That's subjective. To me the forces exerted by those machines (particularly the first "upsetting" and "punching") look more impressive than the "hammer it out" approach.
Economically, the Swedish approach is so much faster, and less labor intensive too; given enough volume it's advantages are self-evident if labor and electricity costs are roughly the same.
We know this because of what eventually happened to British ship building in the 60's to 80's; British ship building was very labor intensive and staunchly anti-automation because of the militant union movements in the UK at the time. Competition from Sweden, Korea and Japan wiped them out, after 150 years of global dominance.
That is the most interesting question about old industrialized countries vs "China" (put in quotes because they certainly have developed beyond a pure low-wage approach by now). The high per-hour productivity achieved by highly optimized automation seems to come at a cost that is difficult to quantify.
One year you might proudly undercut an army of low wage welders with your sophisticated welding robots. But if a year later the market suddenly demands carbon fiber, then your robots will weld on at a loss to at least partially recoup their investment while the welders are retrained for doing prepreg layups. The difference is ultimately rooted in the initial wage differential, but the consequences go beyond price.
The machinery at the Swedish foundry actually looks pretty flexible to me. One of the big differences I saw was the hydraulics, so they could do a step very quickly, where the hammer might take several drops to accomplish the same thing.
Not only safer but with a vastly superior final product.
Those flanges being made with the Chinese hammer are extremely crude. You can see the roughness of the surface in the final shot. Welding them onto the end of the pipe will require lots and lots of filler, and the mating surface will require a very thick gasket.
Also LOL at the guy checking for diameter and roundness by measuring in two different spots with a tape measure.
They are shaved down on a lathe at the end, then tested for conformance. The end product looked very 'high tech'.
I don't know if the method has any significant effect on internal defects relative to the safer method though.
Are you saying it doesn't get machined down on all surfaces? I can imagine there being less waste and higher yield on the more controlled process, but could you explain how the final product is any different?
