J-XY/J-35 carrier-borne fighter thread

[AssassinsMace]

If someone charges China is copying, I will argue that the insides probably won't be anything like what's being charged as being copied so it's not really copying except for the shell. To charge copying is to charge everything inside and out is exactly the same to say China can't do anything new. If the FC-31 is charged with being a copy of the F-35, then how come the FC-31 has two engines while the F-35 has only one? The components are going to be different based on capabilities. So if China can still make whatever they're being charged with copying still work similarly with different components, why bother with making it look like what's being copied? They can easily make it not look the same. They do it because they want to convey China is on par with an establish success. If every other country sees China is just copying, why doesn't China just design the shell differently? The insides are already different. It's because Beijing is only concerned with making the Chinese people believe the communist in power are advancing Chinese society as a whole thus legitimizing their control over the country. The citizens of any country generally are not going to be as knowledgeable and sophisticated to know the truth. The Chinese aren't going to fool themselves into believing they're superior to the US. You can make them believe they're on par though with something as simple as making it look and work similarly. The Chinese can be argued with as being more than average but they still can be very superficial.

 

[siegecrossbow]

If someone charges China is copying, I will argue that the insides probably won't be anything like what's being charged as being copied so it's not really copying except for the shell. To charge copying is to charge everything inside and out is exactly the same to say China can't do anything new. If the FC-31 is charged with being a copy of the F-35, then how come the FC-31 has two engines while the F-35 has only one? The components are going to be different based on capabilities. So if China can still make whatever they're being charged with copying still work similarly with different components, why bother with making it look like what's being copied? They can easily make it not look the same. They do it because they want to convey China is on par with an establish success. If every other country sees China is just copying, why doesn't China just design the shell differently? The insides are already different. It's because Beijing is only concerned with making the Chinese people believe the communist in power are advancing Chinese society as a whole thus legitimizing their control over the country. The citizens of any country generally are not going to be as knowledgeable and sophisticated to know the truth. The Chinese aren't going to fool themselves into believing they're superior to the US. You can make them believe they're on par though with something as simple as making it look and work similarly. The Chinese can be argued with as being more than average but they still can be very superficial.

All the new medium Fifth gens (concept or prototype) like the KFX, TFX, and AMCA all look like FC-31 clones.

 

[Richard Santos]

Well, air planes tend to resemble each other or else they won’t all fly.

fighters of any generation also tend to resemble each other because if you are smart enough to make a fighter fly, you are smart enough to figure out what makes them fly better.

But granted any one fighter of a given generation will have to resemble those of any other, I would have to say honestly, the J-20 is the 5th generation fighter that least resemble any of the others. Which other has canard and ventral fins?

 

[KevinG]

If China breaks the fighter naming pattern with its second stealth fighter it would not be unique. The US DoD also followed a very structured convention from about 1962 with the introduction of the joint tri-service naming system, to about the year 2000, going from F-4, almost perfectly sequentially up to F-22. Then F-35 completely breaks the naming paradigm.

China already broke the naming convention with Y-20.

 

[TK3600]

China already broke the naming convention with Y-20.

How so.

 

[Richard Santos]

My observation is on large scale projects, the Chinese tend to emphasize upstream engineering more than

How so.

there is a continuous series from Y-5 to Y-12, and then a big gap between Y-12 and Y-20.

the next major Chinese transport aircraft project, a 4 engine propfan medium lift transport equivalent to airbus A400, is shown as a model labeled Y-30, which gives some credibility to the notion that the 2nd stealth fighter will also be numbered in the 30 range.

 

[AssassinsMace]

Did China have to make their Z-20 look like a Blackhawk...?

 

[Richard Santos]

Did China have to make their Z-20 look like a Blackhawk...?

No, but why reinvent an fairly good wheel?

 

[AssassinsMace]

No, but why reinvent an fairly good wheel?

Which says it all about superficiality that it's just like a Blackhawk, the stalwart of helicopters...

 

[ougoah]

The US sold China some blackhawks well in the past. They were found to have numerous kill switches and tracking devices that weren't disclosed and so were infrequently used but examined for learning and reverse engineering. Z-20 engineering benefited a lot from having those blackhawks to tear down.

The modern Z-20 not doubt has very different internal subsystems which shouldn't be copied anyway since they're either impossible to copy (integrated with specific software or particular components China has different equivalents of) or outdated in design since it is a very old helicopter. The broad design doesn't really age though so the shape and position of mechanical things are near identical with minor differences done to improve and to accommodate Chinese subsystems and what China has available in terms of the integrated subsystems and components it had to develop itself or use existing Chinese ones that were vastly different to the American ones that came with the blackhawk purchase.