7 ms·

China’s Newest Stealth Fighter Takes Flight

34 points by velodrome 14y ago

jorts 14y ago
Perhaps it's a function of its stealth capabilities, but that sure looks really similar to an F-22 (http://tinyurl.com/bambe72 http://tinyurl.com/bambe72).
- ars 14y ago
  Just a note: Don't use url shorteners here, link to the full url. You can edit your post and fix it.
- seanmcdirmid 14y ago
  There was some drama about China possibly obtaining US stealth technology during Yugoslavia. There is an even more crazy conspiracy theory going on that this is why we bombed their embassy.
  - deleted 14y ago
    [deleted]
  - est 14y ago
    It's not conspiracy theory, BUAA professor claim they have got pieces from F-117 http://jpk.buaa.edu.cn/2007jpk/bjsjpk/fjztsj/jxlx/jxlx.htm http://jpk.buaa.edu.cn/2007jpk/bjsjpk/fjztsj/jxlx/jxlx.htm 11m35s at BUAA that piece in question is in public display http://www.hobbyshanghai.com.cn/data/attachment/forum/201205/05/144546svqbiwggkicxepsp.jpg http://www.hobbyshanghai.com.cn/data/attachment/forum/201205...
    - kaka2 14y ago
      第1個鏈接不能打開啊！
  - Gustomaximus 14y ago
    Pakistan gave China access to the stealth helicopter used for the OBL raid. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/pakistan/8701212/Pakistan-gave-China-access-to-bin-Laden-raid-helicopter.html http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/pakistan/8701...
  - runjake 14y ago
    The Yugoslavian incident involved an F-117 -- completely different low observable technology than that used in the F-22/J-20/etc. The mumblings I've heard is that the Chinese stole blueprints from the F-22 project. I don't have a URL handy at the moment, as I'm not near a web browser. Besides, you can Google a sized-referenced picture of an F-22 from every angle. It's a relatively well-documented airframe.
    - itcmcgrath 14y ago
      Maybe I don't use HN enough. How did you post here without a web browser of some form? Truly curious.
      - runjake 14y ago
        Use a native HN app.
        itcmcgrath 14y ago
        I would assume if you had access to that, the device would have a web browser as well?
  - velodrome 14y ago
    Let's not forget the RSA/Lockheed data breach fiasco: http://www.computerweekly.com/news/2240104688/RSA-replaces-SecurID-tokens-following-Lockheed-Martin-data-hack-admission http://www.computerweekly.com/news/2240104688/RSA-replaces-S... Though, it is unclear if China was behind the attack.
- ashishgandhi 14y ago
  F-22 is really awesome because it has X, Y and Z properties. And to have X, Y and Z in your plane there is one good and reasonable way to make it happen. It is the obvious way. If the US didn't come up with it someone else would have. By restricting design you are stopping innovation... or where did I go wrong in reasoning this way? Honest question.
  - noibl 14y ago
    > It is the obvious way. I don't think many people are claiming that all patented designs are 'obvious', even to a field expert. Just that quite a lot of the ones currently making news headlines are. The issue of there being 'only one good way to do it' is completely separate. It is analytic that legally barring competitors from implementing even a non-obvious design, once it has been discovered/invented, restricts others from further innovating on it. It would be difficult to argue that the US should license all of its military technology to China on FRAND-like terms. But when companies refuse to do this trans-nationally, it seems like trade war, especially if there is only one way to do it. It's an interesting question at what point the profitable IP owned by a country's corporations should be considered a strategic national asset (and IMO it illuminates some of the decisions by trade organisations and even courts). The appropriation of any technology with potential military applications will always be governed the rules of the game -- there is no global legal authority to appeal to in such matters and nor would the USA want there to be one, for obvious reasons.
  - mcantelon 14y ago
    >By restricting design you are stopping innovation... or where did I go wrong in reasoning this way? No, your reasoning sounds good to me.
  - rwallace 14y ago
    Your reasoning is perfectly valid, with the caveat that public policy typically does not have the goal of global advancement of military technology (in war, what matters is what you have relative to what the enemy has), whereas it does, or at least should, have the goal of global advancement of civilian technology (economics is not a zero-sum game).
  - 14y ago
- velodrome 14y ago
  IMO, it looks closer to a F35. http://images.defensetech.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/F-35hardpoints2.jpg http://images.defensetech.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/F-3...
  - thebluesky 14y ago
    First thing I noticed when I saw the pic. Biggest obvious difference is the twin engines.
  - greedo 14y ago
    From the front it looks like an F-35. From the side, an F-22. A very interesting design...
- nivloc 14y ago
  > The origins of the fighter are equally murky, although superficial similarities to the U.S. F-22 and F-35 have fueled speculation in the West that Beijing based the J-31′s design on blueprints reportedly stolen from the servers of at least six American aerospace subcontractors in 2009.
kijiki 14y ago
Looks like it (like the j-20) still has traditional nozzles in back. Not so stealthy from behind. Good way to sneak up on an AWACS over the strait though. Who cares if you get whacked by escorts on the way back?
- greedo 14y ago
  AWACS, P8's, tankers. Lots of HVTs that wouldn't stand a chance against a fast stealth interceptor with decent missiles.
buddhaofdoubt 14y ago
Time to start naming stealth spaceships. I vote "X-B Respect for Elders" for the next test flight.
adastra 14y ago
Don't put it past the Chinese to put out something for show without actually having the functional equipment under the hood. Stealth is hard -- sensors have the potential to leak radiation, communications can be picked up on, etc. Just because the Chinese have something flying that looks stealth doesn't mean they're any closer than we thought they were.
- colmvp 14y ago
  Exactly. If there are two things the Chinese aren't good at, it's science and engineering.
  - potatolicious 14y ago
    There's a lot of domain knowledge in traditional engineering that is impossible replicate artificially - much more so than software. You can take the best rail engineers in the world, put them in a room, and they still won't be able to make a half-decent mid-size sedan to save their lives. It's not about if you're "good at science and engineering", it's about your country's history and track record in building bleeding-edge aircraft. China is playing catchup in a huge way, though they do get to take the fast lane thanks to ex-Soviet tech. Ace aerospace engineers come out of building airplanes, not reading a book or going to conferences.
  - naturalethic 14y ago
    If its one thing the Chinese can mimmick, it's pretending there's a scarcity of fighterjetplanewhatevers.
  - Volpe 14y ago
    ... Take your racism somewhere else. Or provide some empirical data that proves that your not just an ignorant racist. EDIT (in light of response): My apologies if this is indeed sarcasm. No need to take that somewhere else, instead I can take my 'complete lack of understanding sarcasm' somewhere else. :)
    - viggity 14y ago

34 points by velodrome 14y ago

jorts 14y ago

Perhaps it's a function of its stealth capabilities, but that sure looks really similar to an F-22 (http://tinyurl.com/bambe72 http://tinyurl.com/bambe72).

ars 14y ago
Just a note: Don't use url shorteners here, link to the full url. You can edit your post and fix it.
seanmcdirmid 14y ago
There was some drama about China possibly obtaining US stealth technology during Yugoslavia. There is an even more crazy conspiracy theory going on that this is why we bombed their embassy.
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
- est 14y ago
  It's not conspiracy theory, BUAA professor claim they have got pieces from F-117 http://jpk.buaa.edu.cn/2007jpk/bjsjpk/fjztsj/jxlx/jxlx.htm http://jpk.buaa.edu.cn/2007jpk/bjsjpk/fjztsj/jxlx/jxlx.htm 11m35s at BUAA that piece in question is in public display http://www.hobbyshanghai.com.cn/data/attachment/forum/201205/05/144546svqbiwggkicxepsp.jpg http://www.hobbyshanghai.com.cn/data/attachment/forum/201205...
  - kaka2 14y ago
    第1個鏈接不能打開啊！
- Gustomaximus 14y ago
  Pakistan gave China access to the stealth helicopter used for the OBL raid. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/pakistan/8701212/Pakistan-gave-China-access-to-bin-Laden-raid-helicopter.html http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/pakistan/8701...
- runjake 14y ago
  The Yugoslavian incident involved an F-117 -- completely different low observable technology than that used in the F-22/J-20/etc. The mumblings I've heard is that the Chinese stole blueprints from the F-22 project. I don't have a URL handy at the moment, as I'm not near a web browser. Besides, you can Google a sized-referenced picture of an F-22 from every angle. It's a relatively well-documented airframe.
  - itcmcgrath 14y ago
    Maybe I don't use HN enough. How did you post here without a web browser of some form? Truly curious.
    - runjake 14y ago
      Use a native HN app.
      - itcmcgrath 14y ago
        I would assume if you had access to that, the device would have a web browser as well?
- velodrome 14y ago
  Let's not forget the RSA/Lockheed data breach fiasco: http://www.computerweekly.com/news/2240104688/RSA-replaces-SecurID-tokens-following-Lockheed-Martin-data-hack-admission http://www.computerweekly.com/news/2240104688/RSA-replaces-S... Though, it is unclear if China was behind the attack.
ashishgandhi 14y ago
F-22 is really awesome because it has X, Y and Z properties. And to have X, Y and Z in your plane there is one good and reasonable way to make it happen. It is the obvious way. If the US didn't come up with it someone else would have. By restricting design you are stopping innovation... or where did I go wrong in reasoning this way? Honest question.
- noibl 14y ago
  > It is the obvious way. I don't think many people are claiming that all patented designs are 'obvious', even to a field expert. Just that quite a lot of the ones currently making news headlines are. The issue of there being 'only one good way to do it' is completely separate. It is analytic that legally barring competitors from implementing even a non-obvious design, once it has been discovered/invented, restricts others from further innovating on it. It would be difficult to argue that the US should license all of its military technology to China on FRAND-like terms. But when companies refuse to do this trans-nationally, it seems like trade war, especially if there is only one way to do it. It's an interesting question at what point the profitable IP owned by a country's corporations should be considered a strategic national asset (and IMO it illuminates some of the decisions by trade organisations and even courts). The appropriation of any technology with potential military applications will always be governed the rules of the game -- there is no global legal authority to appeal to in such matters and nor would the USA want there to be one, for obvious reasons.
- mcantelon 14y ago
  >By restricting design you are stopping innovation... or where did I go wrong in reasoning this way? No, your reasoning sounds good to me.
- rwallace 14y ago
  Your reasoning is perfectly valid, with the caveat that public policy typically does not have the goal of global advancement of military technology (in war, what matters is what you have relative to what the enemy has), whereas it does, or at least should, have the goal of global advancement of civilian technology (economics is not a zero-sum game).
- 14y ago
velodrome 14y ago
IMO, it looks closer to a F35. http://images.defensetech.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/F-35hardpoints2.jpg http://images.defensetech.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/F-3...
- thebluesky 14y ago
  First thing I noticed when I saw the pic. Biggest obvious difference is the twin engines.
- greedo 14y ago
  From the front it looks like an F-35. From the side, an F-22. A very interesting design...
nivloc 14y ago
> The origins of the fighter are equally murky, although superficial similarities to the U.S. F-22 and F-35 have fueled speculation in the West that Beijing based the J-31′s design on blueprints reportedly stolen from the servers of at least six American aerospace subcontractors in 2009.

kijiki 14y ago

Looks like it (like the j-20) still has traditional nozzles in back. Not so stealthy from behind. Good way to sneak up on an AWACS over the strait though. Who cares if you get whacked by escorts on the way back?

greedo 14y ago
AWACS, P8's, tankers. Lots of HVTs that wouldn't stand a chance against a fast stealth interceptor with decent missiles.

buddhaofdoubt 14y ago

Time to start naming stealth spaceships. I vote "X-B Respect for Elders" for the next test flight.

adastra 14y ago

Don't put it past the Chinese to put out something for show without actually having the functional equipment under the hood. Stealth is hard -- sensors have the potential to leak radiation, communications can be picked up on, etc. Just because the Chinese have something flying that looks stealth doesn't mean they're any closer than we thought they were.

colmvp 14y ago
Exactly. If there are two things the Chinese aren't good at, it's science and engineering.
- potatolicious 14y ago
  There's a lot of domain knowledge in traditional engineering that is impossible replicate artificially - much more so than software. You can take the best rail engineers in the world, put them in a room, and they still won't be able to make a half-decent mid-size sedan to save their lives. It's not about if you're "good at science and engineering", it's about your country's history and track record in building bleeding-edge aircraft. China is playing catchup in a huge way, though they do get to take the fast lane thanks to ex-Soviet tech. Ace aerospace engineers come out of building airplanes, not reading a book or going to conferences.
- naturalethic 14y ago
  If its one thing the Chinese can mimmick, it's pretending there's a scarcity of fighterjetplanewhatevers.
- Volpe 14y ago
  ... Take your racism somewhere else. Or provide some empirical data that proves that your not just an ignorant racist. EDIT (in light of response): My apologies if this is indeed sarcasm. No need to take that somewhere else, instead I can take my 'complete lack of understanding sarcasm' somewhere else. :)
  - viggity 14y ago