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!

China Unveils Yet Another Stealth Fighter

samzenpus posted about 2 years ago | from the fly-the-secret-skies dept.

China 223

An anonymous reader writes "Pictures of a new Chinese stealth fighter prototype started showing up recently on the web. The airplane prototype was photographed at a Shenyang aircraft facility and seems to be a twin-engined lightweight fighter in the F-35 class. US Defense Secretary Leon Panetta is scheduled to visit China this week in the midst of tension regarding territorial disputes in the region."

cancel ×

223 comments

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

Not getting it! (5, Funny)

rwise2112 (648849) | about 2 years ago | (#41363123)

China Unveils Yet Another Stealth Fighter
Seems they quite get the idea of stealth!

Re:Not getting it! (3, Insightful)

Joce640k (829181) | about 2 years ago | (#41363199)

At least they didn't dedicate a whole Discovery channel to it...all that "Future War" stuff is just to remind Americans how awesome they are!

Re:Not getting it! (4, Funny)

GodfatherofSoul (174979) | about 2 years ago | (#41363611)

Why would we need TV shows for that? Every bathroom in America has a mirror.

Re:Not getting it! (0, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41363973)

Are you saying that having seen CCTV-7?

Re:Not getting it! (2)

Sarten-X (1102295) | about 2 years ago | (#41363495)

What fun is a cool new toy if nobody knows you have it? The point of stealth is not that nobody knows it exists, but rather that nobody knows when it's coming toward them.

Re:Not getting it! (4, Funny)

Frosty Piss (770223) | about 2 years ago | (#41363797)

Once you've seen one Chinese stelth fighter, very soon you hunger for another...

Re:Not getting it! (4, Informative)

nospam007 (722110) | about 2 years ago | (#41363945)

It's also a bit late, on the International Aircraft Expo in Germany this year they demonstrated a working passive radar system that will make this technology obsolete.

(link is in German)
http://www.spiegel.de/wissenschaft/technik/passivradar-nimmt-stealth-jets-die-tarnkappe-a-855711.html [spiegel.de]

Re:Not getting it! (4, Funny)

jeffmeden (135043) | about 2 years ago | (#41364127)

China Unveils Yet Another Stealth Fighter

Seems they _____ quite get the idea of stealth!

Yet your use of the word "don't" does indeed elude any attempts at detection...

Hey, where have I seen that plane before? (-1, Flamebait)

Jackie_Chan_Fan (730745) | about 2 years ago | (#41363147)

China not only bootlegs every major product, they also copy our airplane designs.

Oh well.

Re:Hey, where have I seen that plane before? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41363209)

China not only bootlegs every major product, they also copy our airplane designs.

Oh well.

You must be new here.

Re:Hey, where have I seen that plane before? (4, Insightful)

it5complicated (1951824) | about 2 years ago | (#41363471)

If you are spending a ton of money on something you'll probably never use, and what's more, of no productive use at all, you might as well cut costs by stealing designs of that from the retards who developed it first and spend the savings on something useful. Seriously, when are we going to evolve from that stage where we are still inventing new ways to throw rocks at each other?

Re:Hey, where have I seen that plane before? (4, Insightful)

tlhIngan (30335) | about 2 years ago | (#41363869)

If you are spending a ton of money on something you'll probably never use, and what's more, of no productive use at all, you might as well cut costs by stealing designs of that from the retards who developed it first and spend the savings on something useful. Seriously, when are we going to evolve from that stage where we are still inventing new ways to throw rocks at each other?

True. Most of the weapons in the arsenal probably aren't to be used in actual war, but in the projection of military supremacy. Enemies would think twice if they saw what "awesome firepower" you have (even if most if it is just cardboard cutouts or lame copies).

As for your second question - probably never. If you look throughout human history, it's been basically war after war after war, and most of the research involved in making wars lead to the comforts we enjoy today. Just human nature - someone has a big gun, someone else gets jealous and builds a bigger gun. Just be content in the fact that we've not yet waged any atomic war that wipes out most of humanity.

Re:Hey, where have I seen that plane before? (2)

Migraineman (632203) | about 2 years ago | (#41364009)

Your "laws" are only as good as your ability to enforce them (usually at the end of a sharp stick.)

Re:Hey, where have I seen that plane before? (1)

filthpickle (1199927) | about 2 years ago | (#41364051)

Seriously, when are we going to evolve from that stage where we are still inventing new ways to throw rocks at each other?

Ever? No, not likely. In our lifetimes? Absolutely not.

Re:Hey, where have I seen that plane before? (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41363287)

Yeah why do they just copy our laws of physics, can't they make their own?!?

Re:Hey, where have I seen that plane before? (2, Funny)

madwheel (1617723) | about 2 years ago | (#41363315)

I'm assuming this cost them less than half the price it does it build ours. I'd still rather fly in an American made plane over any Chinese knock-off.

Re:Hey, where have I seen that plane before? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41363809)

Though I think I'd prefer a Chinese person to write your posts for you

Re:Hey, where have I seen that plane before? (3, Interesting)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | about 2 years ago | (#41363899)

And it's probably about half as stealthy... or less.

See how those thrusters jut right out the back? That's not stealth. The rest of it might be, sort of.

Re:Hey, where have I seen that plane before? (5, Insightful)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | about 2 years ago | (#41363317)

Given that we yoinked aiframes, designs, machine tools, and scientists(see 'Project Paperclip') pretty much wholesale from the parts of germany we got to first, we probably shouldn't head for the moral high ground just yet...

Re:Hey, where have I seen that plane before? (-1, Offtopic)

howardd21 (1001567) | about 2 years ago | (#41363373)

Right, because technology from 70 YEARS ago is so meaningful today.

Re:Hey, where have I seen that plane before? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41363485)

The Manhattan Project [wikipedia.org] started in 1939 - 73 years ago. Seems relevant.

Re:Hey, where have I seen that plane before? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41363491)

Right, because technology from 70 YEARS ago is so meaningful today.

Don't underestimate 70 year old tech... ...without yesterdays tech we would not have the tech of today.

Re:Hey, where have I seen that plane before? (5, Interesting)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | about 2 years ago | (#41363861)

Right, because technology from 70 YEARS ago is so meaningful today.

Funny you should mention that... [google.com] Built in 1955, after we snagged a few smaller presses from Germany and the commies got a 30,000 ton press. Continues to operate to the present day, providing precision pressed aerospace components to much of the US aircraft production industry...

MOD PARENT DOWN!!! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41364219)

Design vs. manufacture. This is LARGE rudimentary tooling and nothing more. It is incredibly expensive to produce, and you will likely see this tool around fifty years from now. How dare you to compare aircraft design to the fabrication, design, theft, or existence of the tooling used to build what was designed.

Re:Hey, where have I seen that plane before? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41363427)

Absolutely. We haven't innovated one damned thing since then.

Oh keeper of the most smug tablet of moral superiority, thank you for your wisdom, ensuring we do not stray.

Never takes you long to show up.

Don't forget to justify Muslim outrage because of the crusades while you're at it.

Re:Hey, where have I seen that plane before? (1)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | about 2 years ago | (#41364199)

Absolutely. We haven't innovated one damned thing since then.

Oh keeper of the most smug tablet of moral superiority, thank you for your wisdom, ensuring we do not stray.

Never takes you long to show up.

Don't forget to justify Muslim outrage because of the crusades while you're at it.

Maybe I was unclear, and maybe you weren't paying attention; but my point would be precisely the opposite of somebody who would go cuddle with them about how traumatic the crusades were, oh noes...

My point here is "Yeah, China would appear to be ripping off the best designs available, which means US stealth tech and some amount of ruskie reliability; I would remind everyone frothing at the vile espionage of the Red Chinaman that espionage is something everybody does, so shut up for once." Where somebody to come whining about 'crusaders', it'd be "And the groups who swept across north africa and up into the iberian peninsula were different how exactly? Or the ones that didn't make it past Mr. Martel while pushing into eastern Europe? Everybody is launching pointless wars of aggression today, neither side will have a toehold worth a damn within a century or two, and none of this affects you 1000 years later except in some onanistic nationalist fantasy. Shut up."

Re:Hey, where have I seen that plane before? (2)

Aqualung812 (959532) | about 2 years ago | (#41363515)

The spoils of war from a world war with Germany doesn't quite compare to espionage from a country that you supposedly have peaceful relations with.

Such is the nature of espionage, though. Both sides do it, and react in "outrage" when they catch it happening.

Re:Hey, where have I seen that plane before? (2)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | about 2 years ago | (#41364121)

Such is the nature of espionage, though. Both sides do it, and react in "outrage" when they catch it happening.

That's the part that I find so annoying. If people want to be boy scouts, knock it off with the cloak and dagger and go earn a merit badge or something. If people want to be all cloak and dagger, quit regurgitating your deeply unconvincing lies about what you aren't doing.

Re:Hey, where have I seen that plane before? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41363759)

Given that we yoinked aiframes, designs, machine tools, and scientists(see 'Project Paperclip') pretty much wholesale from the parts of germany we got to first, we probably shouldn't head for the moral high ground just yet...

Yeah, and Ug stole the idea of fire from Thag 20,000 years ago.

Seriously, what kind of tool mods this fake moralistic crap up?

Re:Hey, where have I seen that plane before? (2)

Jeng (926980) | about 2 years ago | (#41363949)

Seriously, what kind of tool mods this fake moralistic crap up?

The kind that has perspective.

We didn't just copy, we straight up took the people and tools necessary to advance our aerospace technology.

Re:Hey, where have I seen that plane before? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41363931)

Don't forget aquiring tech from your allies and not returning the tech share - like the British Miles M.52 which had the moving tail which the USA ripped off for the Bell X-1, along with a lot of the other design specs.

Re:Hey, where have I seen that plane before? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41363965)

Wow, that one is older than my grandparents. Just accept the fact that is one area where American ingenuity and skill has surpassed the world and get over it.

Re:Hey, where have I seen that plane before? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41363365)

Force your enemy into an arms race, bankrupting their country.

Looks like China are copying US military tactics too.

Re:Hey, where have I seen that plane before? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41363419)

Don't be an idiot...

The design is based on the mathematically most efficient design man kind has discovered for aerodynamic surfaces that have the lowest possible radar profile possible. It would be retarded to go with anything BUT the most efficient design possible. So please drop the "they copied us" crap, just because your country found the most efficient design first....

Re:Hey, where have I seen that plane before? (3, Interesting)

bugs2squash (1132591) | about 2 years ago | (#41363801)

Tell that to Petr Ufimtsev [wikipedia.org] .

Re:Hey, where have I seen that plane before? (4, Insightful)

gestalt_n_pepper (991155) | about 2 years ago | (#41364043)

The Chinese government does this a lot, even though it makes little sense. There have been many advances since the first stealth fighters were designed. Had they started from scratch, they would have had a better product. Same with aircraft carriers. They bought one from that technological power house, Ukraine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_aircraft_carrier_Varyag). So many advances in ship design have come and gone between the construction of that ship and now, that it makes little overt sense to try and retrofit it. China has thousands of unemployed engineers who could have done a much better job starting from scratch.

And don't get me started on the WTF(!) of the three gorges dam. Hundreds of small dams along the length of the Yangtze would have been manageable, affordable, allowed precise flood control, generated just as much power and provided significant redundancy. One big dam is just a single point of failure and is asking for trouble.

For a country largely governed by engineers, I would have expected better decisions.

Re:Hey, where have I seen that plane before? (1)

TheDarkMaster (1292526) | about 2 years ago | (#41364247)

Well, Postwar japaneses have a lesson to give here. Start copying, understand how it works and then try to improve. Since the jet of the photos is similar to the F-35 (or maybe F-22? Both?) but have two turbines (then is not just a copy), I suspect that the Chinese are entering the part of trying to improve.

Re:Hey, where have I seen that plane before? (1)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | about 2 years ago | (#41364193)

Yep almost a perfect copy of the F35 externally, except no VTOL/STOL stuff and two exhaust outlets instead of one.

Piss frost! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41363151)

Frost piss!

where did they get that? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41363175)

looks a whole lot like a raptor..

Re:where did they get that? (1)

Joce640k (829181) | about 2 years ago | (#41363239)

It might be a cardboard model just to mess with their enemy's' heads.

Re:where did they get that? (1)

M0j0_j0j0 (1250800) | about 2 years ago | (#41364407)

And that is their definition of stealth.

Re:where did they get that? (1)

DickBreath (207180) | about 2 years ago | (#41364235)

It only looks like a raptor until the Chinese open up the surfaces of it to advertising.

Manned fighter planes (4, Funny)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about 2 years ago | (#41363189)

How quaint... Welcome to the 90s, China.

Re:Manned fighter planes (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41364187)

Pfft, they have an excess of people anyway. They'll force-learn people and use them.

I don't believe they have figured it out just yet. (2)

kiriath (2670145) | about 2 years ago | (#41363203)

Painting it black, doesn't make it stealthy!

But does it run Linux? (0)

concealment (2447304) | about 2 years ago | (#41363215)

We're one buffer overflow away from WWIII.

Folks, WAKE UP! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41363225)

Piss and shit. PISS AND SHIT! P-I-S-S A-N-D S-H-I-T.

Folks, the USA is on the OUTS, embrace your new Chinese Over Lords.

Bootleg (0)

Metabolife (961249) | about 2 years ago | (#41363231)

It's not only in the same class, it's probably the same fighter. Many of "China's" fighter parts can fit directly into US fighters without issue.

Re:Bootleg (4, Insightful)

Richard_at_work (517087) | about 2 years ago | (#41363435)

That would be astounding, considering most Chinese aircraft are based on Russian and Ukranian aircraft...

Re:Bootleg (4, Funny)

Sarten-X (1102295) | about 2 years ago | (#41363601)

It's not that astounding. Why, when I was volunteering in Africa, I found some Chinese-made RJ-45 plugs that fit directly into my American laptop! Even the Chinese Ethernet switch worked perfectly with it!

On an airplane, I expect many bolts, rivets, and screws will all "fit directly."

Re:Bootleg (1)

T-Bone-T (1048702) | about 2 years ago | (#41364031)

Those are standardized parts. Parts in an airplane tend to only work with that airplane. There are standardized parts to make them cheaper and easier but most are unique to that type of aircraft.

Re:Bootleg (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41364309)

*WOOSH!*

Seems oddly appropriate, given the topic of discussion.

Re:Bootleg (2)

Microlith (54737) | about 2 years ago | (#41363541)

You've tested this I take it? Where can I buy an F-35?

Re:Bootleg (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41363873)

Yeah, being twin-engined, I guess it's a copy of the F-35E, which is still classified in the US.

Soon to be at a Walmart near you (2, Funny)

slazzy (864185) | about 2 years ago | (#41363251)

For 9,999,9987

F35 class (5, Funny)

serviscope_minor (664417) | about 2 years ago | (#41363255)

and seems to be a twin-engined lightweight fighter in the F-35 class.

In other words, overweeight, over budget, under performing, poor range and not quite here yet but will be real soon now we promise unless you want the variant that you actually need in which case it will be here real not quite soon now.

Re:F35 class (2)

Richard_at_work (517087) | about 2 years ago | (#41363307)

Actually, the summary has it the wrong way around - most analysts consider the J-20 to be the Chinese aircraft that will fulfill the same role as the F-35, while this new airframe will fulfill the same role as the F-22.

Re:F35 class (5, Funny)

Nidi62 (1525137) | about 2 years ago | (#41363425)

this new airframe will fulfill the same role as the F-22.

Waste money and asphyxiate pilots?

Re:F35 class (3, Funny)

Grayhand (2610049) | about 2 years ago | (#41363737)

this new airframe will fulfill the same role as the F-22.

Waste money and asphyxiate pilots?

I say we bomb China with Lockheed Martin and Haliburton executives. It's a win/win since we get get rid of some dead weight and potentially balance a budget for once while collapsing the Chinese economy. I hear corporate executives breed like rabbits so they'll be over run in no time.

Re:F35 class (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41363739)

Well maybe they fixed the oxygen system problem... perhaps the Pentagon should hire them on a contract basis to fix the F-22. /sarcasm (in the extreme)

Re:F35 class (1)

vlm (69642) | about 2 years ago | (#41363369)

In other words, overweeight, over budget, under performing, poor range and not quite here yet but will be real soon now we promise unless you want the variant that you actually need in which case it will be here real not quite soon now.

You forgot, an hour after you start, you're hungry for fuel again. At least its a fast delivery vehicle, even dominos doesn't deliver at mach 1. I'm sure there's some more Chinese food jokes in here somewhere.

Re:F35 class (1)

serviscope_minor (664417) | about 2 years ago | (#41363691)

At least its a fast delivery vehicle, even dominos doesn't deliver at mach 1.

But not for very far. It can't even supercruise. For most things you'd be better off with a Eurofighter, at half the cost.

inferior carbon-fiber layering processing (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41363277)

The layering processing China is using is outdated and inferior to US's radar absorbing layering mesh.

It's technically stealthy, and most radar systems wont detect it, especially ones in many other countries, including Russias. However, US does have radar technology to detect these planes, heck we need it to detect our 20 year old stealth bombers!

Re:inferior carbon-fiber layering processing (3, Interesting)

shugah (881805) | about 2 years ago | (#41363345)

Within 10 years all stealth will be obsolete. It's much easier to improve radar systems than airframes.

Re:inferior carbon-fiber layering processing (4, Insightful)

alen (225700) | about 2 years ago | (#41363479)

its easier and cheaper to build tiny drones and cruise missiles than manned aircraft

Re:inferior carbon-fiber layering processing (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41364341)

That depends heavily on the mission profile.

A B-52 will cost less than the number of drones it would take to deliver a comparable payload.

Drones and cruise missiles are good for putting a small amount of force where it needs to go at low cost and limited risk. However in order to put more force on target instead of just loading more bombs you need to send more drones. Cruise missiles also have the disadvantage of requiring the commitment of the ordinance at launch time (if you change your mind while it's en-rout you still loose the missile, whereas planes can often be recalled)

Finally there's the problem of jamming, and destruction of communication sattelites. Drones and cruise missiles are not fully autonomous, and a foe capable of cutting of their link to HQ can signifigantly cut their effectiveness.

Money best spent elsewhere... (-1, Redundant)

dryriver (1010635) | about 2 years ago | (#41363283)

America, the EU, Russia and China could spend their money more wisely than on another "Stealth Aircraft". ---- They could spend that money on helping the world's poor get some food, healthcare, permanent shelter, et cetera. ---- But who cares about corny issues like that, right? Why help the poor, when you can instead create 50 Million Dollars a piece Fighter Aircraft, even if they will never be used for anything serious.... Because the US, EU, Russia and China will in all probability never go to war with each other... -----

Re:Money best spent elsewhere... (2)

PPH (736903) | about 2 years ago | (#41363363)

They could spend that money on helping the world's poor get some food, healthcare, permanent shelter, et cetera.

I can't think of a better way to get the aforementioned resources than to go in after them heavily armed.

Re:Money best spent elsewhere... (2)

wed128 (722152) | about 2 years ago | (#41363385)

I wonder how many jobs a research project like this creates... "Spending money helping the poor" isn't exactly as simple as it seems.

Re:Money best spent elsewhere... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41363391)

They could spend that money on helping the world's poor

Well, at least these fools have someone other than the US to bitch about.

Re:Money best spent elsewhere... (1)

Antipater (2053064) | about 2 years ago | (#41363465)

"Gee, Britain, why are you spending all your money on a navy? You have the people of your empire to consider, and you spend this much on a new battleship? You could build ten merchant vessels for that price, but who cares about feeding your poor subjects, right? A 2-million-pound dreadnought is a much better buy, even if it will never be used for anything serious. Because the UK, France, Russia and Germany will in all probability never go to war with each other."

Re:Money best spent elsewhere... (2)

vlm (69642) | about 2 years ago | (#41363607)

Because the US, EU, Russia and China will in all probability never go to war with each other.

Alex, "what is proxy wars for fun and profit?"

Would not be surprised to see .cn and .jp going at it in a limited way over those stupid islands in the next month or so. My guess is some amphibious "beach storming" foolishness plus or minus some aerial bombardment to make a point before they kiss and make up diplomatically.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japan_Air_Self-Defense_Force [wikipedia.org]

JASDF has F-15J mitsubishi built interceptors... basically the same as the 30 year old retired US F15 but with a really large spoiler on the back and under chassis neon lighting and a 10 kilowatt stereo system, no wait just kidding about that, its not a honda civic its a mitsubishi, which means they falsify their user survey results, as I recall. The F-2 is basically a modernized super-duper F16, a pretty serious plane, lots of nationalist whining on both sides respectively about the general topic of how they should have bought our modernized super duper F16 instead of building their own vs they wanted to make their very own homemade F16. The JASDF museum collection of F-4s are all older than I am, which is pretty creepy, but I suppose still effective if used properly.

Modern warfare is basically catching the other guy when he screws up, more so than a pure specs game. A .cn stealth fighter vs 2 or 3 F-2 in clear air VFR conditions over the ocean will eat the .cn fighter alive. Even 3 antique F-4 in perfect conditions for the F-4 could have the .cn fighter for dinner if they coordinate perfectly etc. The trick in all warfare is getting your opponent to fight on your terms not theirs.

Re:Money best spent elsewhere... (2)

ducomputergeek (595742) | about 2 years ago | (#41364227)

I understand the point of the F-22 and F-35 was to keep Lockheed's engineers busy while drone technology was perfected. That's how the defense industry works. Lockheed got the next gen manned fighter program, Boeing got the missile defense and some of the drone work, northrop is getting some of the drone work, that's just how it works.

It still would have made a lot more sense and been far cheaper to have just produced a new upgraded block of F-15's to replace those with too many flight hours and we wouldn't have lost any capabilities, they'd been in service 10 years ago, and probably could have built 3 for the cost of an F-22 or F-35. Not to mention already had the service and support tools in place as probably much of the gear would have remained the same. I'm sure the new F-15's would have been around the $50M a piece range (maybe $60 - 65M in todays dollars), but that's a lot cheaper than the limited number of F-22.

This is what the navy did with the F/A-18 Super Hornet. R&D was about $200M and even came in on time and under budget. It shared a lot of the same support tooling as the older F/A-18 C/D models, which is important on a ship with limited space.

Re:Money best spent elsewhere... (1)

Peristaltic (650487) | about 2 years ago | (#41363671)

It seems to me as if there's a group in each country, call it (for lack of a truly accurate count) about 10% of the population, that drive the power-seeking and conflicts between countries. These "layers" in each society drive most of the wars and scrape off more wealth than they could possibly use from the rest of the world. It seems that most of the rest of us would get along pretty well with little more than local police (assuming you've removed the psychopaths) if these people were removed from society. It's amazing how such a small number of these psychopaths can drag the Earth's population through such misery.

Re:Money best spent elsewhere... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41364033)

It seems to me as if there's a group in each country, call it (for lack of a truly accurate count) about 10% of the population

I have often thought that Mexico is a perpetual kleptocracy largely because the 10% you're thinking of has the option of evacuating to the US. If leaving were not an option they would instead fight the-powers-that-be. Not that the result would be wonderful; it might even be worse, but it could not persist as it has.

Re:Money best spent elsewhere... (1)

Migraineman (632203) | about 2 years ago | (#41364183)

But it doesn't work that way, except in a fairy tale. You can't just go jam funding at "poor" people. Doing so fosters dependency on hand-outs.

In his critique of the Great Society, Richard M. Ebeling argues that the Great Society resulted in the creation of a dependent class, the breakup of social groups and families, inflation, and government deficits.

Have a look at what damage foreign aid does to a community. At face value, it may appear that providing rice or shoes is a good thing. But after the initial feel-good, you realize that the "free" aid managed to kill off any local infrastructure for said goods - the local producers can't compete with "free" and consequently go out of business. With no local infrastructure, the population becomes wholly dependent on foreign aid.

The only valid way to pull people out of poverty is through nation-building. You're not going to get that with external charity funding. You also won't get that if the recipients of said programs really don't want to participate.

Re:Money best spent elsewhere... (1)

k6mfw (1182893) | about 2 years ago | (#41364241)

Because the US, EU, Russia and China will in all probability never go to war with each other... -----

but like what was commented about buying a 2-million-pound dreadnought instead feeding poor subjects because UK, France, Russia and Germany will never go to war with each other. But which they did, and the submarine and carrier based airplanes in later wars made that dreadnought irrevalent. Another item to note is The Empire shrank to an island after those wars.

Re:Money best spent elsewhere... (1)

ckaminski (82854) | about 2 years ago | (#41364323)

You can't help people (witness drug addicts, alcoholics, etc).

They have to help themselves - else you'll be helping them FOREVER (I.E. America's own Trillion dollar welfare state).

I'd rather spend money on rocketships.

how many do they have? (1)

alen (225700) | about 2 years ago | (#41363459)

you need more than one to fight a war
what about the engines? do they emit less heat like the f-35?
are all the angles exactly like the F-35 which is what matters? what about the paint? is it radar absorbing paint?
what about the command and control? we have special C&C aircraft to target the fighters onto the enemy so its all over before a dogfight.

its not just about building a demo aircraft. its the whole system

Re:how many do they have? (1)

timeOday (582209) | about 2 years ago | (#41363821)

For once, this time the article does a good job of explaining the difference between a prototype airframe vs. an operational weapons platform. For example how long it took to make the YF-22 into the F22.

Money (1)

BluPhenix316 (2656403) | about 2 years ago | (#41363501)

If all the money spent on machines of war, was put towards something like, say, space travel, maybe we could achieve faster-than-light travel.

Re:Money (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41363639)

That's brilliant! What an insight!

One day in the future, perhaps we will be addressing a new Nobel Peace Prize winner - BluPhenix316.

Re:Money (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41363799)

Well, maybe not faster-than-light travel, but some pretty kickin' public works or something. Maybe better hospitals, cure one or two kinds of cancer, etc.

Re:Money (2)

prefec2 (875483) | about 2 years ago | (#41363857)

If we would not waste that much money to kick each others butts, we would have solved all problems on Earth decades ago. However, we rather hate each other, lie to each other, steal from each other, produce films to annoy the other, get annoyed by totally unimportant media production from other people just because we have some problem understanding their culture or giving a damn about it. Well, the list could easily be enlarged, but I think you get the point.

In short: Humans are morons. They suck big time.

Therefore, they will not achieve your space flight goal the next 1 billion years. Nor will they end one of those numerous other problems. Unless, we really stop whining about space travel and how bad we all are, and start fixing it.

For example, when we have an issue, because our economy is not sustainable, then look what you can change instead of pointing finger. If you think we are too violent, try to fix it (BTW selling guns is not going to help). If you find, there is too less dialog with the people int China, Sudan, Libya etc. well try to fix it. When you cannot do it alone, which is most likely the case, then cooperate with other people.

After WWII in Europe the hatred between countries was at an all time high. the whole war was only possible, because other nations haven been presented as evil. Especially Nazi-Germany used that mechanism. To solve that issue, many visiting programs where initiated, so people, especially you people, where able to meet. Nowadays these tensions are much lower to non existent, between let say Germany and France. The problems are still bigger with East-European countries.

So if you are afraid of China: Meet them. Meet the people. And, yes the same applies to Arabian countries.

Re:Money (1)

Jeng (926980) | about 2 years ago | (#41364137)

If all the money spent on machines of war, was put towards something like, say, space travel, maybe we could achieve faster-than-light travel.

Just throwing money at a problem won't solve all problems.

Some problems are so far away from us scientifically that we don't even know the questions to ask that will get us to the point of forming a theory of how to achieve such a goal.

Re:Money (1)

Slime-dogg (120473) | about 2 years ago | (#41364139)

If we achieved faster than light travel, we probably wouldn't know that we achieved it for many years to come.

Tower, this is Ghost Rider requesting a flyby (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41363521)

It's time to buzz the tower!

What plane? (2)

GodfatherofSoul (174979) | about 2 years ago | (#41363627)

All I see is a guy floating 10 feet off the ground.

Re:What plane? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41364223)

That's no guy... That's the Chinese Wonder Woman!

Yeah but (0)

Mister Whirly (964219) | about 2 years ago | (#41363715)

Their stealth planes are "made in China" so you know they cut corners, used dangerous fillers in the materials, tried to save on production costs, etc. so they will only last a few years. Then back to Walmart to buy another one.

Re:Yeah but (1)

devjoe (88696) | about 2 years ago | (#41363785)

And do you really want to be flying in a fighter plane when the nose just falls off because of those cut corners? Reminds me of this building [gizmodo.com] .

Re:Yeah but (1)

Mister Whirly (964219) | about 2 years ago | (#41363827)

No I don't, but being as I am not in the Chinese military I think the odds were pretty low to begin with.

Bankrupt China... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41363741)

By sending them the F-35 plans!

Another example of technology theft (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41363749)

Here is another blatent example of technology theft where the Chinese mirror existing western technology. Problem is that western government tax payers are paying for the R&D and engineering to develop these technologies, and the Chinese government benefits from technology theft. Maybe the Chinese government should contribute to the development costs?

Maybe the western technology firms require an RIAA for technology piracy?

Re:Another example of technology theft (2)

MetalliQaZ (539913) | about 2 years ago | (#41363919)

So from a low resolution picture on the Internet, you can tell that the technology in that demonstration aircraft is stolen from the West? Looking similar is meaningless.

Does it have the F-22's energy absorbing coatings? Probably not.
Does it have the F-22's radar systems? Probably not.
Does it have the F-22's vectored thrust? Hell no.
Can it supercruise? I wouldn't bet on it.

Also, RIAA for technology piracy? You have got to be kidding me. With this kind of technology, governments deal in different terms, like "espionage" and "open warfare."

Not an F-22 comparable (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41363833)

Fighters are designed strategically from the top down. A country says 1) what are it's strategic goals, and 2) what capabilities are we missing to fill those? American strategic goals are long range power projection; with two oceans protecting them and more or less dominance in the western hemisphere, American goals are to spoil the rise of other countries that might threaten it's interests. The F-22 is designed around this in mind; it's designed to penetrate enemy air space and establish air superiority while destroying air defenses, so that more conventional planes and bombers can then act as a force multiplier for ground troops.

China's goals are much closer to home. China seeks to secure it's own mainland (the Chinese coast) and establish dominance over the South China Sea and it's southern neighbor. Thus it's fighters are designed around area denial, primarily to keep the US Navy out of it's terriorial waters. Everything you read about the J-20 says it's not as stealthy as the F-22 and can't seem to manuever as well, but it's mostly designed to be a threat to naval ships and keep them out of Chinese waters. THat's why you see that China has developed now 1) the world's largest attack submarine fleet (although all are Diesel-Electric, not nuclear, so individually not as good as the US or British subs, but there's more of them), 2) one of the most advanced anti-ship missiles every designed that can be launched from a mobile, truck mounted launcher, and now 3) stealth fighters that aren't quite as stealthy as the US ones but stealthy enough for the area denial role.

Exhaust (2)

Coward Anonymous (110649) | about 2 years ago | (#41364103)

Still bog standard exhausts on those engines. I'm not convinced till they can show a stealthy exhaust. It's a dead giveaway that the book is all cover, no content.

Re:Exhaust (2)

TheDarkMaster (1292526) | about 2 years ago | (#41364377)

I believe there is not much point in trying to make the exhaust "stealth" (against radar waves) when she is a HUGE source of infrared radiation. And as far as I know there is no way to hiding the heat of an exhaust turbine of who is looking at it from a distance. So it would make more sense to have an exhaust that works better as such than one that sacrifice performance to be "stealth".

When will it be on ebay? (1)

k6mfw (1182893) | about 2 years ago | (#41364167)

with a Buy-It-Now like they have everything else.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?
or Connect with...

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

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>