- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
How so? I haven't seen much evidence of this beyond the crackpot conspiracy theories.
How so? I haven't seen much evidence of this beyond the crackpot conspiracy theories.
A
aesop081
Guest
Fry said:
Not at all. Britney is quite close in his/her assesement of China's military. Although they look impressive on paper, some of the intangibles are what makes the difference. Years of american training for both the TW air force and Navy would prove to be a significant "force multiplier". Dont forget that the Chinese still tend to cling to the soviet-style of centralised control inherited from the cold war years. This model has proven to be seriously deficiant and incapable of dealing with rapid changes in the tactical situation.
My only concern is the enlargement of the PRC navy. The advent of SLBMs is a cause for concern for both taiwan and the US.
As far as Fry's comment that weapons are weapons. You are demonstrating a serious lack of strategic thinking. By simply having the means to pressuer taiwan, china can acheive whatever aim they have. The SLBM threat is a way to acheive this pressure on taiwan and at the same time give the US a moment of pause. With the US heavily extended around the world at the moment, the nuclear issue in north korea, this is a perfect time for china to exert some politica/military clout.
Now speaking to technology...
China's military tech is indeed a generation or two behind. It is not as simple as copying someone else's designs. If the technology is not well understood and improperly employed, you have gained nothing. The curremt state of the chinese military is a confusing mix of various foreign technology and indegenous designs. All this incorporated into an outmoded and ineficient doctrine inherited formyet another foreign military is not condusive to success. I would be more concerened with the PRC if it were to magicaly develop a professional force overnight with a western-style doctrine.
Bert
Sr. Member
- Reaction score
- 4
- Points
- 230
The Chinese military like many major militaries in the world is evolving. By reading
military assessments and general news on the internet, the Chinese military is actually
downsizing, building a more professional cadre, and acquiring strategic and tactical
hardware. They have a robust space program, distributed communications networks,
and a booming R&D/manufacturing industry. This is not much different from American,
EU, and Russian military directions. Note the global acquisitions of resources and
influence in and near shipping routes around the world.
The Chinese also want to hold status as a world power, and from incidents in the past,
do not want to be manipulated by the US in particular. The public display of
intercontinental nuclear capability (which they'd had for some time anyway) is a
statement and not something new to world governments.
Despite the tensions between the PRC and Taiwan, nuclear capability is a
psychological bargaining chip. The Chinese would not nuke Taiwan as
a first strike for humanitarian and financial reasons let alone making the island
uninhabitally radioactive for the next 100,000 years.
I figure this is just more information to suggest China is moving in a similar path
matching US, EU, and Russian global interests. The pressure to secure resources
and financial stability will increasingly become flashpoints.
military assessments and general news on the internet, the Chinese military is actually
downsizing, building a more professional cadre, and acquiring strategic and tactical
hardware. They have a robust space program, distributed communications networks,
and a booming R&D/manufacturing industry. This is not much different from American,
EU, and Russian military directions. Note the global acquisitions of resources and
influence in and near shipping routes around the world.
The Chinese also want to hold status as a world power, and from incidents in the past,
do not want to be manipulated by the US in particular. The public display of
intercontinental nuclear capability (which they'd had for some time anyway) is a
statement and not something new to world governments.
Despite the tensions between the PRC and Taiwan, nuclear capability is a
psychological bargaining chip. The Chinese would not nuke Taiwan as
a first strike for humanitarian and financial reasons let alone making the island
uninhabitally radioactive for the next 100,000 years.
I figure this is just more information to suggest China is moving in a similar path
matching US, EU, and Russian global interests. The pressure to secure resources
and financial stability will increasingly become flashpoints.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
Any tin pot African dictatorship can order Su-27s and Russian mercenary pilots over the internet, but guess what the backbone of a real army is?
Time to merge this thread with the other China thread, me thinks.
Time to merge this thread with the other China thread, me thinks.
"How so? I haven't seen much evidence of this beyond the crackpot conspiracy theories."
-Nothing crackpot about common sense. It is often cheaper to steal than to develop. It does not mean you are stupid or backwards, merely that you have decided to concentrate human and financial assets elsewhere.
What you steal need not be the latest leading edge - you may in fact possess the leading edge yourself - but a mid-level technology or process that would improve your program overall.
You can steal to sieze the leading edge - with all of the pitfalls that entails posted by others above (and apes shaking clubs at the shiny black obelisk, etc)- or you can steal mil - or more likely - commercial processes that increase your efficiency and allow you to concentrate scarce resources elsewhere.
Tom
-Nothing crackpot about common sense. It is often cheaper to steal than to develop. It does not mean you are stupid or backwards, merely that you have decided to concentrate human and financial assets elsewhere.
What you steal need not be the latest leading edge - you may in fact possess the leading edge yourself - but a mid-level technology or process that would improve your program overall.
You can steal to sieze the leading edge - with all of the pitfalls that entails posted by others above (and apes shaking clubs at the shiny black obelisk, etc)- or you can steal mil - or more likely - commercial processes that increase your efficiency and allow you to concentrate scarce resources elsewhere.
Tom
"let alone making the island uninhabitally radioactive for the next 100,000 years."
Unlikely. radiation won't 'stack' above ground zero, but will roam around for a bit. A ground test by the Chicoms (those guys AGAIN?) in 1965 or so resulted in it's radiation plume covering most of the US a few days later. Low level, of course...
Now, if China - or, more to the point, Taiwan - has a ten megaton day, chances are that they will be milking cows in the open in Taiwan not that long after we will here in Canada.
Blast is local - radiation moves around so we can all enjoy it. ;D
Having said that, it is easier to sheild from someone elses radiation, than your own blast, so it pays not to land on someone's target list.
Tom
Unlikely. radiation won't 'stack' above ground zero, but will roam around for a bit. A ground test by the Chicoms (those guys AGAIN?) in 1965 or so resulted in it's radiation plume covering most of the US a few days later. Low level, of course...
Now, if China - or, more to the point, Taiwan - has a ten megaton day, chances are that they will be milking cows in the open in Taiwan not that long after we will here in Canada.
Blast is local - radiation moves around so we can all enjoy it. ;D
Having said that, it is easier to sheild from someone elses radiation, than your own blast, so it pays not to land on someone's target list.
Tom
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
Agreed, what I meant was that there hasn't been too many examples of the Chinese succesfully reverse engineering leading ege techs, even when they have the full co-operation of the suppliers, let alone with "stolen" techs. e.g. AFAIK they still are incapable of producing the engines for the Su-27 locally (maybe they are now, but if so it was a proccess that took years) and this is with the co-operation of the Russian manufacturers. Also, I think in general technologies today are harder to succcessfully steal than they were in the past, because of how everything today is digital, and militarized computer systems are harder to reverse engineer than simple mechanical devices. The main example I can think of is the F-16 fighter. Only in the last few years, after 15+ years of domestic R&D were they able to produce the rough equivilant, the J-10. All this time they could easily have simply aquired original, almost-new F-16s from the Pakistanis, and you'd think it would be easy to make an exact copy. Apparently not so. The Fly By Wire software and engine control circuitry of the F-16 are impossible to replicate without the source codes, and no amount of help from Israel or Pakistan, who have been operating F-16s for years but did not have the codes, would have done any good.
that's they way it was explained to me by a techie, anyway. I imagine a lot of this applies to the really advanced stuff out there. Sure you can easily copy simple stuff like rifles and whatnot, the "mid tech" wouldn't take very long to develope from scratch anyway, but I doubt the stuff that matters can be "stolen" so easily. Much of it you're still going to have to rely on bright minds and a lot of tedious testing and research.
N
neuromancer
Guest
Britney Spears said:
I'm not saying you are wrong, but I will say that getting the software in
question shouldn't be nearly as hard as you might think.
Even for a program of moderate to high complexity, lets say 2 million lines of code,
it would not be impossible to reverse engineer it, you simply need enough talented people, maybe
a team of about 25 comp-sci majors, and all they need is time, I would say maybe about 2 years.
Or, you could simply re-write the code from scratch.
I would say a competent comp-sci major can write about 200
lines of code that is relatively bug free in a week.
Lets increase our team to 50 members.
That would be 10,000 lines of code per week, or roughly half a million lines in a year.
I would say maybe 5 years *tops* and they could have any program reverse engineered or even
completely written from scratch.
The really cool thing about computer programming is that you dont need massive
foundry's or factory's to make the stuff, just a simple computer (hopefully a fast one)
and a skilled employee, and time.
And to make copy's, well, just a click of the mouse away. But of course, if they are
burning it into chips they will need some specialized hardware, but that technology
is so old and so available any home-brew hobbyist can do it now a days.
..so again.. I'm not saying your wrong, they may indeed not have the software
for some god-unknowable-reason but if they dont (which I doubt) then it should
only be a matter of "will power" for them to get it.
K
Kunu
Guest
Only problem is, the coding is the easy part. As you probably know, for any task, one must first determine the algorithm that has to be translated into code. With such intricate things as engine control systems, for instance, a team of dedicated design engineers who are well-versed in their fields is usually required to develop these algorithms. I am generalizing a bit here, but I've personally found from my observations that someone who can reverse engineer something in an effectively short amount of time could also likely design it from scratch (albeit not as quickly of course). Furthermore, AFAIK, most of these type of algorithms are empirical in nature, meaning they will not carry over very well to anything but exactly what they are designed for.
This all being said, I do consider theft of sensative technology a very serious concern, as even if a design cannot be fully understood, much can be learned from it nonetheless.
" The main example I can think of is the F-16 fighter."
Ironic - A hi-tech fighter (and the only US aircraft to EVER cost less than it's predecessor) envisioned by a maverick, cigar chomping fighter jock who - with an IQ of 90 - taught himself calculus to invent the math he needed to prove his theories of air combat correct, used as an example of how hard reverse engineering is. I suspect Col John R. "Forty Second" Boyd would have approved.
If he were alive today, he may find it amusing that the civilization that invented paper, the compass and fireworks is stil trying to figure out the plane he dreamed up.
Hope they are having fun with his OODA Loop too.
Tom
Ironic - A hi-tech fighter (and the only US aircraft to EVER cost less than it's predecessor) envisioned by a maverick, cigar chomping fighter jock who - with an IQ of 90 - taught himself calculus to invent the math he needed to prove his theories of air combat correct, used as an example of how hard reverse engineering is. I suspect Col John R. "Forty Second" Boyd would have approved.
If he were alive today, he may find it amusing that the civilization that invented paper, the compass and fireworks is stil trying to figure out the plane he dreamed up.
Hope they are having fun with his OODA Loop too.
Tom
N
neuromancer
Guest
Kilo Mike said:
Do you disagree with my estimate of approximately 5 years required for china to reverse engineer or
write from scratch any code they might need?
OK, I was simplifying a bit too! Yes they would most likely need a team of engineers, maybe a
team of math majors, and several teams of comp-sci majors. Basically speaking, they would
need the same amount of skill that the US put into creating the program in the first place.
So I guess the question should be; Can China match the skill level that the US required to
write the original software. I think the answer is yes.
I seriously doubt the original software is the technological equivalent of Michelangelo.
It might be darn good, it could be amazing, but irreproducible? Doubtful.
K
Kunu
Guest
Ya, essentially I meant if they could reverse engineer something in a meaningfully short amount of time, they would also likely have the capability to design it themselves with somewhat more time.
I can't really, since I don't have enough of a computer science background in order to. My point was just that in order to write code from scratch, the "pseudocode" algorithm must first be known, and for something as complicated as gas turbine engine control, it requires a VERY intimate knowledge of both the device and relevent scientific/engineering theory, plus extensive testing and experimentation, in order to develop this pseudocode.
Sorry, what I meant to say was, that a lot of the "numbers" within the control software of aircraft systems are designed around the idiosyncracies of the one model of hardware in question, and that model alone. Thus, applying the same software towards OTHER models of the same type of hardware, even a close copy of the original, will not be as effective, assuming it works at all. And of course, to modify the software appropriately requires the aforementioned level of knowledge.
I think this is definately worth discussing. I've got a few things to say for both sides of the fence, but it's getting close to my bedtime, so I'll post them tommorow.
Edited for grammar.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
I can't contribute anything more on the technical side of things, but it looks like after 20+ years of development, the J-10, pride of the Chinese military industrial complex and most likely the most advanced combat aircraft outside of US/EU/Russian, is essentially still an Israeli-designed airframe with a Russian engine. Although the Chinese have easy access to fairly advanced engines from both the US and Russia. The locally produced engine having proven to be too trouble prone to use, although using the same Russian AL-30N engine as the Su-27 probably makes for better logistics anyway.
So on the whole, I still think that the "reverse engineering/stealing engine design" idea is vastly overrated. Given the difficulty it was probably easier to just deisgn and test the sucker from scratch. The Chinese do not lack funds or talented manpower, but it still takes the same amount of time as everyone else.
So on the whole, I still think that the "reverse engineering/stealing engine design" idea is vastly overrated. Given the difficulty it was probably easier to just deisgn and test the sucker from scratch. The Chinese do not lack funds or talented manpower, but it still takes the same amount of time as everyone else.
I agree with your assessment of Chinese capability in the IT arena. There is no doubt that they have the skill level to accomplish such a task. As you seem to know, it's not as hard as most people think it is to reverse engineer software. Regardless of whatever protections may exist. Look how fast they took apart that EP-3E. You can bet they got the software too. You can also bet, they're doing something with it. Some seem to greatly underestimate their HUMINT ability, as well as their capabilities in the IT sector in general. These people run the largest firewall in the world. It's a huge apparatus with well trained people. They've even released their own Linux distribution (Although, so has NSA.) They're no slouches. Nor are they in the dark on western doctrine. It has helped that the US has battlehardened troops now, but Iraq has also proved to be a continual school for anyone probing for weaknesses. What I mean is, we don't really know for sure how China would conduct itself in a serious (modern) conflict but they have a pretty good idea of how the US would.neuromancer said:
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 160
Reverse engineering software for the F-16 would be important to the Chinese for what reason? It is a totally different aircraft. It would make as much sense as Chev trying to use copies of Ford engine management computers in their cars on the basis of a car is a car is a car.
Now manufacturing technologies have some real value. Stealing them allows you to skip the development costs and still benefit from the end product.
Think composites, lens coatings, metallurgy, etc...
If the Chinese can put an ICBM with a 6000km range in a sub then the range is from the sub not China so everywhere in the world is now within range. Keep that in mind east coast. :skull:
Guess we should keep up on our sub hunting.
Now manufacturing technologies have some real value. Stealing them allows you to skip the development costs and still benefit from the end product.
Think composites, lens coatings, metallurgy, etc...
If the Chinese can put an ICBM with a 6000km range in a sub then the range is from the sub not China so everywhere in the world is now within range. Keep that in mind east coast. :skull:
Guess we should keep up on our sub hunting.
- Reaction score
- 35
- Points
- 560
Designing and building anything from the ground up is difficult, India has spent the better part of two decades working on their Main Battle Tank ARJUN MK.1, and they have a fairly decent body of knowledge to work with (having licence built both Vickers VIJAYANTA and various Soviet tanks over the years), and tanks are not particulary difficult compared to supersonic aircraft or ICBMs.
This is a bit disturbing as well, since it means we would have a great deal of difficulty building anything military if suddenly called upon to do so. Our industreal base is so shrunken and debased we would (like in WW II or Korea) have to licence build copies of any sort of new kit, and for anything really complex, we may have to buy it direct from our allies.
This is a bit disturbing as well, since it means we would have a great deal of difficulty building anything military if suddenly called upon to do so. Our industreal base is so shrunken and debased we would (like in WW II or Korea) have to licence build copies of any sort of new kit, and for anything really complex, we may have to buy it direct from our allies.
K
Kunu
Guest
I said earlier I'd give my two cents regarding whether "China [can] match the skill level that the US required to write the original software", so here it is. Sorry about it being a week late. I am personally split on the issue, but believe the following are good points to consider.
Yes they can:
No way, Jose:
Admittedly, I am speaking generally here (beyond just software), but don't think the difference is too big a deal.
Yes they can:
- I think it is fair to say that out of any given population, there is a certain percentage of very smart and talented people. Thus, having a larger total population would result in a greater number of these critical people.
- As the standards for university education, etc. in China are quite high (moreso then here, AFAIK, albeit for reasons of sheer competitiveness), it can be assumed that China is able to also identify these individuals.
- There are many relatively detailed technical resources on the design of military systems available legally to ANYBODY who wishes to order them. (thus including China and her agents). And I am speaking of credible literature written by industry professionals and academics who have BTDT, not hokey-pokey "Build a nuclear bomb in 21 days" crap. Although this stuff of course cannot contain any secrets, I can see it preventing a lot of wheel-reinventing.
No way, Jose:
- In order to effectively apply scientific knowledge towards practical endeavours such as these in question, a strictly academic grasp of things is of limited utility in my opinion. For instance, between a straight-A CS student, and one barely making passing because they spend too much time contributing to open-source software, etc. , whom do you think would be more useful in the real world? While I haven't spend a second of my life in China, I nonetheless am sure that the opportunities for getting one's hands dirty and obtaining relevant practical experience here are much better. There are great industrial and military benefits from having such things as amateur radio, private aircraft ownership, and no national firewalls or other such restrictions on freedoms.
Admittedly, I am speaking generally here (beyond just software), but don't think the difference is too big a deal.
Similar threads
