It should be evident to you too that China today is definitely not the China of 10 years ago. Regarding military technology, they’ve broken through some technological barrier or door that has hindered them. But no more. With this newly attained know-how or maturity, they’ve come through to the other side and are closing in on the tremendous gap with their western adversaries.
Lack of access to western system still hinders the Chinese.
But you’re right about the effect of the lifting of the EU ban. The possible lifting of the ban scares Taiwan more than decades of Russian arms sold to China. (1)
China isn’t closing any gap with the West, in my opinion. Buying Russian systems only worsen the gap. In fact, it has been stated more than once before that it is in American and Taiwanese interest that the Chinese buy more Russian systems because it would ensure that the gap remains.
For those who think this is just rhetoric, I quote from Jane’s China entry on Aircraft and Aircraft Propulsion (2000 issue):
QUOTE: “While China recognises that new structures and materials must be incorporated in modern aero-engines if higher thrust, reduced weight
and longer life-cycles are to be achieved, it is generally thought that the ex-Soviet legacy of early Chinese aero-engine development has resulted in domestic designs that are deficient by modern standards in these qualities. Soviet/Russian-designed aero-engines require major overhaul after only 750 flying hours, compared to 10,000 flying hours for current Western military aero-engines. Hence, aero-engine technology transfers from Western sources are a priority in addition to domestic efforts.”
That’s 750 hours to 10,000. That isn’t a gap, it’s an unbridgeable chasm.
————————————————————
Notes:
(1) http://www.myrtlebeachonline.com/mld/myrtlebeachonline/news/nation/9838470.htm
“Taiwan frets EU ending China arms embargo
By William Foreman
The Associated Press
TAIPEI, Taiwan – Taiwan is getting jittery about a new push within the European Union to lift a 15-year embargo on weapons sales to China, the communist giant that’s been threatening to attack this tiny democratic island.”
There is nothing on this vessel yet. It’s one of those examples that suddenly appear out of the blue when someone took a picture. We only know it by hull number, like the 2208 FAC.
No class designation, no specs, no official words. Nothing except four pictures (so far) and a post stating it is for Thailand.
These are the other two picts. Grainier pictures posted in an earlier thread.
Tres bien!
Nice work! I enjoyed the Strike Eagle especially. Good sense action in that one.
French is easy enough to read, don’t let the English-centric world beat you onto submission, O’Malley.
Oh good, I see the old Upholder class subs come with a roadside assistance package from the Royal Navy.
http://www.reuters.co.uk/newsPackageArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=597744§ion=news
First ship reaches stranded Canadian sub
Wed 6 October, 2004 17:09By David Ljunggren
OTTAWA (Reuters) – A British Royal Navy frigate has reached a crippled Canadian submarine and put a doctor on board the vessel, which was left drifting in heavy seas off the Irish coast after its engines were knocked out by a serious fire.
HMCS Chicoutimi, one of four used submarines that Canada bought from Britain, was on its maiden voyage on Tuesday from Scotland to Canada when the fire forced it to the surface. Nine crew members suffered from smoke inhalation.
This is like a lemon breaking down three blocks from the used car lot. I’d ask for my money back.
Actually it’s an unlicensed project. The Y-8 was designed off a handful of An-12 examples in 1968/69 during the height of the Sino-Soviet border wars.
Internally, much of the Y-8 is very different from the An-12 since it was designed to use parts available in Cultural Revolution China.
The Y-8 really took off in the late 1970s and early 80s when Western techniques and help were acquired during the happy period of Chinese westernization (1978 – 1989.)
In fact, one of the first production variants of the Y-8 was designed to ferry the prized S-70 Blackhawk helicopter that China imported from the US.
As someone pointed out in the Chinese forums, the logo on the hangar is Shenyang Aircraft Co. J10s are from Chengdu Aircraft Co. so these are J-8IIs.
If I were Canada, I would try to get rid of these subs. Nothing but misery has come from them, leaking valves and gauges, now this fire, and iirc there were some more trouble in the beginning too…
Get rid of them? They JUST BOUGHT them!
The UK sold the Canucks lemons 🙁
The viability of the fuselage hardpoints to hold certain weapons is dependent on the length (as well as weight) of the weapon. The J-10’s main gear opens out from the fuselage so a weapon like an AAM couldn’t be so long that it overlaps the covers of the main wheels. Also, I don’t think the hardpoints under the intake could be stressed for too much weight. I haven’t done any measurements but it seems to me that the fuselage hardpoints are probably suitable mainly for pods and smaller (250-500lbs) dumb bombs.
A new pict of the Y8F400, first of the solid nose Y8 variants (discounting the earlier earlier Y8Cs with converted radome for AEW and testing roles.)
any chinese members here going to Zhuhai?? btw what does that mean?
Hey Phrozenflame, Zhuhai means “Pearl Sea.”
There are how many privately owned airlines in China??
There are three private airlines were actually approved just this year. But other than the three national majors – Air China (the flag carrier), China Eastern and China Southern – China’s carriers are mainly municipal though they are supposed be run as private ventures based on profit (doesn’t always work out that way because the local government will take losses to keep people employed.)
At one point there were something like 50 carriers set up by provinces and major municipalities. Over the past few years, many of the smaller ones were incorporated into Air China, China Eastern and China Southern but there are still around 30-odd regional airlines.
It’s a bit of mess outside the areas serviced by the three majors and the bigger regional lines like Hainan, Shanghai or Shandong. Actually, the smaller regionals like Shandong and Shanghai were the first ones to order the ARJ21. No commitment yet from the Chinese majors.
This is the amazing thing about the Chinese carrier industry. Unlike Russia, there is no dictat for China’s carriers to buy Chinese. Otherwise, China’s aircraft makers would have a captive market. In fact, the Chinese carriers were powerful enough on their own that they had helped kill the promising Y10 project because they didn’t want to be saddled with a Chinese plane that might scare away western and overseas Chinese passengers.
Even if Chengdu is building prototypes for experimentation, my guess is that it’s still a private or low budget project, typical of the redundancies practices we have seen with the Chinese defense industry.
The redundancies come from overcapacity and the need to keep an excessively large workforce employed. This is why the J-7 and J-8 variants like the MF and J8-D,F,H are kept around. AVIC I and II are both more than twice the size of Boeing. It’s absolutely pathetic.
They are moving a lot of the assembly line workers to non-aviation items like cars or trucks but there is only so much of that they could do. They have one of the largest commercial home markets in the world but they have no product. If China had a series of commercial models then maybe those workers can be kept employed.
But they don’t so the crappy old military lines like the J-7s and J-8s are kept alive to keep people at work.
This is the only thing saving the F-7MF. Any rational business-oriented firm, like those in the West, would never put out one product which would undercut the another like CAC is doing with the MF in regards to FC-1.
The Battle over China’s Airspace
One of the greatest battles in aviation today. Boeing versus Airbus in China.
http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/10/03/1096741885663.html
Airbus and Boeing battle Chinese market
October 3, 2004 – 1:34PMFrench President Jacques Chirac’s trip this week to Beijing will bring into sharp focus the battle between the world’s biggest aircraft makers, Europe’s Airbus and Boeing of the US, for the prized Chinese market.
. . .
Chirac, who will be in China from October 8-12, will be accompanied by a bevy of French business leaders hoping to clinch deals in areas ranging from high-speed rail links to the construction of nuclear reactors.
But the competition is particularly intense for the Chinese aviation market because the stakes are so high.
The market will require over the next two decades 1,295 planes, according to the airplane maker China Aviation Industry Corporation (AVIC 1). Boeing estimates it at 2,127 and Airbus at 1,600 aircraft, according to the French economic mission.
These giddying estimates are based on strong growth by the three main Chinese airlines – Beijing-based Air China, China Eastern in Shanghai, and China Southern based in Guangzhou – but also on expansion at smaller Chinese companies such as Hainan Airlines, Shanghai Airlines, Xiamen Airlines and China Yunnan.
GD’s comments: One of the most massive aviation spending sprees of all times and Chinese aircraft manufacturers have almost nothing to offer to Chinese airlines. The cancellation of the Y-10 is absolutely devastating seen in this light. (Though from the service business standpoint, the fact that the Chinese airlines could grow to the point where they could afford to buy so much aircraft supports the wisdom of divorcing the Chinese manufacturers from Chinese carriers.)
This is why the ARJ21, the Y8, the Y7/MA60 and the heavy transport projects are even more important than the J-10, FC-1 or any other military project.
If Shenyang, Xian and the other of China’s military a/c manufacturers can capture even a part of its home market for commercial jets, they would by default be some of the most well-funded aviation firms in the world and thus have the resources for better military aircraft.
Unfortunately I could see nothing in the coming decades that would loosen the Western grip on the Chinese market for large commercial jets – though Airbus will probably annihilate Boeing in China because of US export restrictions hobbling Boeing.
There are actually at least two Chinese engines in the RD-93 category (~18,000lb thrust)
There is the newly developed Kunlun core of which the Kunlun III is supposed to be the turbofan member of the family,
There is also a second turbofan made by the Southern Aero-Engine Corp. (1)
——————————————————————
Notes:
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2002/10/7/165920.shtml
(1)” in April, Southern Aero-Engine Corp., located in Zhuzhou city of Hunan province in central China, finished indigenous development of turbofan engine destined for modern fighters. New engine successfully passed the tests.
And in May 2002, Shenyang Jet Engine Research Institute, subordinated to Shenyang Aircraft Industry Corp., finished the development of Kunlun jet engine. According to Beijing media, “Kunlun, engine, of advanced technology and reliable in performance, has passed state examination and will become the standard [engine] for equipping PLA Air Force. “
“Southern Aero-Engine Corp., also subordinated to AVIC-2, will probably bring to Zhuhai its newly developed turbofan engine (competitor of Kunlun engine) “
Addendum: Sorry for using Newsmax but in this case, Dr. Alexandr Nemets is fairly reliable since his sources are mostly translation of Chinese stories.
The latest news from JDW suggests that it may be harder than previously thought to deliver the JF-17s due to engine export restrictions from Russia.
I believe someone posted that particular story already. It was actually a rehash of the Russian engine argument according to “foreign observers” not any new news out of China or Pakistan.
The FC-1 though envisioned to use the RD-93 was never designed specifically around the RD-93 that Western observers assume. All official Chinese news accounts say the plane was designed in the form of open modules with avionics, weapons, engines and even FCS up to availability and customers’ preference.
Very doubtful that they would be flying two prototypes and be building the third if the engine is a dead end for Pakistan since the PAF is the raison d’etre for the FC-1.