Will China's new generation of submarines be as advanced as modern Western designs?
- Thread starter f-22fan12
- Start date
I think thats a big jump..
I suppose I also own dual use technology with a mill and lathe?
Theres a big jump between owning a 5 axis mill with many, many, many civil applications and it being a dedicated source of magical nuclear submarine or aircraft carrier propellors. Why can't they be allowed to make there own props for there own use?
Look at the french, they own plenty of 5 axis mills, and still can't make a proper propellor.
I suppose I also own dual use technology with a mill and lathe?
Theres a big jump between owning a 5 axis mill with many, many, many civil applications and it being a dedicated source of magical nuclear submarine or aircraft carrier propellors. Why can't they be allowed to make there own props for there own use?
Look at the french, they own plenty of 5 axis mills, and still can't make a proper propellor.
November 2006 is old news? They're still purchasing complex machines from the US, and there are still machines in australia (and europe) that are embargoed from export to china - and its common knowledge that they can't duplicate those machines or they'd be producing them themselves by now.
The reality is that china is not in a position to demonstrate complex manufacturing skills in some sectors.
A cursory look at the hull design of the 093 shows that fairly quickly to anyone who's familiar with signature management. Its a 20 year old design and shows none of the advances made in hull shape design that have been around for 7-8 years or more.
eg, the work undertaken for Airbus and Boeing is with US, Spanish, Swedish or German equipment - no chinese machinery is certified for these platforms. Thats certainly the information provided to some of the Airbus component manufacturers in Australia. Even though china comes in cheaper for some components, the work is still being done offshore. eg, billets of complex metals, compound components.
: China Dalian Machine Tool Group has produced a 5-axis 5-linkage mill. You can find the photo pictured in April 2007. This is the address:
chinaneast.xinhuanet.com/jszb/2007-04/17/xin_200404170833453597620.jpg
and I'll bet you all the tea in china that those machines are not certified to do any contract work for Airbus of Boeing passenger aircraft.
China Dalian Machine Tool Group has produced a 5-axis 5-linkage mill. You can find the photo pictured in April 2007. This is the address:
chinaneast.xinhuanet.com/jszb/2007-04/17/xin_200404170833453597620.jpg
Schumacher
New Member
Hmm ... so a European country buys a Boeing jet means Europe can't produce an aircraft ? There are many commercial & practical reasons to choose from multiple sources.
We're not sure of the quality of these Chinese machines but your reason for saying China can't produce them just because it still imports some of them lacks commercial sense, especially when others have produced sources that Chinese are producing them.
If US is allowing exports of these sensitive complex machines to China, I think it actually supports the claim that China is producing them.
With sensitive techs, the thinking is not to sell until the buyers are going to get them one way or another anyway. So, might as well allow the sale to make some money.
With sensitive techs, the thinking is not to sell until the buyers are going to get them one way or another anyway. So, might as well allow the sale to make some money.
Sorry, thats not true. I'm aware of numerous technologies that are embargoed (in australia) for sale to china due to concerns about theft of IP and due to the technology sophistication.
We have (and every Govt I've dealt with on military sales) has a list of countries embargoed on specific technologies. I've been involved with this for some 8 years through various projects. I think I might have a fair idea of what we do and do not allow in and out.
Not all countries are going to sell everything for a quick buck - and even the US has those policies in place. The US covers it under ITARS provisions - and those ITARS provisions even effect overseas participants in labeled projects.
Last edited:
Schumacher
New Member
Yeah, I think most know this, ie there are numerous techs that are not allowed to be sold to China.
But I'm talking about the 5-axis machine which, as you said, US has exported to China.
I'm saying that this shows the machine is not that sensitive a tech, which I doubt since it's critical for ships & aircraft etc, or that US knows China producers are making them anyway.
Last edited by a moderator:
The ramifications of the decisions made by that idiot Clinton are still reverberating even today.
so do the recently revealed pictures of 093 yield any kind of surprise or is it exactly what the submarine community expected it to look like? (if this is not too sensitive of a question to ask). I'm just asking this, because it looks different from Victor 3 (which is the often used comparison to 093).
well, you appreciate the fact that I'm not going to say much in a public forum. but based on work we've done on other subs etc... at a core design level, the 093 doesn't rattle my cage.
if those photos are legitimate, then its apparent that at the design level it is at least a generation behind. It doesn't matter to me whether its chinese, bulgarian, lithuanian or from mars - the design is a giveaway about what thought processes went into the acoustics management side of the equation.
whats important is that the chinese have made a serious attempt and that they will obviously use this as a development mule. the question for me (or maybe others like me with a vested interest) is that if the basics indicate prev generational thought, then the internal systems are going to be effected as well.
obviously I can't do much about it if people don't like my comments - but if the US. UK, French or Germans came out with that hull design I'd be sitting here going "wtf??"
design indicates mindset.
no, I don't mind. I didn't expect them to develop anything close to the current generation.
I figured you guys previously have an image of what you expect 093 to look like. And then when these photos came out, did a comparison. I don't know if the previous comparisons between 093 and Victor 3 were rhetorics for the mass public or a general belief by the submarine community. But looking at their photos (not knowing much about submarines), they look quite different to me. My question is what kind of influences does the 093 seem to have?
From a purely academic level, my sense of it is that China decided to go with this design as a mule. Going on prev design and development behaviour they will do short runs on specific mules to develop the competency.
Any sub is a threat, so if it had a sail built like the sydney opera house, given a decent crew it would still cause concerns. technology is always only part of any threat matrix assessment.
What is apparent to me (in a broad sense) is that the design hasn't been influenced by the Victors. There seems to be heavy LA, Trafalgar, Oberon influence in some areas. Considering the fact that these 3 were all benchmark designs at the nominal acoustic measurement level, then they've been paying attention to more than the russians (whose early boats were never acoustically equivalent to their adversarial contemporaries)
Re public media comment about PLAN designs, you seem the same nonsense coming out about some of the Indian Navy subs. You can't manage the press (as such), so you let them run at the mouth and then lean back and watch them "eat their young" when they get it wrong. eg I don't know of anyone in the acoustic community who was anticipating a rebirthed Victor to appear, irrespective of all the chatter that was happening elsewhere.
Schumacher
New Member
Considering that 093's design phase was around mid or early 90s & PLA capability at that time, I don't think many observers will have seriously thought it's at current, latest generation level. Being at similar level as LA & Trafalgar class seems about right.
Did you actually read the PDF? its dated on September 2006. There are thousands and thousands of companies in China, many foreign owned. Who is to say who bought what and where did it go to? The defense industry is just a minor fragment for all the machine tool users in China. If you read the PDF, the US is actually seriously lagging behind in terms of machine tool shipments to China, compared to Germany, Japan, Sweden and other countries, including Taiwan.
The part there that should be noted is that one of those Chinese major machine tool makers is one that is heavily tied with the Defense Ministry.
It should be noted that in April 2006, according tot he PDF the AMT noted 17 Chinese makers of CNC machine tools, 7 of which have displayed 5 axis machines.
Here is an update for 2007.
http://machine.2456.com/eng/feature/details.asp?fsiid=6&fsid=2415&e=1
Now its up to 20 manufacturers, which displayed around 70 models.
Which ones are tied to the Defense Ministry I don't know, certainly not all of them would be tied to the Defense Ministry, and those who do, probably a small fraction.
And it kind of helps if the company you are importing these tools from is a company you bought.
China machine tool giant acquires German plant
China's machine tool manufacturer tycoon, Shenyang Machine Tool Group (SMTL) announced here yesterday that it has bought Germany's Schiess AG.
http://english.people.com.cn/200411/16/eng20041116_164046.html
This is not to suggest that this company is PLA related since 30% of the company was just sold to a New York firm.
http://www.easybourse.com/Website/dynamic/News.php?NewsID=214884&lang=fra&NewsRubrique=2&pageliste=
Its not necessary to import an entire machine, just enough of the parts to make your own. Many of the China made machine tools do use parts imported ffrom Germany, Japan, Sweden, etc,.
I did, and you notice that my reference was November 2006. The last time I checked a Julian calendar, Nov was more recent than Sept when backtracking....
So, mainland china has the capability because they bought US and German technology in late 2006?
Are these machines certified and cleared for Airbus and Boeing contracts automatically then? Because I'm unaware of any chinese complex tech that is certified for Airbus or Boeing. Even BMW were still using their own gear and not sourcing chinese manuf product.
Happy to be corrected, but in any of the briefings I've attended its been made patently clear that chinese QC does not meet the required standards and hence the continued use of non chinese plant.
Julian? Good grief! I didn't realise you were that old. Were you on the first fleet?... The last time I checked a Julian calendar, Nov was more recent than Sept when backtracking....
BTW, it's also true for the new-style Gregorian calendar.
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #38
Here's why. This thread was started along time ago. Before all the Warnings. And its not really a "versus" thread.
No one seriously expect a Jump from 091 Han to Virginia class. It's still a good attempt even if it's a generation behind. The 093 will never the less give PLAN what it lacks most in the Han, a relativelt trouble free system.
Its been suggested to be using H/SQG-207 flank array developed in 1990...
But what's the estimated size of the boat based on the new picture?
Kind of hard since there nothing to compare to...
The earlier times I heard of a Chinese made CNC goes way back before 2000. The German firm was bought in 2004. Shenyang Machine Tools Group is a major exporter of machine tools around the world and they have a branch in the US.I did, and you notice that my reference was November 2006. The last time I checked a Julian calendar, Nov was more recent than Sept when backtracking....
So, mainland china has the capability because they bought US and German technology in late 2006?
And did you notice that the latest CMIT is in April 2007? Having 7 manufacturers displaying their products in 2006 to 20 manufacturers with 70 models is quite a jump, and that's for one year.
And who are the ones doing the certification? Do you have to apply and do you need to even bother.
Do you need Airbus, BMW and Boeing certification in order to work on J-11s?
Maybe Western standards are still higher but it does not mean that the PLA standards have to match that. The PLA standards may still be relatively high but still below the highest Western standards. What is important is that it is good enough for domestic consumption.