chola wrote:No more examples needed, Karan ji. I know even more examples and not just in the defense side of things. Cheen has a quality problem but it is overstated and relative to goras only IMO.
If you know more examples then you'd surely also know it doesn't just extend to goras, but extends to many others. I don't know what is your fixation with goras either. Brazil, India, South Korea, Japan, even certain Arab nations are now making weapons to a fair degree of quality.
India tests its indigenous platforms extensively to the degree people mock the services process driven tests. But at least when they enter service, they don't suffer recalls the way the PRC stuff does.
Our issue is often with service, supply chain management & vendor management. This is a different issue altogether.
The one area where we have had a very Chinese type production setup is the OFB. Guess what? Similar results. A political, state owned, unionized setup, supported by powerful labor orgs. Makes bad products, sub-par quality, frequent issues.
It is the same for their civilian products. Their quality is not up to par with gora ones but the issue is overstated otherwise they wouldn't have sold on the market.
Clearly, you are refusing to look at the facts. The countries buying Chinese, including India are often seduced by cost & delivery considerations. Indian power plant operators or Ecuador buying radars - both looked at price and cost, and said wow! Then came the reality when products entered service.https://www.uasvision.com/2019/06/06/jo ... nese-uavs/
However, its six CH-4B UAVs were reportedly delivered about two years ago. The RCAF told Shepard Media in November 2018 it was not happy with the aircraft’s performance and was looking to retire them.
Or even this:https://taskandpurpose.com/china-j-15-fighter-jets
The J-15—which is an unlicensed Chinese development based on a T-10K-3 prototype of the Russian Su-33 Flanker-D—has proven to be a disappointment in service with the People’s Liberation Army Navy (PLAN). The navalized Chinese Flanker derivative has suffered a number of high-profile crashes due to technical issues with the aircraft’s engines and flight control system.
The J-15’s problems are apparently serious enough that Beijing is embarking on the development of a new carrier-based aircraft that would take the J-15’s place in China’s nascent carrier air wings.
A “new carrier-based fighter to replace the J-15” is being developed, Lt. Gen. Zhang Honghe, deputy head of the PLA Air Force, told the South China Morning Post.
According to the SCMP, there have been at least four J-15 crashes that have resulted in at least one fatality and one case of serious injury due to what has been described as a series of “unpardonable mechanical failures.”
The technical problems seem to be traceable to the J-15’s indigenously developed engines and flight control system.
“The J-15 is a problematic aircraft – its unstable flight control system was the key factor behind the two fatal accidents two years ago,” a source told the SCMP.
This is the J-15, the much hyped program that was a "perfect" example of how China had adapted the Flanker & took the Ukrainians help to navalize it, how it would defeat the Indian MiG-29K (which was flawed etc) and an equal of the Super Hornet etc etc.
This is the result of your "fast iteration cycles". A whole program, gone. Yes learning & all, but with what compromises made along the way.
Even articles like SCMP attempting to support Chinese arms let the cat out of the bag:https://www.scmp.com/news/china/diploma ... ity-issues
At September’s Africa Aerospace and Defence air show in Pretoria, South Africa, Chinese exhibitors struggled to find buyers even though Beijing tried hard to secure sales of its L-15 Falcon trainer and JF-17 fighter, Andrei Chang, the founder of military magazine Kanwa Asian Defence, told the South China Morning Post.
He said Cameroon had received four Harbin Z-9 attack helicopters from China after Beijing offered a US$100 million loan last year, but one of them had crashed soon after being handed over. Cameroon was still negotiating with China over the accident and had no any plans to buy any more Chinese weapons due to quality concerns, Chang said.
Cameroon (!!) had quality concerns over the Z-9, an AS-365 Dauphin copy etc.
And the idea they "skip" testing is rather inaccurate, Sir. Since you yourself posted this:
6. A few years back, a PRC sub literally killed its crew due to a malfunctioning battery/propulsion problem.
That was them testing their AIP prototype not a production model, Karan ji. They lost over 70, I believe, but didn't give up. They also lost 40 crew and technicians testing their flying chapati on a turboprop transport (sounds familiar?) and didn't give up. They lost who knows how many in the well-document travails in the development and testing of the J-10 and J-15.
So they literally threw lives into the products they are testing. Maybe the rushed cycles had compromised safety. But the iterations come quickly and changes are introduced quickly.
Chola - at this point I am wondering whether you have any idea of development or are you just making stuff as you go along! Of what use was the "fast cycle" when they rushed a compromised product like the J-15 into service and having 4 crashes back to back, without a careful methodical design & development process. And you are touting the AIP and AEW&C crash as a virtue?
No sane individual would sign off on some prototype with significant design flaws unless there was a) a process mistake OR b) there is a cultural/industry issue with skipping the tests necessary to take a plane to actual flight testing, or a submarine to be actually deployed to the sea.
Do you even understand what you are touting as a virtue, is actually the very thing that is a problem. They are rushing things to production, build & think they are ok to test/fly etc.
A proper test regimen WOULD NOT risk its crews like the Chinese are doing today. This stuff was the norm in the Cold War, in the 1950's and in the 1960s. But not today. When it happens like on our SARAS (SOP issues + raw design) it is not by intent.
What you are touting as a virtue, is anything but! It is nuts.
They are rushing production cycles, losing crews because the earlier tests were not sufficient (and after the loss, how will they know from the wreckage what went wrong, it will be guesswork mostly!) and then they just go ahead, build and make more of them.
This week, Thailand just signed for a 25K-ton LPD. Well Thailand had been complaining of chini quality since the 1980s. But year after year they buy newer iterations of previous products. They won't do that unless the quality had improved over time. That is the same with chini civilian products as well.
Do you seriously think arms exports with China (or any exporter) are driven only by quality concerns and no other political concerns come in? Heard of the F-104 and its sales in Europe? Or the Al-Yamamah deal?https://www.scmp.com/week-asia/politics ... arms-deals
“The NCPO [National Council for Peace and Order – the ruling junta’s name for itself] allowed the army to buy a large number of weapons from China, including a Chinese S-26T submarine and a VN1 armoured vehicle,” he said.
“Why do they focus on arms procurement only with China? [This] procurement cannot be openly examined as in the procurement of goods from the West.” Relations between Thailand and the United States , its long-time ally, chilled following the military coup in 2014.
Will the Thai mil govt in particular allow any details of the gear to leak out in public?
Even where the Govts do retain the product (i.e. like Pakistan with JF-17, they replace key systems)https://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-b ... pons-17746
In the last five years, for example, more than two-thirds (71%, to be exact) of all Chinese arms sales went to just three countries: Pakistan, Bangladesh, and Myanmar. The rest went mostly to a handful poorer countries in the African continent, particularly Algeria, Nigeria, Sudan, and Tanzania.
Few countries are lining up to buy other Chinese weapons systems, or, if they are, they’re throwing out Chinese parts and replacing them with Western systems. This is because China’s defense industry is still very weak when it comes to key technologies like jet engines and electronics. Algeria acquired corvettes from China but subsequently outfitted them with French radar and communications gear. Pakistani JF-17 jets use a Russian engine, while Thailand turned to Saab of Sweden to upgrade its Chinese-built frigates.
And given what the ME countries (who can afford the best) will soon learn about Chinese gear only those under sanctions like Iran, will remain dependent on the PRC. They will be a nice testbed, captive market like Pakistan.
Sooner or later their stuff will become competitive. With fast development cycles and iterations, their emphasis is on the sooner rather than later.
At this point, you are just making the same statement again & again, without any evidence so far, of where they are in terms of actual performance & quality. Nor does it appear do you understand how involved and methodical real world product development is. Stating the same thing again and again, without looking at where they are today, does not make for objective analysis of any sort.