Blackstone
Brigadier
OK Blitzo, I hear you. Thanks for the honest feedback.
PLAN Aircraft Carrier programme...(Closed)
- Thread starter bd popeye
- Start date
- Status
Really? What is there to steal? The most complicated part of making a plane catapult capable is to strengthen the plane to handle the stress of the catapult -- and each plane is unique. The only part that is remotely copyable is how the plan is attach to the catapult -- if Shenyang cannot figure that out by itself, then how can it possibly even design a flyable plane? Note also PLAN carrier deck crews are first trained on the Brazilian aircraft carrier -- so Chinese have ample opportunity to observe how it works without resorting to espionage. Even without that, there is plenty of catapult launches on youtube and internet that anyone who care to can get a good idea of how it works.
I appreciate the amicable exchange of views on the matter.
-----
On the matter of future carrier fighters beyond J-15, I too would be interested in seeing a navalized J-20, mostly because I think China would really do well with a navalized heavy air superiority fighter/interceptor with long range and high kinematic capability, for air defence in the same vein as F-14.
However, if the Navy doesn't buy FC-31s, I think that may also reduce the likelihood of the Air Force buying it and further reducing the viability of the aircraft overall as a product... I'm sure SAC can still get enough work from other projects, such as maybe if they end up building H-18 as primary contractor, and also continuing with various flanker variants for the foreseeable future as well as subcontracting for J-20... but it does mean FC-31 probably won't succeed as a project.
Blackstone
Brigadier
Watching Brazilian CV operations and videos on Youtube could only get you so far, but having borrowed blueprints (nods at Blitzo), bills of material, and detailed manufacturing processes are far more helpful. If nothing else, possession of Foggy Bottom acquired information could speed up Shenyang's R&D and improve engineering design efficiency. Copy and innovate are the buzz words.
While you're not incorrect in saying that espionage can obviously assist development, I think we also have no reason to believe that SAC cannot modify J-15 for catapult launch using their own resources.
More importantly, we also have no evidence to suggest that they have any espionage or airframes of CATOBAR aircraft to work with, in the same way that they had a Su-33/T-10K prototype to work with to support and accelerate their development of J-15.
So going back to your original statement, I think the idea of SAC having pursued espionage at this stage is not necessarily probable, nor should it be assumed. I wouldn't be surprised if they've looked at all kinds of scientific articles and USN publications related to the subject, as well as using open source material to help guide their own requirements and their own development... but they should also have the ability to do the engineering and R&D inhouse.
What for? Any material used would have to be domestically sourced, and process used will be domestic or adaptation of domestic process. The specification for catapult launch is relatively straight forward compare to arresting wire system -- it wouldn't be a problem to come up with one. If you already know the requirement, there is really no need to spend effort on reverse engineer a stolen plan -- all that is usable is concept of operation, and that is publicly available, hence don't really need to risk stealing something you do not need. US system also needs to support legacy aircrafts, while Chinese does not -- so can go for a clean sheet design.
Blackstone
Brigadier
So, we simply disagree on how much Shenyang will copy from Foggy Bottom sources and now much it will develop on its own. I think it's more likely Shenyang will copy as much as possible, evaluate, innovate, and then produce. That's like how it copied, evaluated, innovated, and mass produced the J-11s and J-15s.
To make stealing work, you need BOTH plans of a carrier aircraft, and the plans of the catapult, because one does not work without another. To say China steal *one* of the plans, it may be possible, but China somehow steal *both* of the plan is much less probable. The burden of proof is on your side if you insist Shenyang copies from anything other than public source, if it copies anything at all. If it were so easy to steal, why aren't the Russian doing it?
Yano. There is absolutely *nothing* special engineering wise about strengthening a design for catapults. You don't need to rob plans or copy from someone else. Heck, it doesn't even make sense for China to rob or copy from the US on this one. Structural needs are specific to designs, and the structural needs of the J-15 have absolutely nothing to do with any US design anywhere.
This is not state of the art top secret frontier engineering. This is basic force load analysis and mech E. I'll bet you a structural engineer working in a ship yard or on a skyscraper could figure out what to do with the right schematics and structural analysis provided for them. This is graduate student level stuff. Anyone with a Mech E masters degree could do it.
Last edited:
All students in aeronautical engineering will have been taught the principles of undercarriage design and many of them will have been given the aspects relevant to catapult launch. It is then just designing, making and testing like all other engineering. There is nothing magical.
Really OT:
How can Foggy Bottom, the State Department, know anything relevant to this matter?
- Status