This is caused by the different indicators of military and civilian products. China can make military products at all costs, but it cannot make civilian products at all costs.
Military products are the first to meet performance indicators, and even if necessary, they can be allowed even if there is risks, and economy is the last indicator to be considered. Under this evaluation system, since economy is the last thing to consider, the characteristic of military products is that they are expensive, and they are expensive. But the technical indicators were at the highest level at that time.
For example, the electronic tube used in the past used military radar has a yield rate of only a few percent. The workers in the electronic tube factory smash unqualified electronic tubes every day. If this is placed on civilian goods, it would be like suicide. Just a yield rate of a few percent, how high do you think the cost of military electronic tubes should be. But the army did not care about the cost of electronic tubes, and representatives did not care about how many electronic tubes that did not meet the military standards were smashed. In order to prevent unqualified products from being mixed into good products, the military representatives wanted to confirm that all unqualified electronic tubes were really smashed, rather than being downgraded by the factory for sales. That's really a number one by one!
old domestic military radio station
So, this is a military product, and the army doesn’t care about it no matter how expensive it is. The army does not care about the economic burden of military supplies . A single word of national defense and security can open a "green channel" for military products. All production of civilian products must be concessions for military products, because the army does not care about how much loss the civilian products will be caused by military products.
Under this guidance of doing everything possible for national defense construction, did China create the fifth-generation machine unexpectedly? That is, China's technological level development problem. If the technology reached 10 years earlier, it would be possible to create a fifth-generation machine 10 years earlier.
In a word, military products are money, not a problem, only technology is a problem product. With the financial support of a country without borders, money is just a number, and technology is the problem.
000000 AESA radar demonstration used by Xiaolong
I can guess responsibly that China's most cutting-edge military products project today is no different from fifty years ago, and it still treats money as dirt. For example, the T/R unit of AESA radar may be a more demanding indicator than the military electronic tubes in the past. It is screening qualified products and destroying unqualified products!
So, if you want to know the fifth generation of the world, as long as the Chinese have technically "passed" it, there will be no problem! No one will regard the problem of money as a problem, and it is true that money cannot become a problem of fifth-generation aircraft, so the fifth-generation aircraft was built and flew into the sky.
However, the idea of "seeing money as dirt" in military products cannot be used in civilian products. The idea of folk products is not that advanced technology is the first priority, but that affordable products are the first priority. That is, in the evaluation of civil quality, economy and safety are the first priority. As for technology, it is the last consideration.
More beautiful J-20, but it is also expensive
, but in the news reports of large aircraft, it all means that the large aircraft has broken through, or how high the technical level is. This is actually not the focus of large aircraft. The focus is whether large aircraft are competitive? Is it safe enough?
Big aircraft technology has raised Boeing / Airbus to a new level. These technological breakthroughs in the report on large aircraft are actually just the entry threshold for large aircraft. Because I can't pass this threshold, I can't even talk about big planes. It is not that these large aircraft technologies are really "at all costs" technologies like fifth-generation aircraft. These technologies are affordable technologies under the control of cost-effectiveness of Boeing/Airbus. China must develop technology within an affordable range, just like Boeing/Airbus. Therefore, after adding the three words to the point where you can afford it, the large aircraft becomes something more difficult to deal with than the fifth-generation aircraft.
What passenger aircraft users pay most attention to is the economy of passenger aircraft, that is, transport passengers or cargo at the lowest cost. The most prominent feature is fuel economy, which is an indicator that customers pay more attention to than the unit purchase price of passenger aircraft. The engine of the aircraft and the design of the aircraft model will affect fuel economy.It’s not enough to build a passenger plane that can fly, but to build a passenger plane that can make money from customers to complete the task. This is another higher indicator than military products. Fifth-generation aircraft don’t care about spending money, let alone saving money, but large aircraft can’t think about things like this.
China hopes to replace the same type of domestic C919 passenger aircraft of Boeing and Airbus
If the economics of domestic large aircraft are not as good as Boeing/Airbus, then it is impossible for large aircraft to find buyers based on the cost-effectiveness of the passenger aircraft itself. At this time, the customer became the product of "a national chess game". In fact, this becomes a negative asset for customers, because the flight cost is higher than that of Boeing/Airbus. Customers use large aircraft instead of using Boeing/Airbus aircraft to make less money or even lose money.
Currently claims that the intended procurement of thousands of large aircraft is all from China. Even if it is overseas, it is purchased by overseas leasing companies and then leased to domestic airlines for use. This is equivalent to financing financial platform, rather than real terminal users. In other words, the economy of large aircraft has not been announced to the public, but the unit sales price of large aircraft has been confirmed to be not cheap. In other words, large aircraft are still the product of "a national chess game". Customers and COMAC, which produces large aircraft, are in the right-hand relationship between the country and the right-hand relationship. This kind of sales has nothing to do with making money, but only with the will of the country.
In other words, even if you confirm that large aircraft are civilian products and you must follow the rules of civilian products, you don’t dare to really treat large aircraft as civilian products that are equal to Boeing/Airbus. Because such a large plane will have no chance to make a comeback. Today's large aircraft can only take the "one game of chess in the country". This is the difficulty of large aircraft. The word "making money" is included. In my opinion, this is a more difficult thing than a fifth-generation machine that doesn't care about spending money.
C919's engine is the weakness of C919
The last word of mouth. The country's money is limited, and it is impossible for the state to transfusion for everything. Military products lie on the country to suck blood. There is nothing to say. National defense and security are legal for sucking blood.
But it is a problem for folk products to suck blood on the country. The "national chess game"-style sales of large aircraft are to suck blood rather than to make blood. Now, how many civilian projects are lying on the country to suck blood, high-speed rail, semiconductors, etc. These are all projects that cost a lot of money, and they are all projects that are almost hopeless to make blood. So how can a country produce more blood than blood sucking?
