COMAC C929 Widebody Airliner

gadgetcool5 said:

The problem is, no matter how good the Western suppliers are or how good their networks, it doesn't matter if it's not available to China. Even if the Western suppliers were x10 better and cheaper than they are now, it wouldn't make a whit of difference from the standpoint of China. The West today is out to suppress China, period. Therefore, any use of Western suppliers is foolish.

If you want to use Western suppliers, give Taiwan independence, apologize to Ugyhurs and call a general election with multi parties. Then you can have all the Western suppliers in the world and they will be as reliable as gold. Otherwise, the only partner is Russia. These are the choices facing China.

Click to expand...

You're really a broken record on these matters -- no matter the industry, it seems that your argument is always that any project that involves western suppliers should simply not be conducted at all until a full domestic supply chain can be achieved.

That's not the way the world works, and it is a luxury which China has.

tphuang said:

I don't think you get it. There are no Chinese suppliers for some of the subsystems that are needed to get c919 project certified right now. China has always gone with 2 paths approach.

That's why you certify with western subsystems now and then develop a Chinese suppliers network. The latter would take a lot of state aid. It is absolutely foolish to delay c919 by another 10 years so that it can be free of western subsystems.

Click to expand...

little correction plz

this time China played a very different game. they are building the local supply chain simultaneously with development of C919 continue since 2009. C919 have tons of domestic suppliers and many western parts have joint ventures in mainland, producing subsystem/components with domestic firms.

only China has that luxury.

Blitzo said:

You're really a broken record on these matters -- no matter the industry, it seems that your argument is always that any project that involves western suppliers should simply not be conducted at all until a full domestic supply chain can be achieved.

That's not the way the world works, and it is a luxury which China has.

Click to expand...

I never said a full domestic supply chain should be achieved. I have recently been emphasizing the importance of foreign scientists and research labs in China's development. There are plenty of foreign partners that can be suppliers to China, such as Pakistan, Iran, Venezuela, Cuba, Syria, Russia, Cambodia, North Korea, and Belarus. The Western suppliers are available too if China undergoes a political revolution. But it should come as no surprise to anyone who has looked at the news for the past five years that they cannot be trusted in the current political environment.

gadgetcool5 said:

I never said a full domestic supply chain should be achieved. I have recently been emphasizing the importance of foreign scientists and research labs in China's development. There are plenty of foreign partners that can be suppliers to China, such as Pakistan, Iran, Venezuela, Russia and Belarus. The Western suppliers are available too if China undergoes a political revolution. But it should come as no surprise to anyone who has looked at the news for the past five years that they cannot be trusted in the current political environment.

Click to expand...

Your argument remains one of "any project that involves western suppliers should simply not be conducted at all".

Full supply chain security (whether it's with domestic or trusted foreign partners) may not be achievable for a variety of projects, so what is your suggestion? That any projects involving unreliable western suppliers should simply not begin at all?

Blitzo said:

Your argument remains one of "any project that involves western suppliers should simply not be conducted at all".

Full supply chain security (whether it's with domestic or trusted foreign partners) may not be achievable for a variety of projects, so what is your suggestion? That any projects involving unreliable western suppliers should simply not begin at all?

Click to expand...

Why should you throw limited resources into a years or decades long project with unreliable suppliers, especially those controlled by geopolitical enemies who have made it known their determination for your failure? You realize that every dollar China pays the US aerospace industry contributes towards weapons that will be used against China and to kill Chinese people? These suppliers take the money they are paid to the bank no matter if whatever project you are using them for proves successful for China. Are your projects really that important? What I am saying should not be that controversial.

gadgetcool5 said:

Why should you throw limited resources into a years or decades long project with unreliable suppliers, especially those controlled by geopolitical enemies who have made it known their determination for your failure? You realize that every dollar China pays the US aerospace industry contributes towards weapons that will be used against China and to kill Chinese people? These suppliers take the money they are paid to the bank no matter if whatever project you are using them for proves successful for China. Are your projects really that important? What I am saying should not be that controversial.

Click to expand...

by this logic, China should stop trade with the western world.

edit - sorry for interrupting you. but China building the local supply chain of aviation. just give COMAC time, you will not be disappointed. we have example of high speed rail any many other industries.

gadgetcool5 said:

Why should you throw limited resources into a years or decades long project with unreliable suppliers, especially those controlled by geopolitical enemies who have made it known their determination for your failure?

Click to expand...

Because experience gained in developing a project, assessing standards, doing testing, integration, is valuable for the future as progressive parts of the supply chain can be domesticated or made reliable. On the other hand, trying to develop a project in the future with a "reliable" supply chain might take many years to happen prior to project initiation, and there is not even any guarantee that an industry for developing the full supply chain will exist given there would be no guaranteed existing incentive that their products would have a market. And even if a reliable supply chain was developed, by the time that project initiation occurred, the time taken for the project to get off the ground may be unacceptably late and end up taking more time as well than if a dual track approach was selected.

There are still risks with that of course, but the pursuit of a dual track strategy is still the least worst choice that exists compared to every other choice that exists -- and that includes "not pursuing a project at all because its supply chain has unreliable parts to it".

gadgetcool5 said:

You realize that every dollar China pays the US aerospace industry contributes towards weapons that will be used against China and to kill Chinese people? These suppliers take the money they are paid to the bank no matter if whatever project you are using them for proves successful for China. Are your projects really that important? What I am saying should not be that controversial.

Click to expand...

You're just describing the realities of trade, and that's a knife which cuts both ways.

Blitzo said:

Because experience gained in developing a project, assessing standards, doing testing, integration, is valuable for the future as progressive parts of the supply chain can be domesticated or made reliable.

Click to expand...

Yes, and China has gained such experience in the ARJ21 project, which has been going on now for 20 years. Which part of that project which once used western suppliers have been domesticated? Please name them.

On the other hand, trying to develop a project in the future with a "reliable" supply chain might take many years to happen prior to project initiation, and there is not even any guarantee that an industry for developing the full supply chain will exist given there would be no guaranteed existing incentive that their products would have a market. And even if a reliable supply chain was developed, by the time that project initiation occurred, the time taken for the project to get off the ground may be unacceptably late and end up taking more time as well than if a dual track approach was selected.

Click to expand...

The Chinese airliner projects using western suppliers are already unacceptably late, they have no guaranteed market, and are not competitive. These points all pply to the existing projects. The difference is that with non western suppliers, the projects at least have a chance to come into mass use and replace the Boeing/Airbus duopoly bc decades of work can't be destroyed by the stroke of a pen or tweet from the white house.

There are still risks with that of course, but the pursuit of a dual track strategy is still the least worst choice that exists compared to every other choice that exists -- and that includes "not pursuing a project at all because its supply chain has unreliable parts to it".

Click to expand...

This ignores the fact that you have limited budget. You keep saying that there should be a dual track strategy. Besides the engines, where is track #2? Which projects are working on the non-western avionics, landing gear, wing composites, and so on? You never hear about them because the project with western suppliers sucks up all the time and resources.

You're just describing the realities of trade, and that's a knife which cuts both ways.

Click to expand...

Well the West for its part is careful not to source any irreplaceable hi tech from China, even at the cost of important sectors like it's 5G network, and even though China has never done any "entity list" style supplier cutoffs.

gadgetcool5 said:

Yes, and China has gained such experience in the ARJ21 project, which has been going on now for 20 years. Which part of that project which once used western suppliers have been domesticated? Please name them.

Click to expand...

That's because ARJ-21 is a very old design. Even with western suppliers, it has trouble with availability and such.

gadgetcool5 said:

The Chinese airliner projects using western suppliers are already unacceptably late, they have no guaranteed market, and are not competitive. These points all pply to the existing projects. The difference is that with non western suppliers, the projects at least have a chance to come into mass use and replace the Boeing/Airbus duopoly bc decades of work can't be destroyed by the stroke of a pen or tweet from the white house.

Click to expand...

You are entirely clueless about why these Chinese projects are having troubles.

gadgetcool5 said:

This ignores the fact that you have limited budget. You keep saying that there should be a dual track strategy. Besides the engines, where is track #2? Which projects are working on the non-western avionics, landing gear, wing composites, and so on? You never hear about them because the project with western suppliers sucks up all the time and resources.

Click to expand...

You have no evidence that they are not working on domestic versions of other subsystem. You know what sucks up resources? Having a project that keeps getting delayed and become more commercially uncompetitive because you are waiting 10 years for domestic suppliers

gadgetcool5 said:

Well the West for its part is careful not to source any irreplaceable hi tech from China, even at the cost of important sectors like it's 5G network, and even though China has never done any "entity list" style supplier cutoffs.

Click to expand...

hmm, the West actually entirely relies on China for large portions of these new industries. You may want to check up China's market share in silicon, gallium, graphite, nickel, rare earth processing, lithium processing, batteries, solar cells, global wafer, polysilicon and many other areas. And with Ukraine industry destroyed, China will even have dominance in Neon gas.

gadgetcool5 said:

Yes, and China has gained such experience in the ARJ21 project, which has been going on now for 20 years. Which part of that project which once used western suppliers have been domesticated? Please name them.



The Chinese airliner projects using western suppliers are already unacceptably late, they have no guaranteed market, and are not competitive. These points all pply to the existing projects. The difference is that with non western suppliers, the projects at least have a chance to come into mass use and replace the Boeing/Airbus duopoly bc decades of work can't be destroyed by the stroke of a pen or tweet from the white house.

Click to expand...

They're not unacceptably late for Chinese domestic use, and C919 and C929 will both have a guaranteed market in China.

The problem is that for both of those projects, if you want them to enter service in any form within the foreseeable future (respectively) you will have to use western suppliers. If you want to wait for a secure supplier, then that is fine, but then you are also accepting that you'll have to wait for years and years and years for those suppliers to offer a sufficiently mature product to even begin doing construction of the first prototype airframe, let alone conducting flight tests.

gadgetcool5 said:

This ignores the fact that you have limited budget. You keep saying that there should be a dual track strategy. Besides the engines, where is track #2? Which projects are working on the non-western avionics, landing gear, wing composites, and so on? You never hear about them because the project with western suppliers sucks up all the time and resources.

Click to expand...

CJ-1000A and CJ-2000 are the domestic engines being developed for C919 and C929.
You can bet that domestic alternatives for other foreign subsystems are also being developed, but they take up virtually no public attention given their less flashy and visible role in the aircraft.

gadgetcool5 said:

Well the West for its part is careful not to source any irreplaceable hi tech from China, even at the cost of important sectors like it's 5G network, and even though China has never done any "entity list" style supplier cutoffs.

Click to expand...

That is because they have the luxury of having other alternative suppliers which are able to fulfill requirements even if they are at a higher cost and with slightly reduced performance.
For China, depending on the industry, many of those options do not exist. If they did, then they would have pursued it.

If it seems like everything you are suggesting is "common sense" to you and "why are they being so stupid" -- perhaps consider that it's because the options and the possibilities you are describing are untenable and non-existent.