Slashdot Mirror


China Unveils Yet Another Stealth Fighter

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."

61 of 223 comments (clear)

  1. Not getting it! by rwise2112 · · 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 · · 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 · · 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 · · 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 · · 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 · · 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 jeffmeden · · 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...

    7. Re:Not getting it! by pdabbadabba · · Score: 2

      You must have never watched Chinese television.

    8. Re:Not getting it! by Crosshair84 · · 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.

    9. Re:Not getting it! by poity · · 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
    10. Re:Not getting it! by _DangerousDwarf · · 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

    11. Re:Not getting it! by Crosshair84 · · 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.

  2. Manned fighter planes by fustakrakich · · Score: 4, Funny

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

    --
    “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
  3. I don't believe they have figured it out just yet. by kiriath · · Score: 2

    Painting it black, doesn't make it stealthy!

  4. Soon to be at a Walmart near you by slazzy · · Score: 2, Funny

    For 9,999,9987

    --
    Website Just Down For Me? Find out
  5. F35 class by serviscope_minor · · 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 · · 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 Nidi62 · · 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
    3. Re:F35 class by Grayhand · · 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. inferior carbon-fiber layering processing by Anonymous Coward · · 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 · · 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 · · 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 ilguido · · 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.

  7. Re:Hey, where have I seen that plane before? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

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

  8. Re:Hey, where have I seen that plane before? by madwheel · · 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.

  9. Re:Hey, where have I seen that plane before? by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · 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...

  10. Re:Money best spent elsewhere... by PPH · · 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.
  11. Re:Money best spent elsewhere... by wed128 · · 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.

  12. Re:Bootleg by Richard_at_work · · Score: 4, Insightful

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

  13. Re:Hey, where have I seen that plane before? by it5complicated · · 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?

  14. Re:Hey, where have I seen that plane before? by Aqualung812 · · 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.
  15. Re:Bootleg by Microlith · · Score: 2

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

  16. Re:Bootleg by Sarten-X · · 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.
  17. Re:Money best spent elsewhere... by vlm · · 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
  18. What plane? by GodfatherofSoul · · 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!
  19. Re:Hey, where have I seen that plane before? by bugs2squash · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Tell that to Petr Ufimtsev.

    --
    Nullius in verba
  20. Not an F-22 comparable by Anonymous Coward · · 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 Anonymous Coward · · 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.

    2. Re:Not an F-22 comparable by JimCanuck · · 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.

  21. Re:Money by prefec2 · · 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.

  22. Re:Hey, where have I seen that plane before? by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · 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...

  23. Re:Hey, where have I seen that plane before? by tlhIngan · · 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.

  24. Re:Hey, where have I seen that plane before? by Jane+Q.+Public · · 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.

  25. Re:Another example of technology theft by MetalliQaZ · · 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"
  26. Re:Hey, where have I seen that plane before? by Jeng · · 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.
  27. Re:Hey, where have I seen that plane before? by Migraineman · · Score: 2

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

  28. Re:Hey, where have I seen that plane before? by gestalt_n_pepper · · 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.
  29. Exhaust by Coward+Anonymous · · 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 · · 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 dywolf · · 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.
  30. Re:Hey, where have I seen that plane before? by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · 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.

  31. Re:Money best spent elsewhere... by ducomputergeek · · 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.
  32. Re:MOD PARENT DOWN!!! by mcrbids · · 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.
  33. Re:Hey, where have I seen that plane before? by camionbleu · · 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.

  34. Re:Hey, where have I seen that plane before? by thetoadwarrior · · Score: 3, Funny

    You never know, lead paint might deflect radar better.

  35. Highlights IP and Patent Law Stupidity by theshowmecanuck · · 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.
  36. war not human nature? by r00t · · 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 · · 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.

  37. Re:Hey, where have I seen that plane before? by 0123456 · · 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.

  38. Re:Yeah but by mlts · · 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.

  39. Re:Hey, where have I seen that plane before? by shutdown+-p+now · · 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.