http://www.aviationweek.com/Article.aspx?id=/article-xml/awx_07_06_2013_p0-594323.xml&p=1

整體說來,原文的論點並沒有錯.

Anyone who works in a regulated industry (aeronautical, auto, food / drug / medical device, etc) will recognize one of the author's main point: it is very difficult to know how to design and manufacture to comply with government regulations, if you have never done it.  Regulatory compliance is not just engineering; it is a combination of engineering, legal and process control.  I will note that currently China is weak on legal and process control.

Another point that the author makes is that it is bad when you outsource, when you don't know what you are doing.  Boeing and Airbus outsource.  They now outsource stuff that they can no longer make themselves, but at least Boeing and Airbus understand about the stuff being outsourced.  Comac doesn't.  Not having your own institutional knowledge is just a bad thing, when you are trying to build big things.  Any engineer who has worked at a major OEM company in any technical field can recognize why.  If you don't understand it, fine, but at least don't simply blow it off and say it's not important.

Speaking of knowledge: the author also made the observation that Comac engineers are so short on time, they don't even want to hear the suppliers' answers on the "why;" they just want to hear the answers.  This is also bad, but I would surprised if any western suppliers were really trying to give Comac the "why."  The "why" is the crown jewel of any technology company.  In my own company, technical drawings and documentations going to China contain only the solutions.  The explanations on how the solutions were found were deleted.  And these drawings and documents were going to our own wholly-owned subsidiaries in China.  Yet, the concern on IP forces us to do this.