Crew safety features, defensive features, radar, avionics, engines.... etc etc etc.
Not wanting to quibble, but out of real curiosity from the above, which do you think the C-17 demonstrates an "advanced"-ness, of?
Its political reason. Contrary to popular belief, in my opinion, Russian never invited China to participated in the 5th generation fighter design.
Actually contrary belief is that Russia never invited China to participate in their 5th gen fighter design. But the fact remains that if the PLAAF couldn't get indigenous industries to provide a to-par 5th generation fighter then they would have joined the Russians, or even asked to join.
and if the PLAAF really needed to join, the Russians would've let them, considering how deep the Chinese pockets were, and is.
But the PLAAF didn't ask to join, and independently produced a 5th generation aircraft, so isn't this part of the discussion sort of moot?
Russian has much deep rooted fear about China due to misguided historical reason. So Russian instead cooperated with India. I think this really piss off China in some way, and you can see all the projects Russian help China on are not that strategically critical (I think that heavy lift helicopter project is the only thing left now?) - while the projects Russian cooperated with India all are at the forefront of the technologies with significant strategic importance - PAK FA, BrahMos, MTA (Multirole Transport Aircraft), GLONASS, T-90S, INS Vikramaditya, Akula-II, Tu-22M3...etc). Essentially, China is been left out, Russian is given China the cold shoulder and the Chinese leadership recognize this - you might retort and say the latest "cooperations" between Russia and China have been very close in past few years, but that's just posturing. There is little substance to these posturing. All those "friendship Pact" or "Bilateral Understanding" have very little substance in geostrategic term. China essentially has shifted from cooperating with Russia to cooperating with Ukraine because Russia is practically stopping all cooperation with China. All critical systems and designs are now coming from Ukraine - a country that is "at odd" (or sort of cold war) with Russia right now.
... Sure there is the political reason, and the fact that the Indian arms market is the biggest in the world and Russia would obviously want to get as much of it as it can which the US and Europe won't be able to take. Meanwhile China can already manufacture most of its own stuff.
Of all those systems you listed... Well China doesn't have a desperate need for it do they? The heavy helicopter project is an area which the PLA is very deficient in, therefore two and two make four. (And since when was India in deep with the Tu-22M3?)
You also make it sound like the fact the Chinese and Russian industries aren't very close means China is somehow losing out. The only thing the Chinese need from the Russians in terms of hardware and experience is helicopters and engines.
I like to believe J-20 will be as advance, or even MORE advance than F-22. But I think that would be just wishful thinking for now. Its one thing to "wish" for something unattainable, its another to make it attainable. Look at the abandon J-9 project - China wish for a super sonic interceptor in the same class as Mig-31, but China was just too far behind the technology curve at the time it simply didn't even know where to start to make it reality.
Well times change, right? And was the J-9 let go because they didn't have the tech? I always heard it was because SACs proposal was much safer and less drastic.
J-20 might look like its flying now, but we have absolutely NO IDEA of its capabilities and sophistication at this point. It could just be a flying airframe for all we know. The real war fighting capabilities is not something we can deduce from just looking you know. Sensor suites, radar, engines, BVR missiles etc etc these are the things that really matter too.
That's why I said, let's assume it is as advanced and capable as other 5th generation aircraft, because from everything we've heard do you think the PLAAF would settle for anything less?
That is a valid reason too - brand name and brand image.
But more than anything else, I think Chinese aviation industries is just lacking behind generally, but in term of developmental organizational structures, China is seriously lacking - and I think that's why China wants to partner with the west - to learn about the procedures, and organizational / system thinking like in the west.
Sure, I agree with that. But you have to be careful to lump all the AVIC companies and other smaller aviation companies in a big group. The management of CAC for example is obviously better than SAC.
China has to shift from "centrally planned" research funding paradigm to a privatized competition based paradigm. Most of the most critical researches are still coming out from government funded research labs and universities. While same can be said it is the same in the west and developed countries, but the percentage is not the same, as many western conglomerates are fully capable of funding its own research independently. It is organic vs planned. So when it comes to defence industries, Let's put it this way, American/EU can source from wide ranging technologies and products from the "eco-system" they created - from avionics, missiles, radars, software, stealth materials, robotic maintenance tech etc etc, while China has to rely on its government funded "research institutes". There are very few (there are beginning to have some now, but most of them are in relative low sophiscation) private defense conglomerates in China that Chinese military can source its technologies to solve its problem from. American on the other hand have so many privatized "help" the government can source from, the whole country is practically moving towards total privatization - from private military contractors (PMC - Blackwater/Xe) to private strategic think tanks.
They're already privatising their contractors, though they can a bit more. Shipyards compete for contracts, and I'm sure you've heard of the whole CAC canard delta vs SAC triplane thing for the J-XX. So there is competition, but the reason they're going to foreign companies is brand name and to boost smaller more upstart companies with more experience.
Again, this is what I am getting at....with so many aircraft companies - for some reason China just cannot get upto the same level of sophistication and resources as western companies.
Well duh, most of these companies don't exactly have much experience do they, nor access to money and there simply wasn't the requirement for many aircraft, of whatever shape and size, before.
"For some reason" -- has it occured to you how the PRC's economic situation from the cold war to now has effected the chinese industries in all walks of life?
You can't really say "with so many aircraft companies - for some reason China just cannot get upto the same level of sophistication and resources as western companies" when they've barely been given any time or as much money or contracts or the sheer need for the same number of projects western companies faced in the cold war.
Come back in twenty or thirty years. At that point you might be able to make that claim... if the chinese aerospace industry isn't at the same level of "sophistication" as western equivalents that is.
All of CAC, SAC, XAC..etc etc combine will divert the focus from more critical defense project (even you agree) - means AVIC / Chinese aviation industries as whole lacks design talents, manpower, and breadths of research.
Compared to who, and why do chinese aerospace companies lack "talent, manpower and breadth of research"? I'm espicially critical about the last claim. How do you define "breadth" and "talent"?
I was saying that it'd be stupid to get the big players in AVIC to do something mundane such as make a wholly indigenous 737 class aircraft when they could be doing something else (I'm not sure about what resources they would drain, but the fact even if it reduced productivity of defense by 0.000001% that would still be a stupid thing to make CAC, SAC or XAC do). The smaller companies could work together to build such a plane instead.
This is a inherent organizational problem at systemic level. Compare to the west, where Boeing / Airbus / Lockheed can take on multiple highly sophisticated, high risk projects on its own, and source from wide ranging affiliated partners and subsidiaries.... China simply just can't do that. Yet.
Previously I got the notion that you thought the Chinese aerospace industry wasn't great because they couldn't "even" manufacture a commercial airliner, but now you're saying they can't because they have too many independent compaies which can't manufacture a commercial airliner...
And really, where did you get the idea that all the independent companies like CAC, SAC and XAC cn'at source from "wide ranging affiliated partners and subsidiaries"? Do you think they make all the radars and avionics themselves or something..
And CAC's taken on quite a few highly sophisticated high risk projects on its own, J-10, J-20, JF-17, and other associated UAV and UCAV projects, which is a pretty good record.
Let me give you an example. The ballistic missile / rocket program for example, are sourced from hundreds of companies, even every "stage" of the rocket is made by a different company drawing from its own specialization and research/patents - eg. Boeing maybe for 3rd stage, Martin Marietta for 2nd stage, TRW for 1st etc..etc.. I think ALL the chinese rockets are manufactured by CALT.
The stealth fighter projects is the same - its a high risk, highly sophiscated project. The original F-22 wasn't just made by Lockheed. Lockheed LED the project. There were hundreds of companies under guidance of Lockheed and provided products, technologies, solutions to the project that led to the eventual success of Lockheed winning the project. Oh yeh, and Lockheed wasn't the ONLY ONE in the competition too.... Lockheed Martin was in competition with Boeing, General Dynamics, Lockheed, Northrop, and McDonnell Douglas. American aviation industries has so many talents they can actually create multiple teams to compete with each other! That's what it means to have a huge talent pool. I heard a lot forum posters deriding me for saying "China don't need to have competitive bidding system like American". I think that's just short sighted to think that way.
Do you think CAC is building everything for the J-20? Of course they have subcontractors as much as Lockheed did. And SAC competed for the contract too. There obviously wasn't as many bidders for the ATF project though.
You seem under the impression that having sh*tloads of companies independently = success.
I know it sounds stupid when I imply that, but CAC is part of AVIC. It shares the same resources with all the other companies in this group. Do you think Lockheed, Raytheon, Boeing share their own technologies/patents with each other? They don't even share their own private laboratories!
That's the thing. Do you think CAC shares all the same resources with all other companies?
Let me give you another example. The J-20's WS-15 engine - is going to be sourced from SAC. SAC! The same company CAC is in supposedly in direct competition with! Since engine is critical component that's linked to so many other sub-systems and design of the aircrafts (power output to the radar/avionics/FBW/sensors/FADEC, aerodynamics), both SAC and CAC practically have to work together intimately to be able to make WS-15 fit in J-20. So is it far fetch to say they are all just part of each other?
First, WS-15 is from XAC.
Second, yes it is far fetched because companies in the US join up for projects all the time. SAC's a subcontractor for the J-20. Boeing's a subcontractor for the F-22. Same deal. XAC's a contractor for the WS-15 engine. Pratt and Witney is the contractor for the F-22's F119.
And this: "Let me give you another example. The J-20's WS-15 engine - is going to be sourced from SAC. SAC! The same company CAC is in supposedly in direct competition with!"
Well OMG lockheed and boeing were working on the F-22 together. But they were in competition over the JSF (X-35 and X-32)!!!! -gasp-
Companies work together all the time.
Isn't co operation between the companies a good thing? Yes it is.
Does it mean they're part of each other? Hell no, they're just working together on a project. It's like saying Lockheed and Boeing are "part of each other" because they're contractors to the same plane.
-------
I think you're trying to say that the Chinese aerospace industry isn't as mature or large as the US industry, which no one is arguing about.
But I don't exactly understand your reasoning -- one moment you're talking about contractors and subcontractors for big projects, and the next there's something about companies taking on multiple projects at the same time... Can you clarify your position (and use less
bold and
underlined words?)
