Chinese Stealth Fighter Jet May Use US Technology 339
Ponca City writes "In 1999, a US F-117 Nighthawk was downed by a Serbian anti-aircraft missile during a bombing raid. It was the first time one of the fighters had been hit, and the Pentagon blamed clever tactics and sheer luck. The pilot ejected and was rescued. Now, the Guardian reports that pieces of the wrecked F-117 stealth fighter ended up in the hands of foreign military attaches. 'At the time, our intelligence reports told of Chinese agents crisscrossing the region where the F-117 disintegrated, buying up parts of the plane from local farmers,' says Admiral Davor Domazet-Loso, Croatia's military chief of staff during the Kosovo war. 'We believe the Chinese used those materials to gain an insight into secret stealth technologies... and to reverse-engineer them.' Zoran Kusovac says the Serbian regime routinely shared captured western equipment with its Chinese and Russian allies. 'The destroyed F-117 topped that wish-list for both the Russians and Chinese,' says Kusovac."
If true... (Score:4, Interesting)
Okay, so (Score:5, Interesting)
So our F-117A gets shot down by a Yugoslav-made SAM, based on a Soviet design, in Serbia ten years ago. The F-117A was already close to 20 years old at the time, and it was retired in 2008. This is definitely the tech I want to be copying for my state-of-the-art stealth aircraft.
So, why exactly are we concerned that the J-20 will give the F-22 or F-35 a run for their money? We already know that the F-22 can splash (in mock combat) F-15s and F-16s with missiles before the F-22 is even detected. If the Chinese merely copied stealth tech from the F-117A and (apparently) photos of the F-35, is it really going to have good enough stealth to stand up against the F-22 or even just the F-35 in actual combat?
Re:If true... (Score:4, Interesting)
The F-117 was used in the Serbian conflict because it had the ability to make quick, stealthy precision strikes on the Serbian air command, paving the way for the heavy cavalry to move in and decimate the ground forces.
As a Hungarian, I'm also pleased that the one and only time the Goblin was downed was at the hands of a Hungarian commander, one Zoltán Dani, who used an old modified Russian radar unit operating at very long wavelengths to defeat the F-117's stealth capability, and used manual guidance on the missiles along with several spotters who reported the flight path.
As for the new Chinese stealth fighter, it's reported to be an even match for the Raptor, and used designs on a Lockheed HDD that was not wiped before being sold overseas. I wonder what else remained on that drive, though...
Re:If true... (Score:4, Interesting)
Youd be foolish not to use it to take out anti-aircraft, power stations, tank formations, etc or anything that is a threat to conventional units. Not to mention you get to see it in live combat, build experience, and see its limitations. The real problem was that it was taken out under conditions stealth doesnt work right like in the rain.
I'm pretty skeptical that these pieces could really have led to a stealth fighter. Stealth tech isn't that tough to figure out and I'm sure the most you can gain from these pieces is what materials were used. If your country has a run-away military budget like the US fdoes you can make all the stleath you want. For reference the US's budget is 10x China's. If anything, why dont we have nicer toys? Oh right, the waste, pork, cronyism, etc that typifies the military-industrial complex.
As a side note, you gotta be shititng me about slashdots new commenting system. It took 5 minutes to reply to this, paste doesnt work in chrome, its ugly as sin, and probably the worst commenting system on the web. Just rollback to the old one please. Slashdot isnt ready for web 2.0.
Re:Not stopped by CIA bombs (Score:5, Interesting)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._bombing_of_the_Chinese_embassy_in_Belgrade [wikipedia.org]
Re:If true... (Score:5, Interesting)
The F-117 was used in the Serbian conflict because it had the ability to make quick, stealthy precision strikes on the Serbian air command, paving the way for the heavy cavalry to move in and decimate the ground forces.
When I visited Belgrade some years ago, I was told by someone in a position to know that US planes were actually kept away from the most demanding targets. Apparently, it was mostly the French (gasp!) who accounted for the strikes in downtown Belgrade. Their handiwork was impressive, to say the least: The Ministry of Defence building was completely destroyed, falling in on itself, while neighbouring buildings sported only a few nicks from flying debris.
The US were responsible for at least one raid in Belgrade itself. But more about that in a moment....
As a Hungarian, I'm also pleased that the one and only time the Goblin was downed was at the hands of a Hungarian commander, one Zoltán Dani, who used an old modified Russian radar unit operating at very long wavelengths to defeat the F-117's stealth capability, and used manual guidance on the missiles along with several spotters who reported the flight path.
At least some parts of the wreckage must have made it into the Chinese hands. That would account for the *cough* tragically mistaken bombing [wikimedia.org] of the their Embassy. (The US knew what it was doing. If you don't think that NATO had spotters on the ground, you too are tragically mistaken.)
Re:If true... (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm pretty skeptical that these pieces could really have led to a stealth fighter. Stealth tech isn't that tough to figure out and I'm sure the most you can gain from these pieces is what materials were used.
There's actually quite a bit of complicated technology to stealth fighters or everyone would have had them by now.
First of all there's the chemistry of the ablative coatings used on the equipment. They have to absorb wavelengths, prevent infrared emissions from the aircraft, scatter radar in a certain manner, and still be light, adhere well, provide corrosion resistance, and so on.
There's also specific angles for stuff like air intakes, exhaust nozzles, instrumentation, etc. so you have as little backscatter on radar as possible. Some of the concepts are simple but tricky to implement in an vehicle that still needs to be aerodynamic and efficient in flight. These aircraft also use special alloys for various purposes and pieces of the aircraft would be great for reverse engineering those alloys.
All this stuff still has to be able to fly and there's a lot of engineering involved in designing the control surfaces, not to mention the computerized and fly-by-wire systems needed to stabilize a craft which is not as easy to control as a non-stealth aircraft.
So yeah, there's a lot of technology for someone to capture.
Re:It's "Open Source" development (Score:5, Interesting)
One of the more serious problems with the military-industrial complex's development process, besides obvious little things like threatening to kill millions of people and possibly initiate nuclear winter, is that it takes a large number of scientists and engineers and diverts them away from useful civilian technology and diverts their talents to working on projects that ideally will never be used, and hides any parts of that work that could be useful away where the public can't use it.
A long time ago (perhaps in the 1960s) I saw a quote from the head of one of the major Japanese corporations. Might have been Sony, but I can't find it now. He said (something like) "American engineers are very good, American first-rate engineers are better than ours. But your first-rate engineers are working on military products. We're building consumer products, and win in the marketplace because our first-rate engineers are better than your second-rate engineers."
Re:Okay, so (Score:4, Interesting)
China can field 2,000 stealth aircraft?
You sure are pulling a lot of numbers out of your ass ....
Air superiority aircraft. When you're defensive, you don't have to have a lot of stealth ones. Just enough to force enemy stealth fighters to power up their own fire control radar. The numbers are real, and have been published by various credible defense journals, Jane's being one.
Except the F-22 has the ability to share sensor data with other aircraft. So you can send one F-22 way forward, hit the enemy with your active radar, then have the 10 F-22's behind it light up the bad guys with missiles without needing to operate any of their own sensors. That tech alone gives it a massive advantage over anything else in the skies today. Add to that the fact that China has no missiles capable of being used at ranges available to the F-22, and you're left with the conclusion that even if the Chinese have somehow managed to develop an aircraft with decent radar and stealth characteristics similar to the F-22, they'd still be heavily outmatched in any encounter.
Which once again, brings us to the problem of uneven ground. US is not expecting to field it's craft in the neutral or friendly, but hostile territory. This means that friendly guidance vs even low grade stealth is going to be non-existent, and enemy ground radar installations are functional and unsuppresed. The goal of chinese fighter is NOT to win toe-to-toe match vs F-22. It's goal is to push back US AWACS craft into ineffective range and force F-22s to fire up their own fire control radar or retreat due to lack of targeting data when achieving it's main task of winning air superiority.
And for this, chinese don't need 2000 air superiority aircraft. They need a small percentage of stealth air superiority fighters and a large conventional air superiority force which will move in the moment F-22's stealth is compromised.
Re:Okay, so (Score:3, Interesting)
Ah, that makes more sense. Not sure why you think this would force anyone to "power up their own fire control radar", though. In simulated engagements F-22's have generally operated on passive sensors, even when engaged by an opposing force an order of magnitude larger than their own.
The more of the opponent's forces in the air, the less you want to paint huge crosshairs on yourself by firing your own active radar. When you are actually forced into pushing air superiority without friendly radar support (i.e. escorting bomber planes to enemy radar installations/airfields), you will likely have little choice in the matter.
The US isn't planning on flying it's aircraft thousands of miles into enemy territory - most engagements are likely to take place over neutral territory or coastal areas. Do you honestly think that the US wants to invade mainland China?
You can use the actual names. Taiwan. And yes, to gain air superiority over Taiwan, US will have to hit mainland China, as pretty much all radar installations and airfields are there.
Else, you can kiss air superiority good bye, and without it, US has nothing on China as far as conventional warfare goes.
This means that friendly guidance vs even low grade stealth is going to be non-existent, and enemy ground radar installations are functional and unsuppresed.
I don't see how that follows, even given your initial (flawed) premise.
To get radar guidance for missiles, stealth fighter requires active radar guidance from another source. To get active radar guidance from another source, that source has to be in meaningful range, and unsuppressed by the enemy. Enemy stealth fighter goes to hunt for your AWACS, which is forced to pull out, leaving you without radar support. You either fire your own radar and die, or rely on passive sensors deep in enemy territory, and get overwhelmed anyway at the time of airstrike at the latest, as enemy will know your general location and simply bombard the area with radar coverage at which point their conventional air superiority aircraft cause significant attrition in your forces.
The goal of chinese fighter is NOT to win toe-to-toe match vs F-22. It's goal is to push back US AWACS craft into ineffective range and force F-22s to fire up their own fire control radar or retreat due to lack of targeting data when achieving it's main task of winning air superiority.
Sure. Good luck with that. Before you can push back the AWACS, you have to get through the F-22's, F-35's, and assorted other aircraft being fielded. This is a bit like saying "the goal of our infantry is to push back their artillery". Far easier said than done.
It's actually quite a bit easier to kill an AWACS craft (which usually means a retrofitted civilian airliner with a radome) with a low grade stealth fighter then to defend one from it. F-22s and F-35s escorting these will face the same dilemma - how do you defend against something you can't see until the strike is executed.
As strategic value of each AWACS craft is far greater then of each stealth fighter, these will be the priority targets for chinese stealth fighters in air superiority war. Sure, you'll kill most if not all chinese stealth fighters. But not before your AWACS is gone and your guys inside enemy territory find themselves without AWACS capabilities.
And for this, chinese don't need 2000 air superiority aircraft. They need a small percentage of stealth air superiority fighters and a large conventional air superiority force which will move in the moment F-22's stealth is compromised.
A "small percentage of stealth aircraft" isn't likely to compromise anything. They'd have to detect the F-22 - which seems highly unlikely - AND avoid detection from the F-22's passive sensors in the process - which is impossible.
Re:If true... (Score:4, Interesting)