China Military Watch

All threads that are locked or marked for deletion will be moved to this forum. The topics will be cleared from this archive on the 1st and 16th of each month.
Locked
andy B
BRFite
Posts: 1677
Joined: 05 Jun 2008 11:03
Location: Gora Paki

Re: China Military Watch

Post by andy B »

shiv wrote:This is the most flattering photo where the plane looks most fearsome. All 8 wings and fins are visible giving the appearance of a plane that is meant to be agile in the air. Yes the Chinese have put in some effort to reduce its radar signature but this is not going to have the F-117s or the F-22 radar signature. To me it looks like a good research platform where they can sling on one Al 31 and one WS 10 and still have the plane survive if the latter fails. Or play with radar signatures.
Shiv ji,

looking at these pics it seems IMVHO this will have some extent of frontal aspect stealth which might be useful for chicoms for "first day of war" ops as Khan likes to call it.

The massive canards will most certainly add to RCS unless they come up with some uber TFTA stealth measures....JMT
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34981
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: China Military Watch

Post by shiv »

andy B wrote: looking at these pics it seems IMVHO this will have some extent of frontal aspect stealth which might be useful for chicoms for "first day of war" ops as Khan likes to call it.
That is fairly stupid rhetoric from a Khan who likes to attack small countries that are only a couple of 100 km across from the place where they are attacking. That way only the front of the aircrfat is seen. Any decent adversary will have radars and AWACS way waay off to the side and will see a non-frontal radar signature. No point basing an entire war strategy on Khan's postulates.
andy B
BRFite
Posts: 1677
Joined: 05 Jun 2008 11:03
Location: Gora Paki

Re: China Military Watch

Post by andy B »

shiv wrote:
andy B wrote: looking at these pics it seems IMVHO this will have some extent of frontal aspect stealth which might be useful for chicoms for "first day of war" ops as Khan likes to call it.
That is fairly stupid rhetoric from a Khan who likes to attack small countries that are only a couple of 100 km across from the place where they are attacking. That way only the front of the aircrfat is seen. Any decent adversary will have radars and AWACS way waay off to the side and will see a non-frontal radar signature. No point basing an entire war strategy on Khan's postulates.
No no saar I should have said it differently, I was only trying to point out that the only aspect of stealth that this new JXX has is in the front while from the sides and the back there hardly sees any...
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34981
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: China Military Watch

Post by shiv »

Guddu wrote:
Or play with radar signatures
Could the idea be to change the radar signature, mid flight, to confuse the enemy as to the type of aircraft that's fast arriving...alternatively, these are just for radar signature testing purposes only. Speculating onlee..
Guddu - if you read too much into the rhetoric about radars and computing power that can "recognize and identify" the aircraft that is approaching I believe it becomes easy to miss the point that in a hostile war environment anything that is seen on radar approaching you is hostile if it is not friendly. 0.1 seconds spent on identifying the signature is 0.1 seconds of reaction time wasted - provided you have an equally sophisticated ECM and self protection system.

I am reminded of discussion about what a pilot will do if he has an AMRAAM coming at him as opposed to what he will do if he has a PL-8 (or whatever) coming at him. The question is how will the pilot know which one is coming at him and how much time he gets to reflect and philosophize on what he should be doing next.
Guddu
BRFite
Posts: 1059
Joined: 01 Dec 2008 06:22

Re: China Military Watch

Post by Guddu »

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 ... s_business
General Electric Co. is finalizing plans for a 50-50 joint venture with a Chinese military-jet maker to produce avionics, the electronic brains of aircraft. The deal with Aviation Industry Corp. of China would give GE access to a Chinese government project aimed at challenging Boeing Co. and Airbus in the civilian-aircraft market.
Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66589
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: China Military Watch

Post by Singha »

imho this is a TD and the real item will be a smaller and shorter plane (hence lighter) in the same basic shape but with pakfa style 'canard' and 2d TVC. its turbine hiding is already better than pakfa due to closely spaced engines.

i.e. unless the chinese intend this to be purely a long range strike/maritime attack plane to replace the outdated JH7 and J8 and supplement the su30mkk.
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34981
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: China Military Watch

Post by shiv »

Singha wrote:imho this is a TD and the real item will be a smaller and shorter plane (hence lighter) in the same basic shape but with pakfa style 'canard' and 2d TVC. its turbine hiding is already better than pakfa due to closely spaced engines.
You may well be right. A plane must always be built around an engine. No engine and you can build a glider. The only modern fighter engine that the Chinese are getting in large numbers is Al-31 which promises to get replaced by WS 10. For twin engine you need his size. Discounting Bundar engine here.
chola
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5136
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: China Military Watch

Post by chola »

So are these real or not? I had a good two years of fun with the J-10 by pointing out all the PS and CGI photos in forums which burned the arse of the local CCP representatives something fierce. Can I do this with the "J-20" or not? And how come they skipped from J-10 all the way to 20?
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34981
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: China Military Watch

Post by shiv »

chola wrote:So are these real or not? I had a good two years of fun with the J-10 by pointing out all the PS and CGI photos in forums which burned the arse of the local CCP representatives something fierce. Can I do this with the "J-20" or not? And how come they skipped from J-10 all the way to 20?
Well J-10 was 4th Gen. JF-17 was 4.7 generation. Now its 5th gen. 10 to 17 to 20. See?
Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66589
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: China Military Watch

Post by Singha »

I would say more realistic modifications of this TD are being made or tested in other parts of china, but for public view this plane was released...it may have done a few flights already at night before news hit the internet to ensure nothing goes wrong in the official flight.

there is nothing that prevents using AL31 engine and shortening the fuselage behind the cockpit to arrive at desired t:w ratio....
chand
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 19
Joined: 25 May 2004 11:31

Re: China Military Watch

Post by chand »

Nobody has first take-off at night. That is brainless and stupid.
Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23387
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: China Military Watch

Post by Austin »

shiv wrote:Austinji - that is a lame excuse. Either you have stealth or you don't have stealth and say that some concessions have been made for stealth but others for performance. The argument "What is the use of stealth if you end up with sub-par performance" is rhetoric at best and invalid at worst. The F-117 IMO was an absolute classic. Subpar performance but very stealthy and did its job extremely well. That is a standard that even the F-22 cannot claim to have reached yet.
Shivji I dont think its a case of all or nothing , even these high end LO will have its own quirks depending on the angle it is approaching the RF source and distance, the RF source could be of varying type raging from centimetric to meter band , all these will have its own impact on LO.

F-117 and B-2 can be one extreme example of stealth which compromises aerodynamic performance in some way to achieve LO , while F-22 and PAK-FA would end up in a different category which could have the right amount of both or more preference for one over other.

It could also be possible that advancement in RAM , Structures ,Mathematical Modelling for Stealth could have advanced enough that you dont end up with compromised aerodynamics yet achieve the same stealth as F-117 did in 80's.

Though F-117 performance has been good ( my gripe is even F-16 performance would be good if you have all the other advantage backing you that US/NATO had ) one was still shot down to what serbs claim using smart use of emission and 70's SA-3 SAM

I think it would boil down to balance between Stealth and Performance and the need to have right amount of both can just vary between individual countries capability and requirements spelt out by their airforces
abhik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3090
Joined: 02 Feb 2009 17:42

Re: China Military Watch

Post by abhik »

A more accurate estimation of the aircrafts dimensions can probably be obtained by comparing with the engine nozzle base whose dimensions should be known(the engine can only be either the al-31(or derivative) or the WS-10).
Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12686
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: China Military Watch

Post by Pratyush »

Guys,

My gut tells me that this is PhotoShoppedped aircraft. Not the real deal. We have history of such actions from the PRC fan boys on the Internet. This is no diffirent from that.

The PRC may have a FGFA project. But this is not it.
Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66589
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: China Military Watch

Post by Singha »

people said the state of knowledge and math tools was primitive in F117 days (mid 1970s) so the faceted sides, improved during B2 age (early 80s, first flight 1989) to smooth flowing surfaces but aerodynamoc compromise, improved more to F22 (late 80s, early 90s) - smooth shape + good aerodynamics , to JSF (late 90s) smoother shape and could be fat but reasonably agile due to its massive engine :)
vina
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6046
Joined: 11 May 2005 06:56
Location: Doing Nijikaran, Udharikaran and Baazarikaran to Commies and Assorted Leftists

Re: China Military Watch

Post by vina »

F-117 and B-2 can be one extreme example of stealth which compromises aerodynamic performance in some way to achieve LO
The B-2 "all wing" is the most aerodynamically efficient design possible.
vina
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6046
Joined: 11 May 2005 06:56
Location: Doing Nijikaran, Udharikaran and Baazarikaran to Commies and Assorted Leftists

Re: China Military Watch

Post by vina »

Singha wrote:i.e. unless the chinese intend this to be purely a long range strike/maritime attack plane to replace the outdated JH7 and J8 and supplement the su30mkk.
This plane is fat. It has haunches that will put some of the Tamil film heroines to shame. No two questions about that. Add to that the humongous size, yes it does look like a long range/maritime strike attack plane on the likes of the F-111 Aadvark "Pig" that the Australia based China/India alarmist seems to be having serious separation problems with.

But then what comes to my mind is the respones the USN Admiral gave to the smart YumBeeYea McNamara and his cronies in the senate hearings who were pushing for a "common" airforce and navy plane (which the Pig was supposed to be) in the name of "synergy" and "future growth" (When you hear the words synergy and/or growth, you know that is classic YumBeeYea , Inbesthment Bonker /Strat-e-jee Con - sultan(t) making the pitch) and advocate more thrust to make the F-111 into a Navy fighter
All the thrust in christendom cannot make this a fighter
Similarly to the Chipandas, the words of wisdom must be.
All the thrust in the middle kingdom cannot make this a fighter :(( :((
:rotfl:

What they could do is what the USN did with the Pig. Take the engines and the basic wingbox and do radical surgery and rebuild from the base. The pig eventually morphed into the F-14.
Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23387
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: China Military Watch

Post by Austin »

vina wrote:The B-2 "all wing" is the most aerodynamically efficient design possible.
Agreed but they sacrificed the supersonic part of the bomber in order to achieve supreme stealth.

But the Australian would disagree on the Stealth part of B-2 since they claim JORN was able to track it.
disha
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 8423
Joined: 03 Dec 2006 04:17
Location: gaganaviharin

Re: China Military Watch

Post by disha »

shiv wrote:
zlin wrote:Best picture so far

Also the weirdest picture. I have never seen an aircraft with differential movement of the twin tailfins.
I think we should name this plane - FatBox. It is Fatty and it is Boxy. So it is a FatBox!
Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66589
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: China Military Watch

Post by Singha »

why cant this be for china what the original mca was supposed to be? a strike bird with good stealth (after a few mods) but not designed or meant for a2a role...superb range and loiter time to launch missiles...

the same building blocks will create the airdominance smaller bird the j-21
vina
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6046
Joined: 11 May 2005 06:56
Location: Doing Nijikaran, Udharikaran and Baazarikaran to Commies and Assorted Leftists

Re: China Military Watch

Post by vina »

why cant this be for china what the original mca was supposed to be? a strike bird with good stealth (after a few mods) but not designed or meant for a2a role...superb range and loiter time to launch missiles...
It is exactly that. A long range striker, but masquerading as a fighter with all that massive wing area (including canard, which looks really big, though you can see the wing area only when the planform is shown).

Yes, the USN carrier fleet will be worried about 10 years from now and we better get our defenses and radar network up and running along the northern and western borders for stealth aircraft by the time this enters service.
the same building blocks will create the airdominance smaller bird the j-21
Don't know. They need top notch engines for that. You cannot have a SU-30 MKK size plane if you bulk it up for stealth with the current engines. Smaller plane --> lower range / persistence and it becomes an interceptor.
DavidD
BRFite
Posts: 1048
Joined: 23 Jun 2010 04:08

Re: China Military Watch

Post by DavidD »

shiv wrote:
Austin wrote: Agreed right now they need to worry more on validating this new aerodynamic design than some stealth aspect , after all what is the use of stealth if you end up with subpar aerodynamic performance or worst some fundamental design problem.
Austinji - that is a lame excuse. Either you have stealth or you don't have stealth and say that some concessions have been made for stealth but others for performance. The argument "What is the use of stealth if you end up with sub-par performance" is rhetoric at best and invalid at worst. The F-117 IMO was an absolute classic. Subpar performance but very stealthy and did its job extremely well. That is a standard that even the F-22 cannot claim to have reached yet.

Here you have a gi-normous aircraft - people are saying 80 plus feet (I disagree) and 40 tons (nobody knows yet), eight separate reflecting aerodynamic surfaces two huge afterburner pipes sticking out that will glow like a phool-jhadi and what stealth are people talking about? Come on folks - if you put a paper bag to obscure a horse's nose the rest of the horse does not disappear.
That really makes no sense at all. There is no fine line on the observability axis dividing between stealth and non stealth. A platform is only stealthier or less stealthy and there are always compromises between stealth and maneuverability.
DavidD
BRFite
Posts: 1048
Joined: 23 Jun 2010 04:08

Re: China Military Watch

Post by DavidD »

Singha wrote:why cant this be for china what the original mca was supposed to be? a strike bird with good stealth (after a few mods) but not designed or meant for a2a role...superb range and loiter time to launch missiles...

the same building blocks will create the airdominance smaller bird the j-21
It can, but it won't. This will be the air superiority bird for the PLAAF. SAC is designing a strike bird, dunno if it'll come to fruition. If not then the J-20 will probably be modified to become a striker.
DavidD
BRFite
Posts: 1048
Joined: 23 Jun 2010 04:08

Re: China Military Watch

Post by DavidD »

shiv wrote: Could be an airbrake cum parachute housing. But seriously that goddam differential skewing of tailfins is there again in this photo too. The leading edge of both tailfins are turned inwards. Weird.
The PAKFA has those too. I don't know for sure, but I think it's so they can be used as airbrakes, especially when using them to control flight direction and acting as airbrakes at the same time. When using tailfins as airbrakes, obviously you can no longer simply coordinate them to rotate in the same direction.
Gaur
Forum Moderator
Posts: 2009
Joined: 01 Feb 2009 23:19

Re: China Military Watch

Post by Gaur »

Some J-20 3D renders:
http://www.calf.cn/attachments/day_1012 ... c4f122.jpg

http://www.calf.cn/attachments/day_1012 ... c64718.jpg

http://www.calf.cn/attachments/day_1012 ... 6c0b4c.jpg

http://www.calf.cn/attachments/day_1012 ... d6561b.jpg

http://www.calf.cn/attachments/day_1012 ... ff66da.jpg

These are very interesting because they show J-20 from the top so wing and canard shape is clearly visible. Don't know about the accuracy of the renders though.
DavidD
BRFite
Posts: 1048
Joined: 23 Jun 2010 04:08

Re: China Military Watch

Post by DavidD »

When discussing this plane, please take into consideration the different development cycles taken by the Chinese in comparison to their American and Russian counterparts. For a number of possible reasons, such as perhaps a lack of money, the relative ease of playing catch up, or a sense of urgency, the Chinese don't build technology demonstrators for major projects. They tend to start off with a prototype and then make changes if needed, and due to the lack of TD's they tend to make larger changes than others. Thus, the final production model may look much more different from this first prototype than the F-22/PAK-FA do compared to their respective prototypes.

Another thing, for those who are trying to estimate when this fighter will be operational. I'd be careful about using American or Russian developmental times as a rule. If the Chinese always worked as fast as them, then the tech gap between China and them would be as large today as it was in 1990, and that's just not true. For example, the J-10, which was a huge technological leap from the J-7, only took 5 years to go from prototype to IOC with no TD's. Even the F-16 took over 4 years in the height of the cold war, and that's probably one of the smoothest and most successful major programs the USAF has been involved in since WWII. The JF-17 was even faster, especially when looking at the design to induction time. So it may have taken the F-22 15 years to go from prototype to IOC, it most likely won't take nearly as long as the J-20 to do the same. For that matter, it won't take the PAK-FA nearly that long either since there are also numerous other factors involved.
DavidD
BRFite
Posts: 1048
Joined: 23 Jun 2010 04:08

Re: China Military Watch

Post by DavidD »

Gaur wrote:Some J-20 3D renders:
http://www.calf.cn/attachments/day_1012 ... c4f122.jpg

http://www.calf.cn/attachments/day_1012 ... c64718.jpg

http://www.calf.cn/attachments/day_1012 ... 6c0b4c.jpg

http://www.calf.cn/attachments/day_1012 ... d6561b.jpg

http://www.calf.cn/attachments/day_1012 ... ff66da.jpg

These are very interesting because they show J-20 from the top so wing and canard shape is clearly visible. Don't know about the accuracy of the renders though.
Gaoshan is usually uncannily close with his CG's, so they might just be pretty close to the real thing.
DavidD
BRFite
Posts: 1048
Joined: 23 Jun 2010 04:08

Re: China Military Watch

Post by DavidD »

Close up of the gear doors:

Image
Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66589
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: China Military Watch

Post by Singha »

I found a interesting but believeable theory about the engine given the size of the a/c: that it is using the same Soloviev D30-F6 engines used by the Foxhound and the S-37 Berkut. the dry thrust of 90kN and wet of 152kN is exactly what the doctor ordered for this plane (matches the F119 engine almost exactly) and can always be refined upon as Soloviev is now Perm and still in sound health. moreover except for Foxhound , its used by ilyushin and tupolev civilian airliners only and hence no intersect with Russia's own 5th gen engine plans.

in contrast the AL31F and 117S (su35bm) max out around 122kN and 142kN which dont look enough for this beast...and Rus might want to reserve the AL41F (175kN) for its own products...esp when j-20 and pakfa might run neck and neck now.

the Mig1.44 was said to have made a few test flights before being scrapped. since the 41F didnt even exist then, I wonder if they had also fitted the D30-F6 engine? no details seem to exist on the web on those test flights and what engine it used.

Perm are the same guys who make the PS90 engine family and have some tot with P&W to make their engines meet western env norms...I am sure with a good upfront payment they can modernize and refine the D30-F6 and make it lighter, more fuel efficient, more dry thrust etc etc....
JimmyJ
BRFite
Posts: 211
Joined: 07 Dec 2007 03:36
Location: Bangalore

Re: China Military Watch

Post by JimmyJ »

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66589
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: China Military Watch

Post by Singha »

they have no option if they want to save their domestic mil-ind complexes and keep it remotely competitive vs the US. they are bankrupt and nobody has the stomach for huge programs anymore.

the PRC will surely "reward" the embargo lifting with some huge upfront orders followed by JV/ToT to aid many of its domestic projects.

the french for example have this woefuel rbe2 aesa on rafale which is not matching customer expectations , they could use a couple of billion to improve it and then sell it to China for JF17/J10/J20 as a building block pkg.
Lalmohan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 13257
Joined: 30 Dec 2005 18:28

Re: China Military Watch

Post by Lalmohan »

^^^ that (lifting arms embargo) is specifically the price that PRC is seeking to extract for bailing out the eurozone from its sov crisis. however, one would hope that the eurozone is sufficiently afeared of the outcome of such a foolish move. if not, unkil will be reminding them
Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66589
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: China Military Watch

Post by Singha »

Russia has also confirmed the 4 X Mistral deal this week to France. DCN will build the first two. all the colour coded 'revolutionaries' in the baltic states and black sea region are crying foul.

in the old days the US could likely have browbeaten the EU on Rus/China deals but I dont think any longer...not when GE/GM/honeywell are betting their futures on china and rushing to setup plants for chinas A321 sized passenger jet and such...panda has them over a barrel and is pressing hard.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB2000142 ... 08042.html

China Squeezes Foreigners For Share of Global Riches



By SHAI OSTER, NORIHIKO SHIROUZU And PAUL GLADER

BEIJING—Foreign companies have been teaming up with Chinese ones for years to gain access to the giant Chinese market. Now some of the world's biggest companies are taking a risky but potentially rewarding second step—folding pieces of their world-wide operations into partnerships with Chinese companies to do business around the globe.

General Electric Co. is finalizing plans for a 50-50 joint venture with a Chinese military-jet maker to produce avionics, the electronic brains of aircraft. The deal with Aviation Industry Corp. of China would give GE access to a Chinese government project aimed at challenging Boeing Co. and Airbus in the civilian-aircraft market.


General Motors Co. established a joint venture this year with SAIC Motor Corp., its longtime partner in China, to produce and sell their no-frills Wuling-brand microvans in India, and eventually in Southeast Asia and other emerging markets as well.

The two deals show China Inc.'s growing international ambitions, as well as its increasing leverage over foreign partners. To make the GE deal happen, GE Chief Executive Jeffrey Immelt made an extraordinary concession, agreeing to fold into the venture all of GE's existing world-wide business in nonmilitary avionics. GM, in its deal, contributed technology, its manufacturing facilities in India and use of its Chevrolet brand name in that market.

Several forces are motivating China's foreign partners to strike global deals that would have been unthinkable a few years back. China's big government-backed companies now have enormous financial resources and growing political clout, making them attractive partners outside China. In addition, the Chinese market has become so important to the success of multinational companies that Beijing has the ability to drive harder bargains.

But such deals also carry risk. Several earlier joint ventures inside China have soured over concerns that Chinese partners, after gaining access to Western technology and know-how, have gone on to become potent new rivals to their partners.

"Foreign partners are seeing they will have to sometimes sacrifice or share the benefits of the global market with the Chinese partner," says Raymond Tsang, a China-based partner at consultancy Bain & Co. "Some of the [multinational corporations] are complaining. But given the changing market conditions, if you don't do it, your competitors will."

Big energy companies, too, have been pursuing international deals with Chinese companies. China has supplanted the U.S. as the world's biggest energy consumer, making access to its market vital for global companies. Foreign firms hope that teaming up with Chinese companies abroad will help on that front. Foreign companies supply technology and experience, and their Chinese partners provide geopolitical clout, low-cost labor, and easy access to credit that China's government-backed companies enjoy.

State-owned China National Petroleum Corp. was one of the first foreign oil companies to sign a major contract in Iraq. BP PLC teamed up with it last year for a $15 billion investment to increase output at the giant Rumaila field. Over the summer, Royal Dutch Shell PLC joined with PetroChina Co., a publicly traded subsidiary of China National Petroleum, on a $3.15 billion acquisition of assets from Australian energy company Arrow Energy Ltd.

China has been gaining clout in some resource-rich parts of the developing world where U.S. companies don't have strong footholds, partly by spending lavishly on infrastructure projects, and it can help broker deals in places like Venezuela and Myanmar, where it has good relations.

In financial services, foreign banks long have coveted access to China's fast-growing securities business. China has allowed a number of companies into the market in recent years through joint ventures, with their stakes capped at about 33%. Chinese regulators also restrict which parts of the securities business they can do.

Crédit Agricole SA already is involved in such a joint venture through its Asian brokerage arm, called CLSA Asia-Pacific Markets, but it is a minor player in China. In May, its investment-banking unit announced a preliminary deal with China's government-owned Citic Securities Co. to form a joint venture beyond China's borders. The French company plans to contribute CLSA and other pieces of its international operation. Citic Securities would throw in its small international unit, based in Hong Kong. Crédit Agricole hopes that helping Citic Securities realize its international ambitions will enable the French bank to expand its business in China.

But talks have gone slower than expected. The two companies said this month that they had agreed on certain key terms, but extended a year-end deadline for a final deal to June 30, without explaining the delay.

Some joint ventures in China have stumbled because of spats with local partners or because the partnerships enable Chinese companies to learn enough about industries to become new competitors to their Western partners.

Kawasaki Heavy Industries Ltd. and Siemens AG, for example, worked with Chinese partners to help build China's high-speed rail network. Now the Chinese companies are bidding against them for international contracts—using products at least partly based on the foreign firms' technology.
Last year, France's Groupe Danone SA accepted a cash payment to terminate its joint ventures with China's Hangzhou Wahaha Group Co. after a nasty public feud. The French company had alleged that Wahaha's boss had produced and sold Wahaha-branded beverages supposedly owned by the joint venture through a separate network he owned. Wahaha denied the accusation.

GE's avionics deal with Aviation Industry, or AVIC, also is vulnerable, says Jim Wasson, president of Growth Strategies International LLC, an aerospace and defense consulting firm, and a former GE Aviation executive. The fear is that "once AVIC knows enough about how to do this, they'll kick [GE] out and be on their own," he says.
:rotfl:

Lorraine Bolsinger, chief executive of GE Aviation Systems, acknowledges there were concerns within GE about protecting technology. "It was very controversial," she says of the proposed deal. "It was really us knuckle-dragging technology guys that think we had a lot to protect." In the end, she says, "when we and the Chinese together create intellectual property, we are darn right going to protect it."
:eek: :rotfl:

These days, big Chinese state companies with access to cheap funds and other government support are gunning to dominate some of the same industries that firms like GE have targeted as growth opportunities, from clean technology to turbines.

Even so, GE has such high hopes for China that Mr. Immelt has called it "our second home market." 8) Two years ago, Mr. Immelt said China revenue would double to $10 billion by 2010. But last year it reached just $5.3 billion.

GE saw working with AVIC as a chance to boost its avionics business, which has lagged behind Honeywell International Inc. and Rockwell Collins Inc. The planned venture, to be based in Shanghai, has been chosen to supply China's planned C919 jet, which has the potential to grab a big slice of the Chinese civilian-aviation market. Boeing estimates that market will be worth more than $400 billion over the next 20 years, second only to the U.S.

In negotiations, GE is asking AVIC to match the value of the technology GE is contributing with a cash investment, according to people at GE. If a deal is finalized, all of GE's existing and future civilian avionics contracts will go to the joint venture. Negotiations were supposed to be done by mid-2010, but the parties now hope to finish them by early 2011.

GE executives say the AVIC deal is their closest cooperation ever with a Chinese partner. GE has 45 people in China on the project now, and it is hiring or moving several hundred more people there, even before final terms are hammered out.

AVIC, which makes fighter jets and helicopters in addition to civilian products, has ambitions outside of China. "For the aviation industry, there is no regional market, only the global market," the company said in a statement. "AVIC's strategy is to actively integrate itself into the industrial chain of the world's aviation industry, and to become a truly global company."

Last month, China unveiled the first life-size mock-up of the C919. Other foreign companies have negotiated similar joint ventures to make other parts.

"Our hope and desire is that this joint venture maintains a working-together partnership that benefits both," says Kent Statler, executive vice president at Rockwell Collins, which has a joint venture to supply the C919 with communications systems. "But let's not be naive. We realize that this could turn into a competitor."

For GM, the stakes are especially high: China became the world's largest auto market last year.

Back in 1997, GM decided to plow more than $1 billion into a 50-50 joint venture with SAIC to make Buicks. At the time, it was seen as a risk because car sales had yet to take off in China. This year, GM's China ventures are on track to sell nearly 2.27 million vehicles in the country, compared to 2.18 million sold by GM in the U.S., according to research firm IHS Automotive.

Much of GM's recent growth in China has come through a second joint venture set up in 2002 with SAIC and another Chinese company. The venture, SAIC GM Wuling Automobile Co., makes boxy microvans costing as little as $4,500, which have proven popular in China's smaller cities and towns. Last year Wuling became the first brand in China to sell a million cars in a year. This year, it's expected to account for nearly one-sixth of GM vehicle sales world-wide. Last month, GM reached a deal to buy an additional 10% interest in Wuling for $51 million from the venture's third investor, raising GM's stake to 44%. SAIC owns 50%.

The India joint venture, which began operating in February, is part of GM's effort with SAIC to replicate its China success in other markets. It will produce cars based on its Chinese Wulings, but will sell them under the Chevrolet brand. GM contributed its brand, India factories and dealer network, while SAIC contributed about $300 million to $350 million, a senior GM executive said when the deal was announced.

"We think the business model we have in China with SAIC and the product lineups we have in China are ripe for export to other parts of the world," says Kevin Wale, chief of GM's China operations.

GM and SAIC already have made less ambitious forays abroad together. They export Chevy Sail compacts designed and made in China to Chile and Peru, and are jointly developing more new models to be sold globally, such as the Buick LaCrosse, a sedan designed by teams in Shanghai and Warren, Mich., and sold in China and the U.S.

The India deal takes that cooperation a step beyond shipping jointly produced vehicles overseas. GM and SAIC executives and engineers will be posted in India to design, produce and market cars locally—something SAIC currently has almost no experience with.

One risk to GM is that the venture will better position SAIC to compete abroad on its own—against GM.

Already, SAIC has grown into a powerhouse at home, in part through learning from GM. In 2006, SAIC launched its own solo brand in China, called Roewe. It now competes domestically with the Buicks that SAIC makes with GM. The Roewe brand, which is based it on technology acquired from the now-defunct MG Rover Group Ltd., along with a related nameplate, MG Mingju, sold 146,323 cars in the first 11 months of this year, up 78% from the year-earlier period, according to J.D. Power & Associates. Buick's sales in China, while more than three times as large, grew one-third as fast over the same period.

"Roewe offers comparable products at lower price points and is taking away from GM and others," says Michael Dunne, an auto-industry veteran who heads Hong Kong-based investment advisory firm Dunne & Co.

Last year, GM agreed transfer 1% of its stake in Shanghai GM, its main Chinese joint venture, to SAIC, giving its Chinese partner 51% and effective control. GM said at the time the move would give it better access to credit from Chinese banks, and pave the way for its bigger stake in the Wuling venture.

Last month, GM said the two companies are looking at the possibility of selling SAIC's MG-branded cars through GM's world-wide sales channels. The move could open the door for SAIC's cars to make inroads into Britain, where the MG brand was once based, according to an individual close to GM. Also last month, SAIC paid $500 million for a 1% stake in GM as part of the Detroit auto maker's initial public offering.

SAIC is "very well situated to meet Western [car companies] head on," says Michael Robinet, a U.S.-based senior analyst with consulting firm IHS Automotive. "There's no doubt in my mind, MG and Roewe are going to be both very good launch pads for SAIC to look at new markets beyond China."
Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66589
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: China Military Watch

Post by Singha »

note how the MBAs knuckle dragged the riff raff technology guys who thought they had a lot to protect. when these tech guys are laid off later, the MBAs will get fat bonuses for cutting costs, raising shareholder value via their china JV and give speeches in ivy league schools.
darshhan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2937
Joined: 12 Dec 2008 11:52

Re: China Military Watch

Post by darshhan »

Austin wrote: F-117 and B-2 can be one extreme example of stealth which compromises aerodynamic performance in some way to achieve LO , while F-22 and PAK-FA would end up in a different category which could have the right amount of both or more preference for one over other.
Austin , F-22 is much more stealthier than F-117 and so is F-35.
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34981
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: China Military Watch

Post by shiv »

DavidD wrote: That really makes no sense at all. There is no fine line on the observability axis dividing between stealth and non stealth. A platform is only stealthier or less stealthy and there are always compromises between stealth and maneuverability.
The only exception is the F-22. Therefore comparisons with the F-22 are pointless because that aircraft is currently rated has holding the standard for stealth and maneuverability combined. It sets a very high bar that no one has reached. Yet. Every other plane has to offer "excuses" as to why the stealth achieved does not match up to the F-22 but even after that compromise matching the maneuverability is a problem.
rsharma
BRFite
Posts: 283
Joined: 02 Aug 2006 22:14
Location: Hidden Markov Model

Re: China Military Watch

Post by rsharma »

DavidD wrote: I don't know for sure, but I think it's so they can be used as airbrakes, especially when using them to control flight direction and acting as airbrakes at the same time.
Highly improbable.. when a plane does that, it is bound to loose all control in the Yaw.. my humble guess is such degree of rotation is provided for the VS to be used as Spoilers.. The increase in form drag created by the spoilers directly assists the braking effect.. However, the real gain comes as the spoilers cause a dramatic loss of lift and hence the weight of the aircraft is transferred from the wings to the undercarriage, allowing the wheels to be mechanically braked with much less chance of skidding..
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34981
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: China Military Watch

Post by shiv »

rsharma wrote:
DavidD wrote: I don't know for sure, but I think it's so they can be used as airbrakes, especially when using them to control flight direction and acting as airbrakes at the same time.
Highly improbable.. when a plane does that, it is bound to loose all control in the Yaw.. my humble guess is such degree of rotation is provided for the VS to be used as Spoilers.. The increase in form drag created by the spoilers directly assists the braking effect.. However, the real gain comes as the spoilers cause a dramatic loss of lift and hence the weight of the aircraft is transferred from the wings to the undercarriage, allowing the wheels to be mechanically braked with much less chance of skidding..

Sharmaji - I asked my unkal googalbehn. She told me that some aircraft are using differential movement as air brakes. So this is possible.
amit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4325
Joined: 30 Aug 2007 18:28
Location: The Restaurant at the End of the Universe

Re: China Military Watch

Post by amit »

Singha wrote:note how the MBAs knuckle dragged the riff raff technology guys who thought they had a lot to protect. when these tech guys are laid off later, the MBAs will get fat bonuses for cutting costs, raising shareholder value via their china JV and give speeches in ivy league schools.
OT for this thread but Singha things may not be as black and white as they seem per that report. See my comment in the tech forum.
rsharma
BRFite
Posts: 283
Joined: 02 Aug 2006 22:14
Location: Hidden Markov Model

Re: China Military Watch

Post by rsharma »

shiv wrote: Sharmaji - I asked my unkal googalbehn. She told me that some aircraft are using differential movement as air brakes. So this is possible.
Shiv saar.. long live 'ur Unkal Googaben.. :D
Locked