Slashdot Mirror


First Pictures of Chinese Stealth Fighter

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."

14 of 613 comments (clear)

  1. Re:China the new global superpower, and US decline by ShavedOrangutan · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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 We need to realize what we are up against and adjust our outdated ideals about business.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.

    --
    Godaddy is a scam and a ripoff.
  2. Re:Hacking Pays Off by Nyeerrmm · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  3. Re:Invented in US? Made in China. by NeutronCowboy · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    --
    Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
  4. Re:Invented in US? Made in China. by plopez · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I think the Soviets once said "Sell the Chinese a fighter and 5 years later they have a fighter factory". The Chinese are determined to become the next super power and they have a huge pool of science and engineering talent to pull from. Some of whom were trained in Europe and the US. They have a good feel for the US and and Europe's capabilities and want to surpass that. I personally do not underestimate them.

    --
    putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
  5. Re:Do fighters still matter? by Dunbal · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Because missiles are extremely bad at patrolling airspace. War isn't about blowing everything up - it's about blowing the right things up, at the right time.

    --
    Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
  6. Re:Mig 25 Foxbat may be a better comparison ... by DesScorp · · Score: 4, Insightful

    In the financially strapped 1960s/70s the Soviet Mig 25 Foxbat appeared and it's rumored capabilities saved the US F14 and F15 projects from significant budget cutbacks or cancellation. Perhaps the savior of the F22 and F35 projects has arrived.

    I've thought about this, and the Foxbat comparison might be apt here. This will sound conspiracy theory-ish, but Lockheed is probably going to milk this for all it's worth in order to drive their own sales. "Look, ooooh, a scary Chinese stealth fighter! Better buy more of ours!".

    --
    Life is hard, and the world is cruel
  7. Re:Do fighters still matter? by Daniel+Dvorkin · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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?

    Because to date, every attempt to replace manned, and in fact gun-armed and dogfight-capable, fighters with missiles or "missile truck" aircraft has failed miserably. At some point a combination of SAMs and UCAVs may replace fighters, and manned combat planes generally, but we're not there yet -- or more precisely, we have no evidence that we're there yet. There's only one way to really put it to the test, of course, and nobody wants to go there.

    --
    The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
  8. Re:Hacking Pays Off by daath93 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Now, excusing the obvious fact that you don't seem to know the difference between unsecured U.S. Treasury Bonds (debt sold to others) and Secured Debt (a house mortgage etc), 75% of our debt is held in America, 25% by foreign countries. China owns about 20.8% (of that 25%) of all foreign held U.S. Debt. Japan also holds a little over 20%. So you could just say China owns 5% of our debt. Even if we completely forfeited on china's Bonds, they can't simply come over and take California from us (which is too bad). They don't OWN anything but a promise with no security. Its like you borrowing $5 from your daddy and you tell him you will pay it back next week, put that debt on paper and give it to him and its a bond. There are legal ramifications, fees, fines, etc that the debt holder may be eligible for in international court, but they don't in fact own jack shit.

  9. Re:Hacking Pays Off by blackraven14250 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I think that's a very basic assessment of a very complex situation, and one which isn't necessarily correct.

    The way I see it, if a war is obviously started by China or as a mutual, gradual escalation, without it being obviously and/or openly about the debt currently owed to China by the US, the US is going to have no problem gathering allies, nullifying said debt, and beating the crap out of China in any sort of war. That'd free up the US economy and cause significant growth, while not impacting the US credit rating.

    If, on the other hand, the US is an aggressor, or the war is openly about the debt, then the Chinese have the upper hand, and would surely win - if not in the actual war, in the economic effects of the US having a plunging credit rating.

  10. Arms/money race by stevelinton · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Given the amount the US owes to China, I am reminded of the Ankh-Morpork anthem, which goes, in part:

    Let others boast of martial dash
    For we have boldly fought with cash
    We own all your helmets, we own all your shoes.
    We own all your generals - touch us and you'll lose

    See also this version

    1. Re:Arms/money race by phantomfive · · Score: 4, Insightful

      How much does the US really owe China? (Actually it's about $850 billion, but let's assume it's a very serious amount). What exactly do we really owe? Dollars. Where do dollars come from? We print them. They are easy to come by, if China really wants to push us. The inflation will be somewhat painful for us, but it's a historically common way to get out of debt.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
  11. Re:Is this really how fighter jets work? by SplashMyBandit · · Score: 4, Insightful

    That $183 M covers the R&D so it not the series production cost. In wartime, things have historically cost around 1/3 once the R&D has been paid back and economies of scale achieved. This makes the F-22 very affordable (one reason the USAF was pushing for more of them is that it gets cheaper when you get more).

    If a future war lasted long enough the US would still outproduce and out muscle anyone else (I'm not from the US and this is obvious even to me). Out of the biggest countries it still has the biggest economy; most internal natural resources; biggest, most advanced, best equipped and led military; best educated population (on average); most allies; and relatively attractive ideology to most of the World (meaning its allies would stick with it). Despite all the hand-wringing about it's fall (and it is interesting to see even the USAF release classified studies in an attempt to get even more F-22s, when the USAF is so much stronger than all the other countries combined) it is very unlikely that the US will not still be extremely influential into the future. The Chinese are not contenders at this point and no one apart from themselves and pariah states wants to see them dominate the rest of the World in the future.

  12. Re:Someone help me out here. by Hognoxious · · Score: 5, Insightful

    USSR did not have for-profit military contractors, it kept all production, including military one, in the hands of government. It couldn't run out of money even if it tried -- it didn't need to pay anything other than employees' salary, what was usually the same across all industries for the same type of work, and nothing astronomical by any measure.

    Money is just a proxy for other resources, and you can't magic those out of thin air by decree. Every ton of steel used in building submarines is a ton of steel that can't be used for making tractors, every hour a man spends mining iron ore is an hour he can't spend harvesting grain, and so on.

    --
    Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  13. Re:China the new global superpower, and US decline by Stuarticus · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Death panels, you mean?

    --
    If you think someone isn't free to have a different definition of "freedom" you may be a tyrant.