Chinese engines continue to lag in these areas:

Mean Time Between Failures
Mean Time Between Overhauls
Service Hours per Flying Hour
Specific Fuel Consumption

Plus People’s Daily quotes Russian sources saying China can copy most parts of the AL-31 engines that power much of China’s J-10 and J-11 fighter fleets, but still must import turbine blades from Russia. It is understood that China continues to have problems producing quality turbine blades and suffers problems in producing consistent metals (super alloys) for consistent performance

Now I am not here to reopen old wounds about Chinese jet engines since at some point China will get it together and produce a quality domestic engine. I only point out the Chinese lag in engine production to illustrate the moving target aspect of Chinese aircraft performance. While China will as stated someday produce a quality engine, western producers are not standing still and will continue to advance the state of the art in engine design to maintain their lead over Chinese engine producers. Its a moving target. Western producers and Russian producers understand that jet engine production is a horse race. And one wonders can China make several leaps forward to overtake and erase the lead that western engine producers currently possess.

3D printing of engine parts shows promise and China is busy exploring this area to see if it can catch up and overtake http://defensetech.org/2013/06/20/3d-printers-open-up-new-options-in-aviation/

You and I are clearly not seeing the same reality. The J-10B isn’t a modern jet? The J-20 isn’t a modern jet? All those UAVs clearly don’t count as innovation *rollseyes*.

Go back and re-read what I wrote. I said “reliable modern jet engine” And even you will have to agree with that statement. The Germans, British, Russians, and others are ancient history and really have nothing to do with China being unable to build modern reliable jet engine.I do not understand why you brought them up. And in spite of China doing all it can to as you say “acquire the best available technology” by whatever means possible they still are unable to produce a world class domestic fighter engine.

Can you explain why? Where are they going wrong?

Not quite sure you got the point of my comment…

Anyways, your characterization of China only copying designs isn’t very accurate. Insofar, even the J-11, the most oft cited case (and I would contend the only real instance) of copying, is considerably different internally than the Su-27 it’s derived from, and it’s unlikely the Z-20 itself is anything like the Blackhawk internally.

…Or maybe they made improvements to a design based on their needs and newer technologies? At this point you’re getting pretty close to making unsubstantiated presumptions.

And maybe the moon is made of green cheese. One thing we do know and that is that China today is unable to make a modern jet engine in spite of having many examples in their possession to copy from. It is difficult to imagine China making improvements on other technologies when they cannot even master the basic building of a reliable modern jet engine.

Now China is probably doing the best it can in trying to create a modern military machine. I’ll give them that. But the fact remains: China cannot innovate and has to be content to make copies of, derivatives if you like, of other people’s technical work in order to stay in the game.

Under that way of thinking China will always remain a step behind. The ball is in China’s court to show the world they can innovate.

I think it would grate on some international members less if they didn’t see it as a form of hypocrisy. America wasn’t really the gold standard of IP protection until they became the world’s biggest economy.

For Chinese members, it must be especially grating to be accused of stealing when China didn’t have the option of buying Blackhawks. If you don’t let them buy something and then get mad at them for “copying” the design to them it must seem a lot like excuses to try to repress or delegitimize their development.

So let China invent something new instead of copying a design and then crowing how innovative China is. The Blackhawk isn’t the only helicopter design in the world. There were plenty others China could have copied. Actually China is restricting itself by always copying designs. Copying will keep China always a step behind.

China seems to follow the path of when faced with two technologies with a similar expected return (but different risks), will prefer the one with the lower risk.

So perhaps we can add Z-20s first flight for this year’s milestones as well (providing someone is not fooling with PS here, still a possibility even if small). Hopefully we’ll have more pictures. And yeah, i’m sure the yanks will huff and puff and throw hystericals, just like they do every time China is unveiling another significant achievement, but who cares. Go China go!

The Yanks as you call them have every right to be mad about China’s continued theft of technological IP. But as they say: Imitation is the most sincerest form of flattery.

We don’t have anywhere near enough videos to assess just how adequate their hand signals are, and unless any of us have served us on carrier decks I think we can’t really judge if their signals are any good or not.

Besides, they’ve only operated three aircraft on the carrier at one time as far as we know, and they only started operating the carrier a year ago. You’re passing judgement rather quickly, you know.

And there’s the rub. The PLAN started out in a big fan fair and has since slowed down to a whimper. For reasons known only to the PLAN China has gone stagnant with their carrier development. I’m talking about tempo of operations as a measurement.

Well, they showed that they’re using somethign like an ouija board. Whether it’s an “attempt” or not really depends on how successful they are at it, and we’ll probably never know, will we?

Oh we will know and that will be by how efficient the PLAN handles deck operations. Since the PLAN has decided to emulate USN carrier procedures they have no choice but to go all the way. Or else they will end up with some sort of hybrid system that combines the inefficient Russian system with the tried and proven USN system. The Russians have tried to strike out on their own and develop their carrier doctrine and procedures from scratch. That has proved to be a poor decision. It seemed at the start that the Chinese made the decision to save development time by going with what worked. That is the USN carrier system. Now the Chinese seem to have become timid and have retreated into a passive approach.

They would need to get really really close to see if the PLAN’s deck crew are “competent”.

Personally I think you’re reading too much into the Cowpens. It was there on an observation mission, possibly collect any SIGINT and ELINT that they want. I doubt they were pointing little

Yes I agree that Cowpens WAS on an observation mission and that mission was to observe Liaoning carrier procedures in their entirety. They were to observe and record Liaoning carrier procedures on objective terms and not according to the carefully scripted release of information by the PLAN. That probably led to a sense of “how dare they….” and caused the reaction seen. Cause you know the Russian navy during its time at sea shadowed American navy ships 24/7 and in some cases rammed ships. What the Cowpens did was extremely innocent in nature.

I think you’re making a straw man. Nobody said the PLAN had mastered carrier operations, and nobody suggested having coloured jerseys and what appears to be visibly competent equipment means the PLAN are suddenly at USN standards.

And at the rate of progress the PLAN is operating the Liaoning it will be well into the 2020’s before the PLAN is considered competent. Just look at the Russians if you want to see a good example of starting out fast and winding down into a fizzle.

With regards to the rate of the PLAN is operating the Liaoning — we simply don’t have enough videos and pictures to judge. They only release a couple of seconds of video every few weeks, and we don’t know how often they fly their planes. Hell, they’re only receiving the first batch of J-15s now anyway.

Even with three aircraft they could do more deck operations. And what’s up with night carrier operations? You don’t gain experience doing those types of tricky things unless you get out there and do it. We have only seen PLAN flight operations at twilight. Once again I believe that objective measurement of their competency at carrier operations is something that the PLAN wants to prevent. Like you posted above the PLAN is controlling the flow of information and they want to promote this image of them building a strong carrier force.

Trying to cast judgement of the Liaoning’s crew competency at this early a stage is a redundant exercise, because obviously they’re going to be slow compared to a well trained and oiled deck crew in a US supercarrier.

In fact, if you step back and look at the Liaoning, for a navy that is not being helped by any other navy, and for a navy with no prior carrier experience, they’re doing a lot of things right

Well according to sources the PLAN had help from Brazil so they have received assistance. At the end of the day what the PLAN does with their carrier is their business. I am just expressing my opinion based upon objective observation. And I hope that now that the Liaoning as decided to come out into the open that she is shadowed and observed 24 / 7 every time she leaves port. I really want to see what the PLAN can do.

Don’t forget I am not the only one raising questions about the progress the PLAN is making in the development of their carrier aviation program. Others on various Chinese military boards also are raising the same questions that I raise.

I think one good yard stick that can be used will be how the INS Vikramaditya is brought into service. In the case of the Indian carrier you have a new ship, a new type of aircraft (MiG-29K) and like the PLAN the INS Vikramaditya will be the largest ship they have ever operated. How they compare will be interesting.