Hacker News

Favorites Setup
Comment by tzs | original | Why jet engines aren't made in China
[−]tzs · 2026-07-02 Thu 05:05 UTC · link
> It may be surprising, then, that in jet engines, China remains at least a full decade behind the West

Do they need to be at the same level as the West?

For civilian aircraft a decade or two behind seems like it would be good enough.

For military aircraft that could be a significant disadvantage, but from what the net is telling me they have excellent air defenses so it seems unlikely someone with superior planes is going to be able to go in and bomb them into submission. And they have a lot of nuclear missiles to further discourage anyone from trying.

[−]ifwinterco · 2026-07-02 Thu 05:26 UTC · link
If you want to sell commercial jets to anyone who isn’t Chinese, 20Y old engines aren’t good enough because modern engines are slightly more fuel efficient.

The difference isn’t huge (I think it’s 10-20% or something), but when fuel is your main cost that’s enough to make older engines undesirable

[−]FooBarWidget · 2026-07-02 Thu 05:45 UTC · link
What from I understand the issue is mainly service frequency rather than fuel efficiency.

Also, the domestic commercial jet market is still sizable, so excluding the domestic market from analyses is kinda weird.

Finally, lots of countries are spooked by arbitrary US sanctions and want to diversify.

[−]ifwinterco · 2026-07-02 Thu 06:02 UTC · link
Yes I think eventually they will catch up because the Chinese domestic market is big enough to give them a market while they iterate.

With petrol/diesel engines they just gave up and went straight to electric, but there's no viable alternative to jet engines for planes, so they'll put in the work (plus the military incentive running in parallel)

[−]rbanffy · 2026-07-02 Thu 07:59 UTC · link
> no viable alternative to jet engines for planes

No, but regional aviation can be well served by electrification - a jet engine needs to run at a speed it pushed enough air through itself to propel the plane forward, but a turbine feeding a generator that powers a couple electric motors can run at a far more forgiving regime.

As pointed out elsewhere, all it might take is a paradigm shift to unseat the current incumbents.

[−]ralph84 · 2026-07-02 Thu 06:14 UTC · link
The GEnx which powers the 787 is a 20 year-old engine design. There are thousands of jets flying around with 40+ year-old engine designs, especially in operations like charter and cargo where the aircraft spends more time on the ground than in the air. At the right price a 20 year-old design would be quite viable. Which indicates China is much more than a decade behind.
[−]stephen_g · 2026-07-02 Thu 07:16 UTC · link
> The difference isn’t huge (I think it’s 10-20% or something)

A 10-20% reduction in fuel burn is actually considered pretty huge...

[−]rasz · 2026-07-02 Thu 06:14 UTC · link
For cruise missiles couple hour blade operating life is also a non problem.
[−]shykes · 2026-07-02 Thu 06:43 UTC · link
> they have excellent air defenses so it seems unlikely someone with superior planes is going to be able to go in and bomb them into submission.

You seem to believe that China's military ambitions are purely defensive, but that is not the case. They have grandiose expansionist ambitions which include basically the entire South China Sea - which in spite of its name is shared by many countries. Not to mention their explicit goal of eventually conquering Taiwan. Their military doctrine is fundamentally offensive and does require air power.