Anyone can ID this aircraft? Spotted on Google Earth imagery dated Jan 2010 at the PLAN base of Changzhou near Shanghai, which is a civilian-military airport home to a regiment of H-6 bombers. http://thebaseleg.blogspot.com.au/2013/05/unidentified-aircraft-seen-at-plan.html

I’ll admit I’m stumped; posed this question on Twitter (@thebaseleg) and a lot of guesses (some good ones too) but the aircraft pictured just doesn’t tick all the boxes.

It’s a model of some sort, either a decoy or used for firefighting training, maybe weapons loading/unloading (credence to hmmvw and 49er from CDF, earlier this year)

No idea why it resembles nothing in the PLA inventory however.

Someone should let Boeing know that canards are incompatible with VLO; they clearly haven’t got the memo.

Better let CAC know as well…

Not to mention Northrop for their NATF proposal and lockheed’s JAST study.

The question is, will that breakdown reflect China’s oil imports in the future? My suspicion is a resounding no. Before we even get to oil imports though, let’s keep in mind that it would actually be very difficult to effectively blockade such a long coastline.

Blockade is wrong term I think. Holding choke points in straits of malacca and Hormuz, and some ships in Persian gulf would be enough.

It’s a computer generated image…

Why are those control surfaces so big? Does it mean no thrust vectoring for the missile?

It is strange that they are doing these tests flights over the civilian area. Do they do it on purpose or they don’t have a remote base to for test flights?

Looking at the nozzle in that HQ close up pic it looks like there are vanes].
Lol j/k nvm apparently that is a CG

but the point remains that Large control surfaces do not necessarily mean it doesn’t need or have TVC

The F-15 and the F-22 are built by different companies.

The J-10 and J-20 are built by the same company, CAC.

Well clearly that changes everything.

So Lockheed must have conducted corporate espionage to gain F-15s nonexistent FBW for use in the F-22. Poor McDonnel douglas

Which is easier, battling USAF/JASDF/USN fighters or simply launching anti-ship missiles from 150 km distance and turning back?

The two tasks are unrelated, successful elimination of a USN CVBG doesn’t change the fact that USAF and JASDF fighters are still around, and it certainly won’t help the PLAAF’s F-22 problem.

I’d agree that the PLAAF can do with a stealthy anti ship striker, but J-20 clearly isn’t that. Its weapon bays are too small to carry effective sized missiles, its extra control surfaces are indicative of an agile design rather than a high speed striker.

We’ve had testimony from the PLAAF itself via a CCTV interview with general heweirong that J-20 will be a fighter, with stealth, supercruise, STOL capability, and supermaneuverability as strong requirements. If you do not address this fact and keep on harping on about J-20 and its role as a supposed striker this discussion is over.

The J-20’s FBW system is a carry over from the J-10’s FBW system. This is the reason for the eurocanard layout.

So F-22’s FBW system is a carry over of F-15 then.

Reusing the J-10’s FBW system is a lot simpler than actually trying to develop a unique FBW system. This is why the J-20 has lower ventral fins(A big no no for a stealth jet), just like the J-10.

You’re basing the fact that J-20 replicates J-10’s flight control system because it has ventral fins and a similar layout?
Again, I suppose F-22 just reuses F-15s FCS too.

And ventral fins are just another surface for radar to reflect off, like wings or tails. If properly managed their contribution to RCS could be mitigated.

You’re using circular logic btw.

That’s what the DF-21D is for, the YJ-83 moves in for a kill while the DF-21D distracts the Aegis escorts from above.

Lol what about AEW? What about fighter escorst easily capable of shooting down mach 0.9 YJ-83s?

And again, you realize how stupid the PLAAF would be to invest in a stealthy platform that can only fire TWO subsonic 180km range sea skimmers, surely?

They cannot evade the detection and will be shot down on its way.

Same as H-6. But they are faster, more manuverable and thus survivable, but with similar range and payload.
It would be nice if PLAAF could develop a dedicated stealthy striker but we wont’ see one for a few years yet.

The PLA would turn Diaoyu islands into fortress with SAMs and ground launched anti-ship missiles, making it difficult for the US Navy and JMSDF to operate in the area and provides a cover for PLA Navy ships sailing to the Pacific Ocean.

You realize how small the islands are, right? Turning those couple of rocks into a fortress with AShMs, SAMs and radar will just turn it into a target, not an area denial weapon.

The PLAAF intends to battle the F-22 with sheer numbers, not with equal-capability fighters of its own. It is well-known that the PLAAF can defeat the USAF defenders if they outnumber the American jets 5:1 and this Chinese tactic of “fighter jet wave attack” has been well studied in the US by RAND corporation.

What Rand has modelled and what the PLAAF will actually do may very well to be different.

And wow, that’s kind of arrogant, isn’t it? To assume the enemy will purposefully build inferior fighters to try and win via numbers?

Of course, this tactic requires a sacrifice of hundreds of Chinese fighter pilots to achieve the objective, but the Chinese military strategists don’t seem to mind.

Well clearly the USAF should appoint you as their new expert on the chinese military as you seem to know what the PLA’s top echelons are planning

The reality is that the US can choke China into submission during a military confrontation, and this is why Chinese leaders are so desperate to find a safe passage during wartime.

that’s part of the power projection aims; to keep slocs open during hostilities if they ever occur.

In a pure A2A battle against other agile fighters,
you still need to get close enough to risk it all,
and J-20, while having splendid range, isn’t the most agile fighter,
use it wisely

I see, thanks.

I thought it was a strange statement, as that same logic would apply to the F-22 (as it too is a very expensive bird). But rather it’s a reflection of a presumption on J-20’s agility.

It’s interesting though. Many people keep thinking J-20 isn’t developed to compete for air superiority with the opfor’s best, well then one has to ask if PLAAF are content with letting F-22s rule the skies from now to until when they do eventually field an air superiority fighter? J-31’s too short legged and is more suited to multirole. People keep insisting J-20 isn’t agile. So I suppose it’ll have to be ~2020 that we see a prototype of a “true” air superiority fighter out of china? So then we might see a 2030 entry date to compete with F-22, by which point the US would’ve made some headway on 6th generation planes….
PLAAF are either digging themselves out of a hole where they cannot hope to win air superiority over their most deadly foe for the next two decades….

Or, J-20 is actually an air superiority fighter. Which is what every anecdote from the chinese boards mentions and even the PLAAF itself has made clear.