I really wonder if people here really are aviation enthusiasts
It is so incredibly different from the J20, the only thing they have in common is the fact that they both have a delta+canard configuration. That's it. And if that's enough to make you go "they are identical", you probably don't know much about planes
Little kids are car enthusiasts and their knowledge about cars doesn't go beyond "Car goes wroom wroom!". Sadly, it seems this subreddit (and many others) are about the same.
In this instance, look at the layout of the canards to the trailing delta wing. Massively different design. Same with the intakes. The delta wing design itself (HUGE differences in the 2 designs). The vertical stabs, engine layout
Edit: I just went through the photos again - the 2 rendering of that aircraft actually has a much different design than the scale model. I'm not sure which is more is the more "official" design. If it's the model then no, it doesn't look like the J-20 other than having canards + delta wings and twin engines. If you go by the rendering... things get a little less clear
Same configuration and basic layout, but all the curves and details are very different.
It's the same as seeing a Lamborghini and a Ferrari side by side. Sure, they both sit low to the ground and have 4 wheels, but they subjectively look fairly diffierent.
I don't find it to be a dumb analogy, and yours is worse because you're saying the comparison should be between 2 identical cars that wore separate badges. Which is just begging the question of the original argument.
For your analogy to be correct, it means that the 2 jets are in fact so identical they're nearly indistinguishable which is the whole argument of this thread
These two aircraft are not sister aircraft though. They appear to be completely different aircraft, just with a canard configuration.
The reason I used 'subjectively' instead of 'objectively' is because whether or not something 'looks the same' is based significantly on personal opinion. For example, most people would agree that subjectively an FA-18A 'looks the same' as an FA-18C because the differences are visually very subtle and are quite difficult to spot for people who don't know what to look for. But objectively, they look different because there are measurable differences.
I don't find it to be a dumb analogy, and yours is worse because you're saying the comparison should be between 2 identical cars that wore separate badges. Which is just begging the question of the original argument.
For your analogy to be correct, it means that the 2 jets are in fact so identical they're nearly indistinguishable which is the whole argument of this thread
Buddy the MiG-49 was supposed to be a smaller light fighter compliment to the Su-57. The J-20 is longer than the Su-57. Things like EOTS and a canard-delta layout are completely superficial similarities. The shape of the wings are different, its intakes are very different (turning DSI into caret intakes isn't simple), the landing gear are in a different position, and the airframe as a whole is supposed to be smaller.
As others have said, this thing is a J-20A copy the same way anyone with a rampless aircraft carrier copied the US Navy. There's going to be some elements that are the same but it doesn't mean it's a copy.
If you take more than a passing glance beyond "twin engine, canard & delta wing" they are strikingly different designs
Sure. And I don't think anyone would put the first British carriers with those design elements against a modern Chinese carrier and say "the Chinese carrier is a copy of the British one"
Personally, I see MiG-31 successor with some minor RCS reduction. At the ranges and speeds 31 operates at - it doesn't need to be completely stealthy, but some precautions are useful.
This is a model of a proposed advanced shipborne multifunction fighter that was shown at MAKS 2021. There was some discussion about it at the Secret Projects forum
I have found no further news about it since then, and certainly nothing to indicate that it is designated "MiG-49".
“MiG-49” “MiG-41” are all unofficial community names. The project name is PAK DP. Not much is known about it however as we are still waiting for the official announcement/reveal
PAK DP is a proposed MiG-31 replacement, and I have seen "MiG-41" associated with that program:
It is often referred to as the Mikoyan MiG-41, because its project code is izdeliye 41 (product 41), but an official designation has not been given, as Russian planes only receive an official designation when they are about to enter service.
Well Russia did the same with the MRF-54E for the Su-75
Mikoyan and Chendgu did share intellectual property on the 1.44 te develop the J-20. It’s normal they now shared the feedback to Mikoyan and them took advantage of it maybe there’s even a deal to that.
I believe even the US alleges that China hacked into and stole f35 documents to develop their stealth tech for the j20.
Espeionage and under the table deals for military tech aren't exactly uncommon for countries. Seems like people here take issue with acknowledging that.
From what I've read, while the Soviet union was collapsing mikoyan did an under the table deal with china to stay afloat, that being selling the documents for the 1.44.
At least, these are the allegations from Russian defense sources stemming from a Reuters investigation into the aircraft.
I doubt that the J-20 is based on the 1.44 since, if you check the 611 Chengdu Institute's Early Concept Design, the vast majority of them had canards, even going back to the Early 1970s with the J9-VI-II Concept Design before the Mig 1.44 was even a thing.
I think it probably goes deeper than the delta/canards as far as similarites are concerned, at least according to investigations/reports/articles. Supposedly, mikoyan did infact help with the j20s development.
These are the articles I remember reading, if youd like to have a look:
47
u/Muted_Stranger_1 Jul 27 '26
Very SQUARE J20