China Flanker Thread II
- Thread starter sumdud
- Start date
- Status
How visible are the radar domes?
Flankers are not mass produced. They are made in batches. It seems that two batches of 14 J-15's have been made and that now is the time to make J-16 batches of about that size. That plant can also be making J-11B's, if new ones are still wanted, but outside the new year festivities that plant will be active building Flankers.
Some rumours on Chinese BBS right now say that the PLA are not satisfied with the J-16 and are demanding SAC make a revised version. SAC apparently chose 607th Institute's inferior AESA over 14th Institute's because of favouritism so now the PLA is pissed that they have to pay for a substandard product. This gives the J-16 the unenviable distinction of being the first type in the PLA to have an upgrade version in full development before the first batch was even completed.
Here's a thread on the topic:
Hyperwarp
Captain
Plausible. SAC somehow forced itself into the J-20 program as subcontractor after losing the J-XX competition. J-10C, J-11D, J-20, KJ-2000 (and KJ-500?) all use AESA from NRIET/14th Institute. IIRC the only airborne AESA from LETRI/607 Institute is the one in the J-16. So this rumor maybe plausible. But its good if the PLAAF is pissed and forces a revision of the J-16.
plawolf
Lieutenant General
If true, then SAC really is doing all it can to get itself closed down.
All we get from them seems to be incompetence and cronyism. Some decent flanker derivatives gets made there, seemingly in spite of all the 'best' efforts of the company, rather than because of it.
I think it is way past time the Chinese government cleaned house in SAC and put the entire senior management under the microscope.
Any examples of incompetence or misbehaviour should be dealt with with exceptional harshness to set an example for the rest that there are no free rides or liberties to be taken when it comes to national security.
As a back up plan, China should seriously consider building up one of the other aircraft manufacturers as a fighter developer, and/or stripping out the most promising talent and projects from SAC and give them enough capital to set up shop as an independent outfit, much like how CAC was itself spun off from SAC all those decades ago.
SAC has a lot of history and investment in it, but if it continues to perform so pathetically and disgracefully, any further attempts to prop it up would just be throwing good money after bad as the best case scenario.
The last thing China needs is for their incompetence to negatively affect projects or core national interest like the J20.
All we get from them seems to be incompetence and cronyism. Some decent flanker derivatives gets made there, seemingly in spite of all the 'best' efforts of the company, rather than because of it.
I think it is way past time the Chinese government cleaned house in SAC and put the entire senior management under the microscope.
Any examples of incompetence or misbehaviour should be dealt with with exceptional harshness to set an example for the rest that there are no free rides or liberties to be taken when it comes to national security.
As a back up plan, China should seriously consider building up one of the other aircraft manufacturers as a fighter developer, and/or stripping out the most promising talent and projects from SAC and give them enough capital to set up shop as an independent outfit, much like how CAC was itself spun off from SAC all those decades ago.
SAC has a lot of history and investment in it, but if it continues to perform so pathetically and disgracefully, any further attempts to prop it up would just be throwing good money after bad as the best case scenario.
The last thing China needs is for their incompetence to negatively affect projects or core national interest like the J20.
Hendrik_2000
Lieutenant General
Nothing will get change so long as SAC stay SOE.Because the state company carry the burden of employing as many people as possible. Firing incompetent people is hard
Today there is this mundane announcement that PLA open research and development to private company.
I think this is water shed in PLA procurement that can lead to higher efficiency because private company are always more efficient by their very nature.
From Jane IHS
China opens military R&D to the private sector
Jon Grevatt, Bangkok - IHS Jane's Defence Industry
08 August 2016
China's military procurement system is, for the first time, encouraging the country's private sector to bid for military research and development (R&D) projects.
The projects are being advertised as tenders on China's military procurement website - - which was launched in January 2015.
Announcing the move on 7 August, the PLA Daily newspaper - the official mouthpiece of the People's Liberation Army - said that by advertising the projects it aims to encourage greater competition in China's defence industry, which is dominated by state-owned corporations.
The PLA Daily added that many of the R&D projects were submitted by the armament departments of the army and navy.
Today there is this mundane announcement that PLA open research and development to private company.
I think this is water shed in PLA procurement that can lead to higher efficiency because private company are always more efficient by their very nature.
From Jane IHS
China opens military R&D to the private sector
Jon Grevatt, Bangkok - IHS Jane's Defence Industry
08 August 2016
China's military procurement system is, for the first time, encouraging the country's private sector to bid for military research and development (R&D) projects.
The projects are being advertised as tenders on China's military procurement website - - which was launched in January 2015.
Announcing the move on 7 August, the PLA Daily newspaper - the official mouthpiece of the People's Liberation Army - said that by advertising the projects it aims to encourage greater competition in China's defence industry, which is dominated by state-owned corporations.
The PLA Daily added that many of the R&D projects were submitted by the armament departments of the army and navy.
- Status