Chinese Aviation Industry

bingo said:

Most people outside China, don't differentiate between Chinese press and the Chinese govt -- wrongly or rightly, I do not know. It's a perception.

Anyway, I do buy the claim about China venturing into breaking the duopoly.

Why doesn't China simply reverse engineer Boeing 737 or A-320 ?

Second, why can't China reverse engineer an aircraft engine, too.

It did manage to reverse engineer the engine used for Mig-21 also.

Also, J-11 is reverse engineered Su-27 .. but what engine powers the J-11, as of now? Is Russia okay to provide engines for it's own reverse engineered planes ?

Click to expand...

The question is simple to answer.
Chinese material science is still in its infancy. High power jet engine requires EXTREMELY ADVANCED material science, not something you can just pick up and reverse engineered - because the whole production process in making it its NOT known to you!!

Its like the silk making and the paper making technology - China invented those and tried to keep it a secret - the West and Japan without knowing the secret even with the silk robe in hand, could never figure it out until they finally stole it from China (by the missionaries who hid the silk worm eggs in the walking stick).

Its the same with material science in aviation industry - a lot of things are not something you can see and thus you can't simply reverse engineer. For example, Single crystal (monocrystal) technology for the turbine blade. The AVIC could very well reverse engineer/clone the jet engine hardware wise - but it is certainly NOT the same material thus it will not work the same way (the blade could melt or torn itself off if its made out of steel). How about the jet engine? A lot of today's military jet engine are not made of steel but undisclosed materials (metal doped with exotic elements) which makes it lighter and performs to the specification. Of course China could reverse engineer and clone it in steel, but it's not the same and will not perform the same (probably with disastrous result).

If I recall correctly, China was trying to make a passenger jet back in 1970s but it was so heavy the project failed miserably. It only started the passenger project again when US gave China the tooling and design of DC-10.

Bltizo said:

I'm sorry, but WTF??
"The latest focus is still improving the J-8"...????
By latest, do you mean the most recent? (If they came out with a plan yesterday to install some new avionics or whatever to existing J-8's then sure I'll bite -- but you make it sound like all the development is going to the J-8!)
Haven't you heard of the J-10B, J-11B, J-15?

And what do you mean by superficially improving the J-10 and J-11B? I'll understand if you say the J-11B is/was moving along a bit slow, but superficial improvements?? If you want to compare the J-11B to the Flankers China received back in the 90's...
And the J-10B, simply from pictures is obviously much more capable than the J-10, even if the posts of it having AESA radar were false.

You also claim that the J-10, J-11B were "cloned" from the F-16, Lavi, Eurofighter and Flanker series, respectively... No one is saying the J-11B isn't a "clone" of a flanker -- but it's plain ignorant to say "oh it looks the same therefore it performs the same" (which is what you're implying at least). New materials, avionics, engines have an impact on performance as well... At least I am certain that the J-11B isn't a decrease in performance from the PLAAF's old Su-27's...
And really, do you want to get into the argument that J-10 is a clone of F-16/Lavi/Eurofighter? (Let's through gripen and rafale in the mix as well, just for fun eh?...)

On China getting 5th gen fighters... I can direct to the CCTV interview of the PLAAF general saying that they will get 5th gen fighters from 2017-2019 (onlast year's airforce day), and that a general wouldn't be making such a claim if they weren't completely certain that such an event would be guaranteed (espicially so as China is very sensitive about face -- if a 5th gen fighter didn't emerge 2017-2019 then it woudl be quite a loss of face)...

But really I think the best compromise would be simply to wait a couple of decades and then come back to this question with a definite answer.


(Btw; it's quite ridiculous to call the Jf-17 comparable to the F-5/third generation... Did third generation planes have MRAAM (fire and forget) missiles? Fly by wire? And the JF-17 can be modified for varying avionics, so if a client decides to install an AESA...)

Click to expand...

Okay, I am sorry I say "clone", I should say "inspired" (actually I did say that too) - as one of the designer actually say it himself, J-10 was "inspired" by Lavi.


With that been said. My question still stands - what's China currently designing/producing today?? What it is currently designing/producing is what China currently capable of - and JF-17/J-10 is what China currently capable of. The J-15/J-10B/J-11B are still in development stage (J-10B and J-15 in EARLY development stage infact). J-15 and J-11B are practically the same project, with HEAVY Russian influence (if you get my drift) - isn't really innovation on Chinese part. Its basically still a learning platform for China. Its similar to what current Auto Industries in China are doing - its largely doing cloning jobs of successful oversea vehicles - and only VERY VERY recently did few of them start designing something innovative on its own.

Asymptote said:

Okay, I am sorry I say "clone", I should say "inspired" (actually I did say that too) - as one of the designer actually say it himself, J-10 was "inspired" by Lavi.


With that been said. My question still stands - what's China currently designing/producing today?? What it is currently designing/producing is what China currently capable of - and JF-17/J-10 is what China currently capable of. The J-15/J-10B/J-11B are still in development stage (J-10 and J-15 in EARLY development stage infact). J-15 and J-10 are practically the same project, with HEAVY Russian influence (if you get my drift) - isn't really innovation on Chinese part. Its basically still a learning platform for China. Its similar to what current Auto Industries in China are doing - its largely doing cloning jobs of successful oversea vehicles - and only VERY VERY recently did few of them start designing something innovative on its own.

Click to expand...

One thing I don't understand... why are you so bend on innovation? If something works and works very well, why wanted to go a different road? That say, if the flanker serve all the chinese needs, then by all means, produce this type of aircraft, reverse engineered, modified, redesign, whatever, just build them. Why do you want to branch out from it and go to some out-of-this-world design and developement of the aircraft?

What the Chinese need now is to improve on their engine technology and they are alright for now.

Asymptote said:

The question is simple to answer.
Chinese material science is still in its infancy. High power jet engine requires EXTREMELY ADVANCED material science, not something you can just pick up and reverse engineered - because the whole production process in making it its NOT known to you!!

Its like the silk making and the paper making technology - China invented those and try to stop the technology from leaking out - the West and Japan without knowing the secret, could never figure it out until they stole it from China.

Its the same with material science in aviation industry - a lot of things are not something you can see and thus you can't simply reverse engineer. For example, Single crystal (monocrystal) technology for the turbine blade. The AVIC could very well reverse engineer/clone the jet engine hardware wise - but it is certainly NOT the same material thus it will not work the same way (the blade could melt or torn itself off if its made out of steel). How about the jet engine? A lot of today's military jet engine are not made of steel but undisclosed materials (metal doped with exotic elements) which makes it lighter and performs to the specification. Of course China could reverse engineer and clone it in steel, but it's not the same and will not perform the same (probably with disastrous result).

If I recall correctly, China was trying to make a passenger jet back in 1970s but it was so heavy the project failed miserably. It only started the passenger project again when US gave China the tooling and design of DC-10.

Click to expand...

But how can reverse engineering Airbus A-320 be more complicated than reverse engineering Su-27 (which is a 4th gen Fighter ... contemporary technology).

It shouldn't matter if it's large in size ... more so because now it's already being assembled in China, with components built in Europe.

So, actually, only the components need to be reverse-engineered ... rest of the things -> assembly, quality control procedures, economically efficient processes .... all those are already accessibly from the assembly unit.

So, basically, why can Su-27 be reverse engineered, but not Airbus A-320 ???

Bltizo said:

How exactly does DSIntakes exactly worsen aerodynamic performance? This isn't a challenge but a real question -- can you explain the physics of it? (From my reading, it doesn't limit aerodynamic performance -- there was an american article on Lockheed Martin testing DSI on an F-16 and discovering that the the performance was the same as a normal intake.)

And media from all countries become sensational every now and then; I don't think anyone seriously thinks that COMAC will break Airbus and Boeing's duopoly any time in the forseeable future.

I do question what you mean by "It can't even compare to Sweden" -- are you saying that China hasn't made any aerospace achievements which are comparable or superior to the Gripen? (I get the feeling that you're implying the J-10, J-11B, JF-17 etc are all miles inferior to the Gripen, in which case we'll have to assess the planes individually).

Click to expand...

I have read from somewhere the DSI does worsen the aerodynamic performance of the airframe, because of the changing condition of aerodynamics itself. While I am not a subject expert on this, but putting something INFRONT of the jet engine intake that BLOCKS THE AIR FLOW that the engine needed certainly strikes me as worsening the aerodynamic performance. The best they can do is to minimize the performance loss, but it is still a great loss all for the radar signature return trade-off.

As for Gripen - its just a general comparison. Gripen and Rafale came out 20+ years ago before J-10 (with similar airframe configuration), but superior avionics/radar/controls (if I am not wrong, J-10 doesn't even have FADEC!!)
which basically put J-10 in the same class as fighters of pre-FADEC era (pre- 1970s). In general term, I think electronics/avionics/radar China still lags far behind west, and engine tech even more far behind.

On your claim that China is limited in research and development -- just because they don't choose to proclaim to the world that they have something doesn't mean they don't have it. I know that may seem a stupid and wishful way of thinking but... really? Do you really think that all china can undertake is " "studies" to various airframe configurations" ???

Click to expand...

let's put it this way, if China doesn't proclaim to have this, sure, we will never know what it does have or doesn't have. But we DO KNOW what it is CURRENTLY producing, and that's exactly what I based my assessment upon. FC-1/JF-17, and J-10. That's the forefront of current Chinese aviation technology. AVIC put everything into these project. Now it shows. What generation/class should we put these planes in? You tell me.

bingo said:

I think the aircraft engine is a more daunting challenge ... much more than designing planes.

When J-10 completely shift to WS-10A, it will be a significant leap forward.

But as of now, just to quote the "notorious" wikipedia:

"However, given the poor quality of the engine and other development difficulties, the PLAAF is reluctant to integrate the WS-10 onto the aircraft."

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Click to expand...

I'm in entire agreement with the PLAAF not to proceed with using the WS-10A in the single-engined J-10 before the engine is fully matured. Why risk the pilot's life unnecessary? The best platform to test a newly developed engine would be a double-engined aircraft which the PLAAF is already doing with the J-11s. There's just no other way of testing the reliability of a new jet engine other than flying a lot of them through a period of time.

bingo said:

But how can reverse engineering Airbus A-320 be more complicated than reverse engineering Su-27 (which is a 4th gen Fighter ... contemporary technology).

It shouldn't matter if it's large in size ... more so because now it's already being assembled in China, with components built in Europe.

So, actually, only the components need to be reverse-engineered ... rest of the things -> assembly, quality control procedures, economically efficient processes .... all those are already accessibly from the assembly unit.

So, basically, why can Su-27 be reverse engineered, but not Airbus A-320 ???

Click to expand...

No, did you read my post?
MATERIAL SCIENCE!
Its not simply to take the plane apart and just make molds out of it and you can make it! it's NOT THAT SIMPLE! Even the WWII era Mitsubishi Zero had one of the most advanced material tech at the time - T-7178 aluminum, a top-secret aluminum alloy developed by the Japanese just for this aircraft. It was lighter and stronger than the normal aluminum at the time! The weight saving made all the difference in performance and range (fuel consumption because it's lighter, and it can do tighter turn in dog fight...etc)

So, to sum it up, even if China manage to take a Airbus 320 apart (I am sure it probably will the first chance it arrives China), it won't be able to simply make a clone copy - it probably will manage to make a 1:1 steel copy, but IT WON'T FLY BECAUSE IT WILL BE TOO HEAVY !!! THE ENGINE WOULD MELT BECAUSE IT CAN'T WITHSTAND THE HEAT FROM THE ENGINE ITSELF!


China only recently disclosed that it has understand and master the monocrystal technology (which is needed in making jet fighter engine/high bypass engine). You can only imagine how difficult it is to finally unravel this material and technology. It was crucial - without this the engine fan blade would practically melt itself. And even after understanding what it is, and how it works, manufacturing it at a highly precise level (at molecular level in fact!!) is a whole different matter!! Its like manufacturing CPU at nanometer scale. Its simple for anyone to say "Yeh! we will just miniturize the CPU to 32nm or even 16nm!" which is just wishful thinking... to even miniturize at the precision REQUIRED at current 45nm and 32nm, China doesn't even have the tech yet!! Its huge leap in technological term.

Let's put it this way. The jet engine is a lot like the CPU. China can make its own CPU chip (the Loongson CPU) but only at 90 nanometer scale. To make CPU faster and increase the performance, sure you can overclock the CPU to unreasonable level (let's say 4 Ghz) but the CPU would fry/melt. So the best way is to miniaturize the CPU below the 90 nanometer, (65nm, 45nm, 32nm etc) but at 45nm and 32nm scale, requires a completely different material technology than silicon oxide (intel's solution is to use Hafnium - an exotic material). This level of understanding requires enormous of research and development, and to make it at that precise level is even more amazing considering that TSMC (world's largest semiconductor manufacturer besides Intel - Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company) can't do it. TSMC is still having difficulty miniaturizing it down past 40 nm. And TSMC has been trying since 2004!

Quickie said:

I'm in entire agreement with the PLAAF not to proceed with using the WS-10A in the single-engined J-10 before the engine is fully matured. Why risk the pilot's life unnecessary? The best platform to test a newly developed engine would be a double-engined aircraft which the PLAAF is already doing with the J-11s. There's just no other way of testing the reliability of a new jet engine other than flying a lot of them through a period of time.

Click to expand...

I am not sure if that's a good idea - do you mean to put WS-10A engine on one side and the AL-31F on the other side? Wouldn't that unbalance the whole plane if the engines have different thrust/different thrust timing? (as noted by one of the PLAAF pilot - WS-10A take a whole minute to accelerate/kick in) Imagine how that would turn out if you have have one engine start firing up afterburner and the other one is still warming up...then suddenly kicks in after a minute... it would be like left side of your car's wheel suddenly accelerate! Your car would turn suddenly and you drive off the road..

Asymptote said:

I have read from somewhere the DSI does worsen the aerodynamic performance of the airframe, because of the changing condition of aerodynamics itself. While I am not a subject expert on this, but putting something INFRONT of the jet engine intake that BLOCKS THE AIR FLOW that the engine needed certainly strikes me as worsening the aerodynamic performance. The best they can do is to minimize the performance loss, but it is still a great loss all for the radar signature return trade-off.

Click to expand...

I'm not a subject expert either, but I'm sure that the engineers compensate for the slight decrease of airflow -- DSI also decreases weight significantly, because all the moving bits of a variable intake is taken out, making maintenance easier. If the decrease in aerodynamic performance is that great then why would engineers add it in in the first place?

Here's what DSI does: " Divertless Supersonic intakes work in tandem with forward-swept cowls to redirect unwanted boundary layer airflow away from the inlets, in effect performing the operations of heavier, more costly and more complex mechanisms used by current fighters: such as mesoflap passive transpiration systems that reduce interaction between turbulent boundary airflow and an impinging shock by 'passively' activating mesoflaps to direct air circulation through a cavity at supersonic speeds; or active/passive riblets / MEMS (microelectromechanical systems) that make use of vortex generators, bumps, fluidic systems and mechanical or pneumatic devices to effect a laminar airflow technique. The technique with DSI is relatively simple (in aeronautical terms): it works to create a compression surface that will deviate most of the boundary layer airflow away from the air inlet intakes at speeds of upto Mach 2. The other benefit ofcourse is the relative bantam reduction in RCS by concealing the craft's engine fans. " (from another poster on some other forum whose name escapes me)

As for Gripen - its just a general comparison. Gripen and Rafale came out 20+ years ago before J-10 (with similar airframe configuration), but superior avionics/radar/controls (if I am not wrong, J-10 doesn't even have FADEC!!)
which basically put J-10 in the same class as fighters of pre-FADEC era (pre- 1970s). In general term, I think electronics/avionics/radar China still lags far behind west, and engine tech even more far behind.

Click to expand...

WS-10's are already being seen in service with the newer build J-11B's in production, and the WS-15 is under development (last we heard it was under high altitude testing or something).
But the WEst is definitely far ahead in engine technology.

I'm not sure if J-10 has FADEC... but what you're saying is that J-10 is comparable to... let's so the F-4 phantom (assuming it didn't have FADEC)... or how about the Mig-15? As they're pre 1970's and probably don't have FADEC. (I know I'm biting your head off a bit here, but the generalisation is very "eh??" for me)

I can't speak on the general avionics standard of China of course, but they've developed quite a range of AESA AWEC platforms (KJ-200, KJ-2000), and the J-10B is supposedly going to be equipped with AESA as well -- I know radar is only a small part in a fighter's make up of electronic arsenal, but if they can develop and manufacture AESA's it wouldn't be impossible for them to develop corresponding fighter electronics. FBW, ECM at least...

let's put it this way, if China doesn't proclaim to have this, sure, we will never know what it does have or doesn't have. But we DO KNOW what it is CURRENTLY producing, and that's exactly what I based my assessment upon. FC-1/JF-17, and J-10. That's the forefront of current Chinese aviation technology. AVIC put everything into these project. Now it shows. What generation/class should we put these planes in? You tell me.

Click to expand...

Well for your last queston...

JF-17: Early F-16 variant (F-16A), but as newer variants of JF-17 come out the comparable F-16 will obviously increase. I understand their weight classes are quite different, but their roles are very, very similar. JF-17 has BVR for one, which I think the initial F-16 production models didn't have. (they were later installed as upgrades and came with F-16C production models).

J-10: Err well the current A version I would hazard to say comparable to F-16C, and the B version (the one with integrated ECM, IRST, AESA, DSI -- basically the cool version) probably the F-16E.
I don't want to get into a debate over what's comparable to what, but that's just my opinion.

Asymptote said:

I am not sure if that's a good idea - do you mean to put WS-10A engine on one side and the AL-31F on the other side? Wouldn't that unbalance the whole plane if the engines have different thrust/different thrust timing? (as noted by one of the PLAAF pilot - WS-10A take a whole minute to accelerate/kick in) Imagine how that would turn out if you have have one engine start firing up afterburner and the other one is still warming up...then suddenly kicks in after a minute... it would be like left side of your car's wheel suddenly accelerate! Your car would turn suddenly and you drive off the road..

Click to expand...

That's exactly what J-11's are doing to test WS-10A. Twin (or more) engined planes put on new engines to test all the time -- China has a Il-76 engine testbed where one of the D-30's was replaced with a WS-10a.
I don't understand how the physics of it works exactly, but I'm pretty sure that's the standard way of testing new engines...

(When did a PLAAF pilot say the WS-10A takes a whole minute to accelerate? Cause I know wikipedia says something like that but I've never heard it anywhere else)