Chinese Aviation Industry

Asymptote said:

...........
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!)
............

Click to expand...

You must be joking, Bombardier is just a regional jet maker whose whose main product C-series is smaller than C919 and dependent on SAC to supply its fuselage and Alenia is just a component supplier.
Fanboys who consider anything longer than a few weeks as long term may indeed think it's "LOONG LONG LONG WAY TO GO" but in the airline industry where airlines buy aircraft for use of up to 20 years and orders are made years in advanced, with C919 coming in 2014 targeting the A320 and 737 segment and C929 after 2020 targeting the A350/330 and 787/777 segment, you can see Comac products will be on the radar screens of airlines in the short to medium term.

This is seriously getting ridiculous, that I'm actually replkying on a hand phone. A320 and any other airliners rely on a world wide network of suppliers that are licensed and have maintenance and support network everywhere to be able to be marketable. Even if China gets the entire blue print to A320 + all the production tooling, it would still need the suppliers, the support network to be respectable airliner. Even Chinese airlines would not buy an airliner that does not have that. That's why most of the value on C919 is actually residing in the suppliers, not COMAC. Other than the design, C919 is not anymore Chinese than the bombardier C-series (whose entire fuselage is built in SAC) or A320 (assembly + the entire wings). The only chinese suppliers for C919 are building the airframe. All the higher valued stuff are using Western suppliers.

As for J-11, china is not exporting it for the forseeable future. I don't know how many times I have said this alreaddy.

Ok.. so let's leave behind the "need" to reverse engineer A-320.

If it's easier, quicker and more cost-effective to build a C919 ... there's hardly a need to consider "reverse engineering the A-320".


The real question how viable is reverse engineering .... in terms of capability (i.e. technical challenges involced) and feasibility (i.e. is it economical to do it).

From the above comments, I make out that reverse-engineering as an approach fails against fresh development (.... easier, simpler to build C919 against reverse engineer A-320).

Will this rule apply always ?

e.g. Hypothetically, if China got hold of an F-22, can it reverse engineer it (say by 2018 or 2020) .... is there a capability as well as feasibility ?

And then there is an earlier example .... it was easier and simpler to reverse-engineer Mig-21, rather than redesign / redevelop a new 2nd / 3rd gen fighter.

Another way to put the same question would be, why was there a need to reverse engineer Su-27 ..... was it more technically challenging / economically costly to develop a competitor for Su-27 from scratch ?


What is the value of reverse engineering, as an approach, in general. Obviously, no other nation (except maybe Russia, in the 50s), has succeeded at reverse engineering as much as China has !

bingo said:

Ok.. so let's leave behind the "need" to reverse engineer A-320.

If it's easier, quicker and more cost-effective to build a C919 ... there's hardly a need to consider "reverse engineering the A-320".


The real question how viable is reverse engineering .... in terms of capability (i.e. technical challenges involced) and feasibility (i.e. is it economical to do it).

From the above comments, I make out that reverse-engineering as an approach fails against fresh development (.... easier, simpler to build C919 against reverse engineer A-320).

Will this rule apply always ?

e.g. Hypothetically, if China got hold of an F-22, can it reverse engineer it (say by 2018 or 2020) .... is there a capability as well as feasibility ?

And then there is an earlier example .... it was easier and simpler to reverse-engineer Mig-21, rather than redesign / redevelop a new 2nd / 3rd gen fighter.

Another way to put the same question would be, why was there a need to reverse engineer Su-27 ..... was it more technically challenging / economically costly to develop a competitor for Su-27 from scratch ?


What is the value of reverse engineering, as an approach, in general. Obviously, no other nation (except maybe Russia, in the 50s), has succeeded at reverse engineering as much as China has !

Click to expand...

It could be the fact that China has gigantic resources and little know-how, a situation which very few other major powers have been in the past century. Usually your superior resources flow from your edge in know-how. China's economic expansion is built mainly on acquiring the know-how of other powers (legally and not)

bingo said:

Ok.. so let's leave behind the "need" to reverse engineer A-320.

If it's easier, quicker and more cost-effective to build a C919 ... there's hardly a need to consider "reverse engineering the A-320".


The real question how viable is reverse engineering .... in terms of capability (i.e. technical challenges involced) and feasibility (i.e. is it economical to do it).

From the above comments, I make out that reverse-engineering as an approach fails against fresh development (.... easier, simpler to build C919 against reverse engineer A-320).

Will this rule apply always ?

e.g. Hypothetically, if China got hold of an F-22, can it reverse engineer it (say by 2018 or 2020) .... is there a capability as well as feasibility ?

And then there is an earlier example .... it was easier and simpler to reverse-engineer Mig-21, rather than redesign / redevelop a new 2nd / 3rd gen fighter.

Another way to put the same question would be, why was there a need to reverse engineer Su-27 ..... was it more technically challenging / economically costly to develop a competitor for Su-27 from scratch ?


What is the value of reverse engineering, as an approach, in general. Obviously, no other nation (except maybe Russia, in the 50s), has succeeded at reverse engineering as much as China has !

Click to expand...

I don't think reverse engineering is much of a problem anywhere. Although the western media demonize it as "immoral" behavior, I CAN GUARANTEE EVERY COMPANY IN THE WORLD DOES IT ON THEIR COMPETITOR'S PRODUCT for competitive analysis (and perhaps to learn something from it).

I seriously don't see a problem with reverse engineering (RE). I do see China's development using "RE" being at a snail pace, and the end product almost always seem inferior to the original design. This is what I don't understand - the Soviets were supposedly technologically "inferior" to the Americans - but yet time and time again, the Soviets were able to "take an idea" from American and design something far superior to the americans.


For example -
B-1 Lancer vs Tu-160 Blackjack
Space Shuttle vs Buran
F-15 vs Su-27
Concorde vs Tupolev Tu-144
Lockheed C-5 Galaxy vs Antonov An-225
Patriot PAC-3 vs S-300
.....
The list goes on and on and on.


The reason why the American respects the Russians, is because they can take a look at American's idea, and then come up with far superior end product.

This contrasts with what China currently is doing in the aviation industry and everything else in general, is what's worrying.

Asymptote said:

This is what I don't understand - the Soviets were supposedly technologically "inferior" to the Americans - but yet time and time again, the Soviets were able to "take an idea" from American and design something far superior to the americans.

For example -
B-1 Lancer vs Tu-160 Blackjack
Space Shuttle vs Buran
F-15 vs Su-27
Concorde vs Tupolev Tu-144
Lockheed C-5 Galaxy vs Antonov An-225
Patriot PAC-3 vs S-300
.....
The list goes on and on and on.

The reason why the American respects the Russians, is because they can take a look at American's idea, and then come up with far superior end product.

This contrasts with what China currently is doing in the aviation industry and everything else in general, is what's worrying.

Click to expand...

That's because the Soviets eventually bankrupted themselves into trying to match the American military industrial complex by using espionage and throwing obscene amounts of money into their own defense industry. China is not about to make the same mistake that the Soviets did, although the Chinese seem to be willing use Soviet tricks like espionage and throwing money into a project if they could afford it or if the end result is worth the investment, projects like the WS-10/-13/-15 engines, the JXX fighter, anti-ship ballistic missiles etc. However the Chinese seem to be more concerned in surpassing the rest of the world in other areas, such as high-speed rail, electric cars, solar cells etc. and so they are also spending money on that, diverting money that could have gone into weapons research. In other words, if China was as single-mindedly focused on its defense industry as the Russians were that they would be willing to bankrupt their country in order to keep up with or surpass the US, then I'm sure that the Chinese would have flying sharks with freakin laser beams attached to their heads by now, but they don't because they actually want a more balanced economy that is strong not just in the military sector, but also the civillian sector too.

Asymptote said:

I don't think reverse engineering is much of a problem anywhere. Although the western media demonize it as "immoral" behavior

Click to expand...

I completely agree with this view .... and therefore, let's ignore those arguments (those who want to discuss that aspect can do so, elsewhere).

The question is .... if reverse engineering (RE) .... can't help for complicated things (e.g. F-22), then that's a definite constraint. And leave alone F-22, even China has failed to reverse engineer Aircraft engines, so far.

Second, even if technically feasible, but too costly to actually do it .. it again become useless.

If either of the two constraints above, were not to apply, ..... I wonder why India does not reverse engineer Su-30MKI !!!

(Just like China reverse-engineered Su-27)

---------

Su-27 has been successfully reverse-engineered ... that is true.
But does anyone know, the economic costs involved in doing that. Was it worthwhile ?

This question is much more relevant in light of the following facts:

1. China can buy Su-27, as it can buy A-320

2. But, China chose to reverse engineer Su-27, but not A-320

3. Reverse engineering of Mig21 has valid different reasons (which do not apply to reverse engineering Su-27.

e.g. India had no reason to reverse engineer Mig21 becaue India could have bought it. China was not offered Mig21, after 1959. So, China had the motivation (irrespective of the costs of such reverse engineering).

But the same reason as Mig21 can not be applied further to Su-27.

China can buy Su-27 (as India can buy Su-30MKI) ..... but China chose to reverse engineer Su-27, but India didn't.

The reason of this behaviour is worth exploring.

It will give insight into (i) How complicated reverse engineering is technically, and (ii) did it make economic sense for China to reverse engineer Su-27

Good grief, I see the 'experts' have moved on from calling for cloning A320 to now cloning F-22, an aircraft so expensive it's bankrupting the nation and so 'good' they produced less than 200 of them, or are the fanboys still arguing producing less than 200 is an indication of the F-22's prowess ?
Maybe the reason F-22 is not being cloned is because the real experts in China and Russia see better price-performance ratio with T-50 and J-xx ?

Did i really just saw someone comparing Soviet shuttle buran to American space shuttle, as an example of Russians taking an American idea and coming up with something better? Hell even Somalis can come up with something better than space shuttle if all it never has to fly, might as well make it out of card board.
Take a look at the record of shuttle flights vs the Russian brain child, or disease as i see it..the buran. How many flights did it actually make?

The comparison between the heavy lift transport aircraft is also ridiculous. There is a huge difference if you need to make a handful of aircraft and if you need to mass produce it. How many An's could the Russians produce in an year? Compare this to the production capacities of the western factories and so see where everything went wrong for the soviets.
As for the awesome on the paper S-300, how many western aircraft have it actually shot down?
The reason why china might not want to follow the Russian way of doing things is pretty evident from the answers to the above question. They don't won't to end up bankrupt like the Russians did, even with their massive oil reserves.

Asymptote said:

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

Click to expand...

No celebration but they did release news and documentary abt it. WS-10A is alive and kicking and already equipped and operational.

Asymptote said:

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.

Click to expand...

It is very obvious KJ-2000 is using AESA, if you want to live in yr dream land of China still in 50's using 50's technology and keep denying. So be it , the reality is China has progress very rapidly and still progressing.