Slashdot Mirror


China's Stealth Fighter Flight Test Successful

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

161 comments

  1. good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

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

  2. Oh God, oh God, we're all going to die? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

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

    1. Re:Oh God, oh God, we're all going to die? by Intrepid+imaginaut · · Score: 2

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

    2. Re:Oh God, oh God, we're all going to die? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

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

    3. Re:Oh God, oh God, we're all going to die? by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      you know, that show for teenage girls.

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

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    4. Re:Oh God, oh God, we're all going to die? by Zemran · · Score: 1

      "you know, that show for teenage girls."

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

      --
      I love stacking my barbecues in the shed at the end of summer - you can't beat a bit of grill on grill action.
  3. disappearing word by methano · · Score: 1

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

  4. Re:Not a Flight Test Program by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Nor is a test program atomic.

  5. It ain't expensive to build a stealth plane... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

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

    1. Re:It ain't expensive to build a stealth plane... by aliquis · · Score: 4, Insightful

      This is Slashdot.

      We don't steal technology and knowledge.

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

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

    2. Re:It ain't expensive to build a stealth plane... by timeOday · · Score: 5, Funny

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

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

    3. Re:It ain't expensive to build a stealth plane... by BoogeyOfTheMan · · Score: 3, Insightful

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

    4. Re:It ain't expensive to build a stealth plane... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

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

    5. Re:It ain't expensive to build a stealth plane... by EnsilZah · · Score: 1

      You mean 'Liberated'.

    6. Re:It ain't expensive to build a stealth plane... by DarkTempes · · Score: 1, Informative

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

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

    7. Re:It ain't expensive to build a stealth plane... by Zemran · · Score: 3, Informative

      "Do they have direct access to the planes?"

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

      --
      I love stacking my barbecues in the shed at the end of summer - you can't beat a bit of grill on grill action.
    8. Re:It ain't expensive to build a stealth plane... by Zemran · · Score: 1

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

      --
      I love stacking my barbecues in the shed at the end of summer - you can't beat a bit of grill on grill action.
    9. Re:It ain't expensive to build a stealth plane... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

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

    10. Re:It ain't expensive to build a stealth plane... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

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

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

    11. Re:It ain't expensive to build a stealth plane... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

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

    12. Re:It ain't expensive to build a stealth plane... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

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

    13. Re:It ain't expensive to build a stealth plane... by Type44Q · · Score: 1

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

    14. Re:It ain't expensive to build a stealth plane... by jittles · · Score: 2

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

    15. Re:It ain't expensive to build a stealth plane... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

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

    16. Re:It ain't expensive to build a stealth plane... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Germany didn't invent stealth, if that's what you're implying.

      They did make the first jet engine.

      add to your list, the assault rifle, and detergent.

    17. Re:It ain't expensive to build a stealth plane... by jittles · · Score: 1

      Well the F-35 was jointly developed with the UK and other nations. We will definitely be sharing it with those, and other nations that are considered trusted. We sell Apaches to Egypt, Kuwait, Qatar, Isreal, and a lot of other countries. Do we sell them a B2 bomber? Nope. Is it possible that we'll sell an F-35 to someone, who will then resell it to another nation? Perhaps, but they would be cut off from future parts and aircraft if they are caught doing so without permission.

    18. Re:It ain't expensive to build a stealth plane... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What plane 2 seater that you're talking about? I am from Indonesia and i know we DON'T buy from US for fighter planes. US ban us from buying US plane (first because of East Timor then Aceh freedom fighters).
      www.worldpolicy.org/projects/arms/reports/indoarms.html

      So instead we bought Sukhoi from Russia.
      http://www.antaranews.com/en/news/1285584023/minister-ri-plans-to-have-180-sukhois-in-10-squadrons

      Then, YOUR US gov't OFFER us to buy those F16 (again) because their AFRAID of loosing money to the Russians.
      www.thejakartaglobe.com/news/us-offering-additional-f-16s-to-indonesia-as-part-of-defense-pact/538572

      There's a lot of country offering us to SELL their hardware. Why we should ONLY rely to US?
      www.comhaha.com/blog/631402-indonesia-has-signed-a-contract-with-south-korea-to-purchase-16-t-50/

      And we intend to get the latest (exportable) S-300 SAM's.
      en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S-300_%28missile%29

      ---

      Do you really think we're stupid enough just licking US ass all the time? Idiots...

    19. Re:It ain't expensive to build a stealth plane... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes they had direct access. It is well known (and no secret) that Chinese espionage at American military contractors is rampant. If they don't have access to the planes themselves, they certainly have access to schematics, blueprints, design secrets, etc.

      Considering the fact that most graduates from American institutions in science and technology are foreign born, it is no surprise that these engineers funnel information back to places like China once they obtain jobs in the U.S.

      It's a real problem. America just doesn't have the scientists and the engineers anymore. We are a bunch of morons over here and it will lead to our collapse. When you have to rely on foreign nationals to develop your military tech, you are in trouble.

    20. Re:It ain't expensive to build a stealth plane... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

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

      Speaking of stealing technology, it was one thing to find a Vietnam war vet who could think in Russian. Where the hell are we going to find a Gulf War vet who can think in Mandarin?

    21. Re:It ain't expensive to build a stealth plane... by cyn1c77 · · Score: 1

      This is Slashdot.

      We don't steal technology and knowledge.

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

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

      Seriously?!?!?!

      Why is this guy's post modded "insightful" and not "funny?"

    22. Re:It ain't expensive to build a stealth plane... by aliquis · · Score: 1

      I was mostly thinking about rocket engines and people working with rockets and whatever research and researchers.

      Both the US and Russia for sure wanted to get whatever they could get.

      I have too little knowledge about actual planes.

    23. Re:It ain't expensive to build a stealth plane... by aliquis · · Score: 1

      What's the major threat of Indonesia? Seem to be top us here in Sweden.

      But I see now you're ranked #18 against our #28 over at:
      http://globalfirepower.com/
      Total Population: 245,613,043 [2011]
      Damn =P
      Defense Budget: $4,740,000,000 [2011]

      Seem like our defence budget is higher (but then services it buy are likely more expensive?)
          Defense Budget: $5,500,000,000 [2011]

      Your purchasing power is higher.

    24. Re:It ain't expensive to build a stealth plane... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What we did to Germany was called WINNING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    25. Re:It ain't expensive to build a stealth plane... by flyingsquid · · Score: 2

      Also how could they? Do they have direct access to the planes?

      They don't need direct access. The People's Liberation Army hacked into the networks of American defense contractors and stole blueprints and data http://cnsnews.com/news/article/chinese-hackers-stole-plans-americas-new-joint-strike-fighter-plane-says-investigations. If anyone had any questions who was behind these attacks, the fact that features of the F-22 and F-35 are now showing up in Chinese planes pretty much eliminates all doubt.

    26. Re:It ain't expensive to build a stealth plane... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sure, they hack directly into military and government computer networks or just buy them from insiders.

    27. Re:It ain't expensive to build a stealth plane... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is Slashdot.

      We don't steal technology and knowledge.

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

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

      The USA spie agency is as big a thief as the ones from other countries. Sadly, GWBush put the USA into such bad debt that the American economy will not be able to do either Obama's or Romney's plans. To get out of debt, you need to create customers. Customers will create demand and demand will create investment and jobs.
      Romney would invest another few hundred million to do what? Build weapons for an enemy that has the ability to do tit-for-tat. The USA needs so badly to create markets for its goods, so that jobs can be created.

      You can get temporary relief for jobs by investing in infrastructure. New Orleans, New York, New Jersey, and everywhere where weather has created substantial damage. Rebuild the sewers, the roads. Get rail traffic and commuter trains in place.

      These infrastructure jobs will put money into the hands of the middle class. They will spend some of it for goods, services, savings, and the economy will rebound.
      Currently though, the best thought is to scrutinize all unnecessary military spending. Spend on science and technology. Revise the patent rules so that the small guy can create patents that he can defend. I know I mixed topics, but stupid Romney ideas about increased military spending is not going to make the USA safer or in a better position financially.
       

    28. Re:It ain't expensive to build a stealth plane... by smithmc · · Score: 1

      "Do they have direct access to the planes?"

      Only if they went along to the last arms symposium and bought some. You do realise that things like that are available to all?

      Not our stealth stuff. We do not sell F-117s, B-2s, or F-22s to anyone. The F-35 is only available to a short list of friendly countries.

      --
      Downmodding is the refuge of the weak. Don't downmod, make a better argument!
  6. Well, that's putting it one way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

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

    Borrowed? Like they are going to give it back?

    1. Re:Well, that's putting it one way by rtp · · Score: 4, Insightful

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

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

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

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

    2. Re:Well, that's putting it one way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

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

    3. Re:Well, that's putting it one way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

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

    4. Re:Well, that's putting it one way by tibit · · Score: 1

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

      --
      A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
    5. Re:Well, that's putting it one way by taxman_10m · · Score: 1

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

    6. Re:Well, that's putting it one way by taxman_10m · · Score: 1

      Found what I was looking for. Wasn't stealth though.
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hainan_Island_incident

    7. Re:Well, that's putting it one way by Zemran · · Score: 1

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

      --
      I love stacking my barbecues in the shed at the end of summer - you can't beat a bit of grill on grill action.
    8. Re:Well, that's putting it one way by KDR_11k · · Score: 1

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

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

      --
      Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
    9. Re:Well, that's putting it one way by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      China seeks to dominate other countries

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

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

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    10. Re:Well, that's putting it one way by theArtificial · · Score: 1

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

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

      Is it xenophobia or ethnic nepotism?

      --
      Man blir trött av att gå och göra ingenting.
    11. Re:Well, that's putting it one way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They don't need cyber-attacks when they have their agents working for our defense contractors.

      See this: http://www.fbi.gov/newark/press-releases/2012/former-employee-of-new-jersey-defense-contractor-convicted-of-exporting-sensitive-military-technology-to-china

      That is but one example of MANY. This is the problem we have when we don't have U.S. born scientists and engineers anymore. Our contractors have to rely on foreign born scientists and engineers (most of whom get their degrees at U.S. universities). And then they act surprised when a guy named Lin Liu funnels info back to China.

    12. Re:Well, that's putting it one way by khallow · · Score: 1

      It's worth noting that Indochina and Indonesia are much more diverse ethnically (including large ethnic Chinese populations in much of Indochina). Those are generally considered part of the Far East as well.

    13. Re:Well, that's putting it one way by hicksw · · Score: 1

      Borrowed? Like they are going to give it back?

      Hey, calm down. It's only IP. They probably got it from a torrent.

      --
      Flag signal ZL - "Your signal has been received but not understood."

    14. Re:Well, that's putting it one way by tibit · · Score: 1

      I agree, but that misses my point. China may become a sole world superpower, but they'll be pretty much isolated in their victory.

      --
      A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
  7. USA is too expensive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So how does America deal with this problem?

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

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

    1. Re:USA is too expensive by dimeglio · · Score: 1

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

      --
      Views expressed do not necessarily reflect those of the author.
    2. Re:USA is too expensive by Zemran · · Score: 4, Interesting

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

      --
      I love stacking my barbecues in the shed at the end of summer - you can't beat a bit of grill on grill action.
    3. Re:USA is too expensive by KDR_11k · · Score: 1

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

      --
      Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
    4. Re:USA is too expensive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

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

    5. Re:USA is too expensive by Zemran · · Score: 1

      No, the ATC said that the first reason that he contacted the pilot was because the transponder was turned off, and the pilot was surprised that he could even see him. As for your stupid "No you didn't", if you are really that young you are not really worth communicating with.

      --
      I love stacking my barbecues in the shed at the end of summer - you can't beat a bit of grill on grill action.
    6. Re:USA is too expensive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I said it because you are mistaken.
      Find me one reputable source to backup your claim that you can track a stealth plane on any type of ATC radar.
      Maybe they were contacting him because he was squaking the wrong code or maybe he had the wrong system on but if he didn't have something on you're not going to see him.
      A simple thought exercise for you... why would the military spend billions of dollars to develop a technology that can be tracked by a system designed to track planes?

    7. Re:USA is too expensive by Zemran · · Score: 1

      A simple thought exercise for you. We are discussing a field in which I worked. I was there, these were the people I worked with.

      A total stranger is telling me that the experts are wrong and which do you think I will listen to. I am not interested in getting into detail but I do know how and why this works. It was my job to know.

      --
      I love stacking my barbecues in the shed at the end of summer - you can't beat a bit of grill on grill action.
    8. Re:USA is too expensive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I do know how and why this works. It was my job to know.

      If that were true, you certainly wouldn't be talking about it here.

  8. if it was REALLY a stealth fighter... by new+death+barbie · · Score: 1

    How would anyone know it's been tested?

    --

    It's supposed to be completely automatic, but actually you have to press this button.

    1. Re:if it was REALLY a stealth fighter... by jrumney · · Score: 1, Insightful

      How would anyone know it's been tested?

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

    2. Re:if it was REALLY a stealth fighter... by Zemran · · Score: 1

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

      --
      I love stacking my barbecues in the shed at the end of summer - you can't beat a bit of grill on grill action.
    3. Re:if it was REALLY a stealth fighter... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Its loaded with the latest particle beam and blackhole weaponry, antigravity propulsion systems, etc.. Its what they don't tell us that's got everyone scared to hell and running for cover.

  9. In the mean time, we are moving to drones by WindBourne · · Score: 2

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

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

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

    --
    I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    1. Re:In the mean time, we are moving to drones by zill · · Score: 1

      Stealth technology and drones aren't mutually exclusive.

    2. Re:In the mean time, we are moving to drones by Waffle+Iron · · Score: 1

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

      What could possibly go wrong?

    3. Re:In the mean time, we are moving to drones by Lemming+Mark · · Score: 1

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

    4. Re:In the mean time, we are moving to drones by Zemran · · Score: 1

      "technical advantages of drones"

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

      --
      I love stacking my barbecues in the shed at the end of summer - you can't beat a bit of grill on grill action.
    5. Re:In the mean time, we are moving to drones by timeOday · · Score: 2
      You are mistaken. There are lots of reasons UAV adoption by the US has skyrocketed only recently. Here is some assets you need to use them like we do:
      • 1) Total air dominance
      • 2) A satellite communications network
      • 3) A GPS constellation

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

    6. Re:In the mean time, we are moving to drones by WindBourne · · Score: 1

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

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    7. Re:In the mean time, we are moving to drones by WindBourne · · Score: 1

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

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    8. Re:In the mean time, we are moving to drones by WindBourne · · Score: 1

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

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    9. Re:In the mean time, we are moving to drones by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      While China is stealing western tech for stealth

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

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

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    10. Re:In the mean time, we are moving to drones by tokul · · Score: 1

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

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

    11. Re:In the mean time, we are moving to drones by timeOday · · Score: 1
      Define "easily." The people we're using them against now certainly haven't had very much success in stopping us. Yes, there was that one that crash landed in Iran, maybe their doing, but I don't think that's terribly significant long-term. We're still using them in the region.

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

    12. Re:In the mean time, we are moving to drones by rtb61 · · Score: 1

      More likely China paid attention how illusionary weapon systems created by the US were able to drive the Soviet Union spending itself into bankruptcy trying to match them. Now it can target the US in the same manner knowing full well that the US military industrial complex driven by greed will be their willing partners in their bankrupting of the US. Lots of talk of new laser weapons, anti-satellite weapons, anti-aircraft carrier weapons, etc. etc, anything to drive up spending fully supported by US corporations driven by greed to act in a treasonous manner. WAR WAR WAR = MONEY MONEY MONEY.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    13. Re:In the mean time, we are moving to drones by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Uhh, Thorium reactors are meltdown proof. I think that was his point. You can bomb them all you want and they won't meltdown or release radiation.

    14. Re:In the mean time, we are moving to drones by WindBourne · · Score: 1

      The normal solid-fuel missiles were 'borrowed' from China. Ancient China.
      The liquid rocket tech was developed in America. Ever hear of goddard? Germany 'borrowed' it.
      The jet engine was borrowed from many other sources.

      What Germany had going was the mass production and R&D on variants of the above.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    15. Re:In the mean time, we are moving to drones by Velex · · Score: 1

      Interesting. Hopefully we at least get a manned Mars mission out of it.

      Damn it, I know that's too much to hope for.

      --
      Join the Slashcott! Stay away entirely Feb 10 thru Feb 17! Close all tabs to prevent autorefresh!
    16. Re:In the mean time, we are moving to drones by Waffle+Iron · · Score: 1

      That's the whole problem: Tanks that are destroyed will be spewing their contents.

      No amount of shielding is going to guarantee safety against present and future developments in armor-piercing weapons.

    17. Re:In the mean time, we are moving to drones by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You mean like when the US designed the F15 to counter the supposed capabilities of its Russian counterpart and we ended up with a plane that can still beat just about anything in the sky 40 years later?

    18. Re:In the mean time, we are moving to drones by tokul · · Score: 1

      a plane that can still beat just about anything in the sky 40 years later

      your anything does not include Russian planes F15 was designed to counter.

  10. Corporate America to the Rescue? by TrueSatan · · Score: 1

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

    1. Re:Corporate America to the Rescue? by Sulphur · · Score: 1

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

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

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

      The kangaroos are offended.

    2. Re:Corporate America to the Rescue? by dicobalt · · Score: 1

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

  11. It's just for the show by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

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

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

    1. Re:It's just for the show by Eunuchswear · · Score: 5, Funny

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

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

      --
      Watch this Heartland Institute video
    2. Re:It's just for the show by tokul · · Score: 2

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

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

    3. Re:It's just for the show by a_hanso · · Score: 1

      Wow. That fuselage's black, curved rectangu... Christ! It's violating the Apple iPhone patents!

    4. Re:It's just for the show by SimonInOz · · Score: 1

      Hang on a moment - they tested a stealth plane - and we saw it?

      Um - I rate that a fail.

      --
      "Cats like plain crisps"
  12. It's all for show. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

    In an internet post nutshell over-simplification:

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

    Cyber attack on the entire nation's infrastructure.

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

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

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

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

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

  13. Re:Not a Flight Test Program by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

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

  14. Why Would That Matter? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

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

    1. Re:Why Would That Matter? by Zemran · · Score: 1

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

      --
      I love stacking my barbecues in the shed at the end of summer - you can't beat a bit of grill on grill action.
    2. Re:Why Would That Matter? by ilguido · · Score: 1

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

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

    3. Re:Why Would That Matter? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

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

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

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

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

    4. Re:Why Would That Matter? by readin · · Score: 1

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

      Even the arms sales are pretty limited.

      --
      I often don't like the choices people make, but I like the fact that people make choices. That's why I'm a conservative.
  15. Klaus Fuchs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

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

    1. Re:Klaus Fuchs by johanw · · Score: 2

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

  16. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  17. Oldest trick in the book! by presspass · · Score: 3, Funny

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

    "Damn we're good!"

  18. so what if they copied by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

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

  19. Re:Nuke the mofo's by tibit · · Score: 1

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

    --
    A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
  20. Re:Also to note.. by Seeteufel · · Score: 1

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

  21. It's a feature, not a bug. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

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

    1. Re:It's a feature, not a bug. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

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

      Area of denial works both ways.

    2. Re:It's a feature, not a bug. by WindBourne · · Score: 1

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

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    3. Re:It's a feature, not a bug. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

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

  22. More spending! by JosephTX · · Score: 1

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

    1. Re:More spending! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

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

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

  23. This will make more sense when you get older ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    ... that show for teenage girls.

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

    When you get older this will make more sense.

  24. Isn't that how tests start ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    One ten-minute flight is not a test program.

    But that is how test programs begin.

  25. Re:... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

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

    Plus US consumers are paying for this one too.

  26. Short on originality/Long on thievery! by Paracelcus · · Score: 1

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

    --
    I killed da wabbit -Elmer Fudd
    1. Re:Short on originality/Long on thievery! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

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

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

    2. Re:Short on originality/Long on thievery! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Gunpowder.
      That is all.

    3. Re:Short on originality/Long on thievery! by mjwx · · Score: 1

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

      It would probably be closer to Russia's PAK FA developed by Sukhoi..

      Why steal from the US when you can just buy from the Russians?

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    4. Re:Short on originality/Long on thievery! by Paracelcus · · Score: 1

      So you are saying that the Chinese were communists in 1100/1200 AD?

      And it is NOT "gunpowder" until you use it in a gun, the very first "gun" was produced in Turkey around 1300!

      What the Chinese had was for small rockets, firecrackers, etc ANY other claims of "great antiquity" or the usual "first", "bigger", "better" from the Peoples Ministry of Dis-Information is just more Commie propaganda!

      --
      I killed da wabbit -Elmer Fudd
  27. I'm not too worried... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

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

  28. October Surprise by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

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

    1. Re:October Surprise by toriver · · Score: 1

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

    2. Re:October Surprise by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

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

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

    3. Re:October Surprise by RocketRabbit · · Score: 1

      Nobody knew the Russians would actually fight back. Hell, in the Western defense press, there was article after article of defense "analysts" scratching their heads and saying such stupid things as: "We didn't even think Russia had working tanks any more!" and "They spend such a small amount of money on their military that we thought they wouldn't be able to fight even a minor conflict!"

      Of course, none of those analysts want to mention that with state-owned defense firms, Russia can do the same work with $1 that the US does with $1000.

    4. Re:October Surprise by ComradeMauser · · Score: 1

      I can agree with a single statement. US defence firms can do diddly squat with $1000 Russkies can do exactly as much with $1.

    5. Re:October Surprise by RocketRabbit · · Score: 1

      Are you denying the fact that the Western intelligence analysts were totally floored by Russia's blitzkrieg into Georgia?

      You can deny it but it's true.

    6. Re:October Surprise by Zemran · · Score: 1

      Russia moved Chechen troops into South Ossetia and they had been attacking Georgia for months before Georgia retaliated. It was stupid but it was not Georgia that attacked first.

      http://gozie.com/video/5A99NA87MR74/Putin-Russia-amp-the-West-The-War

      I believe that South Ossetia was just smoke and mirrors and that what Russia really wanted was the deep water port in Abkasia.

      --
      I love stacking my barbecues in the shed at the end of summer - you can't beat a bit of grill on grill action.
    7. Re:October Surprise by Zemran · · Score: 1

      Actually the Russians had been shelling Georgia for months before Georgia retaliated

      http://gozie.com/video/5A99NA87MR74/Putin-Russia-amp-the-West-The-War

      but in reality, I think it is more likely that Russia was after the deep water port in Abkasia as Ukraine was refusing to renew the lease on Sevastopol (they did renew in the end) at that time. Russia has kept Abkasia.

      --
      I love stacking my barbecues in the shed at the end of summer - you can't beat a bit of grill on grill action.
    8. Re:October Surprise by ComradeMauser · · Score: 1

      What has it got to do with alleged superiority of russian weapon-makers? Then again, considering that I would not trust western intelligence analysts with organizing a pissup in a brewery... you are right - they were caught with their pants down once again. I wonder if they ever have their pants up. For any person blessed with more than one brain cell it was obvious that an attempt to bring the errant colony back into the fold was just a question of time.

    9. Re:October Surprise by RocketRabbit · · Score: 1

      Who said anything about superiority? The Russians are simply more economically efficient, but I don't know if that translates into overarching superiority.

  29. Yeah, but. . . by kimvette · · Score: 1

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

    Piece of crap.

    --
    The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
  30. Wonderful! by StormyMonday · · Score: 1

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

    --
    Welcome to the Turing Tarpit, where everything is possible but nothing interesting is easy.
  31. patent infringements by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

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

  32. Shema Yisrael! YF-22 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

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

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

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

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

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

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

  33. lol by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

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

  34. Chinks in our Armor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

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

  35. Google J-31 pictures by gelfling · · Score: 1

    It's anything but stealthy with all those hardpoints and external pylons.

    1. Re:Google J-31 pictures by gl4ss · · Score: 1

      didn't you get the memo? sharp angles = STEALTH FIGHTTTTERRRR!!!

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
  36. Great News by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you're a boneheaded foreigner investing in China's military, Chinese Iranian or N. Korean Pakistani, or having already invested and reaped millions of drakmars and ruples are running for presidency somewhere on the planet. For the rest of the world, good news.. not so much.

  37. Re:Also to note.. by RocketRabbit · · Score: 1

    How could you say such a thing? Pretty much every major US company manufactures everything they sell in China. If they just said, hey, sorry, we are not shipping any more consumer goods to your country, our economy would totally collapse overnight.

    China also has another weapon that nobody ever likes to talk about - their government treasury prints all the Chinese money. They do not have to borrow money from the international financial cartel. This insulates them to a large degree from world financial problems. That, and the fact that most Chinese are still effectively peasants, beating at the soil with a rock tied to the end of a stick.

    No, we will not confront China. At least, not until our manufacturing base is relocated.

  38. Re:Also to note.. by Seeteufel · · Score: 1

    The United States is an agrar export nation. China is the workbench of the occident. It makes a lot of sense to confront the nation and split it. What some call chinese dialects are in fact completely different languages, China is socially, technically, culturally etc very diverse, makes sense to support seperatist movements.

  39. Re:Also to note.. by RocketRabbit · · Score: 1

    The plan of killing China by moving a bunch of companies over there to manufacture low- and high-tech goods has failed miserably.

    No, China isn't splitting apart because they have different languages. This plan has been tried and it has failed miserably. Just look at all the success that the Hollywood-driven "Free Tibet" nonsense has had! We tried through a 55+ year CIA infiltration program, with the media softening up the USA to favor the brutal Dalai Lama, and threatening to exert some kind of theoretical (and it turns out, totally fake) international pressure, and that failed. This, in the most culturally, geographically, and linguistically distant part of the actual PRC.

    If we really want to split China, we will have to do it in another way, not by continuing to enrich their economy, give them endless free high-tech manufacturing facilities, etc.

    Talk to a Chinese person some day. Most haven't even heard of the Tiananmen Square massacre.

  40. Re:Also to note.. by Seeteufel · · Score: 1

    I am not speaking of Free Tibet, Tibet is not China but seized territory but no one cares over there. I mean more the conflicts between say an urban shanghai population, Beijing and rural provinces. It is a quite common saying among Chinese to "end China". They simply lack imagination.

  41. Re:Also to note.. by Seeteufel · · Score: 1

    "The plan of killing China by moving a bunch of companies over there to manufacture low- and high-tech goods has failed miserably." That was not the plan. The plan was to sell socks to 1 billion Chinese and alleged growth potential which stems from that. But seriously, we learned from the Soviet Union how to overstretch an empire.

  42. Re:Also to note.. by RocketRabbit · · Score: 1

    If you think Tibet is seized territory than you are totally unaware of the history of the interactions between China and Tibet.

    Tibet was a warlike kingdom for a very long time, which attacked China and extracted tribute for a long time, until China invaded and took it over. It was an official protectorate of Imperial China for hundreds of years.

    Anyway, the Tibetans are much better off under the ChiCom than they were under Lamaism. At least they can ride a bike over the next hill without receiving the death penalty.

  43. Re:Also to note.. by RocketRabbit · · Score: 1

    I think the plan was to actually create wealthy Chinese through factory partnerships, then help these people get into power, where they would gradually weaken the Communist government. Thing is, it was a terrible plan from the get-go and it hasn't really worked.

    The Wang Lijun incident has showed anybody with eyes to see that we are still operating power-brokering scandals in China, but they have been effectively squashed and Bo Xilai who I suspect was our man on the inside is now disgraced, and I'm sure the hardliners over there are watching out for other Manchurians of ours, which undoubtedly exist.

  44. Re:This will make more sense when you get older .. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Nah it was made for fags

  45. X-35 clone by allcoolnameswheretak · · Score: 1

    I see the chinese espionage is alive and well. That plane looks almost exactly like an X-35, except it has two engines instead of one.

  46. Message from China to USA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Thank you, Bill Clinton, for selling us the technology to make this jet.

  47. This is the refurbished Russian/Ukraianian Carrier by rahvin112 · · Score: 1

    Their agreement with Russia does not allow them to arm the Carrier in any conceivable way including placing armed planes on the ship. Their agreement allows them to use the carrier for one thing, testing and training. Maybe they'll violate the Russian sale agreement, I really don't think they will.

  48. Whaddya Mean "We"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Brutal Dalai Lama? What are you smoking? I think you're advertising which govt you're loyal to right there, and I don't know who you think gives your "we" any credibility.

    1. Re:Whaddya Mean "We"? by RocketRabbit · · Score: 1

      Have you actually read about Tibet under Lamaism? There were two classes of people - the Buddhist monks, and slaves.

      If you left your home village without permission, the punishment was that your legs were broken and you were left in the wilderness.

      Sexual slavery of acolytes was not just common, but the rule. I could go on, AC, but I think you were just here for a drive-by or else you would have posted under your real account.

      By the way, I'm a loyal American, and I really have no love for the ChiCom or the brutal Lamas. It's a bit easier for you, though, as I'm sure you get all your information about Tibet from Alec Baldwin.

  49. SLASHDOT CENSORSHIP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Heh, amazing - my original post was removed by the Jackbooted Censors who act as Thought Police here on Slashdot, but the posts of those rebutting me are kept around. Pathetic.

  50. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  51. Re:Nuke the mofo's by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    don't feed, just ignore...

  52. Testing? by DarthVain · · Score: 1

    Am I the only one that sees the humor here of testing stealth technology?

    So where is it? Oh it already flew by... (snicker).
    Best plane ever, we'll order a thousand of them.
    Please make the check out to "CASH". k thx bai!