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

[gambit]

your american site uses the word "reversed engineering" for that particular story. before coming back at me knock on wiki's door first. get over with it explained in detailed by other members if it does not satisfy you break off from this thread posting again and again trying to prove you are the champion of knowledge isn't going to help you and your associates.

It is not what wiki said. It is what you said and it was without attribution. It was dishonest. Expected that of you.

 

[Thomas]

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

In 1995, China secured a $2.5-billion production license from Russia to build 200 Su-27SKs, dubbed J-11A, at the Shenyang Aircraft Corp.

The deal required the aircraft to be outfitted with Russian avionics, radars and engines. Russia cancelled the arrangement in 2006 after it discovered that China was developing an indigenous version, J-11B, with Chinese avionics and systems.

The decision came after China had already produced at least 95 aircraft.Last year, Russia refused again to sell the Su-33 to China even after Beijing had offered to buy 14 of them, saying that at least 24 jets should be sold to recoup production costs.

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

The Chinese are getting a pretty bad reputation when it comes to such things.

 

[ao333]

Of course it does. But the differences are not that great.


Err...If the copy is worse, then how is it 'innovative'?

Would it be innovative if you replaced certain parts of a plane and achieve 10% lower peformance but 100% lower cost? Cost reduction is a major impetus for technological innovation. Cheap Vietnamese trash bag makers should know that the best.

 

[gambit]

Would it be innovative if you replaced certain parts of a plane and achieve 10% lower peformance but 100% lower cost? Cost reduction is a major impetus for technological innovation. I thought cheap vietnamese trash bag makers knew that the best.

No...It would not. The goal of making a copy, regardless of avenue how, is at least have comparable performance of the original. If it cost you more you will have to either bear the cost or COMPROMISE. But to truly innovate mean there must be a qualitative performance improvement based upon superior exploitations of the scientific engineering principles that made up both the original and the copy.

 

[ao333]

No...It would not. The goal of making a copy, regardless of avenue how, is at least have comparable performance of the original. If it cost you more you will have to either bear the cost or COMPROMISE. But to truly innovate mean there must be a qualitative performance improvement based upon superior exploitations of the scientific engineering principles that made up both the original and the copy.

So is cost reduction a major impetus for technological innovation, or not? Why are companies investing billions in other inferior metals for fuel cells, when Platinum increases output efficiency by over 180%?

You are in denial.

 

[gambit]

So is cost reduction a major impetus for technological innovation, or not? Why are companies investing billions in other inferior metals for fuel cells, when Platinum increases output efficiency by over 180%?

Yes it is. But this is not the case here. The goal of every 'reverse engineering' endeavor is primarily to see if reproduction is possible with one's current technological status. Reproduction in every way in form and performance. Cost is of secondary concern. You 'reverse engineer' because you cannot innovate. Is that too uncomfortable for you......to accept for China?

If your version is inferior in any way in form and performance, how is that an indication of cost reduction? Cost reduction is a conscious effort. If the J-15 is inferior to the Su-33 in performance, and if the J-15 cost less, is it cheaper because of a conscious decision...To make an inferior version just to make it cheaper...??? That make no sense when national security is at stake. If you can make a comparable version but with less cost because you have a superior material and/or superior manufacturing process, then you may have a credible argument that there MAY BE some innovation going on here. But then that begs the question of why have a reduction in cost for comparable performance when you can have the same cost for superior performance.

To be truly innovative your version must advance the technology itself, not just reducing your cost outlay. So show the readers how is the Chinese version of the Su-33 advanced the base airframe in particular and offered aviation in general some advancements.

You are in denial.

And you have no idea of what this is all about.

 

[SomeGuy]

Here is what 'reverse engineering' entails...

Reverse engineering (RE) is the process of discovering the technological principles of a device, object or system through analysis of its structure, function and operation. It often involves taking something (e.g., a mechanical device, electronic component, or software program) apart and analyzing its workings in detail to be used in maintenance, or to try to make a new device or program that does the same thing without utilizing any physical part of the original.

The operative words here are: technological principles. A 'reverse engineering' attempt goes beyond mere object reproduction but actually attempts to understand the scientific and engineering foundation that made up the object, which is what I tried to explain earlier.

Children...Like it or not, to 'reverse engineer' is to make a 'copy', not to invent something new.

These two statements contradict each other.
First you say "A 'reverse engineering' attempt goes beyond mere object reproduction" i.e. copying.....then you say "to 'reverse engineer' is to make a 'copy'".

Reverse engineering, as you correctly pointed out in the first part, is about discovering technological principles and so does not necessitate a copied final product.

The reverse engineered product doesn't have to even appear similar to the original product as long as it reproduces the technological principles/behaviour/physics.

 

[desiman]

To all Chinese and Pakistani fanboys on this thread, learn how to argue without getting personal, its clearly showing your frustration.

 

[SomeGuy]

To be truly innovative your version must advance the technology itself, not just reducing your cost outlay. So show the readers how is the Chinese version of the Su-33 advanced the base airframe in particular and offered aviation in general some advancements.

I don't know what's in J-15, but it is expected to be a J-11B variant rather than Su-33.

Here are just some of the known external changes of J-11B compared to Su-27:

• Wide adoption of composite material to reduce the weight and increase the life of the composite part compared to the original part built from steel.
  
• Redesigned air inlets of engine intakes to reduce the radar cross section.
  
• Certified to be equipped with WS-10 and WS-10A turbofan engine.

These changes would've required a lot of engineering and development effort to make sure the performance and aerodynamic characteristics of the original Flanker are retained.

 

[Nahraf]

Nobody has to reinvent the wheel. China was far behind in military technology so they reverse engineered many weapons to catch up with the West and Russia. This has been learning process for China and I think in this decade we will see them start developing weapons from their own designs.

 

[gambit]

These two statements contradict each other.
First you say "A 'reverse engineering' attempt goes beyond mere object reproduction" i.e. copying.....then you say "to 'reverse engineer' is to make a 'copy'".

Not at all. The word 'copy' here is used in the casual context. It is equivalent to 'version' or a 'derivative'.

Reverse engineering, as you correctly pointed out in the first part, is about discovering technological principles and so does not necessitate a copied final product.

The reverse engineered product doesn't have to even appear similar to the original product as long as it reproduces the technological principles/behaviour/physics.

No it does not...But that is the case here. China is not using the Su-33 to advance (military) aviation in general but Chinese military aviation in particular. At best, the J-15 could be described as an unauthorized evolution of the Su-33.

 

[Luftwaffe]

desi To all Chinese and Pakistani fanboys on this thread, learn how to argue without getting personal, its clearly showing your frustration.

explain Chinese and Pakistani fanboys? desi englishman...

Non is interested in getting personal, certainly nobody is in need to get personal. Indeed Chinese/Pakistan friends have explained proven in depth professionally putting forward their points which need no further clarifications. And its not learn how to argue arguing would be unprofessional which you are your associates are doing right now to save faces put it the right way will you?


It has been explained in detail in professional manner debunked, the only party to be annoyingly frustrated is you & associates moving in circles trying to type, retype edit, add, omit and post for every other post so one day your post be appreciated that has fatally proven worthless.

 

[Speeder 2]

Not at all. The word 'copy' here is used in the casual context. It is equivalent to 'version' or a 'derivative'.


No it does not...But that is the case here. China is not using the Su-33 to advance (military) aviation in general but Chinese military aviation in particular. At best, the J-15 could be described as an unauthorized evolution of the Su-33.

still pumping hard... day & night... huh?




Copying and Reverse Engineering

1. have totally different premises;

2. require totally different procedures ;

3. consume drastically different amount of resources, both natural and human; and

4. achieve definitely different results.


Is these 2 activities were the same, then your surpposed daily penis largement pumping activity must and would have been exactly interchangeable with, or substituted by, your surpposed breast augmentation activity, or your surpposed frontal brain surgery, etc. , because all of them also:

1. have totally different premises;

2. require totally different procedures ;

3. consume drastically different amount of resources, both natural and human; and

4. achieve definitely different results.


I'm sure that you are absolutely agree with me on this!

 

[gambit]

still pumping hard... day & night... huh?

Oh no...The pumpers here are you boys pumping each other over on who can put on the best spin for China's copying of Russian stuff. Sure...China is 'reverse engineering' and not 'copying' Windows XP or Hollywood movies...

 

[Speeder 2]

Oh no...The pumpers here are you boys pumping each other over on who can put on the best spin for China's copying of Russian stuff. Sure...China is 'reverse engineering' and not 'copying' Windows XP or Hollywood movies...

So youself agree to shift to "F-111 style" breast augmentation then?

Copy / reverse engineer Cup A straight into double E plus ?

Why bother as they're the same to you anyway?