J-35 carrier fighter (PLAN) thread
- Thread starter Deino
- Start date
It's a little extreme to pass a clear "decision" on a rumor, the likes of which we get every so often on this forum. But there are a couple of things to keep in mind:
- The last clean sheet design out of CAC came out almost 11 years ago. It is perfectly within their capacity to have "completed" multiple designs since then.
- We know CAC had a proposal for the carrier borne fighter competition. So the preliminary design for such a fighter was ready at most by early 2018.
- Four years (2018-2021) would be enough to finish detailed design and begin prototype construction.
- Any 5th gen delta canard design out of CAC can loosely be called a J-20 derivative on the internet
J-35 carrier fighter (PLAN) thread
In this post, pb19980515 refutes that the J-20 or any variant of it will be a carrier-based fighter. 再加把火。。。。。 歼20怎么改都不会上舰。。。。。先天条件决定了的。总数三百的歼20只会在它应有的岗位上 完成它应有的历史使命。 Translation: "The J-20 will not be carrier-borne no matter how one modifies it; its innate characteristics have already decided...
www.sinodefenceforum.com
So, while we dont know for sure, it is still perfectly possible for both CAC and SAC to be in the game at this point.
CAC and SAC while have some degree of competition it's no way close to cut throat situation between Boeing and LM or as intense as some fanboys hyped. Both of them are different branch of AVIC which are state owned or in other words: party controls everything. There is no way they would "throw a rock along the path of another". It's quite the opposite. SAC contributes a lot in developing J-20 and CAC helps designing FC-31. Don't know where you got the competition theme stereotype but this is not how things work in China.
It is far from crazy to think, actually almost certain that CAC has developed smt. J-20 development has been completed almost a decade ago. What are all those aircraft designers/engineers at CAC working on since then? A sixth gen, an carrier aircraft... uavs... all possible and actually inevitable.
hah!! Sorry but that is laughable. There is cutthroat competition.
I am not sure about that. In the design of the Type 346 radar by Institute 14, Institute 23, which designed the HQ-9 system and is proposing their own naval radar prototype which runs on C-band, refused to change the guidance command signal of the missile from C-band to S-band, which is what Institute 14's radar runs on. That's an example of throwing a rock along the path of another. Institute 14 has to design the radar with C-band arrays for the command guidance signal. Institute 23 are the guys responsible for the land based HQ-9 radar set, which is a C-band array.
I am not sure to what extent SAC contributes to J-20 and CAC to the FC-31. If another company that happens to be my competitor, made "contributions" to my project, I would have my engineers redo the calculations of their contributions because I won't trust them, and I need to make sure.
Competition among SOE is encouraged because it brings out the best effort in people to create national champions, and those left in the wayside are absorbed by the champions. We see this over and over again in many sectors.
I'm going to stretch my neck out a bit to say I believe there is another vital naval missile competition going on between two defense industry SOEs.
Last edited:
It would be more contributing by elaborating your argument than simply saying "you are wrong and I am laughing".
We need to be careful when reading the sensational statement from the internet posts. "not changing from C to S" could also be of either technical reasons or 23's lack of competence in S-band. A sensational taking would be "refusal" and "throwing rock", but another take could be 23 could not do the change, so 14 had to change on their side. Of course sensational post will attract more clicks and attentions, that is why I believe we have to be careful in reading what we encounter.
In engineering world, I have encountered many similar compromises that one group of developers have to accommodate the "bad" demand of the other due to various constraints. We did in good faith of cooperation than sabotaging other teams. After all, we are in the same company, nobody wins unless everybody wins.
The "they" and "us" concept is valid in US between Boeing and LM, but less so in AVIC. What if AVIC/PLA reassigns some engineers from CAC to SAC (or vise versa), are they "us" or "they"? Making an analogue, CAC and SAC are two departments of the same "company", just like 81st corps and 82nd corps of PLA. If CMC reassigns a brigade from 81 to 82, the reassigned soldiers will instantly switch their "pride of allegiance" to their new corps, and 82 will instantly put the new brigade in best use because now the failure of the "new guys" is 82's not 81's any more.
Last edited:
Engineer
Major
You guys are probably too young to remember this. Back in the days before J-20's appearance, there were also a lot of rumors about SAC being the main contractor for certain, how such a prestigious project could only fall on the shoulders of SAC, and many rationales as to why CAC has to be ruled out, yada yada yada. This is just history repeating itself.
SAC just doesn't have a good enough track record for me to take them seriously.
SAC just doesn't have a good enough track record for me to take them seriously.
Even if there was some cooperation, but there was still a competition for the fifth gen fighter program which led to the J-20. So, it is quite expected for there to be a competition for the carrier based fighter, and the big shrimps have affirmed it.
China has in fact nurtured a system of two or more competitors for most of its defence industry for pretty much this purpose. Examples: CASC vs CASIC, NORINCO vs CALT, CAC vs SAC and so on. They don't advertise it, but when the PLA picks a product, the competing product that loses is often offered for export. All this is pretty common knowledge.