This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

China High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject China, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of China related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChinaWikipedia:WikiProject ChinaTemplate:WikiProject ChinaChina-related High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Military history: Aviation / National / Asian / Chinese This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history Associated task forces: /  Military aviation task force National militaries task force Asian military history task force Chinese military history task force Aviation: Aircraft This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.AviationWikipedia:WikiProject AviationTemplate:WikiProject Aviationaviation This article is supported by the aircraft project.

• J-4 - (disputed) version of the MiG-15bis [1], MiG-17A [2], or MiG-17F [3] (retired)

-- June 23, 2006

Can anyone confirm that J-10 is deployed? I recall reading that somewhere.

answer" yes according to Kanwa Defence Review

The figures in the Equipment > Current inventory section don't make sense. The Q-5 was taken out of PLAAF service a decade ago, but over a hundred are listed as in service. Also, only 19 J-20s? The J-20 page itself says 208+. The Flanker family numbers seem low as well. I think it comes down to the source used isn't very reliable. RangerRangefinder (talk) 03:51, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The source is egregious but introducing OSINT to Wikipedia is just not a battle worth fighting. Cidician (talk) Cidician (talk) 22:37, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fair I suppose, but the pages should at least share consistent information, no? RangerRangefinder (talk) 04:51, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]