The OKBM Afrikantova is the principal producer of marine nuclear reactors, including reactors for icebreakers, and for submarines in Russia. Today we will take a brief excursion on their factory floor 🧵
Before I do, let me introduce some basic ideas necessary for the further discussion. First, reactor production is based on precision metalworking. Second, modern precision metalworking is digital. There is simply no other way to do it at scale.
How does the digital workflow work? First, you do a design in the Computer Aided Design (CAD) software. Then, the Computer Aided Manufacturing (CAM) software turns it into the G-code. Then, a Computer Numerical Controller (CNC) reads the code and guides the tool accordingly
What ties it all together is the Product Lifecycle Management (PLM) software streamlining the production process from the CAD application to CNC controller. Higher-end PLM will minimise the labor input and, therefore, human factor (= mistakes) at every stage of the process.
So, our basic concepts will be:
CNC - machine that makes stuff
CAM - software that prepares code for the machine
CAD - software that makes digital designs
PLM - pipeline, streamlining it all from CAD to CNC
That is, of course, a reduction. Still, good enough as a first intro
Let's start with the CNC machines
Tos Varnsdorf (Czechia). This one is very typical. There are many of them on this enterprise
TYC (Czechia)
Breton S.p.A (Italy)
Doosan (Korea)
L&L (Taiwan)
I could be showing Canadian, Swedish, Japanese, or - as in this case - Australian machines, but I think you are already getting my point. The machinery is all Western, and by Western I mean primarily Western European + cheaper, less sophisticated Taiwanese and Korean stuff.
When it comes to the CNC controllers themselves, electronic "brains" controlling machine tools, then it is usually one of the two. It is either:
Siemens (Germany)
Fanuc (Japan)
Other variants exist, but they are much, much rarer. These are two standard types, basically
When it comes to the software, the main question regarding the OKB Afrikantov - or any strategic enterprise - should be:
How Siemens'ed it is?
In other words, to which extent did it base its digital infrastructure on the all-in-one turnkey solutions by Siemens? It can vary.
This may sound somewhat opaque, so let me explain. There are two strategies to build your digital infrastructure. You may collect a "zoo" of various programs and systems by lots of various producers, or you can implement a single solution by one.
Zoo: pros vs cons
Pro: You do not particularly depend upon any single producer, and can choose the best/cheapest from any
Con: It will take lots of human labour, lots of human decision-making and lots of mistakes. In other words, you will be fucking things up to some degree
All-in-one solution:
Pro: It will minimise the labor input, minimise human decision making, minimise variety, maximise consistency
Con: Its damn expensive, and once you get on the needle you won't be able to get off. Plus there is really only one provider on this planet
This particular enterprise is not the most Siemensed. No, of course it uses Siemens products, and uses them a lot. Obviously, Siemens NX makes for the basic CAD + CAM on this enterprise. Still, it did not *fully* outsource its digital infrastructure to the one single provider.
The main reason being:
It is the foreign export that has been the main driver of system integration (that invariably ends in siemensisation). The more export-oriented you have been, the more advanced (= siemensed). The more domestic market oriented, the more frozen in time.
A couple of pre-conclusions that I want to put here before I go to sleep. Reality is incomprehensible, in all of its complexity. Still, you can navigate through this reality based on its asymmetries
One asymmetry:
1. Back end vs Front end
That is completely different stuff, qualitatively different. Back end is more complex, more demanding, and also smaller in terms of the market size. When we go to the back end of anything complex, Europe is huuuuuugely overrepresented
2. Domestic market vs Foreign exports
Again, these are two different things, qualitatively different. You cannot compare domestic and overseas markets by size only. Overseas markets work differently. To put it simply, only the overseas markets are markets in a true sense
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
For decades, any resistance to the Reaganomics has been suppressed using the false dichotomy: it is either “capitalism” (= which meant Reaganomics) or socialism, and socialism doesn’t work
Now, as there is the growing feeling that Reaganomics don’t work, the full rehabilitation of socialism looks pretty much inevitable
I find it oddly similar to how it worked in the USSR. For decades, the whole propaganda apparatus had been advancing the false dichotomy: it is either socialism, or capitalism (= meaning robber barons)
Now, as there is a growing feeling that the current model does not work, we must try out capitalism instead. And, as capitalism means robber barons, we must create robber barons
We have to distribute all the large enterprises between the organized crime members. This is the way
Truth is: the words like Rus/Russian had many and many ambiguous and often mutually exclusive meanings, and not only throughout history, but, like, simultaneously.
For example, in the middle ages, the word "Rus" could mean:
1. All the lands that use Church Slavonic in liturgy. That is pretty much everything from what is now Central Russia, to what is now Romania. Wallachians, being the speakers of a Romance language were Orthodox, and used Slavonic in church -> they're a part of Rus, too
2. Some ambiguous, undefined region that encompasses what is now northwest Russia & Ukraine, but does not include lands further east. So, Kiev & Novgorod are a part of Rus, but Vladimir (-> region of Moscow) isn't
These two mutually exclusive notions exist simultaneously
The greatest Western delusion about China is, and always has been, greatly exaggerating the importance of plan. Like, in this case, for example. It sounds as if there is some kind of continuous industrial policy, for decades
1. Mao Zedong dies. His successors be like, wow, he is dead. Now we can build a normal, sane economy. That means, like in the Soviet Union
2. Fuck, we run out of oil. And the entire development plan was based upon an assumption that we have huge deposits of it
3. All the prior plans of development, and all the prior industrial policies go into the trashbin. Because again, they were based upon an assumption that we will be soon exporting more oil than Saudi Arabia, and without that revenue we cannot fund our mega-projects
Yes. Behind all the breaking news about the capture of small villages, we are missing the bigger pattern which is:
The Soviet American war was supposed to be fought to somewhere to the west of Rhine. What you got instead is a Soviet Civil War happening to the east of Dnieper
If you said that the battles of the great European war will not be fought in Dunkirk and La Rochelle, but somewhere in Kupyansk (that is here) and Rabotino, you would have been once put into a psych ward, or, at least, not taken as a serious person
The behemoth military machine had been built, once, for a thunderbolt strike towards the English Channel. Whatever remained from it, is now decimating itself in the useless battles over the useless coal towns of the Donetsk Oblast
Yes, and that is super duper quadruper important to understand
Koreans are poor (don't have an empire) and, therefore, must do productive work to earn their living. So, if the Americans want to learn how to do anything productive they must learn it from Koreans etc
There is this stupid idea that the ultra high level of life and consumption in the United States has something to do with their productivity. That is of course a complete sham. An average American doesn't do anything useful or important to justify (or earn!) his kingly lifestyle
The kingly lifestyle of an average American is not based on his "productivity" (what a BS, lol) but on the global empire Americans are holding currently. Part of the imperial dynamics being, all the actually useful work, all the material production is getting outsourced abroad
Reading Tess of the d'Urbervilles. Set in southwest England, somewhere in the late 1800s. And the first thing you need to know is that Tess is bilingual. He speaks a local dialect she learnt at home, and the standard English she picked at school from a London-trained teacher
So, basically, "normal" language doesn't come out of nowhere. Under the normal conditions, people on the ground speak all the incomprehensible patois, wildly different from each other
"Regular", "correct" English is the creation of state
So, basically, the state chooses a standard (usually, based on one of the dialects), cleanses it a bit, and then shoves down everyone's throats via the standardized education
Purely artificial construct, of a super mega state that really appeared only by the late 1800s