Pak-Fa News Thread part 22

[haavarla]

The T-50-4 made an impressive flight from Dzhemgi AB all the way to Moscow with two landings/stop. A flight over 7000km.

The T-50-4 will join the other three T-50 prototype there and is reported to start first stage of State Trials in March this year.

[MSphere]

[citation needed]. Burden of proof is now on your shoulders..

Citation is needed, but this time from you.

You have stated that Chinese workforce is of lower cost than workforce in Russia by a large margin. I have dismissed the claim of yours by providing two studies proving exactly the opposite.

Now you keep on insiting on your disproven rant and the burden of proof is on me? You can't be serious, mate. Show us that your Chinese worker costs considerably less than a Russian one or get lost.

[spoky]

Citation is needed, but this time from you.

You have stated that Chinese workforce is of lower cost than workforce in Russia by a large margin. I have dismissed the claim of yours by providing two studies proving exactly the opposite.

Now you keep on insiting on your disproven rant and the burden of proof is on me? You can't be serious, mate. Show us that your Chinese worker costs considerably less than a Russian one or get lost.

You didn't dismiss my claim because all the listed wages were senior wages. You said that there are only senior positions in aircraft factories, where is your proof?

Calm down, and show me your proof. You can't selectively cherry pick which question you want to respond to in a debate.

[MSphere]

I'm sorry I did not study the TVC nozzle and therefore jumped to the conclusion that it didn't have TVC. A mistake was made and I admitted it. And i'm also sorry if describing the nozzles as 'honking great things' upset you but lets face it they are honking great things when compared to the size of the aircraft, in my opinion anyway.
But the thing is non of these things that i've mentioned warrent abusive tirades using lanuage such as 'clowns' and 'trolls'. That is unless of course you consider an aircraft has equal rights as a human being which in that case would mean any criticism of any aircraft could be regarded as abusive behavior. I shall say no more on this issue..

With your permission I may jump into this conversation.. The point with the TVC is not that you were wrong but that this is one of the most basic features of the T-50. If for some reason you happen not to be informed about this relatively trivial issue, then how can you expect to be taken seriously when you try to evaluate things like its RCS or how superior/inferior this aircraft must be compared to F-22?

Probably no other forum has amassed such large number of eyeball RCS experts than this one. We have heard the most comical RCS evaluations before and frankly, I am getting tired of tirades as follows:

"it has round nozzle, it can't be stealthy. Only flat nozzles are stealthy"
"yes, F-35, too, has round nozzles, but with serrated edge, that is an entirely different story"
"I see a slot between the panels on the prototype, no way this thing can be stealthy"
"it has a tunnel between nacelles, it cannot be stealthy"
"it's painted black, that is stealthy"
"I can see the compressor blades, not stealthy. You need S-duct for stealth"
"Yes, even YF-23 or X-32 has compressor blades at least partially visible but they are NG and NG know what they are doing"

I would suggest that we all nicely sit down and admit that besides the most obvious features than angle arrangement we have quite little idea about what is stealth and how all the tiny details play together. It would help the quality of this forum quite much.

[MSphere]

You didn't dismiss my claim because all the listed wages were senior wages. You said that there are only senior positions in aircraft factories, where is your proof?

Calm down, and show me your proof. You can't selectively cherry pick which question you want to respond to in a debate.

Let us cut the crap and go back to the roots.

The original claim about Chinese wages being considerably lower than Russian ones came from you - posts #676, #679 and #689 in the PAK-FA thread Part 21. Now, please, be so kind, find some evidence about that and post it here. Then we can discuss it further.

I will no more do your job and look up evidence for your claims.

[wilhelm]

With your permission I may jump into this conversation.. The point with the TVC is not that you were wrong but that this is one of the most basic features of the T-50. If for some reason you happen not to be informed about this relatively trivial issue, then how can you expect to be taken seriously when you try to evaluate things like its RCS or how superior/inferior this aircraft must be compared to F-22?

Probably no other forum has amassed such large number of eyeball RCS experts than this one. We have heard the most comical RCS evaluations before and frankly, I am getting tired of tirades as follows:

"it has round nozzle, it can't be stealthy. Only flat nozzles are stealthy"
"yes, F-35, too, has round nozzles, but with serrated edge, that is an entirely different story"
"I see a slot between the panels on the prototype, no way this thing can be stealthy"
"it has a tunnel between nacelles, it cannot be stealthy"
"it's painted black, that is stealthy"
"I can see the compressor blades, not stealthy. You need S-duct for stealth"
"Yes, even YF-23 or X-32 has compressor blades at least partially visible but they are NG and NG know what they are doing"

I would suggest that we all nicely sit down and admit that besides the most obvious features than angle arrangement we have quite little idea about what is stealth and how all the tiny details play together. It would help the quality of this forum quite much.

You've hit the nail on the head.

Let us all try and start afresh.

[spoky]

If you trust APA, this article has some nice observations of the stealth characteristics of the PAK FA in comparison to other planes.
http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-2012-03.html

[wilhelm]

Spoky, your point about any old worker off the street assembling fighter jets without specific training was, how shall we say...... erm...uh....

Leave it in the past and concentrate on the topic, the PAK FA, which is interesting enough.

[spoky]

Let us cut the crap and go back to the roots.

The original claim about Chinese wages being considerably lower than Russian ones came from you - posts #676, #679 and #689 in the PAK-FA thread Part 21. Now, please, be so kind, find some evidence about that and post it here. Then we can discuss it further.

I will no more do your job and look up evidence for your claims.

If you wan't to continue, take it to PM's. Because I don't think anybody cares. I didn't expect you to continue your failure of a debate in the second thread on the front page.

Spoky, your point about any old worker off the street assembling fighter jets without specific training was, how shall we say...... erm...uh....

Leave it in the past and concentrate on the topic, the PAK FA, which is interesting enough.

Aircraft factories do not need skilled professionals. The wages won't be on par with senior Q/A supervisor. Typically aircraft production consists of repetitive tasks given to each person.

You don't need to be skilled/career educated to work at a aircraft factory.

[wilhelm]

If you wan't to continue, take it to PM's. Because I don't think anybody cares. I didn't expect you to continue your failure of a debate in the second thread on the front page.

Sphere actually won that one handily.

Please can we now carry on with the topic?

As you suggest, PM's or another thread are the way to go for that ....

[wilhelm]

Aircraft factories do not need skilled professionals. The wages won't be on par with senior Q/A supervisor. Typically aircraft production consists of repetitive tasks given to each person.

Spoky, please.

People will see this point as an attack on your credibility.

May I suggest you open a seperate thread for this?

Let us stick to the PAK FA.

[spoky]

Sphere actually won that one handily.

Please can we now carry on with the topic?

As you suggest, PM's or another thread are the way to go for that ....

Actually, I won since by your logic anybody can be the judge of who is right or wrong without presenting any proof whatsoever.

Spoky, please.

People will see this point as an attack on your credibility.

May I suggest you open a seperate thread for this?

Let us stick to the PAK FA.

Where did I claim to be a credible source of information?

[haavarla]

Very few people, at least senior posters on this forum will take APA, particulary its Analysis serious. Its festered with making the F-35 look bad and insufficiant for its role.

Its good at getting some quick info on different system, sub system and weapons on Russias jets though..

[latenlazy]

You don't need to be skilled/career educated to work at a aircraft factory.

I'm just wondering...what makes you so confident about your claims? Have you ever worked in an aircraft factory before? Do you study the aerospace manufacturing sector?

You ask for evidence from us, yet you have not yourself established a standard for evidence to back your own claims.

[spoky]

I'm just wondering...what makes you so confident about your claims? Have you ever worked in an aircraft factory before? Do you study the aerospace manufacturing sector?

You ask for evidence from us, yet you have not yourself established a standard for evidence to back your own claims.

Because not every factory is going to be the same, but its very obvious that aircraft manufactures don't need highly trained and skilled workers for every single task. That is where good management and a high Q/A standard come in.

Its quite obvious that the cost of living is higher in the Russian Federation than it is in China. Plus, you have to take into account corruption and 'donations' when it comes to average income in Russia.

They have people in aircraft factories that simply rivet all day long. You don't need a professional for repetitive task.

[MSphere]

Actually, I won since by your logic anybody can be the judge of who is right or wrong without presenting any proof whatsoever.

I gave you two links showing various wages in various industries and services.. What proof have you presented, in return, if I may ask?

[MSphere]

Because not every factory is going to be the same, but its very obvious that aircraft manufactures don't need highly trained and skilled workers for every single task. That is where good management and a high Q/A standard come in.

Its quite obvious that the cost of living is higher in the Russian Federation than it is in China. Plus, you have to take into account corruption and 'donations' when it comes to average income in Russia.

They have people in aircraft factories that simply rivet all day long. You don't need a professional for repetitive task.

It is obvious is a typical phrase of those who have no data to back it up.
There is nothing like obvious. Either get numbers or stop claiming nonsense.

BTW, we are discussing wages, not cost of living standard. Two different things.

[spoky]

I gave you two links showing various wages in various industries and services.. What proof have you presented, in return, if I may ask?

and those links you provided are not relevant as they're all careers that require higher education.

No, it is not obvious. Either get data or stop claiming nonsense.

BTW, we are discussing wages, not cost of living standard. Two different things.

Its not obvious because you don't agree with me.

Wage correlates with cost of living.

[latenlazy]

Because not every factory is going to be the same, but its very obvious that aircraft manufactures don't need highly trained and skilled workers for every single task. That is where good management and a high Q/A standard come in.

Its quite obvious that the cost of living is higher in the Russian Federation than it is in China. Plus, you have to take into account corruption and 'donations' when it comes to average income in Russia.

They have people in aircraft factories that simply rivet all day long. You don't need a professional for repetitive task.

And it's obvious because...you said so? Honestly you need to provide better evidence for your claims, because browsing through a quick list of manufacturing jobs in Boeing and Lockheed, most of them require several years of proven experience working with very specific instruments, and usually some form of accreditation, or associates degree. That may not be a college degree requirement, but it's not something a position you can fill by just picking people off the streets. Airplane manufacturing isn't like an ipod assembly plant where people are doing repetitive tasks. They have to know how to do very specific skill intensive tasks (like electrical wiring, metal work, etc etc). They're not putting together ipods. Not all manufacturing jobs are created equal.

Sure, maybe not all of them will require these qualifications, but the average and net cost of labour that goes into a plane is not defined by the lowest denominator job. Maybe you have some people being paid the same wage as those in an ipod assembly factory, but the point is that every worker in a plane assembly factory may be qualified for an ipod assembly factory, but not every worker in an ipod assembly factory is qualified for work in a plane assembly factory. Don't cherry pick a few of the scrap roles to paper over the other manufacturing and assembly roles that do require hard and even professional skills. The point is those are still manufacturing and assembly roles, and they contribute to labour costs that less demanding manufacturing sectors do not have.

Then there's the size of the labour pool. I don't want a worker leaving because they're not getting paid enough since the person might have skills that are hard to find and specific to what I need. That's a wage factor that's not shaped by standard of living. Then there are training costs, benefits, etc etc. In fact, it's not even dependent on the independent pay of positions. What if it takes more people to do the same amount of work (lower productivity)? You could be paying your workers less individually, yet still be paying the same or even greater labour costs as your competitors.

Also on the broader point of cost per plane, you should keep in mind that labour costs aren't the only factor. The cost of capital (factories, manufacturing machines, etc), the cost of materials, the cost of development, how much economies of scale you can benefit from, how efficiently you can manufacture your product (if I am more wasteful in my manufacturing and assembly process it will be more expensive), etc etc are all factors. What if Russian airplane manufacturers have better machinery and facilities and need fewer people to do the same amount of work? Even if you could prove that individual workers were paid less, there's no guarantee that overall labour costs are cheaper. Even if labour costs were cheaper, there's no guarantee that your plane will be cheaper.

Details matter when we're making quantifiable claims. It'd be nice if you presented those details before staking one.

[MSphere]

and those links you provided are not relevant as they're all careers that require higher education.

Aerospace requires higher education. Besides that, there is a technician position in the list, one which requires only college level + few years of experience... If you cared about what I have posted instead of concentrating on your rant, then you would already have noticed.

Its not obvious because you don't agree with me.
Wage correlates with cost of living.

That is right, I don't agree with you. You haven't provided a single source to persuade me..

If wages correlated with cost of living, then logically all people on this planet would have the same living standard. Except they don't.

[spoky]

Aerospace requires higher education. Besides that, there is a technician position in the list, one which requires only college level + few years of experience... If you cared about what I have posted instead of concentrating on your rant, then you would already have noticed.


That is right, I don't agree with you. You haven't provided a single source to persuade me..

If wages correlated with cost of living, then logically all people on this planet would have the same living standard. Except they don't.

Nor have you provided a single source to persuade me. After all, it was your choice to continue this debate so obviously you were vitally interested in wasting the first page of this thread.

[latenlazy]

and those links you provided are not relevant as they're all careers that require higher education.

Yes, they're all careers that require higher education because...aerospace manufacturing requires either a) a lot of experience with specific skills, or b) a higher education. The point is that these are also costs of labour involved in the manufacturing of airplanes that don't exist in the manufacturing of consumer goods, not that these are the only jobs. Saying that they aren't what you're talking about because they require higher education is basically ignoring that they still fall under the criteria of jobs we're discussing when we talk about cost of labour in airplane manufacturing and assembly.

[MSphere]

Anyway, to get the thread back on track, the original idea was about whether Chinese could undercut Russians on the aircraft market in a way which would persuade the clients to quit Russian service and go the more risky way of adopting Chinese hardware thus making the Chinese products competitive. Frankly, I would not bet a rusty shilling on that.

We have already seen IAF kicking Russians in order to go for the more expensive US and European tech (C-130J, P-8I, AH-64E, Rafale) but I have yet to see an air force rejecting a future $90mil T-50offer from Sukhoi just to go for SAC to opt for their $85mil J-20. IMHO, ain't gonna happen on this planet anytime soon. Even the highly trumpeted "$20mil mid-tech" FC-1 (JF-17) which should be selling like hot cakes does not quite resemble the bestseller it was once announced as being - interest here and there, yes, but so far not a single export order except its partner nation Pakistan.

Obviously, reputation plays a much larger role than originally anticipated.

[latenlazy]

Anyway, to get the thread back on track, the original idea was about whether Chinese could undercut Russians on the aircraft market in a way which would persuade the clients to quit Russian service and go the more risky way of adopting Chinese hardware thus making the Chinese products competitive. Frankly, I would not bet a rusty shilling on that.

We have already seen IAF kicking Russians in order to go for the more expensive US and European tech (C-130J, P-8I, AH-64E, Rafale) but I have yet to see an air force rejecting a future $90mil T-50offer from Sukhoi just to go for SAC to opt for their $85mil J-20. IMHO, ain't gonna happen on this planet anytime soon. Even the highly trumpeted "$20mil mid-tech" FC-1 (JF-17) which should be selling like hot cakes does not quite resemble the bestseller it was once announced as being - interest here and there, yes, but so far not a single export order except its partner nation Pakistan.

Obviously, reputation plays a much larger role than originally anticipated.

Well, I'm not going to discount the possibility quite yet either. The FC-1 isn't really a good example. It's not selling like hot cakes because...well...no one's really interested in the FC-1's capabilities (except Pakistan) and China still hasn't shown that it can consistently provide the engine. That doesn't mean that China won't eventually develop full control of a native aircraft supply chain or can't produce an aircraft that is compelling to foreign customers.

It's unfair to say that customers aren't kicking the T-50 for SAC's offerings though, since SAC hasn't put anything on the market yet and I don't expect it to for a while. That doesn't mean customers wouldn't be attracted to SAC's offering if it were good enough though. We simply won't know what capabilities at what price tag they will be able to deliver until they actually finish their product and begin marketing it.

That said, I don't expect China to be an export rival to Russia and the US until it shows that it can ramp up its production output to keep up with demand (though one could argue that the capability is there, and what's missing is the demand). I also think you have a point about the history of reputation and relationship. However, that isn't something foolproof, and frankly, it just hasn't been tested yet.

[MSphere]

Well, I'm not going to discount the possibility quite yet either. The FC-1 isn't really a good example. It's not selling like hot cakes because...well...no one's really interested in the FC-1's capabilities (except Pakistan) and China still hasn't shown that it can consistently provide the engine. That doesn't mean that China won't eventually develop full control of a native aircraft supply chain or can't produce an aircraft that is compelling to foreign customers.

No one is interested in what FC-1 offers? An affordable BVR fighter with zero US contents, pretty much an optimum replacement for Mirage III, Mirage F1, MiG-21 or even F-16A lineage?

If the FC-1 was not Chinese, it would already have started spreading across South America, Southeast Asia,Northern Africa or Eastern Europe.

It's unfair to say that customers aren't kicking the T-50 for SAC's offerings though, since SAC hasn't put anything on the market yet and I don't expect it to for a while. That doesn't mean customers wouldn't be attracted to SAC's offering if it were good enough though. We simply won't know what capabilities at what price tag they will be able to deliver until they actually finish their product and begin marketing it.

That said, I don't expect China to be an export rival to Russia and the US until it shows that it can ramp up its production output to keep up with demand (though one could argue that the capability is there, and what's missing is the demand). I also think you have a point about the history of reputation and relationship. However, that isn't something foolproof, and frankly, it just hasn't been tested yet.

I personally think that China might be quite successful on low-end markets like basic jet trainers, helicopters and transports.. But a customer opting for hi-end product portfolio like 5th gen fighter aircraft is yet to be found.

[Trident]

The FC-1 isn't really a good example. It's not selling like hot cakes because...well...no one's really interested in the FC-1's capabilities (except Pakistan) and China still hasn't shown that it can consistently provide the engine.

I beg to differ on the first point, but the engine is certainly holding it back.

[Trident]

Nor have you provided a single source to persuade me. After all, it was your choice to continue this debate so obviously you were vitally interested in wasting the first page of this thread.

I doubt a source that would convince you exists - your arguments strike me as being typical of people who cannot admit they are wrong, lest they lose face. Don't think anybody else is fooled though, I bet almost everybody sees right through your contortions.

For what it's worth, I've been inside three very large, very modern final assembly plants - two automotive, one aerospace. The difference was VERY obvious.

[Sheogorath]

Because not every factory is going to be the same, but its very obvious that aircraft manufactures don't need highly trained and skilled workers for every single task. That is where good management and a high Q/A standard come in.
...
They have people in aircraft factories that simply rivet all day long. You don't need a professional for repetitive task.

You obviously have no idea what you are talking about...

http://www.manufacturingjobsite.com/...gn=SimplyHired

http://ch.tbe.taleo.net/CH06/ats/car...cws=1&rid=2173

[TR1]

People are still harping about "superior construction" methods? Hilarious.

http://static.rcgroups.net/forums/at...g?d=1258535804

F-22's superior, rivetless amazing construction.

[Levsha]

People are still harping about "superior construction" methods? Hilarious.

http://static.rcgroups.net/forums/at...g?d=1258535804

F-22's superior, rivetless amazing construction.

It looks good to me.

Who's doing the harping?