PLA Air Force news, pics and videos
- Thread starter Jeff Head
- Start date
August 1st through the ages.
A recently granted patent from AVIC Chengdu on a dual-engine tandem arrangement (S)VTOL aircraft (possibly fighter-based?).
Several questions:
One - Could the patent be related to this from several years ago?
Two - IMO, UCAVs would be more suitable for (S)VTOL application than manned fighters for China.
Three - Why now?
Four - Where is the weapons bay?
Several questions:
One - Could the patent be related to this from several years ago?
Two - IMO, UCAVs would be more suitable for (S)VTOL application than manned fighters for China.
Three - Why now?
Four - Where is the weapons bay?
Last edited:
Companies and institutes patent things all the time, it doesn't mean it is under active development.
I've noticed that you are often asking a lot of questions that arise from relatively minor news or pictures. Before asking questions it's better to first consider whether a piece of news or picture is actually significant or not, because if it isn't then chances are it isn't worth answering those questions to begin with because the answers you will get will be useless anyway due to a lack of definitive information.
For example, to address your four points, based on the above circumstances:
One - who knows, it's only a patent. But as the question you asked is "could it be" -- the the answer is yes, as the likelihood of the patent being related to it is technically non-zero.
Two - why does this statement need to be made? Does the existence of this patent suggest that China is actively intending to develop or procure a STOVL combat aircraft? Even if they were hypothetically considering developing and procuring a STOVL fighter, does it mean UCAVs are not also very important to the PLA? Are any of these questions worth considering at this stage based on only a patent???
Three - who cares, it's a patent that happened to be filed recently.
Four - it's just a patent.
Sometimes it is important to not ask certain questions, because by merely asking questions based on a new piece of news or picture, it can convey to new members or people unfamiliar with the process, that the train of thought underlying the question is a reasonable one.
In reality, it is as important to signal when something is "not a big deal" or at least to recognize when something is "not necessarily significant at all". If everything minor is seen as a big deal resulting in a flurry of follow on questions, then we'd never get anything done.
Last edited:
I don't take enjoyment in pouring cold water on posts.
For everyone that reads this -- when a new picture, rumour or piece of news is seen, always ask "just how significant is it actually" before considering additional questions.
Just because something looks a bit exciting at first glance doesn't mean the monkey neuron activation meme should be carried out.
Instead, when something looks interesting and exciting it's important to take three steps back and assess whether it's something worth getting excited over in the first place.
Once again, sureeeeee.
---------
Either way, I didn't manage to access the patent page itself. Maybe the page itself has been removed. This screenshot posted on Weibo is the most that I could access - In case anyone's interested.
One extra yet unimportant comment - That plane does look like Su-75 Checkmate with an extra engine inside, kek.
Last edited:
If you want to disagree with my above points then just say so without being snide.
It'll tell me who and when I should use time to respond to.
I'm being snide? Please...
Anyways, regarding the above discussion, let's just agree to disagree. Okay?
If you disagree, just say so next time instead of trying to defend yourself with sarcasm.
In any case, you have your answers to those four points you raised -- "it's just a patent, so thinking more about it is unnecessary given we lack additional correlating information, rumours or context" is the serious thrust of the answer.
There is a reason why patents aren't worth following up unless there's actual correlating indicators.
Boeing some years back put out a patent for converting B-1s into gunships by installing retractable cannons in their bomb bays.
That doesn't mean it deserves to be taken seriously as if it was an active project just because a patent of it was granted.
