Quickie
Colonel
Looks like the orange one has gone bonkers in his last days in office.
Time to sell your Boeing and GE shares.
Chinese Aviation Industry
- Thread starter FriedRiceNSpice
- Start date
Looks like the orange one has gone bonkers in his last days in office.
Time to sell your Boeing and GE shares.
Updated.
Deliveries of ARJ-21 to customers:-
2015 1 aircraft
2016 1 aircraft
2017 2 aircraft
2018 6 aircraft
2019 11 aircraft
2020 (11 months) 20 aircraft
Total deliveries to-date 41 aircraft.
Total orders received 208 aircraft.
Total passengers carried >1.3 million.
Deliveries of ARJ-21 to customers:-
2015 1 aircraft
2016 1 aircraft
2017 2 aircraft
2018 6 aircraft
2019 11 aircraft
2020 (11 months) 20 aircraft
Total deliveries to-date 41 aircraft.
Total orders received 208 aircraft.
Total passengers carried >1.3 million.
asif iqbal
Lieutenant General
is the Shanghai production line also building ?
if so thats a slow production rate for 2 lines
they seriously need to hyper launch this plane
having said that the production has been doubling but rate is too slow
next year they need to pump 40+ of these by end of 2021
if so thats a slow production rate for 2 lines
they seriously need to hyper launch this plane
having said that the production has been doubling but rate is too slow
next year they need to pump 40+ of these by end of 2021
This is honestly so ridiculous. Building high-end large commercial aircraft is the pinnacle of high-technology and systems engineering development. You don't get much higher than that. I read all 3 of their reports and articles and there are so many flaws to it.
The assumption that China should have already made so much progress by now (with a per capita GDP 1/4th the Western European average and 1/6th the American average) that they should be barely behind the US/EU in aviation is hilariously dumb. What are they thinking? If China had already caught up by now in aviation then what would there even be left to catch up on? You can assume that when China does catch up to and even surpass the overall aviation technology of the Western world, that it would have already surpassed the Western world in almost every other technological achievement long before that day.
This is going to be one of the last things to go. Probably even after China has caught up in the semiconductor industry, say by 2030, it will still be behind in aviation. Using the highest standard, the last goalpost China will probably reach before being able to claim tech superiority in virtually all realms, and saying they haven't made major strides in catching up in this last-to-go industry, is disingenuous and ignorant. How can they think building a modern aviation industry with hundreds of diverse airplanes of multiple different categories, produced every year, can happen in 20 years from a base of nothing???
It's like if they produced a report that says: Breaking news, we just checked IMF and World Bank numbers for 2020 and China is STILL significantly behind the United States in per capita income and per capita living standards. Even when you adjust for PPP they are still behind! Wow! They will never catch up if they are still behind today.
The somewhat secondary claim of these reports is that China hasn't even narrowed the gap. Yea man totally. Even if ARJ21 and C919 are complete garbage (and that's obviously extreme exaggeration but let's assume they are), then China still learned a hell of a lot about building modern airliners, integrating components together, assembling them, learning the rules, regulations, procedures, and techniques of building modern airliners, and even innovating some new ones that China didn't previously have. China went from 0 domestic airplane competitors in 2005 to 2 domestic competitors, which even if they won't compete internationally they will be bought at minimum by the hundreds in China (the biggest aviation market in the world). And now China has at least 2 more domestic commercial aircraft on the drawing board, which are obviously going to be more advanced, reliable, safer, quicker to produce, etc.
When you improve from a low base things look to the layman that they are not changing much. Going from being, say, at 0.1% of overall US and European commercial capability in 2005, to 2% in 2020, doesn't look like much of a difference. But they fail to understand what exponential growth looks like. That number could become 15% in 2030, 50% in 2040, etc.
Now, back to the poor reality of Chinese aviation technology today. Of all the components that make up the C919, 17% are Chinese.
They used that number as one of the central tenants to their argument that China isn't catching up. The ARJ21 was the first serious plane China has produced commercially. The number of Chinese parts that make up that airplane is close to 0%. It first flew in 2008, a small regional jet, almost no Chinese components, not greatly designed, etc.
Fast forward 8.5 years after that in 2017 with the C919, and you have a much larger jet, almost 20% of components were Chinese, and if still supposedly poorly designed apparently far less so than the ARJ21. With each iteration, China is improving orders of magnitude. Unfortunately clean-sheet new aircraft are not produced every year like graphics cards or automobiles, so you can't just say that because there has been no obvious progress in the 3 years that the gap hasn't narrowed.
You'll believe that until suddenly, bam, China has in 2025 or something an entirely new plane, bigger, safer, more reliable, more advanced, easier to produce, etc. than the C919. And so on.
Last edited:
Something the domestic sourcing analysis misses is that the amount of foreign components in the C919 isn’t from a lack of domestic capability, but a strategic commercial decision to reduce regulatory compliance burdens in order to get the plane to market faster.
This is true. But you also have to consider that the Chinese engine will take a long time to become available. Too long if you believe reports of delays. Now, I have little doubt the Chinese could readily replicate the other components, also are likely in the process of doing so, but the engines are a big problem.
China’s COMAC: An Aerospace Minor Leaguer
COMAC has received massive state funding and global attention, but it is not in the same league as world’s top commercial aircraft manufacturers – Boeing, Airbus, Embraer and Bombardier. COMAC isn’t even as capable as its long-time Russian counterparts Ilyushin, Sukhoi, and Tupolev, which have more advanced technology but still have struggled commercially. (In 2006 they and other Russian aerospace firms were placed under a single holding company, the .) Punishing COMAC with sledgehammer sanctions would hurt the U.S. aerospace industry and ultimately American national security far more than they would harm China.
It is misleading to call the C919 a Chinese plane because almost all of its components, including everything that keeps the plane aloft, are imported. Using data from , which monitors the primary suppliers for commercial aircraft around the world, American companies account for almost three-fifths of the C919’s top suppliers. Almost one-third hail from Europe. Only 14 key suppliers are from China, and seven of those are Chinese-foreign joint ventures.
The dependence on foreign suppliers goes beyond the individual components they sell to COMAC. Since they have decades of experience supplying parts to other commercial aircraft, they have an immense amount of knowledge about the process of integrating the various components together. Guidance from international suppliers has been critical in the C919’s development.
China has a huge market, and COMAC has essentially been given a blank check by China’s top leadership to complete and deliver the C919. Nevertheless, COMAC’s struggles developing and manufacturing commercial aircraft are not going to end any time soon. Although China has gained ground and in some cases caught up with others – for example, in high-speed rail and telecom – the story is different in commercial aircraft. COMAC is far behind, and it is not catching up. In fact, the gap is growing, as Western aerospace firms are already focused on developing the technologies of tomorrow, such as supersonics, while China is still struggling to master the technologies of today – or rather from two decades ago. Boeing and Airbus face two much larger dangers than competition from China. The first is their own complacency and the accompanying disastrous mistakes that can erode passengers’ trust (as the recent crashes of the 737 Max have shown). The second is the broader transformation of transportation models and technologies that could make traditional commercial air travel or the way planes are made obsolete and threaten their entire business model.
COMAC has received massive state funding and global attention, but it is not in the same league as world’s top commercial aircraft manufacturers – Boeing, Airbus, Embraer and Bombardier. COMAC isn’t even as capable as its long-time Russian counterparts Ilyushin, Sukhoi, and Tupolev, which have more advanced technology but still have struggled commercially. (In 2006 they and other Russian aerospace firms were placed under a single holding company, the .) Punishing COMAC with sledgehammer sanctions would hurt the U.S. aerospace industry and ultimately American national security far more than they would harm China.
It is misleading to call the C919 a Chinese plane because almost all of its components, including everything that keeps the plane aloft, are imported. Using data from , which monitors the primary suppliers for commercial aircraft around the world, American companies account for almost three-fifths of the C919’s top suppliers. Almost one-third hail from Europe. Only 14 key suppliers are from China, and seven of those are Chinese-foreign joint ventures.
The dependence on foreign suppliers goes beyond the individual components they sell to COMAC. Since they have decades of experience supplying parts to other commercial aircraft, they have an immense amount of knowledge about the process of integrating the various components together. Guidance from international suppliers has been critical in the C919’s development.
China has a huge market, and COMAC has essentially been given a blank check by China’s top leadership to complete and deliver the C919. Nevertheless, COMAC’s struggles developing and manufacturing commercial aircraft are not going to end any time soon. Although China has gained ground and in some cases caught up with others – for example, in high-speed rail and telecom – the story is different in commercial aircraft. COMAC is far behind, and it is not catching up. In fact, the gap is growing, as Western aerospace firms are already focused on developing the technologies of tomorrow, such as supersonics, while China is still struggling to master the technologies of today – or rather from two decades ago. Boeing and Airbus face two much larger dangers than competition from China. The first is their own complacency and the accompanying disastrous mistakes that can erode passengers’ trust (as the recent crashes of the 737 Max have shown). The second is the broader transformation of transportation models and technologies that could make traditional commercial air travel or the way planes are made obsolete and threaten their entire business model.