Yet*

You made point. of falling production. i showed rest of the world had even bigger fall than cold war levels.

Strawman. You brought up Brazil. Not me.

China already has indigenous turbofan production. It’s a matter of increasing output, not developing it.

Brazil is successful example of growth. But that growth does not translate into stronger high end manufacturing.
That engine is hedgepodge of foreign tech. not a successful product.

The number was how many J-11s have the WS-10. Not how many were produced in a single year. Big difference.

Thats the whole point. few engines are produced for show. the rest is imported. either you can produce enough or not produce at all.

I posted the picture to answer your question about the WS-10 is in operational service. If you really want to see the picture of the J-11s with no turbofans, I’ll have to dig around a bit.

Su-34 didnot become certified despite spending 5 years at lipstek.

By your logic, because the Boeing 787 was delayed we should not expect Boeing to advance its own aviation potential. :rolleyes: Your logic would also dictate that the J-10 and the PAK-FA shouldn’t exist.

Problem is ARJ-21 is already dead project. It cant compete against 20 year old Embarrer. so where is the progress?. ARJ-21 is not built for future but repeat the past.

Hey you brought up supercomputers, not me.

You mentioned there is no money to renovate Production centers in Russia. It is clear that you are BS.

Or there is simply effective private-public joint venture and cost sharing. China’s aviation industry is still partially public after all.

Or maybe not. You dont have any proof of that. You wont be importing L-15 engines 6 years after its flight. All of sudden you cannot deal with single Engine production issue let alone multiple engine productions.

And who’s to say China can’t automate, or isn’t automating?

It is clear. China canot automate to same level. Try to build a Civil Airliners indside Chengdu.

And yet they have trouble producing them in any significant number. As I’ve said before, lots of demonstrations of good knowledge capital, but otherwise also many indications of an anemic industrial base.

Production has nothing to do with development leg. First you have to certify a product before it moves to production stage in Digital Format. Just IL-476 takes 7 years from digital format to final certified product. Superjet took 8 years.

You can’t argue with the numbers. Russia’s population is set to drop at least 20 million in the next 50 years. We’ll see whether those new programs will work, but until then that doesn’t change the facts.

Russia population only declined by 6 million in past 20 years. and is set to double in next 50 years. You cannot argue against automatic increase of natural resource prices for rest of the world.

To quote you “you’re pulling out irrelevant stuff”. The rest of those statistics are standard of living measures, which have little direct relation with industrial growth capacity. Chinese living standards suck in comparison, but that has no direct effect on access to labour.

It has very direct impact. China despite having world second largest defence budget cannot even a single IP product without foreign influence.

Once again, nice pivot. It goes from “they have an aging population” to “it’s unmanageable”. I like watching people grasp at straws. No matter.

It is unmanagble when your facing long term deforstation, ever increasing input cost for every product. I have very clear idea of environment. Only countries in North will be winner.

Whether China has a socio-political disruption is irrelevant to the point that having a population largely untapped for industry is a good source of potential growth (Otherwise, you would have to think about this problem from the Russian context too). We are talking economics, not social politics.

Russia dont face problem on same scale as China/Brazil/India.

Hey, I resent that. I am not a fanboy, simply defending my point. I don’t think China beating Russia/becoming a world leader in aviation is a forgone conclusion. I am simply pointing out that there is no reason why we shouldn’t expect China to ramp up production of the WS-10, and pointing out why China can’t be benchmarked using Russia (or vice versa).

This is somewhat amusing, because the original statistics that I was responding to is probably wrong anyways.

You made a wrong point from beginning that China has far stronger Industrial base when you have practically little understanding of industrial base.

The Rafale sales never got going, but the F-16s and F-15s were selling well even after the Cold War, as was the Mirage 2000

without USAF orders F-15/F-16 yearly production is 90% down. Mirage-2000 is closed.

They certainly have improved their position in the last half decade, but I am talking about future growth potential, not present. Again I point to Russia’s shrinking work force and its unstable capital base. Those are not good signs of future growth.

Brazil also has alot of future potential.

Think about what you’re trying to argue for a second. I am simply saying China is well positioned to increase production output of its turbofans. You keep saying that there is zero growth in Chinese aviation except for assembling foreign technology, but even if we were to assume that is true (and it isn’t because at least their military sector is now mostly self sufficient), that they assemble foreign products doesn’t contradict the point that they are primed to increase production output. After all, the infrastructure and machining necessary to do that is precisely what would be needed to expand production of their own turbofan.

China is in no position to increase production. thats the point.

I have my own skepticism about China’s macroeconomic situation, but that does not lie in its industrial growth capacity. In terms of that, with their rate of acquiring knowledge capital, the orientation of their educations system, their modern infrastructure, their newer facilities, and their accessible work they are very well positioned.

It wont work

*rollseyes* And manufacturing cars, solar panels, trains, ships, wind turbines, home appliances, etc…

There is alot of countries they can each of these better quality and more advanced but it doesnot mean they can built chopper or aviation engine. that connection is spurios.

They just got their initial assembly figured out a year ago. Of course they’re not going to be able to ramp up production output right away, though if Quickie’s right in less than a year they’ve equipped 96 J-11s with them, so 192 WS-10s in a year. Should the production of their fighters stop and wait for that? No.
You are being absurd.

so 96 J-11 were built in a single year?. China cannot produce 40 J-10 in a year. that is a tall order for it. 96 J-11 is only possible when you have 3 factories working on it.

I like how you’ve now pivoted to say “They have no aviation industry” to “it’s not good enough”. They only certified the WS-10 5 years ago. Starting from nothing. Even if they get a 45 MTOW engine 5 years from now, they would still have advanced the fastest in the history of aviation. The key point is growth, and so far China has demonstrated very robust growth in its aviation industry.

As i said there is no growth.we dont agree on definition of growth. I dont consider Brazil as growth example either.
You learn one time not many times. There is no point in inviting even more international suppliers for C919 If China had such great learning curve from ARJ-21.

Oh hey, look they’re using foreign parts! (double standard much?).

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/28/technology/28compute.html

What’s your point? :confused:

I am not using double standard. You cannot compare computer built in University or Research institute to SuperComputer actually implemented in factory design bureau. These are two different things and it just show Saturn had hard currency to implement it with international vendors years ago. There is no lack of money or technical people in using it to the desired results.

So we’re going to talk about the entire military industry now from aviation? I believe they call that moving the goal post. No matter.
“As of 2006, The Russian Navy has 50 nuclear submarines with only 26 operational compared to 170 vessels in 1991. The Navy plans to reduce the number to 20 submarines, including ten strategic missile submarines and ten multi-purpose (attack) submarines, according to unofficial reports.[15]
As of February 2008, The Russian Navy had: 44 nuclear submarines with 24 operational; 19 diesel-electric submarines – 16 operational; and 56 first and second rank surface combatants – 37 operational.[16] Despite this improvement, the November 2008 accident on board the Akula-class attack boat Nerpa during sea trials before lease to India represents a concern for the future.[17]
In 2009, Admiral Popov (Ret.), former commander of the Russian Northern Fleet, said that the Russian Navy will greatly decline in combat capabilities by 2015 if the current rate of new ship construction remains unchanged, due to the retirement of ocean going ships.[18]”

Via wikipedia.

Automotive design and assembly were a reason why the US became such a military powerhouse during WWII, and why it continued to be afterwards (want to know the other reasons? Strong stable investments and a vibrant work force). There’s a lot more than the internal combustion engine that could be applied from the automotive to aviation industry.

You insist China must first surpass Japan in auto engines, but how many turbofans have Japan certified?

Your putting irrelant stuff. Russian submarines can do long patrols in international waters. vibrant workforce? Have you looked at Chinese aging population, lack of attraction for skilled immigrants and complete lack of skills, for developing anything remotely comparable to high end defence systems.

If we were talking about present capabilities, it would be kinda dumb to talk about growth potential. No one said that in the present China has a more capable industry. However, the Russian aviation industry is bleeding market shares and the Chinese modern aviation industry while new and inexperienced, has ample resources to draw upon and at the present a very strong display of will.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/china/2010/05/17/chinas-aviation-industry-takes-flight/

http://www.chinasignpost.com/2011/09/a-chinese-%E2%80%9Cheart%E2%80%9D-for-large-civilian-and-military-aircraft-strategic-and-commercial-implications-of-china%E2%80%99s-campaign-to-develop-high-bypass-turbofan-jet-engines/
Some of these are not going to be very heavy on the research, but you can find a lot of these articles with a simple google search. You should read links that people put up. They have facts in them.

And FYI, outdated factories, decaying infrastructure, and a declining work force are all facts about Russia’s macroeconomic condition. That the Russian state has actually had to reinvest in its aviation industry in order to save it is testament to those fact, particularly the first two. Russia certainly has the know-how and experience (which no one so far has denied), but those aren’t the only factors for an industrial base, and certainly not the most important ones for industrial growth potential.

It’s also not like China hasn’t made significant progress in the last decade. The WS-10 has had problems, but is now being adopted en masse. The WS-13 is in production for the JF-17. The J-10B is being tested to replace the J-10A. A decade ago no one would have thought China could even try to compete in the domestic aerospace industry, but we are now seeing moves towards domestic turbofan productions and attempts to at least transition into domestic designs. The Chinese aviation industry has been very active lately, and these are facts (far from the assertion that their facilities are decaying, they are putting a lot of money, theirs and foreign, to buy and build very modern ones).

Are there going to be setbacks? When you’re new to the industry, those are to be expected, and even experienced companies like Boeing have delays. However, the point is that we’ve seen very aggressive growth on the part of China, while Russia up until recently has seen orders drop, factories close, and facilities decay. The fact that they (Russian) have now decided to reinvest in their aviation industry is good, but if anything the Russian aviation industry is as open ended as China’s, given that one is more experienced and the other simply has much better conditions for future growth.

You keep repeating the same thing over and over again of China industry takes off. and Russia closing factories. which Sukhoi/ MIG/engine factory got closed? infact production of newer transports is centralized at one place for better quality control and cost.
I want to see the result of China take off. Where is JF-17/J-10 powered by WS-13/WS-10 in operational service?. where is that agressive growth in domestic programs not assembling of foreign sytems.
Russia has now more money so it is more comes in media of reinvestment. It does not mean they were not reinvesting as they remain the second largest indigenous exporter. and result are pretty obvious.
After finishing the newer IL-76. there is degree of confidence in IL-476 program. first you to built your own IL-76 equal before more move to next phase.

Its funny a country importing D-30 engines is talking about overall industrial base. China assembles more foreign tech doing slightly better than Brazil. but it does not say much about its own industrial base.

Saturn, Salut, Klimov, Perm, UMPO can produce hundreds of engines a year.
May be even in thousands provided Ruaf wants cheap single engine crap.
Yak-130 engine is produced in Russia unlike L-15. And there is even more advanced AL-55. where RD-93 is produced?
Su-34/Su-35 are just getting certified. so there is less demand for engines.
You can count modern tank engines and there exports.
Glonass with global strike ability is completed 10 years ahead of EU/China. no matter how much money and manpower the following entities throw on there systems.
This thing will not happen in China in next 25 years.

http://www.airfleet.ru/arhiv/n3_2009/special_assignment_for_tu-214/
Let me remind you that a month ago these airplanes proved their worth in a long-haul mission when they flew 13 hours non-stop, over the Far East, Extreme North, then Moscow and back to Kazan. That time everything worked well, and according to the specification.

No one is going to accept this BS logic that WS-10 production cannot be increased as hardly 10 J-11 fighters are added a year. China high end industrial sector is in decay. It cannot complete anything on time. Look at ARJ-21 and compare it with SuperJet.
Everything new coming out from Russia is way better. I am still waiting for TVC equiped fighter from China .

The Mig-35 is not ready, so Mig-29K isn’t neither ?

MIG-35 is more ready than Rafale. MIG-29K is already exported and there is 10 sets of AESA radar flying in MIGs based on MAKS information. There is no 10 Rafale with AESA. nor is anywhere high powered Rafale flying in operational service.

Do you have a link about that problem of thrust ?

Not a about about the new M88-4E ? About the demonstrated faisability of a 9t version ? About future version of AESA, ECM and so on ?

Klimov can demonstrate 12tons VK-10 engines. it does not mean much. based on MIG-29 and FC-1 orders. there is more RD-33 series engines produced than M-88 engines even currently.
I find ironic that your using this word Future so liberally. when one nation is drowning in debt and has no prospect of spending $200b on Aviation industry.
The best hope for Rafale to make collaborative effort accross EU with EF so use common bin for upgrades. like Meteor.

Russia is suppose to be the best for ToT, what are you talking about ?

Sukhoi and Embarrer are competitors. In first stage Sukhoi wants Embarrer out of business. There is no question of transferring latest tech or barter of Embarrer planes. older Su-30 maybe and certianly not for small orders.

And Rafale has an AESA in production right now, new M88-4E engines (though not uprated) are ready and a new OSF is ready as well as a new MLD. No in service variant of the MiG-29 features an phased array radar whatsoeuver, no comparable ECM and RWR, no LWR and MLD at all, not even a remotely comparable datalink, no sensor fusion and the list goes on. Technicially the Rafale is a newer and more advanced designed, with superior avionics, aerodynamics, comparable thrust performance and in fact better thrust/drag ratio, much lower signatures and superior range and payload performance.

Ready this and that when there is practically zero in service.
it is moot point anyway. as its tiny nose and underpower engine is not going to provide the capability of MIG-29.
More advanced design? first Rafale is should turn and climb like MIG-29OVT and that was 10 years ago tech with older engines.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CIdvSQB2dP4&feature=related
We will soon find out when India presents list of improvements which will be necessary to make it operational with IAF. Rafale as it currently stands have no chance.

Not important for overall combat efficiency and that’s what I said, maybe you start to learn reading.

so designers at Sukhoi dont know about combat efficiency of TVC.
even in IAF alone there will be 300/210 Su-30MKI/T-50 TVC fighters. There will be 50 TVC fighers in Algerian airforce. I am estimating combined force of Su-35/PAK-FA of a 500 in Ruaf. All of them TVC.
End result is that there will be more TVC fighters flying around than Non-TVC Rafales.

Claims like these demonstrate that you have little clue whatsoeuver and the Su-35’s service ceiling is the same 18000 m as that of the Su-27.

Su-27SK is 18.5km without weopons. think a little bit harder.
MIG-35 with stronger engines will fly even higher and faster.

http://www.incredible-adventures.com/edge-of-space-intro.html
For generations, the MiG-29’s ability to climb high was a closely guarded secret. In the 12 years we offered MiG-29 flights at Zhukovsky Air Base, not a hint was made of the jet’s secret high-flying abilit
The MiG-29 provides a better view of the curvature of the earth and darkness of the sky at 70,000 feet than the MiG-31. Best of all, on your way back to earth, you can experience some of the incredible aerobatics that have made the MiG-29 a legend.

GLONASS is meaningless as is your trolling. The Rafale has GPS so no advantage for the MiG here. Stronger engines aren’t a stringent requirement. Rafale’s TWR is comparable to that of the newer Fulcrum variants in air-to-air configurations, but inferior at high TOWs as in strike missions. That’s owed to the fact that the Rafale has a vastly superior payload capacity in comparison to the MiG.

Glonass is the single most important feature of operational sovereignty. Rafale as total package lacks it.

vastly superior capacity is only applicable when you have weopons to utilize it. and with under powered engines it will be a duck.
it is choice between carrying ET or Strike weopons. Rafale is not Su-35 with huge internal fuel capacity.

As aforementioned you should better start learning to read. I made no hoopla out of anything, I pointed out that aircraft gain weight over their service life/production period and Russian designs are no exception. The Su-35 is heavier than the original Su-27, the weight increase is rather modest as the aircraft’s structure was significantly re-designed. Nonetheless weight growth occured in contrast to what you claimed! Your permanent change of arguments are annoying at best.

You made it sound like Su-35 gained 3 or 4 tons and tried to apply the same to MIG-35.

MiG-29: 1345
Mirage 2000: 578 (IIRC)
F/A-18A-D: 1243

Of course it was crude for a reason (inferior manufacturing technology, simplistic design for low costs), but that doesn’t change any facts here.

so in 7 years. more than twice MIG-29 were produced than M2K based on your own figures. not to mention MIG-29 was way more capable than M2K in its role.

The M2k airframe lasts way longer than any MiG derivative and in the end the M2k was meant to be an interceptor in the first place. And ehy wasn’t it fundamentally “correct”? Once again spreading nonsense. The funny part about you is that you make a lot of claims, but you neither prove, nor explain them in any appropriate manner.

M2K airframe will not last way longer. the same MIGs are upgrades rather cheaply than M2K.

Wrt the structural design they have just been catching up and the rest is debatable.

try to fit AESA radar in M2K and see how much range you can gain. AESA and higher thrust engines for M2k is non-starter.

Feel free to prove what you claim with data instead of trash talk and no operational MiG is fitted with TVC at all, so that’s a moot argument, let alone that TVC won’t help you much when it comes to turn rates.

TVC is not big deal for MIG. the demonstrator is flying for 10 years. There is no such demonstrator for M2K or Rafale. They cannot attempt it. TVC wont help. all latest airsuperiorty fighters are implementing it.
:rolleyes:

Ceilling is more or less comparable, maximum speed not of relevance and your Russian wonder weapons are mostly not operational, in many cases not even in production, so wake me up when your wet dreams have become reality. And Meteor is on the way, what equivalent exists to the Scalp-EG 400 km long range stand-off missile and the AASM multi-mode stand-off weapon… The Russians have some unique weapons, supersonic anti-ship missiles in particular, but it’s not like the west has nothing up to its sleeves.

ceiling & speed is more or less comparable?. have you looked at Rafale website. Dont compare export range of weopons with no export.
Kh-59Mk2, kh-58 and Klubir can surely pass the 300km mark.

GPS = GALILEO = GLONASS That’s simplified but in essence all of them allow for ground independent precise navigation. As long as the Rafale isn’t sold to states which are considered as not trustworthy enough, thus not obtaining GPS licenses that is a non-issue!

either you have or you dont have it currently. MIG-29 TVC is flying and can be quickly implemented into production aircraft. You cannot implement Galileo globally.

About 1000 kg! Emtpy weight of the Su-27 is stated with 16000-16380 kg.

so 1000 kg is such big deal. when all other fighters have gained so much more weight when you increase internal fuel capacity and implement higher thrust engines.

Uh duh, Mirage-2000 won’t get as much upgrades in the future compared to MiG-29 because the French already made the successor.. the Rafale. MiG-29 has no successor, thats why MiG keeps making new variants.

and that doesn’t mean it hasn’t been static since the 1980s (get your facts right, it didn’t get inducted into French AF until 1982, one year before the MiG-29). The Mirage 2000-5 and 2000-9 were big updates. Mirage-2000N/D (I bet you forgot this one), another big variant

given the time frame the Mirage 2000 and MiG-29 were at their prime.. a carrier version was moot. No one ordered a carrier MiG-29 yet and France was already developing a new carrier fighter. Most of the world doesn’t need a carrier fighter.

and as for Mirage 2000 with out AESA.. perhaps you need to take a look at this…

Mirage-2000 upgrade is comparable to MIG-29SMT. using older aircraft for AESA trials is not some thing out of ordinary. Just the system will not have the range.
who want to buy new build Mirage-2000?
Modern MIG-29 has big nose & Spine.