Chinese UAV/UCAV development

taxiya said:

First off, let me get things straight. you declared this particular helicopter producer is a scam by just looking at a picture of the product. I asked how you know that.

We are not talking about a nameless company and a county government, we are talking about a SOE owned by the central government and a provincial government directly answerable to the Prime Minister. If you believe this kind of JV is a scam, why don't you call SAC, CAC and Sinopharm scams? Why don't you call Li Keqing a scamer? Or that is what you actually wanted to imply? That the whole China is a scam?

I don't know how dark and corrupted that you believe China is, but certainly all your experiences were from dark places like ditches. I begin to seriously doubt what you said about your working experiences in China.

Click to expand...

Yes when I see a shitty design with no innovation or quality I’m going to call it out. Doubt all you want. This company won’t exist in a year or two.

Also nice strawman your trying to set up. This has nothing to do with SAC or CAC or Sinopharm. This is BGAC which is in fact a no name company which may or may not have a tenuous relation with BAIC. Does BAIC even have any expertise in aerospace?

Why the personal attack, are you a investor? It’s hilarious how uptight you get trying to defend a low effort company draining money from the government and actual innovative companies. Quite traitorous.

The BGAC drone's selling point is probably its simplicity and low cost (judging by looking at it).

Problem is that anyone on the market for an armed rotary wing UAS can probably afford better (whether Chinese or other origin), long as they're a country.

Air deployable UAV/loitering attack munition. Capable of forming a cooperative swarm. They might be .

PeoplesPoster said:

Yes when I see a shitty design with no innovation or quality I’m going to call it out. Doubt all you want. This company won’t exist in a year or two.

Also nice strawman your trying to set up. This has nothing to do with SAC or CAC or Sinopharm. This is BGAC which is in fact a no name company which may or may not have a tenuous relation with BAIC. Does BAIC even have any expertise in aerospace?

Why the personal attack, are you a investor? It’s hilarious how uptight you get trying to defend a low effort company draining money from the government and actual innovative companies. Quite traitorous.

Click to expand...

You have a huge mouth to double down on your "prediction" by declaring the death of the company in two years.

Seriously, did you read the official site of BGAC? I will help you. With this you still dare to say "there may not be a tenuous relationship between BGAC and BAIC"? That is "瞪眼说瞎话", outright lie.

No, BAIC has no expertise in aerospace. So? What is your point? Do you know that the Rainbow series UAVs were made by CASC the rocket maker? Did CASC have aircraft expertise when they ventured into UAV business? A sub-unit of CASC also ventured into building stealthy flywing UAV very recently, how did they grow their expertise? Why a top automaker obtaining expertise in UAV must be a scam? P.S. UAV is just enlarged radio controlled toy, it is fancy by name but quite easy to build.

BAIC is as much as government entity as SAC etc. That is why I brought it up for comparison. It is the left hand passing money to the right hand. So who is draining the government as you kept on suggesting? It is absurd that you define the act of defending a inter-governmental JV traitorous. You must have a very unique way of thinking to come up with this attack.

PeoplesPoster said:

Yes when I see a shitty design with no innovation or quality I’m going to call it out. Doubt all you want. This company won’t exist in a year or two.

Also nice strawman your trying to set up. This has nothing to do with SAC or CAC or Sinopharm. This is BGAC which is in fact a no name company which may or may not have a tenuous relation with BAIC. Does BAIC even have any expertise in aerospace?

Why the personal attack, are you a investor? It’s hilarious how uptight you get trying to defend a low effort company draining money from the government and actual innovative companies. Quite traitorous.

Click to expand...

The nature of developing new products means that you rarely see companies or organizations new in a certain field produce "innovative" or high end products from the outset.

If you want a certain degree of competition, it means you have to accept that some products from some organizations will look dubious or of questionable capability, but that they have the potential to develop new products over time.
On the other hand, if with time they do not succeed and unsuccessfully compete or sustain themselves, then they will eventually cease to exist. That's fine, it's the reason why the Chinese MIC is able to work in the way it does.
I don't see anything wrong with encouraging new players to enter the market to keep things lively.

Bltizo said:

The nature of developing new products means that you rarely see companies or organizations new in a certain field produce "innovative" or high end products from the outset.

If you want a certain degree of competition, it means you have to accept that some products from some organizations will look dubious or of questionable capability, but that they have the potential to develop new products over time.
On the other hand, if with time they do not succeed and unsuccessfully compete or sustain themselves, then they will eventually cease to exist. That's fine, it's the reason why the Chinese MIC is able to work in the way it does.
I don't see anything wrong with encouraging new players to enter the market to keep things lively.

Click to expand...

Sure, absolutely true and there are many actual companies who are doing this. However, much as we would like it not to be true there are also plenty of new players who promise a big game but having no intention or capability of delivering.

Despite Taxiya’s accusations, there are in fact many such companies and platforms in every industry. They’re in it to generate a quick return or as PR play to show progress for local governments.

PeoplesPoster said:

Sure, absolutely true and there are many actual companies who are doing this. However, much as we would like it not to be true there are also plenty of new players who promise a big game but having no intention or capability of delivering.

Despite Taxiya’s accusations, there are in fact many such companies and platforms in every industry. They’re in it to generate a quick return or as PR play to show progress for local governments.

Click to expand...

Yes, and those companies tend to wither on the vine in due time, whether this company will be one of those... who knows.
That's just the inherent degree of inefficiencies and cost of admission for any sort of system that encourages competition and where state funds are available to support and seed new companies. Many will fail, but some will succeed.

My point is that there's no need to describe it as if it is such a severe thing that is beyond the pale, nor is it something with an easy or obvious solution.

Fake ???

timepass said:

Fake ???

View attachment 71851

View attachment 71852

Click to expand...

Obviously fake. WZ-8 is mounted under the wing hard points, not the fuselage where the bomb bay is supposed to be. Also, the aircraft is supposed to be released at high altitude.