Are China’s aircraft like the J-11, J-20, and J-35 simply copied versions of Russian and American jets, and if so, why?
It’s often misunderstood or oversimplified to say that China simply "copies" foreign aircraft designs. The reality is far more complex—rooted in technology adaptation, iterative engineering, and the unique challenges of modern fighter design.
Take, for example, the all-movable canard configuration. This is not a simple design choice but a highly advanced feature requiring extremely fast onboard computers and sophisticated flight control algorithms. Even the U.S. has taken a different route with its fifth-generation fighters like the F-22 and F-35, avoiding all-moving canards due to the technical complexity involved.
The MiG 1.44, frequently cited as the “inspiration” for the J-20, lacked such features. It did not incorporate DSI (Divertless Supersonic Inlet) either—another advanced design element that requires cutting-edge wind tunnel data and supercomputing capabilities. As of now, only the F-35, J-10C, and J-20 have successfully implemented DSI in operational service.
Yes, the J-11, J-15, and J-16 are derivatives of the legendary Su-27, and for good reason. The Su-27 platform remains one of the best fourth-generation airframes ever developed: large fuel capacity, dual engines, excellent aerodynamics, and a spacious nose for powerful radar. It’s a true legacy of the Soviet aerospace era.
However, China’s development went far beyond reverse-engineering. The Shenyang Aircraft Corporation has equipped aircraft like the J-16D with state-of-the-art electronic warfare systems, making it arguably more capable in certain roles than the EA-18G Growler or F-15EX Eagle II. Moreover, China operates more J-16Ds than the U.S. does of these two aircraft combined.
Similarly, the J-15T is the only operational heavy carrier-based fighter today and arguably one of the most advanced carrier jets in the world, featuring GaN AESA radars—a leap ahead in radar performance.
The continued evolution of the Su-27 platform is far from over—Shenyang is still improving it. But it’s important to note that modifying such a high-performance jet is not as simple as just buying one and adding new parts. Fighter jets are inherently aerodynamically unstable, requiring constant computerized control. Any changes to the airframe or avionics demand a full rewrite of the flight control software and extensive retesting to maintain stability and performance.
Take India’s Tejas as an example. Despite three decades of effort, the aircraft’s core components come from around the world: airframe design by Dassault, GE engine, Israeli radar, and landing gear, ejection seat, and flight control systems from France and the UK. Even so, India is still ahead of most nations, as many countries cannot even assemble or maintain a fighter jet—let alone build one from scratch.
In truth, starting from an existing platform is a practical and common approach in aerospace development. Most advanced fighter programs—historically and globally—are evolutionary, not revolutionary.
Also, when two platforms are designed with the same goals in mind, similarities in shape are often inevitable. Delta wings with canards are common in designs aiming for high maneuverability and efficient supersonic flight. The resemblance between the J-20 and other aircraft like the Rafale or F-22 is largely superficial.
It’s curious that the J-20 is often labeled a copy of the MiG 1.44, even though the MiG was never fully completed and served only as a technology demonstrator. Their overall body designs are clearly different—even a casual observer can distinguish them.
In conclusion, China’s fighter programs represent a combination of adaptation, incremental innovation, and increasing indigenous capability. While early designs were heavily based on foreign platforms, the trajectory of Chinese aerospace engineering today shows a clear trend toward self-reliance and technological originality.
0 Comments