Military Review

Sohu identified Chinese aircraft engine destroyers

106

The Chinese media published material stating that specifically so far the PRC does not allow to overtake the West in matters of aircraft construction, including the military.


In the section "Control weapons"Sohu information portal says that the difficulties lie in the timely creation of our own aircraft engines that meet modern requirements.

The Chinese media note that the local aviation industry needs engines of "relatively low weight, dimensions and high thrust."

From the material:
Engine building includes many new technologies and processes, as well as the need for suitable materials, all this takes time.

It is noted that China does not have much experience in creating aircraft engines, and therefore it will be difficult for it now to catch up with countries such as the United States and Russia in the field of aircraft engine manufacturing, "if you do not abandon the existing principles."

The main erroneous principle in Sohu is that in China they first try to create a new aircraft, and then begin to think about creating a suitable engine for it. As an example, we can cite the latest Chinese fighter J-20, at the first stage of testing which exclusively Russian engines were used.

From the article:

Our production habit looks strange: we put the plane, the glider in the first place, and the engine for it is defined as a kind of accessory. This creates a big problem. Aircraft are already starting to roll off the assembly line and immediately after that they begin to wait for the right engine to be selected for them.

This approach and those who profess it, have been identified as the "destroyers" of the Chinese aircraft engine industry. It is stated that with such an approach it is difficult to talk about the development of competitive advantages of the Chinese aviation.

The author writes that you need to take advantage of foreign practice - for example, the experience of the USA:

If they create a new plane, then they begin to create it with the engine, or else the glider and engine are created simultaneously. We are not on this path yet, and therefore the principles of our aircraft industry do not look smarter than in the USA or in Russia.

The Chinese author expects that the approach in the PRC will be changed.
106 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Civil
    Civil 14 November 2019 07: 16 New
    -1
    A very strange, long-term “disease” among the Chinese people is surprised by this state of affairs. Serious people, communists, cannot solve this issue.
    1. Borets
      Borets 14 November 2019 07: 20 New
      +12
      The longer they resolve this issue, the better for us.
      1. letinant
        letinant 14 November 2019 07: 30 New
        +11
        Experts say that they have a low level of metallurgy. Which indirectly confirms the engine life of aircraft engines and the constant damage to the chassis and engines of tanks on the Tank Biathlon.
        1. Errr
          Errr 14 November 2019 07: 33 New
          +4
          There is not only metallurgy. China + chemistry = tin.)))
          1. Vladimir16
            Vladimir16 14 November 2019 07: 51 New
            +10
            Quote: Herrr
            Serious people, communists, cannot solve this issue.

            Engines are created by scientists and engineers.
            What does serious communists or anarchists have to do with it? lol

            Or do you think that at the next plenum of the Communist Party, the Chinese Communists will decide to create an engine and it (the engine) will be created? laughing

            Stalin did not suffer from insanity, did not invent a bicycle and did not allow anyone to do it.
            He set the task for Tupolev to COPY an American plane.
            What Tupolev successfully did.

            And then the school appeared.
            After all, in the secondary school, too, we first copied, studied what was invented before us. Then at your high school we study what our predecessors came up with.
            And only then, out of hundreds of thousands of scientists and engineers, people are able to create new ones.

            Sikorsky was Russian, but was not a communist. Thanks to the Communists, he immigrated to the states. Now our opponent uses the technique of a Russian engineer.wink
            1. Errr
              Errr 14 November 2019 07: 57 New
              +1
              The quote is not mine, but Civil (Vadim). I didn’t even answer him. Take a closer look, please.
            2. Vladimir_2U
              Vladimir_2U 14 November 2019 08: 14 New
              +3
              Quote: Vladimir16
              Stalin did not suffer from insanity, did not invent a bicycle and did not allow anyone to do it.

              And if the bicycle has not yet been invented? But what about the enrichment of uranium? the Americans enriched them in a gas diffusion way, while ours and so on in centrifuges worked out the technology, and if Stalin had banned? The bike is already invented!
            3. EvilLion
              EvilLion 14 November 2019 08: 51 New
              -1
              Thanks to the communists, a large-scale heavy bomber appeared in Russia, and Sikorsky's Ilya Muromets could not even play a significant role even in wartime due to the inability of RI to build it in large numbers.
              1. Vlad.by
                Vlad.by 14 November 2019 21: 05 New
                +7
                Incidentally, none of the belligerent powers had bombers of this class at all.
                And Russia had a whole squadron.
                And they were built 80 pcs.
                For 15 years - a lot, it's not a single-engine Albatross
                1. EvilLion
                  EvilLion 15 November 2019 10: 24 New
                  +1
                  After a couple of years, Italy, which had nothing to do with airplanes at all, already riveted heavy bombers in series and built them for 200 pcs. In general, when they tell me crap about RCMP, I like to poke my face at the statistics of aircraft production during WWI, where Russia with its 3500 cars against 40-50 thousand among leaders and at the same time finding aircraft at the front to 3000 at the end of British PMV , not a power, but a banana republic, which was predictably pinched and fucked by heavy artillery and aircraft. They could have piled on even stronger, and the western front was the main front in the WWII. So without the Bolsheviks, neither Sukhoi, nor MiG, nor Yakovlev, nor Tupolev, nor anyone else would have existed.

                  https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/ТБ-1 "Илья Муромец" мог о такой серии только мечтать. А достижение Сикорского в том, что он догадался 4 мотора поставить, которые вообще импортные были полностью. ЕМНИП тогда боялись асимметрии тяги при отказе движка.
                  1. Vlad.by
                    Vlad.by 15 November 2019 10: 52 New
                    -3
                    Based on your logic, Italy without communists riveted 200 aircraft in the 17th.
                    Now they have communists and ...? The training M436 was barely made possible with the help of Yakovlev Design Bureau.

                    With history, a thorough need. She, such a thing, is unstable.
                    The question is who writes it and when.
                  2. Procopius Nesterov
                    Procopius Nesterov 15 November 2019 18: 03 New
                    -4
                    and a banana republic, which was predictably pinched and fucked with heavy artillery and airplanes.
                    On World War I, the Germans did not take Minsk on day 5, and were not near Moscow.
                    Millions did not surrender.
                    1. certero
                      certero 16 November 2019 04: 08 New
                      +1
                      If the bulk of the German army had piled on Russia in WWI, then there would have been a speedy scribe. Throughout the war, the Germans did not win a single battle.
            4. Alexey RA
              Alexey RA 14 November 2019 20: 02 New
              0
              Quote: Vladimir16
              Or do you think that at the next plenum of the Communist Party, the Chinese Communists will decide to create an engine and it (the engine) will be created?

              But yak! smile
              - But you are a communist !!!
              And again he sharpened the machine gun ...
              ©
            5. vfvlasov
              vfvlasov 14 November 2019 20: 56 New
              +1
              "Engines are created by scientists and engineers!" Yes, they work. But there must be a smart leader who knows best how to make an aircraft engine and from what. Manage and make the best aircraft engine does not work. A good example is Russia. Many government executive bureaucrats sit in the general directors, and they will never develop or manufacture the best aircraft engine in the world! They are incapable, none. If one of them thinks that I will be general, and I find a specialist and he makes the best aircraft engine in the world, then this person with a sick brain, suspected imbecility, he needs psychiatrists to treat the brain. The leaders need a talented experienced engineer who understands the nature of all physical processes and materials, all the technical entities of all components and assemblies. And they don’t take such people there, stupid managers. As a result, Russian aircraft engines have low TTX compared to enemy aircraft engines! 30 years behind! And it seems like forever. No chance to catch up at least.
              1. Mestny
                Mestny 15 November 2019 08: 59 New
                -3
                Do you write this directly from China?
                Well done, everything is correct, so they are doing ..
              2. EvilLion
                EvilLion 15 November 2019 10: 25 New
                0
                Lavrenty Beria - an architect by profession, a job manager. Made an atomic bomb.
            6. Alexey LK
              Alexey LK 17 November 2019 00: 46 New
              0
              Quote: Vladimir16
              Engines are created by scientists and engineers.
              What does serious communists or anarchists have to do with it?

              Because the Communists, or "Communists", they rule and determine politics there, incl. technical, set tasks, allocate resources and exercise control over execution. Including (and first of all) at the strategic level. The remark is absolutely appropriate since The USSR faced similar problems, and since the Chinese chose a copy strategy for themselves, at least mistakes and problems could not be copied, the Soviet experience had to be studied properly. And most importantly - in parallel with copying, it was possible and necessary to start creating scientific schools, developing basic science earlier - then by now there would have been results.
          2. Vlad.by
            Vlad.by 15 November 2019 15: 01 New
            0
            We work with a Chinese alloy company. Deliver and, in principle, quite high-quality materials.
            Declare that they are ready to supply accurate casting, but ...

            When you get such questions from a drawing from a manager who is kind of like a mechanical engineer, it gets a little uncomfortable.
            1. Errr
              Errr 15 November 2019 19: 23 New
              +1
              As a Grasshopper said to a pilot from a regiment of night bombers in the film "Only Old Men Go to Battle":
              So generally guys they are nothing. But here is some aesthetic underdevelopment ... laughing
      2. Cut Samshitov
        Cut Samshitov 14 November 2019 08: 04 New
        +1
        Our production habit looks strange: we put the plane, the glider in the first place, and the engine for it is defined as a kind of accessory. This creates a big problem.
        As you know .... The USSR attacked the same rake in the 30s.
        1. EvilLion
          EvilLion 14 November 2019 08: 51 New
          -1
          Massively licensing imported engines, and then doing your own thing? I understood what I said.
      3. Alexander Petrov1
        Alexander Petrov1 14 November 2019 21: 28 New
        -3
        They do not have our best lithium aluminum, titanium and composite alloys in the world, and without them nothing good can be built.
        1. Timx
          Timx 15 November 2019 02: 20 New
          -1
          There are, of course, no lithium-aluminum and composite alloys, as is the case with the West, however))
          1. Alexander Petrov1
            Alexander Petrov1 15 November 2019 05: 19 New
            -4
            Do not write nonsense we are the leaders of lithium-aluminum alloys.
            1. Timx
              Timx 15 November 2019 08: 22 New
              0
              You better indicate where these `` lithium-aluminum alloys '' are used in existing military aircraft engines, and then you’ll mess around wink
              1. Alexander Petrov1
                Alexander Petrov1 15 November 2019 11: 26 New
                -3
                Even the United States writes that Russia is the leader in this example of the RD-180, they told us that it should not work this engine, and our scientists are laughing and talking near their stand but it works ...
                1. Timx
                  Timx 15 November 2019 11: 29 New
                  0
                  And what does the RD-180 have to do with it, if it was about aircraft engines and aluminum-lithium alloys?
                  1. Alexander Petrov1
                    Alexander Petrov1 15 November 2019 11: 30 New
                    -2
                    They buy them from us these alloys.
                    1. Timx
                      Timx 15 November 2019 11: 33 New
                      +1
                      I asked you, in what serial aircraft engines are such alloys used? You tell me about RD-180 ...
                      1. Vlad.by
                        Vlad.by 22 November 2019 00: 14 New
                        0
                        And to give an example of a "lithium aluminum alloy" and even for an aircraft engine is weak?
                        Even without chemistry. Brand only
                      2. Timx
                        Timx 22 November 2019 18: 31 New
                        0
                        It’s not difficult for me with chemistry either))) Only let the comrade first decide: “lithium aluminum” (based on lithium ??? with the addition of aluminum sad ), or all the same `` aluminum-lithium '' (aluminum alloy doped with lithium and magnesium), he had in mind the alloy ... Otherwise, it just turns out to be an empty chatter))
  2. Shuttle
    Shuttle 14 November 2019 07: 35 New
    -1
    Quote: Civil
    A very strange, long-term “disease” among the Chinese people is surprised by this state of affairs. Serious people, communists, cannot solve this issue.

    The USA and the USSR / Russia learned to build aircraft from France and Germany. And China thought about it when, in fact, there was no German or French aircraft industry left. At least in comparison with the American.
    1. maden.usmanow
      maden.usmanow 14 November 2019 11: 22 New
      +3
      The Wright brothers were still Americans, not French or Germans.
      And the analogue of B 17, it seems they also were not observed.
  3. Vladimir_6
    Vladimir_6 14 November 2019 12: 59 New
    +2
    Quote: Civil
    Serious people, communists, cannot solve this issue.

    In the United States, it is not the Communists who are solving these problems. And in Russia, not the Communist Party creates engines. Both the United States and Russia have gone through a thorny path to today's successes. China has ahead. The people are hardworking and persistent. Surely they can handle it.
  4. Timx
    Timx 15 November 2019 03: 34 New
    -1
    It is a pity, the Russian leaders are stubbornly leading our aircraft industry in the same direction, having a lively Chinese example before their eyes ...
    1. Mestny
      Mestny 15 November 2019 09: 01 New
      -3
      What is yours? Is it Ukrainian?
      Everything is in order with the Russian one.
      1. Timx
        Timx 15 November 2019 09: 16 New
        -2
        At you write the word `` Ukrainian '' with a capital letter, so there is no need here to stick to a Russian, we will figure it out without you)) yes
        1. Mestny
          Mestny 15 November 2019 09: 23 New
          -2
          Well, for sure, from there.
          Russian language must be learned. In it, a new sentence begins with a capital letter.
          1. Timx
            Timx 15 November 2019 09: 34 New
            -1
            It would be nice to develop a sense of humor and generally go far)))
            1. Mestny
              Mestny 15 November 2019 09: 41 New
              -4
              Wow humor.
              Someone offers me, a citizen of Russia, to go far away on a Russian site. At the same time, he continues to ride in the style of "all gone."
              Do not joke like that, at least in real life.
              Take care of yourself, learn Russian.
              1. Timx
                Timx 15 November 2019 09: 42 New
                -2
                Have a nice one you too...
  5. Private-K
    Private-K 15 November 2019 08: 52 New
    -1
    Engine building (as well as machine tools, as well as innovative technologies), is the technical domain of the Western world - the USA and the West. Of Europe.
    USSR with difficulties succeeded (and not immediately, and not always) in engine building. For the most part, we went the same way - we bought and copied Western samples, tried to make our own based on them and their technologies.
    And for the Chinese, the well-known problem of the "yellow" race with creativity is added to similar problems (to copy and improve an existing sample is fine, but to create from scratch and in general, even come up with a stupor).
  • Thunderbolt
    Thunderbolt 14 November 2019 07: 19 New
    +8
    Gliders now will not surprise anyone. Countries that are completely backward in aviation can easily demonstrate even a fifth-generation aircraft model. But the engine you need can’t be bungled simply by an ape. Here you have to be the god of engine building and have a long, thorny path of trial and error behind your back.
    1. knn54
      knn54 14 November 2019 08: 17 New
      +3
      The Chinese are rationalists, even dogmas. They are not creative.
      And it was laid genetically. Perhaps in about five years. "Ten" young people will come and a breakthrough will take place.
      And their material science is not up to par.
    2. orionvitt
      orionvitt 14 November 2019 13: 07 New
      +3
      Quote: Thunderbolt
      But the engine you need can’t be bungled simply by an ape.

      The Chinese, even the simplest AI-20, the development of the 50s, did not bring to mind. They copied, copied, but they did not achieve the necessary parameters. In fairness, it should be noted that creating an engine is an order of magnitude more difficult than creating an airplane.
      1. Timx
        Timx 15 November 2019 02: 51 New
        -2
        AI-20 is the simplest, well, well; I wonder when we will finally create something similar in Russia ...
        1. Mestny
          Mestny 15 November 2019 09: 03 New
          -1
          Russia has its own school. And there are engines no worse and better.
          Why create something like that? This is the lot of retarded development, such as the Chinese or Indians.
          1. Timx
            Timx 15 November 2019 09: 08 New
            -1
            Well, tell me offhand at least one aviation theater or TVAD of a Russian school, then we'll talk smile Why just balabolit?
            1. Mestny
              Mestny 15 November 2019 09: 17 New
              0
              Schools of engine building are much older than Russia itself after 1991.
              This process cannot be divided. Now in Russia, world-class engines are mass-produced, relying on the school of engine building created long ago, back in the USSR.
              For example, PD-14 or its helicopter modification PD-12. Or AL-41F1S for example.
              1. Timx
                Timx 15 November 2019 09: 20 New
                -2
                What, PD-12 is already being produced? Well, everything is clear with you! wink
                1. Mestny
                  Mestny 15 November 2019 09: 25 New
                  -1
                  Yes, everything is clear with me.
                  I work in Russia, I have an idea. For this reason, the Internet is not hysteria about "all is lost."
  • Chaldon48
    Chaldon48 14 November 2019 07: 19 New
    +5
    A Russian peasant has long realized that a cart in front of a horse is not at all what he needs!
  • Errr
    Errr 14 November 2019 07: 21 New
    +5
    You can build a glider around the engine, and adapt the engines to a specific machine, but the first thing that was remembered from the great Russian literature was Krylovsky:
    And you, friends, no matter how you sit down;
    Everything is not good for musicians. laughing
    It’s not necessary to copy, but simply turn on the brain to its fullest and roll up its sleeves.
    1. Vladimir_6
      Vladimir_6 14 November 2019 13: 05 New
      +1
      Quote: Herrr
      It’s not necessary to copy, but simply turn on the brain to its fullest and roll up its sleeves.

      By what they copied, they laid not a weak "base". Now they need to either turn on their brains or take the path of the Indians. To buy equipment and beg technology. Perhaps they will.
      1. Errr
        Errr 14 November 2019 14: 07 New
        +3
        It remains only to remind the respected Chinese words of their world-famous compatriot Kung Fu-tzu:
        Three paths lead to knowledge: the path of reflection is the noblest path, the path of imitation is the easiest path and the path of experience is the most bitter path.
        1. Vladimir_6
          Vladimir_6 14 November 2019 15: 41 New
          +5
          Quote: Herrr
          It remains only to remind the respected Chinese words of their world-famous compatriot Kung Fu-tzu:
          Three paths lead to knowledge: the path of reflection is the noblest path, the path of imitation is the easiest path and the path of experience is the most bitter path.

          Our Alexander Sergeevich also perfectly said:
          "About how many wonderful discoveries we have
          Prepare the spirit of enlightenment
          And the experience of the son of errors difficult,
          And genius, the paradoxes friend
          And chance, god inventor. "
          So "our respected Chinese" is the time to choose the path.
          1. Errr
            Errr 14 November 2019 15: 54 New
            +2
            Tao is forever and has no name.
            Silence chooses a path that has not been chosen.)
  • The leader of the Redskins
    The leader of the Redskins 14 November 2019 07: 26 New
    +7
    So our Zaamur’s neighbor pulls the little hands to the Zaporozhye engine builder. And the State Department, how much hated, but by the handles of them! By the little hands!
  • rocket757
    rocket757 14 November 2019 07: 30 New
    +3
    The Chinese media note that the local aviation industry needs engines of "relatively low weight, dimensions and high thrust."

    And who doesn’t need them?
    It is noted that China does not have much experience in creating aircraft engines, and therefore it will be difficult for it now to catch up with countries such as the United States and Russia in the field of aircraft engine manufacturing, "if you do not abandon the existing principles."

    Apparently, the leadership is doing everything possible and even more to catch up and be at the level of others, at least!
    They can, they cannot, the question is rhetorical ....
    1. Mestny
      Mestny 15 November 2019 09: 05 New
      -1
      The result is important, and not what the “management does”.
      Apparently copying as expected rested on the materials. Which is notoriously difficult to copy.
      1. rocket757
        rocket757 15 November 2019 09: 38 New
        0
        Quote: Mestny
        The result is important, and not what the “management does”.

        The result appears in different ways ... In China, which is characteristic, very much depends on how the management thinks!
        Quote: Mestny
        copying as expected rested on materials. Which is notoriously difficult to copy.

        It's just hard to copy ... how can I solve the problem? Create YOUR science school and develop EVERYTHING YOURSELF! The path is not fast, but accessible, with due persistence and investment of serious babosiks! China is AVAILABLE!
  • edeligor
    edeligor 14 November 2019 07: 34 New
    +2
    This is an axiom! First, diabetes, and only after the joint-stock company and REO.
  • acetophenon
    acetophenon 14 November 2019 07: 45 New
    +5
    Quote: Herrr
    There is not only metallurgy. China + chemistry = tin.)))

    I have only positive experience with Chinese fluororganic and inorganic. Unlike Russian. However, sometimes this is also brought from Germany ... However, in the latter, sometimes only the greed of the owner of the company is to blame.
    1. Mestny
      Mestny 15 November 2019 09: 07 New
      -2
      That is, everything is in order in Germany, and only the greed of the owner is to blame, but in Russia, as always, the authorities are to blame?
  • EvilLion
    EvilLion 14 November 2019 08: 59 New
    -2
    Glider and airplane are generally easier to make than a powerful and durable engine. And so he rolled out an airplane with a Russian or even his own engine, even if it has an 100 resource of hours, and we can report that the airplane is flying. I think that our Su-57 could be pushed into a series as early as the 2015 year, it flies, but as already do not care. Again, the Chinese, apparently, still think in the paradigms of a very mass army with rapidly changing weapons and are ready to solve the problem by banal mass construction of bad engines. In case of war, the plane will not survive for a long time anyway, but if they crawl somewhere, like ours into Syria, then our 1 regiment with extremely reliable aircraft can handle it, and the Chinese will simply send spare 2 aircraft.
    1. Mestny
      Mestny 15 November 2019 09: 09 New
      -1
      Well, this is a well-known thing. When the leadership has a huge human resource, the price of this resource drops dramatically. Such a sophisticated technique does not need to be produced. Still give birth.
  • max chervon
    max chervon 14 November 2019 09: 24 New
    +2
    There is a Type 99 tank on the Internet, according to the photo it is already rotting inside. It turns out that they have quality not only in the civilian sphere, but also in the military. And in evidence tank biathlon can lead.
  • engineer74
    engineer74 14 November 2019 10: 20 New
    +2
    The problem of the lack of the necessary engines, under the finished glider, suffers all the aircraft-building powers, since about 1903. lol
    The only exception is the Russian Empire: bought / trophy and built around an airplane, well, or a tsar tank ... wassat
  • Monar
    Monar 14 November 2019 10: 28 New
    +1
    Nonsense. Or a clumsy translation.
    What does it mean not to work on a glider if there is no engine? Doesn’t it work on avionics? Do not create rockets?
    China will come to dvigalovo to a modern level. This is a given. For one engineer from the Russian Federation, they can put 10 of their own. 5 for one American. Just by population.
    And here, just the quantity will turn into quality.
    1. hydrox
      hydrox 14 November 2019 11: 43 New
      +4
      Quote: Monar
      And here, just the quantity will turn into quality.

      In such a spelling, this is an erroneous statement.
      It’s more correct to write like this ::
      “The quantity grows into another quality with the advent of new technologies”,
      and as an example I will cite the appearance of a NEW quality when Chinese self-tapping screws made of good red-hot steel appeared on the market a quarter of a century ago: before that, Russia spent a hundred years joining wooden parts with low-quality wood-steel screws or nails. However, with the use of self-tapping screws with improved quality, the cost of the self-tapping operation has noticeably increased, but labor productivity has also increased significantly due to the exclusion of the drilling operation and the massive use of screwdrivers (rarely, some nitpone screw now manually screws!) - you have to pay for everything and it’s good if not overpay.
      I doubt that now you can find that screw.
      1. Demon_is_ada
        Demon_is_ada 14 November 2019 13: 04 New
        +3
        Bravo! An analytical approach ... in the conclusions, unfortunately you rewrote the story, although I am inclined to think that unintentionally, you simply did not focus. At first there was a mechanized assembly in the form of screwdrivers, but the soft heads could not stand it and the self-tapping screw appeared in the form with which it is now - high-carbon and red-hot and still hard-alloy bits, the use of which really raised the cost of production by an order of magnitude. Indeed, quantity sometimes substitutes indirectly for quality, but does not outgrow hi
        1. hydrox
          hydrox 14 November 2019 17: 53 New
          +1
          In trifles, our opinions may diverge, but this is not a reason to arrange a wed, so I agree.
      2. Monar
        Monar 15 November 2019 07: 26 New
        +1
        “The quantity grows into another quality with the advent of new technologies”,
        Well, it's a matter of time. Or do you think Chinese engineers are dumb?
        Other things being equal, the one who wins is the winner. And China does not spare money in the military commissar.
        Well, in the 90s, "ala China" was a household name. And now smarts "Bitten Apple" where?
        Well, the "Chinese watts-volts-amperes" have not gone away. But top products are present on the market.
        The same applies to the military. Today is the average. And tomorrow the trendsetter. The likelihood that a genius of 1 engineers will fire is much higher than that of 000.
        1. hydrox
          hydrox 15 November 2019 09: 16 New
          -1
          Here it is necessary to talk not about stupidity, but about the absence of "UNstandard THINKING", the presence of which Soviet design schools have always been famous for and this quality is absent from foreign schools. This was especially evident in the 60s, when the Union was ahead of the rest in computer production :: BESM-6 and BESM-10 - these were the masterpieces of design thought that the States could not get around for so long until the liberal villains from the Central Committee decided to produce cars of the EU series - it was then that electronic computer engineering was blown away in the USSR.
          1. Monar
            Monar 15 November 2019 09: 32 New
            0
            The 60s are long gone. And BESM were not much cooler than IBM.
            You can talk about unconventional thinking as much as you like. And design school. This is all important. It is necessary. It's necessary. I don’t even argue here.
            But again we rest against the numbers. A school with 1 engineers is easier to create. Among them, one can “shoot” faster. Than a school of 000 engineers. I repeat of course, but there is a fact. Well, if you come up with a completely physiology, then any trainer in sports is better off choosing from a larger number.
            1. hydrox
              hydrox 15 November 2019 11: 22 New
              0
              You offer a liberal-primitive market hands algorithm.
              For 30 years it should have been clear that at the present stage, primitiveness from the beginnings of capitalism of the era of the 1850s in the second millennium would no longer work due to its mossiness (which Russian liberoids still cannot understand).
              The Chinese are confronted by their own ideological blindness: after all, if the Chinese suddenly inadvertently produce something breakthrough, then a council of masses of masses of representative (in Chinese terms) experts gathers who are faced with the solution of such a problem:
              1. How great is the degree of breakthrough of the obtained solution.
              2. How dangerous is the failure to comply with the proposed parameters of this decision for all those involved in this decision.
              And this is only because the design decision does not belong to the individual or the team, but specifically to the CP of the PRC.
              Another question is posed: "Such a solution has already been used by someone somewhere, and if so, with what result?
              If not used, then such a decision is rejected.
              And remember: scientific, managerial and design work is not a ball to drive and shoot from a machine gun, in these services the BRAINs are mainly involved, as opposed to everything else that mankind is doing.
              1. Monar
                Monar 15 November 2019 13: 10 New
                0
                What is the "hand of the market" in China? You are joking? :)
                because if suddenly the Chinese inadvertently get something breakthrough, then instantly a council of masses of representative (in Chinese terms) experts gathers
                And in Boeing, BMW, Sony and the "bitten apple" as well. In their terms, experts.
                in these services are mainly involved brain
                Yes, what are you? But the same MMM and other "financiers" did not mention? Only brains worked. laughing Although what am I? Mentioned. Managerial work.
                1. hydrox
                  hydrox 15 November 2019 15: 55 New
                  0
                  From now on, stay with your friends: I’m somehow ashamed to spend my time talking with you ...
    2. Ehanatone
      Ehanatone 14 November 2019 23: 51 New
      +1
      "And here it’s just quantity will turn into quality"
      Yes, yes, something similar happened with the smelting of cast iron before the Cultural Revolution No. ...
      1. hydrox
        hydrox 15 November 2019 11: 25 New
        0
        By the way, they didn’t succeed in casting iron, in spite of the fact that this was exactly what was started.
        It turned out screaming iron (roughly speaking, something like scrap metal), for the conversion of which into steel it was necessary to know metal science, and this is still a poorly developed discipline in China.
  • voyaka uh
    voyaka uh 14 November 2019 10: 32 New
    +1
    Not only the Chinese are doing this.
    Created Su-57 and is already in service. The first two serial in the assembly. But there are still no engines for them.
    Nothing wrong with that. Both the Chinese and the Russians did the right thing. If you do not start production, you will hopelessly lag behind.
    1. thinker
      thinker 14 November 2019 14: 16 New
      +3
      Well, the Americans have not been shy for twenty years to buy the RD-180. And profitable and effective.
  • Lord of the Sith
    Lord of the Sith 14 November 2019 11: 02 New
    +3
    In Sohu, as always, they burn napalm, they wanted to master everything and everything in a snap? Yes, hell, the stupid copy method does not always work))
    You have to do your own from scratch.
    1. hydrox
      hydrox 14 November 2019 14: 01 New
      +1
      But why?
      You can grind an idea and grow meat on it: you can steal technical documentation for a node and restore the device’s algorithm of operation, but none of this can be done with a low general technical culture of the COLLECTIVE. And for this it is necessary that COMPLEX devices surround the thinker (master, design engineer, test researcher ...), starting from the moment when the boy has a craving for mathematics and physics, and also the desire to hold the key, put together a birdhouse and solder two conductors - only their sets "Why? When? Why not?" the analyst begins, from which the creator and researcher can turn out.
  • ZVS
    ZVS 14 November 2019 13: 02 New
    +3
    The aircraft is put in the first place not only in China, but also in Russia, therefore, so far the entire aviation industry is based on the developments of the Soviet era. Nothing has been created in Russia in the field of engine building for twenty years. They have been building the technological chain at engine building companies for twenty years, but regularly the political leadership throws up introductory notes on managing production processes, depriving production of independence and passing control levers to “Kremlin efficient managers”, and in fact amateurs .
    1. Ehanatone
      Ehanatone 14 November 2019 23: 48 New
      -2
      And still all the time, the torturer bury, or drop, the last engine and, in my opinion, AI-93 seems to be getting in ...
      Well, how armies are shoved in by armies instead of comprehensively worked out and already practically prepared for the production of T95, and of course with the waste of heaps of grandmas on novelty ...!
      1. Timx
        Timx 15 November 2019 03: 24 New
        0
        NK-93 yes , NK (Nikolay Kuznetsov, Samara), and not AI at all (Alexander Ivchenko, Zaporozhye) wink
      2. The comment was deleted.
      3. ZVS
        ZVS 15 November 2019 17: 27 New
        0
        Dear, there is no AI-93, but there is an NK-93. There is no T95, but there is a T-90.
    2. Procopius Nesterov
      Procopius Nesterov 15 November 2019 18: 10 New
      -2
      What do you mean they have not created? Russia was not part of the USSR and the Russians did not live there or did not develop it? With the same success, we can say that the USSR lived on the inheritance and territory of the Russian Empire and at the expense of its resources and land, but the USSR never created its territory.
      1. ZVS
        ZVS 18 November 2019 12: 20 New
        0
        Prokopenko, do not puff and strain if you do not know that modern developments in weapons systems have the foundation laid down in the USSR, i.e. in the era of socialism. But the capitalist path of stagnation of Russia is not able to give such a volume of scientific research that would allow the creation of technologically new models. Tell me what the target was when I hit Perevet during the trials. And the Soviet laser shot down the LA-17, a target comparable in size to the Mig-17. Yes, it was bulky and stationary, but then there was no such elemental base, which is used now. Yes, and that foreign.
        So today's Russia and Soviet Russia are two different republics.
        1. Procopius Nesterov
          Procopius Nesterov 18 November 2019 15: 27 New
          -2
          Yes, anything can be written. Aviation of the USSR is based on aviation of the Russian Empire, only on a new technological base.
          The USSR did not have its own territory or population, everything else was on the basis of the Russian Empire. Something the Communists did not try to create in the USSR to Africa.
          1. ZVS
            ZVS 18 November 2019 15: 48 New
            0
            The aviation of the Russian Empire was based on Western-made aircraft. And only Sikorsky created his own plane.
            The USSR aviation was created from scratch; there was not a single scheme similar to the planes of the Russian Empire with the exception of the Pe-2.
            So, dear, do not flaunt your stupidity.
  • sir_obs
    sir_obs 14 November 2019 16: 40 New
    +1
    They practically admitted, admitted that they can’t steal in any way.
  • vfvlasov
    vfvlasov 14 November 2019 20: 58 New
    +2
    "Engines are created by scientists and engineers!" Yes, they work. But there must be a smart leader who knows best how to make an aircraft engine and from what. Manage and make the best aircraft engine does not work. A good example is Russia. Many government executive bureaucrats sit in the general directors, and they will never develop or manufacture the best aircraft engine in the world! They are incapable, none. If one of them thinks that I will be general, and I find a specialist and he makes the best aircraft engine in the world, then this person with a sick brain, suspected imbecility, he needs psychiatrists to treat the brain. The leaders need a talented experienced engineer who understands the nature of all physical processes and materials, all the technical entities of all components and assemblies. And they don’t take such people there, stupid managers. As a result, Russian aircraft engines have low TTX compared to enemy aircraft engines! 30 years behind! And it seems like forever. No chance to catch up, at least.
    1. Ehanatone
      Ehanatone 14 November 2019 23: 39 New
      +2
      "and I’ll find a specialist and he will make the best aircraft engine in the world, then this person with a sick brain, suspected imbecilism, he needs psychiatrists"
      Psychiatrists will not help, because this is not a medical problem, but a worldview one! ...
      For it is impossible to cure what is not!
  • Ehanatone
    Ehanatone 14 November 2019 23: 17 New
    +2
    Apparently the Chinese author does not understand in principle, ...
    Well, at least he ...!
    That there are few technologies usually owned by 2-3 countries in the world ...
    And it is precisely to these technologies that aircraft engines are related! ...
    If you read something about the creation of airplanes, then most of the fantasies of designers rest precisely in the absence of engines, ..
    What is German, and especially on our part! ...
    Nothing has changed since then, but it has only gotten worse, because the engines have become, and continue to become more and more complicated! ...
  • 7,62h54
    7,62h54 14 November 2019 23: 19 New
    +1
    The Chinese are lucky that Russian pragmatists supply them with engines. The military-industrial complex of the Russian Federation is ready to sell products even to sworn partners.
  • Amurets
    Amurets 15 November 2019 06: 32 New
    0
    The main erroneous principle in Sohu is that in China they first try to create a new aircraft, and then begin to think about creating a suitable engine for it. As an example, we can cite the latest Chinese fighter J-20, at the first stage of testing which exclusively Russian engines were used.
    A sensible idea, only they don’t get the bursts of the “Cultural Revolution” when universities were dispersed, faculty members were destroyed, and students fell into “Huyvenbin”. This generation should now be headed by the Design Bureau, Industry, Research Institutes. But what has passed is gone
  • Mikhail3
    Mikhail3 15 November 2019 08: 57 New
    -1
    The Chinese are rapidly advancing. All problems will be overcome, and soon.
    1. Mestny
      Mestny 15 November 2019 09: 27 New
      -2
      The main thing here is that the environment would not fail.
  • dinis
    dinis 15 November 2019 11: 39 New
    0
    The author, it’s obvious that the Chinese simply can’t get into engines, and the planes themselves are simpler and they have learned.
    1. av58
      av58 15 November 2019 13: 25 New
      0
      The Chinese cannot get the right engines: there are neither materials, nor a design school.
  • av58
    av58 15 November 2019 13: 24 New
    0
    The trouble is not in industry, but in the heads and show-offs. Chinese engineers cannot create a modern engine, and they know the reason very well, but the Chinese military, as elsewhere, wants to have the best and most advanced, so they copy the glider, shove modern electronics there, and whatever engine it is to report: "We are the coolest of all." Meanwhile, it is much more difficult to create an engine than a glider, all over the world manufacturers of motor “from screw to screw” units. The Chinese simply do not have the necessary materials, and a design school.
  • Lena Petrova
    Lena Petrova 15 November 2019 20: 57 New
    +1
    "The Chinese media say that the local aviation industry needs engines of" relatively low weight, size and high thrust. "

    You would think that nobody needs such engines anymore. These are the tasks of all developers, and not only in the aviation industry.
  • grumbler
    grumbler 16 November 2019 12: 42 New
    0
    It seems that the Chinese have the same problems as ours. I have read in our sources more than once that with regard to aircraft engines we always had a significant lag behind the West. Why? - easy to understand. Russia went through modernization and industrialization at a 30s pace. Aircraft gas turbine engines (GTE) - the pinnacle of industrial Engineering and Technology, which is based on mechanics. I dare to suggest that Russian / Chinese engineers and workers are just missing Northern European Engineering and especially Industrial Culture (rooted in the medieval guild organization and in the Protestant ethics of labor). Apparently, this Protestant perfectionism and pedantry are very important in the development and production of gas-turbine engines. It is not for nothing that all the best mechanical engineers from Scandinavia, Germany and England are “German Protestant nations” (in the USA the same thing — you look all the English, German, Swedish roots). And Japanese Asians, in this they are very similar to the Germans, although the cultures are completely different, but perfectionism is on the face (the Japanese admit that they took a lot from the "sensei" Germans, because it fell well on their own worldview). For the same reason, we had a lag in optics, precision machine tools and in electronics.
    But this does not mean that we and the Chinese are doomed to eternal lag. But we need more time. To compensate for the "national characteristics" of our industry will have to:
    - Clearly formulate goals and apply appropriate development and production methodologies so as not to scatter resources.
    - Use the new opportunities provided by new design and production technologies (CAD, production robotics and 3D printing of complex parts from refractory alloys, etc.). GTE is an incredibly dense interweaving of mechanics, aerodynamics, heat engineering, metallurgy and production technologies, a little slack somewhere and the whole system is squeezed due to “some kind of bearing”. In any case, you have to learn to make bearings.
    - Apply non-standard technical solutions. But this requires a very strong natural-scientific base, allowing to generate such solutions. R&D takes time and money, and you need to fly now. But breakthrough “perpendicular” solutions may not fit into the current field of “exploitation” (for example: we will create a fundamentally new aircraft engine “based on new physical principles” without a turbine, but ... it doesn’t need kerosene, but some two-component fuel. Its implementation everywhere will require Such significant changes in production and supply that it may force to abandon widespread adoption).