star49thats whay i was saying all along. read Now. it means it happened in the past.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061226/ap_on_sc/russia_china_space
The Chinese are still some 30 years behind us, but their space program has been developing very fast,” Perminov said at a news conference. “They are quickly catching up with us.”Russia sold China the technology that formed the basis of its manned space program, which launched its first astronaut in 2003 and two others in 2005. The Chinese Shenzhou spacecraft closely resembles the Russian Soyuz
“We aren’t transferring any technologies to China now,” Perminov said. “This issue has been under special control of the government.”
He added that some Russian scientists who violated this ban have been punished
star49[Egberto]
Making a statement like that provokes to ask; just how many aircraft in the world are flying nowadays with a Soviet/Russian ‘glass cockpit’? If I remember rightly the majority of such aircraft would be the Il-96 and Tu-204 airliners of which only a few dozen have been produced between them. Even the Indian Su-30s are equipped with French MFDs, while their MiG-29s have yet to enter service.:rolleyes:
what is meant by Glass Cockpit? what is those Su-27SM, MIG-31 and MIG-29SMT flying with?
When I read that statement I felt I had to look around the back of the ‘BenQ’ LCD monitor I was using, to check out its origins.
Origins? u dont check origins by looking back of the monitor. there is enormous flow of intellectual capital without corresponding return in money from developed world to east. they dont even think about relatively advanced like SK.
Byline: Edited by Stephen Baker; By Moon Ihlwan
WHERE DO KOREAN companies go for innovation? Increasingly, to Russia. Samsung, LG Electronics, and Daewoo, among others, are relying on Russian engineers. “There’s an enormous pool of scientific and engineering talent we can tap,” says Song Yong Won, a Russia specialist at the state-run Korea Institute of Science & Technology.
Examples of Russian technical prowess abound. It was a Russian who helped develop the cooling pipes that are crucial for LG air conditioners. Another played a role in the invention of the long-lasting recording heads that helped Daewoo sell 4.2 million VCRs last year. And Russians lent a hand designing the image-processing chips in Samsung’s digital TVs.
A Korean company has even found a market for a treatment from the Russian space program to remove toxins from the bloodstream of cosmonauts. Salus Biotech rebranded the serum, called KGB, and has sold 70,000 vials as a fail-safe hangover remedy.
Why are so many Russians working for Koreans? Partly because Korea can no longer depend on its traditional industrial patrons, the Japa-nese. It was Mitsubishi Motors that taught Hyundai Motor to build cars, and Sanyo that introduced TV technology to Samsung. Now these companies are Japan’s fiercest competitors, and Tokyo is no longer eager to help
Yup; It’s a Taiwanese based company with production based in mainland China. I wouldn’t underestimate the Chinese just yet!!
and Taiwan got knowledge and money from?
Some Russian tourists and business travelers might also say the same thing about their own aircraft industry
but it is there own.
star49Sorry but you cannot pick and choose. If a plane is smaller than a Rafale, how could it be just as heavy? Didn’t the Pentagon reports also once compared the J-10 to the Hornet, then the Super Hornet? Should you take such metaphors seriously or just metaphorically?
how do u know it is smaller than Rafale and what kind of material it is using? M2K has larger wing area than F-16 but it is lighter.
Pentagaon reports didnot compare J-10 Weight to Hornet. it was more in manevrability sense.
The fact that the article call planes like F-11 and refers to the SMK, also shows a sense of cluelessness with regards to technical details, that suggests that the article is written by a bureaucrat who is merely gathering from different sources.
why it is clueless? J-10 becomes F-10 and J-11 becomes F-11. SMK is the upgrade standard with K for China.
I’m sorry but if you know Pentagon reports, the Pentagon—at least the ones who are in the “know”—do not put everything they actually know on a report for public consumption lest they betray their own intelligence sources.
Frankly it has the opposite effect. Instead of showing China military progress. It is creating mockery of China Scientific potentail.
What is important is the gist of the report, observations on the strategy, trends and direction of the PLA, not on the myopic details which no one can get exactly right without extensive background checking.
What kind of abnormal trend and direction u can deduce. it is just collection of knowledge and materail from here and there.
star49Wrong. It shows _you_ have no common sense because no one in their right mind would say that. Why don’t you do some actual study on an airframe design like the B-29?
I know much more. Just compare BlackJack of 70s tech with B-29. and u will find the complexity. Just look at the engines alone.
That’s wrong. The Soviet Union had plenty of resources and appropriated an extremely large section of their GDP to military development.
Yes Soviet Union had plenty of resources but look at the burden. It has to rebuild itself from second world war. It has to colonize the eastern euorpe, It has to feed the 15 republics. it has to spend money on middleastern wars not to mention all the socialist movements in third word courntries it has to fight the islamists for two decades.(West cannot afford even for 1 decade) just the intelligence cost to society alone is enormous. they were starved of R&D funding by 70s.
where is the burden on China?
it was practically spoon fed by SovietUnion, West and Japan interms of AID, student exchange and investments.
Tell me where the Han and the Xia is copied from? Or the JH-7? Sometimes your accusation of copying comes from a feeble mind because copying does not solve anything. Copying only gives you an outline to fill, which you have to do on your own self. This only shows your lack of understanding of the development process.
and when these Han and Xia, JH-7 become operational? after 7 decades of obsorbing foreign intellecutual capital and that pentagon report still mentioning Fbc-1 perfection.
Sorry, but China was making the PL-2 and the PL-5. There was nothing wrong with China sticking to close combat—considering how the Russians and the Americans reemphasized close combat due to the Vietnam War.
I am not sure about the effectiveness of those weopons at that time. what was those export F-6 and F-7 using in 80s?
Tell me when Russia has equivalently matching ong range standoff EO weapons of the same range and warhead that is actually in service. These weapons are at least twice or more the range of the Kh-59ME.
If it isnt in service it does not mean they can’t do it. No one is questioning there ability. there newer AWACS tracked cruise missiles at 2000KM range.
Digitally created? What kind of RD is digitally created?
R&D was done before that. the design was digitally created. they dont have to go drawing board again and again. so devlopment cost is lower. thats why it is called Research and development.
Where did the 1.6 billion come from? Show me the sources.
It is very easy to find the sources.
And where did the billions come from?
They are now richer than China by any standard of measure. if u know anything about economics.
Upgrading isn’t hard at all. Designing something brand new is different.
I think u dont even know about engine upgrades, noise reduction and those flight tests with english cockpit certification, modernizing plants, training labor. It is practically building aircraft from scratch under different methods and economics.
And what makes you think development of an FCR is cheap? Tell me the cost of live fire testing for example, of each and every AAM and PGM, doing so in batches and in different alttiudes, speeds and launching conditions. Tell me about the salaries of engineers.
Developing FCR is expensive for those who dont have the skills.
developing FCR is cheap when u know what u are doing and have technical ability. russian AAM and PGMs are not expensive and neither is MIG sorties.
It means MMICs now are better, and the DSPs meant to process their signals are far more capable now.
So? and what has China anything to do with those things?
What do you know about military grade? This means among others, passing a required certain failure before hours benchmark. This means EMF and ECM resistance as well as cosmic radiation. What does the Soviet Union know about “military grade’ because military grade is very relative—and SU equipment won’t even come close in passing what is military grade in the West.
Soviet Union does not know about Military grade and China knows which hasnt built anything of its own?. and has no basis for Molecular physics and cannot even built the tools for conducting the research. Design and Control.
Kozlov said. “At the same time, we believe that the most important thing is where the system was designed, not where it was made. We have a sufficient number of competent people that could work on serious on the integrated circuit design market, and we are setting up a system of design centers in cooperation with other interested agencies for this purpose,” he noted.
“We want to bring the design centers up to the cutting-edge level, fitting them with necessary equipment and software. After this we are planning to launch production of experimental templates and establish a system of control over the production of electronic devices to these templates at foreign factories,” Kozlov said
Lol. It means you can do anything except build what is the most essential building block of an AESA array, the recieving-transmission module, the MMIC, which is the heart and soul of the entire concept.
so they Phazotron contact it to other manufactures in Russia. not outside the country that u seem to imply.
Wrong. If that is back in the old Soviet Union, it would have been done in an instant. The fact that it now takes what—3 long years to do—show you the lack of both engineering and skilled labor to actually do it in quick time.
and how much u know that those plants are already booked with Civillian orders and upgradation of equipments. Soviet Union was producing products with different quality and without taking into consideration the economics.
Who ever told you they are unfit for AWACS? You have not proven me wrong, not the very least. For a simple modification to take three years show you don’t have the labor infrastructure anymore. Back in the SU days, they could have built 38 IL-76s in a matter of months. Now they have not done a single one.
they are unfit for AWACS because Ruaf wants to get rid of them. very excessive consumption and low reliability. IAF chose IL-76MF. even more advance PS-90A1 is coming.
Soviet Union was producing cheap disposable stuff. (I think Plaaf has the same standards to keep producing for employment)
The proof of the pudding is where is the planes?
It would have been better to just refurbish old ones.
star49The current US Pentagon report describes the J-10 as an indigenous Chinese fighter in the same performance class as the Eurofighter and Rafale. The Pentagon report says that the J-10 completed development in 2004 and up to 1200 J-10s could be built.
This is not some clueless article written by some lazy journalist or some idle speculation on some website. This is from the Pentagon. They are not always right, but they are a heavyweight source.
The Pentagon report busts many of the fashionable myths floating around about the J-10. These myths include the claim that the J-10 is not indigenous or is some Lavi type fighter, or that it has failed in development and is being replaced by the FC-1 or Mirage 2000 etc.
The Pentagon says that:
– the J-10 is an indigenous fighter
– the J-10 is in the same performance class as the Eurofighter and Rafale
– the J-10 completed development in 2004
– up to 1200 J-10s could be built
Pentagon said J-10 is in the same Weight and Performance class as EF or Rafale. so it means its weight is 10 to 11 tons. Which directly contridicts what Crobato was speculating on this form about the weight. and with lower thrust , higher profile and smaller wing area i doubt it is fully in Rafale or EF class interms of performance. Read this it is on Page 4.
http://www.defenselink.mil/pubs/pdfs/China%20Report%202006.pdf
and Starting from page 20 under foreign acquizition. every thing is put on outside technical assitance with few exception. even putting Space cooperation , technical design and materail support with russia. 1200 is not suprizing number considering F-6 example. and also putting F-11 as Su-27SMK.
Infact they made a definite statement that China has yet to make a a single sophisticated system from research, development and implementation without outside help. (Page 31, 2005) so question of Indigenous does not arise.
In 2005 report they put PL-12(Page 31) Seeker, rudder control actuation, system design, inertial navigation on Russian cooperation. and the same token putting Z-10 as Indigenous with entering in 2014.
http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Jul2005/d20050719china.pdf
star49That’s incorrect. You don’t know enough even of the technology in that era to say that.
how is that not correct? things were very simple in the past. it is just common sense.
Tu-4s lasted well into the fifties, and Russia did continue with many designs that proved durable and long lasting, among them the Tu-16 and the Tu-95.
but they build alot of others things. they didnot have the kind of resources like West or China.
Why should you change for the sake of changing? Even B-52s and Phantoms are still in use today because the design is good.
I am not arguing changing for sake of changing. u havent produced anything beside copying. if u have done some thing else. I would not raise the point.
China continued to make J-6 because the improvements they put on the J-6 reached to a point that a J-7 or MiG-21 will not outperform it in any close combat fight. The plane had the advantage in terms of visibility, with swept wings, its borderline stability makes it very quick to initiate turns, it does not bleed energy into turns like the MiG-21 did, and the TWR is more favorable than its supposed successor. Which is one reason why China didn’t build the J-7 in large numbers, and in fact relatively so even today. Compared to the thousands of MiG-21s built else where, the J-7s only numbered in the hundreds.
It just show China was not capable of producing Wvr weopons thats why it has to improve J-6 for close combat. MIG-21 were built in thousands because it has to fight in middleastern wars and supplied to satellite states. China does not have that many obligations.
And even then, China makes the J-7s because it is cheap, and its good plane to start pilots, especially when the J-6s are gone. They can learn their art there inexpensively before moving on to more powerful fighters like the Su-27. Like I said, why get rid of a good design for the sake of change.
the same question arises. there was nothing else built besides continuing with the old. that raises the question.
China cancelled the H-6 after awhile, and then chose to revive it, mainly because it is a convenient platform to launch their long range stand off YJ-62 and KD-63 antiship and cruise missiles.
so u got the weopons from foreign intellectual capital so the old platform becomes useful. why didnot it happened at first time?
So does China’s car industry. By the way, companies like Chery are already on the way in making their own designs.
sorry to say it is not like this. show me that scale of intellectual disputes in Russia.
http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/english/doc/2004-12/18/content_401235.htm
Chinese automakers must enhance their independent development capabilities, instead of copying others. Otherwise, we will lag further behind foreign rivals,” Jia Xinguang with the China Automotive Industry Consulting and Development Corp, said in an interview with China Daily.
Around 90 per cent of China’s passenger car market is controlled by foreign brands
Yes, yes, we know about that. A prototype but still phishing for development money. Companies like Phazotron and Tikhomirov cannot afford to fully develop an FCR, then make it pass through certification tests, which is very expensive to implement (for example in one test, try figuring out the cost of at least five to ten PGMs, that you would expect to launch live). The only way a bank would finance them, is they have to have a written and signed contract to submit as collateral, as well as the downpayment from the customer. No surprise why Irbis is phishing for Chinese development money.
u dont know enough.
Development cost is very expensive, and unless you can provide a viable model to finance such a project, it ain’t going to happen.
u dont know enough about financial situation in Russia. just Sukhoi RRJ R&D is at $1.6B. and that is fully digitally created.
I am not even going into Tupolev and Illysian certifications according to International standards. they are spending billions just on civillian sector they upgrades MIG-31 radar for twice the range of previous ones. why u think this Irbis is so expensive that u seem to imply.
I would have no doubt that China and Taiwan can manufacture military grade IC and MMIC, since they have often done so before.
they havent done anything on there own. so from where the beliefs come from. u import equipment for industrial purpose.
I don’t think Phazotron or anyone in Russia can manufacture MMICs. They have to be sourced from the outside. Not even Mikron makes one.
http://www.mikron.ru/eng/products/wafers/
Furthermore, the process is 0.18, which is dinosaur by today’s standards. China makes its Godwind processors on a .09 micron, and companies are moving to 0.065 now.
so on what this has to do with Military grade.? on what process APG-77 MMIC were built a decade ago.
u can click the review section of http://www.missiles.ru with translator and see the whole story of Phazotron AFAR and it isnt that expensive to certify. just $18m
1.3.3. The analysis of block diagram АФАР has shown, that “Phasotron” has the industrial-technological potential, capable to develop and make(produce) all structural elements АФАР except for the send-receive module.
Theoretically to create ППМ it is possible(probable), but imposed on it(him) rigid have structurally-technology requirement shown what to create ППМ with demanded characteristics the enterprise of electronic industry equipped by the modern equipment and possessing industrial submicronic manufacturing techniques of monolithic integrated schemes(plans) (МИС), intended for work in a 3-centimetric range of lengths of waves can only. Proceeding their these requirements, at creation АФАР for manufacturing ППМ and МИС “Phasotron” had been chose two enterprises in a Tomsk: Research-and-production firm ” Микран ” (НПФ «Микран») and the Scientific research institute of semi-conductor devices (НИИПП). Having lead this outline designing on creation АФАР and its(her) working off, it would be possible to pass to industrial designing АФАР for the concrete carrier(bearer
As for your Tarkeshent quip, you don’t need an assembly plant to install new engines.
this just show ur knowledge. TD-90 is the civillian counterpart of IL-76MF. this one has 60tons payload and structural modifications. u cant do this at any other place for now. it will take 2 to 3 years to built that capabilities in russia.
Show me again when Tarkshent actually manages to fulfill the Chinese contract, its either that or none at all. Please note that this is already the end of 2006, past the expected delivery date and not a single one has been delivered.
u raise the point that factory does not work. that was ur statement in AWACS thread. and i have proven u wrong. u havent explain why China want new built aircraft with obsolete engines? and that is totally unfit for AWACS. Simple answer PLAAF wants Cheap and obsolete things. No wonder Uzbek side has refuse to take the contract for such low price.
http://www.royfc.com/cgi-bin/today/acft_news.cgi
Uzbekistan Begins Production of New Short-Range Il-114-300 Airplane
star49Well, its really a 4.5 generation aircraft!
what criteria is for 4.5. it does not supercruise nor it has 3D TVC. all contenders have AESA by the time IAF decides.
Further, the Super Hornet would be a stepping stone to more advance types.
I doubt India is going to spend $10B just to get entry into F-35 down the road. u have to give them JSF tech now at more than level 1 Partner.
As for Russia and a 5th generation fighter with India. Such a project would take decades
this person was defence minister and he was briefed by MIG. I am sure he has input from IAF experts about time frame.
if it started today and would Russia want to share the aircraft and technology with China?
Frankly i am more afraid of US selling tech to China than Russia down the road. just look at mountain of dollars holding that China is accumlating each year.and recent Westinghouse deal. Russians are now very strict about IPR. It is not 90s.
Further, how much would any such project cost India?:rolleyes:
I still think it will be cheaper than any western license. judging from various reports about PAK-FA.
star49I have serious doubt after all those upgrades IAF is going to spend $8 to $10B on another 4th generaton platform.
http://www.royfc.com/cgi-bin/today/acft_news.cgi
India is confirming her interest in cooperating with Russia in the development of the fifth generation fighter and hopes that a conversation on this subject will take place at a meeting of the two countries’ intergovernmental commission on military and technical cooperation in January 2007, India’s minister of foreign affairs, Pranab Mukerji, reported to Russian journalists on 20 December
Source: 21.12.06, ARMS-TASS
star49I doubt third party can do engine and structural upgrade.
http://www.vedomosti.ru/
December 15, 2006
The economic boom in Kazakhstan will enable this important ally of Russia to spend much money on rearming the armed forces. Defense Minister of Kazakhstan Mukhtar Altynbaev reports that in 2007, Kazakhstan will spend 48% of the military budget on purchase and modernization of armament and in 2008, the share of such expenditures will reach 60%. Significant part of this money will be spent on the air force. In 2006, flight time in Kazakh air force amounted to 60 hours per pilot in comparison to 40 hours per pilot in Russia.However, according to Altynbaev, Russian enterprises are ready to modernize only four Su-27 fighters and two MiG-31 fighters in 2007, although Kazakhstan would like to modernize its entire fleet of 54 airplanes in the shortest possible time. Altynbaev is surprised by the low speed of modernization proposed by Russia.
Military analyst Marat Kenzhetaev says that expenditures of Kazakhstan on modernization of armament in 2007, may reach almost $450 million. Kenzhetaev adds that Kazakhstan has about 40 heavy air defense fighters MiG-31 and Su-27. A manager of one of the aircraft building enterprises presumes that modernization of all Kazakh fighters will cost not less than $200 million. Kenzhetaev says that if Russia draws out the modernization the situation may be used by its competitors, for instance, Israeli company Elbit having experience in modernization of Soviet combat airplanes in Eastern Europe.
Elena Fedorova, spokesperson for RSK MiG (its Sokol plant built MiG-31) stated that from Kazakhstan the company received an application for modernization of MiG-31 and MiG-29 (Kazakhstan has about 40 such fighters) but discussion of these proposals only started and the time for fulfillment of this work was unknown yet.
A source at KnAAPO plant (where Su-27 airplanes are modernized) says that the plant lacks personnel. The quantity of orders grows bigger after a long downtime and hence KnAAPO has not rejected the application of Kazakhstan yet but has confined its efforts to an agreement to modernize only four airplanes so far. In 2007, KnAAPO will have to build about 10 Su-30 MKV2 for Venezuela, to accomplish construction of two new passenger airliners Su-100 SuperJet. KnAAPO will also have to start modernization of a regiment of Su-27 airplanes for the Russian Air Force. The first ten airplanes were already delivered to the plant, although the Air Force did not pay 1 billion roubles to the plant for modernization of 24 SU-27 SM between 2004 and 2006 yet. In Soviet times the plant made approximately 70 Su-27 a year. The source at KnAAPO complains that dramatic increase of production is impossible now.
Ruslan Pukhov, Director of the Center for Analysis of Strategies and Technologies, says that Russian authorities should take energetic measures to obtain and fulfill the order of Kazakhstan. Last week, President Vladimir Putin spoke about priority of military technological cooperation with the CIS allies in modernization of armament. If Western companies got to know that Russia fails to cope with modernization, Kazakhstan will not have to wait long to get their proposals
star49Japan wasn’t a complete industrial power even then, and it was copying a lot of stuff—every aero engine they had in WWII is based on the Pratt and Whitney radial that came with the DC-3. West isn’t exactly open in utilizing IP either.
at that time things were very simple not complex u dont need to deviate that much from originall stuff.
And you don’t know that the Chinese way of doing things is exactly the same thing. Study the weak spots and fix it. For example, they placed more powerful engines with longer life, added more cannons, and increased the wingspan of their J-6s.
ofcoure u are going to put improvments as u are going to use it for 40 years. First generation fighters were not designed for so long.
And what is the Russian way by the way? Don’t you know the history of the Tu-3 bombers? They copied the B-29s that crashed on Russia. Even though Russian engineers mentioned otherwise, the factories even had to duplicate the damaged patchwork and repair deliberately on the new planes as they appeared on the B-29s. That’s because Stalin ordered that the planes must be exact copies of the B-29 (so exact, even the battle damage had to be recreated exactly).
so what happened after Tu-4? did they continue with the same thing for next 50 years like J-6, J-7, H-6. I have no problem with one time learning. But to continue that for ever in almost every field like Chinese are doing shows some thing else.
The Russians also copied the Nene turbojet, the BMW motorcycles, and even various FIATs into LADAs.
they have cooperative agreements for various cars and political decisions u should read more about that Motortrend has separate link for that.
Sorry but you have no idea about the difference between PESA and AESA, and the elements within.
I have very clear idea. thats i put separate history of PESA. and
that link for GaAs.
That’s funny. Call me back when the Russians have fabs that makes GaAs TTLs and actually make an AESA without having to buy the TTLs from Taiwan or China.
u better read about Mikron and Angstrem. and there is Pibu article on IDR Zhuk-MAE T/R and phazotron supplement.
not every GaAs MMIC is military grade. I doubt China/Taiwan can do it unless some one teach them.
here again ur myth is blown apart regarding IL-76 factory of having no capacity to manufacture new IL-76. there are alteast 20 on order judging by new engine orders. Ordering obsolete IL-76 versions just shows the standard of PLAAF as transport is key element for troop and equipment safety and efficiency.
Kapital (Kemerovo), No. 39, October 25-31
The first PS-90A-76 engines in the export version were shipped to the Tashkent aviation production association named after Chkalov. These engines will be mounted on two IL-76TD-90 airplanes for Silk Way Airlines (Azerbaijan). The first airplane will be handed over to the air company in early November 2006
star49That’s completely wrong. The copiers often add elements on their own which enhances that copy. This so practiced by the Japanese when they started to export their autos (the original Datsun was a copy of an Austin). IBM, Microsoft, AMD, heck all companies do this as part of competitive basis.
what has those multinationals R&D anything to do with Chinese state firms. West is quite open in utilizing intellectual capital and are not embrassed in admitting it. Japan was Industrial power before WWII. read Mitsubishi history.
http://www.motortrend.com/features/travel/112_0612_frank_markus_in_russia/boreskov_institute.html
Hummer & Sickle Tour: General Motors in Russia
Do not count GM out based on the incessant bleatings of the short-term-profit-oriented domestic-business press. These folks have their eye on the distant horizon and are jockeying for pole position in the hydrogen race.
It shortens you RD time because a working product happens to be its own lesson. Why do you think the Americans studied the German V-2s? Or the Russians studying the AIM-9 when they finally got one?
now what has American/Russian has anything in common with Chinese way of doing things. American/Russian study to find weak spots not to copy the entire thing.
You are just basically ignorant and your posts is quite demonstrative of this. Quite laughable in fact.
The one who is studying the original designs can see where it can often be improved at. It is called the advantage of hindsight. AT the same time, there is the availability of more advanced components that has been developed after the system was introduced. Frankly, the Chinese don’t need a Russian ‘original’ which is by the way, not even original in the first place, since like slotted array, and phase array, still have to come from the West.
how it is not original in first place? they did everything independetly and without Capitalistic funds. It was NIIR that supplied all the PESA tech to NIIP in early 1971 and from there NIIP starts with PESA. so technology was there in 60s. and they were the pioneers in Gallenium arsenide. u have to look at Berkeley 5 nm process program using russian isotopes.
infact Mikron start supplying to Samsung right after soviet collapse.
http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/2000/public.html
Alferov was the first to succeed in producing a lattice-adapted heterostructure (AlGaAs/GaAs, 1969) with clear borders between the layers. Alferov’s research team succeeded in rapidly developing many types of components built up of heterostructures, including the injection laser which Alferov patented in 1963. A technological breakthrough occurred around 1970 when heterostructure lasers became able to work continuously at room temperatures. These properties have, for example, made fibre-optic communications practically possible
There is no such thing as a “cheap” replica of a PESA or AESA. It’s either an AESA or not. If you managed to happen to make a ‘cheap’ working replica of an AESA radar, then MORE POWER TO YOU. Because that is what everyone is trying to accomplish ahead of everyone else—to make a cheap AESA.
Nope. u take it out of context. one is technolgy induced priced reduction and the other is simply inferior product.
star49Those three are pre-requisites to developing software and R&D sector.
alot of countries have the first three things and they also excel in alot of other areas where China is struggling but they dont have anything even remotely the kind of skills i am referring to.
Is J-11B inferior to original SU-27s that China bought or J-11s sh manufactured.
that is how foundation is laid for J-11. they just can make an aircraft from documentation and drawings. implementation is different than theory. and original Su-27 were obsolete when China bought it in early 90s.
Saint Petersburg-based Aerospace Equipment Corporation director general Sergey Bodrunov and Beijing-based Qin Yuan Aircraft Instrument Building Company director-general Yu Shi signed an agreement to open an office for the Aerospace Equipment Corporation in Beijing in the third quarter of 2001. The office opened in the Qin Yuan company premises on 19 September 2001 and plans to provide technical expertise and training programmes for the Chinese skilled labour force engaged in the licensed Su-27 production programme
Instead of simply re-inventing the wheel one would undoutedly get further by standing on the shoulders of giants.
this the whole issue. if they dont reinvent the wheel.they will never develop the skills to surpass others.
Finally…here is a recent article from Janes.
http://www.janes.com/defence/news/jni/jni061219_1_n.shtml
Designed as a nuclear delivery system, the DF-21 can also be fitted with a conventional payload. If made to work, such a weapon would be a ‘carrier killer’ without equal.Now the question is how did this happen? Its in R&D stage yet, for which you need both R&D skills and software.
this happens due to this. so if Israel is doing it. what makes u think China is not doing it on much larger scale.
China has secrecy agreement with Russia
Automotive Design & Production 118.8 (August 2006
Alan Taub, executive director of science at GM’s R&D labs, points out the move to Russia. Networking through a team of scientists in Israel, GM was able to get a clearer picture of the knowledge base that exists in Russia. What they found was a group of highly dedicated and curious scholars eager to find ways to commercialize their expertise, while at the same time relying on real-world laboratory results as opposed to computer-generated solutions, an area Taub says is a key benefit of the Russian knowledge base. “These guys don’t just solve problems; they know what happens along the way. It’s not just brute force,” Taub says
star49Absorbing technologies isn’t about buying whole new systems. Its about shortcuting the RD process so you can make your own pretty soon,
It is not short cutting R&D. it is called copying because u are making a product inferior to original. and there is no evidence that it shortens time as u cannot make without it. so that question does not come.
since as a matter of fact, China’s own automakers are starting to come up with designs of their own.
but those designs are obsolete and tinkered of original one (i have a very long list of that) and doesnot confirm the emissions, quality and longetivity of the original not to mention underpowered are late by 2 decades.
Is China importing a lot of Hokums or Havocs or entire whole new copters from Eurocopter, yes or no?
A country that has flown F-6 aka MIG-19 for 40 years and is inducting 60s era FBC-1. I cant imagine it can absorb a modern Gunship for its Foot soldiers.
But is China making its own cars and helos, yes or no? Regardless of the inspiration of its external design—which you can copy from any coffeebook—its where it can be fully made.
I am not talking about designs only but the technolgy behind those designs. that is foreign. u cannot create technology u will always be following.
The whole idea is to sell the Irbis to China, not to teach China how to make them.
from where this speculation comes from. u can make a cheap replica of Irbis or for that matter any AESA radar but it wont perform like the original. Sum of parts does not equal to whole as u was implying from those gallenium arsenide fabs.
star49money, talent, infrastructure?. and u forget the important thing software and R&D skills.
have u seen China helicopter and auto development? It is more of obsorbing from foreign 2nd tier technolgies rather than creating some thing new.
star49To be fair. AW article does not quote any official source for acknowledgement except for monetary loss.
For the world largest aviation industry to have foreign colloboration for 1 ton helicopter shows some thing about R&D and officially admitting every project as foreign colloboration without any hint engine development.
http://english.people.com.cn/200609/28/eng20060928_307078.html
“In the next five years, we will stick to a market-oriented approach, boosting the helicopter industry in terms of R&D and manufacturing capability, marketing and servicing,” Ni Xianping, deputy chief engineer of AVIC II, the country’s only State-owned helicopter maker, told China Daily.
The deputy chief engineer said AVIC II is currently working on a one-ton light helicopter with a foreign partner. He could not release more details due to commercial reasons
Sign In
