Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

First Pictures of Chinese Stealth Fighter

samzenpus posted more than 3 years ago | from the share-the-stealth dept.

The Military 613

Frosty Piss writes "The first clear pictures of what appears to be a Chinese stealth fighter prototype have been published online. The photographs, published on several unofficial Chinese and foreign defense-related websites, appear to show a J-20 prototype making a high-speed taxi test — usually one of the last steps before an aircraft makes its first flight — according to experts on aviation and China's military. Several experts said the prototype's body appeared to borrow from the F-22 and other US stealth aircraft. The US cut funding for the F-22 in 2009 in favor of the F-35, a smaller, cheaper stealth fighter that made its first test flight in 2006 and is expected to be fully deployed by around 2014."

cancel ×

613 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Someone help me out here. (3, Funny)

icannotthinkofaname (1480543) | more than 3 years ago | (#34770490)

Pictures of a stealth fighter.

If I can get pictures of it, is it really all that stealthy?

Re:Someone help me out here. (0)

iONiUM (530420) | more than 3 years ago | (#34770532)

Well, pictures were leaked of the blackhawk and the stealth bomber from the US too, though it occurred later in its life.

That said, I'm starting to wonder about miss-direction. It does look similar to the F-22, and the US may assume it borrowed more than the look. This would mean they'll get cocky about their ability to detect it, while perhaps the Chinese are working on something very different..

Of course, this probably isn't the case, given China's history of just taking existing items and modifying them, rather than inventing.

Re:Someone help me out here. (5, Informative)

RapmasterT (787426) | more than 3 years ago | (#34770860)

Well, pictures were leaked of the blackhawk and the stealth bomber from the US too, though it occurred later in its life.

.

Since the blackhawk is not remotely stealthy (it's a helicopter), I'm assuming you meant something different. Like maybe the SR-71 "Blackbird"...which certainly looked stealthy, although in reality wasn't.

Re:Someone help me out here. (1)

iONiUM (530420) | more than 3 years ago | (#34770924)

Oops, you're quite right, I meant the SR-71, blackbird.

I don't know but read below (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34770544)

Rob 'CmdrTaco' Malda and his wife of 8 years Kathleen Malda nee Fent are breaking up. Apparently things came to a head when Kathleen finally admitted that their son was conceived during one of her adulterous gang bang sessions. For years she had been telling Rob that Zachary's dark complexion and 'nappy' hair was due to a recent black ancestor in her family tree. Apparently this has been a source of tension for years and was what caused Rob to begin frequenting gay bathhouses with his good pal kdawson. According to terms of the deal, Kathleen will receive a 50% stake in Rob's holdings in Slashdot and will retain ownership of his beloved Linux boxen.

Re:I don't know but read below (0)

f3rret (1776822) | more than 3 years ago | (#34770682)

wat?

I mean, I understand you're trolling; but come on at least troll relevantly.

Re:I don't know but read below (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34770756)

What's the fun in that?

Re:Someone help me out here. (2)

RapmasterT (787426) | more than 3 years ago | (#34770888)

Pictures of a stealth fighter.

If I can get pictures of it, is it really all that stealthy?

The real question is, if you think getting photos of it is relevant, then maybe you don't know what "stealth" means?

Tadah! Captain Literal shits on another joke!

Re:Someone help me out here. (1)

gman003 (1693318) | more than 3 years ago | (#34770894)

Well, aerial combat is almost always at beyond-visual-range nowadays. The thing could be painted florescent pink and it wouldn't affect its abilities in combat. The only thing that matters is radar and stuff.

Do fighters still matter? (1, Insightful)

mangu (126918) | more than 3 years ago | (#34770958)

It has been at least 50 years since heat-seeking missiles were invented. They can hunt down a fighter with far more accuracy than a human pilot can, they can withstand much higher accelerations, they are much cheaper than a manned fighter plane.

Why do they insist on manned fighter aircraft?

Invented in US? Made in China. (1)

pr0f3550r (553601) | more than 3 years ago | (#34770512)

Hmmm, I guess we should start taking Chinese espionage seriously?

Re:Invented in US? Made in China. (3, Informative)

jgtg32a (1173373) | more than 3 years ago | (#34770672)

Not really, IIRC there are about 6 Soviet/Russian aircraft that look damn near identical to the "loser's" design. The most recent example being Sukhoi PAK FA and the YF-23 (which lost to the f-22)

Re:Invented in US? Made in China. (1)

aliquis (678370) | more than 3 years ago | (#34770830)

Re:Invented in US? Made in China. (1)

f3rret (1776822) | more than 3 years ago | (#34770928)

Eh that's ugly, well kind of pretty, but mostly ugly.

Gimme the Sukoi Su-27 any day. Any plane that can do The Cobra manuver [wikipedia.org] is a plane I want to marry.

(which incidentally, according to my own link, means I want to marry a few American planes and oddly enough, a Swedish one as well.)

Re:Invented in US? Made in China. (1)

c6gunner (950153) | more than 3 years ago | (#34771004)

You're kidding, right? The thing looks like a flying battle-axe. Looking at the still pictures, you'd expect it to move around like a boomerang.

Sorry, the F-14 will always be the iconic jet-fighter. Most pilots would sacrifice one or both of their testicles for a chance to fly one.

Re:Invented in US? Made in China. (5, Insightful)

NeutronCowboy (896098) | more than 3 years ago | (#34770908)

Hmmm, I guess we should start taking Chinese espionage seriously?

No, we should be taking the Chinese seriously. Every time one of these articles come out, there's a large contingent of people who dismiss it as "They're just copying", "It's still not a challenge to what we have" and, my favorite "These commies will never catch up to us."

Can we realize that the Chinese are on a nice technology curve that is bound to intersect with ours within our lifetime? And that their plans include putting China back into the center of the world, where they believe it rightfully belongs? Maybe the F-35 will be enough to counter any threat from the Chinese for the next 20 years. But after that, we better make sure we have the technology edge, because we sure as hell won't have the manpower or economy edge.

Re:Invented in US? Made in China. (1)

c6gunner (950153) | more than 3 years ago | (#34771034)

I just can't wait to see the crash test [youtube.com] results for this plane. Shouldn't have to wait long - I figure about 5 minutes after takeoff.

Hacking Pays Off (2)

Virtucon (127420) | more than 3 years ago | (#34770526)

Looks like the YF23... This is the start of Cold War II..

Re:Hacking Pays Off (4, Insightful)

Nyeerrmm (940927) | more than 3 years ago | (#34770790)

Except the Chinese and American economies are too interlocked to repeat something like the that. Its hard to say what Sino-American relations will look like in the future, but I don't think the Cold War is a particularly good model.

Re:Hacking Pays Off (1)

geekoid (135745) | more than 3 years ago | (#34770968)

They are too interlocked for the US to be the winner would be more correct.

Re:Hacking Pays Off (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34770878)

Yeah, because China and the Chinese Province of America on *such* a level playing field right now. Cold War -snicker-.

Re:Hacking Pays Off (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34770946)

Actually, it resembles Sukhoi Su-33 too. At least, it has it's canards [vpk-news.ru] .

Interesting... (1)

nametaken (610866) | more than 3 years ago | (#34770542)

The article says it would be a contender for the F-22, and calls it the world's only fully operational stealth fighter. Why don't the f-117 or even the f-35's count?

Re:Interesting... (1)

spqr0a1 (1504087) | more than 3 years ago | (#34770562)

The f-117 is a fighter in name only; it was designed for a ground-attack role.

Re:Interesting... (1)

snspdaarf (1314399) | more than 3 years ago | (#34770564)

Well, the F-117 is actually a bomber but was given an "F" designator to throw people off. At least, that's what I was told when I asked that question.

Re:Interesting... (1)

Microlith (54737) | more than 3 years ago | (#34770576)

Neither the F-117A nor the F-35 are fighters, but bombers. They had to be sent in at night to prevent visual spotting, as they couldn't be escorted in by fighters.

That said, this sucker looks like China scored big and managed to jack the plans for the F-35. Go go Corporate American network security policies.

Re:Interesting... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34770686)

neither is true
the f-35 can carry out air-to-air missions, so it is a fighter-bomber.
and if you think it took corporate espionage to produce a fighter that looks like the F-22, or the Y-23, you've never played a flight simulator pc game in the 1990s.

Re:Interesting... (4, Informative)

jgtg32a (1173373) | more than 3 years ago | (#34770732)

F-35 is a fighter but it isn't an air superiority aircraft.

Re:Interesting... (0)

_merlin (160982) | more than 3 years ago | (#34770580)

F35 isn't fully operational yet, and F117 is more of a tactical strike aircraft than a fighter (the designation was intended to be confusing because of the cold war, and also because the best pilots supposedly don't like to be seen flying things called "bombers").

Re:Interesting... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34770594)

I don't think the F-35 is operational. However, the B-2 should be counted...

Re:Interesting... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34770600)

Its more of a role thing I think. The f-117 isn't a superiority fighter, its more a of a fighter\bomber.

Re:Interesting... (1, Redundant)

operagost (62405) | more than 3 years ago | (#34770608)

Well, the F-117 is really a bomber, not a fighter. It carries no cannon and its standard loads don't include AA missiles. It's also retired from the US military. The F-35 is in flight testing, so it probably should be considered although it's not in service yet.

Re:Interesting... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34770620)

The F-117 is a bomber, not a fighter, despite the F designation. The F-35 is not fully operational.

Re:Interesting... (4, Informative)

DesScorp (410532) | more than 3 years ago | (#34770642)

The article says it would be a contender for the F-22, and calls it the world's only fully operational stealth fighter. Why don't the f-117 or even the f-35's count?

The F-117 has been retired, and the F-35 isn't operational yet. Indeed, there's a growing scandal about the lack of progress in flight testing (as well as the emergence of weight and exhaust heat problems) for the F-35, and it's likely at that at least one version... probably the STOVL "B" version... will be canceled. And it's possible that the whole project will be canceled.

Re:Interesting... (1)

MozeeToby (1163751) | more than 3 years ago | (#34770788)

We agreed to sell the F35 to our allies, canceling the project would be an political nightmare.

Re:Interesting... (1)

aliquis (678370) | more than 3 years ago | (#34770986)

Finally a way to get Norway to reconsider JAS-39 Gripen [youtube.com] ;)

(It's not like we're using ours anyway ;) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U5mTUj38k6o [youtube.com] )

It's a litte funny to compare American and Swedish recruitment ads:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zWqT8Rljt_8 [youtube.com]

Re:Interesting... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34771022)

The article says it would be a contender for the F-22, and calls it the world's only fully operational stealth fighter. Why don't the f-117 or even the f-35's count?

The F-117 has been retired, and the F-35 isn't operational yet. Indeed, there's a growing scandal about the lack of progress in flight testing (as well as the emergence of weight and exhaust heat problems) for the F-35, and it's likely at that at least one version... probably the STOVL "B" version... will be canceled. And it's possible that the whole project will be canceled.

The F-117 wasn't a fighter, it was a tactical bomber. It had no guns or air-to-air missiles. Only bombs and other air-ground munitions. The F was only put in the name to throw off any foreign intel on the planes purpose or capabilities.

Re:Interesting... (1)

ThunderBird89 (1293256) | more than 3 years ago | (#34770650)

F-117s don't count because they were retired years ago...

Re:Interesting... (1)

Dolphinzilla (199489) | more than 3 years ago | (#34771016)

I would say it is a fighter with stealth features - but it is NOT a stealth aircraft - the B2 and the F-117 are stealth aircraft - the F-22 is multi-role aircraft with stealth features as well - the article is pretty poorly written - obviosuely by someone with little experience writing about aircraft

Cue Wild Speculation (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34770550)

The USA puts a lot of resources into maintaining air superiority.
Can we finally admit this is a cold war?

Re:Cue Wild Speculation (1)

DigiShaman (671371) | more than 3 years ago | (#34770676)

It's not a cold war...yet anyways. China is simply matching their military spending to the growth of their GDP. It will only become a cold war when both the US and China starts playing games of "chicken" with tactical nuclear weapons deployment. But don't expect that to happen. Both nations are joined at the hip in an awkward system of co-dependency.

If anything. All other nations but America should worry. For example I'm sure Japan and India arn't all to happy about what's going on.

Re:Cue Wild Speculation (2)

jgtg32a (1173373) | more than 3 years ago | (#34770698)

I think Taiwan is more concerned than anyone else.

Re:Cue Wild Speculation (0)

MaWeiTao (908546) | more than 3 years ago | (#34770822)

Given how close Taiwan and China's relationship has become in recent years I find that highly unlikely. Far more likely is that at some point they'll unite and set up a similar system to what Hong Kong has with China.

At this point the only way I'd see China taking military action against Taiwan is if their economy were to implode. They'd need a cause to rally the masses.

Re:Cue Wild Speculation (0)

geekoid (135745) | more than 3 years ago | (#34771012)

Why? it's not liek the Chinese can't use conventional aircraft. Unless Tiawan has a much more sophisticated army then I think they have.

This is about pretending to be able to make the same technological achievements as the west.

Look at the thing. It looks horrid and out of date. I can see the seems for christ sake.

What about the drones (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34770570)

I'd be more interested to see what china is doing with drones. Especially since they are so cheap compared to a manned aircraft, they can pull higher G's and the pilots don't have to especially worry about dieing.

On the other hand we have BAE working on adaptive jammers and whatnot that seem like they would be suspiciously well suited to jam UAV communications relying on radio.

Re:What about the drones (1)

AuMatar (183847) | more than 3 years ago | (#34770752)

I'm not sure how interested they are in drones. In the US, we put a high value on human life. In China, it's much lower and they have so many of them.

Re:What about the drones (2)

dakameleon (1126377) | more than 3 years ago | (#34771014)

Aside from the fact that that kind of comment is potentially offensive, TFA has images of Chinese drones at a Chinese airshow last year: Image [wsj.com]

Is this really how fighter jets work? (1)

Corf (145778) | more than 3 years ago | (#34770572)

FTA: The Chinese prototype looks like it has "the potential to be a competitor with the F-22 and to be decisively superior to the F-35," said Mr. Fisher. The J-20 has two engines, like the F-22, and is about the same size, while the F-35 is smaller and has only one engine.

So... more engines and bigger equals "decisively superior," based solely on some photos?

Re:Is this really how fighter jets work? (1)

Nikker (749551) | more than 3 years ago | (#34770696)

China is so tight lipped about everything I find it hard to grasp not only someone with authorization to be close enough to snap a shot of it also happened to leak it via the Internet to western media. No one wants anyone to know what they really have in their hand no matter what side your on and they are apparently giving timelines out to everybody to when they will be ready to use this type of tech? This can't be more than cheap propaganda but take it as you see fit.

Re:Is this really how fighter jets work? (1)

f3rret (1776822) | more than 3 years ago | (#34770998)

Of course no one "leaked" these photos. They were released with the consent of the Chinese gov't, maybe not the publicly acknowledged consent, but no way in hell they let them leak unintentionally.

Re:Is this really how fighter jets work? (1, Interesting)

DesScorp (410532) | more than 3 years ago | (#34770712)

So... more engines and bigger equals "decisively superior," based solely on some photos?

Before anyone gets their panties in a wad about this airplane, please note that it may not even be able to fly. These photos are from "taxi tests"... basically, driving it down a runway. Some pretty knowledgeable people are asking if this isn't another MiG 1.42, an infamous "potemkin fighter". In other words, a model that looks good but that will never see service, built mainly as a bluff against the West. At least the PAK-FA can get off the ground, and it's fire control system is still vaporware, and it's using older engines from the Su-27 family of fighters. The truth is that neither Russia nor China have the resources to build anything like the F-22.

Re:Is this really how fighter jets work? (1)

timeOday (582209) | more than 3 years ago | (#34770874)

The article implies that it is in runway testing, not just taxiing, based on a photo showing the front wheel off the ground. HOWEVER, don't get too excited. Even a test flight for the airframe doesn't mean all that much! It's all about the avionics, and stealthiness. The F-35 made its maiden flight in 2006 [wikipedia.org] yet it is still not operational. The complexity of the weapons systems dwarf that of the airframe (the wings and engine), which is all this picture shows. Even when China's plane is eventually operational, the fact that a plane looks like the F-22 doesn't mean it works like one, not by a long shot!

Re:Is this really how fighter jets work? (1)

yurtinus (1590157) | more than 3 years ago | (#34770936)

...For what it's worth, the USA doesn't have the resources to build F-22s either ;)

Re:Is this really how fighter jets work? (1)

_merlin (160982) | more than 3 years ago | (#34770976)

At least the PAK-FA can get off the ground, and it's fire control system is still vaporware, and it's using older engines from the Su-27 family of fighters. The truth is that neither Russia nor China have the resources to build anything like the F-22.

That's why Russia is increasingly getting India to lend assistance in developing military hardware. It's delivering results, too - look at the performance of Brahmos missiles.

Re:Is this really how fighter jets work? (1)

fahlesr1 (1910982) | more than 3 years ago | (#34770840)

More engines mean a lot of things. Generally it means the fighter is faster (and speed kills in air combat) and more survivable as it can lose an engine and still fly. The larger size means it has the potential to carry a greater payload, meaning it can have more missiles and fuel. Both of those are advantageous because that means it can use its afterburner longer, stay on station longer, have a longer range and kill more enemies.

What I'm most interested in is its stealth capabilities. To date no one else has been able to match the US's stealth capabilities, if the Chinese have somehow figured it out that would be interesting. While the F-22 is extremely advanced, since we have so few of them their only real advantage is their stealth capabilities. Stealth allows a smaller force to defeat a much larger force. If the larger force also has stealth, then the F-22 can no longer engage them at range, it would have to engage much closer. Conceivably, if the stealth of both sides is good enough, missiles would be out of the question and it would turn into a dog fight. That would reduce the F-22s survivability which makes having so few much more dangerous.

This is all speculation of course so take it with a grain of salt. Its quite possible the Chinese stealth tech is not good enough to hide these fighters from US missiles, or that the J-20 is a shiny looking piece of junk. It does raise questions about the F-22s future though.

F16 pilots ok with one engine and smaller airframe (1)

perpenso (1613749) | more than 3 years ago | (#34770932)

FTA: The Chinese prototype looks like it has "the potential to be a competitor with the F-22 and to be decisively superior to the F-35," said Mr. Fisher. The J-20 has two engines, like the F-22, and is about the same size, while the F-35 is smaller and has only one engine. So... more engines and bigger equals "decisively superior," based solely on some photos?

I think F16 pilots would offer a different opinion.

It's not a perfect analogy but think of the F22 as an F15 replacement (bigger, multiengine family) and the F35 as an F16 replacement (smaller, single engine family). It gets a little more complicated when you consider the F35 is also to be used by the US Navy and Marine Corp, not just the US Air Force, sort of like the F4. And of corse the British Royal Navy is heavily involved too..

Re:Is this really how fighter jets work? (1)

Asic Eng (193332) | more than 3 years ago | (#34770984)

Fair point. On the other hand, going head to head with the US is not the immediate goal. They want to be able to take Taiwan before the US even has a chance to intervene. The problem is that the US has this strange attitude towards Taiwan - on the one hand they feel obligated to defend Taiwan, on the other hand they don't even maintain an embassy there, much less a permanent military presence. With over 1500 missiles, anti-carrier weapons and a carrier on their own, China has the advantage. This buildup continues unhindered despite the current Taiwanese president's eagerness to appease China. If the US wants to actually stick to defending Taiwan they need to do something to counter that, failure to do that could well be interpreted as a sign that the US will do nothing. That interpretation could set of a war.

Prior Art: (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34770578)

Remember, Ufimtsev's work formed the basis for stealth technology.

Yours At Lockheed,
Kilgore T.

Espionage? (1)

jensend (71114) | more than 3 years ago | (#34770602)

At first glance, that looks exceedingly like an F-22 (I'm no expert-maybe specialists here can point out differences). I wonder what the odds are that this- like so many Chinese knockoffs- was designed with extensive engineering details about its competitors, gained in a clandestine manner?

Why would they bother? (1)

jd (1658) | more than 3 years ago | (#34770722)

If you recall, Lockheed-Martin sold the hard drive with the F-22 blueprints to the Iranians. Allegedly by mistake. The odds of the other air powers NOT producing F-22-style designs was virtually zero.

China the new global superpower, and US decline (2, Insightful)

assemblerex (1275164) | more than 3 years ago | (#34770606)

The u.s. is like the decline of Rome. Most of the budget spent on the military to little gain.
When will we realize we need to spend those billions on educating new engineers and scientists,
repair our education system and bring industry back home? Do we value having $1.00 stores so much
we will slit our own throats to save 0.50 cents on plastic goods? China's power is there is no individual, there
is only the state. Need a new bridge? Seize houses. New factory? Take land. We need to realize what we are
up against and adjust our outdated ideals about business. There is no more free market, there is the chinese
way, of the western way where people and property are respected and protected. We need to set up protective
measures to protect what is left of our industry.

Re:China the new global superpower, and US decline (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34770692)

American universities educate thousands of engineers and scientists every year. Unfortunately, the students are all from China and India.

What good are stealth fighters? (1)

bigtrike (904535) | more than 3 years ago | (#34770710)

They are cool and all, but we're better off spending our money on cheaper projects with a higher military payoff.

This country tends to spend its military R&D on the most useless and expensive projects with low payoff. We've spent billions on the missile defense shield which doesn't protect us from any modern threat. We've also spend tens of billions on the Osprey, which is pork at its finest.

A manned stealth fighter doesn't really help us much these days. We're far better off investing in drones which even if they're not stealth can win because we can just send a bunch more of them.

Re:What good are stealth fighters? (1)

TheL0ser (1955440) | more than 3 years ago | (#34770808)

We're far better off investing in drones which even if they're not stealth can win because we can just send a bunch more of them.

So you're saying you want to zerg rush China, when all they have to do is look a little east and ask how to defend against it?

Re:What good are stealth fighters? (1)

Overunderrated (1518503) | more than 3 years ago | (#34770964)

boo this man!

(i lol'd)

Re:What good are stealth fighters? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34770826)

How the fuck is it pork to invest in a plane that turns into a fucking helicopter???

Re:What good are stealth fighters? (1)

Yvan256 (722131) | more than 3 years ago | (#34770930)

Not to mention that they'll need to do both male and female helicopter models.

Re:China the new global superpower, and US decline (5, Insightful)

ShavedOrangutan (1930630) | more than 3 years ago | (#34770750)

China's power is there is no individual, there is only the state. Need a new bridge? Seize houses. New factory? Take land. We need to realize what we are up against and adjust our outdated ideals about business.

How long can China realistically keep that up? Manufacturing in the U.S. is so damned expensive because you can't just dump your industrial waste into the nearby stream. China is enjoying a 1st world economy with 3rd world living conditions. It'll catch up with them eventually.

Re:China the new global superpower, and US decline (0)

MichaelKristopeit349 (1968132) | more than 3 years ago | (#34770866)

who is "we"?

you are NOTHING.

cower behind your chosen pseudonym some more, feeb.

you're completely pathetic.

Re:China the new global superpower, and US decline (1)

outlander (140799) | more than 3 years ago | (#34770898)

Pretty much. We (as a society) need to quit braying about gov't-being-the-problem and socialism and actually do something done in a coordinated fashion.

We know gov't led programs can work - witness the US space program, or the seed development of Internet technology, or any number of other coordinated efforts.

Oh, and actually finding a way to deal with companies performing labor arbitrage and undermining our economy would be useful, too....

Re:China the new global superpower, and US decline (2)

Degro (989442) | more than 3 years ago | (#34770902)

There's no 'we' about it. Just like ancient Rome, the economy has been completely captured by a tiny percentage of the population that will run everything into the ground in order to maintain their own wealth and profits.

Re:China the new global superpower, and US decline (1)

gestalt_n_pepper (991155) | more than 3 years ago | (#34770956)

Do we value having $1.00 stores so much we will slit our own throats to save 0.50 cents on plastic goods?
Well, thus far, all evidence points to "Yes! And can I have some more flavored corn syrup and an all meat, extra cheese pizza while I watch 'Dancing With the Stars?'"

We fail of our own volition. We don't have to let the transnational wealthy fleece us, suck us dry and throw away the bones... but we do.

Re:China the new global superpower, and US decline (1)

timeOday (582209) | more than 3 years ago | (#34771020)

China's power is there is no individual, there is only the state. Need a new bridge? Seize houses. New factory? Take land. We need to realize what we are up against and adjust our outdated ideals about business.

No, no. It was reasonable to believe that in the 1950's, when Communists claimed capitalism was doomed by the "wasteful" duplication of efforts by competitors, and lack of centralized planning. What did history show? It didn't work; the USSR economy collapsed under its bureaucracy and centralized plans.

The only protective measures we need are to protect individuals and the environment. If the western world only imported Chinese goods made under Western standards (which would then be World standards), then individuals and the environment everywhere would be protected, and we'd be competing on a level playing field.

Even under current conditions, German manufacturing has somehow stayed competitive and is booming, and workers in skilled trades are doing well there. I haven't quite figured that one out.

Re:China the new global superpower, and US decline (1)

geekoid (135745) | more than 3 years ago | (#34771036)

"The u.s. is like the decline of Rome"

No in any real way. You need to look at the industry and market as a whole,. People who say that don't know Roman history or US economics.

Your view of china is also overly simple.

made of lead? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34770614)

How do these fly if they are made of lead?

Re:made of lead? (1)

BizzyM (996195) | more than 3 years ago | (#34770910)

more importantly, will they be able to taxi them without dinging the wing tips, the nosecone, and/or the tail?? and do the pilots sit way forward, almost nose-to-HUD with a vacant expression on their face?

I must be hungry (1)

Yvan256 (722131) | more than 3 years ago | (#34770948)

I ready that as "How do these fly if they are made of bread?"

pax et bonum (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34770616)

here's a thought, why dont both countries STOP producing them?

Stolen IP? (1)

wiredmikey (1824622) | more than 3 years ago | (#34770626)

Anyone else think China's progress on this is a result of stolen intellectual property?

Re:Stolen IP? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34770704)

Anyone else think China's progress on this is a result of stolen intellectual property?

Solution? (Simple, really.)

"No, no, no. This time, you must think in Chinese!"

Where's Clint Eastwood when we need him? Oh, right, stuck in an American airport, which grills travelers harder than the American portrayal of a Moscow airport in 1982.

Re:Stolen IP? (1)

Spy Handler (822350) | more than 3 years ago | (#34770772)

How many times must I say it? You cannot steal IP. If China broke into America and stole a bunch of F-22 airplanes, that would be stealing. That is not what happened here.

This at most is copyright infringement, and at least it would be simply information wanting to be free!

Re:Stolen IP? (3, Insightful)

MaWeiTao (908546) | more than 3 years ago | (#34770876)

You're playing semantics. If plans were taken without the owner's permission then it was theft. Just because IP laws have been taken to an absurd level doesn't mean that there's no reason at all to protect intellectual property.

Re:Stolen IP? (1)

LordNacho (1909280) | more than 3 years ago | (#34770974)

Why would they have to steal it? The regime can put a lot of resources behind developing it. They've probably taken whatever inspiration that's easy to get a hold of.

Engines? (2)

ShavedOrangutan (1930630) | more than 3 years ago | (#34770646)

Powered by a sand cast copy of a 1972 Honda mini-bike engine.

New toy to harrass the Japanese (1)

dorpus (636554) | more than 3 years ago | (#34770656)

So will this be a new toy with which to violate Japanese airspace, and have the Japanese in a tizzy? Then Japan could waste more resources on buying F-22's and fancy radars, which will benefit US but leave the Japanese fuming that they are paying the price for the standoff between two powers.

Return of the Gun? (1)

gurps_npc (621217) | more than 3 years ago | (#34770666)

Air combat has been pretty much dominated by missiles because of radar and heat locked missiles. If the missiles can't lock in, will that mean the return of the dogfight with dumb bullets instead of missiles?

Re:Return of the Gun? (1)

jd (1658) | more than 3 years ago | (#34770758)

The radar will simply be smarter. If you can't observe the aircraft directly, then the missile radar will simply deduce where the aircraft is from indirect observations. I imagine that there might be an attempt to use a derivative of modern weather radar to look for unnatural air currents.

Re:Return of the Gun? (1)

yurtinus (1590157) | more than 3 years ago | (#34770966)

Hey, somebody else *did* watch Under Siege 2!

Re:Return of the Gun? (1)

dadelbunts (1727498) | more than 3 years ago | (#34771006)

Stealth is like DRM. Just a game of how long it lasts untill updated avionics come out. IIRC the f-22 is already able to be picked up by the latest radar systems.

Why the Chinese need stealth (4, Funny)

snsh (968808) | more than 3 years ago | (#34770670)

Next time there's a rally in Tiananmen Square, the world won't see an iconic image of a protester standing in front of a row of tanks. The protester will instead be standing in front a stealth fighter jet, but the stealth fighter jet will be invisible to cameras, making the photo uninteresting.

As to how advanced... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34770684)

Realistically it looks like a morph of the eurofighter and a F22 or possibly the YF-23. I'm curious how the hell they made the canards all that stealthy, perhaps it is multimodal in that respect, stealth mode and dogfight mode or something like that. The article is also off comparing it to the F22, the main advantage of the F-22 is all aspect stealth, which this doesn't look to have, and also very advanced avionics and battle management systems, which is something impossible to tell about this aircraft from the pictures. As it stands the Chinese have had real problems with jet engine technology, having only badly copied soviet era engines in the past, and that not so well... So I don't think the US has alot to worry about.

Changing priorities -- shift to propjets in US (1)

myNameIsNotImportant (592769) | more than 3 years ago | (#34770824)

It appears as though the priorities are shifting towards airplanes that are cheaper & more suitable for asymmetrical fighting: http://www.economist.com/node/17079443 [economist.com] .

Chinese pictures (1)

PatPending (953482) | more than 3 years ago | (#34770862)

I saw these Chinese pictures 30 minutes ago and now I'm already hungry for more!

Shanzai - Raptorski (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34770900)

It is Shanzai Raptor ,inside it is a JF-17 Thundarr Bundaarr(Monkey) .It is a perfect hybrid of american-russian 3rd generation phighter with the latest shanzai technology.

When can I buy one? (2)

Stele (9443) | more than 3 years ago | (#34770940)

I went by Walmart but they didn't have any in stock.

We dont NEED (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34770944)

F-22's because no one has advanced enough........stealth...............fighters....oh well never mind

$1,000,000,000 in R&D vs.... (-1, Troll)

gatkinso (15975) | more than 3 years ago | (#34770960)

$60 for a subscription to Aviation Week.

Sounds like the Chinks made out.

I thought everything was made in China these days (2)

wcrowe (94389) | more than 3 years ago | (#34770996)

I thought the F-22 was built in China. Everything else is.

Heh, we're not only funding our own military, we're funding theirs too, indirectly.

Amusing.. (1)

Renraku (518261) | more than 3 years ago | (#34771002)

Their attempt at a stealth fighter amuses me.

They should stick with building cheaper fighters en masse rather than building expensive stealth fighter aircraft that aren't really that stealthy against modern networked radar systems. At least the first way they could simply overwhelm air defenses with numbers, rather than relying on a gimmick to get within striking range of anything important. I suspect this is mainly just a show of force and won't be much of a real threat even when deployed. Kind of like how our current F-22 is more of a show of force, since we haven't fought a competent air force in a while.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>