After reading the above, I am convinced China needs to start developing a new plane from scratch using hypersonics. The current programs should be continued so as not to lose know-how, but it is, ARJ21 and C919 are basically a giant subsidy to western engines and avionics makers to do R&D and leave China further behind. Further, these planes are so reliant on US technology that even after they are successful, the US can ground them at any time as they are totally dependent on US suppliers for maintenance and thus ongoing operations, leaving Chinese airlines with useless hunks of metal. That's what's going to happen to the ARJ21 if the Comac sanctions go through. It sucks, but that's what it is.
Chinese Aviation Industry
- Thread starter FriedRiceNSpice
- Start date
Every major ballplayers starts in the minors from Rookie League, Class A, Double A, Triple A... etc before they finally get called up to the big leagues. It doesn't even matter if you're Babe Ruth, no rookie gets signed/drafted and starts right off as a major league ballplayer, regardless of how talented they might be. My point being that everyone needs to start somewhere.
Being in the aviation industry and piloting community myself, I'd say that the ARJ21 and C919 have served as solid stepping stones for the Chinese aviation industry to up their game, despite the setbacks every aerospace manufacturing project inevitably goes through. It is important to bring into perspective that the 737 program has been around for half a century now, and the A320 not far behind. The 737 is practically a modernized 707 (literally still keeps the same 707 overhead panel), and Airbus also implemented many lessons learned from the A300/310 into the A320. COMAC can't just make up the learning and experience curve and make up ground overnight. We need insight into what works in order to make up ground and go at it alone... And we're not ready to go at it alone, not quite yet.
The C919 is trending in the right direction, especially as Chinese semiconductor and engine technology comes along - I'm not at all worried. Just my two cents as an airline pilot anyway.
Being in the aviation industry and piloting community myself, I'd say that the ARJ21 and C919 have served as solid stepping stones for the Chinese aviation industry to up their game, despite the setbacks every aerospace manufacturing project inevitably goes through. It is important to bring into perspective that the 737 program has been around for half a century now, and the A320 not far behind. The 737 is practically a modernized 707 (literally still keeps the same 707 overhead panel), and Airbus also implemented many lessons learned from the A300/310 into the A320. COMAC can't just make up the learning and experience curve and make up ground overnight. We need insight into what works in order to make up ground and go at it alone... And we're not ready to go at it alone, not quite yet.
The C919 is trending in the right direction, especially as Chinese semiconductor and engine technology comes along - I'm not at all worried. Just my two cents as an airline pilot anyway.
by78
General
Is this a hot take or your initial reaction? This thread and those in the flagship forums are not the place for hot takes and initial reactions.
Of course not. This has been my opinion for a long time. Well before this article came out. This article just further validates my opinion. As I explained below, traditional engine technology will take China decades and billions of dollars to chase a moving target as it painstakingly recreates Western knowledge from decades ago, while the West develops new technologies. China should invest directly in new technologies as early as possible.
Chinese Engine Development
While China tries to catch up to the West in the coming decades over traditional engine technology, it should also be looking to develop other alternatives that could eventually replace it altogether. For instance...
www.sinodefenceforum.com
If China goes the hypersonic route I don’t think they can ever make a profit. It is better to do things one step at a time.
by78
General
I don't think you have an update-to-date grasp of the state of China's civil aviation industry. It will not take decades for China to catch up, and she won't need to reach technological parity to have a large chunk of the domestic market to herself.
Oh yes, chasing those exciting emerging technologies and pie-in-the-sky ideas while ceding the existing and sizable domestic aviation market to her rivals, who can then reap even more profit and funnel it toward hypersonic future tech to compete with China's hypersonic future tech, which requires unending state subsidies until it comes to fruition in some distant far future.
Sounds sustainable... only in economic and political science textbooks. And here I thought you were against expensive subsidies.
But I digress. Hypersonic transports are decades and decades away from competing with subsonic air travel in terms of cost per passenger, assuming that it ever will or that the tech will ever become viable within a reasonable time frame. The game is so early that betting the farm on hypersonic travel is realistic only in the mind of a crackpot. Meanwhile, that China's domestic air travel market will need 8000+ new planes worth well more than $1 trillion in the next 20 years alone. Leaving that pile of hard-earned money to the Boeing-Airbus duopoly and their American, European, and Japanese suppliers sounds like a dandy idea only to bug-eyed futurists or lobbyists working for Boeing and Airbus.
Stop with your hot takes, and please mull it over more before you post.
Last edited:
While I agree with your point about leapfrogging tech and effort should be placed into those areas too... I think you miss the point of catching and developing/recreating existing tech... the effort placed into recreating decades old planes doesn’t necessarily mean it is useless... the west can develop further at a good pace, is because they have the grounding of their decades of research and more importantly practical experience.
I am going to go on a bit of a tangent to explain my point, using two companies one called Hudson and one called HMG... I will keep the details light and simplified... but basically one company was trying to develop and sell a handgun, Hudson H9 and the other was a company that aimed to recreate the STG 44, The first assault rifle. So this is in small arms, a far simpler and well understood industry, both in engineering and design. One company, Hudson, had a good design, the people in the company knew what they were doing in terms of engineering and design and a lot of people like the gun but they didn’t have the infrastructure to build it themselves, therefore parts had to be ordered elsewhere, pushing up costs, some parts failed with teething problems and quality were inconsistent. The other HMG, had good engineers but they had not been in the guns industry, even tho they were just copying a gun from decades ago they couldn’t get it into production due set up costs and vastly underestimated the complexity involved.
You might say well that this is in small arms and have nothing to do with aviation or that they were small companies and didn’t have the money... while that is true, the issue is not with money or the difference in industry. The point is that by investing and developing/recreating pass tech, this will train engineers in the specific industry, from parts manufacturing, assembly to even financial aspects involved in the aviation industry with well developed production lines and experience in turning concept and design into mass produced and reliable end products.
For the sake of argument, let’s say you are right and tmr hypersonic takes form and is already to be implemented... it would still take decades just to put it into actually production, without the infrastructure in place it might take longer wasting billions more and do you expect the engineers to simply know what to do when the time comes? No, right? So instead losing engineers to other fields, you invest and build up the infrastructure and experience now... so when the new tech is finally in place and ready, your engineers know what to do, they would have a good guess as to what problems might be encountered, thus saving time going into dead-ends, the existing infrastructure can retool what they can and time and effort placed into solving and building what they can’t. So the system by this point would be robust rather than a fledgeling that don’t even know the basics yet, while the new tech is sitting their collecting dust. Instead of taking decades upon decades figuring out what other have already figured out for the better part of a century, the industry can take the whole process from, concept to design to maiden flight to troubleshooting to production in a decade rather then wasting time with the basics. There is also the experience gained... engineers with experience might come up with never before seen solutions rather having to learn the obvious. The iteration from developing older model planes also provide prospectives that might otherwise remain unseen.
Your views on leapfrogging is basically what the Indians have been doing... rather then grounding the basics they constantly chase after the latest technological development, designs after designs but never actually produce anything... and when the time came and the designs are ready and prefect they couldn’t produce to design specs the end product that was already considered relatively obsolete. The Arjun and Tejas are case in point, before the first versions were rolling off the production line they were already thinking about the MK2 that might or might not ever be produced. While the Pakistani JF 17 is the case in point for what I am trying to say and for what most members have been saying... you build an older planes learn from it, build up industry and then modify with newer better technologies, you may argue that Pakistan doesn’t produce everything but they have increased their knowledge base and production capacity and capabilities already.
Isnt this article a good thing? I mean by discrediting COMAC that bids more time for the industry. One of the things with Huawei was that it was too damn flashy, and attracted the US's attention before it was ready for a head-on fight. With a couple more years of development, the number of chokehold systems in C919 can be gradually whittled to zero. Besides, he is right in that COMAC doesn't exactly threaten Boeing or Airbus core markets. Comac can survive more than capably on China's domestic market alone, along with a sliver of share in probably middle east and south east asia (I'm thinking around 10%, with higher shares in Turkey, Iran, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Indonesia, Thailand, Myanmar). If Comac could get even 40% market share in China and 10% africa, 10% SEA by 2050, your still looking at a company many times the size of eiher embraer or bombardier, which aren't exactly minnows even if not giant like Boeing and Airbus.
There has (to my knowledge) literally never been a case where any country anywhere has successfully "leapfrogged" a R&D field by developing a future technology without first indigenously developing the existing technology.
The fact of the matter is that most new technologies depend on the knowledge of old ones. How is China going to develop supersonic aircraft engines without first building engines capable of powering regular aircraft?
The fact of the matter is that most new technologies depend on the knowledge of old ones. How is China going to develop supersonic aircraft engines without first building engines capable of powering regular aircraft?
PeoplesPoster
Junior Member
The news is pretty reliable. Additive manufacturing has taken off these past few years in China, especially for aerospace.