Talk:Chengdu J-20

  1. Home
  2. Wiki
Former good article nomineeChengdu J-20 was a Warfare good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
April 7, 2018Good article nomineeNot listed
Did You Know
A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on January 5, 2011.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that the development of the Chengdu J-20 fighter aircraft may have been assisted by cyberespionage?
In the newsA news item involving this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "In the news" column on January 11, 2011.

fuel in kg?....2400 L x tank external?,...really?....19.000kg?=25.000 liters,THIS IS UNREAL.....

[edit]

25.000 l of fuel ,imposible,false.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.223.15.103 (talk) 22:30, 26 October 2017‎

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Chengdu J-20/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Freikorp (talk · contribs) 10:29, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]


  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    "twinjet, all-weather, stealth fifth-generation" - four wikilinks in a row is a bit much. Consider rewording somehow.
    Are the citations in the lead really necessary? See WP:LEAD.
    The development section needs reworking. Merge most of the single/double sentence paragraphs in together to form a bit more of a narrative rather than a bullet point style list of updates.
    LRIP needs to be unnabreviated in its first appearance in the Development section. It then needs to be abbreviated only in the Production section.
    "The main weapon bay is capable of housing both short ..." - this one sentence paragraph appears to be unreferenced. Incidentally you should merge it with the one sentence paragraph below it. Also does this aircraft not feature some kind of cannons? I note the armament section at Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor, a good article, is significantly larger than the armament section at this article.
    Try and merge the one-sentence paragraphs in the 'Engines' section.
    Saturn AL-31#117S - I really don't think this is how this link should be displayed. Can you pipe it to something better?
    The dates seem too specific in the 'Flight testing' section. Do we really need to know the first test was on 11 January 2011? Why not just January 2011? This wouldn't be a problem if the entire section wasn't jammed packed with specific dates. Actually the dates seem too specific overall. In the 'Development' section we have "On 22 December 2010, the first J-20 prototype underwent high speed ..." - I'd shorten this to just December 2010, and repeat the process for the whole article unless it is of particular importance to mention the exact day,
    "This particular aircraft, numbered '2011' ..." - This sentence and the one after it are unreferenced.
    "took to the sky" - this seems a bit too colloquial to me, but up to you
    "At least six J-20s are in active service" - as of when?
    "On 9 March 2017, Chinese officials confirmed that the J-20 had entered service in the Chinese air force." - unreferenced
    Single sentence paragraphs in the Deployment section could use some merging.
    "that China needs proper training for J-20 fighter to ensure its air domination over India on "Tibet Plateau" - please try and reword this, it reads poorly
    "Western analysts clarified that the training took part" - define Western
    "and Pakistan shares strong interest in acquire hardware and software assistance from China regarding the technologies involving fifth-generation fighters. Though unconfirmed, Several Chinese media published this news in the form of embrave" - the English here is quite poor too. I'm starting to think this whole article may need a copyedit before it could be considered for promotion.
    "Robert Gates downplayed the significance of the aircraft" - when did this happen?
    "More recent speculations" - see WP:REALTIME
    "The J-20 could threaten vulnerable tankers and ISR/C2 platforms, depriving Washington of radar coverage and strike range" - according to whom?
    There's an unsigned comment on the article's talk page raising questions about the accuracy of the fuel tank specifications. Normally I wouldn't give a complaint such as this much weight but when I compare the fuel capacity of this aircraft to the Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II and the Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor I'm seeing some drastic differences. Are you absolutely certain the fuel capacity specifications are accurate?
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. Has an appropriate reference section:
    Checklinks finds an awful lot of problems that need fixing: [1]
    Copyright detection finds some pretty major problems as well: [2]
    There's several bare URLs, and at least one violation of MOS:ALLCAPS.
    There's several violations of WP:OVERCITE. Unless a citation is particularly controversial or likely to be challenges, you shouldn't need more than three sources, if that. We've got a few instances of four and at least on of six. Freikorp (talk) 22:34, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    There's an overwhelming amount of inconsistency in the references. Dates formatted in the "11 January 2011" format, others in "2017-03-10" format. Some works are given by their common name (I.e Fox News), while others are given by their base url (I.e baidu.com). I could go on but I'll leave it here for now.
    B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:
    As noted above
    C. No original research:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
    B. Focused:
    Looks OK in general in regards to these points, though as noted above the size of the armament section is small in comparison to others; if all other issues are addressed I may ask for a second opinion on this
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
    B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail: Placing on hold. To be honest I'll be surprised if these issues can all be addressed in one week, but best of luck. Freikorp (talk) 11:13, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @L293D: Just a reminder we're now about half-way to the point where this will be closed; I note no changes have yet been made to the article. Let me know if you're not intending to address the issues in which case I'll close it now otherwise I'll leave it open for the next 3-4 days to allow you to work on it. Freikorp (talk) 14:20, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for reminding me. I'll start right now. L293D (☎ • ✎) 14:23, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
A handful of positive changes have been made to the article, and accordingly I've struck some of my original concerns. The overwhelming majority of concerns, however, still remain. I didn't think one week would be long enough to address this amount of issues even if a concerted daily effort had of been made. Unfortunately I'm going to have to close this now, but you've at least got some idea of what needs to be addressed before it is renominated and can work on the issues at your leisure. Freikorp (talk) 04:33, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The empty weight of Chengdu J-20

[edit]

The empty weight of Chengdu J-20 in English language is wrong. 19391kg is the empty weight of earlier model, later its empty weight reduced to 17000kg then reduced to about 15000kg. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ronaldlwang (talk • contribs) 03:49, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a source for this. I was able to find where the 17000kg claim claim from but not the 15000kg one. also the source for the 17000kg reads like propaganda. YEEETER0 (talk) 00:20, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
《歼20的空重为何比F22轻30% 原来用了这三项"黑科技"》 https://mil.news.sina.com.cn/zhengming/2021-02-01/doc-ikftpnny3170535.shtml
You should know the author of the article is “Ordnance industry science technology” magazine, it is a national periodical officially approved by the State Press and Publication Administration, and is publicly issued at home and abroad. "China Journal Network" and other databases include full-text journals. The magazine integrates authority, theory and professionalism, has high academic value, and is the authoritative basis for the author's scientific research and promotion. Ronaldlwang (talk) 14:06, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This article makes a couple of provably false statements especially about the F-22's construction methods. It also again reads like a propaganda piece. finally it cites public information but doesn't provide a source for that at all. YEEETER0 (talk) 18:34, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Stealth of Chengdu J-20

[edit]

Chengdu J-20 is the first stealth aircraft using meta-material as stealth technology. China built the world's first production line of meta-material, and applied meta-material on its stealth aircraft. Its stealth technology leads the US one generation. It can also be seen from the stealth coating. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ronaldlwang (talk • contribs) 03:59, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The only articles that I was able to find about this were speculative about possible effects if meta-materials were used. YEEETER0 (talk) 00:22, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ronaldlwang -- your comments are nonsensical. First, you have no idea whether or not "China built the world's first production line of meta-material" for the simple reason that strategic materials used in critical defense applications are not announced by nations whose industries make and use them. For all you know, the US, UK, Japan and other nations are already producing such materials for defense applications. Nor do you have the slightest idea whether or not China "leads the US by one generation". In order to know such a thing, you would have to be privy to the highest security intelligence in both nations, and we both know you aren't. Second, "meta-material" isn't a material. A metamaterial is any material that is engineered to have a property not found in naturally occurring materials. And third, your claim that "It (metamaterial) can be seen from the stealth coating" is absurd. WHERE can we see "the stealth coating" in question, and how can we know that it is a metamaterial? Metamaterials aren't visibly any different from any other material. Try again with your CCP propaganda, and next time try to make it more believable. Bricology (talk) 23:29, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What I said here is from the video clip of CCTV state media. You treat me as an idiot who doesn't even know what meta-material is. What I said the production line is commercial industry, not national defense military small production. This news is also from CCTV state media. I am really sorry that you know little about China new development and most updated China official news. At least, China state media officially reported that meta-material was applied on China stealth fighter, did you hear any similar report about US stealth fighter?! Ronaldlwang (talk) 14:20, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
CCTV is widely considered to be a propaganda outlet. you need to find something better than this. YEEETER0 (talk) 18:38, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you know nothing about the authority of CCTV state media in China, please watch more CCTV. 《大国重器（第二季）》 第八集 创新体系 CCTV财经 41:11. It's similar about GaN factory, do you know the world's largest gallium nitride plant is in China? I think you have to be humble to refresh your knowledge about China. Ronaldlwang (talk) 14:48, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

false information

[edit]

It says that the dual canards wouldn't interfere with stealth, and uses the YF-23 as an example to attempt to prove this point. However, why link to that source, which is offline? The article on the YF-23 has photographs of the craft; it doesn't have the canards in question! There is a some peculiar propaganda mixed into this article.71.63.160.210 (talk) 01:58, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any conflicts of interest you'd like to disclose? 2600:387:15:917:0:0:0:B (talk) 06:17, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

YF-23 has vertical stabilizers, which are protruding vertical tail fins in rear. Dual canards are just rear horizontal stabilizers/fins in a different position, yet nobody says YF-23's vertical stabilizers or F-22's vertical+horizontal stabilizers interferes with stealth. Plus, canards that are locked in horizontal plane with rest of aircraft at max cruise speed can significant minimize reflection. Canards are helpful at close engagements where AoA matters, so stealth matters little in WVR combat.Rwat128 (talk) 16:16, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

NATO name confirmation

[edit]

https://odin.tradoc.army.mil/WEG/Asset/1a9360fae727a181597777e7a82d0dbb Aircrew12345 (talk) 03:24, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

source for stats is really bad

[edit]

his source (https://guofang.tsinghua.edu.cn/info/1017/1523.htm) is what it seems like most of the statcard has come from and it is really bad. It makes some wierd claims and also some provably false ones such as that the J-20 has a cannon and that it's nato name is "fire fang." I don't know though it could just be google translate wierdness. Also this could be an issue on my end but i can't access the other source. YEEETER0 (talk) 22:51, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Perspective bias

[edit]

This article is very openly written from a Western/American perspective. It's understandable that we primarily have access to English language sources, which means American sources, but is it really necessary to assume the US national security state's perspective? The "strategic implications" section is particularly bad in this regard. Nearly every paragraph is about some American government official or think tank reacting to the aircraft and speculating about its impact on America. Is that what we want?

Imagine if the article on the F-35a almost exclusively cited Chinese sources and focused primarily on the F-35's implications for Chinese military strategy. That would be pretty weird, wouldn't it? Would we even consider that article to be trustworthy or reliable? I think this is an important question. Realistically, everyone or nearly everyone contributing to this article is an American or a citizen of a US-allied country and we should take pains to avoid allowing that to excessively color Wikipedia itself. Wikipedia articles should be for everyone, not just for people aligned with a particular nationality. 2601:84:C400:9340:464C:D535:F76F:CDF4 (talk) 04:54, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

400+ J-20??

[edit]

Rick Joe's source doesn't seem to mention a number. Also, it was since a year ago and, at that time, the concenus was at most 300 or so. 2003:CD:BF28:5E00:D50F:5A28:20C6:6718 (talk) 13:58, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rick Joe is not a reliable source; he lacks any credentials or expertise of his own, and his publications tend to be overwhelmingly unsourced and unverifiable speculation. ⇒SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 15:42, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would disagree with this assessment. He is one of the earliest analysts on the Chinese aviation and a recordkeeper of the military aviation side of things. Other sources, such as The War Zone, have no problem referencing his words. He often put out speculation but would correct himself in a later article if the speculation was incorrect. If his article mentions speculation, it should be noted in-line, not erased. I’ve been maintaining this page since 2017, and his articles are generally more reliable than most other sources. -Loned (talk) 23:19, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Having searched other articles regarding Chinese aviation. You seem to be making a strong effort to delete every Rick Joe article within Wikipedia. I'm fine with many of the changes, especially those involving excessive citations. But articles of his record keeping on many Chinese military projects in the early stage are critical for sub-sections such as "development and history." For his sources on the developmental history of Chinese weaponry, I categorically disagree with the deleting spree, because otherwise I would need to post Chinese sources, which I'm usually reluctant to do due to difficulties in verifiability. Was the reliability of this particular author discussed anywhere, in any shape, at any time? Having edited Wikipedia related to Chinese aviation for years, I've never noted egregious mistakes by Rick Joe. Shouldn't we treat the author's claim on a case-by-case basis? Only deleting those that are repetitive or contradicting? I would like to recover some of his sources in articles I deemed necessary, but before making any edit, I would like to hear your opinion.-Loned (talk) 00:20, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sources are not presumptively reliable; they have to be demonstrated reliable. Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (invited op-eds and letters to the editor from notable figures) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact (see also § Statements of opinion, below). When taking information from opinion content, the identity of the author may help determine reliability. The opinions of specialists and recognized experts are more likely to be reliable and to reflect a significant viewpoint. If the statement is not authoritative, attribute the opinion to the author in the text of the article but do not represent it as fact. In almost no case that I found were statements from Joe capable of standing as authoritative under this policy. Joe, as an author, fails WP:RS in a wide variety of ways. He has no credentials or expertise in aviation, no published academic or historical works, nor any record of being cited by historians, academics, or scholars. He is, essentially, someone who read a lot about something on the internet, which does not make someone an "analyst" -- that's a professional title that can be verified by documented employment and a body of professional work; and even then we don't typically publish non-expert analysis. We have some limited exceptions for primary research and speculation from documented experts, but he fails to meet that bar -- he has no first-hand knowledge, experience, or context for any of the systems that he speculates on. So in every instance that I've found, either the content of his work was either unusable, or was unnecessary (because it was either a duplicate citation or because better sources can be found). Additionally, the fact that he has repeatedly put out speculation that turned out to be incorrect further weighs against him as a source. Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts or with no editorial oversight. Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, that are promotional in nature, or that rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions. Questionable sources are generally unsuitable for citing contentious claims about third parties, which includes claims against institutions, persons living or dead, as well as more ill-defined entities. The proper uses of a questionable source are very limited. If a claim is non-contentious, there shouldn't be any trouble finding a non-Joe source, and if it is contentious, he's unsuitable. If there are specific claims, such as the number of J-20's produced, we need to look to actually reliable sources to support them. If no other source other than Rick Joe's speculation can be found to support the claim, that's a very strong indicator that it was unverifiable and should never have been included in the first place. If Chinese sources are reliable and verifiable, those can typically be used with accompanying translated quotes (except when a better English-language source exists instead).⇒SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 02:01, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The 400+ number of J-20 was improperly cited. After checking the original source[1], the quote was "At the time of writing in mid-2024, I cautiously estimate that the J-20 fleet size may approach 300 airframes." So, for whom who originally edited the version that was questioned onthe 2nd of August, Rick's article wasn't responsible for the misinformation, but an editor at Wikipedia. His works did get cited by academics, such as this Air University Publication on PLA Aerospace Forces[2] (See citation 31). If his sources are acceptable for the USAF, I see no reason why it shouldn't be accepted here. I see no problem deleting the numbers of J-20, because it's all guesswork for him, Janes, IISS, or FlightGlobal, and the latter three have much better resources. However, his reference on the early stage of J-36/J-XDS's development[3] is a valuable public-accessible resource that I personally find meets the criteria for inclusion on relevant articles.-Loned (talk) 17:53, 13 August 2025 (UTC) Loned (talk) 17:53, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Whether it was 400+ or 300 is irrelevant: the point is that Joe has no basis with which we can use any kind of "cautious estimation" as a non-expert acting as a primary source. Further, regarding the Air University Publication, you're mistaken: they are not "Acceptable for the USAF" -- in fact, the USAF disclaims them as being personal to the authors. "The views expressed in this academic research paper are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of the U.S. Government or the Department of Defense." The authors, in this case, being nameless individuals published by the China Aerospace Studies Institute, an advocacy think tank. Literally anyone with an interest in a field can submit and write for CASI via the CASI associates program. The point being, it's absolutely not official DoD or U.S. military policy; and WP:RS cares about context of sources, specifically that In general, the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication. There's no indication that is the case with Joe's footnote mention in a CASI advocacy piece that doesn't even mention who its authors are yet disclaims the entire view as being those of the authors. No indication of said review on the underlying Joe work either. And given that Joe himself holds no independent expertise of his own, his words about the early stage of J-36/J-XDS's development are no more citeable than yours or mine. Again, if the information on the subject is independently verifiable, there should be no trouble finding non-Joe sources for it. If that's not possible, then it's clearly not a valuable public-accessible resource and we should not be relying on it.⇒SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 19:59, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
On top of that, the source itself is just as speculative as everything else. Let's break it down: the intro section refers to widely available imagery (no need to cite Joe). The "J20S" section begins with Joe speculating on rumors and attempting to speak for the "PLA watching community" authoritatively, and plugging his early speculation. It then goes into imagery analysis that can be found from other sources, except that Joe takes it a step further and adds his own non-expert speculation and assessment. He then goes on to make up a designation of J-20S "for the purposes of this article" -- this is something Joe commonly does and as a result his ad-hoc designations made their way into multiple articles written as factual statements in wikivoice. He then delves into the "speculated roles" -- again, not usable, then speculation about automation (again, not usable), makes a non-expert assessment of what to watch for in the future (again, not useful nor usable ). The rest of the article follows a roughly similar playbook for the other airframe types: speculation, rumor mongering, and non-expert analysis with a small number of factual imagery identification statements that -- if notable and relevant enough for inclusion -- should be easily found in reliable sources. Remember, it is our policy that While information must be verifiable for inclusion in an article, not all verifiable information must be included. So no, I don't think it's at all clear that this would be a valuable resource to include (neither the terms J-36 nor J-XDS are even found in the article); in fact I think it's quite obviously *unsuitable* for inclusion, nearly entirely unsalvageable, and is endemic of the author's lack of reliability. Again if this is the best we can do, then the content doesn't belong in the first place. ⇒SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 20:12, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm pretty sure CASI is part of the Department of the Air Force, and that report is most likely a group work done under its Director Dr. Brendan S. Mulvaney, because article written by associates are always noted, but I digress. I accept your argument and will try to find alternative sources for the parts that need citations. -Loned (talk) 00:07, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For whatever it's worth:
  • IISS Military Balance 2025 says 230+ J-20A.
  • Jane's article from 13 June 2024[4] says ~195.
  • 29 April 2024 piece from CASI[5] says 160-200+.
  • FlightGlobal's 2025 World Air Forces directory[6] says 19 (!)
400 seems very much like an outlier, regardless of whether Rick Joe is reliable or not. - RovingPersonalityConstruct (talk, contribs) 21:52, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
FlightGlobal doesn't update their directories, for like, ever. no such thing as a free lunch it seems-Loned (talk) 00:15, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ https://web.archive.org/web/20240611150941/https://thediplomat.com/2024/06/chinas-6th-generation-and-upcoming-combat-aircraft-2024-update/
  2. ^ https://www.airuniversity.af.edu/Portals/10/CASI/documents/Research/Other-Topics/2024-07-16%20Primer%204th%20ed.pdf
  3. ^ https://web.archive.org/web/20211130013307/https://thediplomat.com/2021/11/reviewing-chinas-new-stealth-fighters/
  4. ^ https://www.janes.com/osint-insights/defence-and-national-security-analysis/special-report-china-inducts-additional-j-20-stealth-fighters
  5. ^ https://www.airuniversity.af.edu/CASI/Display/Article/3759796/status-of-the-41st-aviation-brigade-transition-to-the-j-20/
  6. ^ https://www.flightglobal.com/defence/2025-world-air-forces-directory/160846.article