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

[desiman]

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.

please prove to me that i dont know what im saying, reverse engineering is a fancy word for copying, simple as that.

 

[Speeder 2]

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

yeah, particularly when "some people" saw you with a purple pump in hand...

You may not like what Desiman said but what he said was essentially the truth: That 'reverse engineering' is to copy.

...

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.

Obviously you don't deserve the said compliment, as you above 2 comments contradict each other.

Yes or No, make up your mind for once!

Your above example on F-111 is not touching the key either.



Copying:

It's cloning. It means completely identical in end result.

Copying is always used under the premise that all details (e.g. tech, knowhow, order, materials, process, etc) of the target system are already known to the copier. It usually applies to simple systems / objects, such as photocopy a book; or copy a table, copy a dress, or clone a bio cell, etc.


Reverse Engineering:

It almost always applies to complex systems, with the premise that parts of or all details (e.g. tech, knowhow, order, materials, process, etc) of the target system are unknown to the initiator. Such as reverse engineering an advanced engine, or an airplane or a space rocket, etc.




Both copying and reverse engineering have the similar goals:

the former is set to replicate the target system to achieve identical end result;

If the target system is ---- r 5 6 3 2 q 3 5 h h u 9

The copyed system will be: r 5 6 3 2 q 3 5 h h u 9


while the latter tries to achieve the similar end result via trials & errors to fighure out all /most parts of knowhow, which lead to almost always non-identical end result , namely either inferior or superior.

If the target system is ---- r 5 6 3 2 q 3 5 h h u 9

The RVed system could be: r 7 8 3 k q 3 5 h o u 9


Although with similar goals to start with, Copying and Reverse Engineering

have totally different premises;

require totally different procedures ; and

consume drastically different amount of resources, both material and human.



What China was doing with some simple toys , branded clothe designs, or some DVDs a decade earlier would be called "copying" or "cloning".

But what China is doing with J-15 or WS-10A etc, are not copying, but Reverse Engineering.


Get it?

 

[SomeGuy]

please prove to me that i dont know what im saying, reverse engineering is a fancy word for copying, simple as that.

From the Merriam-Webster online dictionary:

Main Entry: reverse engineer
Function: transitive verb
Date: 1973
: to disassemble and examine or analyze in detail (as a product or device) to discover the concepts involved in manufacture usually in order to produce something similar

— reverse engineering noun

Nowhere in the definition do I see anything related to copying.

Also, maybe you should re-read Gambits last post.
I will mention the parts which you should pay attention to:

That 'reverse engineering' is to copy. Albeit it is a more time and labor consuming that is accompanied by a learning process.

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.

To put it simply for Desiman, the reverse engineered part simply has to replicate the physics/behaviour of the original - it doesn't even have to appear similar to the original.

A proper 'reverse engineering' program does not have to faithfully reproduce the original in every way, just the basic functional airframe.

Again for Desiman - A "copy" by definition has to faithfully reproduce the original in every way.

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.

There was no way to predict what effect using composites, reducing weight, redesigning air intakes and indigenous engines would have on performance of J-11.

The fact that it's now in service is a result of extensive development program to study these effects.

 

[SinoIndusFriendship]

yeah, particularly when "some people" saw you with a purple pump in hand...



Obviously you don't deserve the said compliment, as you above 2 comments contradict each other.

Yes or No, make up your mind for once!

Your above example on F-111 is not touching the key either.



Copying:

It's cloning. It means completely identical in end result.

Copying is always used under the premise that all details (e.g. tech, knowhow, order, materials, process, etc) of the target system are already known to the copier. It usually applies to simple systems / objects, such as photocopy a book; or copy a table, copy a dress, or clone a bio cell, etc.


Reverse Engineering:

It almost always applies to complex systems, with the premise that parts of or all details (e.g. tech, knowhow, order, materials, process, etc) of the target system are unknown to the initiator. Such as reverse engineering an advanced engine, or an airplane or a space rocket, etc.




Both copying and reverse engineering have the similar goals:

the former is set to replicate the target system to achieve identical end result;

while the latter tried to achieve the similar end result via trials & errors, which lead to almost always non-identical end result , namely either inferior or superior.


Although with similar goals to start with, Copying and Reverse Engineering

have totally different premises;

require totally different procedures ; and

consume drastically different amount of resources, both material and human.



What China was doing with some simple toys , branded clothe designs, or some DVDs a decade earlier would be called "copying" or "cloning".

But what China is doing with J-15 or WS-10A etc, are not copying, but Reverse Engineering.


Get it?

He 'gets it', it's just he refuses to 'admit it'.

 

[gambit]

yeah, particularly when "some people" saw you with a purple pump in hand...

Actually...What I see here is a few Chinese fanboys pumping each other up...

You can quibble with the contexts of the words anyway you want but it still does not do away with the fact that 'reverse engineering' IS just another way of copying a known product. I leave you to your fantasies.

 

[Luftwaffe]

Jerry can: American forces noticed that the Germans had gasoline cans with an excellent design. They reverse-engineered copies of those cans. The cans were popularly known as "Jerry cans".
Only americans can do it..lol

 

[SBD-3]

please prove to me that i dont know what im saying, reverse engineering is a fancy word for copying, simple as that.

 

[中华人民共和&#]

Actually...What I see here is a few Chinese fanboys pumping each other up...

You can quibble with the contexts of the words anyway you want but it still does not do away with the fact that 'reverse engineering' IS just another way of copying a known product. I leave you to your fantasies.

Oh right... So when you've been proved wrong, your attempt to escape is with 2 short sentences? Well done mate...

 

[中华人民共和&#]

please prove to me that i dont know what im saying, reverse engineering is a fancy word for copying, simple as that.

Others have provided so much proof and definitions to you, it clearly shows you don't know what you're saying since you're illiterate.

 

[Luftwaffe]

中华人民共和国...if i start talking by desiman and associates logic than the first product to come out of the factory and followed by the "second" and on and on would be considered "replica-reversed engineered products (desiman's definition)"

Leave him be let him feel good as the only "Internet champion" or armchair general.

 

[ao333]

please prove to me that i dont know what im saying, reverse engineering is a fancy word for copying, simple as that.

Your crappy Indian diction needs to be proven.

New Oxford: (reverse-engineer) the reproduction of another manufacturer's product following detailed examination of its construction or composition

New Oxford: (copy) a thing made to be identical to another

If the J-15 is identical to the Su-33, why is it inferior?

 

[gambit]

Jerry can: American forces noticed that the Germans had gasoline cans with an excellent design. They reverse-engineered copies of those cans. The cans were popularly known as "Jerry cans".
Only americans can do it..lol

Typical of Chinese fanboys suck-ups. Try to be honest and give attribution, even when it is from wiki...

Reverse engineering - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

* Jerry can: British and American forces noticed that the Germans had gasoline cans with an excellent design. They reverse-engineered copies of those cans. The cans were popularly known as "Jerry cans".
* Tupolev Tu-4: Three American B-29 bombers on missions over Japan were forced to land in the USSR. The Soviets, who did not have a similar strategic bomber, decided to copy the B-29. Within a few years, they had developed the Tu-4, a near-perfect copy.
* V2 Rocket: Technical documents for the V2 and related technologies were captured by the Western Allies at the end of the war. Soviet and captured German engineers had to reproduce technical documents and plans, working from captured hardware, in order to make their clone of the rocket, the R-1, which began the postwar Soviet rocket program that led to the R-7 and the beginning of the space race.
* K-13/R-3S missile (NATO reporting name AA-2 'Atoll), a Soviet reverse-engineered copy of the AIM-9 Sidewinder, made possible after a Taiwanese AIM-9B hit a Chinese MiG-17 without exploding; amazingly, the missile became lodged within the airframe, the pilot returning to base with what Russian scientists would describe as a university course in missile development.
* BGM-71 TOW Missile: In May 1975, negotiations between Iran and Hughes Missile Systems on co-production of the TOW and Maverick missiles stalled over disagreements in the pricing structure, the subsequent 1979 revolution ending all plans for such co-production. Iran was later successful in reverse-engineering the missile and are currently producing their own copy: the Toophan.
* China has reversed many examples of Western and Russian hardware, from fighter aircraft to missiles and HMMWV cars.

And notice that everyone does 'reverse engineering' at one time or another.

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.

If there is a technological parity between the original creator and the copier, then the copier will gain a better understanding of his competitor. If there is a technological disparity with the copier in the inferior status, then understanding those scientific and engineering principles will give the copier insights on how to compensate for his inferiority, such as materials or manufacturing processes. But most likely there will not be any innovations in the copied version that will advance the technology that created the original.

Is the J-15 an inferior product to the Su-33? Possibly. No doubt the current state of Russian aviation is a sorry one, but it is the inheritor of the Soviet system where there were much innovations that came from 'reverse engineering' of Western products. Soviet scientists and engineers were no less intelligent and educated than their Western counterparts, in other words, there was already intellectual parity between the two sides. What forced the Soviets to 'reverse engineer' many Western products was the inferior state of Soviet technology, from household appliances to weaponry. But because there was already intellectual parity, especially in the theoretical, the West was rightly cautious of the Soviet 'reverse engineering' program where any copied version could be the equal of the original.

So is the J-15 an inferior product to the Su-33? Unless we see anything new on the J-15 other than visual that would make it a technological distinct product from the Su-33, then at best the J-15 is an excellent 'copy' of the original, even if it is not an exact reproduction. China during the Cold War was not an innovative country. The Chinese military was a technological recipient of whatever the Soviet system doled out.

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

 

[Luftwaffe]

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.

 

[ao333]

Typical of Chinese fanboys suck-ups. Try to be honest and give attribution, even when it is from wiki...

Reverse engineering - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And notice that everyone does 'reverse engineering' at one time or another.

Here is what 'reverse engineering' entails...


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.

If there is a technological parity between the original creator and the copier, then the copier will gain a better understanding of his competitor. If there is a technological disparity with the copier in the inferior status, then understanding those scientific and engineering principles will give the copier insights on how to compensate for his inferiority, such as materials or manufacturing processes. But most likely there will not be any innovations in the copied version that will advance the technology that created the original.

Is the J-15 an inferior product to the Su-33? Possibly. No doubt the current state of Russian aviation is a sorry one, but it is the inheritor of the Soviet system where there were much innovations that came from 'reverse engineering' of Western products. Soviet scientists and engineers were no less intelligent and educated than their Western counterparts, in other words, there was already intellectual parity between the two sides. What forced the Soviets to 'reverse engineer' many Western products was the inferior state of Soviet technology, from household appliances to weaponry. But because there was already intellectual parity, especially in the theoretical, the West was rightly cautious of the Soviet 'reverse engineering' program where any copied version could be the equal of the original.

So is the J-15 an inferior product to the Su-33? Unless we see anything new on the J-15 other than visual that would make it a technological distinct product from the Su-33, then at best the J-15 is an excellent 'copy' of the original, even if it is not an exact reproduction. China during the Cold War was not an innovative country. The Chinese military was a technological recipient of whatever the Soviet system doled out.

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

It's like saying a lot and nothing. Reverse-engineered products always differ from the original. Your fundamentals are misaligned when saying that reverse-engineering is non-innovative as changes are always made, be it for better or worse.

In any case, it would appear that Gordon Chang has mistaken once again. The Chinese are going to cash in on the treasury notes this month as they saw no need to uphold the dollar peg. So much for, "They'll keep buying our bonds because they're geared to export to us."

Your anti-Chinese sentiments are rendering you blind. And you should not always judge them from an American prospective, because 79% of America will never accept you. Just a while ago, some Rio Tinto Chinese-Australians were jailed. and A week later, the Au Prez "wanted to be a candid friend of China." The west would sell you guys like ducks when we need to.

 

[gambit]

Reverse-engineered products always differ from the original.

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

Your fundamentals are misaligned when saying that reverse-engineering is non-innovative as changes are always made, be it for better or worse.

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