J-XY/J-35 carrier-borne fighter thread

Well let me list a few things:
- I never understood how you guys reached the conclusion that the carrier based 4th Gen will be J-31 based. I was hoping for a heavier fighter, and 601 didn't give me confidence when they changed the tail from prototype one to two. The other thing is I don't know how mature China's mid-thrust engine is. I took the conclusion as it is what it is.
- let's not forget the competition between steam CAT and electric CAT. Each side would claim their own one as superior. In the end you have to build both and let facts speak. No one has the authority "just" to pick one. The loser ended up having to find other jobs to do. It's a heavy blow.

- about 611's ability to keep secret: they had good record when unveiling J-20 prototype, didn't they?
- about being in the "same" company: there are power struggle in any big company. Yang Wei had to leave 611 because of a "promotion". Was it his own choice? Many saw it designed to weaken 611. There are lots of things at stake and too big of interest in things like this. Expecting the winning side to leave some breadcrumbs is never a good strategy.

Having said all of that, I think it's been way too long. If it was planned to be a competition, we should see it flying long time ago, and 611 wouldn't be able to keep it as a secret after that. So in all likelihood this is not gonna happen. But to me it took 601 so long is a disappointment already. When was the last time they did a clean sheet design?!

taxiya said:

We need to be careful when reading the sensational statement from the internet posts. "not changing from C to S" could also be of either technical reasons or 23's lack of competence in S-band. A sensational taking would be "refusal" and "throwing rock", but another take could be 23 could not do the change, so 14 had to change on their side. Of course sensational post will attract more clicks and attentions, that is why I believe we have to be careful in reading what we encounter.

In engineering world, I have encountered many similar compromises that one group of developers have to accommodate the "bad" demand of the other due to various constraints. We did in good faith of cooperation than sabotaging other teams. After all, we are in the same company, nobody wins unless everybody wins.

The "they" and "us" concept is valid in US between Boeing and LM, but less so in AVIC. What if AVIC/PLA reassigns some engineers from CAC to SAC (or vise versa), are they "us" or "they"? Making an analogue, CAC and SAC are two departments of the same "company", just like 81st corps and 82nd corps of PLA. If CMC reassigns a brigade from 81 to 82, the reassigned soldiers will instantly switch their "pride of allegiance" to their new corps, and 82 will instantly put the new brigade in best use because now the failure of the "new guys" is 82's not 81's any more.

Click to expand...

I would doubt that it is due to 23's lack of competence on the S band, as they also happen to do entire search radars with this. I also won't compare corporate culture to military culture either. Chinese business culture is very, very competitive, and that is why they succeed in business, and as an economy as a whole. Even whole cities compete with each other, e.g. Chongging vs. Chengdu.

longmarch said:

Well let me list a few things:
- I never understood how you guys reached the conclusion that the carrier based 4th Gen will be J-31 based. I was hoping for a heavier fighter, and 601 didn't give me confidence when they changed the tail from prototype one to two. The other thing is I don't know how mature China's mid-thrust engine is. I took the conclusion as it is what it is.
- let's not forget the competition between steam CAT and electric CAT. Each side would claim their own one as superior. In the end you have to build both and let facts speak. No one has the authority "just" to pick one. The loser ended up having to find other jobs to do. It's a heavy blow.

- about 611's ability to keep secret: they had good record when unveiling J-20 prototype, didn't they?
- about being in the "same" company: there are power struggle in any big company. Yang Wei had to leave 611 because of a "promotion". Was it his own choice? Many saw it designed to weaken 611. There are lots of things at stake and too big of interest in things like this. Expecting the winning side to leave some breadcrumbs is never a good strategy.

Having said all of that, I think it's been way too long. If it was planned to be a competition, we should see it flying long time ago, and 611 wouldn't be able to keep it as a secret after that. So in all likelihood this is not gonna happen. But to me it took 601 so long is a disappointment already. When was the last time they did a clean sheet design?!

Click to expand...

The conclusion that the carrier based 5th gen would be based on FC-31 wasn't a decision "made" by the community, but a likely conclusion based on the combination of years of various credible insiders, and rumours and semi official indicators.
The fact that we saw an FC-31 derived airframe mock-up with greater wingspan on the Wuhan carrier mockup earlier this year should have essentially sealed the deal.


CAC's ability to keep a secret has nothing to do with this.
First of all, the configuration of J-20 was basically already confirmed by the time the real J-20 was unveiled in 2011. Frankly, once we discovered what the J-20 looked like we were astounded at how close we were.

In other words, CACs ability to "keep a secret" isn't actually that good, and frankly the decision as to whether there would be a "fly off" between CAC and SAC designs for a naval 5th gen would not be a CAC decision either, but rather a navy decision.
If this were real, then we should've heard about this years ago and we wouldn't have had so many years consistently having people tell us that it the naval 5th gen would be based on FC-31.


I also think there is a degree of bias here and on the Chinese boards against SAC, primarily due to perceived "lack of originality". While there may be other aspects of their competency that are not as good as CAC, the "lack of originality" is not a good enough reason to hold that bias.


Simply said, the timing and nature of this new supposed "rumour" just doesn't jive with any of the last 2-3 years of much more consistent rumours that the naval 5th gen would be based on FC-31, and certainly goes against the various semi official indicators we've had in the last few years about FC-31 being the basis of the naval 5th gen, and would also the most difficult to refute evidence being the FC-31 derived mockup on the Wuhan carrier mockup.


So my belief is that this new "rumour" is non credible and likely is false, and is someone deliberately trying to stir the pot.


If it turns out that this rumour is true, then it means we would have to significantly reassess the methods that we have used for the last 10+ years to do PLA watching with, as well as likely meaning that the overall naval 5th gen program has underwent some kind of significant shift or some kind of significant challenge that we were not privy to.


I think it is important for everyone to remember that the question isn't whether SAC or CAC have the capability to develop and build naval 5th gen aircraft.
The question is -- as of right now, in late 2021, based on the body of knowledge that we had from the last few years and recent evidence from this year, how likely is it that the PLAN is pursuing a fly off for two competing designs from which one would be chosen for development as their 5th gen carrier based aircraft?

Tam said:

Quite understandable with the long history of rivalry between the two companies, and that procurement by competition does exist in the Chinese defense industry. Besides CAC vs. SAC, other examples are CSSC vs. CSIC, CASIC vs. CASC, CATIC vs. AVIC, electronics Institute 14 vs. Institute 23. Perhaps the competition and rivalry is intentional to create similar rivalries in the defense complexes around the world, such as Sukhoi vs. MiG, Lockheed Martin vs. Northrop Grumman and so on.

Click to expand...

Competition is great thing

btw I've seen screenshots of a number of SAC (and/or 601 institution)-published papers with relation to carrier-borne fighters that's quite clearly not J-15 related, not sure if any of them are uploaded here tho

edit: checked and they have been posted in this thread, so I don't really understand where the ambiguity concerning the next-gen naval fighter is coming from...

Tam said:

Quite understandable with the long history of rivalry between the two companies, and that procurement by competition does exist in the Chinese defense industry. Besides CAC vs. SAC, other examples are CSSC vs. CSIC, CASIC vs. CASC, CATIC vs. AVIC, electronics Institute 14 vs. Institute 23. Perhaps the competition and rivalry is intentional to create similar rivalries in the defense complexes around the world, such as Sukhoi vs. MiG, Lockheed Martin vs. Northrop Grumman and so on.

Click to expand...

Is there any competition for warship design in the US and the UK? .. how about nuclear subs?

schrage musik said:

Even if there was some cooperation, but there was still a competition for the fifth gen fighter program which led to the J-20. So, it is quite expected for there to be a competition for the carrier based fighter, and the big shrimps have affirmed it.

China has in fact nurtured a system of two or more competitors for most of its defence industry for pretty much this purpose. Examples: CASC vs CASIC, NORINCO vs CALT, CAC vs SAC and so on. They don't advertise it, but when the PLA picks a product, the competing product that loses is often offered for export. All this is pretty common knowledge.

Click to expand...

How does it work? I understand that PLA will fund the competing companies to develop the product/s. So in theory the PLA own the product/s (even lost it) .. how could the company (the lost one) export it?

foxmulder said:

It is far from crazy to think, actually almost certain that CAC has developed smt. J-20 development has been completed almost a decade ago. What are all those aircraft designers/engineers at CAC working on since then? A sixth gen, an carrier aircraft... uavs... all possible and actually inevitable.

Click to expand...

still, we have just about no proof that CAC has done work on a stealth naval fighter, which would be quite unusual if there have indeed been ongoing work for the last couple of years.

I have no doubt that 601 is working on their version. Whether 611 is working on another version, I don't know, I very much doubt it.

But the claim that it would be unveiled by the end of this year has zero credibility to me. Unless they spin on the meaning of unveiling, like checkmate did, that is.

longmarch said:

I have no doubt that 601 is working on their version. Whether 611 is working on another version, I don't know, I very much doubt it.

But the claim that it would be unveiled by the end of this year has zero credibility to me. Unless they spin on the meaning of unveiling, like checkmate did, that is.

Click to expand...

Why do you think it has zero credibility to you?

We've had rumours since about 2-3 years ago that 601's 5th gen carrier based fighter based on FC-31 was selected by the PLAN, over the 611 proposal.
After that time, in the last year and a half we had consistent rumours saying that it would likely emerge soon, and in the last year and last six months it has gradually become louder and louder with a first flight said to be happening soon in this year (with even some rumours floating the idea that it's already happened, which I agree is doubtful).
This is all alongside the fact that we've seen a FC-31 derived larger wingspan aircraft mockup on the Wuhan carrier mockup (which is operated by the PLA Navy, not by SAC or AVIC) earlier this year.

All this, is keeping in mind that 601's 5th gen carrier fighter is of course based off FC-31, meaning that even before the PLAN made their decision some 2-3 years ago, they would've had a large body of existing developmental work on a base airframe in the two FC-31 tech demonstrators flying for the years before, to develop a carrier based fighter for and the last 2-3 years to build the first prototype(s).



So, the questions we should be asking is:
1. Why do we think that we should entertain the idea that 611 is even still in the running for the carrier based 5th gen fighter project, based on the last 4-5 years of understanding that we have?
2. Do we have any reason to think that the carrier based 5th gen fighter project isn't from 601, based off the FC-31, again based off the last 4-5 years of understanding and based on the evidence of the last year (including the aircraft mockup on the Wuhan carrier mockup)?


Because the way some people are writing, makes it seem like they think the null hypothesis is that 601 and 611 are both still in the running for the carrier based 5th gen project and that it is still an open question as to who it might go to??

It feels like I'm taking crazy pills, because the above, to me is like being in 2010 and entertaining the idea that 601 and 611 both still had proposals for the J-XX project and that there's a chance 601 or 611 might be chosen for it -- rather than the long accepted consensus by then in 2010 that 611 had won the 5th gen air superiority fighter competition years ago and that the J-XX would be a canard delta V tail configuration fighter.

Similar, now in 2021, it should be long accepted consensus that 601 had won the 5th gen carrier based fighter competition and that it would be an enlarged carrier based fighter based off FC-31's configuration.

Or is it just me??