To quote myself, "significant breakthroughs in engine technology". What breakthroughs since the fall of the USSR has Russia made in engine technology? Making new engines is not representative of making breakthroughs, they could have made new engines but using the same old methods.
J-20... The New Generation Fighter III
- Thread starter siegecrossbow
- Start date
- Status
To quote myself, "significant breakthroughs in engine technology". What breakthroughs since the fall of the USSR has Russia made in engine technology? Making new engines is not representative of making breakthroughs, they could have made new engines but using the same old methods.
AssassinsMace
Lieutenant General
Rear view J-20 and F-22.
Engineer
Major
Exactly. Russia enjoys all kind of technologies and equipments left over by the Soviet Union. Take the 117S engine for example, it is an evolution of the AL-31 using technologies from AL-41. The most difficult work has already been done when Soviet developed the AL-31 and AL-41 engines.
On the subject of AL-41, this is an engine with a thrust of 175kN and the designer himself claimed it to be a true fifth generation engine. Russia could have used this engine on the PAKFA, but they didn't and went through extra trouble to develop the 117S. It seems strange doesn't it? One possible explanation is that Russia does not have the ability to reproduce this engine which was a pinnacle of Soviet aviation technology.
Well, the WS-10A being a completely different engine to the AL-31FN, simply cannot be fitted into an airframe that is designed for the latter engine. Even the J-11B needed modification to the intakes to take on the WS-10A. Russian engines are being brought to keep older designs alive, while newer designs with new engines slowly fill up the ranks of PLAAF.
Last edited:
When you consider the numerous attempts at espionage by the Chinese government why do you call rejections of Chinese offers to buy sensitive companies on national security grounds "flimsy and ridiculous"?
Would China allow American companies to buy a piece of Chengdu Aircraft Industry Group or Shenyang Liming Aircraft Engine Company?
You know the answer would be HELL NO!
plawolf
Lieutenant General
So the US has never and will never engage in cyber spying? US companies has never and will never leave back doors or master codes to allow the US government to access computers and electronic equipment they sell?
Secondly, do you even know what these supposed 'sensitive companies' are and what they make? Let's have some examples since you seem to clued up.
And just FYI, China never tried to buy Boeing or LockMart, so your counter examples are irrelevant. But even in trying to come up with a ridiculous example you have failed. For starters, since Boeing and LockMart are publicly listed companies, the Chinese government could buy up modest numbers of shares and thereby 'own a piece of those companies', and if CAC and SAC were publicly listed, the US government would be able to buy up modest numbers of shares no problem.
What the US and Chinese governments would never allow is for a foreign government to own majority shares in a core defence company. But as I already said, since China never even tried to make such a move, your 'righteous indignation' is completely misplaced and wrong.
Perhaps if you bothered to actually find out what it is I was talking about before jumping in, you would not make such obvious errors. I think this is a good example of a 'teachable movement'.
Equation
Lieutenant General
Like the CIA and various NGO aren't trying to spy on China?
So the US has never and will never engage in cyber spying? US companies has never and will never leave back doors or master codes to allow the US government to access computers and electronic equipment they sell?
Secondly, do you even know what these supposed 'sensitive companies' are and what they make? Let's have some examples since you seem to clued up.
And just FYI, China never tried to buy Boeing or LockMart, so your counter examples are irrelevant. But even in trying to come up with a ridiculous example you have failed. For starters, since Boeing and LockMart are publicly listed companies, the Chinese government could buy up modest numbers of shares and thereby 'own a piece of those companies', and if CAC and SAC were publicly listed, the US government would be able to buy up modest numbers of shares no problem.
What the US and Chinese governments would never allow is for a foreign government to own majority shares in a core defence company. But as I already said, since China never even tried to make such a move, your 'righteous indignation' is completely misplaced and wrong.
Perhaps if you bothered to actually find out what it is I was talking about before jumping in, you would not make such obvious errors. I think this is a good example of a 'teachable movement'.
All I was addressing in my response was the complaint that American officials were rejecting the purchase of sensitive defense related companies on flimsy grounds. No more no less. And the charge was to BUY these sensitive American companies outright, not purchase a piece of these companies on the stock market.
It is up to you to clarify what you meant by flimsy grounds and not leave your intent open for speculation by cloudy and ambiguous posting
Here is the thing, if China wants to open bid on Boeing and Lockie ownership, then yes they would be blocked, however there are a wide range of dual use high technology company/product that US refuse China to invest in, which are far from pure military application, but since it is dual use so they block it automatically regardless.
However funny thing is, Europe, especially Germany does not have such reservations you know? They openly sell those technology to China, and of course China learns something from it and produce their own in the end. But it has gotten to the point that everything US refuse to sell, China gets it elsewhere, and in the end produce the similar product that is actually very similar to the ones that US refuse to sell int he first place, but at a far cheaper price.
In the end, China uses them to put the American corporation that are forbidden to sell to China out of business because they can't compete. But Germany on the other hand, which allowed to sell to China, they used the money they earned from the Chinese sell invest back into their R&D to develop the next generation of product, which in the end will be more expensive than what China can produce, but still at higher tier quality and efficiency, and they are still using this expertise to stay ahead and alive.
But, I can't say for the US corporation, since they are forbidden to sell to China which is the world's 2nd biggest market in the world, they won't earn the profit, so they won't have enough money to invest back into R&D to keep their competitiveness, in the end they die.
So in the end, it is still the problem of US's perception of what China is and how to deal with China, the old traditional way to deal with Chain is to seal it, isolate it, contain it, it worked with Soviet Union and it worked with all those small nation US tried to sanction. And unfortunately they try to apply the same lesson to China, which is pretty impossible due to the obvious reason.
I think you want US to be strong, and so am I, after all I live here, but I think the more effective way to deal with China is by engage it rather than to isolate it, because when US trying to isolate China, in the end, they are isolating themselves, they are shutting themselves off from one of the world's most dynamics market. You can't beat China by with direct confrontation or sanction, you can only beat China by working with China and try to stay ahead.
Last edited:
Amen to that, boy just seeing their faces when this will become all true (i.e. China becoming the world's most powerful economy and hence military power) will be priceless.
I'm sure they lurk on this (and the other) forum as we speak. Pity can't post a picture of my big fat hairy ***for their enjoyment
Anyway , more OT , poor mods here probably are pulling their hairs by now ...so i suspect by now both 2001 and 2002 surely must have amassed more than 100 flights combined, right ? 2002 is on about 30 atm , while 2001 was on about 70 BEFORE leaving for Yanliang , is that correct ?
- Status