New Chinese fighter? SAC F60.

[blackbelter]

I don't know why F-2 is even brought to the discussion, one thing is developing an aircraft in cooperation and through tech transfer, and another thing is illegally copying an aircraft and putting a "Made in China" label on it which is the case with the J-11. :doh:

But they obviously don't like to call that stealing or copying, it's simply "an adoption". I mean seriously put J-11 next to a Su-27 and I'm sure the only chinese thing you will notice about that fighter is the PLAAF's roundel on the tail and the gray paint scheme.

 

I am just amazed by some country who, without help from its Friend, couldn't even make one aircraft, yet still points it's finger at someone else who is trying to secure his nation independently.

 

You want to talk about the difference between stealing and adoption? Let me tell you: the latter is free from the sense of moral. You want to talk about morality related to weapons, war and ultimately national security? You've got to be kidding me. Maybe you, as someone from Japan, should read about world history 1937-1945, especially the Japanese and Chinese part. Maybe part of American, too, especially the part about the end of 1941. Then you can understand why I will not bother answering to YOU about this point.

Edited September 18, 2012 by blackbelter

[blackbelter]

Man if I was Chinese I would be ashamed to even look at that obvious F-22 copy. At least J-20 copies several aircraft but this here is just funny to watch...

 

Just in case you are confused: this is what I am talking about.

[topol-m]

I am just amazed by some country who, without help from its Friend, couldn't even make one aircraft, point it's finger at someone else who is trying to secure his nation independently.

 

You want to talk about the difference between stealing and adoption? Let me tell you: the latter is free from the sense of moral. You want to talk about morality related to weapons, war and ultimately national security? You've got to be kidding me. Maybe you, as someone from Japan, should read about world history 1937-1945, especially the Japanese and Chinese part. Maybe part of American, too, especially the part about the end of 1941.

 

And maybe you should not derail the thread into political discussions or into how the "bad" Japanese people did bad things to your lovely ancestors, just sayin :smilewink:

 

I can understand patriotism and stuff, but let's not be blind before the facts. You guys lift the term "copying" to a whole new level. "Made in China" is a label that is everywhere known for being something cheap, of bad quality, not durable, a copy of something. So until you guys start making original stuff of high quality and start making it for years and years to clean "Made in China"'s name this is how it's gonna be.

Edited September 18, 2012 by topol-m

[blackbelter]

And maybe you should not derail the thread into political discussions or into how the "bad" Japanese people did bad things to your lovely ancestors, just sayin :smilewink:

 

We are trying to make sure history does not repeat itself. Literally, that's all we are trying to do.

[marcos]

Capacitors are made primarily in Japan, IC's are developed almost entirely in the U.S., same with the wafers. All China really does is print the boards. All that requires is skilled labor to do the manufacturing. All the high skilled development is still done elsewhere.

 

Reference this by the fact that no consumer producer for processors or GPU's are based in China. They are all run and developed out of the U.S.

 

Really the closest thing is TSC (makes a great deal of the processors for most of the world (Not Intel)) and this guy Jen-Hsun Huang who is the founder and CEO of Nvidia. Both of these parties are Republic of China in any case, which isn't even remotely the same thing as "The People's Republic of China" (Hint, one is a democratic nation on a small island that managed to escape Mao Zedong's purges).

Maybe, but even if they're just integrating, I'm sure they're looking at stuff and copying it. Their investment in nano-technology is also probably the largest in the world.

[marcos]

I meant F2.

It does look similar.

[blackbelter]

And maybe you should not derail the thread into political discussions or into how the "bad" Japanese people did bad things to your lovely ancestors, just sayin :smilewink:

 

I can understand patriotism and stuff, but let's not be blind before the facts. You guys lift the term "copying" to a whole new level. "Made in China" is a label that is everywhere known for being something cheap, of bad quality, not durable, a copy of something. So until you guys start making original stuff of high quality and start making it for years and years to clean "Made in China"'s name this is how it's gonna be.

 

There wasn't such a label 40 years ago. Laugh all you want, but we just need some time.

[RIPTIDE]

There wasn't such a label 40 years ago. Laugh all you want, but we just need some time.

Don't mind them. Sure there was some here saying that the J-20 was a photoshop.... and they sure changed their tune when the video and the airstrip came out. :megalol:

[Pyroflash]

Maybe, but even if they're just integrating, I'm sure they're looking at stuff and copying it. Their investment in nano-technology is also probably the largest in the world.

 

They can try to imitate it, but the facts are that China lacks the tech base in order to effectively develop OR reproduce technologies. The only thing China really has going for it is its hunger in acquiring corporations, but even this really doesn't do them any good as whatever investment they ultimately put in the pot towards research is ultimately going to wind up in APL, JPL, or MIT. Because, lets face it, most technology isn't researched by firms or corporations, but by university labs, and you can guarantee that these labs have contracts with the U.S. government. Therefore any tech that Chinese owned corporations get their hands on is already going to be either second hand or patent protected, or they simply won't know about it. Even if they know about it, and theoretically don't care about patents, the likelihood of them being able to effectively develop and make use of these technologies is fairly limited. This is the problem they are coming out to have with their current aircraft. The Chinese simply lack the metallurgical and technical processes to produce aircraft to the same standard and precision as we can with the F-22A and F-35. This really is a major issue, since believe me, precision is everything when it comes to the characteristics of those aircraft.

 

 

And again, using the term "copy" is a bit misused. The only things the Chinese have actually copied are parts of the J-7, the entire J-11 airframe, and the J-15. This made the Russians angry, understandably, because it violates the IP of the RuF UAC. The Chinese ONLY have the rights to produce the Su-27 under local license, however they breached this licensing agreement willfully in order to subvert the costs of licensing the carrier borne Su-33. That is stealing, and even in the business of killing, honor and self-respect are paramount (Or at least they should be).

Edited September 18, 2012 by Pyroflash

[marcos]

They can try to imitate it, but the facts are that China lacks the tech base in order to effectively develop OR reproduce technologies.

I'm all for rational debate but this is definitely bordering on mere assumption.

[Pyroflash]

I'm all for rational debate but this is definitely bordering on mere assumption.

 

Nope, global polls indicate that the U.S. have over 70% of the world's high skilled worker base (e.g. sciency people).

 

This is further evidenced by the fact that most capital tech (The stuff people use to make the stuff you buy) is developed inside the U.S. This is, overall, a good market indicator of who has the largest tech/R&D base.

 

Although, that being said, the U.S. is lacking in unskilled and semi-skilled labor (e.g. the people who make the stuff you buy). As a result, U.S. developed products tend to be of a higher quality, but of a significantly reduced quantity.

Edited September 18, 2012 by Pyroflash

[thaisocom]

Chinese sure is smart. Why wasting time and money doing R&D on aerodynamic? Just let the US and Russian do it. Chinese can then copy it, free of charge!

 

Seriously, they can sure copy everything.

[EtherealN]

All China really does is print the boards.

 

[...]

 

Reference this by the fact that no consumer producer for processors or GPU's are based in China. They are all run and developed out of the U.S.

 

Really the closest thing is TSC (makes a great deal of the processors for most of the world (Not Intel)) and this guy Jen-Hsun Huang who is the founder and CEO of Nvidia. Both of these parties are Republic of China in any case, which isn't even remotely the same thing as "The People's Republic of China" (Hint, one is a democratic nation on a small island that managed to escape Mao Zedong's purges).

 

Google Loongson and XBurst.

 

You'll suddenly find a whole ecosystem of PRC-designed CPU's powering both consumer machines, industrial microcontrollers, as well as research-grade supercomputing clusters. ;)

Edited September 18, 2012 by EtherealN

[Pyroflash]

Google Loongson and XBurst.

 

You'll suddenly find a whole ecosystem of PRC-designed CPU's powering both consumer machines, industrial microcontrollers, as well as research-grade supercomputing clusters. ;)

 

WOW are those some efficient processors! Would be nice if I could see a factsheet for them.

 

Edit: Do they really plan to achieve an indigenous CPU that can do 1 petaFLOPS with a single proc? At least anytime soon? It seems rather unlikely even if world peace were to happen and everyone scrapped their militaries for the sole purpose of making a better microprocessor. I mean those most anyone can do right now is maybe a teraFLOP right? Stuff like that is maybe six years away for a consumer computer. To say nothing of a single processor.

 

I don't know really, at this point I am simply getting out of scope. I am not a very good predictor of future technology's performance.

 

Thanks for sharing though, however I definitely wouldn't want one of those in my computer. Low power netbook procs are fine.. for low power netbooks..An F-15 on the other hand needs some F100's (Or maybe some F-119's (Dear god! could you even imagine that!)):D

 

(My F-15 needs some new engines :( (ASUS Rampage III Formula, Intel I7-975 @3.33 GHz))

Edited September 18, 2012 by Pyroflash

[marcos]

Nope, global polls indicate that the U.S. have over 70% of the world's high skilled worker base (e.g. sciency people).

 

This is further evidenced by the fact that most capital tech (The stuff people use to make the stuff you buy) is developed inside the U.S. This is, overall, a good market indicator of who has the largest tech/R&D base.

 

Although, that being said, the U.S. is lacking in unskilled and semi-skilled labor (e.g. the people who make the stuff you buy). As a result, U.S. developed products tend to be of a higher quality, but of a significantly reduced quantity.

You're seriously using a poll to determine such a statistic. There are 300 million people in the US. There are more than twice as many in Europe and the majority of them are also skilled labour with a large proportion of highly skilled labour (BMW, Audi, VW, Porsche, Mercedes, Formula 1 indsutry, EADS, BAE, MBDA, Dassault, Thales, Astrium etc.), so that puts pay to your '70%' poll stats without even considering Canada and Japan (Honda, Nissan, Toyota, Mitsubishi, Kawasaki - cars and heavy industry - + massive elctronics industry) and S. Korea and Singapore...........................etc., nor any of the cutting edge elite in Russia or China.

 

The quality vs quantity argument is probably also wrong because the US has always had a large domestic consumer base, which made it easier for big corporations to get off the ground and develop mass-manufacturing bases to export to the rest of the world in the '50s and '60s. Smaller European companies never had domestic markets on the same scale so it was relatively harder and often when large interest was expressed in high-value products, like the first jet airliners, they simply couldn't meet the quantities being asked for and actually turned down custom, most notably Howard Hughes' request to BAC.

 

The case of BMW/Audi/Mercedes/Porsche vs Honda/Toyota vs GM/Ford also raises questions about the quantity/quality claim.

 

You have a large highly skilled workforce but the '70% of the world' claim is preposterous.

Edited September 18, 2012 by marcos

[aaron886]

Take the cover off your computer and check stamp on the board, especially if you have a sound card.

 

Believe it or not, that does not mean they have the depth of technical knowledge required to design and build digital avionics. As has been mentioned, the Chinese industrial machine is great at copying things and mass-producing products, but that's not all we're talking about here. Ironically, I think my motherboard and sound card are made in Taiwan. My AMD CPU is made in Malaysia. Intel CPUs are made in the Philippines. Drawing the picture? :)

[EtherealN]

Edit: Do they really plan to achieve an indigenous CPU that can do 1 petaFLOPS with a single proc?

 

Haven't seen anything about that myself. They have Loongson-based computer that already does a petaFLOP at peak in service, but obviously this is with a couple hundred processors.

 

I would however not be surprised if they have long-reaching plans and research in that direction. 6 years isn't much time - Intel is working in that timeframe already, and Sandy Bridge had been in development for ~6 years when it was released.

 

We also have to remember that they're using MIPS, which makes the whole thing with counting FLOPS a bit problematic; you can't take "1 teraFLOP" from a MIPS64-implementation (especially a black-box one that gains compatibility through microcode) and assume this means the same thing as 1 teraFLOP on an x86. But they already have 16-core chips coming out, so for the right kind of applications and with software tuned to use it (that is, not windows :P ) it's not completely impossible within that timeframe - assuming we're talking Peak and not Sustain. I'd wager that the biggest problem will be regarding yields: parallellising the implementation is likely to require very large chips, which increases the risk of yield problems at the fabs.

 

This all reminds me of a story my father told me a while ago - a friend of his made good business setting up retailers for expensive timekeepers (Rolex etcetera) in Brazil. This was 20ish years ago. Obviously, everyone thought "but that's a poor country, how can that work?" Well, yes, it is, but there's enough people there that he had just as many prospective customers as he would have had should he have pursued the same business in a country like Germany. Scale that up to china and you suddenly get a situation where there's enough highly skilled people to fuel innovation but ALSO huge amounts of cheap labor... Definitely not a combination we should underestimate. I wouldn't be surprised if the next 10-20 years see China creating some fairly awesome stuff in both computing and aeronautics. (Remember: in the not too far away future there'll be two space stations up there - one belonging to "pretty much the entire world", and one that's the Chinese very own...)

 

Been a lot happening in china in the last 10 years. :)

[Pyroflash]

You have a large highly skilled workforce but the '70% of the world' claim is preposterous.

 

It isn't, and I misspoke. The number was determined using job statistics for the labor force that was gathered by the U.S. Census Bureau. Registered businesses are required to participate in this, and there are fines for providing incorrect information. Go muck around with the CIA, they will confirm this.

 

...

 

Oh yeah, I don't doubt it. I respect them for trying for sure. We will see where the future takes us, but I can pretty reliably say that it isn't a future in which U.S. invents tech x, China copies tech x into tech y. That is just human stupidity at work, that type of thinking. More than likely we will see a China where they try to improve their R&D and production infrastructure to the point where they can reliably compete with the rest of the world. That makes sense.

 

Edit: I thought MIPS licensed their architecture to China for modification so that they didn't need to write any extra code for compatibility?

Edited September 18, 2012 by Pyroflash

[EtherealN]

Ironically, I think my motherboard and sound card are made in Taiwan. My AMD CPU is made in Malaysia. Intel CPUs are made in the Philippines. Drawing the picture? :)

 

The chinese are fabbing their own stuff, which is not for sale here, but is fully functional. You can pick up laptops and desktops with nothing but PRC-designed and manufactured stuff in the; if you go to china, of course.

[HiJack]

Google Loongson and XBurst.

You'll suddenly find a whole ecosystem of PRC-designed CPU's powering both consumer machines, industrial microcontrollers, as well as research-grade supercomputing clusters. ;)

I guess they call home when powered. :P

[EtherealN]

Edit: I thought MIPS licensed their architecture to China for modification so that they didn't need to write any extra code for compatibility?

 

No, what they did was that, after Loongson already was operational and on the market, MIPS issued a license for four instructions that had been omitted previously. They were previously omitted specifically because there was no license.

 

The implementation is entirely their own, what had to be licensed was these four instructions.

 

You have similar things in the x86 world: that a given processor is an "x86" does not (necessarily) mean that there's a single transistor that is inherited from an Intel design. You can implement your own processor and then handle compatibility through microcode, where the microcode decodes the x86 instructions that are passed to the processor into whatever has to happen in the actual chip. (Even intel themselves do this.) And also remember that there are instructions in Intel x86 chips that are not present in some others, like AMD and VIA. Sometimes because Intel just didn't want to issue license, sometimes because the instruction is so specialized that whatever market segment the other actor is targeting renders it irrelevant to them, wherefore they don't bother.

 

One way to think about this is through considering middleware such as WinE and Cedega etcetera, where windows API's and DX functions are implemented without using any Microsoft code. Whether or not licenses are required in a specific case is one of those legalistic domains where I have a hard time following all the twists and turns.

[marcos]

It isn't, and I misspoke. The number was determined using job statistics for the labor force that was gathered by the U.S. Census Bureau. Registered businesses are required to participate in this, and there are fines for providing incorrect information. Go muck around with the CIA, they will confirm this.

So the figure is basically saying that 70% of the highly skilled labour employed by US businesses (only) are US citizens. That sounds plausible. As a percentage of global highly skilled labour it's most likely a lot less than half that though.

 

Or maybe it's a poll of US employees to see how many thought their job was highly skilled. That wouldn't surprise me.:lol:

[Pyroflash]

Ah, got it, that makes sense.

 

So the figure is basically saying that 70% of the highly skilled labour employed by US businesses (only) are US citizens. That sounds plausible. As a percentage of global highly skilled labour it's most likely a lot less than half that though.

 

Or maybe it's a poll of US employees to see how many thought their job was highly skilled. That wouldn't surprise me.

 

No, U.S. Census data is taken directly from businesses, it is different from a poll or a survey in which people have a choice to participate. The data is mainly used for taxes, government programs, and evaluators, but is also used to determine certain other factors as well.

 

The figure I stated was saying that a large majority of the world's highly skilled labor has residency in the U.S. it does not however, say who, or what they work for, or even if they are a citizen for that matter. It even includes illegals (though I am not sure how many illegal immigrants are doing research in labs). The data that we have available however, is much more specific and telling than that of most available data for other countries. So that is parsed through and approximations are made looking at other data like exports, GDP, etc. to determine what percentage of a target nation's population is "skilled labor". It may not be 100% accurate, but it should be reasonably accurate given the amount of available information.

Edited September 18, 2012 by Pyroflash

[marcos]

Believe it or not, that does not mean they have the depth of technical knowledge required to design and build digital avionics.

Doesn't mean that they don't either. I think the claim that they struggle with computers of any sort has been adequately dismissed.

 

As has been mentioned, the Chinese industrial machine is great at copying things and mass-producing products, but that's not all we're talking about here. Ironically, I think my motherboard and sound card are made in Taiwan. My AMD CPU is made in Malaysia. Intel CPUs are made in the Philippines. Drawing the picture? :)

Makes you wonder what you actually do produce anymore. Debt? IEDs (Improvised Exploding Derivatives)?:lol:

[Pyroflash]

Doesn't mean that they don't either. I think the claim that they struggle with computers of any sort has been adequately dismissed.

 

 

Makes you wonder what you actually do produce anymore. Debt? IEDs (Improvised Exploding Derivatives)?:lol:

 

No, the U.S. is the leading exporter of capital goods (49% of all of our exports are capital goods, and we are the world's 2nd leading nation in terms of industrial output), and the leading developer of new technologies (i.e. more patents developed than other countries).

 

The actual production facilities (i.e. the places that USE those capital goods) are located elsewhere simply because it is cheaper. The end result that we as consumers see is that 17.1% of China's exports come to us as consumer goods. Most people don't look at the big picture and realize that the U.S. export industry is still really strong, and in terms of total economic standing, the U.S. is still ranked #1. Though public perception would put China as #1, when in fact they used to be #3 next to Japan in 2000 (They are #2 now, but they only surpassed Japan's economy in 2001). Due to their large export trade with Europe however, their economy is decreasing steadily due to problems in the EU (attempts have been made at restructuring to prevent any further drop, but at this time it is unknown whether they will be largely effective or not).

Edited September 18, 2012 by Pyroflash