China Flanker Thread II

[taxiya]

Nothing will get change so long as SAC stay SOE.Because the state company carry the burden of employing as many people as possible. Firing incompetent people is hard

Today there is this mundane announcement that PLA open research and development to private company.
I think this is water shed in PLA procurement that can lead to higher efficiency because private company are always more efficient by their very nature.
From Jane IHS

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

China opens military R&D to the private sector
Jon Grevatt, Bangkok - IHS Jane's Defence Industry
08 August 2016
China's military procurement system is, for the first time, encouraging the country's private sector to bid for military research and development (R&D) projects.

The projects are being advertised as tenders on China's military procurement website -

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

- which was launched in January 2015.

Announcing the move on 7 August, the PLA Daily newspaper - the official mouthpiece of the People's Liberation Army - said that by advertising the projects it aims to encourage greater competition in China's defence industry, which is dominated by state-owned corporations.

The PLA Daily added that many of the R&D projects were submitted by the armament departments of the army and navy.

CAC and XAC are all SOEs. They made J-20 and Y-20 and so far have good reputations. LM is pure private company and it delayed its promised delivery for many years with a sub-standard product (compared to the set goals, time frame and budgets).

It is easier to blame either the laziness of SOE or greediness of Capitalist than finding the real cause. To me it is simple, carrot and sticks, punishment and reward.

 

[Engineer]

Nothing will get change so long as SAC stay SOE.Because the state company carry the burden of employing as many people as possible. Firing incompetent people is hard

It has less to do with SAC being a SOE and more to do with SAC having too much influence. CAC and XAC are SOEs too, yet they don't have such a bad image as SAC.

Technically, SAC is a subsidiary under AVIC. In reality, SAC often dictates what AVIC does. The 31001 prototype being a good illustration of that. People often wonder where SAC gets so much money for the aircraft's development. Well, that's because AVIC's assets are made available to SAC for use. Lin Zuoming himself boasted in CCTV that the project is entirely funded by AVIC, but it's funny how only SAC gets to work on the project.

Basically, SAC is the equivalent of crown-prince in historical drama series. SAC has so much influence, does whatever it pleases, with no repercussion.

 

[asif iqbal]

China getting Su-35!? No matter to be congratulated on

 

[siegecrossbow]

Some rumours on Chinese BBS right now say that the PLA are not satisfied with the J-16 and are demanding SAC make a revised version. SAC apparently chose 607th Institute's inferior AESA over 14th Institute's because of favouritism so now the PLA is pissed that they have to pay for a substandard product. This gives the J-16 the unenviable distinction of being the first type in the PLA to have an upgrade version in full development before the first batch was even completed.

Here's a thread on the topic:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

What PLAAF considers substandard may still be world class. Just saying.

 

[Jeff Head]

China getting Su-35!? No matter to be congratulated on

Well, I know that the report has been that China has purchased 24 SU-35s and that TASS says the first deliveries will be later this year...in the 4th quarter I believe.

I still want to know details...particularly about the engines.

I have to believe China is really doing this to get those engines. I know there will probably be all sorts of promises and expectation that they not be reversed engineered...but I have to believe that is what is going to happen.

China does not need 24 SU-35s, and to buy more would only take away from what they are accomplishing with their own programs...where one of the major issues they have is in fact the engine technology.

So...I will believe it when they are delivered...and when they are, I will still believe it was all about the engine technology. But that's just me.

 

[jobjed]

What PLAAF considers substandard may still be world class. Just saying.

Of course. However, the PLAAF isn't pissed so much at how the product compares to 'world class' but how it compares to what could have been produced for the same price had SAC not done shady stuff. Instead of getting a J-16 with a beyond-world-class 14th Institute AESA, they only got a world-class J-16 with 607th Institute AESA.

That's what I mean by substandard; the PLAAF's standard isn't gauged by what's in service around the world, but by what could have been achieved by AVIC.

 

[FORBIN]

The latest rumor (August 2016) claimed the FOC schedule was delayed due to problems with the AESA radar developed by the 607 Institute.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Don' t seems in service in a Front line Rgt only in the OEU.

It was rumored in October 2013 that the first batch of production

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

s (01 batch/161x) was preparing to enter the limited service with PLAAF. A recent image (August 2015) indicated that the first batch of

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

s have entered the service with PLAAF (Dingxin Flight Test & Training Base? 78x6x?).

 

[newguy02]

Interesting that it looks like the third prototype of the J-11D flew on July 19.

"The latest rumor (July 2016) that the 1103 prototype just flew for the first time."

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

 

[SinoSoldier]

Plausible. SAC somehow forced itself into the J-20 program as subcontractor after losing the J-XX competition. J-10C, J-11D, J-20, KJ-2000 (and KJ-500?) all use AESA from NRIET/14th Institute. IIRC the only airborne AESA from LETRI/607 Institute is the one in the J-16. So this rumor maybe plausible. But its good if the PLAAF is pissed and forces a revision of the J-16.

If true, then SAC really is doing all it can to get itself closed down.

All we get from them seems to be incompetence and cronyism. Some decent flanker derivatives gets made there, seemingly in spite of all the 'best' efforts of the company, rather than because of it.

I think it is way past time the Chinese government cleaned house in SAC and put the entire senior management under the microscope.

Any examples of incompetence or misbehaviour should be dealt with with exceptional harshness to set an example for the rest that there are no free rides or liberties to be taken when it comes to national security.

As a back up plan, China should seriously consider building up one of the other aircraft manufacturers as a fighter developer, and/or stripping out the most promising talent and projects from SAC and give them enough capital to set up shop as an independent outfit, much like how CAC was itself spun off from SAC all those decades ago.

SAC has a lot of history and investment in it, but if it continues to perform so pathetically and disgracefully, any further attempts to prop it up would just be throwing good money after bad as the best case scenario.

The last thing China needs is for their incompetence to negatively affect projects or core national interest like the J20.

Of course. However, the PLAAF isn't pissed so much at how the product compares to 'world class' but how it compares to what could have been produced for the same price had SAC not done shady stuff. Instead of getting a J-16 with a beyond-world-class 14th Institute AESA, they only got a world-class J-16 with 607th Institute AESA.

That's what I mean by substandard; the PLAAF's standard isn't gauged by what's in service around the world, but by what could have been achieved by AVIC.

What does this issue have to do with SAC? The fault should lie with 607th Institute, the supplier of the alleged faulty AESA, rather than the company assembling the aircraft. The only instance in which SAC could be at fault would be for it to let such problems slip under their nose during their own evaluation of the aircraft.

Furthermore, what gave you the notion that it is "incompetent"? SAC has far more on their plate than CAC.

SAC projects: FC-31, J-15A, J-16, J-11D, Divine Eagle, Sharp Sword UCAV
CAC projects: J-20, J-10D (allegedly), JF-17

 

[Blackstone]

What does this issue have to do with SAC? The fault should lie with 607th Institute, the supplier of the alleged faulty AESA, rather than the company assembling the aircraft. The only instance in which SAC could be at fault would be for it to let such problems slip under their nose during their own evaluation of the aircraft.

I wouldn't call possible or apparent corruption non-issue.