What's new

Chinese test fired DF-41 ICBM?

Not a right comparison, Russian's excelled in their military hardware and Aerospace programs, while Koreans in electronics and Ship building but both did not ripped of each others program to build their own, if now you get me where am i heading.

Every nation's have some form of competitive advantage, tell me what is yours which you can say is best in the world, and I will buy you developed something without external help.

Jesus, what's wrong with you? Reverse engineering or convergent independent research and development is not the same as copying. Now, I have to go find my post on reverse engineering to explain the concept to your puny brain.

----------

Reverse Engineering Is Extremely Difficult


For those of you who think reverse-engineering is merely obtaining a sample of high-technology and pushing the "copy" button, think again. To produce the Yu-6 torpedo, a reverse-engineered Mark 48 torpedo, it took ten years and 18 patents for brilliant teams of Chinese scientists to reproduce the Mark 48 torpedo.

Reverse-engineering is not copying. Reverse-engineering is the reinvention of the entire manufacturing process, including patents, to build the high-technology weapon or equipment. Unless you have dedicated brilliant scientists and a sufficiently-advanced high-technology base, reverse-engineering of high-technology weapons or equipment is not possible.

Let's examine the excruciating process to reverse-engineer a mere torpedo. Please read the following paragraphs on the reverse-engineering of the Mark 48 torpedo. When you're done, tell me that you're not impressed by the scientists in a developing country that reinvented a high-technology weapon made by the world's leading technological power.

Yu-6 torpedo - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Yu-6 torpedo
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Yu-6 (鱼-6) torpedo is the Chinese equivalent of the Mark 48 torpedo. In addition to wire and active / passive homing guidance, wake homing guidance is also incorporated. Many domestic Chinese sources have claimed that Yu-6 torpedo is in the same class as the Mk 48 Mod. 4 torpedo, but official information of Yu-6 torpedo released by the Chinese government is limited and such claim thus cannot be confirmed by sources outside China.

Background

At least one Mark 48 torpedo was reportedly recovered by Chinese fishermen in the late 1970s or early 1980s, and China might have begun the reverse engineering in the 1980s. However, due to the inexperience of the Chinese technological base at the time, as well as the concentration on economic development, most of the reverse engineering attempt was put on hold after research had been completed on Otto fuel II, wire guidance and some other subsystems[/b], but some research continued on much smaller scale. The Yu-6 torpedo developmental program experienced a revival when the Chinese military realized that despite developing several torpedoes including the Yu-1, Yu-2, Yu-3, Yu-4, and Yu-5, the obsolete doctrine of having separate ASuW and ASW torpedoes proved to be unsuited for modern naval warfare and the Chinese navy needed a torpedo for both ASuW and ASW. As a result, the Yu-6 program was fully resumed in 1995 and 705th Institute was named as the primary contractor, Mr. Dong Chunpeng (董春鹏) as the general designer.

Development

One of the difficulties encountered was that the Yu-6 torpedo had greater operating depth than all previous Chinese torpedoes, and China could not build the new casing needed. A brand new alloy was required to cast the outer casing of the Yu-6 torpedo, and under the leadership of Professor. Ding Wenjiang (丁文江) of material science at Shanghai Jiao Tong University, the problem was solved when ZLJD-1S alloy was successfully developed and used to cast the casing for Yu-6 torpedo. Professor He Yuyao (贺昱曜) was in charge of developing power module for the newly developed computer of Yu-6 torpedo, and due to extremely high standard of the processing capability that demanded very advanced power source, this power module took three years to complete, (1999 – 2001).

Another huge obstacle faced was the casing for the acoustic seeker required new materials to build, but China had never had any experience in this field when the reverse engineering was first attempted. Despite most reverse engineering attempt was put on hold, research in this field continued and Tianjin Rubber Research Institute (also known as Tianjin Municipal Rubber Industry Research Institute (天津市橡胶工业研究所) was tasked to develop the rubber needed for the acoustic seeker casing. A team of 7 scientists including Shen Yingjun (申英俊), Hou Yehua (侯月华), Zhang Jianguo (张建国), Ma Gangying (马刚英), Zhang Lixia (张立侠), An Jiazhu (安家柱) and Zhang Suqin (章素琴) was formed, and eventually developed new rubber and production technique needed October, 1994, shortly before the Yu-6 program was fully resumed in 1995. The resulting rubber not only met the original requirement, but also exceeded it, with density reaching 1.098 ton per cubic meter, speed of sound reaching 1,551 metre per second, and surface roughness reaching 0.16 micrometer.

The propulsion system was the biggest obstacle in the development of Yu-6 torpedo. A team of three scientists including Ms. Su Li (苏丽), Mr. Mao Yuanfu (毛元福) and Mr. Wang Lisong (王立松) of Harbin Electro Carbon Research Institute (哈尔滨电碳研究所) was tasked to develop the graphite material used to make engine valves and other components. By September, 1998 the new graphite material, designated as M130, had been successfully developed and then utilized for Yu-6 torpedo. The piston ring of the engine was developed successfully in December 2003 by Yizheng Shuanghuan Piston Ring Co. Ltd. (仪征双环活塞环有限公司). Mr. Wang Guozhi (王国治) was in charge of noise reduction and his successful research in this field resulted in him winning a second place in the Chinese national scientific and technology advancement award in 1998.

Over two-thirds of the technologies used for Yu-6 torpedo were new to the Chinese, and there were some serious doubts that China could complete the project on its own. Mr. Dong Chunpeng (董春鹏), a University of Science & Technology of China graduate in 1966 who then worked for 705th Institute since was determined to succeed, which he did after developing 18 patents including four in fields that China had never had any experience. After ten years of development, Yu-6 torpedo was finally accepted into service in 2005, and for the success, Mr. Dong Chunpeng (董春鹏) was awarded the 2006 Scientific and Technological Advancement Award at the end of February in Beijing. One characteristic of Yu-6 torpedo is its high performance processor. In comparison to the Motorola 68000 or Intel 8086 microprocessors commonly used on most western torpedoes, the microprocessor used for Yu-6 torpedo is at least equal to the Intel 80486 class. Some domestic Chinese sources have claimed that Loongson-1 is used for Yu-6 torpedo, and the operating system is the Kylin operating system developed by the National Defense Science and Technology University, but this has yet to be confirmed by both the Chinese government and sources outside China. Another characteristic of Yu-6 torpedo is that the transducer array of its acoustic seeker has at least 55 transducers, more than that of US Mark 48 torpedo, which has a total of 52 transducers, but the exact number has not been released. Yu-6 torpedo was also the first Chinese torpedo designed with the concepts of modular design and open architecture software programming in mind, so that when new technologies and programs become available, they could be readily incorporated. In comparison to the first generation Chinese wire guided torpedo Yu-5 torpedo, which must use acoustic guidance in the terminal stage or when the wire is severed, the wire and acoustic guidance can be switched from one to another at any time in the Yu-6 torpedo. Furthermore, when the wire of Yu-6 torpedo is severed, the targeting information stored in the memory would enable the computer onboard to calculate the approximate new location of the target, augmenting the acoustic homing to achieve a higher kill probability.

Specifications

* Diameter: 533 mm
* Guidance: passive / active acoustic homing + wake homing + wire guidance
* Propulsion: Otto fuel II
* Speed: maximum > 65 kt (for attack)
* Range: maximum 45 km+ (at the cruise speed)"

RWEOd.jpg

Yu-6 torpedo

----------

The most interesting and controversial debate regarding China's reverse-engineering was the development of China's W-88 class miniaturized thermonuclear warhead. The U.S. claims that China appropriated the designs and reverse-engineered the W-88 warhead. China says that isn't true.

China says that this is a case of convergent engineering. For example, an airplane must have two wings to provide lift and an engine to provide thrust in the rear. Another example of convergent engineering is that all rockets are long and thin. In other words, form must follow function. There is only a very limited way to create a massive thermonuclear explosion using a compact warhead.

Here is the crux of the problem. "U.S. government realized that information derived from Chinese tests in 1992-1996 were similar to U.S. nuclear designs." The Chinese nuclear tests data are "similar," but not identical to U.S. nuclear tests on the W-88.

700px-W-88_warhead_detail.png


W88 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"The W88 is a United States thermonuclear warhead, with an estimated yield of 475 kiloton (kt), and is small enough to fit on MIRVed missiles. The W88 was designed at the Los Alamos National Laboratory in the 1970s. In 1999 the director of Los Alamos who had presided over its design described it as "The most advanced U.S. nuclear warhead."[1]

The Trident II SLBM can be armed with up to 8 W88 (475 kt) warheads (Mark 5) or 8 W76 (100 kt) warheads (Mark 4), but it is limited to 4 warheads under SORT."

NTI: Research Library: Country Profiles: China

"...According to the Cox Committee Report, suspicion of China's nuclear espionage started after the U.S. government realized that information derived from Chinese tests in 1992-1996 were similar to U.S. nuclear designs. This similarity, combined with other information derived from classified sources, led the Cox Committee to claim that China had stolen several bomb designs, including the U.S.' most advanced W-88 design and a design for an enhanced radiation weapon (neutron bomb). Yet, the Cox Report has been severely criticized by both experts and officials in the United States as a political document that has several technical inaccuracies."
 
Jesus, what's wrong with you? Re-engineering is not the same as copying. Now, I have to go find my post on re-engineering to explain the concept to your puny brain.

(insert citation)

Our national defence represents our true capability of the R&D of the high-end technology, so with a good implemented market system, we will be able to spread the high-end technology from the top of the pyramid to the civilian technology in the bottom of the pyramid.

So this means in the near future, our cilivian industry will be no longer dependent on the outsourcing jobs from the West, and we will have many strong civilian corporations like Huawei/Lenovo/Baidu that rivalled Google/Microsoft/Apple to support our national defence.

USA is strong because they have a good implemented market system to spread the high-end military technology into the civilian technology domains, that makes them stronger than USSR.
 
So this means in the near future, our cilivian industry will be no longer dependent on the outsourcing jobs from the West, and we will have many strong civilian corporations like Huawei/Lenovo/Baidu that rivalled Google/Microsoft/Apple to support our national defence.

China has 73 companies on the Fortune Global 500.

These are domestic Chinese companies, not offshoring from the West. :china:

AFP: China ascends to number two on Fortune 500

rSNaQ.jpg
 
Here is good article from 1999.

The Damage Assessment states: "China has had the technical capability to develop a multiple independently targetable reentry vehicle (MIRV) system for its large, currently deployed ICBM for many years, but has not done so. U.S. information acquired by the Chinese could help them develop a MIRV for a future mobile missile." In other words, while still-classified information on the W-88 might be helpful, there is no reason to believe that China could not have built perfectly adequate warheads for its mobile missiles or a MIRVed missile from nuclear technology that it developed itself, supplemented by facts long declassified about U.S. and other nuclear warheads.

But there are reasons why Beijing would not have sought to build MIRVed missiles in the first place. As stated by the Cox Committee, China has under development a mobile ICBM, the DF-31, which is a smaller missile than its current ICBM, the DF-5A. But, if the motivation for this mobile missile is simply (as suggested by both the Cox Report and the Damage Assessment) a desire to have a secure second-strike capability, multiple warheads may not be necessary or even desirable, since this would increase the value of a missile as a target in a foreign pre-emptive strike.
Why China Won't Build U.S. Warheads
 
China has 73 companies on the Fortune Global 500.

These are domestic Chinese companies, not offshoring from the West. :china:

AFP: China ascends to number two on Fortune 500

rSNaQ.jpg

That's a good sign.

In the future, all the corporations that produce the high-end military technology and the public infrastructures like the rail system and the medicare should still be goverment-controlled, while to have many large private civilian corporations like Huawei will be good to keep our civilian market being competitive and to create more jobs in our society.

We should neither take the far-right with 100% privatization or the far-left with 100% nationalization, we will take the moderate path in our economic model of development. :coffee:
 
Stick to the topic troll attempts/mudslinging will result in infractions you have been warned.
 
Dead Silence meets Chinese 10-MIRV-capable DF-41 ICBM test on July 24, 2012

The most interesting responses to China's 10-MIRV-capable DF-41 ICBM test on July 24, 2012:

1. "A Pentagon spokeswoman declined to comment on the missile test." The Pentagon does not discuss China's DF-41 ICBM test, 5,000km Underground Great Wall, JL-2 SLBM tests, or DF-21D "carrier killer" ASBM tests.

In other words, the Pentagon is useless to us for current information on the latest developments of Chinese military hardware.

2. All of the major American newspapers ignore the 10-MIRV-capable DF-41 ICBM test.

There is serious denial among the American media. China is transforming into a full-fledged thermonuclear power and the Western media pretend it's not happening.

I have to wonder if the timing of the DF-41 test is not accidental. It is possible China intentionally tested the DF-41 to warn the U.S. to stop meddling in the South China Sea. The message is: Don't make us build 500 DF-41 ICBMs and place 5,000 American cities and towns at risk.

Reference: http://freebeacon.com/manchu-missile-launch/
 
The most interesting responses to China's 10-MIRV-capable DF-41 ICBM test on July 24, 2012:

1. "A Pentagon spokeswoman declined to comment on the missile test." The Pentagon does not discuss China's DF-41 ICBM test, 5,000km Underground Great Wall, JL-2 SLBM tests, or DF-21D "carrier killer" ASBM tests.

In other words, the Pentagon is useless to us for current information on the latest developments of Chinese military hardware.

2. All of the major American newspapers ignore the 10-MIRV-capable DF-41 ICBM test.

There is serious denial among the American media. China is transforming into a full-fledged thermonuclear power and the Western media will keep pretending it's not happening.

I have to wonder if the timing of the DF-41 test is not accidental. It is possible China intentionally tested the DF-41 to warn the U.S. to stop meddling in the South China Sea. The message is: Don't make us build 500 DF-41s and place 5,000 American cities and towns at risk.

There are two types of JL-2, the flat head MIRVed version and the pointed head single megaton version.

The former one would be used against the civilian targets, while the later would be used against the military targets.

The US media has a deceiving habit, when you are a weakling, they will make up an excuse and call you a huge threat, so this will legally allow them to start a military invasion, just like the war on Iraq.

When you are a serious contender, they will try to label you as the weakling, since they cannot allow their small buddies to lose the faith on the US dominance.
 
Multiple warheads - I guess that is the Chinese fail safe system - at least one will reach the target while the rest will blow up over their own territory on the way to the target.

Cheap talk is the one thing some Indians are good at these days。:azn:

I am more interested in the “thing” that was fired towards the end of last year。

I am more excited by the “things” that are about to be flew、launched or fired in the next 10-60 days。:china:
 
:lol: what else is new!!
Multiple warheads - I guess that is the Chinese fail safe system - at least one will reach the target while the rest will blow up over their own territory on the way to the target.
You are incapable of building your own car without ripping off auto designs and you expect the world to believe you built a nuke device on your own? Now, that truly is optimism.
Not a right comparison, Russian's excelled in their military hardware and Aerospace programs, while Koreans in electronics and Ship building but both did not ripped of each others program to build their own, if now you get me where am i heading.

Every nation's have some form of competitive advantage, tell me what is yours which you can say is best in the world, and I will buy you developed something without external help.
I can smell huge jealousness!!
India talking about weapon, it is ridiculous itself!!
I accept that USSR give huge help for china military industry, and at first our missile was based on their technology and weapon. just like USSR and USA missile based on German weapon and technology!!
Indian develop their missile by theirself completely, Do you believe it? And do you believe that even now, they can product their simple bullet? so how about missile?
I know Indian have a huge ambition to develop their weapon by theirself, but everytime they have to turn to foreign for help, but the weapon built by them under the licence, also low quality. dream is beautify, but fact hit their dignity.
In Indian defence, which filled with global tendars, thei furture weapon that satisfy their fragile dignity, endless LCA and Arjun, their "invisible" joint weapon-Brahmos.
Between China and India, whos is loser? keeping deceiving yourself, indian.
 
You are incapable of building your own car without ripping off auto designs and you expect the world to believe you built a nuke device on your own? Now, that truly is optimism.

Funny, because it was optimism that actually worked, unlike the optimism that fueled the LCA Tejas and just about every other DRDO project that took decades to develop and still forced India to buy foreign weaponry.
 
You are incapable of building your own car without ripping off auto designs and you expect the world to believe you built a nuke device on your own? Now, that truly is optimism.

Unlike 8 million Indians superpowered by Indian designed and made grids, the Chinese don't have to sh it in the dark.
 

Latest posts

Country Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom