Quickie
Colonel
There're already quite a number of pictures showing the J-11s flying the WS-10A (both engine, of course) in operational colours. You probably can find them in the WS-10A or J-11s thread.
Chinese Aviation Industry
- Thread starter FriedRiceNSpice
- Start date
There're already quite a number of pictures showing the J-11s flying the WS-10A (both engine, of course) in operational colours. You probably can find them in the WS-10A or J-11s thread.
Asymptote
Banned Idiot
Exactly, and even though it doesn't state it, there are reduction in performance in regard to DSI - it's a stationary BUMP that works to compress the air by directing the flow around it - at sub-sonic level and perhaps supersonic level - I am sure a mechanical solution with variable intake ramp is superior because it can adjust for the condition and doesn't require the condition to present itself. Do you know what I mean?
Basically, let's put it this way. Its like 1 speed bike vs 10 speed mountain bike. When you are climbing the mountain, with 10 speed mountain bike, you can switch gear and get better gearing and performance out of it. But with no gear switching - you are stuck with whatever the condition you are in. That's one reason I am guessing why F-35 with such powerful engine (125 kN/191 kN) only manage to have such miserable maximum speed (Mach 1.67)
WS-10 - They are still testing it - offically its still under development. No J-11B is currently combat ready.
China couldn't miniaturize the AESA small enough to put on the fighter jet. Yet. That's why you don't hear Chinese AESA ANYWHERE. China's AESA technology most likely will comes from the APAR shipborne radar from the Type 052C destroyer. And it is reportedly extremely costly to produce (that's why only 2 Type 052c destroyers were ever made so far). The KJ-2000/200 are "dish radar" - rotating radar dome "rotodome" type, it doesn't look like AESA. So, all the Chinese fighters right now are only PESA at best. One of the most important factor why AESA isn't develope yet for Chinese fighter is the power output problem - supposedly Su-27MK2/J-11B couldn't have the power output require to power the AESA radar. I say supposely because I heard this from others - ask tphuang I think I heard from him.
Last edited:
From what I can see, the Chinese aerospace industry is moving at a rapid pace by looking at what they have accomplished from zero to what they have now. Although still might not be at the same level as the Western aerospace industry like the Boeing and Airbus, they have make impressive progress thus far.
As to what is worrying our friend Asymptode... I do not really know... there are many things that he said that I would just think is something really not worth worrying... things like US selling advance hardware to their puppet allies and things like that... I mean, how much of these hardwares can the puppets buy? They do not have unlimited money... plus US never give away items for free.
Same to Russia... and in actual fact Russia is the one worried at the growth of CHina's aerospace industry.
Although I am not saying that the CHinese should be proud and relax in the pace... on the contrary they should step up or at least keep in this pace.
Plus it seemed that the idea of CHina being very backward had been so deeply stamped into the mind of Asymptode, there really is nothing any of us here said that could change his mindset.
The final thing that I am to say is, we don't just look at one aspect in a country in term of national defence. We look at the entire scope, not just the military, but the civilian sector and growth too.
If china really is that backward... I am wondering why is there a CHina up till now?
As to what is worrying our friend Asymptode... I do not really know... there are many things that he said that I would just think is something really not worth worrying... things like US selling advance hardware to their puppet allies and things like that... I mean, how much of these hardwares can the puppets buy? They do not have unlimited money... plus US never give away items for free.
Same to Russia... and in actual fact Russia is the one worried at the growth of CHina's aerospace industry.
Although I am not saying that the CHinese should be proud and relax in the pace... on the contrary they should step up or at least keep in this pace.
Plus it seemed that the idea of CHina being very backward had been so deeply stamped into the mind of Asymptode, there really is nothing any of us here said that could change his mindset.
The final thing that I am to say is, we don't just look at one aspect in a country in term of national defence. We look at the entire scope, not just the military, but the civilian sector and growth too.
If china really is that backward... I am wondering why is there a CHina up till now?
How does this answer my question ? --- do you mean "MATERIAL SCIENCE" of Su-27 is so inferior that it can be easily be reverse engineered.
On the other hand Airbus A-320 uses some "ADVANCED MATERIAL SCIENCE" which can not reverse engineered by people who could reverse engineer Su-27 !
After all what is so SPECIAL in the "MATERIAL SCIENCE" used in A-320 as compared to the "MATERIAL SCIENCE" used in Su-27
Asymptote
Banned Idiot
I understand what you are saying, and I am just saying it worries me China's NOT keeping up the pace needed in this current changing international order.
China has enormous problem of its own too, look at how many death every year from the coal mine industry alone. That's unprecedented - atleast 4000~5000 a year (I feel like I watch these coal mine blast news almost every day...), then there were the FLOODS and the EARTHQUAKES that makes it looks like China is still as backward as 1950s with no building regulations or standard to keep its people safe. There are tonnes of stuff I can think of but that would be unrelated to this thread.
For the AVIC, China is still learning, at infancy stage still. Its still trying to make its first jet engine (for military), its trying to make its first passenger jets (Comac C919 and ARJ21).
Asymptote
Banned Idiot
Well, the Airbus A-320 uses EXTENSIVE COMPOSITE MATERIAL AS PRIMARY STRUCTURE (which is enormous technological leap because it has to withstand the full force of the aerodynamics of turbulence, and not just the wings, but the fuselage too!). The airframes (using composite technology) are still being built in Europe and only transport to China for assembly. So the material science secret is still being kept out of China because China have no capability to reverse engineer that yet (And Airbus want to keep that monopoly).
Let me quote you the wiki :
"The Airbus A320s sold to China to be delivered between 2009 and 2012 will be assembled in the People's Republic of China in Tianjin."
(Notice the photo on the side showing the airframes are still being produce in Europe only)
Now, for Su-27 let me quote you the wiki again! -
"The Su-27’s basic design is aerodynamically similar to the MiG-29, but it is substantially larger. It is a very large aircraft, and to minimize its weight its structure has a high percentage of titanium (about 30%, more than any of its contemporaries). No composite materials were used."
(If I recall correctly, Sukhoi only started to use composite materials in Su-35 and Su-37 - both of which China doesn't have)
So Su-27 is relatively lower tech than A-320 in term of material technology. And that's why China still can't clone A-320!
So, getting back to my point - that's the reason China can only try to develop C919 and ARJ21 short hull passenger jets - because it does NOT have the knowledge to develop a reliable passenger jet engine that's powerful enough to fly a heavy jet. So, China has to settle for short range short hull passenger jets.
Of course China wants to develop something equal to Airbus 380 or Boeing 777 but without composite material technology, its unfeasible to even try.
Last edited:
lets side track a bit here... I believe all of us in this forum know that CHina had enormous problems, not just technical problems but other problems such as corruption, property balloon, etc.
There are floods and earthquakes, which interestingly had been around since the formation of Earth. And have you heard of the Tang SHan earthquakes... how many had died then? 100 000? more? What about the recent Wenchuan Earthquake? How many had die? 80 000? During the Tang Shan Earthquake, how long did Beijing took to realise such an incident had happen. How long did Beijing took to realise wenchuan earthquake had occur now?
HOw long did Beijing took to mobilise a rescue force then, and how long she took to mobilise a rescue now?
How many helicopters they have then, and how many they used now?
You cannot dismiss all these improvement and enhancement of the CHinese government and the CHinese people as a whole.
In the 1950s, just after WWII and in the mist of civil war, how many people actually died of hungers? Now... 2010, how many chinese people died of hungers? in 1950, how many chinese people had TV and drive a car or have a shelter above their head that they are not afraid that they will lose at any time, in 2010, what is the statistic?
heck... in 1997, how many chinese people had mobile phones... in 2010, how many chinese people had mobiles phones.
So how can you say that China is still as backward as in 1950? That is really irresponsible and all the effort the people in China to make this happen is simply wipe aside by you as if all these didn't happen.
True, there are still a long way for the CHinese to go... and they are still not as advance as the west on the whole... but many of their cities (Beijing, Shenzhen, Shanghai, etc) have grow to become one of the best in the world. They still have areas that are very poor, but China is a big country, it would take them many more decades to fully develope the entire nation.
As to all the death and casaulty occuring once a natural disaster struck... all I can say is... it is because of the vast population that the CHina had. 1.3 to 1.5 billions! Any thing happen, and you can see thousands or tens of thousands dead... because they are all so cramped together.
Anyway China need times to grow... US and the European countries don't just become strong overnight, they took centuries too... and the past few centuries of China has nothing to show... (but that will be left to the history forum and so I will not elaborate more here.)
So what I am saying is that CHina might not be the perfect country now... she is not as strong as US at the present moment, and in actual fact there are many more things that needed to be amend for her to even reach the standard of many European countries (not just technology but other aspect of the culture too).
But to say that she is as backward as when she was in 1950s... that is a serious slap in the face.
Schumacher
Senior Member
Civilian aviation industry is a close reflection of the overall economic and technological strength of a nation, so if you look at the bankrupt state of the US economy and disasters like Katrina which made US look as backward as the 1950s, then it's easy to see the Airbus, Boeing duopoly broken by China in like 20 years.
US has long been reliant on foreign talents, many Chinese. Depression in the US will only increase xenophobia and protectionism, having the potential to hasten the pace of Boeing and other high tech firms being overtaken.
US has long been reliant on foreign talents, many Chinese. Depression in the US will only increase xenophobia and protectionism, having the potential to hasten the pace of Boeing and other high tech firms being overtaken.
Well, the Airbus A-320 uses EXTENSIVE COMPOSITE MATERIAL AS PRIMARY STRUCTURE (which is enormous technological leap because it has to withstand the full force of the aerodynamics of turbulence, and not just the wings, but the fuselage too!). The airframes (using composite technology) are still being built in Europe and only transport to China for assembly. So the material science secret is still being kept out of China because China have no capability to reverse engineer that yet (And Airbus want to keep that monopoly).
Let me quote you the wiki :
"The Airbus A320s sold to China to be delivered between 2009 and 2012 will be assembled in the People's Republic of China in Tianjin."
(Notice the photo on the side showing the airframes are still being produce in Europe only)
Now, for Su-27 let me quote you the wiki again! -
"The Su-27’s basic design is aerodynamically similar to the MiG-29, but it is substantially larger. It is a very large aircraft, and to minimize its weight its structure has a high percentage of titanium (about 30%, more than any of its contemporaries). No composite materials were used."
(If I recall correctly, Sukhoi only started to use composite materials in Su-35 and Su-37 - both of which China doesn't have)
So Su-27 is relatively lower tech than A-320 in term of material technology. And that's why China still can't clone A-320!
So, getting back to my point - that's the reason China can only try to develop C919 and ARJ21 short hull passenger jets - because it does NOT have the knowledge to develop a reliable passenger jet engine that's powerful enough to fly a heavy jet. So, China has to settle for short range short hull passenger jets.
Of course China wants to develop something equal to Airbus 380 or Boeing 777 but without composite material technology, its unfeasible to even try.
All I have to say is, even if you have the technology you don't have to use it. to answer why China might not want to develop intercontinental passenger jets, it is a political concern. We are used to hear China announcing massive purchase or Airbus or Boeing aircraft prior to a state visit as a good will or to help promote a better working relationship.
you do not need composite material to make a large aircraft, the Spruce Goose is... definitly not using any advanced plastic material, nor does a C5 Galaxy, Boeing 747-100, AN 124, nor an AN 225.
zoom
Junior Member
Why would they need to reverse engineer when they own the company? Xi'an aircraft bought FACC (Future Advanced Composite Components ) in late 2009.
"The vast majority of 91.25 percent stakes of FACC was acquired by Xi'an Aircraft-ACIC and Hong Kong ATL jointly, in which, Xi'an Aircraft-ACIC had absolute control."
" It is the supplier of Airbus 380 and sub-tier supplier of Boeing 787, but also the aviation composite material supplier of such internationally well-known aircraft manufacturers as Boeing, Airbus, Bombardier, Alenia Aeronautica and Eurocopter.
Aeronautical composite material is mainly used for producing the aircraft structural parts and interior parts, including wings, fuselage, dome, windows, seats, interior decoration, and so on."
Above quotes can be found here >