Blue

So one regiments can only fly one sortie in an exercise?
I think you should go back and re-read my statement.

your making more and more foolish statements. like in on exercise a single regiment drop entire Ruaf regiment inventory of PGM. when you obviously dont have clue of Ruaf PGM inventory.

Is Russian TMC the only source for Su-30MKK’s PGMs?

unless you can show some newer standoff weopons with Su-30MKK. TMC is the only source of its inventory.

Why bigger a/c has to weigh more? what is the fallacy here?
It has about the same MTOW and empty as Tornado.

Tornado engine weighs 975kg. and JH-7 engine weighs 1950kg. Just based on engine difference alone there is 2000kg weight difference for two engines. Now to support such heavy engine you need beefup structure.

You have understand this basic things about bombers. Bombers wetstations are much more stressed than regular fighters. Su-24M2 weighs much more than Su-30MK.
Su-24M could carry 3000L tank under wings for very long time. but Flankers couldnot. It is only very advanced material variants of Flanker like Su-35/Su-34 that are able to carry it.

interesting,
So you still think PLA blue-sword exercises at Dingxing Base only involves dumb bombs?

I didnot say they use dumb bombs only. It is just that regiment of JH-7 cannot carry that many PGMs that you claim. or those PGMs are some small bombs. Not standoff missiles. you cannot compare stand off missiles inventory with glide bombs.

… and you think PLA hasn’t brought any new stuff from russia? hmm? what gives you that impression?

since i havent seen PLAAF Su-30 equiped with Chinese PGM and Russia TMC revenues are now 50-50. It means more of newer PGMs are going to Ruaf inventory than exported to particular country.

and RUssia is the only source of PGM for PLAAF? is that it?

I want to see a F-4 range vs payload number vs a JH-7 range vs payload number, please, before accept that comment.

First you have to accept the fact that JH-7 cannot have the weight of Phantom. It is much bigger aircraft.
can you show me how big external ET JH-7 is a able to carry on its wet stations? as without large ET it cannot has so long ferry range.

F-4 is a fighter with secondary attack. JH-7 is pure attack baby. Its the Chinese F-111 with fixed wings and a British engine. I guess you could argue the J-8 is like the F-4.. in period of technology… at best…
more like J-8 is like the MiG-23 of China.. but with a better radar

JH-7 dont have that much more ground attack ability than F-4.
JH-7 is oversize airframe on underpower engine with fuel capacity that will need 3 ET for any kind usefull range. There is no pix of JH-7 carry more than 4 antiship missile which MIG-29K/MIG-29SMT can also.
It is not in Su-24/F-111 class.

Rumour has it that a tactical FB regiment in an exercise last year dropped more PGMs than the entire stock of a Russian Military region. pure rumor.

You maybe confused with dumb bombs. JH-7 can either carry antiship missile or very few PGMs. so entire regiment is not much something.

PLAAF first brought 30MKKs in 2000, so what’ that 20 year old missile come from?

Those missile were designed in Soveit times.

They also had good relations with those russian design bureaus that makes those munitions. Pretty sure they have kept it up to date for things that they need.

more fuel =/= rangexload. there is drag and sfc.

As i mentioned TMC has 50/50 export-domestic now and that 50% includes everyone including India/Algeria/China etc. so those Su-30MKK cannot have more and newer PGMs than what entering Ruaf inventory.
JH-7 is more comparable to F-4 while Su-24 is more closer to F-111.

Interesting Taurus for the Su 30, I guess both Typhoon and Rafale can use it as well. But the key is their offer to integrate Meteor with all aircraft in IAF. 😎 MKI with Meteor. Makes sense to standardize on meteor and Astra in future, Russians may not like it though.

You cannot standardize on Meteor and Astra when all internal carriage tests will be on on Russian AAMs on PAK-FA.
Introducing EU missile who has no update beyond 5 years into future is waste.

We were talking about what happened post Soviet collapse. I’ve already acknowledged recent moves to revitalize the aviation industry in Russia, but that still doesn’t change the broader macroeconomic challenges ahead.

You have no idea what your taking about. Soviet Collapse gives new impetus to industrialization on mass scale in so many other areas.

See this stupidity. You never built assembly line employing thousands near to most expensive city in country. It just shows lack of skill in other parts.

http://www.centreforaviation.com/analysis/comac-selects-shanghai-for-c919-assembly-plant-15401
COMAC selects Shanghai for C919 assembly plant

You should also realize that restructuring also generally means downsizing. That means closed factories and laid off workers. It happened in China too.

It just not only means downsizing but consolidation at single place. You dont spread industrial supply chain too far geographically.

Another false binary, combined with a false premise. The false binary is in the notion that they had to choose between producing 192 low quality turbofans or slow production. Given what other aviation powers can produce, 192 doesn’t sound like a lot in a year. Given that they delayed production for a year+ due to quality control issues, it would be reasonable to assume that they only started production again because they could proceed without making subpar engines. In other words, they’ve already demonstrated that they would not be producing at a rate where they couldn’t guarantee quality.

The false premise is that quality control would be a result lack of skilled labour. It could also be institutional (management issues), or experience related problems, which isn’t uncommon for newcomers, especially with parts subcontracting. The problem with assembly lines is if one part of the chain fails, it bottlenecks the entire chain. The main point is though that if they’ve moved on with production, then they’ve overcome those issues.

Your making all kind of incoherent statements. when all i point out is lack of skill labor.

Before we proceed, are you going to admit you were making stuff up about the ARJ-21 being more expensive?

It is common sense. Most of ARJ-21 is imported. It has zero production rate. and it is in development since 2002. so why it should be cheaper?

Is that what the wikipedia article said? Because what I read was that they had problems with the composite wing, not that they would abandon its adoption. I also can’t find where the Wiki article called it a dead project without a future. Must be my reading comprehension failure.

There is no composite wing in ARJ-21.

Why bother? Because they’re still learning vital knowledge about designing, developing, an testing a domestic airplane? You can focus on what they aren’t learning, but the critical point is what they are learning. There’s a reason why we call it a process, because it doesn’t happen instantaneously.

They are not learning as even more contracts were awarded to outside for C919.

Besides, it’s not like avionics is one of China’s weak points in the aviation industry.

Avionics is the weakest point of China aviation. when you compare it other Aviation powers.

Hold on, first you accuse China of hiding behind debts, and then you accuse of it hiding behind surpluses? Do you know anything about economics, or are you just raging?

you didnot understood

Well, believe whatever you want, but they’re producing the WS-10 to replace the AL-31s. They must think it’s either an equal or better alternative, or they’re just plane stupid, because clearly they have no qualms with ordering what they need.

Anyways, if you look at the trend line, China’s adoption of foreign components is going down.

when you continue to produce obsolete parts. it is natural foreign parts will go down.

If you can’t expand your production capacity and you’re a national industry, that indicates weaknesses in your industrial base. If you experience a drop in production capacity, that indicates a weakening of your industrial base.

Are Russian satellites good? Probably. How come they don’t have as many launches if they’re so good? Maybe it’s not cost competitive. Maybe they don’t have the funds to ramp up to scale. Or maybe they’re not as good as you claim. All three indicate a weaker industrial base.

It is the quality of lunches not quantity. Russia completed Glonass. China cant on time.

The construction worker thing was just a factoid. Construction workers also need vocational training. We don’t have different definitions. You just chose to address the side point instead of the main one, which is that even high skilled sectors need a big pool of skilled workers.

There are plenty of construction workers in third world. It is not high tech field.

Linking to Russian to a non Russian speaker doesn’t do anything.

You have to import these for C919 but Russia is using its own for MS-21. there is difference in industrial capacity.

Or…they will shift to broadening output for other planes, like the J-11, J-10, FC-17, JH-7…etc. Oh wait, is that modernization? I didn’t know.

Except these are obsolete. Remember Japanese used to give Mitsu engines to Hyundai.

China’s already done all its cutting in the 90s.

You pretend that Russia doesn’t have retiree/health care burdens. :rolleyes:

I know the difference in labor. Russia has computer controlled Oil and Gas industry flow. You dont need that many workers to produce wealth. so less health care and retire burden. China has to use labor to produce wealth.
Russia has disposable foreign workers China dont have this luxury.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sponsored/russianow/society/8555676/Moscow-17-million-people.html
Moscow population: capital may hold 17 million people

Yes, and that doesn’t answer my point, which is that you need skilled labour along the entire production chain, which is why having a stable population base is important.

As i said there is skill labor in US of 15million in entire industrial chain. and US aviation industry is 100 times larger than China in real Value.

Do you know what resource renting is?

I do know. resource renting is much better than using people.

You need high level graduates and top of the line research for innovation and product leadership. You need a large pool of graduates for large skilled work force. They imply different things about an industrial base. Don’t change topics.

These people cant produce anything beside copying and assembling foreign.

So…you don’t know what you’re talking about? Funny, for someone who accuses others of not knowing what an industrial base means.
Anyways, the trend line for China is one of decreasing imports from Russia, not increasing ones.

Trend line is neither increasing nor decreasing. it is that Russia has alot of money now to buy its own weopons. So there is not enough capacity or desire to export best systems.

Again, what do you think will happen to Russia’s watershed if there’s severe climate change? :rolleyes:

It already happened. There is not many countries in world that can in single year face heatwave and becomes second largest exporter of grain next year with plenty of stocks in reserve. Russia can face climate change but not China.

Donald Rumsfield, a man of credibility, and a real China scholar.

This discussion is obviously becoming less productive by the exchange.

Donald Rumsfield is not in power and surely speaking his mind freely. and It is not productive exchange anyway when you started with So called false premise of China industrial strength. with false hopes of future growth.

I thought we exhausted discussion on this XP

And yet they still didn’t nearly grind to a halt like Russia.

Russia didnot grind to halt either. thats why you have such massive exports for past 20 years and that will continue for future years. Only difference is West use massive leverage to prevent even steeper fall. and that what China is doing and it has very negative effect long term.

And I did not say that overall growth necessarily translates to a stronger high end manufacturing. I did say however that China’s growth factors would lend to expanding existing production lines. The WS-10 is already in production. It’s just a matter of setting up more lines of production.

…Why would they go through decades of development and research and spend an extra 5 years figuring out problems with production quality just for show?

Growth does not translate into high end manufacturing as there is no connection. Brazil had alot more growth in aircraft manufacturing.

You’re presenting a false binary. Of course you’re going to have low output if you’ve just started production. That does not mean output cannot expand in the future.

remember we are dealing with fighter engines. At best 1000 to 2000hr life time. Not Civillian engines of 20,000 to 50000 life span. You have learn alot before even talk about engine production ramp up as there is big difference. It will take Saturn 3 years to reach 50 Powerjet engines per year and but in Same 3 years Saturn can ramp up many times more military engines.

The ARJ-21 is meant to take advantage of new markets looking for a cheap alternative, while giving China experience with development and manufacturing of civilian airlines. Whatever it’s intended for, the fact that China could even build the darn thing given how backwards their aviation industry was even a decade ago shows significant progress. You can spin it whichever way you want but it won’t change that.

ARJ-21 is neither cheap nor alternative. when your production volume is so low and equipment is majority imported. It cant be cheap.

Your logic of “it’s dead in the water” was basically the kind of arguments people used to say Russia could never come up with a 5th generation design.

When Russians implemented TVC and flies Su-47. that was the begining of serious effort for 5G fighters.

I said funding in Russia isn’t stable, and it isn’t when state funding is reliant on a rent economy.Investment uncertainty can limit future potential growth. That is a very different argument from saying they have no funding.

so funding in Russia is not stable but in China it is stable. how you get to this conclusion? China is living on economy that is created on borrowed money.

Proof?
http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/90882/7600089.html
Google is great. This was the first link.

Engine production issue took time to deal with as all problems do? If they couldn’t solve it that would have been another thing, but it’s pretty apparent that given the level of adoption in new J-11s, that those production problems have been resolved.

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/china-orders-more-lockheed-martin-skyline-atc-systems-259963/

Ok let see what comes out of this supercomputer use in engine manufacturing.

You be the judge. Keep in mind though I’m not talking about the present, but potential growth in the future.

Sure, but when we talk about an industrial base, there is both the development and production side of things. Clearly Russia’s strengths in development have remained strong, but it’s their production side of industry that has suffered.

As a corollary, I find it interesting that you’re defending Russia’s inability to produce while chiding China’s.

Your continously going this stupid logic of production. You cannot produce unless it is in digital format and for that digital format it takes half decade of design work and than all the stress testing and than mass production comes.
Just look how much effort and money A400 and than think about for second. and see IL-476.

We could be reading different projections. However, keep in mind that 6 million decline in any population is significant, and that if the population statistic has only changed recently it still means Russia will see a shrinking work force until that generation has completed turnover.

Keep in mind Russia is attracting the whole post soviet space as they share same language. and for High end manufacturing is not some construction that you need mass unskilled labor.
Key thing is to know how to do things not waste time & money in producing junk like J-7/JL-9/J-8/K-8. these are low end priced products. You wont get new built Mi-171 less than $20m now. Mi-38 is pushing $30m. That is called productivity increase.

US had only 20,000 engineers working in Aerospace.
supporting 15 million high quality jobs through out the industrial chain.
http://www.doleta.gov/BRG/Indprof/Aerospace_Report.pdf

I may not argue against the gradual increase of hydrocarbon prices, but I can argue that as oil commodities get more expensive, alternative energy sources get more competitive (like development of one’s own resources).

That’s silly on two counts. On the first one, your referenced measures still have nothing to do with industrial growth or indigenous design. On the second one, by that logic the Germans own every single jet engine in existence (Deino would be very happy to hear that).

You need research, investment and manpower to produce alternative. and th suppose if you put your best brains in producing altnernative. you have lost opportunity in producing some thing more advanced in Aerospace field.

I wonder how the other industrialized countries survived their increasing input costs :rolleyes: A good reason why input costs are going up is because wage demands are going up. In other words, workers are being paid more. I don’t know if that really helps your theory…

They survived because they modernized fast with far less population.

Last I checked Russia had a heat wave a few years back that wiped out a significant portion of their agricultural output. Climate change makes everyone a loser.

and despite that heat wave Russia is world second largest grain exporter this year and have plenty of stocks stored to mitigate price rise for years. Other countries cannot obsorb this level of abrupt climate change. In next 50 years Most of China will be barren. Importing water through pipelines from Russia.

You’re right. Russia’s macroeconomic problems are far worse. In addition to problems shared by the other BRICs (corruption, inflexible investment, etc), there have been little to no infrastructure spending in Russia unless it’s been for hydrocarbon, over-reliance on commodity to feed GDP growth and the state budget (a huge problem for stable growth, as demonstrated in 2008), and a shrinking work force.

:rolleyes: If you say so.

shrinking workforce? Unless you consider debt induced consumption as growth. I dont see any relevance to high end manufacturing.