China rapidly narrows technology gap with S. Korea

[CAPRICORN-88]

There is some truths in licensing a product. No technological transfer will ever occurred except for some low level ones.

Have Russia, USA, UK, Japan, etc ever transfers any technology to any nations so far? All the core technologies remained with them. Example: Samsung did not manage to build a complete microwave oven because Japan refuse or did not transfer them the core technology "the microwave emitter" in the past. Apart from that everything is build in Korea. It is the same story with the SU-30MKI in India.

No foreign MNC will ever transfer their technologies to others.

In fact in the case of the military technologies, USA has been selling downgrade equipments to all her allies including Australia, Japan, etc. For example: the radar sold for Japanese AEGIS has its limitation and reduced range.

So for the ignorant nationalistic fanboys quoting USA specification for them South Korean, Japanese Military hardware procure from USA is just hilarious.

This beg us to another very crucial security questions: Can USA simply deactivate these weapons if they are use against them or a preferred ally says Israel e.g. F-15 of Saudi Arabia?

 

[Beidou2020]

This post simply shows you know NOTHING about technology and that you are filled with misconceptions.

This article is only two yrs old, meaning still very relevant.

China's semiconductor imports exceed $160B, industry still nascent | ZDNet

Nope, it's YOU that know nothing about technology security.

Technology security is the most important aspect for geopolitics.

I've already stated that semiconductor and high-bypass commercial jet engine are the weak areas for China and is currently being addressed.

China can produce LCD, OLED, LNG carriers, etc by itself which means China is self-sufficient. That is technological security.

I don't give a damn about Nobel prizes (judged by biased clowns like you) like you do.

 

[xunzi]

Korea, Japan, Germany, France they dont build as super large machine as China - not because they are incapable, but more because of market demand fur such super large machine is not rossy. this is about business.

Accuracy and Efficiency talk more than Size if we refer to technology.

China Hunting for Korean Semiconductor Firms




SEOUL, SOUTH KOREA
16 December 2015 - 12:00pm
Cho Jin-young

It has been found that Chinese companies in the LCD and semiconductor industries are trying to acquire Korean firms in partnership with Samsung Electronics and SK Hynix as well as technical engineers.

According to industry sources, BOE, one of the largest display panel manufacturers in China, recently made an offer to a Korean driver IC design firm. They failed to reach an agreement and signed only a supply contract. “It is said that BOE is looking to invest in a number of other fabless companies as well,” said an industry insider, adding, “Rumor has it that BOE will take over some of them, as is the case with the other Chinese electronics manufacturers that are trying to buy or do business with Korean firms by means of aggressive investment and M&As.”

The Hualian Group, in the meantime, is currently bidding for Fairchild Semiconductor with Hua Capital Management. If the group takes Fairchild, its power semiconductor plant located in Bucheon City, Gyeonggi Province will end up in the hands of Hualian. Earlier, the Tsinghua Unigroup attempted to make an equity investment in SK Hynix but failed.

At present, the number of Korean firms in partnership with Samsung Electronics is about 500 at home and abroad. The numbers amount to more than 1,500 for SK Hynix and approximately 500 for LG Display. Experts point out that an increase in the number of Korean firms purchased by China could pose a significant threat to Samsung Electronics and the like.

- See more at: Chinese Inroads: China Hunting for Korean Semiconductor Firms | BusinessKorea

I cannot give them the benefit of doubts when they have no equivalent machinery. You like to selectively choose a forklift as some kind of revolutionary machine. I hope this is a joke you are pulling on us. LOL As far as machinery efficiency, we have demonstrate time and time again our projects complete ahead of time. All this thanks to all sort of technological prowess in machinery to get the jobs done, through ALL kinds of terrain and weather. And to be honest with you, I don't consider these high-tech at all, ESPECIALLY NOT A FORKLIFT. LOL If you have to talk about state-of-the-art to measure technological prowess of a country industrial complex. You need to talk about build aircraft, submarine, jet engine, rocketry, supercomputer. These are areas where a country show their industrial prowess to solve complex technological problems. Display or RAM technology? ARE YOU SERIOUS? LOL

So according to you guys, who probably know nothing about semicon products, licensing means intellectual inferiority...

AMD: x86 license deal with Intel can’t block our merger or takeover [UPDATED] | KitGuru



What you said is -- idiotic.

To be 'advanced' does not mean you are ahead of everyone else in everything. No one can do that and no one is that way. Not even US.

To be 'advanced' mean you have the technological foundation to enter certain industries with high confidence that you will accomplish goals and meet expectations, especially if those goals and expectations were set by someone else. So far, China have been playing catch up to South Korea and Japan and essentially STILL is doing catch up. If China can -- and have -- been rewarded certain trophies, like the Nobel Prize, it simply means China is MOMENTARILY ahead of other countries in those fields. It does not mean China is ahead in the core technology of those fields.


This does not mean China is ahead in technology but is more creative in ENGINEERING.

Do you guys understand the differences between base technology and engineering ?


The insinuation -- from an ignoramus at that -- is that licensing and buying off competitors does not make one 'advanced'.

But it is funny that if China does it, it means China is 'advanced' while when others, like Samsung, does it, it means they are not 'advanced'. Make up your minds.

There isn't a things we cannot do nowadays. And I cannot guarantee the same for South Korea or even Japan and that say a lot.

 

[Beidou2020]

Technologies that are vital for national security China should be self-sufficient in.

Automobile engine, display panel, memory chips aren't that vital for national security as say high-bypass jet engines.

 

[j20blackdragon]

Russia is definitely not a leader in semiconductors. I don't think anyone questions the effectiveness of Russian military equipment. France isn't a leader in semiconductors either. But they have plenty of customers for the Rafale.

The F-22 is flying on 1990s tech.

"The U.S. Air Force’s $150 million F-22 Raptor stealth fighter, which made its combat debut last week, is the most advanced operational warplane on Earth. But under the Raptor’s hood is dated computer hardware that’s creakier than your grandpappy’s cellphone from last century.

Though initially conceived as state-of-the-art technology in the early 1990s, some of the Raptor’s antiquated processors run at 25Mhz. That’s about 56 times slower than the multi-core chips in the iPhone 6."

America’s Advanced Stealth Jet Flies on 1990s Tech - The Daily Beast

Another example? China is developing two 100 Petaflop supercomputers each containing Chinese-made processors. Both of these supercomputers will show up soon in 2016. Both of these supercomputers will most likely occupy the #1 and #2 positions in the TOP500 list despite China's so-called 'inferior' semiconductor technology.

China May Develop Two 100 Petaflop Machines Within a Year - insideHPC

The truth is that China can design and produce most chips. However, the cost performance of Chinese chips can't keep up with Intel, Samsung, SK Hynix, et cetera. And this cost performance deficit will be glaringly obvious in 'cheap' consumer electronic goods like smartphones and PCs. However, if we are talking about a $100 million J-20, the cost of the chips themselves will be negligible. The main concern for the PLA will be performance and domestic production. In other words, China's slight lag in semiconductors will have no effect on the military or other high-end equipment.

 

[antonius123]

I cannot give them the benefit of doubts when they have no equivalent machinery. You like to selectively choose a forklift as some kind of revolutionary machine. I hope this is a joke you are pulling on us. LOL As far as machinery efficiency, we have demonstrate time and time again our projects complete ahead of time. All this thanks to all sort of technological prowess in machinery to get the jobs done, through ALL kinds of terrain and weather. And to be honest with you, I don't consider these high-tech at all, ESPECIALLY NOT A FORKLIFT. LOL

That is not a joke at all.

My point is: that smaller Forklift could be more advanced than the largest / biggest heavy equipment that you bring.

As I said the heaviest is not always an indication of cutting edge technology. The biggest machinery will be less advanced if it is less accurate and less efficient.

If you refer the "revolutionary" by "size" then it doesnt mean it is revolutionary by technology..

Agree?

If you have to talk about state-of-the-art to measure technological prowess of a country industrial complex. You need to talk about build aircraft, submarine, jet engine, rocketry, supercomputer. These are areas where a country show their industrial prowess to solve complex technological problems. Display or RAM technology? ARE YOU SERIOUS? LOL
.

That is out of the topic.

The article refer to the civil industrial technology (Chip, Display, Medical, auto, energy, etc), not military one.

I've said semiconductor and high-bypass commercial jet engines are the biggest weaknesses for China.

Why does Korean companies license chip technology from US companies if Samsung is so advanced? Samsung license technology from US companies like Martian said, so why do they do this if they are so advanced?

Why you compare Korea with USA?

We dont compare Korean chip technology with USA chip technology. It is common opinion that USA is ahead Korea.

We compare between Korea semiconductor tech vs China semiconductor tech.

Do you consider China is ahead? or on par with Korea?

It is crystal clear that Chinese SMIC 28nm is about 2 generation behind the Samsung's capability of 14nm or even 10nm.

China has LCD, OLED and Quantum dot technology. Unles Korea has a more advanced display technology, then China has caught up in this technology. It's up to you to prove why Korea is ahead of China in this technology. In what way is Korea ahead?

I have explained it to you before, please read it.

As I said: Quality matters.

India and Japan both can make car, but they are not on par! Quality matters!

I ask you again : if China can produce high quality OLED, then why Skyworth and some other chinese TV maker must buy OLED from LG? LG's OLED is not cheaper than Chinese OLED.

China got into LNG carrier recently thus the low market share but now China has the technology to produce LNG carriers. So how is Korea ahead of China in LNG carrier technology?
Only reason Korea has high market share because they were first but now China caught up in this technology.
It's up to you to prove whether Korean LNG carriers are ahead of Chinese LNG carriers and in what way they are ahead?

Again: Quality matters.

I have given you the article how Korea will focus on innovation in order to be ahead China in LNG carrier in spite of cheaper price from China.

I ask you again: why Korea still hold lionshare in LNG Carrier while China can offer much cheaper price?? Are the buyer in Europe/America/Asia are so blind or not interested with China's price?

What other areas according to you is Korea ahead of China in technology and show me proof.

Robotic.

Samsung is developing robots to replace cheap Chinese labour (Wired UK)

For example, you said in construction Korea is ahead. Show us proof what technology Korea has that China doesn't have.

Forklift could be considered under construction equipment as well.

I have given you the technology that Doosan can offer in the previous page, please read again

So the question is: could China offer the same advanced? Please dont bring "big size" as the technology parameter.

 

[antonius123]

Large is oftentimes necessary when it comes to construction. For example, Here's the Zoomlion ZCC3200NP (with lifting capacity of 3200 ton) hoisting a solid steel containment dome for the nuclear reactor. How do you do this with a small crane?

Necessary yes.

But necessary is not the parameter of the technology level.
Please be objective.

Bus is more necessary than sport car lamborgini, but bus is not more advanced than lamborgini.

The experienced Hitachi or Sumitomo doesnt produce that extremely large one doesnt mean they CAN'T. It could be business consideration where demand in the market for such product is so small and not business sound.

But seriously? The best you got for me is a tiny excavator and a forklift after everything I showed you?

Can China produce the forklift with the same quality? or more efficient and more accurate?

OK, my turn again.

I counter with the XCMG ET110 Walking Excavator. Notice how it can walk around on legs like the Stalker from Starcraft 2, allowing it to easily traverse steep hills and rocky/uneven surfaces.

I still haven't seen anything that puts South Korea ahead of China in construction.

Please tell me the most cutting edge technology applied by that Walking Excavator.

Is it to fulfill market demand? or it is only for demonstration?

If the market demand is very low, can I say that Korean maker is not interested to spend money for the development of that kind of product - rather than incapability?

Maybe Doosan is not interested with "attention catching" demonstrator anymore as they already have brand image and reputation.

 

[j20blackdragon]

Necessary yes.

But necessary is not the parameter of the technology level.
Please be objective.

Bus is more necessary than sport car lamborgini, but bus is not more advanced than lamborgini.

The experienced Hitachi or Sumitomo doesnt produce that extremely large one doesnt mean they CAN'T. It could be business consideration where demand in the market for such product is so small and not business sound.




Can China produce the forklift with the same quality? or more efficient and more accurate?





Please tell me the most cutting edge technology applied by that Walking Excavator.

Is it to fulfill market demand? or it is only for demonstration?

If the market demand is very low, can I say that Korean maker is not interested to spend money for the development of that kind of product - rather than incapability?

Maybe Doosan is not interested with "attention catching" demonstrator anymore as they already have brand image and reputation.

You bump your own thread after several days and you bring back the same forklift example? Got nothing new to show? You mentioned the word 'Lamborgini' but you haven't shown me the 'Lamborgini' of South Korean construction equipment or any construction projects that put South Korea ahead of China. In fact, I see nothing in your entire rant that brings anything new to the table. Just more empty words.

But that's ok. I'll provide the examples.

First, I want to demonstrate that China can transport very heavy loads on the ground.

DCM750 (750 ton) hydraulic transporter by Suzhou Dafang Special Vehicle Co. Keep in mind that a M1 Abrams tank is 60 tons.

HZY900 (900 ton) hydraulic transporter by Zhengzhou Huazhong Construction Machinery Co.

Next, I want to talk about some of the most powerful all-terrain mobile cranes in the world. Notice that these cranes are wheeled instead of tracked. These large multi-axle machines are predominantly used for constructing and assembling large plant systems, e.g. in the chemical industry, power plant engineering, as well as for erecting large wind turbines. The development was brought about as a result of the desire to erect larger wind turbines with an output of 3MW or more using the more flexible all-terrain cranes instead of the crawler cranes previously used. Wind turbines are oftentimes situated in remote locations and all-terrain cranes can reach the operating site by their own means. This makes equipment assembly and dismantling times significantly shorter. Fewer accompanying vehicles are required, and the amount of effort required for logistics is therefore much less.

The Sany SAC12000 matches the Liebherr LTM 11200-9.1 at 1,200 ton lifting capacity.

Zoomlion QAY 2000 (2,000 tonne) all-terrain mobile crane. This is definitely one of the most powerful in the world.

So in this post I've shown you two of the most important 'Lamborgini' capabilities in construction:

1. The ability to transport heavy loads to and from a construction site.
2. The ability to lift these loads into place with extremely mobile and powerful cranes.

What have you shown me? A forklift...

 

[j20blackdragon]

Robotic.

Samsung is developing robots to replace cheap Chinese labour (Wired UK)

According to the IFR, China has surpassed South Korea (and Germany) in total operational stock of industrial robots in 2014. What year is it now?

Statistics - IFR International Federation of Robotics

Also do I need to remind you of China's absolute dominance in the machine tools industry?

The absolutely beautiful fit and finish of the J-20 should already tell you how advanced Chinese machines tools are.

 

[antonius123]

@ J20blackdragon

Again - according to you "GIANT" means Technology?

So according to your logic: If I make a Giant bus or triple-decker bus that use old carburator engine and NOT compliant to Euro III standard, then it will be a cutting edge or revolutionary technology? and will be much more advanced than TINY porche or kind of that is compliant to EURO VI standard, use intelligent breaking system - adaptive cruise control, traffic sign recognition, etc?

You think Korea and Japan engineering cannot make giant crane? just because they dont release such product in the market?

OK I will reply your challenge one by one. But first of all lets straighten up our logic.
I see you still miss my point and do not answer my question that consistently challenge yours and your friend's logic.

 

[antonius123]

According to the IFR, China has surpassed South Korea (and Germany) in total operational stock of industrial robots in 2014. What year is it now?

Statistics - IFR International Federation of Robotics

But ironically the massive operational stock of industrial robot that china use most are "made in Germany", "made in Swiss", and "made in Japan"?

Again - lets play another LOGIC GAME. The intelligent game that we - east asian people should enjoy to do.

=>>> If China robot technology is so advanced, why China industry still depend on robot made by Kuka (Germany), Fanuc (Japan), ABB (Switzerland), Yaskawa (Japan)? Why China own robot despite of cheaper price only have small market share in China market - and used for less complicated production line?

 

[j20blackdragon]

@ J20blackdragon

Again - according to you "GIANT" means Technology?

You mentioned 'Lamborghini' before in your previous post, so I'll keep going with that example. I think most people know this already but high-end sports cars like Lamborghini have never been known their reliability or fuel economy. If you want reliability and fuel economy you go for Toyota. However, wealthy folks are still more than willing to pay a premium for Lamborghini because of the car's acceleration, top speed, and ability to handle corners. It is the performance they are paying for.

So the answer to your answer is YES. GIANT means technology when it comes to construction. Over the last several pages of this thread, I've been showing you high-end construction equipment that only a small handful of countries can even build. When you are installing the solid steel containment dome for a nuclear reactor, you need a giant crawler crane. The ability to lift an enormous amount of weight and its slight mobility are the performance requirements here. The crane doesn't need to win a drag race, nor does it need to meet emissions and fuel economy standards.

You think Korea and Japan engineering cannot make giant crane? just because they dont release such product in the market?

Stop bringing Japan into this. This is a China vs South Korea thread that YOU started. You said South Korea's construction industry is more advanced than China. I'm asking you to prove it. Are you unable to?

But ironically the massive operational stock of industrial robot that china use most are "made in Germany", "made in Swiss", and "made in Japan"?

Again - lets play another LOGIC GAME. The intelligent game that we - east asian people should enjoy to do.

=>>> If China robot technology is so advanced, why China industry still depend on robot made by Kuka (Germany), Fanuc (Japan), ABB (Switzerland), Yaskawa (Japan)? Why China own robot despite of cheaper price only have small market share in China market - and used for less complicated production line?

I thought this was a China vs South Korea thread. Why are you suddenly bringing Germany, Japan, and Switzerland into this? Are you saying South Korea's industrial robots are all domestic? Prove it.

Also if we go back 10-15 years, China's machine tools industry was nonexistent. Now the entire machine tools industry revolves around China. China moves very quickly. I would argue that machine tools are just as advanced (if not more so) than industrial robots. Human hands can do most of what industrial robots do, with less precision. I would love to see a human blacksmith replicate what CNC machine tools do.

-------------------------------------

Moving on to another topic...

China's BYD is now the world's largest electric vehicle (EV) manufacturer. Where does South Korea rank in this important next gen industry?

China's BYD is World's Largest EV Manufacturer - Gas 2

As 2015 Nears its End, BYD Becomes Biggest EV Maker Worldwide | BYD

 

[antonius123]

You mentioned 'Lamborghini' before in your previous post, so I'll keep going with that example. I think most people know this already but high-end sports cars like Lamborghini have never been known their reliability or fuel economy. If you want reliability and fuel economy you go for Toyota. However, wealthy folks are still more than willing to pay a premium for Lamborghini because of the car's acceleration, top speed, and ability to handle corners. It is the performance they are paying for.

So you mean your explanation will fail if applied on another example?

If your explanation failed and cannot explain another example than your explanation fall.

So the answer to your answer is YES. GIANT means technology when it comes to construction.

Why is that?

Over the last several pages of this thread, I've been showing you high-end construction equipment that only a small handful of countries can even build. When you are installing the solid steel containment dome for a nuclear reactor, you need a giant crawler crane.

Sorry, but that is logical fallacy.

I've been trying to tell you that : if we dont release a kind of product doesnt mean that we are UNCAPABLE to make that product. There are other consideration like business consideration, if you understand about that.

The ability to lift an enormous amount of weight and its slight mobility are the performance requirements here. The crane doesn't need to win a drag race, nor does it need to meet emissions and fuel economy standards.

Yes, but there are many parameter for performance, not only lifting.

I said many times: accuracy, efficiency. That is also performance parameter.

And "Accuracy" is more high tech compared to "lifting force"

Stop bringing Japan into this. This is a China vs South Korea thread that YOU started.

OK if that bother you.

Then I revise my question, I omit Japan:

You think South Korea engineering cannot make giant crane? just because they dont release such product in the market?

You said South Korea's construction industry is more advanced than China. I'm asking you to prove it. Are you unable to?

I already brought Doosan leading & cutting edge Forklift as one example, and I believe China cannot make the same one yet.

Referring to the example above, can I say this:

DCM750 (750 ton) hydraulic transporter by Suzhou Dafang => Triple Decker Bus

Doosan cutting edge Forklift => Tiny Porche

Yes .. Triple Decker Bus is a GIANT and more usefull coz can bring so many people
While Porche is tiny, and less usefull coz can only bring 2 persons.

 

[Keel]

@antonius123

You have lost your argument
It is time to puta full stop to this thread !?!

,

 

[j20blackdragon]

I said many times: accuracy, efficiency. That is also performance parameter.

And "Accuracy" is more high tech compared to "lifting force"

What evidence have you provided to prove that South Korean construction equipment is more accurate?
What evidence have you provided to prove that Chinese construction equipment is less accurate?
What have you proven at all?
The only thing you've shown so far is a line of Doosan forklifts that are fuel efficient.

You think South Korea engineering cannot make giant crane? just because they dont release such product in the market?

I'm well aware the South Korean shipbuilding industry has powerful cranes. But comparing shipbuilding to construction is comparing apples to oranges. They are different industries.

BTW, the Chinese shipbuilding industry has heavy cranes as well. To my knowledge, the most powerful crane in the world is the Chinese Taisun crane located at Yantai Raffles Shipyard in Yantai, Shandong Province, China.

Taisun - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Here's the crane setting a 'Guinness World Record' for a 20,133 metric tonne lift.

I already brought Doosan leading & cutting edge Forklift as one example, and I believe China cannot make the same one yet.

Referring to the example above, can I say this:

DCM750 (750 ton) hydraulic transporter by Suzhou Dafang => Triple Decker Bus

Doosan cutting edge Forklift => Tiny Porche

Yes .. Triple Decker Bus is a GIANT and more usefull coz can bring so many people
While Porche is tiny, and less usefull coz can only bring 2 persons.

Comparing the Doosan forklift to a Porsche is a horrible analogy. Porsche is a high performance sports car. The Doosan forklift (the one you posted) is a fuel efficient forklift that meets EU emissions standards without using a diesel particulate filter (DPF). According to your own link, the Doosan forklifts have a lifting capacity of 2.0t to 3.5t. They are actually very small and weak forklifts.

Doosan Industrial Vehicle UK launches new environmentally-friendly, cost-effective forklifts using its revolutionary new G2 engine « Doosan Forklifts

In other words, Doosan has built the Toyota Corolla of forklifts. You don't have the high performance Porsche.

You want an example of a high performance forklift? Here is the XJ988-40 (40 ton) Forklift by Xiajin Machinery.

Xiajin Machinery has a Youtube channel.
https://www.youtube.com/user/xiajinmachinery/videos

I could argue that the true purpose of a forklift is its ability to lift things. Fuel efficiency is nice to have. But you're not lifting anything with fuel efficiency.