reply to post by bekod
there is some flaws with your post, first do a F16 search flight controls -computers eys i know it is old tech but the problems are still
around F22 fly by wire sys
There are always going to be problems. The U.S. milspec regulations require 100% inspection of parts with 100% documentation and traceability. If
something happens to so much as the access panel of an aircraft - anyone and everyone who worked on that part from the time the work-order for the
aircraft was placed to the time the part failed should be on record.
For some things, particularly aviation components, an inspection includes x-rays and various other inspection technologies to ensure there are no
faults in welds, cast parts, etc. This isn't like civilian industry where you sample a random part out of every 250 made, or something like that.
This goes for electronics, as well (and is part of the reason I always purchase milspec versions of discreet electronic components when available -
fewer DOAs and generally better tolerances and more consistent/reliable performance).
China has only recently ventured into silicon lithography (integrated circuitry) and has made a name for itself making buggy clones of processors
around the world (such as Intel, Sony, and other related products). While they are capable of making some fairly advanced avionics - they are still
very inexperienced in the type of quality control that will put them into a similar class of U.S. and Russian avionics.
not all sys are fault less
This is true. However, human beings fault more often than computers and the programs that run on them. In most cases, failure for humans to follow
procedure (due to laziness, forgetfulness, etc - it doesn't matter) causes errors in systems. More pilots crash themselves because they can't
differentiate between up and down than computers crash planes because of a hardware or software fault.
No matter how you look at it - the move towards UAVs and UCAVs will improve reliability. This is especially true from a strategic command point of
view - you give specific instructions to a UAV and know it's going to do what it is told how you told it to do it. Tell me to "fly here and blow
that up" may have me streaking in at Mach 2 or playing in the trees, dodging windmills. There are more types of reliability than simply whether or
not it functions.
second china is far more advanced than we think, they do hide it well and show off when it is ready for market,
There is a difference between the ability to produce a prototype or small number of technologically advanced things, and the ability for your industry
to produce such a thing. China has a few nuclear warheads. Even some of the smallest and least industrially developed countries could,
theoretically, obtain the tools and machinery necessary to make a couple dozen warheads over several years. It's a completely different issue to
have an industry that can turn out a hundred or so a year. That's not something you can bring about by any simple means.
For example, well over a hundred man-hours go into the units we build where I work. They are cradle systems for the SDB and other ordnance that go
aboard ships to shield the weapons from shock and environmental concerns. Each one we ship out has, collectively, had someone working on it for well
over a hundred hours. Our target is to deliver something like 16 per week, and are a fairly small company that contracts work for Boeing, BAE,
That's all milspec. We use some fairly advanced machines, there, just to build the things that hold bombs and missiles when not on an aircraft.
It's all industry that is nearly alien in China's landscape. We've got about 20 people in that facility and often do work to feed other facilities
within the corporation (not affiliated with the cradle systems). For those of you paying attention, you'll realize we are undermanned for the work
we have. Our manager keeps pushing us to turn around parts faster - but the reality is that we need about a 20-30% manpower boost to double or even
triple our output (they are still learning this whole process engineering thing and going through some growing pains).
In either case - a lot of our work is done by machines, and a lot of our man-hours are consumed in levels of perfectionism that are simply not
customary in most Chinese industry. China's primary industry has been a sort of corporatized cottage industry these past few decades. People turned
their local shops and stores into miniature factories that ship their stuff off to centralized locations. When pooled across the population, this
made for an almost seamless transition from a pre-industrial society to an industrial society.
However, it's hard to build things like airplanes when most of your industry consists of various metals smelted in people's barns and tooling done
out of a garage.
Or, I should say, it's hard to build and maintain a meaningful number. China has been progressing towards more advanced industry lately - but it's
inducing a hell of a strain on their society. The very nature of a factory is more efficiency - more product for the same amount of goods. China's
industry, in the past, was the philosophy of "more people means more work." But as the demand for more advanced industrial products increases in
China, so does the need to migrate away from their traditional industry. This is partly why China is having serious problems with unemployment - they
are migrating away from collective cottage industries to centralized manufacturing.
Irregardless - the whole point is that hiding industry of that magnitude is impossible. It's like trying to hide the automobile industry. You
can't hide advanced industry of substantial magnitude; unless you want to make the argument China has 'secret factories' sitting idle until some of
their projects in development mature to production. It's a silly argument, as no country or corporation does that - even our most desolate
facilities for research and final assembly of classified programs rely on the average industrial capability and draw from hundreds of sub-contractors
across the nation.
20 is a show toy to them"see what we have made" sort of thing, but some of there stuff is high tech. and, do i dare say,out performs the
No. Just, no. China can't compete with western industry when it comes to parts that require quality control and in-house development. Western
companies do more than just make parts - they also consult with the design of the parts for a number of reasons - or even submit designs for parts
meeting specific criteria to win a contract building that part. While excluding China from this, entirely, would be erroneous - China's primary deal
has been simply cheap labor and undercutting prices. The problem is, however, that they can't compete in price of performance with the higher-tech
industries that don't take too kindly to die-cast metal parts that shatter like a piece of glass due to hideous quality control.
see china made, wonder were the TSA gets there X ray scanners???
1. American Science and Engineering (device name: Smartcheck)
2. Rapiscan Systems (a subsidiary of OSI Systems Inc.) (device name: Secure 1000)
3. Tek84 (formerly Spectrum San Diego Inc.) (device name: AIT84 Body Scanner & Castscope)
None of them have major manufacturing for any of their back-scatter systems from China - not even for non-critical components.