China Unveils Yet Another Stealth Fighter 223
An anonymous reader writes "Pictures of a new Chinese stealth fighter prototype started showing up recently on the web. The airplane prototype was photographed at a Shenyang aircraft facility and seems to be a twin-engined lightweight fighter in the F-35 class. US Defense Secretary Leon Panetta is scheduled to visit China this week in the midst of tension regarding territorial disputes in the region."
Not getting it! (Score:5, Funny)
Seems they quite get the idea of stealth!
Re:Not getting it! (Score:4, Insightful)
At least they didn't dedicate a whole Discovery channel to it...all that "Future War" stuff is just to remind Americans how awesome they are!
Re:Not getting it! (Score:5, Funny)
Why would we need TV shows for that? Every bathroom in America has a mirror.
Re: (Score:3)
You must have never watched Chinese television.
Re:Not getting it! (Score:5, Interesting)
Why is this modded down? CCTV-7 is the military channel, which has programming that "reminds Chinese how awesome they are!" It's like if Discovery Channel's military shows were broadcast on PBS, alongside an overarching narrative that pits the US as China's main adversary. Slashdotters who think "Future War" is propaganda would be in shock.
Re: (Score:3)
What fun is a cool new toy if nobody knows you have it? The point of stealth is not that nobody knows it exists, but rather that nobody knows when it's coming toward them.
Re:Not getting it! (Score:5, Funny)
Once you've seen one Chinese stelth fighter, very soon you hunger for another...
Re:Not getting it! (Score:5, Informative)
It's also a bit late, on the International Aircraft Expo in Germany this year they demonstrated a working passive radar system that will make this technology obsolete.
(link is in German)
http://www.spiegel.de/wissenschaft/technik/passivradar-nimmt-stealth-jets-die-tarnkappe-a-855711.html [spiegel.de]
Re:Not getting it! (Score:4, Interesting)
Along with some good intelligence gathering, the Serbs in the Kosovo war managed to destroy two F-117s with 1960's era longwave radar sets, SA-3 SAMs and AAA.
With modern computer power and improved IR/radar gear, combined with the horrifically high cost of building and operating stealth aircraft, dedicated stealth aircraft will probably eventually be phased out. Of course designers WILL try to reduce the detection signature of their aircraft if it does not impede other design attributes.
Re: (Score:2)
Except you are wrong. Wikipedia says that only one F117 was ever downed due to enemy fire. The aircraft was detected when its bomb bay doors were open, thus greatly increasing its radar cross section.
Rumour has it that another F117 was also damaged, but returned to base. So one confirmed combat loss out of how many sorties means that stealth technology is dead? I guess, at least to you it does.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_F-117_Nighthawk [wikipedia.org]
Re:Not getting it! (Score:5, Funny)
China Unveils Yet Another Stealth Fighter
Seems they _____ quite get the idea of stealth!
Yet your use of the word "don't" does indeed elude any attempts at detection...
Re: (Score:2)
Manned fighter planes (Score:4, Funny)
How quaint... Welcome to the 90s, China.
Re: (Score:2)
If this is a thinly veiled reference to UAVs, then they're not a replacement for modern fighter planes. UAVs are great for on-site recon, for correcting mortar fire, and for firing missiles at mujis who don't have any effective AA, but it won't give you air dominance in an all-out war against a strong opponent (as would be the case if US and China were to clash, for example). No country in the world currently fields an unmanned air dominance fighter plane.
And, yes, Chinese are working on their own UAVs, as
I don't believe they have figured it out just yet. (Score:2)
Painting it black, doesn't make it stealthy!
Soon to be at a Walmart near you (Score:3, Funny)
F35 class (Score:5, Funny)
and seems to be a twin-engined lightweight fighter in the F-35 class.
In other words, overweeight, over budget, under performing, poor range and not quite here yet but will be real soon now we promise unless you want the variant that you actually need in which case it will be here real not quite soon now.
Re: (Score:3)
Actually, the summary has it the wrong way around - most analysts consider the J-20 to be the Chinese aircraft that will fulfill the same role as the F-35, while this new airframe will fulfill the same role as the F-22.
Re:F35 class (Score:5, Funny)
this new airframe will fulfill the same role as the F-22.
Waste money and asphyxiate pilots?
Re:F35 class (Score:4, Funny)
this new airframe will fulfill the same role as the F-22.
Waste money and asphyxiate pilots?
I say we bomb China with Lockheed Martin and Haliburton executives. It's a win/win since we get get rid of some dead weight and potentially balance a budget for once while collapsing the Chinese economy. I hear corporate executives breed like rabbits so they'll be over run in no time.
Re: (Score:2)
In other words, overweeight, over budget, under performing, poor range and not quite here yet but will be real soon now we promise unless you want the variant that you actually need in which case it will be here real not quite soon now.
You forgot, an hour after you start, you're hungry for fuel again. At least its a fast delivery vehicle, even dominos doesn't deliver at mach 1. I'm sure there's some more Chinese food jokes in here somewhere.
Re: (Score:2)
At least its a fast delivery vehicle, even dominos doesn't deliver at mach 1.
But not for very far. It can't even supercruise. For most things you'd be better off with a Eurofighter, at half the cost.
inferior carbon-fiber layering processing (Score:2, Interesting)
The layering processing China is using is outdated and inferior to US's radar absorbing layering mesh.
It's technically stealthy, and most radar systems wont detect it, especially ones in many other countries, including Russias. However, US does have radar technology to detect these planes, heck we need it to detect our 20 year old stealth bombers!
Re:inferior carbon-fiber layering processing (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:inferior carbon-fiber layering processing (Score:5, Insightful)
its easier and cheaper to build tiny drones and cruise missiles than manned aircraft
Re: (Score:3)
how many do they have? (Score:2)
you need more than one to fight a war
what about the engines? do they emit less heat like the f-35?
are all the angles exactly like the F-35 which is what matters? what about the paint? is it radar absorbing paint?
what about the command and control? we have special C&C aircraft to target the fighters onto the enemy so its all over before a dogfight.
its not just about building a demo aircraft. its the whole system
Re: (Score:2)
What plane? (Score:3)
All I see is a guy floating 10 feet off the ground.
Not an F-22 comparable (Score:5, Insightful)
Fighters are designed strategically from the top down. A country says 1) what are it's strategic goals, and 2) what capabilities are we missing to fill those? American strategic goals are long range power projection; with two oceans protecting them and more or less dominance in the western hemisphere, American goals are to spoil the rise of other countries that might threaten it's interests. The F-22 is designed around this in mind; it's designed to penetrate enemy air space and establish air superiority while destroying air defenses, so that more conventional planes and bombers can then act as a force multiplier for ground troops.
China's goals are much closer to home. China seeks to secure it's own mainland (the Chinese coast) and establish dominance over the South China Sea and it's southern neighbor. Thus it's fighters are designed around area denial, primarily to keep the US Navy out of it's terriorial waters. Everything you read about the J-20 says it's not as stealthy as the F-22 and can't seem to manuever as well, but it's mostly designed to be a threat to naval ships and keep them out of Chinese waters. THat's why you see that China has developed now 1) the world's largest attack submarine fleet (although all are Diesel-Electric, not nuclear, so individually not as good as the US or British subs, but there's more of them), 2) one of the most advanced anti-ship missiles every designed that can be launched from a mobile, truck mounted launcher, and now 3) stealth fighters that aren't quite as stealthy as the US ones but stealthy enough for the area denial role.
Re: (Score:2)
Plus consider the effect of diminishing returns on investment. our planes are probably the most stealthy ever anywhere in the world, call it 99% stealthy for modern tech. and they cost a LOT to get there. but if you could produce a plane that's 75% as stealthy fr 50% of the cost, or 50% as stealthy for 30% of the cost....you still have an advantage over basically everyone, other than the US, and for a lot lower cost. and with that lower cost you could build even more of them.
its like the Light Fighter propo
Exhaust (Score:3)
Still bog standard exhausts on those engines. I'm not convinced till they can show a stealthy exhaust. It's a dead giveaway that the book is all cover, no content.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
it's probably not "bog standard". its very likely thrust vector capable. And the F22 doesnt have "stealth" exhausts either. It has vector nozzles too. It has a funny shape cause the designers opted to focus the vectoring capability in only one axis, achieving a higher dynamic effect in that axis, than having 360deg vectoring with a much smaller effect in any given direction. they then gave teh trailing edge a broken angle to reduce return on radar signal. but the warm exhaust itself is still there, not much
When will it be on ebay? (Score:2)
Anything you can do, we can steal and copy better! (Score:2)
Even knockoff stealth fighters now!
WOO!
Re: (Score:2)
It might be a cardboard model just to mess with their enemy's' heads.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Hey, where have I seen that plane before? (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah why do they just copy our laws of physics, can't they make their own?!?
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Hey, where have I seen that plane before? (Score:4, Interesting)
See how those thrusters jut right out the back? That's not stealth. The rest of it might be, sort of.
Re:Hey, where have I seen that plane before? (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Hey, where have I seen that plane before? (Score:5, Insightful)
Given that we yoinked aiframes, designs, machine tools, and scientists(see 'Project Paperclip') pretty much wholesale from the parts of germany we got to first, we probably shouldn't head for the moral high ground just yet...
Re: (Score:3)
The spoils of war from a world war with Germany doesn't quite compare to espionage from a country that you supposedly have peaceful relations with.
Such is the nature of espionage, though. Both sides do it, and react in "outrage" when they catch it happening.
Re: (Score:3)
Such is the nature of espionage, though. Both sides do it, and react in "outrage" when they catch it happening.
That's the part that I find so annoying. If people want to be boy scouts, knock it off with the cloak and dagger and go earn a merit badge or something. If people want to be all cloak and dagger, quit regurgitating your deeply unconvincing lies about what you aren't doing.
Re: (Score:2)
This is why we should defund all research, and use the money to fund espionage. All of the benefits, very little of the costs. And afterwards, we'll just pick some idea the other guys borrowed a couple decades or centuries ago to justify what we did. Then everyone will be in awe of how smart Americans are.
Re:Hey, where have I seen that plane before? (Score:5, Interesting)
Right, because technology from 70 YEARS ago is so meaningful today.
Funny you should mention that... [google.com] Built in 1955, after we snagged a few smaller presses from Germany and the commies got a 30,000 ton press. Continues to operate to the present day, providing precision pressed aerospace components to much of the US aircraft production industry...
Re: (Score:3)
Technology is technology. You said (and I quote)
"Right, because technology from 70 YEARS ago is so meaningful today."
How is a 5 story tall ultra-high-precision manufacturing doohickey NOT technology?
Re: (Score:2)
That doesn't sound right. Fiberglass is usually done at much lower pressure. Heck, fiberglass moulding can be done without applying pressure at all.
Also, 600,000 tons on a bathtub is a ludicrous amount of pressure. That's about 300 GPa, or about the pressure in the center of the earth.
Re: (Score:3)
Seriously, what kind of tool mods this fake moralistic crap up?
The kind that has perspective.
We didn't just copy, we straight up took the people and tools necessary to advance our aerospace technology.
Re: (Score:2)
Why would the Soviets scoop up scientists from the half of Germany that was occupied by American forces, unless Americans deliberately gave them away?
Re: (Score:2)
Absolutely. We haven't innovated one damned thing since then.
Oh keeper of the most smug tablet of moral superiority, thank you for your wisdom, ensuring we do not stray.
Never takes you long to show up.
Don't forget to justify Muslim outrage because of the crusades while you're at it.
Maybe I was unclear, and maybe you weren't paying attention; but my point would be precisely the opposite of somebody who would go cuddle with them about how traumatic the crusades were, oh noes...
My point here is "Yeah, China would appear to be ripping off the best designs available, which means US stealth tech and some amount of ruskie reliability; I would remind everyone frothing at the vile espionage of the Red Chinaman that espionage is something everybody does, so shut up for once." Where somebody to
Re:Hey, where have I seen that plane before? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Hey, where have I seen that plane before? (Score:5, Insightful)
The Chinese government does this a lot, even though it makes little sense. There have been many advances since the first stealth fighters were designed. Had they started from scratch, they would have had a better product. Same with aircraft carriers. They bought one from that technological power house, Ukraine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_aircraft_carrier_Varyag). So many advances in ship design have come and gone between the construction of that ship and now, that it makes little overt sense to try and retrofit it. China has thousands of unemployed engineers who could have done a much better job starting from scratch.
And don't get me started on the WTF(!) of the three gorges dam. Hundreds of small dams along the length of the Yangtze would have been manageable, affordable, allowed precise flood control, generated just as much power and provided significant redundancy. One big dam is just a single point of failure and is asking for trouble.
For a country largely governed by engineers, I would have expected better decisions.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Hey, where have I seen that plane before? (Score:4, Insightful)
And the F-35 pretty much has to have one engine due to the VTOL requirement. If a single engine VTOL fails you just eject. If a single engine in a twin engine VTOL fails you may not get a chance to eject before the unbalanced thrust causes a catastrophic rotation. You can work around that so a single failure just causes the plane to fall out of the sky (e.g. using fans driven by both engines), but that adds more complexity which is likely to cause more crashes.
Re: (Score:2)
How can completely inexperienced engineers do a better job from scratch? From scratch, neither they nor their military customers have the knowledge to write even the most basic of the requisite specs. (Not to mention your faith in the progress of ship
Re: (Score:2)
So, speaking of assumptions unfounded in reality, you're saying that China has no shipwrights? And that they have no engineers who can study the plans and layout of existing ships, particularly hull design and friction, and improve on them? In case you haven't noticed or anything, the Chinese are pretty talented at studying and manufacturing things. I'm having a hard time thinking this is something they couldn't handle.
So, since my assumptions are so unfounded, I'm sure you can provide adequate justificatio
Re: (Score:2)
Yep almost a perfect copy of the F35 externally, except no VTOL/STOL stuff and two exhaust outlets instead of one.
Re: (Score:2)
I am soooo tired of "this is a copy" comments.
Who has ever produced ANYTHING not based upon the ideas of others, unless you count the very first stone tools of 50000+ years ago???
Oh, and talking about airplanes: humans copied the main design from birds.
Highlights IP and Patent Law Stupidity (Score:4, Interesting)
I few years ago I was flying across the U.S. I had managed a good deal on first class tickets. So I was sitting beside someone who ran an electronics company which used contract manufacturers in China. I asked him about piracy of his IP. He said, and with a straight face so well that I think he believed it, that they keep the important stuff segregated, and the assembly distributed among several plants so that the Chinese would not be able to pirate their IP.
WTF? I believe that is what the majority of these jokers who offshore think or think they have successfully led us to believe. But I really believe it is what they think. I have to. Why else would they spend BILLIONS of dollars on patent lawsuits, just so they can have their ideas built in China where everyone except them (it seems), KNOW that the designs will be stolen and copied. These so called leaders of business can't be that stupid can they? After all most have business degrees and MBA's. Do they count so little? Actually I think they aren't so stupid but are cynical pricks who only look out for their own pocket books. Globalization means global for those with the money, and they have the money. It doesn't matter what the condition of your country if you live in a gated community.
Mind you, what does it say about the majority of people who help them to become millionaires, based on what? You'd think we'd learn by now after what we had to do to get Wall Street types from being paid huge bonuses just for showing up... wait, never mind.....
But seriously, why spend all that money on lawsuits for IP when they just have it built in China? It's like pouring water on the fire after the house has burned down. (Unless it's all a pretense?!) Why keep stealth fighters secret when you build most of the parts in China and hire Chinese nationals or ex-nationals without sufficient oversight (given the proven track record of Chinese spies in the defence and nuclear research areas). Actually, I think most members of the government are that stupid and/or naive since their main focus is really on getting re-elected and lining their pockets, and not on what is really happening. After all they don't have to know anything, just hire people who know everything. Isn't that how it works?
The government's talking heads will say that it just 'looks like an F-35' but the parts are different. We know the defence industry gets most of their electronics from China. I know that 1 + 1 = 2. They seem to think we think it adds up to 1.9. When the big hand is on the 12 and the little hand is on the 12, I know what time it is.
And now China is pushing its weight like crazy in the South China Sea. There were anti-Japanese riots closing Japanese factories in China today. They are not a benign factory for the world. They never were.
Re:Hey, where have I seen that plane before? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Hey, where have I seen that plane before? (Score:5, Insightful)
True. Most of the weapons in the arsenal probably aren't to be used in actual war, but in the projection of military supremacy. Enemies would think twice if they saw what "awesome firepower" you have (even if most if it is just cardboard cutouts or lame copies).
As for your second question - probably never. If you look throughout human history, it's been basically war after war after war, and most of the research involved in making wars lead to the comforts we enjoy today. Just human nature - someone has a big gun, someone else gets jealous and builds a bigger gun. Just be content in the fact that we've not yet waged any atomic war that wipes out most of humanity.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Just human nature - someone has a big gun, someone else gets jealous and builds a bigger gun. Just be content in the fact that we've not yet waged any atomic war that wipes out most of humanity.
Warfare is not human nature. It's the way that our culture has developed. The first archeological evidence of warfare is from 10,000 to 13,000 years ago, long after homo sapiens reached anatomical modernity (which was around 200,000 years ago). And we have archaeological evidence of other cultural activity (such as cooking, religion, music, and burials) that goes back much further, which suggests that it's not merely a case of our not *yet* having found the evidence of earlier warfare. Also, there are human
war not human nature? (Score:5, Insightful)
Uh, OK. I'll agree, given that we've seen chimpanzees go to war!
You're looking at something way deeper and more fundamental than human nature. War is simply a manifestation of the competition of life. On some primitive level, even the dumbest forms of life engage in this.
You can't escape the situation. Remember how the winners write history? They also leave more offspring. We are the descendents of creatures who were mostly winners and never complete losers. Our minds are shaped by evolution. Our status as humans does not exempt us from selection, not even today and not ever in the future.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
In a cumulative total of 215 years of observation by researchers, there have been 17 instances of lethal group violence by chimpanzees. So yes, there is group violence by chimpanzees against other chimpanzees but it is not as common as some might imagine. And it has been suggested that some of these confrontations were the result of habitat loss (caused by humans).
I'm not aware of any other species who go to war (I'm defining war as lethal group violence within a species). Note the "within species" part, so
Re: (Score:2)
What is "human nature" apart from "the way that our culture has developed"?
Re: (Score:3)
Warfare is not human nature. It's the way that our culture has developed
The way our culture developed is part of human nature. It's not like it suddenly came to be what it is. Culture evolves in the same way genome does (in fact, they affect each other). War is just a manifestation of parochial altruism [wikipedia.org], which is widespread in nature and is not at all unique to homo sapiens.
The first archeological evidence of warfare is from 10,000 to 13,000 years ago, long after homo sapiens reached anatomical modernity (which was around 200,000 years ago).
The problem is that it's kinda hard to get archeological evidence of warfare when war consists of bashing each others' heads with blunt tools. However, we do have good reasons to believe that war long predat
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Seriously, when are we going to evolve from that stage where we are still inventing new ways to throw rocks at each other?
Ever? No, not likely. In our lifetimes? Absolutely not.
Re: (Score:2)
Seriously, when are we going to evolve from that stage where we are still inventing new ways to throw rocks at each other?
Since evolution involves a certain segment of a population dying off, and another segment surviving to reproduce, it seems that the segment that has the newest and best way to throw rocks would be the most likely to survive. I don't see anything about 'evolution' that would discourage inventing new rock throwers.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
They could spend that money on helping the world's poor get some food, healthcare, permanent shelter, et cetera.
I can't think of a better way to get the aforementioned resources than to go in after them heavily armed.
Re: (Score:3)
I wonder how many jobs a research project like this creates... "Spending money helping the poor" isn't exactly as simple as it seems.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Because the US, EU, Russia and China will in all probability never go to war with each other.
Alex, "what is proxy wars for fun and profit?"
Would not be surprised to see .cn and .jp going at it in a limited way over those stupid islands in the next month or so. My guess is some amphibious "beach storming" foolishness plus or minus some aerial bombardment to make a point before they kiss and make up diplomatically.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japan_Air_Self-Defense_Force [wikipedia.org]
JASDF has F-15J mitsubishi built interceptors... basically the same as the 30 year old retired US F15 but with a really large spoil
Re: (Score:3)
I understand the point of the F-22 and F-35 was to keep Lockheed's engineers busy while drone technology was perfected. That's how the defense industry works. Lockheed got the next gen manned fighter program, Boeing got the missile defense and some of the drone work, northrop is getting some of the drone work, that's just how it works.
It still would have made a lot more sense and been far cheaper to have just produced a new upgraded block of F-15's to replace those with too many flight hours and we wouldn
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Have a look at what damage foreign aid does to a community. At face value, it may appear that providing rice or shoes is a good thing. But after the in
Re: (Score:2)
Because the US, EU, Russia and China will in all probability never go to war with each other... -----
but like what was commented about buying a 2-million-pound dreadnought instead feeding poor subjects because UK, France, Russia and Germany will never go to war with each other. But which they did, and the submarine and carrier based airplanes in later wars made that dreadnought irrevalent. Another item to note is The Empire shrank to an island after those wars.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They have to help themselves - else you'll be helping them FOREVER (I.E. America's own Trillion dollar welfare state).
I'd rather spend money on rocketships.
Re:Bootleg (Score:5, Insightful)
That would be astounding, considering most Chinese aircraft are based on Russian and Ukranian aircraft...
Re:Bootleg (Score:5, Funny)
It's not that astounding. Why, when I was volunteering in Africa, I found some Chinese-made RJ-45 plugs that fit directly into my American laptop! Even the Chinese Ethernet switch worked perfectly with it!
On an airplane, I expect many bolts, rivets, and screws will all "fit directly."
Re: (Score:2)
Those are standardized parts. Parts in an airplane tend to only work with that airplane. There are standardized parts to make them cheaper and easier but most are unique to that type of aircraft.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
You've tested this I take it? Where can I buy an F-35?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I know that people jest about China, but oftentimes they make exactly what the ODM specs out. If they spec cheap crap, they get cheap stuff. If they spec quality, top tier parts, the ship from China drops off tier 1 motors.
Champion generators comes to mind. Yes, their manufacturing is in a factory in a coastal province, but their products tend to be as good as they come, and their service is top notch. They spec decent stuff, the factory returns decent stuff.
Re: (Score:3)
If we would not waste that much money to kick each others butts, we would have solved all problems on Earth decades ago. However, we rather hate each other, lie to each other, steal from each other, produce films to annoy the other, get annoyed by totally unimportant media production from other people just because we have some problem understanding their culture or giving a damn about it. Well, the list could easily be enlarged, but I think you get the point.
In short: Humans are morons. They suck big time.
T
Re: (Score:2)
However, we rather hate each other, lie to each other, steal from each other, produce films to annoy the other, get annoyed by totally unimportant media production from other people
Unfortunately the peace on Earth is not bootstrappable. If you have 99 countries that gave up wars and one that hasn't, very soon that one country will either conquer everyone else or will manipulate them without a conquest (but under a threat.) You can have peace only when you get to 100% of compliance and when you can guaran
Re: (Score:2)
That is a lesson that seems to have been lost in history. The cross-pollination between countries that reduced the hatred among different Europeans to a managable level in the late 1940s is REALLY needed in the US.
For the sake of the country's future, we really need exchange programs between countries like Japan, China, Russia, Brazil, and Saudi Arabia. That way, we don't fall into that "We good, they are the evil demon legion whose only purpose is to be killed" trap that Europe fell into.
I wouldn't mind
Re: (Score:2)
If all the money spent on machines of war, was put towards something like, say, space travel, maybe we could achieve faster-than-light travel.
Just throwing money at a problem won't solve all problems.
Some problems are so far away from us scientifically that we don't even know the questions to ask that will get us to the point of forming a theory of how to achieve such a goal.
Re: (Score:2)
If we achieved faster than light travel, we probably wouldn't know that we achieved it for many years to come.
Re: (Score:2)
Aw, you feeling blue?
Re: (Score:3)
So from a low resolution picture on the Internet, you can tell that the technology in that demonstration aircraft is stolen from the West? Looking similar is meaningless.
Does it have the F-22's energy absorbing coatings? Probably not.
Does it have the F-22's radar systems? Probably not.
Does it have the F-22's vectored thrust? Hell no.
Can it supercruise? I wouldn't bet on it.
Also, RIAA for technology piracy? You have got to be kidding me. With this kind of technology, governments deal in different term
Re: (Score:2)
I'm pretty sure Ben Rich said that Lockheed's original stealth designs were based on Soviet research for modelling radar cross sections in his 'Skunkworks' book.
Re: (Score:2)