The Q-5, J-7, J-8 and older PLAAF aircraft
- Thread starter adeptitus
- Start date
Semi-Lobster
Junior Member
Test aircraft ? Why the canards ?
Any more information on this J-8II ACT? Static display somewhere?
The J-8II ACT is an unsung milestone for Chinese military aviation, the testing of FBW by the J-8II ACT and the J-6 made many future Chinese fighter designs possible
vesicles
Colonel
It looks like a display to me. It looks like it's parked in front of an office building. No serious fighter should be parked there.
Just how much rivalry are between those 2 companies? I mean both are stated own, both survive solely depends on government orders.
So just how much do they cooperate and compete with each other? Do they share technology between them? share engineers?
I know this is probably not open information, but from the rumors what do we know about them?
plawolf
Lieutenant General
They may be both owned by the state, but there is no love lost between them.
IIRC, CAC was actually a spin-off of one of SAC's subsidiaries. SAC never really took them seriously and neither did the air force, so CAC kinda had a chip on their shoulder for a while, and I think that helped to make them what they are today.
CAC got by by making the J7, they did some good work on the J9 study, but that ultimately fell through because of the engine. They made their big breakthrough when their chief designer gate crashed the air force's next gen fighter proposal meeting at the urgence of an Air Force higher up fed up with SAC's incompetence. CAC stole the shown and turned a slam dunk for SAC into an actual competition, which they then went on to win. That project led to the J10 and the rest is history. And now it's SAC's turn to feel the weight of the chip on their shoulder.
The rivalry between the two is such that it has hinted at that the reason the J10 still uses the AL31 is because SAC has the WS10A maker in their pocket and was using all it's influence to make sure their J11 got priority.
The two might both be owned by the state, but I think their relationship makes Lockmart and Boeing look like blood brothers.
So is there any kind of technical cooperation between the two? They might not share design, but do they share technology at least?
plawolf
Lieutenant General
I am not 100% sure, but I strongly doubt it with what I know about how research institutes work in China.
They are all state funded, but they compete directly with each other for those state grants as well as orders from the air force, navy and foreign customers.
In addition, the higher ups in Beijing recognize the value of competition, so they will not normally force rival companies to pool resources. Without pressure from up top, there is just no reason for them to co-operate in that way. If both companies had failed to come up with a decent 5th gen proposal, then Beijing might have stepped in and made them work together to make sure the PLAAF got something decent, but since both managed to come up with their own designs, I think Beijing would see that as evidence that the current competitive set up is working just fine and see no reason to change it.
Having said that, it is worth remembering that neither CAC or SAC does everything in-house themselves. A lot of the subsystems are contracted out to other specialist companies, like the engines and radar for example.
Now, as far as I understand it, both companies are responsible for selecting their own subcontractors when they are putting together a fighter for the air force, and obviously for security, they try to pick different sub-contractors. But if there is one subcontractor that is obviously head and shoulders above everyone else, then both companies will use them. The engines is a good example despite the possible SAC backroom shenanigans as we are seeing J10Bs powered by WS10As now.
At the end of the day, everyone follows the money and authority. If CAC got the PLAAF contract and SAC had the better radar subcontractors during the bidding process, you can bet the radar guys would want to jump ship to get the big orders, and if their wares are really better than CAC's radar guys' offerings, CAC would take them up.
At the end of the say, SAC and CAC just develop the airframes, whoever wins that has their pick of the best subcontractors so there isn't really an issue with one company blocking access to critical technology or systems (unless they happened to be air frame related, but in which case, such a technological lead would help them to win the contract in the first place) so the PLAAF will always get the best available.