China's transport, tanker & heavy lift aircraft

asif iqbal

asif iqbal

Lieutenant General
Lion said:
That is merely a perception and stereotyping.. I have good view of Ukraine and their technology but sometimes is overstate of their contribution to China military advancement.

China no doubt has make massive technology advancement that needs world recognition. Sending man to space, doing module docking. Somebody claim that's 40 years old technology but let me ask them back. How many country can do it?
Only 3 countries can do it.

How many countries can build a working GPS system? Only 3 countries prove that.

I still keep my view. Y-20 is a Chinese effort until proven wrong. I do not see anything wrong with Y-20 complete build by Chinese own expertise and technology. I do not believe its so out of their scope that they need any foreign help.
Click to expand...

your way of thinking is incorrect infact wrong

Russia can send man to space and land probes on moon, but they still buy UAV from Israel

Americans have the world talent pool but still bought radars and helicopters from Germany and Italy

Pakistan has little in way of academic technology yet exported missiles to Malaysia a much more developed nation than Pakistan

you need to realise the world arms market is also a integrated business like any other, China gets joint ventures and help like everyone else does, your view is extremely narrow
 
L

Lion

Senior Member
asif iqbal said:
your way of thinking is incorrect infact wrong

Russia can send man to space and land probes on moon, but they still buy UAV from Israel

Americans have the world talent pool but still bought radars and helicopters from Germany and Italy

Pakistan has little in way of academic technology yet exported missiles to Malaysia a much more developed nation than Pakistan

you need to realise the world arms market is also a integrated business like any other, China gets joint ventures and help like everyone else does, your view is extremely narrow
Click to expand...

That is your way of thinking.. Russia is declining. Neither its social and economy is going to match China in spurring a pool of researcher and invest in expensive research and investing infrastruture. They have no new technology and most of their stuff is from Soviet Era. Russia technology in UAV is no good. Because , UAV in Soviet Era has not started or mature yet.

US is in a better stage but in tight budget. They have the abilities to do it. They do not neccessary need to do everything themselves. They just try to save some bucks by buying offshelf. Those helicopter can be build by US themselves if Germany or Italy refuse to sell them. Of course that will cost more money.

China is flush with money. 3.3 trillion reserve. They need not go on tight budget. In fact, they need to spend more. China has spend many money on acquring many new infrastruture, technology and is already in a stage to build everything by itself. Look at the amount of sensor satellite it launch and not to mention GPS system.

Strategic Airlift is something specialise that you can't just easily buy off shelf especially with embargo but I think China already do not care. They have the technology and fund to do everything themselves. Trying to lump Russian , US and China in same stage is wrong in the first place. All three of them are in different stage of decling and rising. There is no doubt China is a rising power. In fact, is already super power.
 
Last edited:
tphuang

tphuang

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
VIP Professional
Registered Member
Lion said:
That is nonsense. If by your theory, you can say whatever you want without facts and it will still sound correct? Things are proven by fact not by personal opinion. Trait of similar component or structure on a advise customer product is a proof of advise accepted. If you are confident of your top of line product. You standby it and give advise from it. antonov advise might be sought , I accept it but not neccessary means its chosen or utilise by Chinese for Y-20 project. As proven by L-15 advance trainer case. Yakovelev standby their top of line product and they give advise based on it with their expertise. china buy the idea and incorporate into L-15. AVIC openly admit yakovelev involvement and there is nothing to hide. Y-20? nothing mention of antonov from official chinese source.

What I understand is Chinese always do things prudently but not neccessary conservative as demonstrated by J-20. They need Antonov advise as backup. But antonov advise maybe outdated or not in line with what Chinese need as demonstrated a totally different product from An-70 of Y-20. Chinese feel their design is superior or better than what antonov advise that is strap on 4 turbofan on An-70, as example. Therefore, y-20 which is a Chinese effort is born. antonov advise is irrelevant.
Click to expand...

It would be helpful if you try to understand what I say sometime rather than just see it as an attack on China.

I haven't stated whether the evidence proves that Antonov helped China in the Y-20 project. I simply stated you cannot conclude that Anthonov did not help just because Y-20 does not look like An-70. Those are two different arguments. Y-20 is not an export project and China has no need to tell that it got consultations from Ukrainians. China did not officially say anything about external help on the J-10 project, but do you believe that J-10 project received no external help?

You are making the argument here that if China received external help on a project, it must officially report it. There is no proof that's the case.
 
vesicles

vesicles

Colonel
I honestly don't think any nation on this planet can say that they developed some technology purely domestically and did not get any help elsewhere. The science and engineering knowledge needed to develop any technology are accumulated throughout the years by experts throughout the world. Even the US, which has been undisputed leader in science and technology, depends heavily on scientists coming from foreign nations. In fact, currently in the US, over half of the scientists working on fundamental science (math, physics, chemistry and biology) obtained their formal advanced education abroad. Thus, much of the knowledge they acquire for their technology development programs come from abroad. So there is absolutely no shame in getting help from outside. In fact, it is widely believed in the US that the fundamental science and engineering programs depend heavily on outside help. That's why it's always easy to obtain visa to the US if you study physics, chemistry or biology.

All in all, no shame in getting some help and no shame in admitting you got help. What indicates the capability of a nation to develop technology is its ability to gather resources and to organize its resources efficiently to effectively complete the development and push to production. Whether some specific knowledge come from within the nation or elsewhere is not a concern. In that aspect, China, like the US, has acquired capability to domestically develop advanced weapons systems.
 
Last edited:
kwaigonegin

kwaigonegin

Colonel
vesicles said:
I honestly don't think any nation on this planet can say that they developed some technology purely domestically and did not get any help elsewhere. The science and engineering knowledge needed to develop any technology are accumulated throughout the years by experts throughout the world. Even the US, which has been undisputed leader in science and technology, depends heavily on scientists coming from foreign nations. In fact, currently in the US, over half of the scientists working on fundamental science (math, physics, chemistry and biology) obtained their formal advanced education abroad. Thus, much of the knowledge they acquire for their technology development programs come from abroad. So there is absolutely no shame in getting help from outside. In fact, it is widely believed in the US that the fundamental science and engineering programs depend heavily on outside help. That's why it's always easy to obtain visa to the US if you study physics, chemistry or biology.

All in all, no shame in getting some help and no shame in admitting you got help. What indicates the capability of a nation to develop technology is its ability to gather resources and to organize its resources efficiently to effectively complete the development and push to production. Whether some specific knowledge come from within the nation or elsewhere is not a concern. In that aspect, China, like the US, has acquired capability to domestically develop advanced weapons systems.
Click to expand...

well said V.. that's what we've been trying to tell Lion and Schumacher.
 
L

Lion

Senior Member
vesicles said:
I honestly don't think any nation on this planet can say that they developed some technology purely domestically and did not get any help elsewhere. The science and engineering knowledge needed to develop any technology are accumulated throughout the years by experts throughout the world. Even the US, which has been undisputed leader in science and technology, depends heavily on scientists coming from foreign nations. In fact, currently in the US, over half of the scientists working on fundamental science (math, physics, chemistry and biology) obtained their formal advanced education abroad. Thus, much of the knowledge they acquire for their technology development programs come from abroad. So there is absolutely no shame in getting help from outside. In fact, it is widely believed in the US that the fundamental science and engineering programs depend heavily on outside help. That's why it's always easy to obtain visa to the US if you study physics, chemistry or biology.

All in all, no shame in getting some help and no shame in admitting you got help. What indicates the capability of a nation to develop technology is its ability to gather resources and to organize its resources efficiently to effectively complete the development and push to production. Whether some specific knowledge come from within the nation or elsewhere is not a concern. In that aspect, China, like the US, has acquired capability to domestically develop advanced weapons systems.
Click to expand...

Foreign scientist working under your company is a different thing. That cannot be classify as assist. Even in US, it will be credited as own domestic effort. Did US seek illushyin or antonov help when building C-17? Luring a few top Ukraine scientist to work under Boeing is different from hiring consultant from antonov, We have seen western looking scientist working in AVIC. I see no problem of that because they are still part of the Chinese effort. AVIC has full control of the scientist,whatever new thing they come up will be company asset. It cannot be called foreign assist or consultant hiring from other company.

Let me give an example. They are lots of rich country like Middle East , example Qatar ,hire other countries sportsmen to play for Olympic gold. They need to convert citizenship in order to play Olympic under their new countries. End of the day, it will still be a Qatar gold. The sportsmen play under the flag of Qatar. Do Olympic committee classify that under foreign assist? No. It is classify under won by Qatar citizen. After the olympic is over, if they convert back to their original citizenship, that gold will still be credited as won by Qatar. so you get my logic?
 
Last edited:
S

Schumacher

Senior Member
kwaigonegin said:
well said V.. that's what we've been trying to tell Lion and Schumacher.
Click to expand...

So that's what you're trying to tell me ? You're saying since there're tens of thousands of Chinese scientists or those of Chinese origin working in the US space, aerospace & all high tech sectors, stuffs like F22, C17 etc are developed with Chinese help ? I have no disagreement with that.
But I suspect some US fanboys will get upset. :)
Do we know how many Ukrainian or Russian scientists worked on Y20 ?
 
vesicles

vesicles

Colonel
It seems that my point has been missed... The point I was trying to make is that all this whether Y-20 got foreign help was pointless. No one will know how much foreign effort was put into the project, just like no one will know how many Chinese nationals who got their advanced education in China are working for NASA and helping NASA (my wife's uncle is one of them). And simply comparing the finished planes won't get you any answer either. If you are smart, you learn from the experts, digest what you learn, apply what you learn and ultimately improve on it. My point is: forget about how much foreign effort was put into Y-20. Y-20 is a Chinese domestic product, period. Let's appreciate it as such and congratulate them on an excellent job that they have done!
 
D

Dolcevita

Major
vesicles said:
It seems that my point has been missed... The point I was trying to make is that all this whether Y-20 got foreign help was pointless. No one will know how much foreign effort was put into the project, just like no one will know how many Chinese nationals who got their advanced education in China are working for NASA and helping NASA (my wife's uncle is one of them). And simply comparing the finished planes won't get you any answer either. If you are smart, you learn from the experts, digest what you learn, apply what you learn and ultimately improve on it. My point is: forget about how much foreign effort was put into Y-20. Y-20 is a Chinese domestic product, period. Let's appreciate it as such and congratulate them on an excellent job that they have done!
Click to expand...


Agreed. Other than courtesy. It is irrelevant whether there are some or no foreign assistance involved in the development of the Y-20. It is still a Chinese domestic product. What is more important is that this is the best possible Transport that can be develop by and for China given the resources available to her, internally and externally.
 
Last edited:
J

JsCh

Junior Member
Somewhat related news,

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


I thinks it is obvious that China always seek help or even copy when venture into a new area. Only when they have learned enough then they would design new in the second generation. I would say that is a very wise approach. Its pay to be humble and learn from those who walk before you.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top