It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

China J13,J14,J15???

page: 2
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 26 2006 @ 04:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by planeman



The trasport plane looks like it wa put in the picture. But the picture seems real but i dont think its in china. China has pine trees?




posted on Jan, 26 2006 @ 05:20 PM
link   
What makes you think that? To me the transport aircraft looks perfectly natural, allowing for the fact that the distance is so great and the resolution so low that you cannot definitively tell anything about whether it is genuine or not, however planeman is sure of it and I have come to trust his word, so far


[edit on 26-1-2006 by waynos]



posted on Jan, 26 2006 @ 05:34 PM
link   
I believe that picture to be genuine but I wouldn't bet much money on it. At the moment there is very little supporting evidence.

Looking closely at the original CGI (top picture of original post), that aircraft has the same/similar basic layout to this. Maybe the CGI author was attempting to copy from it?



posted on Jan, 26 2006 @ 09:39 PM
link   
I got a LCD and the transport looks faded compared to the green enviroment.

One thing to look at is the tress. You wouldn't find those type of pine tress in china. The second thing is the airfiled buildings. China houses her aircraft in aircraft hangers made of sheets of metal. The might be the An-12 instead of the Y-8. And thirdly why would a trasnport aircraft. The nose of the trasport looks at more pointed compared to either a Y-8 or a An-12

Here is another CGI of the "J-12"



posted on Jan, 27 2006 @ 04:29 AM
link   
Anyway.

The J-10 is now in active service confirmed by these pictures of the J-10 in a new colour scheam and important looking figures



And it has been confirmed that china is recieving 3D TVC nozzles from russia in the new 300 engine deal.



posted on Jan, 28 2006 @ 10:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by chinawhite

One thing to look at is the tress. You wouldn't find those type of pine tress in china.


Maybe, but how can we be sure? There is no doubt that several species of pine tree DO grow in China.
www.google.co.uk...



The second thing is the airfiled buildings. China houses her aircraft in aircraft hangers made of sheets of metal.

Is there any reason to believe that such a building cannot/does not exist on a Chinese airfield?


And thirdly why would a trasnport aircraft. The nose of the trasport looks at more pointed compared to either a Y-8 or a An-12
Looks right to me.

Here's a link with many pictures of Chinese airfields: www.scramble.nl/ mil/7/china/intel.htm
Note the similar trees and wide variety of airfield buildings including ones probably not dissimilar to the one in the J-?? picture.


[edit on 28-1-2006 by planeman]



posted on Jan, 28 2006 @ 07:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by planeman
Maybe, but how can we be sure? There is no doubt that several species of pine tree DO grow in China.
www.google.co.uk...


What hdoes have to do with anything we are discussing. Most of its for christmas decorations and some are for travel. China does have actual pine trees growing there but not the type of pine trees i am refering to.

The Chengdu research base is situated in southern china near burma and thailand and such. This place has no Y-8s in the region. And i am assuming that the future J-10C/J-XX research is being done at the chengdu

And the possibilty of Shengyang doing the reseach is a very small possibilty since there proposal is for a fighter without canards




Is there any reason to believe that such a building cannot/does not exist on a Chinese airfield?


It might exist in china as a whole but i very doubt it will exist in chengdu region seeing as how the Chengdu testing range has a completly different style than that.


Looks right to me.


The picture of the Y-8 shows a solid nose. Only the ELINT Y-8s have a solid nose and that colour scheme, this Y-8 is clearly not a ELINT aircraft because its missing the balance beam type radar and that big bluge under the nose.

The only other Y-8s with a solid nose are commerical planes which have a completely different colour scheme and a different sized nose



www.scramble.nl/ mil/7/china/intel.htm


Link doesn't work for me



posted on Jan, 28 2006 @ 07:26 PM
link   
I'm all for verifying that pic but this line of thought is just silly. What do you mean "there are no Y-8s in this region". lol. And I for one can't tell whether that Y-8 has a solid nose or not - it looks darker to me suggesting it's glazed as would be the norm. And pine tree analysis, lol.



posted on Jan, 28 2006 @ 07:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by planeman
I'm all for verifying that pic but this line of thought is just silly. What do you mean "there are no Y-8s in this region"


In chengdu military region. There are no Y-8 in the chengdu military region. This is the place where this plane would be tested. Since it is a canard layout and it is the only chinese aircraft manufacture working on a canard layout.

Y-8s are only in the Beijing military region 34th division and the Guangzhou Military Region in the 13th division


And I for one can't tell whether that Y-8 has a solid nose or not - it looks darker to me suggesting it's glazed as would be the norm.


This is the closest match i can find. The blurred Y-8 shows a nose with half one colour and half the bottom colour suggesting(well to me) that it was filled in with some PS tool






And pine tree analysis, lol.


Coming from the person giving me links to christmas trees its not so funny



posted on Jan, 28 2006 @ 09:01 PM
link   
Chinawhite, I can see what you're getting at, I've scaled the picture up to 133Mb on my PC and its incredibly difficult to see anything for sure, so I cannot say you are wrong, but the thing that occurs to me is that what you are saying is far from definite proof that the picture is not for real.

By which I mean that saying that it must be fake because there are no Y-8's in that region is a bit of a leap because you yourself admit that you only reckon it is chengdu, your reasons for believing it should be chengdu are perfectly sound but that does not prove that it actually is where you think it is.

Secondly, if you are indeed correct about the location (you could well be, I wouldn't know any different) then is it too impossible to believe that the Y-8 might have flown in from somewhere else? Planes are pretty mobile, thats one of the beauties of having them
For example I could put up photos of the An 225 Mriya taken in England in December, they don't prove that there is one based here or in UK service, but nevertheless here it was.

My third thought is this (pure conjecture and considering possibilities - no more, no less). This supposes that you are right about the shape of the nose as well as the location and it is not just photographic distortion. Might a Y-8 airframe have been modified with a pointed nose containing a radar set for aerial trials in relation to a new fighter programme and be operating from the Chengdu site as part of the programme? The photo below shows a BAC One Eleven modified in the same way as I am referring to



I think these possibilities need to be eliminated before we can call 'fake'.



[edit on 28-1-2006 by waynos]



posted on Jan, 28 2006 @ 10:35 PM
link   
Your third point seems very logical but i would imagine it would be a lot larger. The size of the nose should be a lot larger than the J-10 test nose. Im speculating that the J-10 will have a smaller radar than the J-xx so the radar should be a little bigger in diameter with the new J-xx

external image

Here is the Y-8 doing some temperature testing

Im not actually saying anything for certain here seeing as how i am chinese and i want to believe this super fighter china is developing but my first thoughts when i saw this picture was it was a definite fake. Everything was perfectly in lined, camera was out of focus a far distance a way. The picture is to small to make out the details.

Anyway im just thinking why would the Y-8 radar test plane be out with a J-xx prototype in a open airfield. Why would you need the prototype in the same vicintiy

[edit on 28-1-2006 by chinawhite]



posted on Jan, 29 2006 @ 04:37 AM
link   
You wouldn't need them in the same vicinity, I just reckon its not impossible for it to happen and that if it is possible, then it is possible that the picture is real. Your point about the distance and lack of focus is a good one, in fact it is so good that I made it myself when planeman first posted it on another thread.


All I am saying is that with any such long distance, low resolution image you cannot definitely show that it is faked because of the natural distortion. Obviously any 'faker' will know this full well and use it to advantage, but nevertheless it isn't definite even if the odds are in your favour. I know nothing about trees so that me yet be a valid criticism, I wonder if anyone has the patience to try to find a matching airfield on Google earth? Also if it is a fake then there must be an original that shows something else out there somewhere. Unearthing any such original that stood up to comparison would be proof but (if it is a fake) the person who made it has made it so small that analysing the picture on its own will tell us nothing.



posted on Jan, 29 2006 @ 04:58 AM
link   
I have nothing riding on its authenticity. I got it in good faith and my first thoughts are that there is very little supporting evidence elsewhere. There ARE many pictures of Y-xx designs with canards -and I'd expect the real J-xx designs to be less perfect than some of the wind tunnel models popularly shown.

But, I am pretty observant when it comes to planes and reasonably up on Chinese types -and I can see nothing suspicious about that Y-8. The nose looks glazed and normal to me.

Y-8s are transport aircraft used for logistics, the idea that they never park up away from their home bases is not a sensible deduction.



posted on Mar, 22 2006 @ 05:29 AM
link   
This picture is starting to look very real now. I re-sized it so save the picture and look at it in paint. One possiblity is people got the original picture of a oringinal plane and then PSed it. But this picture looks 100% real. i cannot even tell the difference anymore

external image

In contrast to this pciture which looks obviously fake
external image



posted on Mar, 22 2006 @ 06:02 AM
link   
They are not the same image, thats interesting. The angles on the plane are different. My thoughts here then are that the bottom one (the obvious one) is maybe a still from a CGI animated 'flyaround' (such as architects use to illustrate new building projects, and that the upper one is simply the aircraft (plus ladders etc) from this flyaround from a couple of frames further on (hence the different angle) placed into a genuine hangar photograph and PS'ed to match.

Any thpughts on that guess?



posted on Mar, 22 2006 @ 10:56 AM
link   
Hmm the second pic seems to be taken in the exact same hangar as the first one, except the plane is moved in the second one and a Sukhoi was put in its place.

Originally posted by waynos
My thoughts here then are that the bottom one (the obvious one) is maybe a still from a CGI animated 'flyaround' (such as architects use to illustrate new building projects, and that the upper one is simply the aircraft (plus ladders etc) from this flyaround from a couple of frames further on (hence the different angle) placed into a genuine hangar photograph and PS'ed to match.

I don't think so... because if they were both in the same animation the X-plane would've teleported to its right and the Sukhoi would've appeared out of nowhere. I believe both pics are still in the same hangar. The fire extingishers at the far wall are there, the thingimajigs on the ceilings are there, etc...

I'm pretty convinced that both are authentic, but the second one had some touch-ups that made it look fake... both are probably mock-ups, like the article mentioned.

[edit on 22-3-2006 by Taishyou]



posted on Mar, 22 2006 @ 11:31 AM
link   
Looking again more closely I see that you are right about it being the same hangar, but unlike you this makes me even more convinced that it is a fake. The reason being that although the aircraft itself has moved, everything else, the ladders, the various bits of equipment, and even the access panels on the plane itself, have all been repositioned around it in exactly the same relative position. This would not happen in real life but is obvious if you are messing about with CGI.

[edit on 22-3-2006 by waynos]



posted on Mar, 22 2006 @ 12:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by waynos
The reason being that although the aircraft itself has moved, everything else, the ladders, the various bits of equipment, and even the access panels on the plane itself, have all been repositioned around it in exactly the same relative position.

Why would it be abnormal to have the equipment placed in the same relative positions? I mean, all the equipment are placed according to their purpose, so even if the plane is moved the equipment should still be in their same relative spots. The ladder for climbing the wing should still be on the wing, the fuel pump (if that's a fuel pump...) should still be to the right of the plane near the fuel intake, etc etc...

I wouldn't be surprised if they're actually real... real mockups that is (again, mentioned in the article). It's not hard to build mockups. Now if they actually have the prototype ready so early in development then I'd be surprised.



posted on Mar, 22 2006 @ 01:23 PM
link   
Not just the same relative positions as in 'the right area' though, but exactly the same places and exactly the same equipment, nothing has changed. To me thats just too perfect. Look at the generator/power unit on wheels. Allowing for perspective it is in exactly the same position with all the connecting baggings laid in exactly the same positions too, too much of a coincidence.

[edit on 22-3-2006 by waynos]



posted on Mar, 22 2006 @ 05:42 PM
link   
The photo is bogus, both of them.
The aircraft is nothing but MFI MiG-1.44 ripoff, CG 3-D modified picture, which was skillfully done.
One, the aircraft in the photo is too smooth and the shadowing is off.
Two, if it does not look like an MFI MiG-1.44 ripoff, then the CG 3-D modified picture of the alleged actual stealth fighter looks like a hybrid of a YF-23 rearpart and a J-10 frontpart with DSI-intake. A definate nice CG 3-D rendering job, giving it a look that is even more stealthy and less bulky than the Russian MFI MiG-1.42/44.


external image

The only things that are not bogus are Sergio Coniglio and the $157.81 Subscription to Military Technology.





seekerof

[edit on 22-3-2006 by Seekerof]




top topics



 
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join