GoldenDragonI responded in the same tone as the one about China not having an indigenous helo when the Z-6 predated the ALH by decades.
And for goodness sakes, the Dhruv has a German consultant, the same one that developed the BK117 (along with the Japanese) way back in 1979.
The two look almost identical with the Dhruv even using the rod ventral trailer that is unique to the BK117.
If you consider that “flaming” then I take it my “flame” back and show a picture as an explanation instead.
The engine being Turbomecha is real enough. And so is the fact that in 1967 when the Z-6 program began in China, there was no access to Western or Russian expertise then.
GoldenDragonOh and whats this for? :confused:
That’s a 40 tube 122mm naval rocket system (according to the title). The small print is too blurry to read. I would assume as a naval system, anti-sub rounds would be carried also.
GoldenDragonAs for the first indeginous Chinese helicopter. This is a silly question ask because if you actually studied Chinese aviation you would know that China first designed and flew its indigenous helicopter in the 1960s when China was isolated from both the West and East blocs.
There was no Eurocopter to consult and hand over the the BK117 plans and no Turbomeca to power the so-called indigenous helicopter.
The Chinese machine was truly indigenous.
The copter in question is the Z-6. It first flew in 1968 and about 15 were built. It stayed classified until the 1970s.
Now Chinese rotorcrafts are probably the weakest segment of China’s aviation industry.
But its first indigenous helo beat India’s by three decades and had an engine made entirely in China not in France, the Wz-5 turboshaft.
GoldenDragonGD it is quite disingenuous on your part to quote a list of parts from the boeing china
website without mentioning the dollar value of the work that has been supplied.The following link makes it clear:
http://english.people.com.cn/200401/20/eng20040120_133067.shtmlBoeing and Airbus had each purchased cumulatively $500 mil worth of parts from
PRC suppliers in all of their history of sourcing from PRC. Thats not a whole lot – the cost of four 747 ? the real profits obviously are pocketed by the system integrator boeing and airbus themselves. $12
mil was supplied to airbus in one year – again barely the cost of a FC1.
Nuts. Of course, Boeing and Airbus would make the real profits, they’re the companies. China subcontracts.
The only reason Airbus/Boeing is in the discussion is someone brought up the point of India doing work for Airbus/Boeing as something to make up for its complete lack of products otherwise.
This is totally untrue.
China’s cooperation with Airbus and Boeing reaches far deeper and goes back further. There are far more Chinese factories and Chinese workers building parts for both companies than there are Indian ones.
China is the big market for Airbus and Boeing in Asia not India. The leverage is with China. And the parts made in China are set to grow even more if were only because of Chinese large orders of their aircraft.
China will simply be far more important in the future for both companies than India will be in the forseeable future.
If you really want to quote from the same article:
” Boeing and China’s industrial co-operation began in the mid-1970s. Since then, teams of Boeing manufacturing, quality and planning experts have been in China providing on-site training for building Boeing parts and assemblies. ”“Boeing has procured about US$500 million in aviation hardware from China. “This is projected to double by 2009 and reach US$1.3 billion by 2010.” “
“Industrial co-operation between Airbus and the Chinese aviation industry began in 1985, when the General Administration of Civil Aviation of Shanghai, now China Eastern Airlines, became the first carrier in China to operate the European consortium’s aircraft. “
“Since then, the total value of projects subcontracted by Airbus to Chinese manufacturers has exceeded US$500 million.”
GoldenDragonQuestions (and no flames here, I genuinely want to understand):
What was the arrangement between Russia and China when the former transferred technology for the MiG series aircraft (MiG-19, MiG-21) etc.? Was China allowed to resell the aircraft? Or did the fact that Russia and China became enemies sometime later override the original agreement?
What all capabilities were transferred by Russia to China before their friendship broke? Specifically, which aircraft produced by China were derivatives of aircraft whose technology had been transferred by Russia. Which aircraft were completely new in the sense that they are not direct clones/derivatives of Russian aircraft (before the latest ones – FC1 and J-10 that I know are not derived directly from Russian aircraft)?
(Clarification: my question does not refer to bolt up manufacture but to design)
TIA.
I’ll answer your question.
But I want to make something clear. I hope there wouldn’t be another response such as this:
” Most of these “customers” are on the bottom of the pond, they will take scraps if they can get them.”
That statement by Airpower is stupid and is insulting to a lot of countries. Even the poorest countries pay for a product, there is no nation that just stands around taking “scraps” from others.
And most of those countries that China sells to are neither destitute nor isolated (Kenya, Peru and Egypt) so don’t insult people when one can’t answer the real question as to why China has an aviation clientele and India doesn’t.
Most of the vessels from China’s shipbuilding industry is to Europe and the US but that industry occupies a different niche. Customers are customers.
To answer your question, Sridhar:
When the USSR abruptly broke off relations, there were some aircraft with full planes such the Yak 130 and the MiG-17. Most of the other planes had partial blueprints. The H-5, H-6, the Y-8, the Y-7 as well as the J-7 are very different from their Soviet counterparts
For example, the H-5 that was exported to Romania (among others) was a Chinese IL-28 “Beagle.”
But “Harbin had access to only about 60% of available drawings from its Il-28 overhaul work. While reverse-engineering the remainder, Harbin introduced several major modifications and some improvements to the mainplanes and tail assembly. Other changes included new Chinese surveillance/mapping radar and IFF.” (1)
And even when they did have full plans to a plane, China would often change it to something entirely different such as the CJ6A which was based on the Yak 130.(2)
So when China began exporting planes, all of them were built without any foreign components otherwise it would have been impossible.
There were no “license” because the Russians had left during the split expecting that there was no way China could have build these planes, especially aircraft with incomplete plans.
—————————————————
Notes:
(1)http://www.aviationweek.com/shownews/01paris4/intell16.htm
(2)Read this on the explanation of the CJ6A’s development and history; a great read that tells you very different the CJ6A is from a Yak 130.
http://home.earthlink.net/~yak52driver/goolsby/goolsby.html
“Nine years ago when I ‘discovered’ the CJ-6A and fell in love with the airplane, I was told incorrectly that the CJ-6A was a copy of the Yak 18A. It was a popular fable of the time. Even my export shipping paperwork from China had it listed as “CJ-6A/Yak18A”. But these two airplanes are very different in design and their actual histories reveal that. “
GoldenDragonYes there is such a thing as an undesirable customer, those that are considered rogue, and generally embargoed find a friend in China’s military equipment. They are the only one they can buy from.
Nope, Kenya, Egypt, Canada, Peru and most of the 20 other nations can buy western as well. In fact, there no of the Chinese customers have an exclusively Chinese air force, they could and do buy from other countries.
Egypt buying a basic jet trainer and Canada buying some transports does not an aerospace power make – as you were implying in your posts.
You are the only one attempting sarcastic “aerospace” power. I’ve always said that China fulfill a niche and it’s a niche that most other countries can’t fill.
Thats because the liscence production of aircraft does not necessiarly allow for the reexportation of the aircraft and not to mention the Indian aerospace industry until recently was largely for its domestic consumption and requirements.
Exactly. It’s licensed production where many of the parts even today are taken bought from East European or CSI countries and assembled in India.
All the planes that China sells are created from ground up with with parts and systems from China.
China’s aerospace is largely home consumption also. In fact, China’s home consumption is massive larger.
It is silly to say that India ignored exports because they were concentrating on the domestic market. China made at least three times more planes for its home market and still exported a lot of planes compared to India. The fact is India couldn’t find an export market. It’s that simple.
The thousands of Indian built aircraft such as the Mig-21s, Mig-27s, Jaguars, Dornier 228s, the Cheetaks, Cheetahs, the Avros, Maruts, Kirans, ALH Dhruvs the (to be built) Su-30MKIs & LCAs are all primarily for domestic consumption.
All of those were licensed and depended on parts sent from other countries.
The MiG-21s and MiG-27s were never all Indian. In fact, Russia claims that the IAF problems with the -21s and -27s were the bad parts India is buying from places outside Russia.
India was never able to find customers.
The Y-12s, Y-8s, Y-7s, J-7s, H-5s, H-6, Q-5s, J-6s, Y-5s, CJ6As and a few others I’ve forgotten were made in China from the bolt up.
And that includes engine and avionics. This gives China an autonomous home industry and one which could export planes it made entirely on its own.
[quoet]India does not export arms, yet has a huge domestic military industrial complex – its mainly for the homeland. [/quote]
China has a larger industry that produces mostly for the homeland but it could still export because it has a list of clients.
As good products come out you will see interest from other countries. Like Chile recently with the ALH Dhruv.
Has the Dhruv actually sold? I say good luck with it. The Z-9 has already been sold to at least two countries: Mali and Mauritania. You could say that the Z-9 is just the Dauphin but the ALH is, as others here had pointed out, no more than the BK117.
And why do you consider Chile a more desirable customer than a Peru or a Kenya?
If you want to talk about “interest.” Venezuela is looking into “the acquisition of 24 Nanchang Aircraft Manufacturing Company K-8 basic jet trainers and ground attack aircraft together with 10 Harbin Aircraft Manufacturing Corporation Y-12 twin turbo-prop short take-off and landing general-purpose transport aircraft.” (1)
China has yet to make an internationally competitve product on its own that is leading edge (aside from the J-10 assumptions aside). China primarily sells to dictatorships and rogue nations, barring one or two exceptions. Chinese arms industry is geared for exports, in order to support its military.
The Chinese arms industry has always been homegrown and geared towards sufficiency. That happens when you are fighting with both the US and the USSR when China was doing in the 1960s.
Please, rogue nations? Peru, Egypt, Pakistan, Canada, Iran and 20 other nations?
Most of these “customers” are on the bottom of the pond, they will take scraps if they can get them.
That’s a pretty haughty attitude from a nation, I must say, that most people around the world wouldn’t see as one at the “top” of the pond by any measure.
Domestic policy was for India’s military industry to be primarily for its own consumption, only now will you see aircraft like the ALH (and show me a Chinese developed helo even remotely close) and the LCA, LTA, the SARAS, and the HJT-36 and other competitve products coming online in the next decade – it will be interesting. There have been limited exports and you will see far more in the future.
China developed the Z-6 in the 1960s and 1970s. Entirely indigenous.
ALH is the BK117, it really isn’t that big a deal. Its engine is from Turbomeca and most of its parts are from Eurocopter. That is no difference from the Z-9/Daulphin relationship except the Z-9 has more Chinese parts than the Dhruv has Indian parts. And the Z-9 has been sold abroad.
The future?
China is already selling aircraft today not hoping for sales in the future. Not only is the Chinese internal market much bigger than India but it has an external one as well.
The future looks far better for China than for India.
What China has coming up are the
Y12E
Y8F600
Y8X
FC-1
JL-9
L-15
Z-9 variants
Z-11 variants
Also the K-8 has a Chinese turbofan engine, the WS-11 now, and interest is climbing again. CATIC has bought 100 K-8 aircraft from the Hongdu Aviation Industry Group for export. (2)
China not only has more new products coming out than India. It has established products already in the market place that are selling.
Don’t forget about the ancillary products like BVRAAMS and SAMs. China already has two of the former in the market place: the FD-60 and the SD-10. It has sold the KS-1A medium range SAM to Malaysia.
There is absolutely no comparision.
No comparison, but HAL is holding its own in production as well as supplying engineering design work to these companies. BEL was rated as one of the best globally for midsize companies.
Please, take a serious look at Boeing’s and Airbus’s China contracts.
Shanghai: 737 horizontal stabilizers
Xian: 737 vertical fins and 747 trailing-edge ribs
Chengdu: 757 stabilizers, fins and tail sections
Shenyang: 757 cargo doors and 737 tail sections
Xiamen: Airplane overhaul and repair
Tianjin: Parts for interiors
Beijing: Airline center for logistics, training
and services
By 2001, there were “3,100 Boeing aircraft flying worldwide with major
parts made in China.” (3)
There is no more important non-western partner for Airbus or Boeing than China. I don’t care who rated BEL as what. There is no comparision between the importance and leverage of the Chinese industry and market to that of India.
———————————————————
Notes:
(1) http://www.global-defence.com/2002/land-s.afr.html
(2) http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/200303/13/eng20030313_113237.shtml
(3) http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1571/is_24_17/ai_76134351/pg_3
GoldenDragonEmbraer is impressive! 58 planes and $7 billion!
I believe this the largest US DoD aerospace contract for a company outside the US and not coming from the UK/Western Europe.
GoldenDragonMaking over 12,000 units of crap and selling to the least desirable markets really does not mean much.
In one sentence he tries to denigrate not only China but all the countries that buy from China, including Egypt, Iran and Canada :rolleyes:
There is no such thing as an undesirable customer. A buyer is a buyer. There is no castes in the market place. What makes Kenya, Egypt or Mauritania less worthy?
Stupid.
It would be one thing if India was selling to anyone at all but they can’t even crack the low end market and they turn their noses at other nations? Maybe those nations didn’t think Indian products were any good?
I’m sure, unlike China, India will only sell to the US, Japan and France :rolleyes:
China doesn’t match the US, Russia or UK and France. But there is absolutely no comparion between a country which sells and had sold a wide variety of airplanes to the world and one who doesn’t. It’s ludicrous to think otherwise.
The idea that India matches China in the aviation field is not supported by anyone except people from India. This fact is borne out by glaringly in the market place.
The following are CURRENTLY sold around the world. And they are sold to a growing list of well over twenty nations.
Y-12 variants
Y-7/MA60
Y-8 variants
K-8 variants
J-7PG
FT-7PG
N5A
Z-9
Subunits of AVIC II alone had sold 717 aircraft by 2001.
Now, if someone can list the finished aircraft sold from India to another country in the recent years, maaybe we could compare this better.
And since India despises third world or “undesirable” markets, hopefully the list includes items sold to customers who are only from Europe and N America.
Personally, I can’t think of a type sold on the world market from HAL and I haven’t seen any listed in Janes. Perhaps, Janes and I were wrong on this regards.
As for Airbus and Boeing, Chinese subcontracting with those firms is far bigger than India for the simple fact that China is able to buy far, far more Boeings and Airbuses than India (or any other country in the world besides the US) and that ability is leveraged into major offsets.
GoldenDragonWell… India got some works from Boeing. If China is accepted by the US then it could be the same. But looking at divide and conquerer tactic of the US I doubt that they will accept China.
China always had a lot of Boeing and Airbus work. In their latest respective models – the 7E7 (1) and the A380(2) – both Boeing and Airbus went out of their way to highlight their Chinese components.
In fact, “Jinling shipyard factory has delivered a special ship for transporting A380 aircraft assembling.” Also, “one fourth of the total 3,500 Airbus aircraft in service have parts made in China.” (2)
China simply buys so many airliners that even with US government opposition, Boeing needs to give work to China. Otherwise, China puts all its orders which – along with the US – are the largest in the world, into Airbus.
———————————————————–
Notes:
(1)http://composite.about.com/od/inthenews/a/bpr_boeing.htm
“Chengdu Aircraft to Manufacture Rudder
BEIJING, June 10 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ – Boeing (NYSE: BA – News) today, with China Aviation Industry Corporation I (AVIC I) and China Aviation Industry Corporation II (AVIC II), signed memoranda of understanding to provide parts and assemblies for Boeing airplanes, including the rudder for the Boeing 7E7 Dreamliner. The signing celebration at the Boeing China office marked the first announcement of Chinese suppliers selected for Boeing 7E7 opportunities. “
(2)http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2004-07/06/content_1575302.htm
“China and Airbus signed an agreement worth 100 million in June,including a subcontract program for the world’s biggest aircraft A380.”
“Up to now, one fourth of the total 3,500 Airbus aircraft in service have parts made in China.”
(3)http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5180537/
Chinese firms to supply parts for Boeing 7E7
Aircraft maker hopes for jet orders from Beijing
GoldenDragonGolden Dragon is quite right, outside of US and Russia, no country can match china. China sells total solutions and the product range has good breadth. With in a few years, China’s semi-conductor industry will take-off resulting in great avionics also.
I wouldn’t go that far. The other P5 members, UK and France, have more advance aviation industries.
In fact, in civil aviation which is actually even more technically difficult in many ways than military aircraft. UK and France, especially through Airbus, is far ahead of even the Russia in the civil space.
In many ways, military planes are allowed to be less reliable, less efficient and less technically advance than world class commercial craft. The problems associated with Russian engines like the AL31 powerplant would have never been allowed on a civil carriers, even third world ones, like China Eastern, Phuket Airline or Shanghai AL.
So Airbus’ assault on Boeing’s hold on the civil market is a sure sign that European engineering is very close to the US. In the civil space, it leaves Russia way behind.
But outside the P5, there isn’t anyone close to China’s depth and breadth in the aviation industry.
Embraer is a one company that puts Brazil a step above others and Saab of Sweden is even deeper across the range of disciplines for aircraft.
Neither of the two could crank out planes and aeronautical systems like China, though Sweden I would imagine is ahead in most avionics, thought not the engine and not necessarily in radars (especially in light of 052C’s APAR and the wide variety of GCRs and SAM systems that China produces.)
GoldenDragonTaiwan and South Korea are the two biggest investors in Vietnam. The government there is very corrupt as we all know. Money runs the government in Vietnam. So if there are any military purchases. And if Russia can not meet Vietnam’s need. I would say The Koreans or Taiwanese will win the next contract. I would go for the IDF fighter. It’s a great BVR fighter that’s very underated by people here.
Actually, the Vietnamese communists were considered noncorrupt until very recently. Corruption came with the opening up of the economy. Not that this is a bad thing. Vietnam was the second fastest growing economy last year. But some corruption always occurs when there is money.
There are two kinds of corruption, the one like that in Africa that stifles growth and the one that flourishes in a rapidly expanding economy because people are skimming off the top. Vietnam, like China and many other East Asian states, is obviously has the second.
Vietnam, obviously, wouldn’t be buying Chinese weapons. I think Vietnam like all East Asian countries prefer western products if they can get their hands on them. Korea is definitely the most likely choice because of its access to western tech. I think the KT-1 will probably be sold and the T/A-50, the main question being US approval, would probably end up there as well.
GoldenDragonLet us just say for the sake of arguement, the USA gets into a conflict with the PRC over Taiwan. Even if America is able to maintain an honest 20:1 kill ratio….. if you don’t have enough numbers of aircraft for attrition warfare, you will loose.
Your numbers are very, very wrong.
First of all. the US has the biggest collection of air forces in the world. Even if it were a 1:1 to attrition rate, the US would win by a mile.
The 5000-plane PLAAF is long gone since the 1980s. The number of Chinese aircraft today is probably ~2500 PLAAF (including large numbers of liason and transport craft) and around 6-800 PLAN (Janes 2003 has PLANAF at 800, most others see it lower.)
The USAF has about 2000 F-16s in service alone. The Navy/Marines have probably over 1200 F/A-18s and SuperBugs. That’s about the same as the PLAAF/PLAN in its entirety in two US frontline fighter types.
We haven’t even thrown in the US bombers, heavy fighters (F-15s, F-14s) and dedicated strike aircraft.
And all of the world’s other air forces, except Russia’s, is far, far smaller than China’s.
So even with 1:1 attrition the USAF wins handily. A 20:1 ratio would clear out all air forces, including China’s, within days.
20:1 from even 500 F/A-18s would be 10,000 downed planes!!!!!
Forget about the thousands and thousands of other American air superiority aircraft.
Use your numbers carefully, please 🙂
GoldenDragonThe EF is doomed to a very limited order, I would think. And with Germany and Italy both grumbling, everyone just might take a limited number of planes each to settle differences and end a bad state of affairs (probably after Tranche 2.) The Eurofighter is too far along to cancel outright, though.
The JSF project has too much potential, especially in the development cycle, for the UK, who are reportedly getting a disproportionate amount of the project’s dollars (according to some articles up to 30 percent under the current setup) to be in danger.
GoldenDragonIf you built a MiG-25 with modern technology, you’d call it a MiG-31 (or MiG-31M if it was even more modern) 😀
I don’t know, Sean. According to many self-described pundits here, wing fences are ancient, obsolete tech and the MiG-31 has two big ones.
GoldenDragonNormally? You have to sell something first before the practice becomes “normal.”
The Dhruv article is from 2000. There hasn’t been any sales to Vietnam. The only aircraft that Vietnam has expressed interest in recently from what I’ve read were the Flankers and the Korean KT-1 and T-50.
Regarding China and Vietnam, political show or not, economic relations are very good.
There were articles in several pubs, including the Far Eastern Economic Review, that said Vietnam is quietly but actively making itself a de factor member of “Greater China” with its own economy tied not only to the booming Chinese one but also Hong Kong, Taiwan, Singapore and the Overseas Chinese economic web across SE Asia.
Most of the investment into Vietnam actually comes from “Greater China” and the Chinese Yuan is used in north Vietnam (as well as Laos and Burma) even though the reminbi is non-convertible.
So I don’t think most Vietnamese, especially in north Vietnam, think just about “f—ing ch-nk” when they shake a Chinese person’s hand.
They also think “when I sell my watermelons to this f—ing ch-nk, I can use the yuans to buy a f—ing ch-nky color television and dvd player so I can watch pirated ch-nky movies from Hong Kong.”
Sign In
