China Flanker Thread II

[SanWenYu]

Deng's cut caused many R&D staff having a hard time making ends meet. Many of them quit and left to join the private sector or gone abroad for further study. The chief designer of J20 and JF 17 Yang wei (杨伟) almost left China due to tough conditions in 1990. If not for his mentor, the chief designer of J10 convinced him into staying, it's hard to say what would've happened to the later J20 program.


Because of the difficult conditions, Yang wei applied for working aboard and received his passport. His mentor/teacher (宋文骢) chief designer of J10 told him not to go so he stayed and later became chief designer of J20.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

"国内条件艰苦" - At that time, life was hard everywhere in China. How could the military industry be an exception? Do you honestly think that China could give everyone in the military industry a living standard comparable to what Yang Wei could have abroad?

Had Deng not cut the losers, there probably would have not been the J10 project. Where would Yang Wei have been then?

Anyway, as we are getting off topic, let's agree to disagree.

 

[texx1]

"国内条件艰苦" - At that time, life was hard everywhere in China. How could the military industry be an exception? Do you honestly think that China could give everyone in the military industry a living standard comparable to what Yang Wei could have abroad?

Had Deng not cut the losers, there probably would have not been the J10 project. Where would Yang Wei have been then?

Anyway, as we are getting off topic, let's agree to disagree.

Sure let's agree to disagree but I would say this, Deng got lucky in Yang wei's case.

Yang's not as materialistic as other researchers/engineers who left. His loyalty and love of china in the end won out and overcame his personal/economic considerations. But who knows what other breakthroughs China might have obtained if more talented R&D personnel chose to stay. Perhaps, China wouldn't be having so much trouble with semiconductors now had more resources were continuously invested in the 90s. Back then, there was a common saying in China, making missiles is not as good as selling tea eggs. (造导弹的不如卖茶叶蛋的)

 

[tphuang]

How do we judge Russian flanker performance and compare them to Chinese?

From historical evidence (Taiwan flyby vs. Russian air force in Ukraine) it seems to me that at the very least, PLAAF has a huge advantage in J-16D capability, which RAF does not have.

Keep in mind that Taiwan flybys have generally been using the regular J-16s, not J-16D. Even the regular J-16s are confusing the Taiwanese air defense system.

At this point, I think it's fair to say that J-16 is the best A2A version of flanker, best multi-role version of flanker and has the best EW suite. There is quite a huge gap in radar/electronics between J-16s and Russian flankers, so J-16s would be harder to jam and harder to detect in A2A combat aside from the obvious AESA advantages in tracking range and accuracy. In ground attack and SEAD missions, J-16 would have a pretty big advantage over Su-34 in targeting sensors and also PGM accuracy. That's actually one of the really surprising part about this Ukrainian invasion. The Russians don't seem to have enough PGMs from ground attacks. If we factor in the much superior EW suite (again supported by large/modern AESA emitter), it would also have easier time confusing and jamming air defense radar/communication system. The jump from non-AESA to AESA is pretty big in terms of ECM, ESM and stealth. People keep focusing on tracking range and multi-targeting capabilities, but the EW stuff is a big differentiator too.

And if we just look at J-16D, I think the best comparison for it is Growler rather than any other flanker variant.

 

[SanWenYu]

Sure let's agree to disagree but I would say this, Deng got lucky in Yang wei's case.

Yang's not as materialistic as other researchers/engineers who left. His loyalty and love of china in the end won out and overcame his personal/economic considerations. But who knows what other breakthroughs China might have obtained if more talented R&D personnel chose to stay. Perhaps, China wouldn't be having so much trouble with semiconductors now had more resources were continuously invested in the 90s. Back then, there was a common saying in China, making missiles is not as good as selling tea eggs. (造导弹的不如卖茶叶蛋的)

Seeing you brought up "造导弹的不如卖茶叶蛋的", I have to reply.

Allow me to remind you that, in the 1980s, neither the street vendors nor the rocket scientists were living a life they deserved. The whole country was in a crunch economically. This is the context we must keep in mind when scrutinizing what Deng did.

Deng had to feed 1 billion Chinese, not just those who happened to be building fancy weapons. In a social turmoil caused by hunger, an angry street vendor could damage CPC's ruling as much as a frustrated aircraft designer. CPC could have fallen in 1989 if the street vendors, factory workers and farmers were not hopeful of better lives.

The art of management is about sorting the priorities correctly. China was lucky to have Deng.

 

[texx1]

Seeing you brought up "造导弹的不如卖茶叶蛋的", I have to reply.

Allow me to remind you that, in the 1980s, neither the street vendors nor the rocket scientists were living a life they deserved. The whole country was in a crunch economically. This is the context we must keep in mind when scrutinizing what Deng did.

Deng had to feed 1 billion Chinese, not just those who happened to be building fancy weapons. In a social turmoil caused by hunger, an angry street vendor could damage CPC's ruling as much as a frustrated aircraft designer. CPC could have fallen in 1989 if the street vendors, factory workers and farmers were not hopeful of better lives.

The art of management is about sorting the priorities correctly. China was lucky to have Deng.

An argument could be made that an employed rocket scientist should deserve more consideration than a mere street vendor in the context of one's contribution to the nation even during difficult times. Deng chose his priorities while making sacrifices in other areas such tech developments, allowing PLA to engage in commercial activities.

IMO, Deng's legacy is just as controversial as Mao's, if not more so. It's not a stretch to say that younger generations of Chinese could probably have a more balanced view of Deng in the coming decades. Remember, British public used to have great admiration for Margaret Thatcher.

 

[FairAndUnbiased]

Keep in mind that Taiwan flybys have generally been using the regular J-16s, not J-16D. Even the regular J-16s are confusing the Taiwanese air defense system.

At this point, I think it's fair to say that J-16 is the best A2A version of flanker, best multi-role version of flanker and has the best EW suite. There is quite a huge gap in radar/electronics between J-16s and Russian flankers, so J-16s would be harder to jam and harder to detect in A2A combat aside from the obvious AESA advantages in tracking range and accuracy. In ground attack and SEAD missions, J-16 would have a pretty big advantage over Su-34 in targeting sensors and also PGM accuracy. That's actually one of the really surprising part about this Ukrainian invasion. The Russians don't seem to have enough PGMs from ground attacks. If we factor in the much superior EW suite (again supported by large/modern AESA emitter), it would also have easier time confusing and jamming air defense radar/communication system. The jump from non-AESA to AESA is pretty big in terms of ECM, ESM and stealth. People keep focusing on tracking range and multi-targeting capabilities, but the EW stuff is a big differentiator too.

And if we just look at J-16D, I think the best comparison for it is Growler rather than any other flanker variant.

I remember that TW claimed to see 50+ J-16s in a flyby last year. There's not that much room to operate safely in the strait. Hmm.

 

[by78]

J-16 in aerial refueling.

 

[Deino]

J-16 in aerial refueling.

Interesting ... however looks a bit distorted? Or am I wrong?

 

[by78]

Interesting ... however looks a bit distorted? Or am I wrong?

Yes, it does. It could be a fringe distortion or distortion from a wide-angle lens. It could be that this image was cropped from a much larger image.

 

[minusone]

Without cutting out the "losers", PLA probably wouldn't have these weapons today:

J10 Figher: Project started in 1986.

WS10 Engine: Preliminary research started in 1978, project started in 1987.

H9 SAM: Started in early 1980.

052 DDG: Project started in 1985.

99 MBT: Research on the 3rd-gen MBT resumed in 1984. Project started in 1986.

95 serivce rifle family: Project started in 1985.

And the nuclear warheads, the ICBMs, the submarines etc.

Regarding "resesrch funding", there was "Project 863" and its companion project "China Torch Program" (火炬计划). Project 863 was initiated in March, 1986 (hence the project code) and started in 1987. It was succeeded by the "Plan of National Major R&D Projects" (国家重点研发计划) in 2016. Shenzou spaceship (神舟飞船), Yinhe-1 and Yinhe-2 supercomputers (银河一号、二号超算), Jiaolong deep sea submersible (蛟龙深潜器), Longxin CPU (龙芯) are some of the well known outcomes of project 863.

Deng knew what he wanted and what he needed.

Those projects were planned during his tenure, and only got positive progress in early 20s during Jiang tenure. I wonder why