>>1993085I'm not saying they can't build ships man, I don't know why you keep referring to shipbuilding as an analogue for airplane manufacturing. Completely different animals.
>they don't need innovationThey most certainly do need innovation because there is no reason to invest in a domestically-produced Chinese airliner if airlines can purchase or lease western jets at a lower cost. With western jets the infrastructure already exists, and the airline will already be contracting with foreign companies for the engines anyways. If they want to break into the civil aviation market without daddy Xi forcing domestic airlines to purchase/lease domestic airframes they are gonna have to come up with something that offers a competitive advantage. They may be communist on paper but they are capitalists in practice.
>military-civilian advancement is the sameNo. For civilian aviation the goal is to maximize profit margin by maximizing aircraft efficiency, safety, system integrity and redundancy, and get those MX intervals as wide as can be. The airline must operate in the black if it is to survive long-term. The more efficient the design the easier it is to meet that profitable threshold. The military cares only about performance, which can come at a significant operating costs (far in advance of the operating margin an airline has to work with). Designing a fighter and an airliner are two way different beasts. Pro-tip: the material sciences and aerodynamic principles are well known and established by this point. It is about designing the airframe and engines to suit the goals of the operator: minimum unit and operating costs with long service intervals and operational reliability. The difference between the military and civilian sector is that in the latter all 3 are required.
