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."

30 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 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!
    3. 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.
    4. 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

    5. 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...

    6. 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.

    7. 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
  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. 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 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
    2. 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.

  4. 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?!?

  5. 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...

  6. 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
  7. Re:Bootleg by Richard_at_work · · Score: 4, Insightful

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

  8. 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?

  9. 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

  10. 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.
  11. Re:Hey, where have I seen that plane before? by bugs2squash · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Tell that to Petr Ufimtsev.

    --
    Nullius in verba
  12. 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.

  13. 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...

  14. 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.

  15. 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.

  16. 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.
  17. Re:Hey, where have I seen that plane before? by thetoadwarrior · · Score: 3, Funny

    You never know, lead paint might deflect radar better.

  18. 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.
  19. 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.

  20. 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.