6 ms·

China’s Giant Spy Drone Just Tailed a U.S. Navy Cruiser

71 points by jbegley 7y ago

thekid314 7y ago
Interesting article, but the comments are a special kind of ignorant.
- wnevets 7y ago
  Seems to happen whenever china is brought up...
- avs733 7y ago
  This website has been popping up all over my recommends in the last six months. The articles do just enough work to not seem clickbaity but they really are. They are barely researched, overly long, repetitive, fearmongering, and really not complete. But they are heavily disseminated via recommends. And given the content - Exactly the type of article to generate bad comments.
drinane 7y ago
Looks like a clone of those CIA birds
- branchan 7y ago
  Looks like a copy of the NG global hawk.
- ssnistfajen 7y ago
  There exists only so many ways to design an aerodynamic aircraft. Love how the expectation of China is so high that people expect them to innovate beyond fundamental physics principles.
ajross 7y ago
Worth pointing out that, as purely an exercise in military hardware intelligence, the Navy surely learned far more about China's fancy new drone than the People's Liberation Army did about the capabilities of a 30 year old missile cruiser.
- branchan 7y ago
  Maybe China WANTED the US to know about their drone technology.
  - adventured 7y ago
    More likely the US has known about the Xianglong since around the time that its development began. It has been public knowledge that they were working on it for at least 13 years now. Its capabilities would be very unlikely to surprise at this point. Globally the UAV space is well understood and mostly incremental, nobody has unleashed anything too surprising or radical in the field since the Global Hawk 20 years ago. The odds are the US military understands well what China's UAVs can and can't do, without requiring these flights to inform that particular aspect. The Navy probably appreciated getting an opportunity to track it however. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guizhou_Soar_Dragon https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guizhou_Soar_Dragon
    - igravious 7y ago
      A thought struck me while reading this piece. That these UAVs make the world a lot safer. Countries can surveil, do reconnissance, and remotely monitor better without risking human life. This enhances security and stability because there are less surprises. Also if a drone gets shot down, even though it's expensive loss and the gesture is hostile, it's not so hostile that a lethal response is warranted in return. We saw this play out in the mass media recently. I guess what I'm saying is that I never thought about these machines like this before. Even though they are military hardware, they are conflict-reducing military hardware. In the same way we discourage the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction maybe we should encourage nations to develop high-level military-grade UAV capabilities?
      - redis_mlc 7y ago
        > UAVs make the world a lot safer. Sweet Jesus, no. The next world war will be started with drones. Without a bodycount, many politicians are ok with initiating conflict. After all, who's gonna complain? No press, no moms, no VA patients - at first. Until there's a loser, who gets "The Terminator", but for real. Another scenario where drones are destabilizing is for surprise attacks. The most successful aerial attacks have been against bases (Pearl Harbor, Taranto, Egypt.) Drones would make planning first strikes even easier with real-time ground truth.
neom 7y ago
Pictures / more details on the drone (2016): https://www.popsci.com/soar-eagle-chinas-coolest-looking-drone-enters-production/ https://www.popsci.com/soar-eagle-chinas-coolest-looking-dro...
- yay_cloud2 7y ago
  Jarring to see pics of such an advanced-looking drone being pulled around the tarmac by what looks like a berry picker truck.
  - nexuist 7y ago
    That's part of the charm. You can probably pull this thing by hand, no special hardware required. That means, with enough fuel, it can take to the skies from almost anywhere on the globe, as opposed to fighter jets that generally require modern infrastructure to be combat ready.
mabbo 7y ago
If one sets aside the issue of Taiwanese independence and whether China does or does not control the straight of Taiwan (a large thing, sure), nothing about this seems terribly surprising or aggressive on China's part. The US sent a Navy cruiser through water China claims is theirs. China flew a drone to keep watch. If it had been the other way around, the US would have done the same, no doubt. It's all games to look and sound very important and powerful.
- senorjazz 7y ago
  Isn't this standard for all sides all over the world? Test reaction times for possible / perceived / near border excursions. Just to have an idea of what happens, how long it takes etc etc
- headsupftw 7y ago
  "If it had been the other way around, the US would have done the same, no doubt." No, the US would have bombed the shit out of the Chinese cruiser.
- DeonPenny 7y ago
  So set aside bullying a US alley and a democracy. We shouldn't be trading with a dicatorship anyway.
- petre 7y ago
  As a matter of fact China and Russia did send a joint air mission a week ago, which violated disputed South Korean/Japanese airspace which Seoul controls. Of course Russia claimed it was passing through international airspace and Japan blamed SK for taking action. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-southkorea-russia-aircraft/first-russian-chinese-air-patrol-in-asia-pacific-draws-shots-from-south-korea-idUSKCN1UI072 https://www.reuters.com/article/us-southkorea-russia-aircraf...
  - _jgdh 7y ago
    > Japan blamed SK for taking action. According to the article you linked Japan blamed China and Russia, not SK
walrus01 7y ago
Building something functionally equivalent to a Global Hawk doesn't seem like a huge technological stretch, or a surprise, considering the global hawk first flew in I think 2001 or 2002. Eventually all jet turbine powered HALE (high altitude, long endurance) fixed wing platforms tend to converge on a similar type of design.
tropo 7y ago
Look at the wings. Somebody finally did it, a low swept wing connected to a high forward-swept wing. In this case the connection isn't quite at the tips, with the forward-swept wing being smaller, so it isn't quite the same as a rhombic closed wing. The forward-swept wing is a little bit like part of a tail. This was more expected on aircraft with highly variable center of gravity, such as passenger and cargo planes. It's seen on some concept plane sketches from Boeing. Putting these wings on a drone is a little odd. We can wonder if there are internal bays that sometimes contain reconfigurable heavy things, such as surveillance equipment or bombs. The choice may be just to experiment with the concept. Perhaps it helps with short takeoff.
openasocket 7y ago
I have a question about the political purposes of some of these responses. The article notes that China sortied J-11 multiple times. But the J-11 (which is just a licensed Su-27) doesn't carry anti-ship missiles, or even laser-guided bombs. Why use that aircraft against a cruiser? I suppose it would be a threat to the Seahawks, but in a real conflict the cruiser would be more than capable of defending them. I mean I get that this isn't a real military conflict so that doesn't matter, but is that communicating some sort of message? Maybe that the PLA isn't able to produce lots of ASuW sorties on demand, or maybe the PLA is trying to demonstrate they aren't really concerned about a cruiser? I feel like the actions in these sorts of maneuvers speak volumes, but I'm just not able to pick up the meaning.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- 22c 7y ago
  The J-11 sorties seemed to be mainly concerned with making sure the Seahawks stayed on their side of the fence.
BubRoss 7y ago
If it is a spy drone, why is it giant?

71 points by jbegley 7y ago

thekid314 7y ago

Interesting article, but the comments are a special kind of ignorant.

wnevets 7y ago
Seems to happen whenever china is brought up...
avs733 7y ago
This website has been popping up all over my recommends in the last six months. The articles do just enough work to not seem clickbaity but they really are. They are barely researched, overly long, repetitive, fearmongering, and really not complete. But they are heavily disseminated via recommends. And given the content - Exactly the type of article to generate bad comments.

drinane 7y ago

Looks like a clone of those CIA birds

branchan 7y ago
Looks like a copy of the NG global hawk.
ssnistfajen 7y ago
There exists only so many ways to design an aerodynamic aircraft. Love how the expectation of China is so high that people expect them to innovate beyond fundamental physics principles.

ajross 7y ago

Worth pointing out that, as purely an exercise in military hardware intelligence, the Navy surely learned far more about China's fancy new drone than the People's Liberation Army did about the capabilities of a 30 year old missile cruiser.

branchan 7y ago
Maybe China WANTED the US to know about their drone technology.
- adventured 7y ago
  More likely the US has known about the Xianglong since around the time that its development began. It has been public knowledge that they were working on it for at least 13 years now. Its capabilities would be very unlikely to surprise at this point. Globally the UAV space is well understood and mostly incremental, nobody has unleashed anything too surprising or radical in the field since the Global Hawk 20 years ago. The odds are the US military understands well what China's UAVs can and can't do, without requiring these flights to inform that particular aspect. The Navy probably appreciated getting an opportunity to track it however. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guizhou_Soar_Dragon https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guizhou_Soar_Dragon
  - igravious 7y ago
    A thought struck me while reading this piece. That these UAVs make the world a lot safer. Countries can surveil, do reconnissance, and remotely monitor better without risking human life. This enhances security and stability because there are less surprises. Also if a drone gets shot down, even though it's expensive loss and the gesture is hostile, it's not so hostile that a lethal response is warranted in return. We saw this play out in the mass media recently. I guess what I'm saying is that I never thought about these machines like this before. Even though they are military hardware, they are conflict-reducing military hardware. In the same way we discourage the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction maybe we should encourage nations to develop high-level military-grade UAV capabilities?
    - redis_mlc 7y ago
      > UAVs make the world a lot safer. Sweet Jesus, no. The next world war will be started with drones. Without a bodycount, many politicians are ok with initiating conflict. After all, who's gonna complain? No press, no moms, no VA patients - at first. Until there's a loser, who gets "The Terminator", but for real. Another scenario where drones are destabilizing is for surprise attacks. The most successful aerial attacks have been against bases (Pearl Harbor, Taranto, Egypt.) Drones would make planning first strikes even easier with real-time ground truth.

neom 7y ago

Pictures / more details on the drone (2016): https://www.popsci.com/soar-eagle-chinas-coolest-looking-drone-enters-production/ https://www.popsci.com/soar-eagle-chinas-coolest-looking-dro...

yay_cloud2 7y ago
Jarring to see pics of such an advanced-looking drone being pulled around the tarmac by what looks like a berry picker truck.
- nexuist 7y ago
  That's part of the charm. You can probably pull this thing by hand, no special hardware required. That means, with enough fuel, it can take to the skies from almost anywhere on the globe, as opposed to fighter jets that generally require modern infrastructure to be combat ready.

mabbo 7y ago

If one sets aside the issue of Taiwanese independence and whether China does or does not control the straight of Taiwan (a large thing, sure), nothing about this seems terribly surprising or aggressive on China's part. The US sent a Navy cruiser through water China claims is theirs. China flew a drone to keep watch. If it had been the other way around, the US would have done the same, no doubt. It's all games to look and sound very important and powerful.

senorjazz 7y ago
Isn't this standard for all sides all over the world? Test reaction times for possible / perceived / near border excursions. Just to have an idea of what happens, how long it takes etc etc
headsupftw 7y ago
"If it had been the other way around, the US would have done the same, no doubt." No, the US would have bombed the shit out of the Chinese cruiser.
DeonPenny 7y ago
So set aside bullying a US alley and a democracy. We shouldn't be trading with a dicatorship anyway.
petre 7y ago
As a matter of fact China and Russia did send a joint air mission a week ago, which violated disputed South Korean/Japanese airspace which Seoul controls. Of course Russia claimed it was passing through international airspace and Japan blamed SK for taking action. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-southkorea-russia-aircraft/first-russian-chinese-air-patrol-in-asia-pacific-draws-shots-from-south-korea-idUSKCN1UI072 https://www.reuters.com/article/us-southkorea-russia-aircraf...
- _jgdh 7y ago
  > Japan blamed SK for taking action. According to the article you linked Japan blamed China and Russia, not SK

walrus01 7y ago

Building something functionally equivalent to a Global Hawk doesn't seem like a huge technological stretch, or a surprise, considering the global hawk first flew in I think 2001 or 2002. Eventually all jet turbine powered HALE (high altitude, long endurance) fixed wing platforms tend to converge on a similar type of design.

tropo 7y ago

Look at the wings. Somebody finally did it, a low swept wing connected to a high forward-swept wing. In this case the connection isn't quite at the tips, with the forward-swept wing being smaller, so it isn't quite the same as a rhombic closed wing. The forward-swept wing is a little bit like part of a tail. This was more expected on aircraft with highly variable center of gravity, such as passenger and cargo planes. It's seen on some concept plane sketches from Boeing. Putting these wings on a drone is a little odd. We can wonder if there are internal bays that sometimes contain reconfigurable heavy things, such as surveillance equipment or bombs. The choice may be just to experiment with the concept. Perhaps it helps with short takeoff.

openasocket 7y ago

I have a question about the political purposes of some of these responses. The article notes that China sortied J-11 multiple times. But the J-11 (which is just a licensed Su-27) doesn't carry anti-ship missiles, or even laser-guided bombs. Why use that aircraft against a cruiser? I suppose it would be a threat to the Seahawks, but in a real conflict the cruiser would be more than capable of defending them. I mean I get that this isn't a real military conflict so that doesn't matter, but is that communicating some sort of message? Maybe that the PLA isn't able to produce lots of ASuW sorties on demand, or maybe the PLA is trying to demonstrate they aren't really concerned about a cruiser? I feel like the actions in these sorts of maneuvers speak volumes, but I'm just not able to pick up the meaning.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
22c 7y ago
The J-11 sorties seemed to be mainly concerned with making sure the Seahawks stayed on their side of the fence.

BubRoss 7y ago

If it is a spy drone, why is it giant?