The Chinese can copy anything... even stealth aircraft

[rudder]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB100...61674166905408.html?mod=WSJ_hp_LEFTTopStories

No word on whether it is a mock up or a fully functional aircraft. It was just photographed taxiing down a runway with very little effort to cover it up.

here is a link to the f-22 for comparison:

http://www.dakotathunder.com/Images/F-22.jpg

other than a slighty different cockpit and redesigned tale.. they did a good job.

Either this is just a fiberglass mockup or there is a U.S. Government employee who is now richly retiring to a country with no extradition treaty with the U.S.

 

[Trianon]

already posted in ATOT

 

[Lizardman]

I dont see the resemblance

http://www.f22fighter.com/f22cutaway.jpg

Doesnt look as steathly either. The wings look like they have visable hard points on them. That will make for a much higher radar profile probably.

 

[rudder]

already posted in ATOT

hmmm but that thread likely devolved into a discussion about fapping.

 

[yllus]

I'm a mere layman in this area, but I believe a large part of what makes the F-22 so dangerous is its software systems, its support (AWACS) and the top-notch training its pilots receive. Even if it is a pound-for-pound copy of the F-22 that doesn't necessarily make them equals in the sky.

 

[Trianon]

hmmm but that thread likely devolved into a discussion about fapping.

actually some good info there:

http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2132589&highlight=stealth

 

[llee]

hmm... the images make it look more like YF-23 than an F-22. Thoughts?

 

[PottedMeat]

hmm... the images make it look more like YF-23 than an F-22. Thoughts?

nah, that's definitely a F22 knockoff

damned if the YF23 wasn't a sexy lookin plane though:

 

[JeffreyLebowski]

The Chinese plane is a Delta wing aircraft.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delta_wing
It only rooks like an F22 from the front becaues of the shape of the inlets for the engines.

 

[Blackjack200]

I'm a mere layman in this area, but I believe a large part of what makes the F-22 so dangerous is its software systems, its support (AWACS) and the top-notch training its pilots receive. Even if it is a pound-for-pound copy of the F-22 that doesn't necessarily make them equals in the sky.

This is true, the way that the F-22 can process information from AWACS, passive sensors, and active radar, and provide that information to the pilot is one of the more underappreciated, but most important features of the aircraft. Think of it this way, an F-22 can patrol the sky with its radar off and a very low radar visibility of its own. But it can still have all the information that a radar would provide because it is receiving it from the AWACS. It can send that information to the AMRAAM missle, and fire that missle without ever breaking stealth. The missle will home on inertial guidance before turning on its radar for the terminal homing phase. So essentially the only warning the other pilot has is the few seconds between the AMRAAM radar going hot and the warhead blowing his aircraft up.

Even if the Chinese were able to replicate the airframe (unlikely as even the technology to manufacture the plane is extremely advanced), how are they going to replicate the 30,000 lb. supercruising engines?

 

[Orignal Earl]

Isn't that the way it goes with most everything anyways?
To get to the first stealth jet, you had to start with German plans and then work with Russian software.

 

[PeshakJang]

It's probably too heavy to fly, since it is likely make of 100% lead.

 

[Scotteq]

Well - Let's take a minute to consider the development process:

The Request for Proposal for what eventually became the F22 was issued in 1983 (27 years ago)

The development contract was issued in 1986 (24 years ago)

The first flyable prototype began testing in 1990 (20 years ago)

Publicly Introduced in 1997


So - What we know today as the F/A 22 is a 25~30 year old design (augmented with newer avionics/computer tech/software, OFC). Does anyone really think the USA doesn't already have something else (public or not) in the pipeline?

 

[Blackjack200]

Well - Let's take a minute to consider the development process:

The Request for Proposal for what eventually became the F22 was issued in 1983 (27 years ago)

The development contract was issued in 1986 (24 years ago)

The first flyable prototype began testing in 1990 (20 years ago)

Publicly Introduced in 1997


So - What we know today as the F/A 22 is a 25~30 year old design (augmented with newer avionics/computer tech/software, OFC). Does anyone really think the USA doesn't already have something else (public or not) in the pipeline?

The design is not 25-30 years old, it is 20 years old (first flyable prototype) as revisions and refinements to the design continue right up to delivery of the production fighter. You could say that the concept is 25-30 years old.

Could there be something else in the pipeline? Perhaps. But we heard about the ATF at a very early stage. My guess is that with current gestation timeframes, from the time we heard about something to combat deployment would be at least 20 years.

The miliary seems more interested in developing UAVs and drones than combat aircraft, so the F-22 might be our fighter for a long time.

 

[nonlnear]

The miliary seems more interested in developing UAVs and drones than combat aircraft, so the F-22 might be our fighter for a long time.

The F-22 may be the last true (manned) fighter... ever.

 

[irishScott]

The F-22 may be the last true (manned) fighter... ever.

I doubt it. Drones are nice until your enemies develop jamming technology and ground your entire air force without firing a shot.

 

[Scotteq]

The design is not 25-30 years old, it is 20 years old (first flyable prototype) as revisions and refinements to the design continue right up to delivery of the production fighter. You could say that the concept is 25-30 years old.

Could there be something else in the pipeline? Perhaps. But we heard about the ATF at a very early stage. My guess is that with current gestation timeframes, from the time we heard about something to combat deployment would be at least 20 years.

The miliary seems more interested in developing UAVs and drones than combat aircraft, so the F-22 might be our fighter for a long time.

< smile > It's a long way to a flyable prototype, my friend, and the designs/technologies (by definition) have to be older still. So I'm strongly inclined to point to the CAD systems and research/prototyping computers the engineers had to use to create the design in the first place. Splitting hairs, tho, since the difference is who decides to put the yardstick, and where. < smile >


Your point on UAVs is well taken: The Air Force are particularly enamoured of the concept of pilotless aircraft. And if we are to look at the physics of flying, the Pilot is the weak point (something like 12 G's), whereas the machine itself could be made to go a ways further than that. Not to mention a smaller machine since the cockpit could also go away. Pilots are really, really expensive to train, etc etc etc...

A couple strong negatives go with that, though: One is maintaining command and control of the thing against a sophisticated enemy. Dropping guided munitions on a bunch of guys in caves is one thing. Flying unmanned vehicles against an enemy armed with electronics (nearly) as advanced as your own is quite another. Plus - Once you turn the the INS off and the radios on to maintain active control and send back images/data... Well: Now they know you're out there...

The second is more political/social in nature: Rules of War, politics, and social mores can/do/will demand a pair of trained, human eyeballs on the target**. Drones don't have real eyeballs.




**(This is one of the reasons Fighter planes still have guns: If you're close enough for a visual Identification, then you are already in the aerial version of a knife fight.)

 

[irishScott]

Obligatory: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5pZccGH085Q

 

[rudder]

I doubt it. Drones are nice until your enemies develop jamming technology and ground your entire air force without firing a shot.

or they wipe out your satellites. The drones flying over afghanistan now are piloted from halfway around the world.

I imagine more of a hybrid type plane... able to fly pilotless and yet have room for a pilot. most new airliners today basically fly themselves. I think most U.S. airlines turnoff auto land except when doing very low visibility landings... but the tech has been around for a while now.

 

[nonlnear]

I doubt it. Drones are nice until your enemies develop jamming technology and ground your entire air force without firing a shot.

There will always be a place for manned aircraft, but the purpose-built air superiority plane is becoming less and less relevant. If the only scenario in which one truly needs manned air superiority capabilities is when one's avionics and/or communications are severely impaired, then you are right that there may be a place for manned fighters, but that points to a very different type of plane than one might extrapolate from the current path of fighter evolution. The F-22 may still be the last of its kind, even if there are still fighters to come after it. It could spell a renaissance of the true dogfight. Simple, cheap, light planes along the lines of ARES[/quote] could be back in vogue. (I don't believe that's the direction the USAF goes, but I can imagine it for some other countries.)

I think you may be underestimating the development of autonomous drones that don't need continuous communications. If you can disable a drone like that with jamming, you can disable any manned plane with similar electronics too.

 

[Blackjack200]

< smile > It's a long way to a flyable prototype, my friend, and the designs/technologies (by definition) have to be older still. So I'm strongly inclined to point to the CAD systems and research/prototyping computers the engineers had to use to create the design in the first place. Splitting hairs, tho, since the difference is who decides to put the yardstick, and where. < smile >

Fair enough. I agree it's a fine point.

Your point on UAVs is well taken: The Air Force are particularly enamoured of the concept of pilotless aircraft. And if we are to look at the physics of flying, the Pilot is the weak point (something like 12 G's), whereas the machine itself could be made to go a ways further than that. Not to mention a smaller machine since the cockpit could also go away. Pilots are really, really expensive to train, etc etc etc...

A couple strong negatives go with that, though: One is maintaining command and control of the thing against a sophisticated enemy. Dropping guided munitions on a bunch of guys in caves is one thing. Flying unmanned vehicles against an enemy armed with electronics (nearly) as advanced as your own is quite another. Plus - Once you turn the the INS off and the radios on to maintain active control and send back images/data... Well: Now they know you're out there...

The second is more political/social in nature: Rules of War, politics, and social mores can/do/will demand a pair of trained, human eyeballs on the target**. Drones don't have real eyeballs.

I agree with both limitations. On the second one, however, I would just point out that we're already violating the Geneva Conventions by using unmanned vehicles to kill people. (Unless I understand them wrong...) So I'm not sure how much we're going to let that stop us.

 

[Scotteq]

I agree with both limitations. On the second one, however, I would just point out that we're already violating the Geneva Conventions by using unmanned vehicles to kill people. (Unless I understand them wrong...) So I'm not sure how much we're going to let that stop us.

Heh - Treaty!?!?! What Treaty!??! The geneva convention doesn't have a clause on 'Remotely Piloted Vehicles'!!! :whiste:


But yeah - Good point. 🙂



I checked out the picture of the thing at Aviation Week: The nose is pretty similar to an F22, as is the general shape: Though that is dictated/influenced by the physics of making a flyable shape that deflects radar away from it's source. So how much of that is "Spy" and how much is "Chinese Engineers coming up with similar solutions for the same problems" is open to at least a little Fig Leaf of debate.

Did anyone else notice the thing looks really big? Maybe just a trick of the camera angle, but comparing the size of the cockpit to the rest of the aircraft.. Yeah: Big Airplane.

 

[irishScott]

There will always be a place for manned aircraft, but the purpose-built air superiority plane is becoming less and less relevant. If the only scenario in which one truly needs manned air superiority capabilities is when one's avionics and/or communications are severely impaired, then you are right that there may be a place for manned fighters, but that points to a very different type of plane than one might extrapolate from the current path of fighter evolution. The F-22 may still be the last of its kind, even if there are still fighters to come after it. It could spell a renaissance of the true dogfight. Simple, cheap, light planes along the lines of ARES could be back in vogue. (I don't believe that's the direction the USAF goes, but I can imagine it for some other countries.)

I think you may be underestimating the development of autonomous drones that don't need continuous communications. If you can disable a drone like that with jamming, you can disable any manned plane with similar electronics too.

Well yeah if you can make an autonomous drone capable of dogfighting then I'd say manned planes are on the way out. What I foresee is something of a dogfight renaissance when an effective counter to an ICBM is developed and suddenly every nuclear arsenal becomes obsolete. When it comes down to it, I seriously doubt we'll develop an autonomous drone with the same capabilities as a human pilot anytime soon.

 

[PottedMeat]

Well yeah if you can make an autonomous drone capable of dogfighting then I'd say manned planes are on the way out. What I foresee is something of a dogfight renaissance when an effective counter to an ICBM is developed and suddenly every nuclear arsenal becomes obsolete. When it comes down to it, I seriously doubt we'll develop an autonomous drone with the same capabilities as a human pilot anytime soon.

I really wouldn't want to see a drone that has critical decision making capabilities ( i.e. do I take out the target? ) when not in communication with home base. Evasion or self destruct is fine. Even self defense can have nasty consequences.

 

[Blackjack200]

So how much of that is "Spy" and how much is "Chinese Engineers coming up with similar solutions for the same problems" is open to at least a little Fig Leaf of debate.

Honestly, I wouldn't be surprised if it's just a look-alike with no stealth properties whatsoever. They can't build a car to pass NTSB crash standards, but they can build (even copy) a stealth aircraft? I'm skeptical.