Indeed interesting that you bash me for not having read that report - a plain wrong assumption - and not that reporg , which is based more on political bias than on facts.
To assume the J-20 was developed alone as a polotical prestige project and must therefore fail is wrong since it completely ignores certain important facts. Why does he ignore China's industrial base and its experience in developing other types before like the J-10 for example? And exactly this is where this reports fails: it equals the J-20 as China's first attempt to develop a fighter with these other ones.
It actually does mention China's successful productions and not by specifically mentioning the J-10, but this is what it said which essentially means the J-10.
Second: China’s development of jet fighters has been uneven. It has made tremendous strides in indigenous aviation design in recent years; yet, to date, its frontline operational fighters still rely exclusively on Russian-built jet engines.123
The whole point of that article was to show that a full, indigenous capability to produce a completely indigenous fighter much include the engines as well as lack the issues that cause the failure of the 3 examples of Argentina, Egypt and India (the latter actually was more of a success, really, rather than a failure but eventually was to be considered a failed project unfortunately despite the Indian Merut going into production and lasting 2 decades! It just fell short of mission assigned designs. And that's it, really. It wasn't comparing those 3 failures with China's success whatsoever and that's where you went with it.
Out of the 3, the Indian project was the most successful and so there is a correlation with the Chinese aviation industry despite China's inarguable success to date.
In reality, the content of that essay shows more of an inclination that China is more or less much closer to the big dogs, i.e. the US, Russia, France & the UK, all of whom have successfully built their own engines to go with their own jets. So the article has a lot of merit.
And also to say the J-20 is in prototype phase only ignores all operational ones delivered to now already three units and the fact that several are using the WS-10.
All militarily advanced countries would consider what China has produced so far as prototypes simply because it hasn't produced an indigenous engine to complete the entire package. That's it! Whether it's fair or not, that's the way it is. To be called a successful, indigenously built fighter jet in the eyes of US military analyst (in this case), if the ENTIRE package is not complete, then it's simply a prototype. That might sound unfair or whatever (and I personally don't agree with it) but it is what it is. And the fact that two are flying with WS-10 engines means they're still in the early phases of testing.
As such your conclusion my post as a teacher would be a disappointed is nothing against your pathetic failure to notice what the author realy wanted and where he failed.
But anyone is entitled to have its own opinion.
You basically mocked it and like someone else said, it's pretty obvious why you do it but I'm not going to repeat it again since it's time to move on. I think you've had enough criticism for now. And "my pathetic failure to notice what the author really wanted and where he failed" is just a jab back from you, lol, it's ok by me. You can attack me but maybe this is why you fail to understand the concept of "discussions" as is in the title of the thread? So it's better to throw out a couple of slap happy emoticons and call it a day? Instead of breaking down the important points of the article, no, that's not permitted as per your rules, right?
Or is it the fact that there can't be any criticism whatsoever? Is that what you're saying? There can't be any challenges from anyone out there and if there is, everyone here must laugh at it and ridicule it and its content because we all must suck up to anything and everything posted about the great Chinese J-20? While many of us actually acknowledge the incredible success of Chinese aviation (especially the J-20,) we also look at the criticisms and try to determine if it is valid or not. We don't just simply sheep along...
The word ‘close coupled‘ implies an interaction between the canard and the wing typically to generate lift. The Rafale and the J20 both are close coupled designs. But weirdly the J20 designers coupled the canard with a high mounted wing, while the Rafale has mid mounted wing. This design choice for the J20 further illustrates my point, the J20 is designed to carry large payload for long range undetected penetration into contested airspace. It wasn’t designed for close combat ..period.
I actually brought up the dihedral positioning of the canards on this thread about a year ago or more. I think we were also talking about whether they were used as speed brakes as well, but we discussed the diherdral position of the canards on the J-20 (not focusing much at the time that the wings were anhedral) and I was actually interested in learning more about why they positioned the canards that way, regardless if it was based on a close-coupled design or not. Perhaps it doesn't matter since we know the Rafale's canards are close-coupled for the specific reason of controlling the airflow over the main wings. But the J-20's wings are anhedral like you mentioned which makes the J-20's delta/canard combination a very interesting and quite unique design. Looking at the EFT and how the canards are pushed much more forward to the nose and act much more as stabilizers than close-coupled canards, but taking a close look at them, they're also anhedral on the EFT, the opposite of the J-20's design. I think it's just all about the complex and ultimate result of aerodynamic testing for each aircraft respectively.
... is there a certain reason why you once again copy&paste one of my own posts which was just posted a few minutes ago without a source or credit given! Not that I would or could demand credit for the image, but isn't that simply stupid? 
