J-35 carrier fighter (PLAN) thread

[gelgoog]

Well, I kinda inferred which Institutes you were talking about by the conversation alone, but the practice of using code numbers for design institutes is something we aren't used to in the West. The Soviets also used a similar system though e.g. OKB-1 was Korolev's design bureau and OKB-51 was Sukhoi's.

I agree that SAC's proposal has more chances of winning the naval stealth competition. CAC is already busy with the J-10 and J-20 and it's a way to keep SAC viable long term. SAC also has more prior experience with naval aircraft due to the J-15. The Chinese carriers are smaller than US carriers, having smaller aircraft means you can carry more aircraft. Once the carriers become equipped with catapults, and the area of operation goes beyond the 2nd island chain though, I would not dismiss the idea of a navalized J-20. Why? Because of range concerns, to strike at longer distances, or to use as a large fleet defender. The US similarly used to have a hi-lo combo with the F-14 Tomcat and the F/A-18 Hornet which was basically dismissed for cost concerns. The F/A-18E Super Hornet isn't a viable replacement for the Tomcat in terms of range, payload, speed, and other capabilities despite being more powerful than the base Hornet. When China surpasses the US economy in GDP (nominal) they'll be able to outspend them militarily.

 

[Klon]

They are. All three of those sources are senior members of their affiliated organizations. Fzgfzy is part of management at CSSC. Pop3 is a retired PLAN officer. Pupu, if I remember correctly, is a PLAAF officer. Gongke is an aerospace engineer at GAIC and Pb119950515 is a software engineer at SAC.

Thanks for listing their positions. I can only fully agree about pop3 and gongke; for pupu, I found comments from 2011 stating that he is no longer with PLAAF; for fzgfzy, I couldn't find anything explicitly describing his position (other than that he's in the shipbuilding industry) and I also don't know where software came from for pb. For the last two, I'm not saying you're wrong, just that I couldn't find corroborating information.

Officers and industry management generally have broader and more complete purview of decisions over procurement and development than engineers do.

I agree in general, but there are too many unknowns and uncertainties for this to be used as a criterion in ranking insiders.

For example, officers are made up of a number of ranks with varying levels of access and something similar holds true for managers. Plus, there's the fact that of the three people you named, two have been retired for a while and thus don't have direct involvement in present or future projects; they likely source much from their friends and past colleagues, which isn't something only available to ex-officers.

There is also plenty of evidence available that fzgfzy and pop3 don't always speak from a position "closer to decision-making", even assuming they are in such a position in the first place (1, 2, 3; I'm not only referring to the steam/EMALS issue, but the way their sources are described).

Also, I don't see how the "warning about lower level leakers and projects outside their domain" is even applicable here, because if pb works on naval projects in SAC, he's very close to the issue (of the next-generation carrier fighter). Similarly for gongke, if an engine from his company is to be used, it seems likely he'd be able to know quite a bit.

My position is that it's unwise to judge the insiders based on their job descriptions, particularly when all we have are three very general categories (officer/manager/engineer). It's clear that all of them use things they heard from others (and that we don't generally know where their information comes from), so the level of access their position gives them is not the primary consideration when it comes to reliability.

 

[SinoSoldier]

In response to the claim that the following screenshot represents the naval FC-31, pb19980515 has responded with some comments of his own:

这个模型先不说、、、、、、、、、


新一代舰载机型号已经给了 户口有了。歼多少现在没人说 我也不会当出头鸟。。。。


大概什么样子我也知道了一点。。。

Translation:
"I won't comment on this model just yet...

The next-generation carrier-borne fighter has long been awarded the contract. Nobody has yet given a designation and thus I won't be the first one to break it to you. (Help is needed on the second part in terms of translation)

I also know (a little) how the J-XY generally looks like..."

The following quote is significant (bolded part).

Q: pb大神一锤定音了。海四代型号已定，PK一说无论真假已成过去。

Pb19980515: 应该在实体机制造阶段了。。。。。。具体细节我档次太低 接触不到。。。。

要是以后出来的这个实体机不是新一代舰载机 我就要被打脸了。。。。

Translation:
Q: "PB, can you confirm the following? That the 5th-gen carrier fighter is already set and that the competition portion is already finished?"
PB19980515: "The [J-XY] should already be in the physical manufacturing stage. (Wow!!!) As for specific details [of the J-XY], my clearance is too low and therefore I don't have access to that [information]. If this physical machine turns out not to be the J-XY, then that would be a slap in my face."

A bit off-topic discussion surrounding the SAC JH-XX/H-XX tactical bomber:

Q: 沈飞的并列双座战术轰炸机啥情况了

Pb19980515: 不了解的不说。。。。只知道有这个，其他什么都不知道。。。 估计造实体机得多少年以后了

Translation:
Q: What about the SAC side-by-side seat tactical bomber?
PB19980515: I don't understand (informed?) about this project so I won't speak of it. I only know that this project exists, not much of anything else. I estimate that building a physical aircraft will take many years.

The thread can be found here:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

As usual, please correct/improve my translations. Cheers.

 

[SinoSoldier]

Gongke101 on the WS-19 & the next-generation naval fighter:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Translation:
Q: Would that be the WS-13 or WS-13E? (Responding to an earlier claim that an engine is undergoing design appraisal and export approval)
Gongek101: That would be the WS-13. The WS-13E has been said to be looked upon favorably by the Navy.


Translation:
Q: Could you explain the status of the WS-13 and WS-13E?
Gongke101: I can't of the WS-13E. The WS-13 will be adopted by the medium-weight fighter and will be ready for exports once it passes technical appraisal.


Translation:
Q: When you said that "not the WS-13E", you meant that its confidentiality cannot be breached, not that it isn't powerful enough, right?
Gongke101: Correct. The Navy is looking favorably upon the WS-13(E)!


Translation:
Q: Is it for the new type of carrier-based fighter? (Referring to gongke101's post from above)
Gongke101: Correct. 601 is preparing its bid, while 611 is preparing to compete. Whoever is the best will be the next-generation carrier-based fighter. (A better translation is needed here)


Translation:
Q: I recall that a few earlier rumors claimed that 601 won the bid, and all naval contracts went to 601. Is 611 still bidding in this competition?
Gongke101: They (Navy?) can also go for the 611 bid, although 601 winning the contract would be more beneficial for us. Nevertheless, if the J-20 can be successfully modified then it can absolutely compete with the FC-31. (A better translation is needed here)


Translation:
Q: It won't be used by the naval 5th-generation fighter, will it? (Referring to gongke101's earlier comment that the Navy is favoring the WS-13E)
Gongke101: It will be used by the carrier-based fighter.


Translation:
Q: What design will 611 use to compete? Where did the message come from in the group? I'm afraid that .... original statement. (Translation required) At this stage we are still talking of a competition...
Gongke101: The Naval FC-31 project came from 601 and 112. The statement that 611 will compete came from the Naval Equipment Academy. Don't be too overly optimistic about the carrier-based J-20.

********

My own comments:

This goes against what many other "big shrimps" like pb19980515 have been saying. This is especially true of gongke101's claim that a naval J-20 is still in the competition, a claim that directly contradicts what pb19980515 has been saying. I would also appreciate it if someone could parse through my translations and improve upon them, since it is unclear if gongke101 is saying whether the naval contract has been decided or if the competition is still up in the air.

Gongke101 has made a few additional comments

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

:

Q: 感觉又回到了三代机竞标的情况

Gongke101: 刚传出鹘和13E一同立项时像打了鸡血，到水师装备研究院走一趟，冷静了许多。铁打的装备研究院流水的总督啊。

Q: "It feels like the 4th-generation fighter tender being repeated."
Gongke101: "It was just reported that the FC-31 and WS-19 projects have undergone "Chicken Blood Therapy" when the projects first started. It was sent to the Navy Equipment Academy after which things calmed down. The iron-handed governor of the Armed Forces Academy likes flowing water...?" (Obviously, substantial help needed in translating this passage)

Q: 看来四代舰载机还没到定论的时候，实机pk的可能性越来越大。

Gongke101: 不清楚了，反正原来传发动机今年随鹘立项，现在很少人提，大家等一等，几个月就可以确定。

Q: "It seems that the naval fighter competition hasn't reached a conclusion yet. The chance of a competition is growing."
Gongke101: "It's not clear. Anyways, the engine was approved (??) last year and the naval FC-31 project was set up this year. Currently there are very few people who are talking about this. I recommend waiting a bit. The results will be confirmed in a few months."

****

Not exactly in keeping with pb19980515's recent assertions (see above) but that could just be a difference in what their superiors are telling them. Although both seem to be indirectly hinting that a naval FC-31 is definitely in the works.

 

[SinoSoldier]

FZGFZY has also spoken about the recent CCTV screenshot of the FC-31 model.

His comment was in response to another user's statement that this (referring to the FC-31 being adopted by the PLAAF or PLAN) has been confirmed a long time ago despite skeptics saying otherwise.

User: 早确认了的东西，一群人不信而已

Fzgfzy: 不要直接说嘛，像我，说中型机上舰，咬我不到，哈哈哈

User: "This has been confirmed a long time ago; it's just that some people simply won't believe it."
Fzgfzy: "Don't say it directly. Say it like I do, that a "medium-sized fighter is now carrier-borne". That way I won't get bitten! LOL" (I'm assuming that "getting bitten" is like being investigated by the authorities for leaking sensitive information)

****

Fzgfzy is indirectly hinting that the FC-31 has been selected as a next-generation carrier-borne fighter.
Original weibo post from fzgfzy:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

 

[latenlazy]

Thanks for listing their positions. I can only fully agree about pop3 and gongke; for pupu, I found comments from 2011 stating that he is no longer with PLAAF; for fzgfzy, I couldn't find anything explicitly describing his position (other than that he's in the shipbuilding industry) and I also don't know where software came from for pb. For the last two, I'm not saying you're wrong, just that I couldn't find corroborating information.

I wasn't entirely sure if pupu was retired. This was a detail that I seemed to recall but had no way of confirming. Either way though it shouldn't affect his reliability, so long as what he's sharing is from the grapevine of his connections. This is not dissimilar from the situation with pop3. The software stuff for pb was surmised from the fact that he supposedly worked on analytics for the J-15's carrier landing and takeoff.

I agree in general, but there are too many unknowns and uncertainties for this to be used as a criterion in ranking insiders.

I'm not proposing a hard ranking here, but I do think this rule of thumb is useful and generally true.

For example, officers are made up of a number of ranks with varying levels of access and something similar holds true for managers. Plus, there's the fact that of the three people you named, two have been retired for a while and thus don't have direct involvement in present or future projects; they likely source much from their friends and past colleagues, which isn't something only available to ex-officers.

In China especially, retired officers are part of an old boy's club. Their friends and colleagues won't be the same crowd as, say, gongke's or pb's friends and colleagues. Social status is relevant here.

There is also plenty of evidence available that fzgfzy and pop3 don't always speak from a position "closer to decision-making", even assuming they are in such a position in the first place (1, 2, 3; I'm not only referring to the steam/EMALS issue, but the way their sources are described).

That they were able to pick up new information as decisions were changing and not simply reporting changes in decisions ex post facto speaks for itself, I think.

Also, I don't see how the "warning about lower level leakers and projects outside their domain" is even applicable here, because if pb works on naval projects in SAC, he's very close to the issue (of the next-generation carrier fighter). Similarly for gongke, if an engine from his company is to be used, it seems likely he'd be able to know quite a bit.

My position is that it's unwise to judge the insiders based on their job descriptions, particularly when all we have are three very general categories (officer/manager/engineer). It's clear that all of them use things they heard from others (and that we don't generally know where their information comes from), so the level of access their position gives them is not the primary consideration when it comes to reliability.

Pb, if he is who he says he is, is very close to whatever happens with the J-31 and should have very good knowledge about the plane's design and features, but he's not going to have direct information about what the PLAN is thinking wrt the naval stealth fighter tender until a final decision has been made (unless this information comes directly from a superior, which of course can't be ruled out). To know exactly what is going on with the naval stealth fighter tender right now you would need someone with access to either the PLAN's leadership, SAC's upper management, or AVIC's upper management. I admit to speculating here, but I don't think it's a reach to think that pb's confidence that the J-31 will be the next naval fighter for sure could just as easily be homerism for his own firm as an indication that a decision has already been finalized.

At the end of the day we each have to make our own judgments about how kosher the information we get from these sources are. I'm not trying to pass hard judgments about insiders based on their job descriptions, but I do think it's important to take into account how their positions influence what kinds of information they would know, how they encounter their information, and the quality of that information, especially when we have discrepancies like the one that started this conversation. That said, I would contend that level of position and access should matter significantly for how we appraise the information these sources share. Position and access greatly affect what kinds of information people hear, and who these sources hear from. This is a key consideration in confirming your sources for other lines of information work, after all.

EDIT: Though, after reading the last two posts from SinoSoldier, I think it seems more likely that a final decision has indeed been made, and pb's reporting this after the fact. I would rate Fzgfzy's comments as pretty strong corroboration.

 

[Klon]

I wasn't entirely sure if pupu was retired. This was a detail that I seemed to recall but had no way of confirming. Either way though it shouldn't affect his reliability, so long as what he's sharing is from the grapevine of his connections. This is not dissimilar from the situation with pop3. The software stuff for pb was surmised from the fact that he supposedly worked on analytics for the J-15's carrier landing and takeoff.



I'm not proposing a hard ranking here, but I do think this rule of thumb is useful and generally true.


In China especially, retired officers are part of an old boy's club. Their friends and colleagues won't be the same crowd as, say, gongke's or pb's friends and colleagues. Social status is relevant here.


That they were able to pick up new information as decisions were changing and not simply reporting changes in decisions ex post facto speaks for itself, I think.


Pb, if he is who he says he is, is very close to whatever happens with the J-31 and should have very good knowledge about the plane's design and features, but he's not going to have direct information about what the PLAN is thinking wrt the naval stealth fighter tender until a final decision has been made (unless this information comes directly from a superior, which of course can't be ruled out). To know exactly what is going on with the naval stealth fighter tender right now you would need someone with access to either the PLAN's leadership, SAC's upper management, or AVIC's upper management. I admit to speculating here, but I don't think it's a reach to think that pb's confidence that the J-31 will be the next naval fighter for sure could just as easily be homerism for his own firm as an indication that a decision has already been finalized.

At the end of the day we each have to make our own judgments about how kosher the information we get from these sources are. I'm not trying to pass hard judgments about insiders based on their job descriptions, but I do think it's important to take into account how their positions influence what kinds of information they would know, how they encounter their information, and the quality of that information, especially when we have discrepancies like the one that started this conversation. That said, I would contend that level of position and access should matter significantly for how we appraise the information these sources share. Position and access greatly affect what kinds of information people hear, and who these sources hear from. This is a key consideration in confirming your sources for other lines of information work, after all.

EDIT: Though, after reading the last two posts from SinoSoldier, I think it seems more likely that a final decision has indeed been made, and pb's reporting this after the fact. I would rate Fzgfzy's comments as pretty strong corroboration.

I don't want to spend much more time on this. My basic position is this: we don't really know where and how these leakers get their information, which is why I disagree with your classifications and rules of thumb - they're based on too many unknowns.

 

[latenlazy]

: "This has been confirmed a long time ago; it's just that some people simply won't believe it."
Fzgfzy: "Don't say it directly. Say it like I do, that a "medium-sized fighter is now carrier-borne". That way I won't get bitten! LOL" (I'm assuming that "getting bitten" is like being investigated by the authorities for leaking sensitive information)

I don't want to spend much more time on this. My basic position is this: we don't really know where and how these leakers get their information, which is why I disagree with your classifications and rules of thumb - they're based on too many unknowns.

We do have some good ideas actually...if we follow their posting histories. These sources sometimes drop tidbits about how they receive their information. If we’re lucky they discuss how they acquired their information in depth. Take for example pb’s comments in SinoSoldier’s last two posts. He indicates that there are details about the the J-XY that he doesn’t know because his clearance is too low. He also indicates that there’s a minor chance what he thinks is a J-XY being assembled may actually not be the case. He further also indicates that there are projects at SAC he doesn’t know much about beyond their existence. This tells you a lot about what kind of position he has and what kinds of information he’s allowed to access.

 

[Klon]

We do have some good ideas actually...if we follow their posting histories. These sources sometimes drop tidbits about how they receive their information. If we’re lucky they discuss how they acquired their information in depth. Take for example pb’s comments in SinoSoldier’s last two posts. He indicates that there are details about the the J-XY that he doesn’t know because his clearance is too low. He also indicates that there’s a minor chance what he thinks is a J-XY being assembled may actually not be the case. He further also indicates that there are projects at SAC he doesn’t know much about beyond their existence. This tells you a lot about what kind of position he has and what kinds of information he’s allowed to access.

I gave some examples two comments back of what some others know and don't know and how they source things. Obviously, people have different interpretations of such things.

 

[SinoSoldier]

FZGFZY has also spoken about the recent CCTV screenshot of the FC-31 model.

His comment was in response to another user's statement that this (referring to the FC-31 being adopted by the PLAAF or PLAN) has been confirmed a long time ago despite skeptics saying otherwise.

User: "This has been confirmed a long time ago; it's just that some people simply won't believe it."
Fzgfzy: "Don't say it directly. Say it like I do, that a "medium-sized fighter is now carrier-borne". That way I won't get bitten! LOL" (I'm assuming that "getting bitten" is like being investigated by the authorities for leaking sensitive information)

****

Fzgfzy is indirectly hinting that the FC-31 has been selected as a next-generation carrier-borne fighter.
Original weibo post from fzgfzy:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

New comment from fzgfzy explaining that the PLANAF wants a medium-sized carrier-borne fighter and that it doesn't really matter who develops it (SAC or CAC).

16的机库其实不算小，为什么载机少？15太大，很明显我们需要中型上舰，谁改都行，反正需求是中型嘛

Translation: "The hangar of the CV-16 is actually not considered small, so why does it carry so few fighters? That's because the J-15 is too large, hence it's obvious that we need a medium-sized carrier-based aircraft. It doesn't matter who modifies [such a design], just so long that it's a medium-sized fighter."

Original post:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

****

This seems to corroborate with gongke101's earlier comments that the PLAN has picked up the WS-13E project. Perhaps CAC (if such a competition is still going on unlike what pb19980515 stated) is also building a twin-engined medium-sized competitor to the FC-31.