>>1993108>I don't know why you keep referring to shipbuilding as an analogue for airplane manufacturing.Safety for one. LNG carriers can wipe out a small city if they go boom, their engineering and safety standards are comparable to that of passenger aircraft for that reason.
>because there is no reason to invest in a domestically-produced Chinese airliner if airlines can purchase or lease western jets at a lower costYou're saying that in the middle of a cold/trade war between America and China. China will force their airlines to do so just due to the sanction risk. They have learnt their lessons from Huawei and the semiconductor sanctions. If you purely go by market forces, China wouldn't even be trying to build their own aircraft, they would just buy Airbus/Boeing like the rest of the planet.
>The difference between the military and civilian sector is that in the latter all 3 are required.The military sector will provide the initial engineering expertise and support to start the ball rolling. It's much harder to start from scratch after alll. Once they have all critical competents like the engines, they will innovate after they have a stable product to dodge sanctions.
>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).And there's clearly some overlap in the engineering and software present. Why would Boeing be a massive military contractor?
>Pro-tip: the material sciences and aerodynamic principles are well known and established by this point.Not for new designs like blended wing bodies, next gen engine materials like ceramic composites, even more use of composite materials in the airframe, open prop engines etc etc.
