229:
TestPilot is right the
Russian publication mentions Project J-XX as a (english translaton from babelfish) "program of the creation of the destroyer of the 5th generation" but as such it talks about merely a program to develop it. The plane does not even exist on paper yet. It's basically a plan and a
230:
statement that China intends to build an advanced fighter capable of taking on
American 5th gen fighters. Can they do it, who knows but it is nowhere near being close to ready to take form. Why have an article on something that is not even in the development stage yet?--
126:
is appealed to, but no actual citation is provided. As it stands, it looks like "J-XX" is a programme whose existence has been merely inferred from reports of the development of various advanced aircraft subsystems.
114:
322:
352:
that shows this plane is real, and that there is more to the story than meets the eye. There is also the story of this plane, but I haven't read it yet on that page.--
248:", but actual development program with multiple mocks-ups created so for wind tonels/cross-section tests. With dozens research institutions working on it under
17:
87:
82:
91:
148:- now that we have a reliable source that presents the project as more than vapourware. Will somebody please speedy close? --
74:
400:
209:. Made reference for 2015 PLAAF service entry date(sinodefence.com). The best analysis I saw so far of J-XX program is
36:
399:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
213:- but unfortunately it written by Russian expert in Russian language. There is no doubt that program is real.
371:
383:
361:
337:
333:
308:
268:
239:
221:
197:
174:
157:
136:
56:
285:
281:
304:
153:
132:
235:
78:
54:
379:
329:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
357:
193:
170:
244:
If you actually read russian article (or another sources) - you will see that J-XX is not "
165:- What happened that changed your vote? What reliable source was found that is so big?--
300:
262:
215:
149:
128:
277:
276:
the problem here is not that there is no finalised design; the problem is the lack of
231:
70:
62:
49:
349:
375:
293:
210:
108:
353:
189:
166:
252:. And, as to should we have an article on development program, look at
253:
249:
393:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
348:
Apparently there is a full scale mockup, from a page I found
104:
100:
96:
258:"is nowhere near being close to ready to take form"
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
350:http://img508.imageshack.us/img508/2590/19bh1.jpg
403:). No further edits should be made to this page.
284:sources that say anything substantial about it.
211:http://nvo.ng.ru/armament/2007-12-21/4_5gen.html
323:list of Military-related deletion discussions
8:
48:- Nomination withdrawn (non-admin close). —
321:: This debate has been included in the
292:five years ago hardly counts, and the
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
122:Completely unsourced speculation.
24:
205:- Provided "actual citation" to
288:(itself mostly speculative) in
1:
384:15:09, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
362:18:39, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
338:03:46, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
175:16:40, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
158:20:10, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
57:18:31, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
309:20:09, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
269:14:07, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
240:06:36, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
222:06:02, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
198:04:27, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
137:21:16, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
420:
396:Please do not modify it.
370:This AfD nomination was
246:n a plan and a statement
32:Please do not modify it.
299:simply rehashes it. --
207:Jane's Defence Weekly
124:Jane's Defence Weekly
374:. It is listed now.
340:
326:
411:
398:
327:
317:
265:
218:
112:
94:
52:
34:
419:
418:
414:
413:
412:
410:
409:
408:
407:
401:deletion review
394:
263:
216:
85:
69:
66:
50:
44:The result was
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
417:
415:
406:
405:
389:
388:
387:
386:
365:
364:
342:
341:
315:
314:
313:
312:
311:
224:
200:
182:
181:
180:
179:
178:
177:
119:
118:
65:
60:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
416:
404:
402:
397:
391:
390:
385:
381:
377:
373:
369:
368:
367:
366:
363:
359:
355:
351:
347:
344:
343:
339:
335:
331:
324:
320:
316:
310:
306:
302:
298:
296:
295:New Scientist
291:
287:
283:
279:
275:
272:
271:
270:
267:
266:
259:
256:, it is also
255:
251:
247:
243:
242:
241:
237:
233:
228:
225:
223:
220:
219:
212:
208:
204:
201:
199:
195:
191:
188:- Per nom. -
187:
184:
183:
176:
172:
168:
164:
161:
160:
159:
155:
151:
147:
144:
143:
142:
141:
140:
139:
138:
134:
130:
125:
116:
110:
106:
102:
98:
93:
89:
84:
80:
76:
72:
71:Shenyang J-XX
68:
67:
64:
63:Shenyang J-XX
61:
59:
58:
55:
53:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
395:
392:
345:
330:Nick Dowling
318:
294:
289:
273:
261:
257:
245:
226:
214:
206:
202:
185:
162:
145:
123:
121:
120:
45:
43:
31:
28:
286:One article
372:incomplete
278:verifiable
301:Rlandmann
264:TestPilot
217:TestPilot
150:Rlandmann
129:Rlandmann
282:reliable
274:Comment:
232:Downtrip
115:View log
376:DumbBOT
297:article
163:Comment
88:protect
83:history
354:Lan Di
254:Ares V
250:AVIC I
227:Delete
190:BillCJ
186:Delete
167:Lan Di
92:delete
51:Travis
109:views
101:watch
97:links
16:<
380:talk
358:talk
346:Keep
334:talk
319:Note
305:talk
236:talk
203:Keep
194:talk
171:talk
154:talk
146:Keep
133:talk
105:logs
79:talk
75:edit
46:Keep
325:.
290:JDW
113:– (
382:)
360:)
336:)
307:)
280:,
260:.
238:)
196:)
173:)
156:)
135:)
107:|
103:|
99:|
95:|
90:|
86:|
81:|
77:|
378:(
356:(
332:(
328:—
303:(
234:(
192:(
169:(
152:(
131:(
117:)
111:)
73:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.