Jian's vs F-22/F-35??

Sea Dog said:

... etc ...Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan are all still behind in military technologies despite heavy U.S. support. ... etc ...

Click to expand...

At least you got 2 out of 3 correct. But I disagree with you on Japan.
Japan is the first country to utilized AESA radar in military by installing one on a naval ship in 1989. This should not be a surprise since Japan is considered a world leader in gallium arsenide technology since the mid-70's.
The U.S. F-22 Raptor "borrowed" many technologies from Japan Mitsubishi F-2 fighter. Lockheed(the maker of the F-22) work with Japan to developed the F-2. The co-cured method of making composite wings was transferred from Japan to Lockheed in the early 1990's. The F-2 had RAM applied to wing leading edges, engine-inlets, and nosecone. FBW software was developed in-house. It has holographic HUD and LCD MFD. And it also has an AESA radar. This all were developed in the 1990's. :coffee:

coolieno99 said:

At least you got 2 out of 3 correct. But I disagree with you on Japan.

Click to expand...

Yes, Japan is truly impressive. They truly do have an amazing technological capability. I understand what you're saying. But no, Japan did not develop the F-22. They may have developed some of the methods that the USA used in manufacturing the F-22, but nevertheless, the USA designed and built the F-22 from the ground up. Good to see some manufacturing technology cooperation between Japan and the USA. Japan has gotten alot of neat stuff from America just the same.

Schumacher said:

It's still early days for J-xx, but it's quite funny to say it's a copy of F-22 just coz it's also stealthy, has wings, designed to fly etc. Just like saying GM is copying Toyota coz its new design has 4 wheels as well.
I'm sure heads will roll in the US defence industry if indeed somehow China has gained enough access to F-22 tech to allow them to make copies.

Click to expand...

I'll bet dollars to donuts that within 5 years, we'll hear a report how someone took a CD or hard drive containing some F-22 data from a Lockheed Martin Lab, and tried to transfer it to someone in the PLA. I've been watching China do this for over 20 years now, and they're still playing "catch-up". The more things change....the more they stay the same.

Sea Dog said:

Your first point here is true Roger. But I don't think you understand what I'm saying. From an engineering standpoint, you would have a much more difficult time proceeding on a line of technological development if your development comes primarily from other sources. You just won't have the same understanding of the technology (strengths, weaknesses, ability to modify) as if you spent the time researching it and building the foundations yourself. Just ain't gonna happen. And there is no precedent to prove your assertions. That's why I don't see China reaching technological parity at all. i.e. If you try and modify or build something based on advanced concepts of some of this type of technology, there could be problems you face that are unseen, that the developers may have encountered and corrected that you just haven't seen or experienced. There is a good chance you may face a brick wall. Russia experienced this in a very expensive way with their Skywatch.

Click to expand...

I think we're going along a very well treaded path.... this argument has been rehashed over and over again.

All technology is copied. Everybody "stands on the shoulders of giants" (according to Edison).

China doesn't simply COPY technology (in a strict sense), it ABSORBS technology. You're grossly underestimating China if you think they can't look at a design, figure it out, and design something better.

Ultimately, the fact that China can do something in 5 years what it took the technology pioneers 10 years or more to do speaks for itself. I think once the J-XX is operational (2012-2015), it will show the world that the Chinese defense industry is world-class.

Roger604 said:

All technology is copied. Everybody "stands on the shoulders of giants" (according to Edison).

China doesn't simply COPY technology (in a strict sense), it ABSORBS technology. You're grossly underestimating China if you think they can't look at a design, figure it out, and design something better.

Ultimately, the fact that China can do something in 5 years what it took the technology pioneers 10 years or more to do speaks for itself. I think once the J-XX is operational (2012-2015), it will show the world that the Chinese defense industry is world-class.

Click to expand...

I don't think you truly understand the difference between internal technological development and development through external sources and how they impact their respective infrastructures. It's OK. We'll have to agree to disagree.

As an example, AEGIS was not "absorbed" from anyone else. It was built and developed through years of extensive research, testing, modification, etc. The benefits from this are invaluable. Without it (absorbing - reverse-engineering), future technological innovation is likely to be stymied as there is always trial and error into the design phase. This trial and error will be missed by the "absorber". Some of the thinking into some of AEGIS weapons came from experience from looking at previously used systems....hence the "Shoulder of Giants" analogy is true. But in this case, it's being misapplied and is not entirely correct in it's context.

Sea Dog said:

I'll bet dollars to donuts that within 5 years, we'll hear a report how someone took a CD or hard drive containing some F-22 data from a Lockheed Martin Lab, and tried to transfer it to someone in the PLA. I've been watching China do this for over 20 years now, and they're still playing "catch-up". The more things change....the more they stay the same.

Click to expand...

Yes, I'll go further & bet those reports, when they do come out, will originate from the most credible sources in the world, ie the US news media sources or some US congressmen.
We really need to thank those guys for their reports on Iraq WMD. I also bet correctly that the WMD would turn out nothing.
Too bad I'm not as good at sports betting, they're not nearly as predictable as US reports.

Just as a reminder any mention of the Iraq War is forbidden in this forum. Thank you


bd popeye moderator

Schumacher said:

Yes, I'll go further & bet those reports, when they do come out, will originate from the most credible sources in the world, ie the US news media sources or some US congressmen.
We really need to thank those guys for their reports on Iraq WMD. I also bet correctly that the WMD would turn out nothing.
Too bad I'm not as good at sports betting, they're not nearly as predictable as US reports.

Click to expand...

Um. Yeah. Ok.

At any rate, the only real reason I jumped in on this thread was to assert that it is important to build a technological infrastructure, not just acquire equipment or build equipment based on existing designs, copy, or reverse engineer. It's impossible to build a technical foundation this way. And as such, it's impossible to build an infrastructure which innovates new technologies using such a model. That's why decades of experience does matter. In a big way.

And BTW Crobato, you make some good points in datalinks and cost relationships. But I also see some good points from cabbageman regarding resource allocation. I think to a certain degree, you're both correct.

Sea Dog said:

Um. Yeah. Ok.

At any rate, the only real reason I jumped in on this thread was to assert that it is important to build a technological infrastructure, not just acquire equipment or build equipment based on existing designs, copy, or reverse engineer. It's impossible to build a technical foundation this way. And as such, it's impossible to build an infrastructure which innovates new technologies using such a model. That's why decades of experience does matter. In a big way.

Click to expand...

China does have a VERY large R&D sector. It used to be much bigger, but since the 80s, the PRC has integrated multiple factories, labs, design teams, and suppliers into larger, unified corperations. At the forefront of chinese R&D are the development institutes. Many chiense scientists have been educated in the west, and take a wealth of know-how back home. One of the primary reasons China is behind America is not technology issues, but rather money. high priority projects such as the kj-2000 ESA recieved a very large amount of funding and other rescources, explaining its fast development. In some aspects, it is even superior to the radar on the E-3. but china cannot afford to give ALL of it's projects this kind of resoucre allocation, and thereofr those feilds fall behind.

Roger604 said:

I think we're going along a very well treaded path.... this argument has been rehashed over and over again.

All technology is copied. Everybody "stands on the shoulders of giants" (according to Edison).

China doesn't simply COPY technology (in a strict sense), it ABSORBS technology. You're grossly underestimating China if you think they can't look at a design, figure it out, and design something better.

Ultimately, the fact that China can do something in 5 years what it took the technology pioneers 10 years or more to do speaks for itself. I think once the J-XX is operational (2012-2015), it will show the world that the Chinese defense industry is world-class.

Click to expand...

World-Class copier!! lol

Tomcat, one line post or responses are not permited in this forum. Please read the forum rules before posting again.

http://www.sinodefenceforum.com/showthread.php?t=20

bd popeye moderator

then how did japan do it so quickly? korea? And its not like these countries cannot produce advanced military equipment, its just that the funding and motivation was never there in the first place, which is why they lag behind now in indigenous r&d. China, on the other hand, has been investing rescources in weapons development for half a decade now.

most american defence companies are not a century old. Raltheon was first founded in 1922, so it is only 84 years old. SAC was founded in 1951, so it is 55 years old. using this trend, american defence coorperations are only an average of 30 years older than their Chinese counterparts.

Click to expand...

Oh come along miggy, if you look at these companies you will find that they are derived from older companies either by ownership or by Personnel.

Japan still took a few decades to get up to speed and they were being helped by the USA and GB as part of the great game, principally to contain Russian expansion in the Far East. A policy which achieved a dramatic fruition at the battle of Tushankenen?? in 1905.

More generally China has not only been having to catch up with technology, but actually acquire and understand Industrialisation itself. Do not beleive that just because a ready made factory drops in place for you, that you will autimatically have the ability to make it work and manage it effectively. These are major skills in their own right, and they can take generations of managers to perfect. Some Chinese factories are run very well others are run appallingly. Trust me I speak from direct personal experience.

The West Industrialised 200 years ago, China started 50 years ago. They are doing very well, but it will take a bit more time before they establish themselves at the cutting edge.

come on, China industrialized far earlier than 50 years ago. Even in the 1920s and 30s, factories existed to produce various kinds of products. For eample, GM vehicles were made in China during the 20s and 30s.

when i spoke of japan, i meant the great modernization of the 70s and 80s, which was achieved with little except japanese determination and creativity.

I do agree with you china will need to wait a little longer to establish a military cutting edge. But i think that wait will be only 10 years from now.