China's J-15 Carrier-Based Fighter is Inferior to Russian Su-33 fighter: Russia

[中华人民共和&#]

Why should I 'reverse engineer' anything?

The only time I would 'copy' any product is when I have the technological parity to dissect the product and match its components, from source materials to manufacturing processes to methods of assembly.

Exclusive: A conversation with First Solar's Bruce Sohn, Part I--Developing 'copy smart' - Photovoltaics International

Intel developed a cloning program where a successful fab would transfer all knowledge to a newly built fab where all proven processes, from equipments to softwares, would be replicated. No deviations allowed. Any yield differences, usually lower in the new fab and always occur, must be studied and eliminated. There is no need for the new fab to start from scratch.

Reverse engineering is not cloning. Quite often, the need to 'reverse engineer' an existing product stemmed from a technological disparity with usually the inferior belonging to the one who is doing the 'reverse engineering'. To 'reverse engineer' a product mean I would have to examine my own materials, manufacturing processes and assembly to see if I can produce the same product with the same characteristics and performance. This includes the human factors as well, such as educational level and experience. In other words, unlike Intel with its 'Copy Smart' program, I have no controls over the source materials, processes and assembly stages. All I have is the final product. What if the product is made of steel but all I have is pig iron or aluminum? What if the product required steel? Aluminum would certainly make my version lighter but would not have the same characteristics and performance.

Reverse engineering must not always stemmed from a technological disparity. A competitor may have that parity but decided to see if he can produce the same product with the same characteristics and performance based on his own efforts using the original product as a template. For example -- I could build the wall from cut stone instead of concrete. Different materials and processes but seeking the same result. But to 'reverse engineer' either from an technologically inferior position or parity, is to embark on a very ambitious self forced maturity program and this make 'reverse engineering' inherently more difficult and fraught with as much failures as if one is developing a new product. Who knows but I may get lucky and my version may be superior to the original.

Most of the time, you're only reverse engineering a small % of the big piece. So, I'm not sure where you taking this, but if you are referring to the old J-11B debate again(Here we go again), then I can assure you only the airframe dimensions are taken. Materials, avionics, engines etc. are all indigenous. I don't see the word "reverse engineered" being used wisely anywhere in this circumstance.

 

[gambit]

Most of the time, you're only reverse engineering a small % of the big piece. So, I'm not sure where you taking this, but if you are referring to the old J-11B debate again(Here we go again), then I can assure you only the airframe dimensions are taken. Materials, avionics, engines etc. are all indigenous. I don't see the word "reverse engineered" being used wisely anywhere in this circumstance.

You really did not understand, did you?

Say I built a concrete wall at location A and it was successful. Then I transport all raw materials and tools associated with concrete to location B and built another wall and that copy or cloning process was successful. Now at location C there are a lot of large stones around. My options are that I could copy the concrete wall or I could embark on a 'reverse engineering' process with stone.

Because stone is a different material I would have to develop new tools and find some ways to cut the stones. I do not want to deviate too much from the dimensions of the concrete blocks so every time I cut a stone block I have to be careful so that I do not break or even split the stone. The endeavor is time consuming and much more laborious than that of copying concrete but eventually I succeeded at creating a wall. Now I have two concrete walls with one being a copy of the original and a reverse engineered wall built from stone.

Next I move to location D where I find clay and stone. With a successful reverse engineering effort with stone at C, I decided to try the same with clay. I developed new tools and processes to create clay blocks that are dimensionally similar to the original concrete wall blocks. Then a good rain came. My clay wall softened and eventually collapsed. This reverse engineering effort failed despite the fact that the clay blocks were dimensionally the same as the concrete blocks and the final wall was no different. Now I have a choice of copying either concrete or stone at location D.

Get it?

 

[desiman]

Reverse Engineering is straight copying and there is nothing that great about it. Apart from some minor changes that are done to suit the makers needs, the product is a straight copy from the original keeping a huge percentage of the original specifications in order to have compatible performance. Working in the Canadian aviation industry for a long time I know that there are very strict laws here in regards to reverse engineering and its a practice that is highly frowned upon. In 2009 Textron canceled a part deal with a company who's manufacturing base was in China fearing that the products would end up getting copied by the Chinese. As explained by Gambit, reverse engineering is just a fancy technical term for copying, nothing big and heroic about it.

 

[Speeder 2]

desiman, you have no clue whatsoever on what other members were talking about , because your reply completely misinterpreted what gambit said on reverse engineering. I try to limit my response to you within a couple of sentences as you clearly don't worth it.

 

[SBD-3]

desiman, you have no clue whatsoever on what other members were talking about , because your reply completely misinterpreted what gambit said on reverse engineering. I try to limit my response to you within a couple of sentences as you clearly don't worth it.

Don't you know.....HEZ AN INDIAN!!!!!...I was also just finished messing with one in Indian defence....simply most of these posters are not worth it simply

 

[Speeder 2]

Why should I 'reverse engineer' anything?

The only time I would 'copy' any product is when I have the technological parity to dissect the product and match its components, from source materials to manufacturing processes to methods of assembly.

Exclusive: A conversation with First Solar's Bruce Sohn, Part I--Developing 'copy smart' - Photovoltaics International

Intel developed a cloning program where a successful fab would transfer all knowledge to a newly built fab where all proven processes, from equipments to softwares, would be replicated. No deviations allowed. Any yield differences, usually lower in the new fab and always occur, must be studied and eliminated. There is no need for the new fab to start from scratch.

Reverse engineering is not cloning. Quite often, the need to 'reverse engineer' an existing product stemmed from a technological disparity with usually the inferior belonging to the one who is doing the 'reverse engineering'. To 'reverse engineer' a product mean I would have to examine my own materials, manufacturing processes and assembly to see if I can produce the same product with the same characteristics and performance. This includes the human factors as well, such as educational level and experience. In other words, unlike Intel with its 'Copy Smart' program, I have no controls over the source materials, processes and assembly stages. All I have is the final product. What if the product is made of steel but all I have is pig iron or aluminum? What if the product required steel? Aluminum would certainly make my version lighter but would not have the same characteristics and performance.

Reverse engineering must not always stemmed from a technological disparity. A competitor may have that parity but decided to see if he can produce the same product with the same characteristics and performance based on his own efforts using the original product as a template. For example -- I could build the wall from cut stone instead of concrete. Different materials and processes but seeking the same result. But to 'reverse engineer' either from an technologically inferior position or parity, is to embark on a very ambitious self forced maturity program and this make 'reverse engineering' inherently more difficult and fraught with as much failures as if one is developing a new product. Who knows but I may get lucky and my version may be superior to the original.

This post of yours makes some sense.

However, your "wall" analogy and its explaination are too simplified ( may be misleading for ones with 2.5 brain cells such as desiman, ) , as it's not only materials that matter, FAR more than that.

In the process of Reverse Engineering (RV) complicated machinaries, many problems often occur in understanding how the machanisms work, both in full and in parts. Original machinaries usually carry thier independent patents/ IP rights, to RV it without outside assistance /guidence means that one has to completely understand how those patents work in details by his own efforts - it means that one basically has to re-invent all those same patents/IP rights by just looking at the sample. This is extremly difficult as most ppl failed at this level.

i.e. in your Wall example, you "skipped" how the wall was built by assuming that it's just bricks upon bricks with a straight forward way, which is false. The reality is more like most bricks are intricitly linked to others via different but complex machanisms (some hooked on others, some crewed, some with certain wierd angles. etc. ), with many of those micro machanisms having their own patents. These problems will be further complicated by materails used (and likely many bricks are made of different materials, etc.) As you also noticed later that different materails could produce different results due to different elacities, strenghth and the corresponding physical laws, etc.

So to Reverse Engineering is to figure out correctly all these tiny little things first, and alone, knowing where are the keys and where are potentail traps, etc; then trying to develop special means ( machines & machine tools) whenever needed to built them. In retrospect, time and efforts used would be similar to that of re-inventing a wheel.

In cases of not being able to do so exactly ( which often is the case), and/or not being able to comprehend fully how exactly all details work ( which is often the case as well), it would almost definitely result in inferior performances or worse.

On the contrary however, it would result either a nearly perfect replica with similar functions, or even superior one if it's inspired and produced by RV-based innovating process (such as adding on some of your own patents on top of it. e.g. J-11B vs Su 27).

So from this perspective, one can also understand that so called "copying" is simplely not feasible for advanced machinaries, but only RV.

 

[中华人民共和&#]

You really did not understand, did you?

Say I built a concrete wall at location A and it was successful. Then I transport all raw materials and tools associated with concrete to location B and built another wall and that copy or cloning process was successful. Now at location C there are a lot of large stones around. My options are that I could copy the concrete wall or I could embark on a 'reverse engineering' process with stone.

Because stone is a different material I would have to develop new tools and find some ways to cut the stones. I do not want to deviate too much from the dimensions of the concrete blocks so every time I cut a stone block I have to be careful so that I do not break or even split the stone. The endeavor is time consuming and much more laborious than that of copying concrete but eventually I succeeded at creating a wall. Now I have two concrete walls with one being a copy of the original and a reverse engineered wall built from stone.

Next I move to location D where I find clay and stone. With a successful reverse engineering effort with stone at C, I decided to try the same with clay. I developed new tools and processes to create clay blocks that are dimensionally similar to the original concrete wall blocks. Then a good rain came. My clay wall softened and eventually collapsed. This reverse engineering effort failed despite the fact that the clay blocks were dimensionally the same as the concrete blocks and the final wall was no different. Now I have a choice of copying either concrete or stone at location D.

Get it?

You really did not understand, did you?

Since I was referring to the J-11B, because I misinterpreted your post a page back, it doesn't correlate with reverse engineering at all since you're not trying to REPRODUCE an original with something else. You're entirely trying to OMIT the original since you got something better.

E.g. The avionics were completely pulled out because the development team DIDN'T want anything similar. The digital suite put in does not attempt to EMULATE the analog system ins ANY manner.

Are we on the same page here?

Thanks for your analogy but it was poorly written.

 

[gambit]

You really did not understand, did you?

Far better than you.

Since I was referring to the J-11B,

I was not.

...because I misinterpreted your post a page back,...

Too bad.

...it doesn't correlate with reverse engineering at all since you're not trying to REPRODUCE an original with something else.

Of course you are trying to reproduce the original. You may make a few minor modifications here and there but essentially you are using the original as a template.

You're entirely trying to OMIT the original since you got something better.

No...Here you are assuming that China has something better. In a true 'reverse engineering' effort, there should be no such assumptions.

E.g. The avionics were completely pulled out because the development team DIDN'T want anything similar. The digital suite put in does not attempt to EMULATE the analog system ins ANY manner.

Of course it does. Whether the FLCS computer is digital or analog, its goal is still the same -- to controls the surfaces. Just because it is 'digital' it does not mean it is superior. Am not talking about aviation in particular but 'reverse engineering' in general.

Are we on the same page here?

Nope.

Thanks for your analogy but it was poorly written.

Better than anything you got.

 

[ao333]

Hey gambit, here's an idea: Go back to your hometown in Vietnam and tell the local communist party leader that you wish to excerise your profound expertise in reverse-engineering a carrier-based aircraft. Afterwards, tell him that you are a flight maintence crew.

How ever will he react?!

 

[DESERT FIGHTER]

Gambit is a vietnamese?
WOW thts a SHOCKER

 

[SBD-3]

Gambit is a vietnamese?
WOW thts a SHOCKER

didn't you know? but he'z American citizen now

 

[中华人民共和&#]

Far better than you.

Well that's debunked after seeing your reply go in the other direction to what I wrote.

I was not.

Read what I said vv

Too bad.

Try making yourself more clear next time

Of course you are trying to reproduce the original. You may make a few minor modifications here and there but essentially you are using the original as a template.

@ The original and the update have the same purpose but the goal of the update is to not emulate the tech of the original; you're not going in the direction of the original part.

Got it yet?

No...Here you are assuming that China has something better. In a true 'reverse engineering' effort, there should be no such assumptions.

@ There's no "reverse engineering" involved to begin with
@ There are no assumptions being made. If analog is more efficient, write a letter to LM telling them to make a revision of the Raptor installed with them.

Of course it does. Whether the FLCS computer is digital or analog, its goal is still the same -- to controls the surfaces. Just because it is 'digital' it does not mean it is superior. Am not talking about aviation in particular but 'reverse engineering' in general.

Digital is more integrated, gives pilots more headspace, less stressful no? What avionics(Digital vs analog) are used for may be the same but how they're made is completely different.

i.e. Intel first debuted its quad core tech(Conroe) using 2 duo's slapped on 1 die. AMD later on in the year debuted the world's 1st true Quad core(physically 4 cores) on 1 die, named Barcelona.

Since Intel did not invent multi-core processing, where that's simply evolution of computing, can we say AMD "reverse engineered" Intel's Conroe? NO

Nope.

Then don't reply , you're not worth my time.

Better than anything you got.

Yeah, you barely qualify for elementary grade with those analogies, of course you're better off than I, considering I didn't even make an analogy in my last post...

 

[最爱高古陶]

any pics???????

 

[Luftwaffe]

hasnain0099...lol you amazed PDF. was someone airlifted to us.

 

[gambit]

However, your "wall" analogy and its explaination are too simplified...

Had to. Still...It went 'Whooosshhh' over some people's heads.

...( may be misleading for ones with 2.5 brain cells such as desiman, ) , as it's not only materials that matter, FAR more than that.

You may not like what Desiman said but what he said was essentially the truth: That 'reverse engineering' is to copy. Albeit it is a more time and labor consuming that is accompanied by a learning process.

We can take the F-111 'pitch-roll mixer' assembly for example. What this mechanical contraption does is to create a coordinated turn whenever the pilot command a pitch and roll combination with the control stick. In straight cloning, all I would do is make an exact parallel to the original down to the grade of the metal. But with 'reverse engineering' I would take the assembly apart, study its structure, how the different rods interact with each other to create a coordinated turn. If my version failed at any point, I know that it is my fault and not the device because I have a functional aircraft in front of me. I would be able to adapt the device into an aircraft of my own design. If my version is to be smaller or larger, I must have the proper scaling ratio so that my own version will not produce a departure from controlled flight because my design is not exact as the aircraft that I bought/stole and took apart. Before, I did not know that such a device was possible. Now I do know and even more in-depth.

A 'reverse engineering' program will not create a HiMAT testing platform from an F-5 body. Will not remove the delta wings and install forward swept ones and have a successful flight. A proper 'reverse engineering' program does not have to faithfully reproduce the original in every way, just the basic functional airframe. Improved avionics or materials are just gravy but there is no predicting the performance gains, if any resulted. Can I translate the 'pitch-roll mixer' assembly into numbers, therefore an algorithm for a fly-by-wire FLCS? Absolutely, but that would be the result of a developmental program whose foundation are the actual flight experiences of this mechanical device.

So...Is China's version of the Su-33 inferior to the Russian original? May be but if the Chinese version is the result of a 'reverse engineering' program and not just mere cloning, then China have gained valuable lessons for future aviation developments.