CV-18 Fujian/003 CATOBAR carrier thread

[vincent]

Remember, a lot of technologies were developed through trials and errors (a lot of time and money are wasted on the wrong path). Chinese now can avoid taking the wrong tech path and go straight at replicating what the West have done

 

[dingyibvs]

I think there is a subconscious assumption on the part of many Chinese observers, which is the west somehow obtained an unfair technological superiority over china through underhanded means, and the west is pretty much sitting on its laurels now, and now that china has gotten its act together, it is simply a matter of catching up and china will once again dominate the world.

In reality the edge that allowed the west to gain the technological superiority in the past is not dulled, even while china gets its act together and advances its technology as fast as the west had been able to, the west, starting from a position considerably further ahead, can still maintain a lead for a very long time by maintaining its own pace of technological advancement.

I don't know where you got the first sentence from. Pretty sure most Chinese understand that the refusal by the Qing court to industrialize is what caused China to fall behind.

As for the rest, it's somewhat true. There's still good investment from the private sector, but both government and popular support have been waning since the days of the space race.

 

[Richard Santos]

Remember, a lot of technologies were developed through trials and errors (a lot of time and money are wasted on the wrong path). Chinese now can avoid taking the wrong tech path and go straight at replicating what the West have done

Which is the right and which the wrong path is only apparent a significant amount of time after the event. When one is 50 years behind the state of the art, what the technology leaders did right and did wrong 25 years ago might be clear, much of the clarity is in fact provided by the technology leader himself who analyzed his own mistakes and taught his own lessons in his own schools and research institutions. So the laggard 50 years behind the time can readily take a shorter path than the leader to get to where the state of the art was 25 years ago and thus take much less than 25 years to make up 25 years.

But when one is only 10-15 years behind the state of the art, what the technology leader did right and did wrong, especially the details is often still proprietary and not at all apparent, and the technology leader has plenty of incentive to provide disinformation. So someone only 10 years behind would have very little room to shortcut his development and take significantly less than 10 years to make up 10 years, without if it can't receive any assistance from the leader.

There is a regime change, a quantum difference in difficulty, between trying to bridge the gap represented by already obsolescent and therefore low value added technology, and bridging the gas representing still more or less current and therefore still substantially value added technology.

One might say China's trendenous impressive growth and rapid catch up was in large part facilitated by the fact that china made up the first 35-40 years of its 50 year technological gap in much less than 35-40 years. But now in many key areas china is only 10-15 years behind. Taking much less than 10-15 years to make up that last 10-15 years would be much more difficult than taking much less than 35-40 years to make up the first 35-40 years.

 

[Hendrik_2000]

I think there is a subconscious assumption on the part of many Chinese observers, which is the west somehow obtained an unfair technological superiority over china through underhanded means, and the west is pretty much sitting on its laurels now, and now that china has gotten its act together, it is simply a matter of catching up and china will once again dominate the world.

In reality the edge that allowed the west to gain the technological superiority in the past is not dulled, even while china gets its act together and advances its technology as fast as the west had been able to, the west, starting from a position considerably further ahead, can still maintain a lead for a very long time by maintaining its own pace of technological advancement.

It is underhanded mean by using high technology embargo on China It was Cocom before then Itar now
The gap you are talking about is not the result that some how
The west is more adapt to technology and China is not disposed to technology

It is true that the west has an overwhelming lead but most of it is because of China folly and her own doing with GLF and Cultural revolution.
China lost a generation of scientist and engineering The university was closed almost 20 years and didn't reopen until 1980

In certain key technology like Gas Turbine china didn't even participate in the germination period of the technology

Technology embargo add to the woe. You cannot compare Japan or India to China if Japan need any key technology they can go the west and license China can't As Engineer once said they even have to reinvent the Machinery , process by themselves because nobody willing to sell them or forbidden to sell it. The purpose of the embargo is to slow down China progress

That is what the west fail to understand So the gap is not because the genius of the west That is why any advance China made is greeted with derision or skeptic

 

[latenlazy]

Which is the right and which the wrong path is only apparent a significant amount of time after the event. When one is 50 years behind the state of the art, what the technology leaders did right and did wrong 25 years ago might be clear, much of the clarity is in fact provided by the technology leader himself who analyzed his own mistakes and taught his own lessons in his own schools and research institutions. So the laggard 50 years behind the time can readily take a shorter path than the leader to get to where the state of the art was 25 years ago and thus take much less than 25 years to make up 25 years.

But when one is only 10-15 years behind the state of the art, what the technology leader did right and did wrong, especially the details is often still proprietary and not at all apparent, and the technology leader has plenty of incentive to provide disinformation. So someone only 10 years behind would have very little room to shortcut his development and take significantly less than 10 years to make up 10 years, without if it can't receive any assistance from the leader.

There is a regime change, a quantum difference in difficulty, between trying to bridge the gap represented by already obsolescent and therefore low value added technology, and bridging the gas representing still more or less current and therefore still substantially value added technology.

One might say China's trendenous impressive growth and rapid catch up was in large part facilitated by the fact that china made up the first 35-40 years of its 50 year technological gap in much less than 35-40 years. But now in many key areas china is only 10-15 years behind. Taking much less than 10-15 years to make up that last 10-15 years would be much more difficult than taking much less than 35-40 years to make up the first 35-40 years.

And yet, the same logic means it is slower and even more difficult to push the frontiers of the bleeding edge. That said there's a bit of a false conception underlying your reasoning. Knowledge from a smaller knowledge gap is not somehow more opaque and inaccessible than knowledge from a larger gap. If anything the logic should work the other way around. The closer the gap the *more* perceptible knowledge that might be slightly more advanced is. You don't get dumber and lose insights as your understanding gets closer to some body of knowledge more advanced than you.

 

[Richard Santos]

When you are within 10 years of the leader, You just get less or no opportunity to study the detaild Of the leader's internal trial and error, and therefore, on average, you have to spend equivalent effort and resource to replicate more fully everything th leader has done recently in order to achieve the same advance the leader has made.

Yes, it is slower to push the bleeding edge. But it is also slower to bridge the last few years of gap to the bleeding edge.

 

[dingyibvs]

When you are within 10 years of the leader, You just get less or no opportunity to study the detaild Of the leader's internal trial and error, and therefore, on average, you have to spend equivalent effort and resource to replicate more fully everything th leader has done recently in order to achieve the same advance the leader has made.

Yes, it is slower to push the bleeding edge. But it is also slower to bridge the last few years of gap to the bleeding edge.

That I certainly agree with, the last few years will take the longest. A recent SK news article, for example, projected that it would take China another 10 or so years to catch up on the last 1 or so year that China is behind on I think screen technology. The details escape me, but the point is clear.

With that said, if China can get the whole country level to say 10 years behind in technology, it'll be a seismic shift in the prosperity of the nation.

 

[latenlazy]

When you are within 10 years of the leader, You just get less or no opportunity to study the detaild Of the leader's internal trial and error, and therefore, on average, you have to spend equivalent effort and resource to replicate more fully everything th leader has done recently in order to achieve the same advance the leader has made.

Yes, it is slower to push the bleeding edge. But it is also slower to bridge the last few years of gap to the bleeding edge.

This assumes that the technology lagger is *only* studying the technology leader's solutions and has no capacity to innovate on their own. It also assumes that when technological development hits a step change the lagger must replicate everything the leader has experienced up to that step change rather than start at the same place as (or at least closer behind) the leader with that step change. Those aren't always good assumptions.

 

[delft]

Which is the right and which the wrong path is only apparent a significant amount of time after the event. When one is 50 years behind the state of the art, what the technology leaders did right and did wrong 25 years ago might be clear, much of the clarity is in fact provided by the technology leader himself who analyzed his own mistakes and taught his own lessons in his own schools and research institutions. So the laggard 50 years behind the time can readily take a shorter path than the leader to get to where the state of the art was 25 years ago and thus take much less than 25 years to make up 25 years.

But when one is only 10-15 years behind the state of the art, what the technology leader did right and did wrong, especially the details is often still proprietary and not at all apparent, and the technology leader has plenty of incentive to provide disinformation. So someone only 10 years behind would have very little room to shortcut his development and take significantly less than 10 years to make up 10 years, without if it can't receive any assistance from the leader.

There is a regime change, a quantum difference in difficulty, between trying to bridge the gap represented by already obsolescent and therefore low value added technology, and bridging the gas representing still more or less current and therefore still substantially value added technology.

One might say China's trendenous impressive growth and rapid catch up was in large part facilitated by the fact that china made up the first 35-40 years of its 50 year technological gap in much less than 35-40 years. But now in many key areas china is only 10-15 years behind. Taking much less than 10-15 years to make up that last 10-15 years would be much more difficult than taking much less than 35-40 years to make up the first 35-40 years.

But sometimes one can see a better way and not follow a leader who is locked in what with hind sight is a less advantageous technology.

 

[Intrepid]

This assumes that the technology lagger is *only* studying the technology leader's solutions and has no capacity to innovate on their own. It also assumes that when technological development hits a step change the lagger must replicate everything the leader has experienced up to that step change rather than start at the same place as (or at least closer behind) the leader with that step change. Those aren't always good assumptions.

Look at the catapults: the Chinese build both, the steam (loser) and the electromagnetic (winner) catapult. And as I read they changed the technical solution because they have more or other experience then the US-Navy with electro-magnetic propulsion.

Additionaly I think the chinese have a very very capable intelligence service and know a lot of things the Americans are thinking and discussing. They know what is going wrong and why it is going wrong (far away in the United States). And they can decide to make the same mistake to get the experience or to skip it.

A lot of western people went to China with their knowledge to work there.