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's Stealth Fighter Flight Test Successful

Soulskill posted about 2 years ago | from the sneaky-as-can-be dept.

China 161

New submitter vencs writes "China has successfully tested its second stealth fighter, a smaller, twin-engine jet that military analysts said could potentially allow it to one day fly missions from an aircraft carrier. Military analysts said the new jet's design suggested the People's Liberation Army might use it to arm and escort aircraft carriers like the Liaoning, which was officially deployed last month. Andrei Chang, editor-in-chief of Kanwa Asian Defense Monthly, said the new prototype appears to have borrowed features from the U.S. Air Force's twin-engine F-22 and U.S. Navy's single-engine F-35C."

cancel ×

161 comments

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

good (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41863965)

lowers their production quantities and the odds of them picking a fight with neighbors.

Oh God, oh God, we're all going to die? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41864007)

Looks like it's time to start learning Mandarin [amazon.com] . The holy prophesy Firefly, of the prophet Whedon, [amazon.com] depicted this eventuality.

Re:Oh God, oh God, we're all going to die? (2)

Intrepid imaginaut (1970940) | about 2 years ago | (#41864051)

Oddly enough he didn't go so far as to actually hire any Chinese actors though.

Re:Oh God, oh God, we're all going to die? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41864515)

lol isn't that the loser who made buffey the vampire killer or whatever? you know, that show for teenage girls.

Re:Oh God, oh God, we're all going to die? (1)

K. S. Kyosuke (729550) | about 2 years ago | (#41864767)

you know, that show for teenage girls.

That was only the last season. Granted, that one was rather painful.

Re:Oh God, oh God, we're all going to die? (1)

Zemran (3101) | about 2 years ago | (#41865151)

"you know, that show for teenage girls."

Do you mean that it is for young lesbians as well?

This will make more sense when you get older ... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41865757)

... that show for teenage girls.

The show featured teenage girls, which suggests that it was actually made for teenage boys.

When you get older this will make more sense.

Not a Flight Test Program (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41864009)

"China has successfully tested..."

One ten-minute flight is not a test program.

Re:Not a Flight Test Program (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41864057)

Nor is a test program atomic.

Re:Not a Flight Test Program (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41864393)

They've done a whole lot more than one ten minute flight.

Isn't that how tests start ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41865785)

One ten-minute flight is not a test program.

But that is how test programs begin.

disappearing word (1)

methano (519830) | about 2 years ago | (#41864043)

Their jet is so stealthy, even the word jet only appears as je in the story's synopsis above.

Just in time (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41864049)

Good job, China. As the world runs out of cheap fossil fuels, you engage in a little game of catch up to try and be like the West was 40 years ago. In the meantime, rational people will have to adapt to a world of more expensive resources. But that's OK, we Canadians will gladly bend over and spread cheek to sell you Alberta so you can play these games.

It ain't expensive to build a stealth plane... (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41864075)

...when you don't have to spend money on R&D because you've stolen the technology from the US.

Re:It ain't expensive to build a stealth plane... (4, Insightful)

aliquis (678370) | about 2 years ago | (#41864095)

This is Slashdot.

We don't steal technology and knowledge.

Also how could they? Do they have direct access to the planes? Inspired by I suppose. But don't all?

Anyway, what I wanted to say is that if you want to look at it that way everyone has stolen the technology from Germany.

Re:It ain't expensive to build a stealth plane... (3, Insightful)

BoogeyOfTheMan (1256002) | about 2 years ago | (#41864883)

What we did to Germany wasn't so much stealing as it was pillaging.

Re:It ain't expensive to build a stealth plane... (1)

Zemran (3101) | about 2 years ago | (#41865223)

No looting and raping? Wasn't worth effort without the looting and raping.

Re:It ain't expensive to build a stealth plane... (1)

EnsilZah (575600) | about 2 years ago | (#41865093)

You mean 'Liberated'.

Re:It ain't expensive to build a stealth plane... (1, Informative)

DarkTempes (822722) | about 2 years ago | (#41865123)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_down_of_F-117 [wikipedia.org]

The U.S. has lost at least one stealth aircraft that other countries could use to reverse engineer the stealth design/stealth coating.

Re:It ain't expensive to build a stealth plane... (3, Informative)

Zemran (3101) | about 2 years ago | (#41865205)

"Do they have direct access to the planes?"

Only if they went along to the last arms symposium and bought some. You do realise that things like that are available to all? I went to some when I used to work for the military and there was everyone there buying everything they wanted. Even countries like Indonesia who wanted some fighters to shoot some of their more troublesome plebs but they had to buy 2 seaters and call them training aids because they were not allowed to buy anything called a fighter. As I was working with IT at the time I was wearing a badge that said "Information Services" and everyone kept moving away from me for some reason.

Re:It ain't expensive to build a stealth plane... (2)

jittles (1613415) | about 2 years ago | (#41866777)

Dude. You used to work with the militarydoing "Information Services" and you've never heard of ITAR? Why don't you work for the military anymore, are you at Ft Leavenworth or what? They don't just let anyone buy that stuff, and there are serious consequences for breaking the rules. Selling a "Training Aid" to Indonesia that violates ITARS is a big no-no. I know someone who is a corporate lawyer for Northrup Grumman whose sole job is to find employees authorizing such sales and helping the federal government prosecute them. It carries a very stiff penalty.

Re:It ain't expensive to build a stealth plane... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41867063)

...that all said, we're (legally!) selling the F-35 far and wide, and I would be incredibly surprised if none of them are ever re-sold to a nation that we don't like all that much.

Re:It ain't expensive to build a stealth plane... (-1, Troll)

KDR_11k (778916) | about 2 years ago | (#41865361)

Germany didn't invent stealth, if that's what you're implying. The Ho 229 may have had a slightly reduced radar cross section but it was hardly a stealth plane and definitely didn't pioneer the principles of modern stealth planes. The design may look similar to the B2 but it's something completely different (for one thing the B2 is a strategic bomber while the Ho 229 was a fighter). The thing was from the early days of jet engines, it was simply someone trying to make a plane that's more maneuverable with those jet engines.

Cruise missiles and cross-country ballistic missiles, sure. Nuclear fission, yes. Stealth planes? Nope.

Re:It ain't expensive to build a stealth plane... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41865737)

In Yugoslavia, in 1999, a USAF F-117A got shot down. Chinese intelligence agents went around buying up the pieces. Six weeks later, the US "accidentally" bombed the Chinese embassy in Belgrade with five laser-guided bombs.

That said, if they're using F-117A-grade stealth coatings, that puts them a solid 20 years behind the US. I mean, like I said, the Yugoslavians shot one down with a modified Soviet SA-3.

Re:It ain't expensive to build a stealth plane... (5, Funny)

timeOday (582209) | about 2 years ago | (#41864165)

...when you don't have to spend money on R&D because you've stolen the technology from the US.

Whatever, fellah. I'm just trying to imagine some middle-aged army getting all indignant because the other side is shooting flaming arrows... "Cheaters! That's our idea, we did it first! It's for us to use against you, not the other way around! If you win and kill us all, it doesn't count!"

Klaus Fuchs (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41864465)

Nobody reacted that way when the Soviets and Chinese got the Bomb

Re:Klaus Fuchs (2)

johanw (1001493) | about 2 years ago | (#41865173)

Because the "intellectual property" nonsense wasn't so ridiculous back then. Fortunately, when the Chinese will gain more power, those notions will probably get weaker again.

It's all for show. (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41864259)

In an internet post nutshell over-simplification:

The initial stages of the next big conflict will go something like this:

Cyber attack on the entire nation's infrastructure.

While populace is shitting in their pants and panicking like little sheep, the drones and cheap aircraft is sent in by waves and waves to knock out the little and very expensive air force of the target country.

After that, it depends on what the ultimate goal is.

All this show of "stealth" aircraft and carriers is just to sucker the US into yet another obscenely expensive arms race to further weaken our economy in order to make us go all Soviet Union or British Empire - in both cases being a World power drained the state's coffers so much that they couldn't play and it didn't do the US much good either. Contrary to our propaganda, we did not win the Cold War: we didn't go bust first.

China has this wonderful positive cash flow: ours is negative - we cannot win a war of spending.

Remember that the next time you see lines for the next shiny new Apple thing-a-ma-bob or any other consumer shit.

Re:It ain't expensive to build a stealth plane... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41864957)

Well, why shouldn't they? Legality? Morality? Get real, we're talking about a government.

Re:It ain't expensive to build a stealth plane... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41865371)

They must be stealing from better designs than the F22. Or that they have a much lower kick back ratio for their defense industry...

Re:It ain't expensive to build a stealth plane... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41865973)

Or they're less honest than we are about how much money they're spending on their military. It's not like they have voters that need to be informed of where their tax dollars are going.

Re:... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41865809)

It ain't expensive to build a stealth plane when you don't have to spend money on R&D because you've stolen the technology from the US.

Plus US consumers are paying for this one too.

Re:It ain't expensive to build a stealth plane... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41866541)

They got all the money they needed from Americans buying crap at Walmart. (Chinamart)

Re:It ain't expensive to build a stealth plane... (1)

Type44Q (1233630) | about 2 years ago | (#41866759)

âoeThe rules of fair play do not apply in love and war." - John Lyly

Well, that's putting it one way (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41864077)

"Andrei Chang, editor-in-chief of Kanwa Asian Defense Monthly, said the new prototype appears to have borrowed features from the U.S. Air Force's twin-engine F-22 and U.S. Navy's single-engine F-35C."

Borrowed? Like they are going to give it back?

Re:Well, that's putting it one way (4, Insightful)

rtp (49744) | about 2 years ago | (#41864163)

"the new prototype appears to have borrowed features from the U.S."

It's very likely that China stole the technology for this fighter via cyber attacks to facilitate data exfiltration activities over the past decade, such as during the Titan Rain era. China is working diligently to position themselves as the next hyper-power on the planet. Stealth technology is critical for force projection where China seeks to dominate other countries, knowing the U.S. may enter a new Cold War and supply the middle-state pawns with surface-to-air missiles.

The real zinger is going to be stealth drones launched from carriers in the near future.

Regarding Titan Rain and Chinese cyber attacks on the USA:
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1098961,00.html [time.com]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Titan_Rain [wikipedia.org]

Re:Well, that's putting it one way (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41864347)

Various nations had representatives forking out big money for parts of the F-117 that was downed over Bosnia as well.

Re:Well, that's putting it one way (1)

taxman_10m (41083) | about 2 years ago | (#41865203)

Didn't something also crash in China? I vaguely remember something like that happening but google is failing me.

Why Would That Matter? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41864413)

None of that matters -- if China isn't directly threatening Europe or Israel, then the US doesn't give a flying fuck what China does. China has been able to rise precisely because it's located far from those countries and thus wouldn't trigger alarm bells from the their powerful US foreign policy lobbies. As for any rising potential threat to the US itself, that doesn't matter -- the US doesn't pursue its own national security, just the national security of other nations/continents who have strong lobbies in Washington.

Re:Why Would That Matter? (1)

Zemran (3101) | about 2 years ago | (#41865263)

Russia arse raped Georgia a couple of years ago and the US did not blink so I think it may only be some of Europe that would get a reaction and then that would be a limited reaction.

October Surprise (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41866287)

Nah, you mean Georgia attacked first like a Mouse-That-Roared, and then cried victim when the Russians stomped on them. And of course McCain and other hawks were just waiting to scream "It's Big Bad Russia! Vote GOP!"
Considering that Georgia named the main street in their capitol after George Bush, it's not too far a stretch to believe they could have conducted their attack at the Whitehouse's behest, as some kind of October Surprise maneuver during the final leg of the election campaign.

Re:October Surprise (1)

toriver (11308) | about 2 years ago | (#41867283)

I am sure if a part of your country declared independence with Russian help you would sort of get annoyed and send in some soldiers, too. In fact, wasn't there this "Confederate States" for a little while? 1860-ish? Ring a bell? No Russians, though.

Re:October Surprise (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41868429)

Umm, South Ossetia has effectively been separate for years, and did not declare independence near the end of the US election campaign, which is coincidentally when Georgia decided to attack them. And I couldn't help but notice that McCain didn't even take a microsecond to suddenly start hollering "Big Bad Russia! Better vote GOP!"
I wouldn't be surprised if he knew that attack was coming, courtesy of his fellow GOP colleague in the Oval Office, George W Bush, whom the bootlicking Georgian flunky Saakashvili named the main boulevard of his capitol after. If anything reeked of October Surprise, it was that attack on South Ossetia. Certainly, objective observers could be forgiven for thinking that, given how very conveniently timed that whole incident was. Such an amazing coincidence, with McCain reacting with notably quick reflexes, pouncing on the event. How convenient.

And I guess your stance means that you should support Serbia's actions in Kosovo, since just like the Georgians they didn't like someone declaring independence from them.

Re:Why Would That Matter? (1)

ilguido (1704434) | about 2 years ago | (#41865415)

None of that matters -- if China isn't directly threatening Europe or Israel, then the US doesn't give a flying fuck what China does. China has been able to rise precisely because it's located far from those countries and thus wouldn't trigger alarm bells from the their powerful US foreign policy lobbies. As for any rising potential threat to the US itself, that doesn't matter -- the US doesn't pursue its own national security, just the national security of other nations/continents who have strong lobbies in Washington.

What about Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, South Vietnam (R.I.P.), Singapore?

Re:Why Would That Matter? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41866371)

Japan-US ties have been fraying ever since the Plaza Accords, and it's only a matter of time before the US has to withdraw all its forces from that country.

South Korea is also gradually taking on a greater share of its own defense burden, and will now manufacture missiles beyond 300KM range.

US has told Taiwan to shut up about independence, and has turned a blind eye to the KMT's return to de facto dictatorship by jailing political opponents. US only needs weapon sales to Taiwan, to feed the weapons industry lobby.

The US still doesn't have warm ties with Vietnam, and Singapore is small enough that it'll probably get absorbed by somebody else anyway.

Re:Why Would That Matter? (1)

readin (838620) | about 2 years ago | (#41868353)

US has told Taiwan to shut up about independence, and has turned a blind eye to the KMT's return to de facto dictatorship by jailing political opponents. US only needs weapon sales to Taiwan, to feed the weapons industry lobby.

Even the arms sales are pretty limited.

Re:Well, that's putting it one way (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41864935)

There's that and there is the fact that so many people of Chinese extraction with questionable loyalties are working for defense contractors, the government, and etc. where they can learn all of our secrets and report back to the Motherland.

Re:Well, that's putting it one way (1)

tibit (1762298) | about 2 years ago | (#41865153)

What they've apparently forgotten about is high-flying xenophobia. People outside of China, emigrants excepted, generally can't speak nor read the languages used in China, and that's a very fertile ground for xenophobia. It'll take very minor propaganda prodding to turn essentially all of the world against China. They'll be a very sore winner at best.

Re:Well, that's putting it one way (1)

theArtificial (613980) | about 2 years ago | (#41867387)

I'm not sure if you're aware how most of the far east works but if you look at diversity they're not full of immigrants. China has ~500,000 foreign nationals [wikipedia.org] out of 1.2 billion people. Let's use another example, Japan. 1.6% of Japan's legal residents are foreign nationals [wikipedia.org] . You're arguing that the 'outside world' is xenophobic of the East? Traditionally both of these countries have been isolationists and not exactly hospitable to "barbarians".

Ethnocentric view points are nothing new. Many cultures have tales of hermits, strangers, foreigners that are viewed with suspicion. Grossly simplified international politics can be likened to schoolyard behavior. Its not much a of a leap to see why xenophobia exists; fear of the unknown. An interesting article [forbes.com] relating to racism in China which might be of interest.

Is it xenophobia or ethnic nepotism [wikipedia.org] ?

Re:Well, that's putting it one way (1)

KDR_11k (778916) | about 2 years ago | (#41865417)

I kinda doubt that China's ability to project force is limited by their planes not being stealthy. Sure, that improves their ability in air combat but it's the simple logistics that they lack in. The US is far more capable of moving people, equipment and supplies around the globe. A stealth fighter won't do you any good if you cannot keep it supplied with ammo and fuel. The further away its supplies are the more time it spends traveling back and forth between its home base and the combat zone, giving it less combat time and likely less payload per run. That was one of the issues with the Me 262 back in the day, the places where the Luftwaffe wanted the things were too far away from the airports they had so the jets arrived with so little fuel they almost had to turn back right away. So much for superior technology.

And then there's the issue with stealth not being a on/off thing, stealth comes in varying degrees and while a plane may be stealthy that doesn't mean it's completely invisible. E.g. the F35 is significantly less stealthy than the F22 but it's so much cheaper that we don't care.

Re:Well, that's putting it one way (1)

AmiMoJo (196126) | about 2 years ago | (#41866757)

China seeks to dominate other countries

Interesting theory, but do you have any evidence to back it up? Does China want to dominate the US or Europe, for example?

The Chinese position is a reaction to US foreign policy. Not just the wars and invasions, the damage to other country's economies. China doesn't want to dominate the US, it just wants to counterbalance it.

Re:Well, that's putting it one way (1)

Zemran (3101) | about 2 years ago | (#41865251)

What he really means by that is that they have one with 2 engines and one with only one engine. Clearly have 2 or 1 engine is a US patent.

USA is too expensive (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41864123)

So how does America deal with this problem?

Does it look to ways in which it can cut red tape and production costs so that it Is able to build fighters for a reasonable cost?

Or does it raise taxes to increase the amount it csn spend?

Re:USA is too expensive (1)

dimeglio (456244) | about 2 years ago | (#41865001)

I'm not sure what you mean by problem. It's expected that other countries will gain US technology. It's just a matter for the US to continue development of better radars to detect stealth planes.

Re:USA is too expensive (4, Interesting)

Zemran (3101) | about 2 years ago | (#41865297)

Actually it is older radar with a longer wavelength that is better at detecting stealth planes. I was working with ATCs in Europe a few years back and it came up that on one island that I went to their radar could see the stealth planes as clear as any other plane because they still had old radar.

Re:USA is too expensive (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41867581)

No you didn't... while there are some known issues with stealth and certain wavelengths there is no way it showed up clearly on ATC radar. It would completely defeat the purpose of stealth if it was that easy.
Far far more likely is they had their transponder on while flying through civilan airspace so you could see them.

Re:USA is too expensive (1)

KDR_11k (778916) | about 2 years ago | (#41865451)

Does the US NEED to react? China has a prototype stealth fighter. The NATO has tons of stealth fighters and bombers that are ready for combat. The Chinese fighter has not shown its actual combat abilities yet, there's more to a 7th generation fighter jet than just stealth.

if it was REALLY a stealth fighter... (1)

new death barbie (240326) | about 2 years ago | (#41864133)

How would anyone know it's been tested?

Re:if it was REALLY a stealth fighter... (1, Insightful)

jrumney (197329) | about 2 years ago | (#41864221)

How would anyone know it's been tested?

That's the beauty of it. Israel could claim Iran had invented a stealth nuclear bomb tomorrow, and noone would be able to talk them out of invading.

Re:if it was REALLY a stealth fighter... (1)

Zemran (3101) | about 2 years ago | (#41865309)

SSSSssssssssssssssssshhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh.... please stop giving them any ideas. We really cannot afford another stupid war right now.

In the mean time, we are moving to drones (2)

WindBourne (631190) | about 2 years ago | (#41864169)

While China is stealing western tech for stealth, we are moving towards automated drones to take on enemy aircraft. In fact, it is likely that the F-22 and F-35 will be the end of American fighters.

Other than drones, we really need to focus on better defenses, and better protection for communications.

That means lasers as well as rail guns. In addition, the DOD really needs to spend money on thorium reactors. They will need to provide tanks with high electrical output to do either a laser or a rail gun.

Re:In the mean time, we are moving to drones (1)

zill (1690130) | about 2 years ago | (#41864289)

Stealth technology and drones aren't mutually exclusive.

Re:In the mean time, we are moving to drones (1)

Waffle Iron (339739) | about 2 years ago | (#41864395)

Right. Let's put dozens of nuclear reactors in an urban battlezone.

What could possibly go wrong?

It's a feature, not a bug. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41865473)

Why would we not want to put nuclear reactors in someone else's urban areas. The worst that could happen is our front line military assets will be destroyed along with the entire enemy population.

Re:It's a feature, not a bug. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41866165)

Neat. Blow up a nuclear tank in a choke-hold and watch your enemy try to get through the fallout.

Area of denial works both ways.

Re:It's a feature, not a bug. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41867969)

It's hard to get 80 Sv to kill someone immediately. 4Sv to kill them in 2 weeks is easier. Now, I have a tank column of soldiers who are aware they will be dead in 2 weeks. How hard will they fight?

Re:It's a feature, not a bug. (1)

WindBourne (631190) | about 2 years ago | (#41866515)

You worry too much. You simply dump the thimble of thorium to dump below. Issue solved.

Re:In the mean time, we are moving to drones (1)

WindBourne (631190) | about 2 years ago | (#41866497)

Nice thing about using Thorium is that it can be made safe. Issue solved. And anything that would cause it to blast would have destroyed the tank outright.

Re:In the mean time, we are moving to drones (1)

Lemming Mark (849014) | about 2 years ago | (#41864427)

I would guess there's a societal aspect to that split also, though... If the Chinese government, with their larger population and stronger controls on the media and information flow, can sustain a large military (and get the public to tolerate military losses) then I'd suggest that they don't need drones so much. That still doesn't give them the other technical advantages of drones, though (e.g. staying aloft for days at a time, etc).

Re:In the mean time, we are moving to drones (1)

Zemran (3101) | about 2 years ago | (#41865343)

"technical advantages of drones"

Drones are not rocket science (hurr hurr). Hitler had them in WWII (OK, limited) and I used to play with remote control aircraft when I was a child. It is not a big leap forward. Iran has US drone tech and will sell it to anyone that wants to buy it. That cat is so far out of the bag that it has had kittens and is living under an assumed name in New Zealand (with a part in the Hobbit).

Re:In the mean time, we are moving to drones (2)

timeOday (582209) | about 2 years ago | (#41865993)

You are mistaken. There are lots of reasons UAV adoption by the US has skyrocketed only recently. Here is some assets you need to use them like we do:
  • 1) Total air dominance
  • 2) A satellite communications network
  • 3) A GPS constellation

They're like cellphones - for all the end-user attention lavished on handsets, what really enabled them is the infrastructure.

Re:In the mean time, we are moving to drones (1)

WindBourne (631190) | about 2 years ago | (#41866557)

GPS and sat comm are easily knocked out. In fact, it was the overriding of our GPS that appears to have enabled Iran to take down our drone. Interesting that they knew what to do. I would guess that China had loads of intel that the many spies that we have here gave them.

Re:In the mean time, we are moving to drones (1)

timeOday (582209) | about 2 years ago | (#41868375)

Define "easily." The people we're using them against now certainly haven't had very much success in stopping us. Yes, there was that one that crash landed in Iran, maybe their doing, but I don't think that's terribly significant long-term. We're still using them in the region.

When and if there's another total war between major powers, I agree that unless there are some really sneaky defenses that aren't publicly known, satellites are awfully vulnerable. One could imagine a mesh network of UAVs relaying each other's comms. But again, that requires air dominance, which requires an aircraft carrier nearby, which practically requires nuclear capability... and so on.

Re:In the mean time, we are moving to drones (1)

WindBourne (631190) | about 2 years ago | (#41866533)

In addition, drones can be made to have the ability to pull 20Gs and above. Humans can not.

Re:In the mean time, we are moving to drones (1)

AmiMoJo (196126) | about 2 years ago | (#41866685)

While China is stealing western tech for stealth

You know it's possible some of it isn't stolen, and was invented by the Chinese.

Besides, the west is not the be-all and end-all of military hardware. Russia also has world class jets, India has the fastest and probably most accurate cruise missiles in the world, all home grown. The west steals lots of tech too - where do you think all the early jet engine and missile/rocket tech came from? Well, I suppose Germany is technically part of the west, but at the time was our enemy.

Re:In the mean time, we are moving to drones (1)

tokul (682258) | about 2 years ago | (#41867499)

In addition, the DOD really needs to spend money on thorium reactors

In addition US military budget should exceed budgets on other 154 countries combined. Having 41% of all military spendings is not enough.

Corporate America to the Rescue? (1)

TrueSatan (1709878) | about 2 years ago | (#41864191)

No need to build new aeroplanes or, heaven forbid, work on innovative new designs. Just attack them with...patents! All those rounded corners must, surely, breach some spurious Apple patent or other. Microsoft can claim that numerous of their patents have been infringed and demand payments with menaces but never be willing to say exactly what patents were infringed. Paul Allen and Lodsys had best stay out of it as we don't want these aircraft to travel to an East Texas kangeroo court to defend their claims

Re:Corporate America to the Rescue? (1)

Sulphur (1548251) | about 2 years ago | (#41864491)

No need to build new aeroplanes or, heaven forbid, work on innovative new designs. Just attack them with...patents!

  All those rounded corners must, surely, breach some spurious Apple patent or other. Microsoft can claim that numerous of their patents have been infringed and demand payments with menaces but never be willing to say exactly what patents were infringed.

  Paul Allen and Lodsys had best stay out of it as we don't want these aircraft to travel to an East Texas kangeroo court to defend their claims

The kangaroos are offended.

Re:Corporate America to the Rescue? (1)

dicobalt (1536225) | about 2 years ago | (#41866073)

Clearly this is a 3 trillion dollar patent infringement lawsuit that covers multiple industries. Yes I'm joking, but I'm sure Apple still wants to sue anyway.

It's just for the show (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41864207)

I suspect it takes an incredible amount of R&D to develop this kind of tech, and Chinese aren't known for their R&D efforts. They either buy, steal the technology or claim that it's X where in fact it is Y or X with inferior characteristics. They bought the full Soyuz design, spacesuits, training from Russia back in the 90s and based their Shenzhou rocket on it. That is why their space missions were so successful. It wasn't surprising to me that when I looked up on "J-31," I found that the engines are probably those that were used in MIG-29.

It might look like F-35, whether it actually has all the necessary components to be called the fifth-generation jet and whether they all work as advertised is another matter.

Re:It's just for the show (5, Funny)

Eunuchswear (210685) | about 2 years ago | (#41864433)

It might look like F-35, whether it actually has all the necessary components to be called the fifth-generation jet and whether they all work as advertised is another matter.

So pretty much the same as the F-35 then...

Re:It's just for the show (2)

tokul (682258) | about 2 years ago | (#41865609)

I found that the engines are probably those that were used in MIG-29.

MIGs use Klimov RD-33s. Chinese J-17s and J-31 use Klimov RD-93. Different modification of a same engine. They used engine which was already verified and used live in other Chinese fighter plane. Chinese don't have MIG-29s.

Also to note.. (1)

UPZ (947916) | about 2 years ago | (#41864877)

..is the timing. They are showing off a new stealth fighter in time for their leadership's transition. The communist party is interested in projecting power during a critical/vulnerable time. Since their authority to govern is not derived from the "will of the people", these transition points are a time of increased vulnerability.

Re:Also to note.. (1)

Seeteufel (1736784) | about 2 years ago | (#41865211)

The United States will confront China, no doubt about that.

Oldest trick in the book! (3, Funny)

presspass (1770650) | about 2 years ago | (#41864911)

"Did you see our new stealth fighter?"
"No?"

"Damn we're good!"

Nuke the mofo's (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41865071)

We should have obliterated China's populous river valleys in the 1950's with cobalt bombs. Let's hit the dams this time and fill the Pacific with bobbing chinks.

Re:Nuke the mofo's (1)

tibit (1762298) | about 2 years ago | (#41865177)

Yeah, because you, dear AC, are so much better than everyone else. We're all human, it must have slipped your mind this morning, I guess.

so what if they copied (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41865133)

The opposing military won't be judging it based on its aesthetics or originality. They'll be judging it as a weapon and its effective kill rate. That's what matters in combat.

More spending! (1)

JosephTX (2521572) | about 2 years ago | (#41865671)

Well CLEARLY, America's only answer to this is another $50 billion in stealth fighters that we can store in a military hangar for the next 100 years.

Re:More spending! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41865783)

100 years? Ha! Those things are going off to the boneyard in 40, tops.

And don't forget that the hangars need to be climate-controlled so the radar absorbing material doesn't degrade.

Short on originality/Long on thievery! (1)

Paracelcus (151056) | about 2 years ago | (#41865937)

"appears to have (borrowed) (parentheses mine) features from the U.S. Air Force's twin-engine F-22 and U.S. Navy's single-engine F-35C" (I think you mean stolen)!
The communist Chinese have always been short on originality and Long on thievery.

Re:Short on originality/Long on thievery! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41867165)

Technically, the US borrow money from China to build their planes. So to beat China in an arms race, they have to borrow more money to build more/better planes. China get to "borrow" more of the free R&D.

This is going to escalate like gambler borrowing money from the house trying to beat the house. At the end guess who always wins?

I'm not too worried... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41866181)

their planes probably all contain those famous "Crapacitors" from Fuhjyyu, Capxon, and Teapo.

Yeah, but. . . (1)

kimvette (919543) | about 2 years ago | (#41866429)

Yeah, but being made in China the thing will break before the warranty runs out - probably within the first month, then when you check the paperwork there is no phone number or address for the company, and when you google it all you find is alibaba listings to purchase the same of crap. Then, you check out epinions and an amazon listing and everyone gives it a poor rating. Oh, and let's not even think about the lead paint.

Piece of crap.

Wonderful! (1)

StormyMonday (163372) | about 2 years ago | (#41866437)

Another industry we can outsource to China! Look at all the money we'll save!

patent infringements (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41866933)

just sue them for multiple patent infringements. It works here in the US...

Shema Yisrael! YF-22 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41867457)

The chinese stealth plane effort gets a whole lot of help from Israel. They even sold a whole IAI Lavi prototype to Beijing and that became the J-10 with russian engine, with 300 already in service at the PLA AF and Navy.

This way Israel will have the option to choose which side wins in a future Pacific conflict. Make no mistake, those stealth planes with their full digital controls are entirely trojanized. Only jews are smart enough to code the FWB and FADEC firmware that goes into F-22 and F-35 and the chinese steal via the net all that and copy the logic. What nobody knows is how much gematria (numerical kabbalah) tricks it contains. Those uninitiated will not even recognize there is anything nasty or unusual inside! The goyim have no clue about the power of gematria.

When the day of US-China clash comes, Israel will choose a side and make it win via cybernetic means. The side they reject will see its planes and radar sets become inoperable due to backdoor attacks via network and AESA directed beam attacks, as they pass the disarm codes on to the designeted winner. The georgians have already experienced that, as Russia became more friendly towards the jewry with half-jewish Medvedev becoming PM, therefore disarm codes were passed on to Moscow and Tbilisi sent down the loo.

I recommend USA stay steadfast in its support of Israel, help neutralize Iran by force, approve deportation of the so-called palestinians from Gaza, not make a fuss when the entiretiy of Syria is annexed and recognize the Nile-Tiger-Euphrates rivers as natural borders of the Greater Israel. That way USA can virtually guarantee that Israel will chose her as the winner when the day of that big Eagle-vs-Dragon match comes. Also, Miss Liberty shall not let the europeans forget about the Shoah (Holocaust), that is one very important duty of America which requires eternal vigilance!

P.s.: Dear Yankee, do not worry too much about the U.S. national debt. If you remain faithful towards the nation of the Convenant, it will be written off like it never existed and the chinese can eat their straw hats. The jewish people are experts in financials like nobody else (*). Remember, only if you remain faithful!

(*)In honesty the armeninans are even better traders, but they are so few, so don't count on them to save the USA. Only the tribe can do that.Shalom!

lol (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41867703)

a chinese stealth fighter flight test is successful if you don't read about it in an american news blog.

Chinks in our Armor (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41868303)

Sure hope the pilots of those "stealth" fighters like seeing laser light.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?