What's new

China rapidly narrows technology gap with S. Korea

So overall Korean technology is still ahead than that of China?


  • Total voters
    99
  • This poll will close: .
In many industrial technology if not most, Korea and Japan still ahead China though in the military one China ahead.

Probably in some specific sectors there is some difference with bias to Japan. However, overall, my analysis tends to lead one to conclude that China is catching up or has already caught up. We should never underestimate their abilities as they have proven themselves efficaciously capable in competing in tertiary sales abroad, as well as in IP production. Their strengths now lies on their collective industrial and manufacturing power, which is what Japan has long tapped into. Chinese companies such as Haier, Xiaomi, Lenovo, Cherry, Dongfeng, Hawtai, Alibaba, et al shows their capability to capture the domestic market and also on foreign markets. In the military and aviation sectors, the Chinese have proven themselves a worthy adversary to even western defense contractors systems, and are catching up. Its clear we are dealing with a rising power, whose clout will be massive when she completes her modernization mandate.

Let us never underestimate the Chinese fighting spirit!

ChineseFantasy-Medium.jpg
 
In many industrial technology if not most, Korea and Japan still ahead China though in the military one China ahead.
Sorry, this is a military forum, we only talk about millitary equipments, any self-made military equipments bigger than a car in Japan and Korea all need import foreign sub-systems, technologies, or even direct equipments. For a very simple question, can you give any chopter or drone designed by Japanese and Koreans as examples.
For the most sophisticated military systems like four-generation fighter or Aegis, Japan and Korea forever inevitablely lack of the capacity to cover the all technology chains, that is also one of the main reasons that US can control Japan and Korea.
 
Last edited:
South Korea: Asia’s New Powerhouse Arms Exporter

By Tae-jun Kang

Philippines has recently signed a deal in which it will acquire 12 FA-50 fighter jets from South Korea in an attempt to bolster its military power.

The deal between South Korea and the Philippines was signed on March 28 at an event in Manila attended by high-level officials from both countries.

With this deal, the Philippines will import a total of 12 fighter jets from South Korea by 2017, and South Korea is expected to make over $400 million.

“The fresh acquisition will draw the force closer to its goal of achieving a minimum credible defense capability,” Philippine Air Force spokesman Col. Miguel Ernesto Okol said after the deal was made.

The Philippines is not the first country to look to South Korea for fighter jets: Seoul has previously completed sales to Indonesia and Iraq, in 2011 and 2013 respectively.

With more and more countries deciding to purchase arms from South Korea, it is emerging as one of Asia’s arms exporting powerhouses.

According to a report by IHS Jane’s, South Korea’s defense equipment exports totaled $0.6 billion in 2013, doubling from the previous year.

The report added that South Korea is forecast by 2016 to generate more revenue from defense exports within East Asia than China. It has already overtaken the U.K., Italy, and Israel within the region.

“South Korea not only increased its exports regionally but also managed to export at a global level. We saw deals with Iraq, Indonesia, Turkey, United Kingdom, Azerbaijan and the Philippines to name a few,” IHS Defense Content Director Paul Burton said in a press release.

“South Korea increased its exports from $0.3 billion to $0.6 billion in 2013 and by 2015 it will be exporting $1.5 billion a year in defense equipment. This will likely supplant some of the major Western companies in the process,” he added.

Driving this rapid growth in the nation’s weapons trade is the South Korean government’s effort to strengthen its national defense industry.

When South Korea first began to pay attention to the defense industry under the Park Chung-hee administration in the 1970s, its capabilities were limited to copying arms imported from the United States. Since then, however, the country’s defense technology has consistently improved, and it has reached the stage of producing capital-intensive smart weapons.

According to the Statistics Korea, 96 South Korean companies were operating in the defense industry as of 2012, a number that rises to more than 400 when affiliates are included. Five of these companies, including Samsung, Korea Aerospace Industries, and LIG Nex1, were named among the Top 100 arms-producing and military services companies in the world last year by the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute.

When it comes to defense technology, South Korea ranked number 10 with Sweden, according to a report by South Korea’s Defense Agency for Technology and Quality in 2013.

The report claims that South Korean companies’ defense technology has reached 80 percent of the level of the world leaders.

“South Korea’s defense industry has developed under a special situation, having North Korea next to it,” said Chae Woo-seok, head of Korea Association of Defense Industry Studies, in an article for the magazine Freedom in September 2013.

He added that the defense industry has the potential to become a growth engine for South Korea, generating a new market and jobs.

Unlike other countries, however, South Korea should approach the defense industry with a different mindset, since it is closely linked not only with its national security but also with economic growth, Chae explained.

He noted that South Korea has an opportunity to increase its defense exports, since more and more developing countries around the world are making South Korea their role model for national development, and want to learn how it has developed its defense industry.

“South Korea should seek more ways to increase its defense trade with these developing countries, which are eager to follow its development history,” he said. “And by doing that, South Korea not only can create new overseas markets and jobs, it can also contribute to the development of these emerging economies.”


South Korea: Asia’s New Powerhouse Arms Exporter | The Diplomat
 
@Martian2 Please try to dig some "indigenous" military technologies of so-called the powerhouse arms exporter, South Korea, that it export to other countries.
I have a policy of ignoring trolls like Antonius.

The poll results show a clear majority acknowledge China's superior technology.

As far as I'm concerned, the poll results speak for themselves and the debate is over.

China is the clear technological leader.

LpHkLXM.gif
 
I have a policy of ignoring trolls like Antonius.

The poll results show a clear majority acknowledge China's superior technology.

As far as I'm concerned, the poll results speak for themselves and the debate is over.

China is the clear technological leader.

LpHkLXM.gif
Actually, your posts above in the thread are enough to explain all that, some members just are more willing to receive things selectively. You are No.1 :china:
 
Actually, your posts above in the thread are enough to explain all that, some members just are more willing to receive things selectively. You are No.1 :china:
Now, you understand.

Earlier, I wasn't really replying to Antonius.

I was laying out my case for the general reader.

The poll results were within my expectation. After I provided all of the arguments and citations, the rational poll voter will reach the correct result.

After making my case to the general reader, I stopped posting.

nMFkww0.jpg

"China's Shenzhou-9 space capsule docks with Tiangong space lab - Telegraph"

 
Last edited:
Now, you understand.

Earlier, I wasn't really replying to Antonius.

I was laying out my case for the general reader.

The poll results were within my expectations. After I provide all of the arguments and citations, the rational poll voter will reach the correct result.

After making my case to the general reader, I stopped posting.

nMFkww0.jpg

"Video: China's Shenzhou-9 space capsule docks with Tiangong space lab - Telegraph"
Yes, you are right. The main purpose of any valuable debates is always to try to persuade the most general readers not the ones who pretend to sleep.
 
Last edited:
In many industrial technology if not most, Korea and Japan still ahead China though in the military one China ahead.
You almost got a thumb up from me if you had said " In certain industrial technology, Korea and Japan still ahead China though in the military one China ahead."
This a stupid question to begin with since it is too generalized without a specific definition and framework for apple-to-apple type comparison. As many of people already covered, technology has many subsets. R&D, education level, science and academic process, number of patents etc all bear weight into country's technological strength. If we have to make a comparison of China and SK's technology in general, the weighted average scientific approach need to be adopted since it is more suitable and widely used in similar situation. Under this approach, we measure the level of each subset by a score, then we multiply it by a percentage which is predetermined according to its weighing in the overall "technology" of what we have already unambiguously confined, we come up with a score/percentage,then we move to the next and so on........., then we add all up for a total.This total is more meaningful and indicative of country's technology level in overall than the simple number counts of which is ahead and which is not ahead.
Question:
Is patents that China hold already surpass Korea?
Does it mean you have agreed with the most of what I said in those ten lines?
I always made mistakes when in India because you guys shaking head means yes,yes?:disagree::crazy:
To you question, I don't know and no time to google. Like I said weighted average as opposed to numbers count is more suitable for overall measurement. We use weighted average interest rate, share market index, or Baltic Dry Index in other fields, why can we apply the same idea here?
 
Everyone (except PDF Professional Gambit) knows that a turbofan engine is more efficient than a turbojet.

PDF selects the worse people for "Professional," "Military Professional," and "Think Tank" status. These poorly-informed individuals damage PDF's credibility.

Chengdu J-20 5th Generation Aircraft | Updates & Discussions. | Page 295

z3p4H61.jpg
Marty,

You are despicable beyond words. The context of what I said in that thread was about SUPERCRUISE. Basically, if you want to supercruise, the turbojet is the preferred choice because it create a higher quantity of air-fuel mixture to burn. I pointed out this...
What followed was my pointing out that in order to supercruise at higher speed, you need to move even further away from the turbofan type, even to the ramjet. You completely misunderstood the debate then and here you are now twisting my words to suit your needs for attention.

He needs to be demoted for not knowing the difference between a turbofan and turbojet engine.

Also, he trolls the Chinese threads. PDF needs to ban him from the Chinese sub-forums.

That would solve the problem.

We have a hard-core ethnic Vietnamese constantly writing anti-China posts in the Chinese threads.

PDF does not allow members to write anti-India posts in the Indian sub-forums. I wrote one single post about India licensing European satellite technology (with citations) and I was given an immediate warning. I haven't posted a single comment in the Indian section for about three years now.

So why does PDF allow Gambit and JHungary to write constant anti-China posts?

Why does PDF protect the Indian sub-forum excessively and allow the trolls to run loose in the Chinese sub-forum? The Chinese members are becoming really annoyed with the double-standards on PDF.
You want no American writing 'anti-China' posts, but you have no problems with Chinese writing 'anti-America' posts.
 
Marty,

You are despicable beyond words. The context of what I said in that thread was about SUPERCRUISE. Basically, if you want to supercruise, the turbojet is the preferred choice because it create a higher quantity of air-fuel mixture to burn. I pointed out this...

What followed was my pointing out that in order to supercruise at higher speed, you need to move even further away from the turbofan type, even to the ramjet. You completely misunderstood the debate then and here you are now twisting my words to suit your needs for attention.
Everyone can read the plain English. You can keep making excuses like all the other times.

Let me remind you.

You claimed MIRVs fall vertically.

I showed you a picture of MIRVs coming in at an angle.

You claimed it was an optical illusion.

Remember this picture (see below) and your ridiculous claim?

You have a history of getting things wrong and making the most ridiculous excuses.

In the six years that I've been here, I've never heard you say "I'm wrong."

On the other hand, I make mistakes when I'm tired. I've admitted my errors.

Admitting that you are wrong won't kill you.

AAeaO3L.jpg

----------

I don't have a problem with people writing anti-China posts. Just create your own thread and make as many anti-China posts as you want. Let's see if the general reader wants to read your anti-China posts. Instead, you anti-China posters keep flooding the Chinese threads with your nonsense. It gets really annoying.

You are being parasitic and free-riding on the thoughtful threads and insights by Chinese posters. Go create your own threads and bash China as much as you want. Work to attract your own viewers.

Stop cluttering the Chinese threads.
 
Last edited:
Everyone can read the plain English.
Unfortunately for you, many seems to have better understanding.

You claimed MIRVs fall vertically.
I claimed no such thing. I explained that from ground perspective at the impact point, the warhead will fall vertically. Which part of 'perspective' is it difficult for you to grasp ? Do not bother to answer.

I showed you a picture of MIRVs coming in at an angle.
Ever seen a Shuttle launch ? I have. It is only when the Shuttle is sufficiently high in altitude that the curvature is apparently. But even then, that curvature is contributed by the Earth's rotation because the observer is on the ground. So for that wide angle pic, of course the descending warhead will have an angled approach.

You do not like my explanations because it is more technically detailed than ANYTHING you can come up with. You were proven wrong over and over on technical issues. You cherry picked my words out of contexts, then and now.

Kid, bottom line is that you hated to be outdone by someone who had actual experience. What did you claimed about yourself: That you played the stock market, that you are a body builder, and that your enemy is the US government.

My claim of military experience pales in comparison to your fantasies.
 
I am in too

As a new recruit, normal I don't know and care who is whom, If I agree what you said, I ll give you my thumb up, as I did insofar in numerous times to nationalities other than Chinese, be them US,Japan,India or Turkey. The Mod can confirm it.

In light of what my fellow Chinese posters have said, now I get a strong believes based on my limited encountering that @gambit and @jhungary are not bona fide Chinese affair observers. It is their intention, not their opinion or socalled professional judgement, that rang the alarm for me.

Instance One. When I argued military tech is more important for countries, @gambit said: it is not war time right?. If he was truly an US ex-serviceman, he would know how many wars the US have been engaged till now and how the US folks,let alone army personals, view their military tech supremacy.

Instance Two. @jhungary wrote in Japan Beats China in HSR in India thread (couldn't find the thread,from memory )that he daily commuted on Chinese-made train in Sydney and stated few things suggesting or implying the quality of the Chinese-made train is inferior. I don't use train myself, but I read Sydney Morning Herald everyday and never once did I read any news coverage about poorly-made-Chinese train in ten years. If even western local media does not regard it as a problem, what made @jhungary think otherwise? Can @jhungary provide any news coverage to us to support his very claim?

That said, your turf, your rules.
 
Korea Aerospace Industries agrees KFX investment deal with Indonesia


1643101_-_main.jpg




Korea Aerospace Industries (KAI) and the Indonesian government signed an agreement on 22 November to formalise proposed investment and workshare arrangements to support the development of the Korean Fighter Experimental (KFX) 4.5-generation fighter aircraft.

The agreement is framed by an accord signed by the governments of South Korea and Indonesia in October 2014 under which South Korea will pay 80% of the costs associated with the joint engineering and development phase of the KFX, with Indonesia paying the remaining 20%.

The newly signed deal, which in essence reaffirms Indonesia's investment in the project, will become operational once KAI formally secures the contract with South Korea's Defense Acquisition Program Administration (DAPA) to complete the development of KFX aircraft. KAI was named preferred developer of the KFX in March, and a contract to undertake the work is expected to be signed before the end of the year.

Under the terms of the newly announced agreement, Indonesia has agreed to invest about KRW1.7 trillion (USD1.5 billion) of the total KRW8.7 trillion in KFX development costs.

KAI said that in return for its investment, Indonesia's state-owned aerospace manufacturer, PT Dirgantara Indonesia (PTDI), will participate in the design phase of the aircraft and produce unidentified components. PTDI will also secure rights to some areas of intellectual property involved in developing the KFX and have access to one of six planned prototypes.

KAI plans to commence manufacturing the KFX from 2025. Company officials have previously suggested that about 250 KFX fighter aircraft could replace the Republic of Korea Air Force's ageing F-4E Phantom and F-5E Tiger II aircraft and, ultimately, its F-16 Fighting Falcon platforms. KAI also expects to export several hundred KFX fighters to countries that include Indonesia.

The KFX is envisaged as a single-seat, twin-engine, multirole aircraft equipped with stealth features, active electronically scanned array radar, and internal weapons carriage.


Korea Aerospace Industries agrees KFX investment deal with Indonesia | IHS Jane's 360
 
Korea Aerospace Industries agrees KFX investment deal with Indonesia


1643101_-_main.jpg




Korea Aerospace Industries (KAI) and the Indonesian government signed an agreement on 22 November to formalise proposed investment and workshare arrangements to support the development of the Korean Fighter Experimental (KFX) 4.5-generation fighter aircraft.

The agreement is framed by an accord signed by the governments of South Korea and Indonesia in October 2014 under which South Korea will pay 80% of the costs associated with the joint engineering and development phase of the KFX, with Indonesia paying the remaining 20%.

The newly signed deal, which in essence reaffirms Indonesia's investment in the project, will become operational once KAI formally secures the contract with South Korea's Defense Acquisition Program Administration (DAPA) to complete the development of KFX aircraft. KAI was named preferred developer of the KFX in March, and a contract to undertake the work is expected to be signed before the end of the year.

Under the terms of the newly announced agreement, Indonesia has agreed to invest about KRW1.7 trillion (USD1.5 billion) of the total KRW8.7 trillion in KFX development costs.

KAI said that in return for its investment, Indonesia's state-owned aerospace manufacturer, PT Dirgantara Indonesia (PTDI), will participate in the design phase of the aircraft and produce unidentified components. PTDI will also secure rights to some areas of intellectual property involved in developing the KFX and have access to one of six planned prototypes.

KAI plans to commence manufacturing the KFX from 2025. Company officials have previously suggested that about 250 KFX fighter aircraft could replace the Republic of Korea Air Force's ageing F-4E Phantom and F-5E Tiger II aircraft and, ultimately, its F-16 Fighting Falcon platforms. KAI also expects to export several hundred KFX fighters to countries that include Indonesia.

The KFX is envisaged as a single-seat, twin-engine, multirole aircraft equipped with stealth features, active electronically scanned array radar, and internal weapons carriage.


Korea Aerospace Industries agrees KFX investment deal with Indonesia | IHS Jane's 360

This thing will stay on the paper for many decades, and no one would even take a look at it.

Why J-20 can generate so many discussion, but not this thing and your Shinshin? The answer is quite obvious.
 
Back
Top Bottom