119s or churning out their own F-22’s? The definition of copying is pretty specific, after all.

 

[Blitzo]

If you want to push your case, you're better off trying to find evidence about how both are the same size, dimensions, with the same under deck structure, launch control units, if you can get it. If the location of four bolts for each module is your argument that they are identical systems then I half expect you to argue the 052D and Burke are the same ship class because both have their radar arrays in the same configuration around their deckhouse.

And that's just it. You're not going to come up with the same bolt patterns in the same locations on the same design by chance. Sure, they used socket-head caps instead of hex head, and changed a few minor details but it's obvious they started with the real deal and worked from that. If you don't want to believe that, that's fine with me. Frankly I don't care.

Really? Four bolts in each corner of each eight cell module in two VLS designs means one must be a copy of the other?

Are you serious?

 

[TAKHISS]

new pics