are we talking about avionics and radar technologies or not? dont drag the topic to other areas, which by the way I dont think you have the knowledge or basic common sense of it.
you know it very well what 'heavy player' analogy means, you are just too wuzzy fuzzy to accept the reality.````just in case you really dont have the wits, I will use another analogy for that``there are only two "heavy players" in turbofan sector, that is U.S and the U.K````hope you will get this one
This is exactly the reason I am asking you to define 'Heavy Players'. What I do not understand by your turbofan analogy here is :-
1. Do you mean the largest number of jet engines presently deployed?
2. Do you mean the most powerful engine manufactured?
3. Do you mean the number of firms producing the engines?
4. Is this some kind of 'gut feeling' based metric?
5. How many countries have imported these engines or A/C around these engines?
For me the important players -- as in countries -- in Turbofan will be (in no particular order) :-
- US (P & W, GE, Honeywell, etc etc etc )
- Russia (UEC Family -- NPO Saturn, Klimov; Aviadvigatel)
- UK (Rolls Royces)
- France (Safran)
- Germany (MTU)
Now US is the clear leader in every sense of the word. Okay understood!
Russia vs UK; now what? Rolls Royce is second biggest manufacturer of Turbofan in terms of assets and revenue but Russia has a number of developers covering the entire gamut of turbofan engines. How do you want to classify here?
what makes you think that research or high tech project papers have to be in English for peer review, is that a law in English speaking India or what? there are loads of top papers were done with local language, and that doesnt undermine their credibility of the project or paper itself at all. You know we are not English speaking country, and your stupidity suggests that to master English first before doing any serious science and high tech R&D in countries like China and Japan?`
``well it might the case in India, and other European countries, but not for us``especially to the strictly embargoed area like defense techs. we dig our own ground and build our own house```you have zero clue of what we have been through kid``
No, it is a convention to publish research in a language which is understood by most of the scientific community. Currently only English is such language and hence if you are not publishing your work in English, your peer review will be weak. Specially for China where their academia follows a highly beaurocratic structure around Army or Chinese government/Party. Hence, papers in Chinese only --without an english counterpart -- are not well peer reviewed and as such their veracity is doubtful. In simple terms, if you have a real result why are you hiding it behind Chinese Wall? Show it to the world and they will either critique it or they will accept it and trust it. Most of the researchers will never waste their time on a researcher who is sloppy enough not to even able to write his or her work in a language understood by majority of scientific community. I will certainly not!
When You google for "Chinese AESA GaN" You get the following...
I do not think that proves that Chinese is pretty advanced in Radar.
Let me rephrase the question, and ask for which Radars are GaN AESA.
Then publish Your Chinese documentation.
View attachment 406377
Honestly speaking Chinese nationalists are the worst morons on the planet. After drinking Made-in-China kool-aid they cannot see simple sense.
Yes yes,same as those who claimed Chinese UCAV are no good and unproven and guess what? It's scores bull eye for Iraq army in battle against ISIS. Checkout YouTube and see for yourself. Saudi and Iraq are very impress and one ask for joint venture and another asking for more batch.
The reason for asking combat record is irrelevant. Extensive testing and trial has convince buyer of its capabilities. Buyer are also not stupid not to test extensively before making a decision. We are no more in WWII where urgent need to put those prototypes quickly into service into battle.
There are ample time and trial to prove something. Calling for combat proven is just an excuse for China haters.
Your own example proves my point. Once your systems are proven in battle -- like UCAV -- you will be trusted for that item. Till then entire 'China is a Heavy Player' is a stupid hot-air.
````kid, Chinese and Japanese are the two most used language on PCT application paper and published nature science research papers after English ok? do more research before lashing out funny comments``
