The Chinese can copy anything... even stealth aircraft

[Scotteq]

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.

..as am I

Just that I'd add that the Chinese Government can.. encourage... their engineers deliver on whatever standards the Chinese Government decides to set.


I'm still kind of stuck on the (apparent) size of the thing, and from that getting the impression it's a "Fighter" in the same way the F117 is... Meaning: Not Really a Fighter at All, but rather a stealthy platform to deliver it's (missiles?) close enough to it's target (High Value land target, Aircraft Carrier or other Surface ship???) to help ensure a high liklihood of a successful attack.

I have no real evidence of that - other than my visual impression that thing is pretty damned big and appears it would have room for a (Stealthy Cruise?) missile or two. And the common sense that China have no real potential enemies to aim the plane at. Unless they mean the USA, who would be in the area with large capital ships... which... our F22 can't land on because it's a land based aircraft... Who else is there? The Soviets? India maybe?


...just what I pulled out of my a$$ looking at the thing, though...

 

[yllus]

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.

Unless it's a particularly desperate world war sort of situation, I doubt we'll ever see fully automated drones in our lifetimes. What's much more plausible is an airborne command and control plane/ship carrying with multiple drone "pilots" that loiters at the edge of the combat area, giving the drones partial oversight but generally letting them do their thing.

Kind of like the Protoss Carrier, I guess.

 

[gevorg]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VnnMNF-UKxE

 

[irishScott]

Unless it's a particularly desperate world war sort of situation, I doubt we'll ever see fully automated drones in our lifetimes. What's much more plausible is an airborne command and control plane/ship carrying with multiple drone "pilots" that loiters at the edge of the combat area, giving the drones partial oversight but generally letting them do their thing.

Kind of like the Protoss Carrier, I guess.

Main issue with anything like that is once again signal jamming. Maybe for short-range operations an LOS laser based system could be developed, but then you'd be putting the command/control center at risk (hence the counter-strategy to protoss carriers). For any kind of air superiority/large-scale bombing runs you'd need something autonomous to be sure when going against a sophisticated enemy.

 

[Blackjack200]

Main issue with anything like that is once again signal jamming. Maybe for short-range operations an LOS laser based system could be developed, but then you'd be putting the command/control center at risk (hence the counter-strategy to protoss carriers). For any kind of air superiority/large-scale bombing runs you'd need something autonomous to be sure when going against a sophisticated enemy.

You could arm the UAV with anti radiation (HARM) missles. That would take care of any jamming pretty fast.

 

[irishScott]

You could arm the UAV with anti radiation (HARM) missles. That would take care of any jamming pretty fast.

Presuming the source of the jamming is within the missile's range maybe. No way to be sure of that though. Would also limit other ordnance.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Presuming the source of the jamming is within the missile's range maybe. No way to be sure of that though. Would also limit other ordnance.

If the jamming source is not within the missle range, it would not be jamming.

It is easier to detect than jam.
1) Passive detection
2) Power output required.

Put up a UAv with a sniffer, just like the Wild Weasel and let it circle until a radar comes up in the desired freq.
Launch and head home.

 

[irishScott]

If the jamming source is not within the missle range, it would not be jamming.

It is easier to detect than jam.
1) Passive detection
2) Power output required.

Put up a UAv with a sniffer, just like the Wild Weasel and let it circle until a radar comes up in the desired freq.
Launch and head home.

And if said radar is friendly? HARM missiles are great if you have a rough idea of where the source of the jamming is. Not that it wouldn't work, but it wouldn't be anywhere near effective enough to justify risking so many resources (control center + fighters) IMO. Only a trained pilot (or maybe future AI) is capable of truly identifying the nature of a situation on the fly.

 

[nyker96]

Why spent billions to develop a new jet when you can rip off a successful design ;]

the funniest quote from article "China's defense ministry and air force couldn't be reached to comment on the latest photos."

 

[irishScott]

Why spent billions to develop a new jet when you can rip off a successful design ;]

the funniest quote from article "China's defense ministry and air force couldn't be reached to comment on the latest photos."

Seriously. You'd think they'd be blabbing about this to all hell.

 

[Fenixgoon]

Why spent billions to develop a new jet when you can rip off a successful design ;]

the funniest quote from article "China's defense ministry and air force couldn't be reached to comment on the latest photos."

Seriously. You'd think they'd be blabbing about this to all hell.

that's like saying the insight and volt are a copy of the prius.

not necessarily true - they arrived at similar geometrical solutions to minimizing drag and meeting/exceeding performance requirements through computational fluid dynamics analysis.

simply put - the laws of fluid dynamics don't change just because you want them to. same with electromagnetics. certain shapes and sizes are going to be better than others in reducing drag and/or deflecting radar waves.

the chinese aircraft, while it very well could be copied to a certain degree, is no doubt similar to the F22 for the same reason the prius, volt, and insight share the same general "egg" shape.

 

[llee]

What about the Russian T-50 prototype?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sukhoi_T-50

It looks just like the F22 and its front profile looks like the Chinese J-20 (this plane)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chengdu_J-20

 

[Blackjack200]

that's like saying the insight and volt are a copy of the prius.

not necessarily true - they arrived at similar geometrical solutions to minimizing drag and meeting/exceeding performance requirements through computational fluid dynamics analysis.

simply put - the laws of fluid dynamics don't change just because you want them to. same with electromagnetics. certain shapes and sizes are going to be better than others in reducing drag and/or deflecting radar waves.

the chinese aircraft, while it very well could be copied to a certain degree, is no doubt similar to the F22 for the same reason the prius, volt, and insight share the same general "egg" shape.

that's true, but it's also true that there are design concepts that go in and out of vogue.

For example, in the 1960s & 70s lots of swing wing fighters were designed. Everyone thought it was the wave of the future, and why wouldn't they? You can change the aerodynamic properties of your aircraft in the middle of your flight! You had the F-14, the B-1, the Mig 23/27, the F-111, the Tornado, etc. etc. etc.

Then all of the sudden, they disappeared. The F-15, the F-16, the F-18, Mig-29 etc. All cropped delta wing designs. Why? Because the orthodoxy changed. Suddenly the weight and performance penalties that swing-wings imposed on an aircraft were unacceptable.

A very similar think happened with canard foreplanes. They were all the rage in 60s, then they disappeared. What happened? There are many advantages to canard foreplanes. But they just went out of vogue.

 

[Blackjack200]

What about the Russian T-50 prototype?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sukhoi_T-50

It looks just like the F22 and its front profile looks like the Chinese J-20 (this plane)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chengdu_J-20

Russia, unlike China, can legitimately produce fighters that challenge the West. What they cannot do, however, is match our pilot quality, avionics, support, etc.

 

[Zebo]

So what? I figured the few thousands ICBMs they have are a little bit bigger issue.

 

[llee]

Russia, unlike China, can legitimately produce fighters that challenge the West. What they cannot do, however, is match our pilot quality, avionics, support, etc.

Why is that? I bet a Russian or Chinese guy would say the same thing about their air force's planes.

 

[iGas]

It is not a copy of an F-22.

It is likely that the plane going to be better than the F-22 (and the funny thing is that the F-22 could be a copy of the Russian SU fighter jets), and is base off the T50 (T50 is base of the Sukhoi SU-47 Berkut crossed with SU 27~35).

China got a license to built the J10 & J20 from Russia and China must purchase the electronics & engines from Russia. However the Chinese back stab the Russian by developed their own electronics therefore the Russian stop the engine shipment to China.

India is purchasing the T50 from Russia as well as Vietnam, and India & Russia is co developing the electronics for the T50. Currently the Chinese engines only last around 20~30 hours (if I recalled correctly) while the Russian Engine for the fighter jets lasts 400 hours of operation.

Yes Chinese sux, but they didn't copy or stole American technologies.

 

[iGas]

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.

It is not as stealthy as the F-22, however the design is base off the Russian T50 with main concern is being stealthy in the front, but the exposed rear engine indicated that it is not as stealthy or a major concern.

I'm not sure how the J20 would pan out, but the T50 can fly higher with twice the range of the F-22. And, it is speculated to cost 50~80% of the F-22. And, the it is very likely that the T50 is going to have better electronics than the F-22 because it have an extra decade of design.

 

[iGas]

..as am I

Just that I'd add that the Chinese Government can.. encourage... their engineers deliver on whatever standards the Chinese Government decides to set.


I'm still kind of stuck on the (apparent) size of the thing, and from that getting the impression it's a "Fighter" in the same way the F117 is... Meaning: Not Really a Fighter at All, but rather a stealthy platform to deliver it's (missiles?) close enough to it's target (High Value land target, Aircraft Carrier or other Surface ship???) to help ensure a high liklihood of a successful attack.

I have no real evidence of that - other than my visual impression that thing is pretty damned big and appears it would have room for a (Stealthy Cruise?) missile or two. And the common sense that China have no real potential enemies to aim the plane at. Unless they mean the USA, who would be in the area with large capital ships... which... our F22 can't land on because it's a land based aircraft... Who else is there? The Soviets? India maybe?


...just what I pulled out of my a$$ looking at the thing, though...

They want to control the surrounding area, such as South Asia & SE Asia. Therefore their neighbors, such as Indian & Vietnam are getting friendlier with the Russian.

 

[llee]

I read a similar article like the first article in a Popular Science issue back in 2000 or 2001.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/june01/2001-06-20-new-radar.htm
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2005-10-26-serb-stealth_x.htm
but most interestingly,
http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htada/articles/20051121.aspx

I think we need to accept the idea that stealth-countering techniques and technologies are not only an option for countries that can't afford to spend much on their military, but a necessity. Stealth tech isn't exactly new, and I wouldn't surprised if a faction has 'weaponized' a country's cell phone infrastructure or trained anti air crews how to fight stealth planes smartly.

 

[iGas]

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.

At one point American has similar though regarding Japanese electronics/cars & Korean cars.

I'm surprise as to how America is having a trade imbalance with China when they produce inferior products. Is it possible that American love to buy poor quality products?

 

[Blackjack200]

It is not a copy of an F-22.

It is likely that the plane going to be better than the F-22 (and the funny thing is that the F-22 could be a copy of the Russian SU fighter jets), and is base off the T50 (T50 is base of the Sukhoi SU-47 Berkut crossed with SU 27~35).

Uhh, what? I love Sukhoi aircraft, but to suggest that the F-22 is a copy of any of their fighters is laughable. Show me a Sukhoi jet that looks anything like the F-22. Who knows what the story with the T-50 is? Maybe it will be better than the F-22, it probably won't be in service for another 15 years.

It is not as stealthy as the F-22, however the design is base off the Russian T50 with main concern is being stealthy in the front, but the exposed rear engine indicated that it is not as stealthy or a major concern.

I'm not sure how the J20 would pan out, but the T50 can fly higher with twice the range of the F-22. And, it is speculated to cost 50~80% of the F-22. And, the it is very likely that the T50 is going to have better electronics than the F-22 because it have an extra decade of design.

Yeah, I have respect for Russian fighters, but I would take those stats with a serious grain of salt. Prototypes are always substantially lighter than production aircraft.

At one point American has similar though regarding Japanese electronics/cars & Korean cars.

I'm surprise as to how America is having a trade imbalance with China when they produce inferior products. Is it possible that American love to buy poor quality products?

How many cars and airplanes do we buy from China? We only buy plastic shit and poisonous toothpaste from China.

 

[Darwin333]

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.

If we can build 200 sorta good drones for the cost of a single enemy fighter jet it might not be a bad strategy. Small and agile drones outnumbering large manned planes 20 to 1 would be a hell of a fight, anything more and the enemy would be retarded not to retreat. You would probably need some sort of support AWACS type of plane to control them or relay controls but would that really be harder to figure out than a F-22?

For the cost of an F-22 we could probably throw in a hundred decoy drones or so.

 

[Karl Agathon]

So what? I figured the few thousands ICBMs they have are a little bit bigger issue.

Which is why im glad we have a very healthy nuclear deterent aimed at them.

 

[Darwin333]

Why is that? I bet a Russian or Chinese guy would say the same thing about their air force's planes.

Russia is broke and we are spending all of China's money?