China Unveils Yet Another Stealth Fighter

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

China Unveils Yet Another Stealth Fighter

Posted by samzenpus on Monday September 17, 2012 @03:30AM from the fly-the-secret-skies dept.

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."

223 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Not getting it! by rwise2112 · 2012-09-17 03:33 · Score: 5, Funny

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

--

"For every expert, there is an equal and opposite expert"
1. Re:Not getting it! by Joce640k · 2012-09-17 03:40 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  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!
  
  --
  No sig today...
2. Re:Not getting it! by Sarten-X · 2012-09-17 04:01 · Score: 2
  
  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.
  
  --
  You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
3. Re:Not getting it! by GodfatherofSoul · 2012-09-17 04:09 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  Why would we need TV shows for that? Every bathroom in America has a mirror.
  
  --
  I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
4. Re:Not getting it! by Frosty+Piss · 2012-09-17 04:25 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  Once you've seen one Chinese stelth fighter, very soon you hunger for another...
  
  --
  If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
5. Re:Not getting it! by nospam007 · 2012-09-17 04:36 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  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
6. Re:Not getting it! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-17 04:39 · Score: 0, Offtopic
  
  Are you saying that having seen CCTV-7?
7. Re:Not getting it! by jeffmeden · 2012-09-17 04:53 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  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...
8. Re:Not getting it! by pdabbadabba · 2012-09-17 06:02 · Score: 2
  
  You must have never watched Chinese television.
  
  --
  caritj.org
9. Re:Not getting it! by Crosshair84 · 2012-09-17 06:47 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  Not to mention that Stealth aircraft have always been easily detected by longwave radar. The problem has always been that longwave radar normally lacks the precision to precisely target the aircraft well enough for a missile, typically only within a couple of miles, however anyone operating longwave radar will know right away that a stealth aircraft is present.
  
  Along with some good intelligence gathering, the Serbs in the Kosovo war managed to destroy two F-117s with 1960's era longwave radar sets, SA-3 SAMs and AAA.
  
  With modern computer power and improved IR/radar gear, combined with the horrifically high cost of building and operating stealth aircraft, dedicated stealth aircraft will probably eventually be phased out. Of course designers WILL try to reduce the detection signature of their aircraft if it does not impede other design attributes.
10. Re:Not getting it! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-17 06:52 · Score: 0
  
  It's a new type of stealth where you copy the enemy's design so closely that they can't tell friend from foe.
11. Re:Not getting it! by poity · 2012-09-17 07:25 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  Why is this modded down? CCTV-7 is the military channel, which has programming that "reminds Chinese how awesome they are!" It's like if Discovery Channel's military shows were broadcast on PBS, alongside an overarching narrative that pits the US as China's main adversary. Slashdotters who think "Future War" is propaganda would be in shock.
  
  --
  your thin skin doesn't make me a troll
12. Re:Not getting it! by rwise2112 · 2012-09-17 07:58 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah, I'd like to say I did that intentionally. Unfortunately, it's just a preview fail!
  
  --
  
  "For every expert, there is an equal and opposite expert"
13. Re:Not getting it! by _DangerousDwarf · 2012-09-17 08:24 · Score: 2
  
  Except you are wrong. Wikipedia says that only one F117 was ever downed due to enemy fire. The aircraft was detected when its bomb bay doors were open, thus greatly increasing its radar cross section.
  Rumour has it that another F117 was also damaged, but returned to base. So one confirmed combat loss out of how many sorties means that stealth technology is dead? I guess, at least to you it does.
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_F-117_Nighthawk
14. Re:Not getting it! by Crosshair84 · 2012-09-17 08:58 · Score: 2
  
  You will note I used the word "Destroyed", not "Shot down". There was indeed a second F117 that was so badly damaged that it had to be scrapped, thus the total number destroyed is 2. A destroyed plane is a destroyed plane.
  
  The aircraft was detected when its bomb bay doors were open
  That is far from certain, from my understanding the F117 was not shot down near the target site where it would have the bombay door open. That explanation is seen by some as an excuse to cover for shortcomings in stealth technology. The far more likely explanation is that Serbian intelligence figured when and where the F117 would most likely travel and positioned their longwave radar sets accordingly and only turned them on around the time the F117 would be passing by. (Since they would get bombed if they left them on all the time.) Once the aircraft was spotted by longwave radar that data was passed along to mobile SA-3 (or perhaps it was SA-2, not sure.) sites that were also in the general vicinity which then turned on their radar when the F117 would be close enough to be seen, as stealth aircraft can be detected by shorter wave radar if they are close enough to the radar set. The SA-3s were supposedly modified in some form. The weather was also supposedly a factor, allowing the aircraft to be spotted visually and engaged by AAA.
  
  So one confirmed combat loss out of how many sorties means that stealth technology is dead? I guess, at least to you it does.
  No, the fact that stealth has always been vulnerable to detection by longwave radar makes stealth of limited utility against a competent foe. The only thing that kept stealth aircraft alive was that, in the past, one could not get a firing solution just on longwave radar data, it simply wasn't precise enough. The only thing that kept more F117s from being shot down was because the Serbs couldn't keep their radar on all the time because it would get bombed by conventional aircraft. Despite this, they made complete fools out of NATO, who failed to do more than superficial damage to the Serbian military. Further advances in passive radar, longwave radar, and IR technology are going to solve the targeting problem, relegating dedicated stealth to obsolescence.
15. Re:Not getting it! by AK+Marc · 2012-09-17 09:08 · Score: 1
  
  I may have seen it, but unlike Discovery, I didn't understand anything they were saying.
  
  --
  Learn to love Alaska
16. Re:Not getting it! by AK+Marc · 2012-09-17 09:11 · Score: 1
  
  That's why IR signature is a key area of stealth focus. And there's nothing magical about stealth. the F-117s problem was probably flying low and being painted something other than light-blue on the bottom. They haven't really addressed visibility, and knowing where to look is sufficient for visually targeted weapons.
  
  --
  Learn to love Alaska
17. Re:Not getting it! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-17 10:19 · Score: 0
  
  Speak for yourself. My bathroom doesn't have a mirror; it has a flat-panel display hooked up to a wall-mounted camera. I thought this was a website for geeks?
18. Re:Not getting it! by rbeef · 2012-09-17 14:10 · Score: 1
  
  OTOH, they're probably hoping to establish some US market share. Sequestration is just around the corner and the DoD is looking to cut costs. I'm sure they want to market their less expensive version.
19. Re:Not getting it! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-17 15:00 · Score: 0
  
  Said the APG-77 radar.
20. Re:Not getting it! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-17 19:28 · Score: 0
  
  Slashdotters who think "Future War" is propaganda would be in shock.
  Funny how that works. The irony that is idiots denouncing their own country's "propaganda" while they ignorantly and eagerly lap up real, actual, honest-to-goodness foreign propaganda.
21. Re:Not getting it! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-17 20:44 · Score: 0
  
  The right statement is any WELL TUNED radar set will pick up anything.
  It is sheer arrogance to believe a well armed enemy will stick to just 2 bands or so, and not go snooping for ELINT signatures. Oh, I suppose very wide variable band hopping radar is too high tech for China - not.
  Israel will not sell to Australia, because they know the signatures, and the 'non-invisible' peaks. That is really harmful to travel junkets to buy the 'best'. Stealth is a compromise, as is over the horizon radar, that clearly sees the tops of stealth fighters. In short, rubberizing wings with RF absorbers only best works in a bandwidth and harmonics, and something in the 27Mhz to 9.2Thz will be unprotected and produce a clear 'peak'.
  I love the Serbs, who altered $50 microwave ovens, that were targeted by $100,000+ dollar each missiles.
  If only people knew the waste, and complete BS arms companies successfully spin.
22. Re:Not getting it! by Xest · 2012-09-17 23:06 · Score: 1
  
  How can I view this channel? It sounds as legendary as Russia Today, and Fox News.
23. Re:Not getting it! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-17 23:55 · Score: 0
  
  The ONE F-117 lost in Kosovo had very little to do with radar technology. A faulty bomb bay door, which stuck in the open position, allowed the aircraft to be painted on radar and the Serbs unleashed a ton of AA fire at it. They hit it, and the rest is history. I will grant you, their intelligence was good, however, their radars failed to detect any other F-117s during the war so we can extrapolate that they would have missed this F-117 as well if the doors had been shut.
  The US is still dedicated to the idea of stealth, the F-35 JSF is a stealth aircraft. They couple stealth with long-range stand off capability, in other words, why get close when one can paint an enemy target and destroy it without entering the danger zone. The fact that the enemy continues to use overlapping SAM/AAAs to protect vital assets will help justify the continuance of stealth technology and aircraft.
24. Re:Not getting it! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-18 01:09 · Score: 0
  
  US needs to take out that prototype, it will take longer for them to recreate it, cuz they are probably going on bit of information collected from everywhere.
25. Re:Not getting it! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-18 06:11 · Score: 0
  
  You have to understand, the Serbs take great pride in having shot down that stealth fighter. It's really the only victory they had in the various ethnic wars. I'm happy to let them crow as long as they're no longer murdering and raping their neighbors.
26. Re:Not getting it! by nobodie · 2012-09-19 12:03 · Score: 1
  
  I have watched it, in China, you can get it by satellite here if you want it, but you would like CCTV9 more, it is the channel for foreigners, soft-core propaganda. The military channel is for the military and people who want to feel military, like the guy on the bus last year (or was it 2 years ago) with an over the shoulder purse sized loudspeaker who was reminding all the bus denizens (including moi, of course) of how they should act if they are going to be considered "good citizens". China is kind of a different place from the post-modern west. It is on a different time scale because on the bus was me, and a host of younger people who were truly embarrassed by the haranguer in the back. The bus driver finally asked him (politely) to stop. This is the new China, and you really don't have any clue about it, so just give up trying to understand it.
  
  --
  Subversion of spatial scale luxury decoration ideas.
27. Re:Not getting it! by AK+Marc · 2012-09-19 13:55 · Score: 1
  
  This is the new China, and you really don't have any clue about it, so just give up trying to understand it.
  I lived in china for a few months. The lack of understanding was not knowing the language sufficiently to understand. So I never really even tried to watch it, just occassionally flipped though looking for something I could follow without listening, like sports. Unlike Europe, though, I never ran across a US movie, dubbed or subtitled, which I could always count on elsewhere to mute and see if I remembered it well enough to fill in the blanks.
  
  --
  Learn to love Alaska
28. Re:Not getting it! by Crosshair84 · 2012-10-01 01:25 · Score: 1
  
  You DO know that was NATO propaganda, right? There were no mass graves from that time, the Serbs were engaged in fighting the KLA.
  
  They showed NATO to be completely inept and lacking in the political will to win wars against a competent enemy. Serbs only withdrew after Russia withdrew support. Sounds like a rather big victory to me.
29. Re:Not getting it! by Crosshair84 · 2012-10-01 01:44 · Score: 1
  
  So there were two aircraft on two separate occasions that had stuck bombay doors? Really? Remember that two F-117s were destroyed in the exact same fashion, just that one managed to limp back and crash land so people forget about it. It most certainly was not a one-off event
  
  I personally find the Serbian version a lot more believable.
  
  You are also incorrect about the Serbs not detecting F-117s They routinely picked them up, when they had the radar turned on. The problem was that you can't get a firing solution from Longwave data since it cannot pinpoint the exact location. They reason they didn't shoot down more was because non-steal aircraft and cruise missiles would shoot at any radar set that was left on for too long and not moved frequently.
  
  Despite this total air superiority, NATO failed to inflict more than superficial damage and was eventually forced to start bombing civilian targets.
Hey, where have I seen that plane before? by Jackie_Chan_Fan · 2012-09-17 03:36 · Score: -1, Flamebait

China not only bootlegs every major product, they also copy our airplane designs.
Oh well.
1. Re:Hey, where have I seen that plane before? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-17 03:41 · Score: -1
  
  China not only bootlegs every major product, they also copy our airplane designs.
  Oh well.
  You must be new here.
2. Re:Hey, where have I seen that plane before? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-17 03:46 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Yeah why do they just copy our laws of physics, can't they make their own?!?
3. Re:Hey, where have I seen that plane before? by madwheel · 2012-09-17 03:48 · Score: 2, Funny
  
  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.
4. Re:Hey, where have I seen that plane before? by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · 2012-09-17 03:48 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  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...
5. Re:Hey, where have I seen that plane before? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-17 03:52 · Score: 1
  
  Force your enemy into an arms race, bankrupting their country.
  Looks like China are copying US military tactics too.
6. Re:Hey, where have I seen that plane before? by howardd21 · 2012-09-17 03:53 · Score: -1, Offtopic
  
  Right, because technology from 70 YEARS ago is so meaningful today.
  
  --
  no comment
7. Re:Hey, where have I seen that plane before? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-17 03:56 · Score: 1
  
  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....
8. Re:Hey, where have I seen that plane before? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-17 03:57 · Score: -1
  
  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.
9. Re:Hey, where have I seen that plane before? by it5complicated · 2012-09-17 03:59 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  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?
10. Re:Hey, where have I seen that plane before? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-17 04:00 · Score: 1
  
  The Manhattan Project started in 1939 - 73 years ago. Seems relevant.
11. Re:Hey, where have I seen that plane before? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-17 04:01 · Score: 1
  
  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.
12. Re:Hey, where have I seen that plane before? by Aqualung812 · 2012-09-17 04:02 · Score: 2
  
  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.
  
  --
  Grammer Nazis - I mod you "troll" unless you actually add something on-topic. Yes, I know I have mispellings in my sig.
13. Re:Hey, where have I seen that plane before? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-17 04:22 · Score: 0
  
  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?
14. Re:Hey, where have I seen that plane before? by bugs2squash · 2012-09-17 04:25 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  Tell that to Petr Ufimtsev.
  
  --
  Nullius in verba
15. Re:Hey, where have I seen that plane before? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-17 04:26 · Score: -1
  
  Though I think I'd prefer a Chinese person to write your posts for you
16. Re:Hey, where have I seen that plane before? by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · 2012-09-17 04:29 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  Right, because technology from 70 YEARS ago is so meaningful today.
  Funny you should mention that... 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...
17. Re:Hey, where have I seen that plane before? by tlhIngan · 2012-09-17 04:30 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  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.
18. Re:Hey, where have I seen that plane before? by Jane+Q.+Public · 2012-09-17 04:33 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  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.
19. Re:Hey, where have I seen that plane before? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-17 04:36 · Score: 0
  
  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.
20. Re:Hey, where have I seen that plane before? by Jeng · 2012-09-17 04:36 · Score: 2
  
  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.
  
  --
  Don't know something? Look it up. Still don't know? Then ask.
21. Re:Hey, where have I seen that plane before? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-17 04:38 · Score: 0
  
  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.
22. Re:Hey, where have I seen that plane before? by Migraineman · 2012-09-17 04:42 · Score: 2
  
  Your "laws" are only as good as your ability to enforce them (usually at the end of a sharp stick.)
23. Re:Hey, where have I seen that plane before? by gestalt_n_pepper · 2012-09-17 04:45 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  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.
  
  --
  Please do not read this sig. Thank you.
24. Re:Hey, where have I seen that plane before? by filthpickle · 2012-09-17 04:46 · Score: 1
  
  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.
25. Re:Hey, where have I seen that plane before? by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · 2012-09-17 04:53 · Score: 2
  
  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.
26. Re:Hey, where have I seen that plane before? by GameboyRMH · 2012-09-17 04:58 · Score: 1
  
  Yep almost a perfect copy of the F35 externally, except no VTOL/STOL stuff and two exhaust outlets instead of one.
  
  --
  "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
27. Re:Hey, where have I seen that plane before? by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · 2012-09-17 04:59 · Score: 1
  
  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."
28. Re:Hey, where have I seen that plane before? by TheDarkMaster · 2012-09-17 05:03 · Score: 1
  
  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.
  
  --
  Religion: The greatest weapon of mass destruction of all time
29. Re:Hey, where have I seen that plane before? by mha · 2012-09-17 05:24 · Score: 1
  
  I am soooo tired of "this is a copy" comments.
  Who has ever produced ANYTHING not based upon the ideas of others, unless you count the very first stone tools of 50000+ years ago???
  Oh, and talking about airplanes: humans copied the main design from birds.
30. Re:Hey, where have I seen that plane before? by camionbleu · 2012-09-17 05:31 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  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.
  Warfare is not human nature. It's the way that our culture has developed. The first archeological evidence of warfare is from 10,000 to 13,000 years ago, long after homo sapiens reached anatomical modernity (which was around 200,000 years ago). And we have archaeological evidence of other cultural activity (such as cooking, religion, music, and burials) that goes back much further, which suggests that it's not merely a case of our not *yet* having found the evidence of earlier warfare. Also, there are human societies that do not wage war.
  It's an important distinction because if war truly were human nature it would mean that we will *never* be rid of it, and there would be no point in trying. Whereas cultural features can fade away over time.
  There's a very well-argued book on this topic: 'The End of War' by John Horgan.
31. Re:Hey, where have I seen that plane before? by joelito_pr · 2012-09-17 05:32 · Score: 0
  
  They probably chose to use two inexpensive engine from previous aircraft instead of developing or buying a more expensive single engine.
32. Re:Hey, where have I seen that plane before? by thetoadwarrior · 2012-09-17 05:33 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  You never know, lead paint might deflect radar better.
33. Re:Hey, where have I seen that plane before? by invid · 2012-09-17 05:38 · Score: 1
  
  Seriously, when are we going to evolve from that stage where we are still inventing new ways to throw rocks at each other?
  Since evolution involves a certain segment of a population dying off, and another segment surviving to reproduce, it seems that the segment that has the newest and best way to throw rocks would be the most likely to survive. I don't see anything about 'evolution' that would discourage inventing new rock throwers.
  
  --
  The Moore-Murphy Law: The number of things that will go wrong will double every 2 years.
34. Re:Hey, where have I seen that plane before? by TheDarkMaster · 2012-09-17 05:43 · Score: 1
  
  Remember that there are advantages in having two engines instead of one, not just the fact of whether it is cheaper than making a single large one.
  
  --
  Religion: The greatest weapon of mass destruction of all time
35. Re:Hey, where have I seen that plane before? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-17 05:44 · Score: 0
  
  Just accept the fact that is one area where American ingenuity and skill has surpassed the world and get over it.
  Replace ingenuity and skill with spending and I'll agree. Our military expenditure is equal to the rest of the globe combined. I'd hope we have something to show for it.
36. Re:Hey, where have I seen that plane before? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-17 05:47 · Score: 0
  
  There are much larger precision presses now days. Even bathtubs are precision pressed in fiberglass using 600,000 ton presses. I know where they are and it isn't far from where I work. It is "just down the street" from my house about 12 miles.
37. Re:Hey, where have I seen that plane before? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-17 05:49 · Score: -1
  
  Yes, because the constant break ins and theft of information about these designs have nothing to do with it. As was pointed out, shape is only part of the equation. Which is likely why every time the US loses a piece of stealth technology, Russia and China ALWAYS show up to buy a piece.
  Nope, obviously them buying, stealing and copying technology is not copying at all. ...brilliant deduction only available on slashdot...
38. Re:Hey, where have I seen that plane before? by hackertourist · 2012-09-17 06:06 · Score: 1
  
  That doesn't sound right. Fiberglass is usually done at much lower pressure. Heck, fiberglass moulding can be done without applying pressure at all.
  Also, 600,000 tons on a bathtub is a ludicrous amount of pressure. That's about 300 GPa, or about the pressure in the center of the earth.
39. Re:Hey, where have I seen that plane before? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-17 06:27 · Score: 0
  
  That's complete nonsense. Citation. Now.
40. Re:Hey, where have I seen that plane before? by Moofie · 2012-09-17 06:56 · Score: 1
  
  What is "human nature" apart from "the way that our culture has developed"?
  
  --
  Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
41. Re:Hey, where have I seen that plane before? by 0123456 · 2012-09-17 07:12 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  And the F-35 pretty much has to have one engine due to the VTOL requirement. If a single engine VTOL fails you just eject. If a single engine in a twin engine VTOL fails you may not get a chance to eject before the unbalanced thrust causes a catastrophic rotation. You can work around that so a single failure just causes the plane to fall out of the sky (e.g. using fans driven by both engines), but that adds more complexity which is likely to cause more crashes.
42. Re:Hey, where have I seen that plane before? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-17 07:21 · Score: 0
  
  We did give them the option of staying in Germany and letting the Soviets eventually scoop them up. Oddly, they chose to come to the US.
43. Re:Hey, where have I seen that plane before? by DerekLyons · 2012-09-17 07:21 · Score: 1
  
  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.
  How can completely inexperienced engineers do a better job from scratch? From scratch, neither they nor their military customers have the knowledge to write even the most basic of the requisite specs. (Not to mention your faith in the progress of ship designs is... wildly misplaced.)
  
  For a country largely governed by engineers, I would have expected better decisions.
  That say more about your [utter lack of] knowledge and your [utterly unfounded in reality] assumptions than anything else.
44. Re:Hey, where have I seen that plane before? by cyfer2000 · 2012-09-17 07:34 · Score: 1
  
  When i buy insurance, I sincerely hope the insurance company won't rush to help me. But I still buy insurances.
  
  --
  There is a spark in every single flame bait point.
45. Re:Hey, where have I seen that plane before? by poity · 2012-09-17 07:34 · Score: 1
  
  This is why we should defund all research, and use the money to fund espionage. All of the benefits, very little of the costs. And afterwards, we'll just pick some idea the other guys borrowed a couple decades or centuries ago to justify what we did. Then everyone will be in awe of how smart Americans are.
  
  --
  your thin skin doesn't make me a troll
46. Re:Hey, where have I seen that plane before? by gestalt_n_pepper · 2012-09-17 08:02 · Score: 1
  
  So, speaking of assumptions unfounded in reality, you're saying that China has no shipwrights? And that they have no engineers who can study the plans and layout of existing ships, particularly hull design and friction, and improve on them? In case you haven't noticed or anything, the Chinese are pretty talented at studying and manufacturing things. I'm having a hard time thinking this is something they couldn't handle.
  So, since my assumptions are so unfounded, I'm sure you can provide adequate justifications, with numbers and references. Have at it!
  
  --
  Please do not read this sig. Thank you.
47. Re:Hey, where have I seen that plane before? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-17 08:02 · Score: 0
  
  I haven't read it but the argument seems extremely poor to me. Warfare didn't exist until 10,000 to 13,000 years ago? So did the beginnings of real civilizations. As long as humans are mortal and are willing to concede to another under the threat or application of violence, there will be war.
  I also find it extraordinarily hard to believe that humans all lived in a wonderful, peaceful, harmonious society until about 13,000 years ago when some spoil sport realized that if he got a group of his buddies together and killed another group then he and his buddies could take their rocks and bones and animal hides. I think the Neanderthals would tend to agree with me, if they hadn't been wiped out by Homo Sapiens.
48. Re:Hey, where have I seen that plane before? by shutdown+-p+now · 2012-09-17 08:26 · Score: 2
  
  Warfare is not human nature. It's the way that our culture has developed
  The way our culture developed is part of human nature. It's not like it suddenly came to be what it is. Culture evolves in the same way genome does (in fact, they affect each other). War is just a manifestation of parochial altruism, which is widespread in nature and is not at all unique to homo sapiens.
  
  The first archeological evidence of warfare is from 10,000 to 13,000 years ago, long after homo sapiens reached anatomical modernity (which was around 200,000 years ago).
  
  The problem is that it's kinda hard to get archeological evidence of warfare when war consists of bashing each others' heads with blunt tools. However, we do have good reasons to believe that war long predates anatomical modernity for humans - other great apes also engage in it. Already in that time period you mention - 12,000 years ago - warfare was so widespread that we find numerous evidence of people who died from violence from other humans - up to a half of all of them.
  The main reason why early Paleolitic didn't see much warfare in practice was of extremely low population density. When there are more lush lands to spread to, war raids don't have a good ROI, so evolution tends to favor groups that are not overly aggressive. Once we moved on from roaming hunter-gatherer societies to argiculture, warfare started to have a very high ROI (lots of stuff to loot, all in one place). Cultural attitudes towards war follow from that, not cause it.
49. Re:Hey, where have I seen that plane before? by shutdown+-p+now · 2012-09-17 08:28 · Score: 1
  
  Why would the Soviets scoop up scientists from the half of Germany that was occupied by American forces, unless Americans deliberately gave them away?
50. Re:Hey, where have I seen that plane before? by camionbleu · 2012-09-17 08:49 · Score: 1
  
  Human nature implies innateness. The innateness of war is unproven and I would argue that there is plenty of evidence that war is not innate (cultures that do not go to war, the majority of individuals who are reluctant to wage war).
51. Re:Hey, where have I seen that plane before? by Moofie · 2012-09-17 08:52 · Score: 1
  
  Which are the cultures that do not go to war, that are not protected by warlike neighbors?
  
  --
  Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
52. Re:Hey, where have I seen that plane before? by camionbleu · 2012-09-17 08:58 · Score: 1
  
  Cave paintings date back to around 40,000 years ago. The first known musical instrument was around 25,000 years ago. I think those items are evidence of "real civilization".
  You are assuming that the absence of war means "peaceful, harmonious society". It's likely that there has always been conflict, and always will be. The question is how that conflict gets resolved. It does not have to be (and has not always been) through war.
  I challenge you to read the book (Horgan -- 'End of War'). It's a quick read and his points are well made.
53. Re:Hey, where have I seen that plane before? by DerekLyons · 2012-09-17 09:13 · Score: 1
  
  In case you haven't noticed or anything, the Chinese are pretty talented at studying and manufacturing things.
  Yet, you think they're doing it wrong for studying the Varyag... which presents something of a conundrum, because now you've claimed that 2+2=3, *and* that 2+2=5.
  
  I'm having a hard time thinking this is something they couldn't handle.
  As I said before, that's due to your baseless assumption that you know what you're talking about.
  Those who have a clue about shipbuilding, or for that matter about any serious engineering whatsoever, know full well that when you've never built the object in question... studying an actual example is far more valuable than studying blueprints.
  Those who have a clue about naval architecture and history, know full well the Chinese have never built a vessel of this size and complexity.
  Those who have a clue about naval operations know full well that it takes decades to jumpstart an operating carrier from a blank sheet.
  Ignorant jackasses pull stuff out of their ass and blow smoke when someone points out the errors in their assumption.
  Four different categories - guess which one describes you?
54. Re:Hey, where have I seen that plane before? by camionbleu · 2012-09-17 09:28 · Score: 1
  
  Warfare is not human nature. It's the way that our culture has developed
  The way our culture developed is part of human nature. It's not like it suddenly came to be what it is. Culture evolves in the same way genome does (in fact, they affect each other).
  The problem with that argument is that if genome and culture develop in lockstep, then either 1) there cannot be any significant differences between cultures, or 2) there must be significant, culturally-determined genetic differences between cultures. But there clearly are differences between cultures, so it can't be 1). And humans are not genetically diverse enough for 2) to be plausible.
  
  War is just a manifestation of parochial altruism, which is widespread in nature and is not at all unique to homo sapiens.
  Let's define war as lethal group violence within a species. There are some limited examples of this in chimpanzees. Where else in nature would we find it?
  
  The first archeological evidence of warfare is from 10,000 to 13,000 years ago, long after homo sapiens reached anatomical modernity (which was around 200,000 years ago).
  
  The problem is that it's kinda hard to get archeological evidence of warfare when war consists of bashing each others' heads with blunt tools.
  We would look for skulls that had been bashed in with blunt tools, or ribs damaged by sharp tools, in significant enough numbers that we would know that we were looking at group violence, not just one-on-one. That is what does not show up in the archaeological evidence until 10k-13k years ago.
  
  However, we do have good reasons to believe that war long predates anatomical modernity for humans - other great apes also engage in it. Already in that time period you mention - 12,000 years ago - warfare was so widespread that we find numerous evidence of people who died from violence from other humans - up to a half of all of them.
  I'd be really fascinated if you would point me to the evidence. I read the John Horgan ('End of War') book in fact-checking mode, seeing whether I could find holes in his evidence. If you have this evidence, it would indeed be a hole. Bear in mind that "violence from other humans" is not good enough. We are talking about war, not murder. It must be group violence.
  
  The main reason why early Paleolitic didn't see much warfare in practice was of extremely low population density. When there are more lush lands to spread to, war raids don't have a good ROI, so evolution tends to favor groups that are not overly aggressive. Once we moved on from roaming hunter-gatherer societies to argiculture, warfare started to have a very high ROI (lots of stuff to loot, all in one place). Cultural attitudes towards war follow from that, not cause it.
  Yes, this is possible, and an interesting argument. If we found a culture who lives in proximity to its nearest neighbor, but does not engage in war, would the argument be able to accommodate that?
55. Re:Hey, where have I seen that plane before? by camionbleu · 2012-09-17 09:39 · Score: 1
  
  John Horgan (in 'The End of War') cites the !Kung of the Kalahari desert as an example. However, there's also a book by Lawrence Keeley ('War before Civilization') that argues they were warriors in the past. To me, this is all the more interesting: they appear to be a culture that had war and got rid of it.
56. Re:Hey, where have I seen that plane before? by tnk1 · 2012-09-17 10:01 · Score: 1
  
  I'd have to agree. The moral question of espionage is pointless here. Everyone does industrial espionage in some form, even the US. China doing this is probably not a big deal, except maybe how blatant they are about it.
  What does need to be addressed is what it means about China. If their technology is strongly based on the ripping off of technology, it does show a potential weakness in their own scientific programs. That potential weakness may indicate that China's roar may be more like that of a paper tiger, as opposed to a real threat or competition.
  On the other hand, in the 19th Century the US used to be a place where people would copy things and get away with it, although for the most part that was things like musicals and not science so much. In any event, copying science can give you a leg up and even the playing field, assuming you do have the chops to make further progress based on that tech and aren't simply reliant on copying tech all the time. And if anyone has ever played a 4X game before, you're probably all very well aware of the very valuable advantages of stealing other people's tech while you concentrate on other things.
57. Re:Hey, where have I seen that plane before? by shutdown+-p+now · 2012-09-17 10:26 · Score: 1
  
  The problem with that argument is that if genome and culture develop in lockstep, then either 1) there cannot be any significant differences between cultures, or 2) there must be significant, culturally-determined genetic differences between cultures. But there clearly are differences between cultures, so it can't be 1). And humans are not genetically diverse enough for 2) to be plausible.
  We're talking about "in lockstep" over evolutionary timescales, i.e. tens of thousands of years at a minimum. And by culture here I mean the whole body of learned behavior (as opposed to inherited). Of course, modern cultures, which are at most a couple thousand years old, cannot obviously correspond to genetic differences.
  That said, there is actually some correspondence. For example, there is a gene (7R allele of DRD4) that is more prevalent among cultures with recent nomadic history (Mongols, Indians etc), and it seems to correlate with the higher likelihood of taking riskier but more rewarding choices (over safe but little rewarding) in controlled experiments.
  
  We would look for skulls that had been bashed in with blunt tools, or ribs damaged by sharp tools, in significant enough numbers that we would know that we were looking at group violence, not just one-on-one. That is what does not show up in the archaeological evidence until 10k-13k years ago.
  When you have groups of 10-15 people, it's going to be hard to distinguish group violence and one-on-one violence. With chimps we can make the difference between fights within a group and raids on another group because we actually observe a bunch of chimps gather and move to the territory outside of their own and kill other chimps. How do you determine that from a bunch of bone fragments, though?
  
  Yes, this is possible, and an interesting argument. If we found a culture who lives in proximity to its nearest neighbor, but does not engage in war, would the argument be able to accommodate that?
  Well, it's all guesswork, ultimately. It's hard to make controlled experiments on such matters on actual human populations. However, it is rather telling that a strong rise in archeological evidence of what clearly was massive warfare (as in groups of dozens or hundreds of individuals) correspond to the estimated date of the rise of agriculture.
  As a side note, we have a great many different societies all over the world today - including some tribes in Amazon which aren't even out of Paleolithic. And vast majority of them seem to have a good grasp of what war is, and practice it regularly, even the Paleolithic guys.
  Also, from a purely theoretical perspective, ethologists have build some very convincing models that show that parochial altruism (and the behaviors that follow from it, such as xenophobia and warfare) pretty much inevitably comes up in the evolution of social primates, since, at the stage when you have relatively small groups (of under 100 people) who are mostly relatives, ganging up together against other guys is evolutionary advantageous because it increases the likelihood of spreading your genes (most of which you share with the group) around. It also seems to explain why chimps in particular engage in similar behavior - of all great apes, their social structure is closest to human hunter/gatherer societies, while gorillas and orangutans are much less similar.
  On the practical side of things, we do know that there is a single hormone - oxytocin - which in both humans and chimps seems to promote both altruistic behavior towards member of one's own group (tribe etc), and aggressive behavior (e.g. xenophobia) towards members of other groups. There have been a number of controlled experiments on modern humans establishing correlation for both.
  You may also find this article interesting, as it explores the topic of warfare in context of human evolution in considerable detail, including some interesting mathematical models:
  http://www.sciencemag.org/content/324/5932/1293.full
58. Re:Hey, where have I seen that plane before? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-17 10:36 · Score: 0
  
  I've never known engineers to make good decisions any more than non-engineers, and often less so. To use a D&D term, Engineers are high INT, low WIS (and often low CHA). Most engineers i know think of "How can I build that?" but rarely think of "Should I build that?"
59. Re:Hey, where have I seen that plane before? by camionbleu · 2012-09-17 11:57 · Score: 1
  
  OK, I will read a paper copy of that 'Science' article at the library (the link you provided leads to a paywall). And I will look for the oxytocin articles.
  By the way, in case I was unclear, I am emphatically not making a Rousseau-style "good savage" argument. My point is that warfare is not universally present in human culture, and therefore cannot be explained as "human nature" (it was my objection to that idea that spawned this series of replies). So the presence of warfare in "paleolithic" cultures does not prove the point either way. It's the cultures (e..g., !Kung) that reportedly do *not* have warfare that are interesting from my point of view.
  One other thought:
  
  ethologists have build some very convincing models that show that parochial altruism (and the behaviors that follow from it, such as xenophobia and warfare) pretty much inevitably comes up in the evolution of social primates, since, at the stage when you have relatively small groups (of under 100 people) who are mostly relatives, ganging up together against other guys is evolutionary advantageous
  Have you seen the bonobo literature? It doesn't correspond to that description at all. They often resolve conflicts with sexual contact, not just within their group but also with other groups of bonobos. I'm not aware of any eyewitness accounts of bonobos killing other bonobos, as individuals or as a group.
60. Re:Hey, where have I seen that plane before? by shutdown+-p+now · 2012-09-17 12:17 · Score: 1
  
  There has to be a number of other conditions. Most importantly, there has to be something worth fighting for - i.e. the return must be past a certain threshold, which is not achieved for species that mostly gather, and hunt little. One notable difference between humans and all other great apes is that we have historically had much more meat in our diet - i.e. we hunt (and before tools made that feasible, fed on carrion) more. One hypothesis is that something worth fighting for was carcasses of large animals - a relatively rare find, but single such thing could fit a group for many days, well worth the risk of having a few group members crippled or killed.
  Sorry about the paywall. I don't have any better English sources - I could give you some others, but they'd be in Russian (a popular science book on modern anthropology where I've found the reference to the article in question - it explains the gist of it also).
61. Re:Hey, where have I seen that plane before? by camionbleu · 2012-09-17 12:30 · Score: 1
  
  The Russian link would be fine. I read Russian.
62. Re:Hey, where have I seen that plane before? by shutdown+-p+now · 2012-09-17 12:32 · Score: 1
  
  Forgot about this part.
  
  My point is that warfare is not universally present in human culture, and therefore cannot be explained as "human nature" (it was my objection to that idea that spawned this series of replies).
  "Human nature" is by its very nature not a static thing. In any case, even if our genes and culture have co-evolved to make us favor conflict in some circumstances, it doesn't mean that we have to go along with that, especially when we know what makes us tick in that particular way. "Human nature" - i.e. the result of our evolution - has also given us this powerful tool, the brain. Not only it lets us modify our environment at a rate much faster than what normal evolutionary processes can keep the pace up with, but it also lets us observe and analyze the resulting changes and correct our behavior accordingly.
  In controlled tests, humans in all cultures exhibit some statistically significant degree of parochial altruism. Nevertheless, some human societies - involving hundreds of millions of people, all "latent xenophobes" by birth - have been consciously working on stamping it out for almost a century now, enshrining equality in law, and punishing openly xenophobic behavior. There's no reason why our treatment of war should be any different. Just because it was a part of our evolutionary baggage doesn't mean that we should keep sticking to it now, or that we can't remake ourselves to behave differently.
63. Re:Hey, where have I seen that plane before? by shutdown+-p+now · 2012-09-17 12:56 · Score: 1
  
  As noted before, it's a pop-sci book, not a scientific article (though it does reference such articles throughout the text). Actually, it's two books, the first one focusing on human physiology, the second one on behavior - both well worth a read.
  http://lib.rus.ec/b/363123/read
  http://lib.rus.ec/b/362895/read
  The few chapters that specifically cover parochial altruism and its consequences (including warfare) start here.
64. Re:Hey, where have I seen that plane before? by tofarr · 2012-09-17 23:24 · Score: 1
  
  I cannot believe this comment was marked as insightful. Human history is a history of war. Your ability to have anything (Including the right to determine what is done with your own body) has always been dependant on your ability to defend it. Slavery and murder have occurred in one form or another in any group of humans of any significant size throughout history, and warfare is just a natural extension of this. A brief glance out into the natural world around us reveals that the strong dominate the weak throughout the animal kingdom. This is not to say that we cannot overcome our darker side to a certain extent, even today. Indeed, I think it is the duty of all rational beings to try and do so. But to deny that humanity has a darker side is naive at best.
65. Re:Hey, where have I seen that plane before? by camionbleu · 2012-09-18 04:02 · Score: 1
  
  I'm talking specifically about war: the resolution of conflict using lethal group violence. Not about the strong dominating the weak, nor about self-defense, murder or slavery. I did not deny that humanity has a darker side. I was objecting to the idea that war is because of "human nature". I think the case for that is unproven because:
  1. The archaeological record shows that there is no evidence of warfare before 10-13k years ago. Someone in a different branch of this thread objected that that might be because the human population was so sparse back then. It's an interesting idea and I plan to do some reading on that.
  2. There are human cultures that lack war (the !Kung of the Kalahari). Would you agree that if there is a human culture where groups of humans live near each other without war, war cannot be "human nature"?
  3. People often do not want war and are tricked into accepting it by leaders using organized propaganda who know that they must find a pretext for war (for example, the Tonkin non-incident, or the Iraqi WMD debacle).
  4. There's another interesting book called 'On Killing', by Lt. Col. Dave Grossman. He argues that, until military forces started to psychologically condition soldiers using video games and more realistic weapon drills, most soldiers did not fire their weapons or aimed over the heads of the enemy. Dave Grossman is a lecturer at West Point.
  I do not believe that we can end conflict. In fact, as an enthusiastic supporter of pluralism I think conflict can be a good thing. But I do believe we can eliminate war as a means of conflict resolution.
66. Re:Hey, where have I seen that plane before? by spiralx · 2012-09-18 05:15 · Score: 1
  
  Look for a book called "Debt: The First 5000 Years" by David Graeber - I've not finished reading it myself, but it supports your position I'm fairly sure.
67. Re:Hey, where have I seen that plane before? by AK+Marc · 2012-09-18 10:33 · Score: 1
  
  I had such a tub, and it sounded right. They aren't fiberglass, but are a plastic sandwich with a fiberglass sheet in the middle for strength. Pressing everything together without air or such does sound about right, and they like high pressures for that.
  
  The real WTF is why we aren't getting a metal tub lined with porcelain. The old tubs are better than the plastic ones. I've never had anything but trouble with the plastic ones.
  
  --
  Learn to love Alaska
68. Re:Hey, where have I seen that plane before? by hackertourist · 2012-09-18 19:32 · Score: 1
  
  "high pressure", sure, but I don't buy that ordinary bathtubs are produced with pressures an order of magnitude higher than the one-off highest-pressure-in-the-world forge can generate.
Piss frost! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-17 03:36 · Score: -1

Frost piss!
where did they get that? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-17 03:38 · Score: 0

looks a whole lot like a raptor..
1. Re:where did they get that? by Joce640k · 2012-09-17 03:43 · Score: 1
  
  It might be a cardboard model just to mess with their enemy's' heads.
  
  --
  No sig today...
2. Re:where did they get that? by DickBreath · 2012-09-17 05:02 · Score: 1
  
  It only looks like a raptor until the Chinese open up the surfaces of it to advertising.
  
  --
  
  I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
3. Re:where did they get that? by M0j0_j0j0 · 2012-09-17 05:19 · Score: 1
  
  And that is their definition of stealth.
Manned fighter planes by fustakrakich · 2012-09-17 03:39 · Score: 4, Funny

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

--
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
1. Re:Manned fighter planes by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-17 04:58 · Score: 0
  
  Pfft, they have an excess of people anyway. They'll force-learn people and use them.
2. Re:Manned fighter planes by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-17 05:34 · Score: 0
  
  Jesus Christ, paternalism much? The look must be awesome from the top of your ivory tower.
3. Re:Manned fighter planes by shutdown+-p+now · 2012-09-17 08:31 · Score: 1
  
  If this is a thinly veiled reference to UAVs, then they're not a replacement for modern fighter planes. UAVs are great for on-site recon, for correcting mortar fire, and for firing missiles at mujis who don't have any effective AA, but it won't give you air dominance in an all-out war against a strong opponent (as would be the case if US and China were to clash, for example). No country in the world currently fields an unmanned air dominance fighter plane.
  And, yes, Chinese are working on their own UAVs, as well.
4. Re:Manned fighter planes by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-18 00:44 · Score: 0
  
  Well they should be fielding unmanned air dominance fighters, because they will have better capabilities than some old dinosaur that lugs around a cockpit, life support, instruments, and a puny human.
5. Re:Manned fighter planes by AK+Marc · 2012-09-18 10:51 · Score: 1
  
  Does anyone have an operational unmanned fighter plane? I'm sure the drones could drop fire-and-forget missiles, but anything unmanned that could engage in a dogfight?
  
  --
  Learn to love Alaska
I don't believe they have figured it out just yet. by kiriath · 2012-09-17 03:41 · Score: 2

Painting it black, doesn't make it stealthy!
But does it run Linux? by concealment · 2012-09-17 03:42 · Score: 0

We're one buffer overflow away from WWIII.
1. Re:But does it run Linux? by daem0n1x · 2012-09-17 05:36 · Score: 1
  
  Linux. You bet. I heard it runs Komunix!
Folks, WAKE UP! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-17 03:42 · Score: -1

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 by Metabolife · 2012-09-17 03:42 · Score: 0

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.
1. Re:Bootleg by Richard_at_work · 2012-09-17 03:57 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  That would be astounding, considering most Chinese aircraft are based on Russian and Ukranian aircraft...
2. Re:Bootleg by Microlith · 2012-09-17 04:04 · Score: 2
  
  You've tested this I take it? Where can I buy an F-35?
3. Re:Bootleg by Sarten-X · 2012-09-17 04:08 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  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."
  
  --
  You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
4. Re:Bootleg by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-17 04:31 · Score: 0
  
  Yeah, being twin-engined, I guess it's a copy of the F-35E, which is still classified in the US.
5. Re:Bootleg by T-Bone-T · 2012-09-17 04:44 · Score: 1
  
  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.
6. Re:Bootleg by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-17 05:10 · Score: 1
  
  *WOOSH!*
  Seems oddly appropriate, given the topic of discussion.
7. Re:Bootleg by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-17 06:14 · Score: 0
  
  http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-12266973
  http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-18155293
8. Re:Bootleg by cyfer2000 · 2012-09-17 07:38 · Score: 1
  
  Chinese Metric, USAEnglish, so the answer is no.
  
  --
  There is a spark in every single flame bait point.
9. Re:Bootleg by Jeng · 2012-09-17 09:20 · Score: 1
  
  US servicemen rely on a variety of "small, incredibly sophisticated electronic components" found in night vision systems, radios and GPS devices and the failure of a single part could put a soldier at risk, the report said.
  
  So in other words counterfeit resisters and capacitors.
  
  --
  Don't know something? Look it up. Still don't know? Then ask.
10. Re:Bootleg by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-17 10:18 · Score: 0
  
  Bolts, screws and RJ-45 connectors are standardized?? Ha! Not in this century, buddy!
  Where's my horse?
11. Re:Bootleg by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-17 16:45 · Score: 0
  
  AliExpress. You could probably pay with Paypal too and possibly get reward miles.
12. Re:Bootleg by AK+Marc · 2012-09-18 10:55 · Score: 1
  
  USA is mostly metric now. I remember in the 1980s when the mechanics I knew who worked on US cars complained about having to re-buy tools for the metric sizes in American cars. The old engines (Chevy small block from the 60s, still sold in new cars 30+ years later) may have been English, but the new 4-cyls developed in the 80s were metric, and other parts were going along with them. Even worse if you bought one of the US cars made by a Japanese company. All metric, and the American car mechanics were expected to work on it because it was GM.
  
  --
  Learn to love Alaska
Soon to be at a Walmart near you by slazzy · 2012-09-17 03:44 · Score: 2, Funny

For 9,999,9987

--
Website Just Down For Me? Find out
1. Re:Soon to be at a Walmart near you by DigiShaman · 2012-09-17 10:51 · Score: 1
  
  Oh don't worry, I've been saving my Pepsi Points just for this occasion! You wait and see.
  
  --
  Life is not for the lazy.
F35 class by serviscope_minor · 2012-09-17 03:44 · Score: 5, Funny

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.

--
SJW n. One who posts facts.
1. Re:F35 class by Richard_at_work · 2012-09-17 03:48 · Score: 2
  
  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.
2. Re:F35 class by vlm · 2012-09-17 03:53 · Score: 1
  
  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.
  
  --
  "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
3. Re:F35 class by Nidi62 · 2012-09-17 03:57 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  this new airframe will fulfill the same role as the F-22.
  Waste money and asphyxiate pilots?
  
  --
  The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
4. Re:F35 class by serviscope_minor · 2012-09-17 04:15 · Score: 1
  
  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.
  
  --
  SJW n. One who posts facts.
5. Re:F35 class by Grayhand · 2012-09-17 04:19 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  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.
6. Re:F35 class by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-17 04:19 · Score: 0
  
  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)
7. Re:F35 class by JimCanuck · 2012-09-17 11:19 · Score: 1
  
  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.
  The J-20's larger weapon bays, and its overly powerful engines tend to make it more of a interceptor then a "fighter".
8. Re:F35 class by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-17 13:54 · Score: 0
  
  I could nominate a few executives for this mission.
inferior carbon-fiber layering processing by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-17 03:46 · Score: 2, Interesting

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!
1. Re:inferior carbon-fiber layering processing by shugah · 2012-09-17 03:52 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  Within 10 years all stealth will be obsolete. It's much easier to improve radar systems than airframes.
  
  --
  If you aren't part of the solution, then there is good money to be made prolonging the problem
2. Re:inferior carbon-fiber layering processing by alen · 2012-09-17 04:00 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  its easier and cheaper to build tiny drones and cruise missiles than manned aircraft
3. Re:inferior carbon-fiber layering processing by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-17 05:13 · Score: 0
  
  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.
4. Re:inferior carbon-fiber layering processing by ilguido · 2012-09-17 08:41 · Score: 2
  
  Even Serbians with 30 years old soviet technology were able to detect US "stealth" bombers. Probably Russians by now could detect stealth fighters from the generation to come.
5. Re:inferior carbon-fiber layering processing by darkmeridian · 2012-09-17 10:15 · Score: 1
  
  People keep saying this, and I'm not so sure it's true. It seems true that it is easier to improve radar systems than stealth. However, it's also easier for a stealth aircraft to detect incoming radar signals than for radar systems to detect the reflected radar signals. Also, it's easier for a stealth aircraft to run away from a missile than a radar system can.
  (This also ignores any killer decoy drones. I think it would be a good idea to launch decoy drones that reflect radar to mimic a target, stealthy or otherwise. When the bad guys launch a missile at the drone, then the drone can fire an anti-radiation weapon at the site.)
  As long as the stealth aircraft system can detect and shoot at a radar system before a radar system can detect the stealth aircraft system, stealth will win. For instance, if the radar system can detect me at 100 miles, but I can detect the radar system at 150 miles, then I can simply fly around the radar system. I can also launch a long-range missile at the radar system. Or I can walk up to the system, shoot a missile at it, and then turn around and run away. The radar system can detect stealth, but at this point, the radar seeker head on the missile cannot do so. If the incoming missile convinces the radar operator to turn off his radar, the missile is probably going to go dead.
  Thus, improvement and deployment of advanced radar systems will not necessarily defeat stealth so long as detection systems improve and standoff anti-radiation weapons are fielded.
  
  --
  A NYC lawyer blogs. http://www.chuangblog.com/
Money best spent elsewhere... by dryriver · 2012-09-17 03:46 · Score: -1, Redundant

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... -----

--
Why did the chicken cross the road? Because Elon Musk put an AI chip in its head.
1. Re:Money best spent elsewhere... by PPH · 2012-09-17 03:52 · Score: 2
  
  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.
  
  --
  Have gnu, will travel.
2. Re:Money best spent elsewhere... by wed128 · 2012-09-17 03:54 · Score: 2
  
  I wonder how many jobs a research project like this creates... "Spending money helping the poor" isn't exactly as simple as it seems.
3. Re:Money best spent elsewhere... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-17 03:54 · Score: 0
  
  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.
4. Re:Money best spent elsewhere... by Antipater · 2012-09-17 03:59 · Score: 1
  
  "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."
  
  --
  Everything is better with chainsaws.
5. Re:Money best spent elsewhere... by vlm · 2012-09-17 04:09 · Score: 2
  
  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
  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.
  
  --
  "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
6. Re:Money best spent elsewhere... by Peristaltic · 2012-09-17 04:14 · Score: 1
  
  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.
7. Re:Money best spent elsewhere... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-17 04:44 · Score: 0
  
  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.
8. Re:Money best spent elsewhere... by Migraineman · 2012-09-17 04:58 · Score: 1
  
  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.
9. Re:Money best spent elsewhere... by ducomputergeek · 2012-09-17 05:02 · Score: 2
  
  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.
  
  --
  "The problem with socialism is eventually you run out of other people's money" - Thatcher.
10. Re:Money best spent elsewhere... by k6mfw · 2012-09-17 05:03 · Score: 1
  
  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.
  
  --
  mfwright@batnet.com
11. Re:Money best spent elsewhere... by ckaminski · 2012-09-17 05:12 · Score: 1
  
  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.
12. Re:Money best spent elsewhere... by Antipater · 2012-09-17 05:49 · Score: 1
  
  What, you couldn't reply directly to my post? That dreadnought was made irrelevant by carrier warfare, yeah, 30 years later - long after its expected lifetime. In the meantime, the Royal Navy was able to keep the vast majority of Germany's navy bottled up in the North Sea for the duration of WW1. As a result, British merchants could still travel and trade almost at will (yes, they still had to worry about U-boats, but those weren't nearly as big a threat as surface raiders, especially in the First War). Spending your money to help the poor is all well and good until a blockade prevents you from using that money.
  
  --
  Everything is better with chainsaws.
13. Re:Money best spent elsewhere... by JimCanuck · 2012-09-17 11:21 · Score: 0
  
  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.
  Considering China went from having 90% below the poverty line 30 years ago, to a country with 90% of the country above the poverty line I think they can afford to spend as much money as they want on their military.
how many do they have? by alen · 2012-09-17 03:59 · Score: 1

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
1. Re:how many do they have? by timeOday · 2012-09-17 04:27 · Score: 1
  
  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.
2. Re:how many do they have? by AK+Marc · 2012-09-18 11:15 · Score: 1
  
  If you aren't planning on fighting, you only need one.
  
  --
  Learn to love Alaska
Money by BluPhenix316 · 2012-09-17 04:01 · Score: 1

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.
1. Re:Money by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-17 04:11 · Score: 0
  
  That's brilliant! What an insight!
  One day in the future, perhaps we will be addressing a new Nobel Peace Prize winner - BluPhenix316.
2. Re:Money by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-17 04:25 · Score: 0
  
  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.
3. Re:Money by prefec2 · 2012-09-17 04:29 · Score: 2
  
  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.
4. Re:Money by Jeng · 2012-09-17 04:54 · Score: 1
  
  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.
  
  --
  Don't know something? Look it up. Still don't know? Then ask.
5. Re:Money by Slime-dogg · 2012-09-17 04:55 · Score: 1
  
  If we achieved faster than light travel, we probably wouldn't know that we achieved it for many years to come.
  
  --
  You need to restart your computer. Hold down the Power button for several seconds or press the Restart button.
6. Re:Money by Beardo+the+Bearded · 2012-09-17 06:13 · Score: 1
  
  Aw, you feeling blue?
  
  --
  
  ---
  ECHELON is a government program to find words like bomb, jihad, plutonium, assassinate, and anarchy.
7. Re:Money by tftp · 2012-09-17 07:31 · Score: 1
  
  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
  Unfortunately the peace on Earth is not bootstrappable. If you have 99 countries that gave up wars and one that hasn't, very soon that one country will either conquer everyone else or will manipulate them without a conquest (but under a threat.) You can have peace only when you get to 100% of compliance and when you can guarantee that compliance forever.
  This is a reason why when a SciFi author wants to depict a peaceful civilization he usually depends on a plot device that makes that civilization incapable of aggression. Even if just one individual can wiggle out of those restraints he becomes a fox in a henhouse.
  If you think we are too violent, try to fix it (BTW selling guns is not going to help)
  People are too violent for today's life. But they were nearly ideal for earlier societies. Guns are not relevant - they are just a tool. People were happily killing each other with sticks and stones and sharp pieces of metal for millennia. Guns are banned in UK, but who can claim that thousands of sharp knives in pockets are better? A knife is easier to acquire, and it needs no ammo, and it is silent, and it is untraceable.
  People are violent because it is a genetic trait and a useful tool for survival. There were nonviolent species like dodo; they are extinct for a good reason. A nonviolent ghetto dweller will be soon a dead one. It's easier to be nonviolent when you are above the danger, of course. But the social mechanism that elevated you may fail at any time; the car of a mega-rich CEO of a mega-company can be stopped on the road by a gang, the CEO could be gragged out, beaten and held for ransom - or simply killed because the thugs wanted him squirm.
  So if you are afraid of China: Meet them.
  As we speak China is escalating border tensions with Japan - probably because Chinese leaders believe that Japan is distracted at this time and unable to respond. A flotilla of fishing ships is going to the islands right now. Those fishermen may be sacrificed at any time, by any side. China is interested in holding those islands, and so far they have the initiative. Meeting China to talk about that would be useless because fear of China is not imaginary.
8. Re:Money by mlts · 2012-09-17 07:35 · Score: 1
  
  That is a lesson that seems to have been lost in history. The cross-pollination between countries that reduced the hatred among different Europeans to a managable level in the late 1940s is REALLY needed in the US.
  For the sake of the country's future, we really need exchange programs between countries like Japan, China, Russia, Brazil, and Saudi Arabia. That way, we don't fall into that "We good, they are the evil demon legion whose only purpose is to be killed" trap that Europe fell into.
  I wouldn't mind seeing more culture in the US than what is in the bottom of my yogurt cup either.
  It would be nice to have what was once deadly hatreds turned into soccer rivalries come World Cup season.
9. Re:Money by Jeng · 2012-09-17 09:09 · Score: 1
  
  That is the most interesting comment I have read in awhile.
  
  --
  Don't know something? Look it up. Still don't know? Then ask.
Tower, this is Ghost Rider requesting a flyby by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-17 04:03 · Score: 0

It's time to buzz the tower!
1. Re:Tower, this is Ghost Rider requesting a flyby by gmhowell · 2012-09-18 14:31 · Score: 1
  
  It's time to buzz the tower!
  Tom, even in a modern fighter jet you can't outrun the gay thoughts.
  
  --
  Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
What plane? by GodfatherofSoul · 2012-09-17 04:11 · Score: 2

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

--
I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
1. Re:What plane? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-17 05:01 · Score: 0
  
  That's no guy... That's the Chinese Wonder Woman!
2. Re:What plane? by Type44Q · 2012-09-17 14:44 · Score: 1
  
  All I see is a guy floating 10 feet off the ground.
  Oh, that's just Hubertus_Bigend in his ekranoplan (he got the stealth tech off of aliexpress).
Yeah but by Mister+Whirly · 2012-09-17 04:17 · Score: 0

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.

--
"But this one goes to 11!"
1. Re:Yeah but by devjoe · 2012-09-17 04:24 · Score: 1
  
  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.
2. Re:Yeah but by Mister+Whirly · 2012-09-17 04:27 · Score: 1
  
  No I don't, but being as I am not in the Chinese military I think the odds were pretty low to begin with.
  
  --
  "But this one goes to 11!"
3. Re:Yeah but by mlts · 2012-09-17 07:20 · Score: 2
  
  I know that people jest about China, but oftentimes they make exactly what the ODM specs out. If they spec cheap crap, they get cheap stuff. If they spec quality, top tier parts, the ship from China drops off tier 1 motors.
  Champion generators comes to mind. Yes, their manufacturing is in a factory in a coastal province, but their products tend to be as good as they come, and their service is top notch. They spec decent stuff, the factory returns decent stuff.
Bankrupt China... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-17 04:20 · Score: 0

By sending them the F-35 plans!
Another example of technology theft by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-17 04:20 · Score: 0

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?
1. Re:Another example of technology theft by MetalliQaZ · 2012-09-17 04:35 · Score: 2
  
  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."
  
  --
  "Here Lies Philip J. Fry, named for his uncle, to carry on his spirit"
2. Re:Another example of technology theft by 0123456 · 2012-09-17 05:29 · Score: 1
  
  I'm pretty sure Ben Rich said that Lockheed's original stealth designs were based on Soviet research for modelling radar cross sections in his 'Skunkworks' book.
Not an F-22 comparable by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-17 04:27 · Score: 5, Insightful

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.
1. Re:Not an F-22 comparable by dywolf · 2012-09-17 06:47 · Score: 1
  
  Plus consider the effect of diminishing returns on investment. our planes are probably the most stealthy ever anywhere in the world, call it 99% stealthy for modern tech. and they cost a LOT to get there. but if you could produce a plane that's 75% as stealthy fr 50% of the cost, or 50% as stealthy for 30% of the cost....you still have an advantage over basically everyone, other than the US, and for a lot lower cost. and with that lower cost you could build even more of them.
  its like the Light Fighter proposal that resulted in the F16 to supplement the F15. (speaking in terms of first gen versions) The F15? The perfect air dominance fighter. Cost: A Lot. The F16? Not as perfect. Cost: Less than the F15, enough less to warrant purchasing a larger fleet of 16's than 15's.
  The economics of getting the absolute bestest sometimes get lost on folks. Ya, it's good to have some bestests just so you have the capability. But it's also handy to have some not-so-bestest as your backbone cause they're easier on the wallet.
  
  --
  The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
2. Re:Not an F-22 comparable by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-17 10:21 · Score: 0
  
  ... and quantity has a quality all of its own...
3. Re:Not an F-22 comparable by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-17 10:47 · Score: 0
  
  To English speaking morons: "it's" means "it FUCKING is". Your "it's" is "its", get it?!
4. Re:Not an F-22 comparable by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-17 11:12 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  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)
  You missed an argument here that perfectly reinforces your point. Diesel-electric submarines are, in some ways, superior to nuclear submarines: they're cheaper to operate, and quieter (when running on batteries) which gives them an advantage in combat. Their biggest disadvantage is that they lack the range and speed to make patrols to distant oceans. So China's choice of diesel-electric submarines for its fleet makes perfect sense as a defensive measure, which fits with your argument.
5. Re:Not an F-22 comparable by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-17 11:17 · Score: 0
  
  American goals are to spoil the rise of other countries that might threaten it's interests.
  And everybody wonders why there's so much anmiosity towards the U.S.
6. Re:Not an F-22 comparable by JimCanuck · 2012-09-17 11:24 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  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
  Diesel Electrics under water can be completely silent. Nuclear powered subs tend to make too much noise under water and make them a lot easier to track with passive sonar.
  
  Even in NATO military exercises Diesel Electric submarines have done rather well "sinking" carriers in the middle of a Attack Group because they can go lay in wait without any noise emissions.
7. Re:Not an F-22 comparable by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-17 18:21 · Score: 0
  
  (although all are Diesel-Electric, not nuclear, so individually not as good as the US or British subs, but there's more of them)
  Electric submarines actually make better attack submarines that nuclear ones, especially short range coastal defence. They regularly sink billion dollar nuclear submarines in war games. Nuclear engines, while offering unlimited range are big and noisy.
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gotland_class_submarine#Secondment_to_United_States_Navy
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collins_class_submarine#Operations_and_deployments
  Also, china does have nuclear submarines:
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_092_submarine
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_093_submarine
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_094_submarine
8. Re:Not an F-22 comparable by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-18 06:16 · Score: 0
  
  This is completely correct. I would be surprised if China wasn't capable TODAY of denying the US Navy access to their coastal waters. The further out into the ocean you go, the less effective they'll be, but China could probably take Taiwan right now with little trouble from the US. That they haven't shows that they are at least rational actors and realize that there's little point in taking what you want with hard power when you can accomplish the same ends with soft power (mainly economic).
  As long as they stick to this approach, I have no problems with them.
Exhaust by Coward+Anonymous · 2012-09-17 04:51 · Score: 2

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.
1. Re:Exhaust by TheDarkMaster · 2012-09-17 05:16 · Score: 2
  
  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".
  
  --
  Religion: The greatest weapon of mass destruction of all time
2. Re:Exhaust by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-17 06:42 · Score: 1
  
  It's not as important in this aircraft. China's latest designs are primarily area denial designs; they're designed to take off from an air base and threaten naval ships and aircraft approaching their borders; they're basically an interceptor, not a dogfighter. An interceptor only needs to be difficult to detect on it's attack profile, from the front when it's heading towards it's target. When it returns to base it's profile doesn't matter; it's not designed to get into dogfights. A dogfighter needs stealth all around, which is why the F-22 and F-35 are all around stealthy.
3. Re:Exhaust by dywolf · 2012-09-17 06:54 · Score: 2
  
  it's probably not "bog standard". its very likely thrust vector capable. And the F22 doesnt have "stealth" exhausts either. It has vector nozzles too. It has a funny shape cause the designers opted to focus the vectoring capability in only one axis, achieving a higher dynamic effect in that axis, than having 360deg vectoring with a much smaller effect in any given direction. they then gave teh trailing edge a broken angle to reduce return on radar signal. but the warm exhaust itself is still there, not much you can do to a jet exhaust (without killing the power of the engine), but then IR has a much shorter detection range than Radar.
  but point is: just giving the exhausts a funny shape doesnt make it "stealth". the russian design already featrues a 360d nozzle that looks just like the typical normal nozzle.
  
  --
  The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
4. Re:Exhaust by greg23s · 2012-09-18 03:06 · Score: 1
  
  what a bunch of bull. Neither F-22 nor F-35 is a dogfighter. They're optimized to engage targets at long/medium ranges, not dogfights.
When will it be on ebay? by k6mfw · 2012-09-17 04:57 · Score: 1

with a Buy-It-Now like they have everything else.

--
mfwright@batnet.com
MOD PARENT DOWN!!! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-17 05:01 · Score: -1

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.
1. Re:MOD PARENT DOWN!!! by mcrbids · 2012-09-17 05:30 · Score: 2
  
  Technology is technology. You said (and I quote)
  
  "Right, because technology from 70 YEARS ago is so meaningful today."
  How is a 5 story tall ultra-high-precision manufacturing doohickey NOT technology?
  
  --
  I have no problem with your religion until you decide it's reason to deprive others of the truth.
2. Re:MOD PARENT DOWN!!! by roman_mir · 2012-09-17 05:48 · Score: -1
  
  Don't you know? Technology is about sitting on your ass in front of a glowing screen and typing some script or whatnot. That's technology.
  Anything that requires you to get off your chair to do something even slightly more physically demanding is sport.
  
  --
  You can't handle the truth.
3. Re:MOD PARENT DOWN!!! by Dantoo · 2012-09-17 10:17 · Score: 1
  
  Mr President, we simply cannot allow afford a closed die forging press gap!
Highlights IP and Patent Law Stupidity by theshowmecanuck · 2012-09-17 05:54 · Score: 3, Interesting

I few years ago I was flying across the U.S. I had managed a good deal on first class tickets. So I was sitting beside someone who ran an electronics company which used contract manufacturers in China. I asked him about piracy of his IP. He said, and with a straight face so well that I think he believed it, that they keep the important stuff segregated, and the assembly distributed among several plants so that the Chinese would not be able to pirate their IP.
WTF? I believe that is what the majority of these jokers who offshore think or think they have successfully led us to believe. But I really believe it is what they think. I have to. Why else would they spend BILLIONS of dollars on patent lawsuits, just so they can have their ideas built in China where everyone except them (it seems), KNOW that the designs will be stolen and copied. These so called leaders of business can't be that stupid can they? After all most have business degrees and MBA's. Do they count so little? Actually I think they aren't so stupid but are cynical pricks who only look out for their own pocket books. Globalization means global for those with the money, and they have the money. It doesn't matter what the condition of your country if you live in a gated community.
Mind you, what does it say about the majority of people who help them to become millionaires, based on what? You'd think we'd learn by now after what we had to do to get Wall Street types from being paid huge bonuses just for showing up... wait, never mind.....
But seriously, why spend all that money on lawsuits for IP when they just have it built in China? It's like pouring water on the fire after the house has burned down. (Unless it's all a pretense?!) Why keep stealth fighters secret when you build most of the parts in China and hire Chinese nationals or ex-nationals without sufficient oversight (given the proven track record of Chinese spies in the defence and nuclear research areas). Actually, I think most members of the government are that stupid and/or naive since their main focus is really on getting re-elected and lining their pockets, and not on what is really happening. After all they don't have to know anything, just hire people who know everything. Isn't that how it works?
The government's talking heads will say that it just 'looks like an F-35' but the parts are different. We know the defence industry gets most of their electronics from China. I know that 1 + 1 = 2. They seem to think we think it adds up to 1.9. When the big hand is on the 12 and the little hand is on the 12, I know what time it is.
And now China is pushing its weight like crazy in the South China Sea. There were anti-Japanese riots closing Japanese factories in China today. They are not a benign factory for the world. They never were.

--
-- I ignore anonymous replies to my comments and postings.
China has its reasons... a weak Japan by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-17 06:42 · Score: 0

The reason China is showing off a new fighter jet is because of the saber rattling about a few islands measured in acres that they are having a pissing contest about against Japan.
The internal anti-Japanese sentiment in China is so intense that virtually all Honda and Toyota car dealers are closed down or burned to the ground.
China as an economic power is one thing. What causes people to really fear is the fact that old tensions die hard, and even though the US has its issues, it has kept the peace in the Pacific Rim for a long time. If that region goes hot, we will be wishing for the days where only the Middle East had tensions.
I hope this comes to some peaceful resolution. China, Japan, and Korea actually have cultures, history, and achievements to be proud of on a global basis. I rather see news China working on getting a taikonaut base on the Moon than warring with Japan.
1. Re:China has its reasons... a weak Japan by WindBourne · 2012-09-17 08:56 · Score: 1
  
  The only way that China will not be going to war with Japan, is if Japan steps down and allows China to dominate them economically.
  
  And to be honest, it is better for the west to step foward now and back Japan rather than allow China to steal senkaku. The reason is that China will turn it into a military FOB to help invade Taiwan.
  
  --
  I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
war not human nature? by r00t · 2012-09-17 06:50 · Score: 4, Insightful

Uh, OK. I'll agree, given that we've seen chimpanzees go to war!
You're looking at something way deeper and more fundamental than human nature. War is simply a manifestation of the competition of life. On some primitive level, even the dumbest forms of life engage in this.
You can't escape the situation. Remember how the winners write history? They also leave more offspring. We are the descendents of creatures who were mostly winners and never complete losers. Our minds are shaped by evolution. Our status as humans does not exempt us from selection, not even today and not ever in the future.
1. Re:war not human nature? by camionbleu · 2012-09-17 08:47 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  In a cumulative total of 215 years of observation by researchers, there have been 17 instances of lethal group violence by chimpanzees. So yes, there is group violence by chimpanzees against other chimpanzees but it is not as common as some might imagine. And it has been suggested that some of these confrontations were the result of habitat loss (caused by humans).
  I'm not aware of any other species who go to war (I'm defining war as lethal group violence within a species). Note the "within species" part, so hunting does not count. Can you suggest any?
  Your logic with regard to evolution is circular. My point was that war is not innate (human nature), but a cultural phenomenon. You are arguing that war is inescapable because the winners of war will breed more. And there will be more winners of war to breed because war is inescapable. But you are assuming an innateness that is unproven. I would argue that, since most people are reluctant to wage war (see Lt. Col. Dave Grossman's book: 'On Killing'), and there are cultures where war is unknown, war cannot be innate.
2. Re:war not human nature? by r00t · 2012-09-17 19:26 · Score: 1
  
  (I'm defining war as lethal group violence within a species)
  Humans do pretty much everything in organized groups. Your usage of "group" is a distinction that is unfair to creatures that aren't human. To be fair you should either accept a concept of 1-on-1 war, or accept that "war" is really just a minor subdivision of the key concept: competitive activities that effectively result in death. And yes, even plants do this. That damn pine tree hanging over my garden is using chemical weapons.
  
  Your logic with regard to evolution is circular.
  Not exactly: I described a feedback loop. There is indeed a theoretical situation without war, but it is unstable. Picture two worlds, one of pacifists and one of killers. Pacifists give birth to pacifists, on and on. Likewise, killers give birth to killers, on and on. One day in each world there is born a mutant with different behavior. In the world of killers, the mutant (a pacifist) is quickly exterminated. In the world of pacifists, the mutant thrives at the expense of the pacifists. Before long, both worlds are full of killers.
3. Re:war not human nature? by psiclops · 2012-09-17 21:29 · Score: 1
  
  And it has been suggested that some of these confrontations were the result of habitat loss (caused by humans).
  ahh so they only go to war if there's an issue with limited resources.
  so as soon as us humans can stamp that out we won't have an issue either.
  
  I'm not aware of any other species who go to war (I'm defining war as lethal group violence within a species).
  I'm pretty sure ants do, possibly other insects as well. may depend on your definition of "species" though
  
  --
  i spent five minutes thinking and all i got was this crappy sig
4. Re:war not human nature? by camionbleu · 2012-09-18 04:20 · Score: 1
  
  And it has been suggested that some of these confrontations were the result of habitat loss (caused by humans).
  ahh so they only go to war if there's an issue with limited resources.
  so as soon as us humans can stamp that out we won't have an issue either.
  Yes, that's a good point. My point was that this type of behavior is not as common as some popular science in the press has suggested, but you are quite right -- in the right circumstances, chimpanzees will go to war. Your ant example is also a good one (and there may well be other examples among social insects, but I'm not aware of any). Still, war in the rest of the animal kingdom (i.e., among non-humans) is really quite uncommon.
5. Re:war not human nature? by camionbleu · 2012-09-18 04:38 · Score: 1
  
  (I'm defining war as lethal group violence within a species)
  Humans do pretty much everything in organized groups. Your usage of "group" is a distinction that is unfair to creatures that aren't human. To be fair you should either accept a concept of 1-on-1 war, or accept that "war" is really just a minor subdivision of the key concept: competitive activities that effectively result in death. And yes, even plants do this. That damn pine tree hanging over my garden is using chemical weapons.
  I see what you are saying but my definition was deliberate. If we do not specify that we are talking about group violence, we cannot distinguish between war and murder. And I'm not arguing that murder can be eliminated. I was originally objecting to someone's rather casual statement that war is human nature.
  
  Your logic with regard to evolution is circular.
  Not exactly: I described a feedback loop. There is indeed a theoretical situation without war, but it is unstable. Picture two worlds, one of pacifists and one of killers. Pacifists give birth to pacifists, on and on. Likewise, killers give birth to killers, on and on. One day in each world there is born a mutant with different behavior. In the world of killers, the mutant (a pacifist) is quickly exterminated. In the world of pacifists, the mutant thrives at the expense of the pacifists. Before long, both worlds are full of killers.
  Well, my objection was that you were assuming an unproven innateness and you are still assuming that innateness, aren't you? I mean, you describe a mechanism that would work in a world where people can only be pacifists or killers, and they are assigned to one or other category by genetics. And I understand that you are deliberately simplifying the situation to describe the mechanism but what is missing is the evidence for any kind of innateness at all.
6. Re:war not human nature? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-19 01:37 · Score: 0
  
  “War is not innate (thus human nature), but a cultural phenomenon” After reading this reply to an article about the construction of another warplane I am moved to reply myself. In my humble opinion, this is part of the root problem. It is human nature to have conflicts some say they are just differences of opinion, we are saying the same thing in different ways, seeing things through different eyes, etc. We have conflicts with our siblings at even the earliest ages of our development. The parents act as peacemakers for us to teach us the proper way to behave. If we must be taught another way to behave then the original behavior is “natural” and the learned behavior in just that learned. Again, in my opinion if we were the enlightened people we claim, we should see that there is only two options, total peace or total war. I am not advocating war in form. However, due to the true nature of humans where traits such as greed, dishonesty, violence the only response attitude the poor ole working guy who just goes to work to fed and clothe his family, who wants better for his family than he had, just wants to be left alone to do his own thing being surrounded by a sea of wolfs that just see him as a potential food source has no chance to practice these learned behaviors the parent taught him. Maybe we should take care of our own before we “preach to the world the right thing(s) to do. Knowledge is still the great equalizer that we avoid because it is too hard; it requires work, peaceful work on our part. If we as a people, worked as hard to put the policemen or for that matter the doctors of the land out of business as we do to develop a new better weapon we could have something in common to hold our heads high in pride of a real accomplishment. Just confusing to me.
We're learning more about the plane... by Brewster+Jennings · 2012-09-17 06:54 · Score: 1

(AP-Beijing) A spokesperson for the Shengyang Company said the new stealth plane will only have air-to-air missiles and no guns, as the nation's supply of lead has been exhausted by the children's toy and baby formula industries.
Anything you can do, we can steal and copy better! by Chas · 2012-09-17 07:03 · Score: 1

Even knockoff stealth fighters now!
WOO!

--

Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
Getting it! by Mister+Liberty · 2012-09-17 07:27 · Score: 1

Are you seriously thinking these planes would be put
into real combat action anytime soon?!
No -- to be a deterrent, which is what they are for, you
want your possible enemy to know what your arsenal is.
bjd
we have this too by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-17 07:41 · Score: 0

it's called "eyes"
Soon obsoleted by passive radars by cpghost · 2012-09-17 08:39 · Score: 1

There are already passive radars out there that can detect this kind of stealth plane.

--
cpghost at Cordula's Web.
The question is NOT if or how many they have.... by WindBourne · 2012-09-17 08:52 · Score: 1

the real question is how soon will all of these systems be on-line? The reason is that China has a number of systems going in that are more offensive then defensive. Even their space lab is a military base just like the first 10 years of USSR's space stations (all were military outposts) or the MOB that America never built. It should be obvious that China has fully intentions of positioning themselves around the globe to take on the west. Even notice where they are helping nations to put in 'Nuclear power plants': North Korea, Iran, Burma, and now Venezuela are all putting in 'power plants' deep into the earth (over 200' down).

--
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Copy their work let them pay for developement by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-17 09:04 · Score: 0

Like they did to us for years. The biggest expense is to develop the ideas.
Then make it better engineered "American style."
Coax them to do better all the while!
Our new friends will set us free to save ourselves, financially.
Thanks China.
language and taboo by r00t · 2012-09-17 19:32 · Score: 1

there are cultures where war is unknown
Allegedly there is also a culture where the cause of pregnancy is unknown. Don't believe it for a moment. There is a language barrier and there are likely to be taboo subjects that the researcher is not aware of. If war is taboo, then it certainly will not be discussed with an outsider.
1. Re:language and taboo by camionbleu · 2012-09-18 04:44 · Score: 1
  
  That's an interesting point. Mary Douglas, who in the 1950s studied the Lele tribe (10,000 people in what was then the Belgian Congo) reported that they expressed incredulity that grown men would ever come to blows over any topic other than women. This has been interpreted by some people as evidence that they were not very warlike. But there might have been taboo involved. Or perhaps they were joking.
2. Re:language and taboo by r00t · 2012-09-18 05:37 · Score: 1
  
  Hmmm, I wonder if her gender made a difference. Perhaps in that culture war is considered a topic for men and perhaps boys.