For an external party, having access to the 45 GB is the easy part. Now, you will need to create a company and supplier base the size of Boeing to make any use of this :-)
China: hold my baijiu
The US for example trying to get back some of its domestic manufacturing prowess, after decades which has outsourced it to China which has gotten really good at it, has a 10-20 year barrier to overcome before it can even start to get to the same level, and that's if all goes well and no stupid decisions are made. Which is not very likely.
You sure? C919 didn't start commercial flights until this year (2023)
Economic and industrial espionage has a long history. Father Francois Xavier d'Entrecolles, who visited Jingdezhen, China in 1712 and later used this visit to reveal the manufacturing methods of Chinese porcelain to Europe, is sometimes considered to have conducted an early case of industrial espionage.[16]
Historical accounts have been written of industrial espionage between Britain and France.[17] Attributed to Britain's emergence as an "industrial creditor", the second decade of the 18th century saw the emergence of a large-scale state-sponsored effort to surreptitiously take British industrial technology to France.[17] Witnesses confirmed both the inveigling of tradespersons abroad and the placing of apprentices in England.[18] Protests by those such as ironworkers in Sheffield and steelworkers in Newcastle,[clarification needed] about skilled industrial workers being enticed abroad, led to the first English legislation aimed at preventing this method of economic and industrial espionage.[19][18] This did not prevent Samuel Slater from bringing British textile technology to the United States in 1789. In order to catch up with technological advances of European powers, the US government in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries actively encouraged intellectual piracy.
I can't justify slavery in x country because "well the west did it before and so now it's their turn" (to use an extreme example and yes I know that slavery has already occurred in almost every country/is still occurring in some).
One of the more interesting points of discussion was that when big companies negotiate purchase agreements for parts, the actual cost of the parts can be very transparent. The negotiation is generally about the actual markup e.g. "I think we should pay X% over cost.
Someone, logically, brought up: "What if the company is not willing to share the cost upfront?".
The professor responded: "Well, if it's a public company you can generally deduce a rough cost/part and use that as your starting point in the negotiation"
Student: "Well what if the company says we're wrong?"
Professor: "No problem: ask them what the correct number is. If they don't want to give it to you, ask them how you expect to have a long term partnership if you are not willing to talk openly and honestly about things like parts costs."
Just as we as consumers know we pay extra to the company (even if the numbers aren't oblique), businesses know the same. It's about how much you're willing to spend, not how much they spent to build it.
I wish this dumb naïve argument would just die quietly in a corner.
A the value of a device is not its BOM. It has never been and it will never be.
There are so many other additional costs to factor in. Costs related to the manufacturing plant, its people, its tooling and its processes. Logistics costs related to bringing in parts. QA costs. R&D costs. Software maintenance costs. Marketing costs. Certain parts and software may have royalty fees associated with them. The list goes on, and on, and on.
So please, enough of the dumb "$device is only $2USD because its only a bunch of 2c resistors and capacitors on a PCB".
The thread was about literal parts costs and how knowing those means nothing to the value of a produced item. In which case, a BOM is directly and literally applicable.
No one is saying what you're so annoyed and frustrated about. Literally the entire thread is about how the value of a product is far greater than it's actual parts cost and why knowing that is useless for negotiation.
Learn to listen/read before you get yourself into a tissy about a made up sleight.
For a plane, it's going to be the former
That and the reason it's easy to get a BOM of cheap products is because you can buy them and tear them down. I can't see Airbus managing to buy a boeing and tear the entire thing down without Boeing noticing
No business wants to share it's internal costs, it's their prime competitive advantage
Now, the federal government, particularly with drugs pricing, turns a blind eye towards the suppliers just jacking up the purported cost. E.g. Pharma:“we want to make $100 per pill, it costs us $5 to produce”. Fed: “we demand cost + 10%, because the people”. Pharma:”Fine, let’s say it costs $90 to produce.” Fed:”Where do I sign?”
Whereas Walmart would say to somebody like Nabisco, “GFY; if you want your product on our shelves, you’ll open your books and give us audited cost + 10%”.
If your business' primary competitive advantage is that it gets ICs for 1c less/per thousand, your business is built on shaky foundations. One that you would still want to disclose during negotiations ("yeah, our product is the exact same quality as Widget Co; but we've found a supply for some internal parts at slightly below market value").
2. Imagine the sheer pain of duplicating every single process and spec to the minutest detail, nobody is flying an airplane that only 'works' 99.99% of the time. Probably easier to start from scratch and learn it. BTW, this was tried by Russia in the all through the '80s, they tried to steal all advanced tech. but by the time they duplicated the stolen technology, the next generation appeared. A losing battle.
Might I introduce you to the Tupolev Tu-134?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_accidents_and_incide...
Also perhaps the 737-MAX. :)
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maneuvering_Characteristics_Au...
Some searching says...
1. >1000 flights per day for the family
2. 2 US carriers accounting for more than 200 Max 8 per day
So one would have to get to 20,000 flights after two crashes to get 2 nines. We're well past that threshold
Said differently, the Max 8 was working safely 99.999% of the time, while the 737 NG was working safely 99.99999% of the time. An order of magnitude better than 99.99%, but two orders of magnitude worse than expected...
It is certainly a lot safer now. Hopefully even better than the 737 NG.
> Capable of operating from unpaved and gravel airfields with only basic facilities, it was widely used in the extreme Arctic conditions of Russia's northern/eastern regions, where other airliners were unable to operate.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tupolev_Tu-144
though that one was so defective that even the Soviets didn't want to risk flying it. it could barely get into the air, and that'd be with several major faults and alarms blaring.
Air safety seems the quintessential "discounting the horror of extremely rare accidents from the actual total safety rate" mental trap.
When it's years between incidents, and that widely used? Yeah, I'd still fly on one if I needed to.
But I swim in the pool during thunderstorms too, so not really a zero risk type person.
2. Aviation in the USSR was developing completely independent, and you can accuse USSR in stealing technology in many areas but certainly not in aviation.
Not the ones that were forked due to abandonment, but the forks due to “irreconcilable differences”.
The 737 Max 8.