COMAC C919

Xizor

Xizor

Captain
Registered Member
latenlazy said:
The part of the plane under competitive performance pressure is the wing and the fuselage, not stuff like landing gears or avionics. You *assume* that every technology not substituted yet is a bottleneck but your assumption is that “they don’t go indigenous because they don’t have the capability”. There are plenty of reasons that a company may choose not to go with all domestic supply that have nothing to do with whether they *can*. And if you have to do a component switch mid program, it’s very natural for there to be a time delay before you see the new component whether indigenous or foreign procured because making these switches isn’t like going to a hardware store to buy parts.
Click to expand...
That part of your statement is not quite well thought. Wings and fuselage do have roles to play in efficiency (by reducing drag). But better engine performance, better avionics that is pilot friendly, responsive, reduces workload, customizable etc are also important. Landing gears, APUs, electronics ... in fact every component that you insisted "oughta be easy for Russia technologically", have individual competitiveness relevance especially regarding max usage cycles and hours before replacement.

Russia opted for foreign suppliers because in part its technologies aren't advanced enough to be competitive in the market against established system suppliers. It indeed has lots to do with whether they *can*. To be an apologist for Russia's aviation industry and its woes that stem from years of underfunding is not at all constructive to this discussion. You are in a way insisting that Russia has a way to leapfrog years of sustained investment by competitors. As you'd know, Airliner manufacturers derive substantial profit from MRO support and conversely, Airlines that operate set aside a good share for MRO and overall operation. I certainly do bet Russia is not upto date with Avionics technology.

No one is poking at "Time Delay". No one is demanding Russia snap fingers and make these technology appear. But it is very right to be apprehensive of the value Russia may bring to the table with MC21 against a very cost conscious customer. That's all. Russia indeed can build an airliner.

@gelgoog You post on KRET is appreciated. It was an article from 2015. But contrast it with this
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

KRET maybe the eventual winner of this tender.

Another good article
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


The KRET Corporation continues work on completely indigenous avionics set by repackaging technology developed for the Irkut MC-21 narrowbody, while the Ramenskoye design house plays the role of system integrator. As a part of the effort, the OKBM experimental design bureau in Voronezh developed a control system module responsible for the wing’s deflectable surfaces. Plans call for a completely new control system to be ready in 2022.
 
Last edited:
P

pmc

Major
Registered Member
Xsizor said:
Russia opted for foreign suppliers because in part its technologies aren't advanced enough to be competitive in the market against established system suppliers. It indeed has lots to do with whether they *can*
Click to expand...
Russia didnot stop building Tu-204/IL96. so plenty of testing done on domestic airplanes to get reasonable confidence.
you can read about avionics and subsystems development.
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
The supplier selection was done 12 years ago and every offer had word Joint in it. so it is understood at some point they will be replaced.
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
 
F

foxmulder

Junior Member
Deino said:
Please not only a provokative link without an explanation…
Click to expand...

techfrontier said:
I saw this link in China Semiconductor Forum and thought it was interesting and more suited for this forum
Click to expand...


It is not interesting or provocative. It is utter rubbish I have been seeing for the last 3 decades from Western "sources" when it comes to every development from China :) They keep getting it wrong though :D
 
D

ddd...

New Member
Registered Member
Deino said:
Please not only a provokative link without an explanation…
Click to expand...
As a Chinese, I really don't see this article as provocative. Its title can be a click bait and its content can be an old story, but its analysis is not too far from Chinese internal analysis. It highlighted that C919 is dependent on foreign suppliers of key systems, but also recognized that: a. "China's independent intellectual property rights for large aircraft are reflected in the overall control of the systems"; b. it is not an uncommon thing to source from the globe in large airplane manufacturing, especially for commercial planes; and c. China has been actively developing domestic alternatives of foreign parts with decent progress simultaneously. It even got its chart on C919 supplier list from
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
, a popular nationalist media ;)

You can debate whether this article is of any fresh and useful info, but it is far from being provocative
 
G

gelgoog

Lieutenant General
Registered Member
I think the idea with C919 is to replicate the past success with the high speed rail program. Initial versions of the airplane would have foreign origin content, some of it produced in China, with Chinese content increasing in future versions. Eventually this would lead to an all Chinese aircraft. We are still in the early stages for that however.

Plus like stated in the article Boeing aircraft have huge amounts of foreign sourced content as well. This is how the Western aviation industry has worked ever since major cuts were made to the industry in the 1990s. Even if it makes little economic sense to spread production all over the place governmental economic incentives make it so.
 
G

gadgetcool5

Senior Member
Registered Member
gelgoog said:
I think the idea with C919 is to replicate the past success with the high speed rail program. Initial versions of the airplane would have foreign origin content, some of it produced in China, with Chinese content increasing in future versions. Eventually this would lead to an all Chinese aircraft. We are still in the early stages for that however.

Plus like stated in the article Boeing aircraft have huge amounts of foreign sourced content as well. This is how the Western aviation industry has worked ever since major cuts were made to the industry in the 1990s. Even if it makes little economic sense to spread production all over the place governmental economic incentives make it so.
Click to expand...
We have to keep in mind that the US is not a country, it's an empire. Yes, Boeing planes like the 787 Dreamliner has "foreign" or "global" sourced components that come from countries like Italy, Germany, Sweden and Japan. However, these are countries occupied by US troops, NATO members, or otherwise in US control and won't cut off or try to undermine Boeing. Boeing doesn't source critical, irreplaceable parts from countries like China, Russia or Iran. The equivalent would be like China sourcing C919 parts from Pakistan or Russia. That's fine.

The nation-state in the modern world is an illusion. What you really are talking about are blocs that each have their own supply chains. So yes, when you talk about "foreign" sourcing being common, you have to consider these things. For China, foreign sourcing from a country like Pakistan, Iran, Cambodia, North Korea, or Russia is very different from sourcing from the US or Germany.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top