@levsha

I doubt if the J-20 is any way further ahead in regular military service than the PAKFA – the J-20 actually first flew a year later than the T-50’s first flight.

It’s near impossible to determine what the relative difference of “in service” means for different air forces — however I would hazard to say that just because one project began later than another does not mean that the one which began later can not overtake the one that began earlier.

I’m not necessarily talking about the difference between J-20 and T-50 in this case, but more as a general principle.

There are a whole heap of things that could allow a project that began later to reach an objective milestone earlier than the project that began first:
-differences in technical capability and industry
-differences in terms of the advancement of each project itself
-differences of human capital/organization
-differences in managing and organizing subcontractors
-differences in political will
-differences in funding/resources allocated overall

For example, look at CSL’s timeline for assembling, launching and fitting out IAC-I aka INS Vikrant, vs DL’s timeline for assembling, launching and fitting out CV-17. The former was launched in 2013, relaunched in 2015, and today still seems a year or more away from sea trials. CV-17’s modules began being assembled in 2015, it was launched in 2017, and today it is weeks or likely days away from going away on its first sea trials.
Now obviously the differences between CSL+IN+Indian shipbuilding industry vs DL+PLAN+Chinese shipbuilding industry is far from the same gap (if any) that exists between Sukhoi+VKS+Russian aerospace industry vs CAC+PLAAF+Chinese aerospace industry, but the comparison of INS Vikrant vs CV-17 does illustrate my point about not assuming how a project that began earlier will necessarily reach a milestone earlier.

@twinblade

With Russian sourced engines. I get it that you’re saying it tongue in cheek, but to even suggest that Russia would look at the J-20 when it has the Su-57 is laughable.

Very true, but I think KGB’s suggestion is as equally laughable as well.

I’m loathe to make any substantially detailed comparisons between the J-20 and Su-57 programmes, but considering the number of J-20 prototypes that have been flying and counting even only the number of confirmed initial production J-20s and when they were first identified (let alone additional J-20s that have yet to be IDed given PLAAF/CAC opsec), makes the idea of PLAAF seeking an interest in Su-57 at this stage, elicit an eyeroll.

is China looking to export the J-10B?

There’s been those on and off rumours about Pakistan maybe buying some for years now but obviously nothing’s come of that. Tbh I’m not sure if China is actively seeking to pursue J-10B or any J-10 variant that much. J-10Bs have been replaced in production by J-10Cs now as well.

@Inst, you know that Russia-China comparisons whether it’s at the industry level or the individual aircraft level, will cause people on every side to find things they’re not happy with.

Why even bother…

Looks like cranked kite is going to be another common flying wing UCAV/UAV configuration.

I wonder how many articles will point out how it looks “suspiciously similar” to X-47B… :/

@tr1

Your point is moronic, as you have already been presented with a photo from the VERY early days, with the bay open.

Just because they are not showing close ups of the entire bay open, does not mean testing has not been going on.

Not that I don’t believe you, but which photo is this? Is it a photo of the aircraft on the ground rather than in the air?

So the J-20 has shown its bays open during flight, what’s taking the Pak-Fa so long?

Probably they just haven’t chosen to release those pics yet. Doesn’t mean anything sinister imo

Tbh I’m surprised that PLAAF were willing to allow pics of J-20’s weapons bay as early as they did — that was probably an exception rather than the norm.

Fantastic pics

I don’t understand however why the doors are so heavily built. Given the presence of the lightweight dampers at both end, they are no intends to carry missiles on it. Anyway, that’s a rather large cavernous bomb bay for a fighter!

The doors don’t look very heavy at all?

In any case, hyperwarp’s photos are not wholly new, and they are not even the best pictures of J-20’s weapon bays that we have even for production aircraft.

These two were released about a year ago, which gives a good look at the “crossbeams” which produce the viable depth of the weapons bay. Unfortunately it doesn’t look like it’ll even be able to carry a JSM sized missile, let alone a serious ship killer like YJ-12 of course.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]256883[/ATTACH]
[ATTACH=CONFIG]256884[/ATTACH]