Reverse Engineering Is Extremely Difficult

Discussion in 'China' started by Martian, May 22, 2010.

  1. Martian

    Martian Respected Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2009
    Messages:
    1,344
    Likes Received:
    262
    Location:
    Boston
    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 (é±¼-6) 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, 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)"

    [​IMG]
    Yu-6 torpedo
     
  2.  
  3. Martian

    Martian Respected Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2009
    Messages:
    1,344
    Likes Received:
    262
    Location:
    Boston
    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.

    [​IMG]

    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."
     
  4. LETHALFORCE

    LETHALFORCE Moderator Moderator

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2009
    Messages:
    20,543
    Likes Received:
    6,547
    China has not reverse engineered Trident 2 in a very obvious answer China has not been able to MIRV more than 4 warheads successfully, Trident 2 has 8-12 MIRV'D warheads. The schematic you gave above is the same for all MIRV'd missiles more or less. This does not prove China has MIRV'D Trident 2 successfully. Trident 2 is also made from epoxy graphite making it a much lighter missile, the graphite used by China is not of the same standard of the NATO missiles. To say Trident 2 has been successfully reverseed engineered is inaccurate.
     
    Last edited: May 22, 2010
  5. Martian

    Martian Respected Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2009
    Messages:
    1,344
    Likes Received:
    262
    Location:
    Boston
    I re-read my post. I'm pretty sure that I didn't make the claim that China has reverse-engineered the Trident II. The obvious problem is how will China obtain a Trident II missile. My post addresses the controversy regarding whether China has reverse-engineered a W-88 class warhead or built a "similar" warhead through convergent design and engineering.

    Anyway, if any of you are wondering why I made a big hoopla out of a torpedo, let's just say that a Mark-48 class torpedo is no ordinary torpedo.


    "paradisedriver — August 01, 2008 — Training exercise video showing a "kill" in one shot."
    [China's Yu-6 torpedo is the equivalent of an U.S. Mark-48 torpedo, which was used in the video to sink a destroyer.]
     
    Last edited by a moderator: May 10, 2015
  6. Armand2REP

    Armand2REP CHINI EXPERT Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2009
    Messages:
    10,397
    Likes Received:
    2,314
    China doesn't even have a warhead small enough to MIRV. All their ICBMs have megaton yield warheads.
     
    maomao likes this.
  7. Martian

    Martian Respected Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2009
    Messages:
    1,344
    Likes Received:
    262
    Location:
    Boston
    I'm only going to reply this one time. It looks like you are going to troll all of my threads.

    The Cox report is very clear. America knows that China has a W-88 class miniaturized warhead. China's nuclear tests, as measured by American seismographs, show results "similar" to a W-88 detonation. This means that China has had the technological capability to build a miniaturized W-88 warhead since 1996 (e.g. 14 years ago).

    The fact is that no one knows whether China's ICBMs are MIRVed or not.

    My comments on the Cox report (see newslink below):

    No one disputes the fact that "information derived from Chinese tests in 1992-1996 were similar to U.S. nuclear designs," including the "U.S.' most advanced W-88 design." This means we know that China possessed W-88 class miniaturization technology since 1996.

    However, due to the political nature of the Cox inquiry and "several technical inaccuracies," we can only conclude that the Cox committee has been able to cast suspicion on China; but have fallen short of proving espionage.

    http://www.nti.org/e_research/profiles/china/nuclear/index.html

    "In the late 1990s, U.S. attention focused on the role of Chinese espionage in assisting China's nuclear weapon development. The U.S. Congress formed a Select Committee on U.S. National Security and Military-Commercial Concerns with China (the Cox Committee). 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."
     
    Last edited: May 22, 2010
  8. Armand2REP

    Armand2REP CHINI EXPERT Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2009
    Messages:
    10,397
    Likes Received:
    2,314
    Thats nice that China stole US warhead designs... too bad they didn't have time to fully test them before they signed the ban. Now all estimates say Chinese only have megaton warheads and have no way to test new ones.
     
    maomao likes this.
  9. Martian

    Martian Respected Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2009
    Messages:
    1,344
    Likes Received:
    262
    Location:
    Boston
    Unlike your usual unsubstantiated rhetoric, the proper way to make a statement of fact is to cite a reputable news source. This is something that you seem to be unable to learn. It's called citing a primary source, such as the New York Times.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/22/us/politics/22intel.html

    "Dispute Over France a Factor in Intelligence Rift
    By MARK MAZZETTI
    Published: May 21, 2010
    ...
    Unlike America’s relationship with Britain and other close allies like Australia, the United States and France have a long history of spying on each other. For example, intelligence experts said the French had been particularly aggressive in trying to steal secrets about the American defense and technology industries. For its part, the United States has long been suspicious of French government and business ties to countries like Iran and Syria, and about North African militant groups whose operatives work inside France."
     
  10. p2prada

    p2prada Stars and Ambassadors Stars and Ambassadors

    Joined:
    May 25, 2009
    Messages:
    10,233
    Likes Received:
    3,896
    Location:
    Holy Hell
    Reverse engineering is indeed very difficult. But it is a shortcut method of skipping the "even more" difficult indigenous development.

    Let's just say reverse engineering is just plagiarising somebody else's work.
     
  11. Armand2REP

    Armand2REP CHINI EXPERT Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2009
    Messages:
    10,397
    Likes Received:
    2,314
    So the source you use to prove China has successfully tested MIRVs is an article citing French espionage on the US? How dumb is that...
     
    maomao likes this.
  12. Armand2REP

    Armand2REP CHINI EXPERT Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2009
    Messages:
    10,397
    Likes Received:
    2,314
    It isn't that difficult if you have the item in front of you, and in many cases in China, the Russian engineer on your payroll.
     
    maomao likes this.
  13. hit&run

    hit&run Elite Member Elite Member

    Joined:
    May 29, 2009
    Messages:
    5,496
    Likes Received:
    4,673
    @P2Prada: Before I could chew this (now defensive) Chinese propaganda (which was running successfully in another forum) you have killed this thread in two lines.

    I would like to know from the thread starter what he has to say about P2Prada's assertion to contribute further.
     
  14. LETHALFORCE

    LETHALFORCE Moderator Moderator

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2009
    Messages:
    20,543
    Likes Received:
    6,547
    Martian you are the one who gave Trident 2 MIRV as an example of Chinese reverse engineering, maybe some other example could have been given?? The reliability of Chinese SLBM is another issue; it is one thing to reverse engineer it is another to have it work the same as the original.

    http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2437433/posts
    China: SLBM Test Launch Failed (fell back to sub and almost sank it)
     
  15. Necrosis Factor

    Necrosis Factor Regular Member

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2010
    Messages:
    86
    Likes Received:
    7
    The JL-2 is still in development, diificulties are to be expected. That's quite a stretch you're making from one failed test to the reliability of the entire Chinese SLBM arsenal. Agni-II anyone? Buluva?
     
  16. Armand2REP

    Armand2REP CHINI EXPERT Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2009
    Messages:
    10,397
    Likes Received:
    2,314
    What reliability? China doesn't have an SLBM arsenal. The Jins don't have a working missile and the Xia hasn't test fired since the ninties. The thing never leaves port out of fear it will sink like its sister ship.
     
    maomao likes this.
  17. Necrosis Factor

    Necrosis Factor Regular Member

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2010
    Messages:
    86
    Likes Received:
    7
    JL-2 has been fired 11 successful times. 3 from land and 8 times from the sea.
     
  18. Armand2REP

    Armand2REP CHINI EXPERT Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2009
    Messages:
    10,397
    Likes Received:
    2,314
    The JL-2 fired from land is just the DF-31. The first three tests from the Golf SSK were pop-ups meaning it wasn't an actual launch but testing the ejection system. The last 4 tests since then have been failures except for one possible success. The one thing that is certain is the missile was supposed to start entering the fleet in 2004 and today it is still a no go. The Bulava is only a year late at this point, JL-2 is 6 and still counting.
     
  19. LETHALFORCE

    LETHALFORCE Moderator Moderator

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2009
    Messages:
    20,543
    Likes Received:
    6,547
    Agni has not been tested in the SLBM version yet. USA estimates Chinese SLBM numbers to be under 20 missiles?? Most of the SLBM's are on the type 91 Han subs a far cry from the Tridents it is being compared to in Ohio subs.
     
    Last edited: May 22, 2010
  20. Martian

    Martian Respected Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2009
    Messages:
    1,344
    Likes Received:
    262
    Location:
    Boston
    Armand2REP, you are trolling in the wrong thread. It wasn't the Chinese that crushed the French military at Dien Bien Phu. It was the Vietnamese. I suggest that you find a forum full of Vietnamese and go irritate them. Chinese don't care about tiny France. China is 14.23 times bigger than your tiny little country.

    Stop polluting my thread with your anti-China rhetoric and go away.

    http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/dien_bien_phu.htm

    "Dien Bien Phu was a crushing defeat for the French. Dien Bien Phu was a military and psychological defeat for the French in Vietnam."

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People's_Republic_of_China and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/France

    "China total area: 3,704,427 sq mi
    France total area: 260,558 sq mi"
     
    Last edited: May 23, 2010
  21. Martian

    Martian Respected Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2009
    Messages:
    1,344
    Likes Received:
    262
    Location:
    Boston
    Instead of loitering and trolling in the Chinese Defence Forum, where the members could care less about France, I am here to educate you Armand2REP about French technology and you can go and inform your fellow countrymen about the grandeur of French military technology.

    http://www.strategypage.com/militaryforums/478-97.aspx

    " How NOT to Build an Aircraft Carrier
    James Dunnigan 12/7/2003 8:07:02 PM

    France is considering joining with Britain to buy a new carrier of British design. Actually, the French had planned to built a second nuclear powered carrier, but they are having so many problems with the first one that they are quite reluctant about building a second like the troubled "Charles de Gaulle". Britain is building two 50,000 ton conventionally powered carriers, at a cost of $2.5 billion each. Under the proposed plan, France would order a third of this class, and bring down the cost of all three a bit. This project might not come off, because France wants a lot of the work to be done in French shipyards.

    The new French nuclear carrier "Charles de Gaulle" has suffered from a seemingly endless string of problems since it was first conceived in 1986. The 40,000 ton ship has cost over four billion dollars so far and is slower than the diesel powered carrier it replaced. Flaws in the "de Gaulle" have led it to using the propellers from it predecessor, the "Foch," because the ones built for "de Gaulle" never worked right and the propeller manufacturer went out of business in 1999. Worse, the nuclear reactor installation was done poorly, exposing the engine crew to five times the allowable annual dose of radiation. There were also problems with the design of the deck, making it impossible to operate the E-2 radar aircraft that are essential to defending the ship and controlling offensive operations. Many other key components of the ship did not work correctly, including several key electronic systems. The carrier has been under constant repair and modification. The "de Gaulle" took eleven years to build (1988-99) and was not ready for service until late 2000. It's been downhill ever since. The de Gaulle is undergoing still more repairs and modifications. The government is being sued for exposing crew members to dangerous levels of radiation.

    The cause of the problems can be traced to the decision to install nuclear reactors designed for French submarines, instead of spending more money and designing reactors specifically for the carrier. Construction started and stopped several times because to cuts to the defense budget and when construction did resume, there was enormous pressure on the builders to get on with it quickly, and cheaply, before the project was killed. The result was a carrier with a lot of expensive problems.

    So the plan is to buy into the new British carrier building program and keep the "de Gaulle" in port and out of trouble as much as possible. The British have a lot more experience building carriers, and if there are any problems with the British designed ship, the French can blame the British."
     
    Last edited: May 23, 2010

Share This Page