China Flanker Thread II

[SinoSoldier]

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

It would be premature to label this a corruption issue without additional insight.

It seems to me that SAC was provided a faulty AESA from 607th but might have passed on the fighter aircraft to the PLAAF, hoping that the latter would settle on a compromise. It could very well be the driving force behind SAC's decision to go with AESA radars from the 14th Institute henceforth.

 

[SinoSoldier]

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!

Why would there be a need for a revision? If the AESA is the only component that is inadequate, it could simply be switched out with one from a different supplier, with a bit of software integration and minor additional hardware work.

 

[Blackstone]

It would be premature to label this a corruption issue without additional insight.

It seems to me that SAC was provided a faulty AESA from 607th but might have passed on the fighter aircraft to the PLAAF, hoping that the latter would settle on a compromise. It could very well be the driving force behind SAC's decision to go with AESA radars from the 14th Institute henceforth.

So, the scenario expanded from whiff of corruption to possible fraud. Sex, blackmail, and murder to come?

 

[SinoSoldier]

So, the scenario expanded from whiff of corruption to possible fraud. Sex, blackmail, and murder to come?

With the way Chinese enterprises and governmental organizations frequently conduct themselves, I would not be one bit surprised.

 

[Blackstone]

Why would there be a need for a revision? If the AESA is the only component that is inadequate, it could simply be switched out with one from a different supplier, with a bit of software integration and minor additional hardware work.

Can't be that easy, because if the fixes only require minor SW and HW modifications, then wouldn't 607's ASEA already be as good as Institute 14's?

 

[SinoSoldier]

Can't be that easy, because if the fixes only require minor SW and HW modifications, then wouldn't 607's ASEA already be as good as Institute 14's?

No, because you are comparing the design work of an AESA radar to the integration thereof. Two related but very distinct processes.

 

[tphuang]

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

World class would be strong term for J-16 without an adequate radar.

Either way, PLAAF has every right to be pissed off and not accept further J-16 if their requirements for the aircraft are not met.

And going by that blog on 052C's AESA competition from years back, it's quite obvious that every major competition contains a lot of political strings being pulled and favours traded. This is part of the life for Chinese working professionals. For PLAAF's sake, you just hope that they at least get products that meet the requirements even if better options are available sometimes.

 

[jobjed]

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

SAC was supposedly given the power to choose which institute's to use and they chose the inferior one due to in-house favoritism. This had people asking why SAC even had the authority to choose the radar as that decision should have solely been the PLA's to make. Again, this ties in with Engineer's point about the SAC given way too much power leading to anti-competitive behaviour, bordering on cronyism.

 

[vesicles]

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

J-15, J-16 and J-11D are all derivatives of Sukhoi fighters. On the other hand, J-20,J-10 and JF-17 are all original designs. At the very least, SAC has been slacking off.

Their only original effort is the J-31 and it's going nowhere. So their competence is definitely in question.

 

[Air Force Brat]

J-15, J-16 and J-11D are all derivatives of Sukhoi fighters. On the other hand, J-20,J-10 and JF-17 are all original designs. At the very least, SAC has been slacking off.

Their only original effort is the J-31 and it's going nowhere. So their competence is definitely in question.

Producing great Flanker derivatives is hardly "slacking off" my boy! HEH! Heh! Heh!

and there are likely good reasons they chose the radar they did, space, weight, compatability with displays, other avionics, may have been purchased as a "package".

beating up on SAC seems to be a fun little pastime, same as LockMart? LockMart is the BEST! looks like SAC is delivering very competent and attractive Chinese Flanker's.

Boeing hit their Apogee with the F-15, the F-18 is also a very fine aircraft, but their X-32 was really short of the mark??

but, if there was indeed "hanky panky" then the PLAAF will "correct" their poor choices!