CV-18 Fujian/003 CATOBAR carrier thread

[vincent]

Might as well say selling telephone tech helped the chinese military. Idiotic reporter

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Benefiting from the electric vehicle market and the mature IGBT technology, the global IGBT market will grow at a compound annual rate of 9% during 2014-2020 and reach USD6.5 billion in 2020. The market share of IGBTs used for consumer and white goods will gradually decrease, while IGBTs for power grid, PV, uninterruptible power supply (UPS) as well as electric vehicle will be a major growth engine in the next five years.

 

[Iron Man]

The lesson here is supposed to be about not selling China technology or, more specifically, letting China acquire firms and IP (though of course these same people probably complain about not having access to Chinese markets...). That said, I think one of the most glaring problems with arguments like the one made in this article is that they treat instance as deterministically essential and fail to consider counterfactuals. Whether Dynex’s technology is being used for the Chinese EM catapult or not, IGBTs themselves aren’t special secret technologies, and regardless of whether there was anything particular or special about Dynex’s IP, without Dynex it’s likely that China would have found some solution to fit their needs sooner or later. If the technology was that indispensable I wouldn’t be surprised if China was pursuing parallel tracks to acquire it.

There is no doubt that if IGBT technology is as vital to various military hardware as the author claims, China will acquire it one way or another, whether by developing it on its own or by buying/stealing/copying foreign technology. The article simply claims that in this case the technology was acquired by buying foreign technology. I don't know much anything about IGBTs, but what was the point of purchasing Dynex in the first place if China already had the technology that Dynex possessed, whether it be IGBTs in general or a more specialized dual-use IGBT?

Might as well say selling telephone tech helped the chinese military. Idiotic reporter

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Benefiting from the electric vehicle market and the mature IGBT technology, the global IGBT market will grow at a compound annual rate of 9% during 2014-2020 and reach USD6.5 billion in 2020. The market share of IGBTs used for consumer and white goods will gradually decrease, while IGBTs for power grid, PV, uninterruptible power supply (UPS) as well as electric vehicle will be a major growth engine in the next five years.

Except that the claim in the first article was that this IGBT technology was acquired by China in 2008, not 2014 or 2016. Technology acquired in 2008 could easily be well absorbed by 2014 to start making an impact on domestic markets. For example your own article states that China's own domestic IGBT market is currently (as of Sept 2016) still dominated by foreign suppliers, though domestic manufacturers are starting to make inroads. As such your article doesn't directly relate to claims made in the original article.

 

[latenlazy]

There is no doubt that if IGBT technology is as vital to various military hardware as the author claims, China will acquire it one way or another, whether by developing it on its own or by buying/stealing/copying foreign technology. The article simply claims that in this case the technology was acquired by buying foreign technology. I don't know much anything about IGBTs, but what was the point of purchasing Dynex in the first place if China already had the technology that Dynex possessed, whether it be IGBTs in general or a more specialized dual-use IGBT?

Not all tech purchases are about enhancing military technology. I’m not saying the Dynex purchase wasn’t for sure used for military purposes, just that there’s an essentialism about the evitability of technological acquisition in arguments like this one that isn’t properly evaluated at all.

 

[duncanidaho]

What you guy think about this article ? The usual charge of China stealing, copying etc or is there real meat in this

By Snatching up British Company, China Closes Gap on US Naval Supremacy
Acquisition of controlled technology enables China’s aircraft carriers to project power on par with US
By

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Paul Huang is an author from Epoch Times, which is the mouthpiece of Falung Gong, that says everything.

 

[Iron Man]

Not all tech purchases are about enhancing military technology. I’m not saying the Dynex purchase wasn’t for sure used for military purposes, just that there’s an essentialism about the evitability of technological acquisition in arguments like this one that isn’t properly evaluated at all.

Of course there is a degree of scaremongering and sensationalism in this article and in the premise of Chinese foreign technology acquisition in general; this is Epoch Times, after all. Nonetheless the article should be evaluated based on the merits of the information contained within, which points to multiple sources saying China acquired this technology for military use, or at the very least that it enabled dual use where none previously existed.

 

[latenlazy]

Of course there is a degree of scaremongering and sensationalism in this article and in the premise of Chinese foreign technology acquisition in general; this is Epoch Times, after all. Nonetheless the article should be evaluated based on the merits of the information contained within, which points to multiple sources saying China acquired this technology for military use, or at the very least that it enabled dual use where none previously existed.

And I’m not denying the probability of dual use. That wasn’t the point of my comment.

 

[Iron Man]

And I’m not denying the probability of dual use. That wasn’t the point of my comment.

I know your point was about the inevitability of Chinese acquisition of important technologies by hook or by crook, but there is also something to be said (if you are a potential adversary of China) about delaying the acquisition of such technologies for as long as humanly possible. I know the mantra about such delaying tactics is that it enabled China to strike it out on its own and build up its own industrial and technological base, but I'm not convinced by this narrative. I think it is just as likely that China could easily and totally absorb a purchased technology and perhaps make its own version faster and perhaps better than if it developed said technology all on its own. For example, US denying Israel the transfer of Phalcon technology to China forced China to develop its own KJ-2000 technology. Does that mean that if the sale had gone through, China somehow could not have mastered Phalcon and started turning out copies or even improvements on this technology in either a cheaper or faster manner? I think the answer to this question is ambiguous enough that if you are a Western government you will definitely try to deny and delay Chinese military modernization for as long as you can through whatever means you can.

 

[latenlazy]

I know your point was about the inevitability of Chinese acquisition of important technologies by hook or by crook, but there is also something to be said (if you are a potential adversary of China) about delaying the acquisition of such technologies for as long as humanly possible. I know the mantra about such delaying tactics is that it enabled China to strike it out on its own and build up its own industrial and technological base, but I'm not convinced by this narrative. I think it is just as likely that China could easily and totally absorb a purchased technology and perhaps make its own version faster and perhaps better than if it developed said technology all on its own. For example, US denying Israel the transfer of Phalcon technology to China forced China to develop its own KJ-2000 technology. Does that mean that if the sale had gone through, China somehow could not have mastered Phalcon and started turning out copies or even improvements on this technology in either a cheaper or faster manner? I think the answer to this question is ambiguous enough that if you are a Western government you will definitely try to deny and delay Chinese military modernization for as long as you can through whatever means you can.

And I don’t disagree. I just don’t think that in this case the argument that denying them the acquisition would have slowed their progress compelling. The technology itself isn’t particular or special enough to, in my estimation. I did say earlier that if the technology were essential enough to making an EM launch system work they would have found one way or another to acquire it, but a technology can be an essential component without being particularly secret, and in this case I actually don’t think it is.

 

[Iron Man]

And I don’t disagree. I just don’t think that in this case the argument that denying them the acquisition would have slowed their progress compelling. The technology itself isn’t particular or special enough to, in my estimation.

Well the UK government seems to have disagreed, since they put IGBTs on their export restricted list in 2009. IGBT tech may not be a big issue in 2017, but in 2009 it certainly could have been.

 

[latenlazy]

Well the UK government seems to have disagreed, since they put IGBTs on their export restricted list in 2009. IGBT tech may not be a big issue in 2017, but in 2009 it certainly could have been.

Possible, but restrictions on tech transfers aren’t always about denying technological progress. The technology could have been sensitive for other reasons, sometimes not even so much on a security basis but an industrial one.

For what it’s worth, I think the more likely scenario is simply that while the Dynex acquisition was probably helpful, it wouldn’t have been a prohibitive bottleneck for the development of China’s EM launch system. They could have probably gone with an inferior solution for that particular component if they didn’t acquire foreign technology, but not getting Dynex wouldn’t have been a show stopper the way the article (and this general line of argumentation) implies.