China is interested in developing a intercontinental passenger jet, but the ARJ21 and C919 need to be finished first before more resources can be given, and lessons from those projects help the larger projects too.
Chinese Aviation Industry
- Thread starter FriedRiceNSpice
- Start date
China is interested in developing a intercontinental passenger jet, but the ARJ21 and C919 need to be finished first before more resources can be given, and lessons from those projects help the larger projects too.
Asymptote
Banned Idiot
True, you don't need composite to make large aircraft, but I was just trying to make a point ....
Last edited:
Asymptote
Banned Idiot
WOW, FACC acquisition, now that's a huge news I didn't know!!
Good on Xi'an Aircraft-ACIC !!
Now that you mention Bombardier, Alenia Aeronautica, that's another 2 companies that China's aviation industries can't compare to. China is not even in the world's top 20 I think! So to break that "Boeing Airbus duopoly", China has a long way to go.... LOONG LONG LONG WAY TO GO. (MORE ACQUISITION PLEASE!)
One thing though, China will become the world's largest aircraft market down the road. The internal demand will fuel the growth and experience of the Chinese aerospace industries itself.
Last edited:
And even though it doesn't state it?? Maybe because they don't state it because there's no reduction in performance..? (or at least the gains from a non-mechanical intake is worth whatever degradation in performance there is? -- or maybe that the degradation in performance isn't even a problem??)
Well fighter jets do not normally fly supersonic, so it doesn't really matter anyway -- and the F-35 has a different role to say, the F-22; it's not meant to fly at supersonic speeds for long periods of time. (Note, the F-22 has a fixed intake as well, and yet it can still supercruise...)
You'll have to define "testing" and "under development".. we've seen photos of J-11B with WS-10A for the past year. And how is the J-11B not combat ready? We've seen squadrons (or flights or whatever, I don't know the correct jargon here) equipped with the planes (with WS-10 engines, I care to add) -- are they still trialling the planes or something?
Ok I'm sorry you really need to do some research.
I can understand you thinking the KJ-2000 is a "rotodome" radar but the KJ-200 doesn't even look like a dome... It's a blimming balance beam.
Both radars are fixed, non moving platforms (look at the photos of Kj-2000and the set up of the radar -- do you think that there is a possibility for the dome to rotate?). KJ-2000 and KJ-200 are AESA -- full stop, those are nondisputable facts.
I don't think China's been doing much development of PESA -- I heard (coincidentally from tphuang) a while ago on a thread here at SDF that they're skipping PESA for AESA.
(PS: I think we don't hear Chinese AESA "ANYWHERE", because most people assume the Kj-2000 to be a rotodome radar and therefore believeit to be PESA. If only they did some research...)
Last edited:
Asymptote
Banned Idiot
Dunno, I think neither of us are subject expert, so we will just have to wait another 50 years when we get old and these kind of knowledge get declassify, and one of us can then say another "I TOLD YOU SO!"
That's true, indeed F-22 only has fixed air intakes without variable intake ramp, which makes F-22 all the more of a monster of a machine.
Well, from what I have seen, WS-10A seems to be still under testing, they are flying it around, but I don't think they are combat ready (at least officially, or they would have a celebration and announce officially)
Okay, I admit I *might* be wrong on the KJ-200, it does looks like AESA type setup. But look can be deceiving. It could still not be AESA.
For example :Lockheed EC-121 Warning Star
The radar on top also looks like AESA type setup doesn't it?
And it was made back in 1954 ! Also, I still think KJ-2000 is a rotodome type like the E-3 Sentry. This is another thing we will never truely know until someone take a photo of them disassemble it.
Last edited:
So .... ?
This clearly implies that carbon composite technology is NOT the bottleneck, which prevents successful reverse engineering of A-320.
I think there is a MUCH MUCH stronger business case to reverse engineer A-320 than to reverse engineer Su-27. The existing duopolies could be charging margins of over 100% on the actual manufacturing cost of A-320 like planes.
Back to the question ---> What's the big deal about reverse engineering A-320 ? It actually could be less technically complex than the cutting edge fighter aircraft like Su-27
I agree .. Airbus is not going to allow "license manufacture" of a complete A-320, unlike Russia which allowed "license manufacture" of Su-27.
Is this the real reason related to this ?
How much does "license manufacture" help in aircraft reverse-engineering?
As an example, India "license manufactures" almost every aircraft the IAF flies. But there has been no reverse engineering thing ever heard in India.
At the same time, Mig-21 were never "license manufactured" in China ..... but China reverse-engineered them. Is it the explicit technical assistance offered till 1959 which was critical to successful reverse-engineering of Mig-21 ?
A side question is what exactly do China or India gain by right to "license manufature", in terms of technology gain (ignoring that "license manufature" domestically, reduces costs)
In other words, do you guys think, India which "license manufactured" most of it's Mig-21 could have reverse engineered the Mig-21 ? If not, then what's the fun in "license manufacturing" if you don't get any technical boost out of it (apart, from saving costs, though)
And coming back to the original QUESTION->
Is it possible for China to reverse-engineer A-320, IF
(i) Hypothetically, Airbus were to allow "license manufacture" of A-320 in China
(ii) Without any "license manufacture", but access to finished A-320 which many airlines in China are flying.
If NOT, then WHY NOT ?
Eh.. a lot of questions asked in single post ... isn't it
We've seen J-11B's in squadron colours with WS-10A -- I'm pretty sure that indicates they're combat ready.Dunno, I think neither of us are subject expert, so we will just have to wait another 50 years when we get old and these kind of knowledge get declassify, and one of us can then say another "I TOLD YOU SO!"
That's true, indeed F-22 only has fixed air intakes without variable intake ramp, which makes F-22 all the more of a monster of a machine.
Well, from what I have seen, WS-10A seems to be still under testing, they are flying it around, but I don't think they are combat ready (at least officially, or they would have a celebration and announce officially)
Okay, I admit I *might* be wrong on the KJ-200, it does looks like AESA type setup. But look can be deceiving. It could still not be AESA.
For example :Lockheed EC-121 Warning Star
[qimg]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d7/Lockheed_EC-121D_Thailand_1972.jpg[/qimg]
[qimg]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/be/Lockheed_WV-1_Barbers_Point_1952.jpg/755px-Lockheed_WV-1_Barbers_Point_1952.jpg[/qimg]
[qimg]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5f/Lockheed_WV-2_near_Hawaii_1954.jpg[/qimg]
[qimg]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/23/Lockheed_EC-121K_Rivet_Top_Korat_1968.jpeg[/qimg]
[qimg]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d7/WC-121N_1967.jpg[/qimg]
The radar on top also looks like AESA type setup doesn't it?
Also, I still think KJ-2000 is a rotodome type like the E-3 Sentry. This is another thing we will never truely know until someone take a photo of them disassemble it.
Look through the AWACS thread on SDF -- the concensus is that they are AESA -- they have fixed antennaes, unlike the E-3. The KJ-200's antennae are arranged on the sides of the beam, allowing excellent side coverage but degrading forward coverage a little.
The Kj-2000 has three antennaes within a dome arranged in a triangle for a 360 view. Look for photos of the KJ-2000 or even videos -- the weak joint between fuselage and the dome is simply too weak to support a rotating dome. And have you ever seen the KJ-2000's dome rotate?
(The KJ-2000 is developed from Phalcon technology from Israel, where they wanted to buy the AESA radar -- the deal was blocked by the US, but some info was still transferred, allowing China to develop an equal if not superior (china's claiemd that it's superior to Phalcon before I believe, but that's up for debate of coruse) radar. India's new Phalcon equipped Il-76's look identical to China's KJ-2000's... Why? because they're using the same platform and nearly identical AESA radar)
So .... ?
This clearly implies that carbon composite technology is NOT the bottleneck, which prevents successful reverse engineering of A-320.
I think there is a MUCH MUCH stronger business case to reverse engineer A-320 than to reverse engineer Su-27. The existing duopolies could be charging margins of over 100% on the actual manufacturing cost of A-320 like planes.
Back to the question ---> What's the big deal about reverse engineering A-320 ? It actually could be less technically complex than the cutting edge fighter aircraft like Su-27
I agree .. Airbus is not going to allow "license manufacture" of a complete A-320, unlike Russia which allowed "license manufacture" of Su-27.
Is this the real reason related to this ?
How much does "license manufacture" help in aircraft reverse-engineering?
As an example, India "license manufactures" almost every aircraft the IAF flies. But there has been no reverse engineering thing ever heard in India.
At the same time, Mig-21 were never "license manufactured" in China ..... but China reverse-engineered them. Is it the explicit technical assistance offered till 1959 which was critical to successful reverse-engineering of Mig-21 ?
A side question is what exactly do China or India gain by right to "license manufature", in terms of technology gain (ignoring that "license manufature" domestically, reduces costs)
In other words, do you guys think, India which "license manufactured" most of it's Mig-21 could have reverse engineered the Mig-21 ? If not, then what's the fun in "license manufacturing" if you don't get any technical boost out of it (apart, from saving costs, though)
And coming back to the original QUESTION->
Is it possible for China to reverse-engineer A-320, IF
(i) Hypothetically, Airbus were to allow "license manufacture" of A-320 in China
(ii) Without any "license manufacture", but access to finished A-320 which many airlines in China are flying.
If NOT, then WHY NOT ?
Eh.. a lot of questions asked in single post ... isn't it
China probably could clone the A320 if they felt the need, but the fact is that they don't feel there's a need. The cloning of Mig-21's and Su-27's (the latter is arguably part of the original 90's deal) took place because it was necessary.
There's obviously a large degree of complexity involved in reverse engineering anything, so why would you reverse engineer something you don't need?
China needed to upgrade their fighter fleets by large degrees (and still does) when the Migs and flankers were first beginning to get dissected, so the trade off between cost/time and need would've been worth while.
let me take a swing at the question of Divertless Supersonic Intake. Its been a few years since I had last studied gas dynamics for rocket and jet design.
With my limited knowledge lets try to understand what DSI is for.
The stated purpose of a DSI is to slow down air entering the jet engine during supersonic flight. The reason is that at supersonic speeds more air will normally be rammed down the engine and with the engine will operate more efficiently. The problem with that is the engine will self destruct as it spins too fast.
This is why the SR-71 have a hybrid engine which is a ramjet at mach 3.2 while a turbo jet at lower speed or how the simpler Mig 31 will destroy it's engines at mach 3.2.
The traditional approach is by diverted intakes with moving cones or flaps which presents a smaller frontal area at supersonic speeds so to brake the air and allow it to expand before entering the engine to help preserve engine life (and of course help the engine breath when the jet is making strange aggressive angle of attacks)
What DSI, I believe, does is to create a shock barrier infront of the air intake to help slow down air entering the engine thus achieving engine preservation.
The shock can only be created by a certain velocity over a certain geometry, hence if properly designed will not create the shock until the supersonic speeds (ok, shock can only be created in transonic and supersonic speeds).
Thus if the question is if the DSI bump will slow the aircraft down, no it shouldn't (aerodynamics is much more liberal than what people normally assume, think about the slap on installation of the IRST on the SU27 or how screws are unflushed on the Mig 31 - once we past laminar flow into transient flow, everything is different)
and DSI should be a good thing because, 1) no moving parts = less maintenance and more reliable, 2) no need to calibrate a control software = cheaper.
my thoughts,
With my limited knowledge lets try to understand what DSI is for.
The stated purpose of a DSI is to slow down air entering the jet engine during supersonic flight. The reason is that at supersonic speeds more air will normally be rammed down the engine and with the engine will operate more efficiently. The problem with that is the engine will self destruct as it spins too fast.
This is why the SR-71 have a hybrid engine which is a ramjet at mach 3.2 while a turbo jet at lower speed or how the simpler Mig 31 will destroy it's engines at mach 3.2.
The traditional approach is by diverted intakes with moving cones or flaps which presents a smaller frontal area at supersonic speeds so to brake the air and allow it to expand before entering the engine to help preserve engine life (and of course help the engine breath when the jet is making strange aggressive angle of attacks)
What DSI, I believe, does is to create a shock barrier infront of the air intake to help slow down air entering the engine thus achieving engine preservation.
The shock can only be created by a certain velocity over a certain geometry, hence if properly designed will not create the shock until the supersonic speeds (ok, shock can only be created in transonic and supersonic speeds).
Thus if the question is if the DSI bump will slow the aircraft down, no it shouldn't (aerodynamics is much more liberal than what people normally assume, think about the slap on installation of the IRST on the SU27 or how screws are unflushed on the Mig 31 - once we past laminar flow into transient flow, everything is different)
and DSI should be a good thing because, 1) no moving parts = less maintenance and more reliable, 2) no need to calibrate a control software = cheaper.
my thoughts,
On the contrary, there is bloody demand for A-320 .... even with nations who don't buy Su-27.
As I said before, the business case for A-320 is many times stronger. Even Phillipines and Namibia would want cheaper A-320 .... although they won't buy a cheap reverse-engineered Su27.
I come to you point about costs of reverse-engineering. How much is the cost savings between (i) designing a Su-27 from scratch, and (ii) actual costs of reverse engineering a Su-27.
And more importanty, : Is it cheaper to reverse-engineer A-320, OR to re-design / develop a plane like A-320 from scratch.