Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
China The Military

China Displays New Stealth Fighter in Race To Match US (msn.com) 108

Posted by msmash from the race-intensifies dept.
China's air force showcased a suite of new armaments this week, including a new stealth fighter and an attack drone, demonstrating its advancing ability to challenge the U.S. military presence in the Asia Pacific. From a report: The public debut of the J-35A stealth fighter and other weapons systems at China's premier airshow, which started Tuesday, represent the centerpiece in the Chinese air force's celebrations of its 75th anniversary -- a milestone in Chinese leader Xi Jinping's sweeping campaign to modernize the People's Liberation Army.

A single J-35A soared over crowds of spectators in a brief flypast on the opening day of Airshow China in the southern city of Zhuhai, making a steep climb with afterburners before rolling away and streaking out of view, state television footage showed. Other new weapons -- including the "Jiu Tian" reconnaissance and attack drone and the HQ-19 anti-ballistic-missile system -- were also prominent in ground displays at the biennial airshow, as examples of the PLA's growing prowess in aerial warfare and air defense. Much remains unclear about these systems and their capabilities. Even so, Chinese officials and state media say the new armaments reflect the significant advances that Beijing has made in developing its air power and enhancing its ability to defend China's strategic interests.

China Displays New Stealth Fighter in Race To Match US More | Reply

China Displays New Stealth Fighter in Race To Match US

Comments Filter:
  • Also Soviet weapons are totes awesome. The Chinese carrier is the bestest.

    Another Gen 4 fighter (see also the SU57 Faker, er, Felon) masquerading at Gen 5.

    • The whole thing is a scam.

      Israel just ordered 25 F-15's for delivery in 2031.

      Did they forget they're "obsolete" or do they like burning a pile of $4B?

      • Re:Yeah, sure (Score:5, Interesting)

        by VaccinesCauseAdults ( 7114361 ) on Tuesday November 12, 2024 @09:26AM (#64939627)
        I thought this was a typo at first, and you meant Israel is purchasing more F-35s. But sure enough it is F-15, albeit in the modernised version F-15IA. Incredible that the basic airframe will be 70 years old by the time they are all delivered. I saw the F-15QA demonstrated at RAF Fairford earlier this year definitely no slouch.

        • The old girl is still a heck of a mule once the air defenses are sufficiently reduced.

        • The F-15 is a cheaper and capable fighter. Unless the opposing side has stealth fighters, it is more than a match.
        • Do they need anything newer (and much more expensive) when the nations that they would deploy these against are using technology just as or even more antiquated? It seems like a more pragmatic choice than buying something newer just for the sake of having the latest and greatest when you don't need any of those features.

          They've been using F-15s for a long time now and having pilots already familiar with them and the support logistics for keeping the planes maintained and combat ready is also important.
          • Agreed, I’m sure the Houthi rebel airforce’s single F5, or even Iran’s ancient F-14s (are they still flying) are no match for a new, modernised F15. Although Israel also has 40 F35 and is expanding fleet to 75 F35s, so they seem to think that something newer and expensive is needed.

        • Re:Yeah, sure (Score:5, Interesting)

          by BeepBoopBeep ( 7930446 ) on Tuesday November 12, 2024 @11:05AM (#64939853)
          They ordered F15EX variants. They are the revised F15 airframe with updated EW, modern communications/eletronics, cock pit and radar (AESA). They are part of the High/Low mix, being in the low mix. They collaborate with F-35 in a high/low mix. You dont need to constantly use F-35 when the opponents air defense was blown to bits. The F15EX also carries a shit ton more munitions, its a missile truck and very cheap to operate as all the infrastructure exists today. The F15EX is brilliant and a variant that Saudi Arabia forked out the $$ to develop. The US just took what Saudi Arabia ordered and injected it with steroids to work with NATO allies to dominate the skies when air defense are nullified.
          • The F15EX also costs more upfront than the F35: "In November 2023, the National Interest reported that the flyaway costs of an F-35A were around $82.5 million, while the costs of the F-15EX had ballooned to between $94 and $97 million. "
            • Only amateurs think upfront cost. F15EX wins overall total cost of operations: $27,000/flight hour vs $38,000 flight/ hour. Airframe life: 20,000 flight hours vs 8,000 flight hours. The F15EX is just cheaper overall to operate and can be deployed to anywhere F15 are deployed today vs F-35 you need to build human capital up and physical infrastructure.
              • I get that, but still isn't it surprising?

                Anyways, Israel has both, and plans to buy more of both, so they clearly see relative advantages to each.

          • Key point being when air defense is nullified, because the West doesn't like risking the loss of pilots.

            Also, for air to air, we're going to see a shift as people start realizing that it's going to be a rarity for aircraft to perform a traditional dogfight. Heck, if they get within visual range it's going to be strange.
            • Dog fights dont exist, next generation air dominance platforms are all snipers, shoot before being detected (F-22 successor). They will exist in limited numbers if USAF ever gets it approved or requirements locked down. F-35/F-15EX are multirole, as in, they can do ground attack. Its suspected the B-21 bomber being tested now, will support air-to-air attack, yes, so it may not be a bomber but multi-role attacker like F--35 but carry a shint ton more munitions, maybe for defense, or maybe a air-to-air att

        • Re: (Score:1)

          by tatroc ( 6301818 )
          It is actually the F-15.ai :)

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by BigFire ( 13822 )

          With the kind of anti-aircraft defense IDF is expecting to go up against, F-35 is a bit of overkill.

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by schwit1 ( 797399 )

            With the kind of anti-aircraft defense IDF is expecting to go up against, F-35 is a bit of overkill.

            The Russian S-400 is in Syria. Iran is looking to buy it. Many countries in the Middle East have the Russian S-300

      • Re: (Score:3)

        by RobinH ( 124750 )
        You need enough advanced stuff to get air superiority and take out their SAM sites. After that you just need lots of aircraft that can take advantage of it and hit targets precisely.

      • Re: (Score:2, Redundant)

        by ArchieBunker ( 132337 )

        Spending $4 billion is easy when you're given literal fortunes.https://apnews.com/article/israel-hamas-war-us-military-spending-8e6e5033f7a1334bf6e35f86e7040e14

      • The whole thing is a scam.

        Israel just ordered 25 F-15's for delivery in 2031.

        Did they forget they're "obsolete" or do they like burning a pile of $4B?

        As long as the US is paying for it via defense aid, would they really care?

      • There's a big difference between diminishing returns and "scams." F-15s are fine for Israel because none of their direct enemies can compete with them in the sky, nor have any chance of ever doing so. It's not a relevant comparison.

        F-22 and F-35 aren't meant to be value buys (in any terms other than internal), they're meant to deliver an absolute. Apples and oranges. Or like saying plate armor is a scam because chain mail is way easier to mass-produce.

        • F-22 and F-35 aren't meant to be value buys

          And yet, the F-35 can be bought in the range of ~$100 million per unit. It's damn near impossible to get an apples to apples comparison (e.g., does the Israeli F-15 contract include a bunch of missiles, spare parts, maintenance, etc.), but the F-15 and F-35 aren't in fundamentally different price brackets.

          • What are the running costs like? What about ground infrastructure - are they the same?

          • "And yet, the F-35 can be bought in the range of ~$100 million per unit. It's damn near impossible to get an apples to apples comparison (e.g., does the Israeli F-15 contract include a bunch of missiles, spare parts, maintenance, etc.), but the F-15 and F-35 aren't in fundamentally different price brackets."

            Fair points. But there's another side to the coin about parts, maintenance, familiarity, etc. The more rapid a fleet switches to F-35, the higher the overhead of training, industrial inertia, supply c

          • On an "almost" apples to apples comparison, the F35 unit price for the VTOL variant is around $115 million, and I assume the CTOL variants are cheaper. The latest JAS39 Gripen, that has no VTOL variant and is not stealthy to the same level, costs £85 millions. Then you have to factor in the additional costs of servicing infrastructure ETC, where the Gripen might pull slightly ahead. But even "cheap and simple" fighters are expensive things. Where the Chinese fighter might have an edge is on how many

      • They're not effective as a front-line fighter against the top tier enemies, but against the typical adversaries in the middle east an F-15 is still incredibly capable.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by znrt ( 2424692 )

        you don't need fifth generation stealth fighters to bomb women and children.

        • Always nice to see crocodile tears shed for human shields. smh

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by znrt ( 2424692 )

            why would anyone *not* feel for human shields ... except for considering them "sub-human"?

            • Re:Yeah, sure (Score:4, Insightful)

              by Eunomion ( 8640039 ) on Tuesday November 12, 2024 @01:59PM (#64940381)
              A statement isn't a feeling, it's an implied value judgment. You actually thought it was both a rational idea and morally appropriate to quip about "bombing women and children" against a country that had watched its women and children massacred on live social media, triggering the chaos you're pretending to criticize. That implies either staggering tone-deafness or blind hate.

              • Re: (Score:2)

                by znrt ( 2424692 )

                nice weaseling but you already gave yourself away, psycho.

              • Re: (Score:2)

                by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

                It's a statement of fact. The vast majority of bombs that the Israeli Air Force drops are on civilian areas, and the vast majority of casualties are civilians. 70% of them are women and children, according to the UN.

                When the Israelis want to attack specific targets with precision, they don't use aircraft. They use precision guided missiles. If they start a war with Iran, that will most likely be how they attack Iranian SAM sites and other military targets. Those and drones. The aircraft are for after they h

                • Your numbers are plausible, but it doesn't change the context. The attack that triggered the affair was during a lull in hostilities. They were literally massacred for the violence they weren't committing, which is as evil as it gets. Historically, there's not a military power on Earth that would or could have exercised a whole lot more restraint when faced with such madness and chaos. And it's not exactly uncommon for the region, so the emphasis on this one country suggests very particular agendas bein

                  • Re: (Score:2)

                    by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

                    Why couldn't they end the occupation? Hard to have a resistance when there is nothing to resist.

                    • Just a guess: They probably put less weight on abstract political theories of foreign governments than on defense against the people who openly brag about plotting their wholesale extermination. Plus the word "occupation" is a little rich from a theocratic mob that doesn't even meet the UN's ultra-loose definition of a state.

                      An equally simple question to yours would be why can't neighboring countries just adopt the population they so loudly endorse? Surely those regimes who are so generous with funding

                    • Re: (Score:2)

                      by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

                      Jews were in fact living in those areas before Israel was created. It's Israel and it's aggressive and illegal expansion that is the problem here, and the only way to end it without total genocide is for Israel to start obeying international law.

                      They recently announced that they have ethnically cleansed northern Gaza. That's not the actions of a legitimate, peaceful state.

                    • Not contesting any criticism, just the moral frame it presumes. Not many states in that region "obey international law," at all. At a stretch, they obey their need for American money and arms, or their strategic need to stand opposite to them. But that doesn't stop them from being violently despotic and/or chaotic. So, for real, who are you comparing them to? Switzerland? Benelux? Rural Canada?

                      For damn sure you can't be comparing them to their neighbors and seeing that as a negative contrast. The

                    • Re: (Score:2)

                      by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

                      Israel is the only country in that region committing genocide.

                      You might suspect that others would do it if they had the chance, but that's speculation.

                    • Water being wet is not "speculation." And hiding behind the exact present tense is ridiculous. Unhinged, bigotry- or revenge-driven violence pops off every couple of years in the region.

                    • Re: (Score:2)

                      by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

                      "Pops off"? As if Israel doesn't have its boot on their necks.

                    • In other words, you're either very young and haven't seen a damn thing or very old and can't remember a damn thing. There aren't many other explanations for talking that stupid that don't involve brain-eating amoebas, so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.

              • Re: (Score:2)

                by skam240 ( 789197 )

                So bombing woman and children who had nothing to do with what you detail in your post for revenge is okay then? The people who did horrible shit to Israel were Hamas, not every man, woman, and child in Gaza. Dropping oversized, unguided munitions on one of the most density populated places on earth isn't even close to being proportional to what Hamas did. The Palestinian death toll is FAR ahead of the Israeli one and that's not even going into the property damage and suffering caused by all this.

                99.9% of I

                • "Balance of suffering" logic is part of the problem. You can't have it both ways: If one side of a conflict refuses any limitations or accountability whatsoever while at the same time being impossible to placate, you've backed yourself into a moral corner.

                  The two choices you're faced with are: Buy into the totalitarian, narcissist ideology of a cult who have made hate for another people their one and only moral value; OR you admit some places are just toxic and prioritize other things.

                  Your concern is

                  • Re: (Score:2)

                    by skam240 ( 789197 )

                    Hahaha, what a moral degenerate. Just because you're a degen doesn't mean everybody is.

                    • That's not how morality works, brain trust. There's no scorecard. It's work. Perception. Accountability. What you're talking about is ideology, not morality. A person who refuses to use their senses and judgment dynamically is just a dimwitted coward hiding behind lists, rituals, and thought-terminating cliches.
              • Which, unironically, has led to the opposite: The Israeli response becoming a modern day Einsatz Reinhard, complete with sniping reporters, blowing up news / unaffiliated aid buildings, blowing up aid workers in communication with the Israeli military, the complete destruction of infrastructure, and the intentional starvation of civilians.

                Also never forget that the current Israeli right wing leadership, according to the Israeli newspaper Haaretz, made sure money flowed to the group that attacked. They kn
                • It's possible. But I'm not white knighting for anyone. In fact, I'm having a BS detector alarm to all the white knighting on behalf of an apocalyptic cult that's gotten harder and harder to tell apart from ISIS. But my explicit position is that the Middle East is not worth the aggravation. It's some sort of history trap.

        • You don't need a degree from Harvard to use sophistry.

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by znrt ( 2424692 )

            the majority (70%) of officialy acknowledged casualties inflicted by the idf this year are women and children. do you know what sophistry even means?

            • Do you know what believing terrorists makes you?

              • Re: (Score:2)

                by znrt ( 2424692 )

                Do you know what believing terrorists makes you?

                so the un human rights office are terrorists now too?

                The UN Human Rights Office has been verifying the personal details of those killed in Gaza by strikes, shelling and other conduct of hostilities. Of those fatalities, it has so far found close to 70 per cent to be children and women, indicating a systematic violation of the fundamental principles of international humanitarian law, including distinction and proportionality.
                https://www.ohchr.org/en/press... [ohchr.org]

                you are trying to question my moral by throwing a nonsensical incrimination and misrepresenting reality? you are either ignorant or you are simply being dishonest. either way yo do not get to define who's a terrorist, and you don't have any moral ground at all to argue from. in the former case, do yourself a favor and get a clue, preferably not in zionist controlled media (which is mostly all of western mainstream media with few exceptions). in the latte

      • F15s work great for attacking anything other than a modern jet in the air. They ain't dog-fighters these days. Good delivery vehicles for short-range missiles though. And also intimidating as hell if you're on the ground and get buzzed by them. My uncle damned near wrecked his Harley trike over that little stunt out near a weekend warrior air facility.

        • Good delivery vehicles for short-range missiles though.

          Why short range? Let your stealthy F-35s get up close and personal, and feed sensor data back to the F-15s so they can lob a few of the Meteors or AMRAAMs they're hauling.

      • you mean us the tax payer as it's just a foreign aid transfer from us to lockheed...no Israeli dollars are harmed

      • Re: (Score:1)

        by Tablizer ( 95088 )

        Electronics and force integration often make a bigger impact than physical plane design. Upgrading an old plane's electronics can greatly improve it and extend its life. Plus, non-stealth planes are generally more maneuverable if one has to dog-fight because ground control etc. got nuked.

      • Re: (Score:1)

        by jonadab ( 583620 )
        There's obsolete and then there's obsolete.

        Bear in mind that Israel isn't trying to be a major world power. They just want to stay ahead of their neighbors. The F-15 isn't state of the art any more, but it's not useless WWII-era trash either, especially in its more recent variants. Its combat record remains quite solid so far.
      • Just the usual moving money around from account to account with the usual parties taking their skim off the top,
      • Yep, and remember that plane (according to dim bulbs like Pierre Sprey and John Boyd) was too expensive and TERRIBLE. They wanted to rip out all those durn too expensive avionics, encrypted radios, ejector seat, and a bunch of other stupid crap. Ironically they loved the F16, which was designed and built using technology and production techniques created for, wait for it: The F15.

        Now the F15 is great, especially when you're shooting at people who have no modern way to shoot back. I mean, let's be brutall

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by leonbev ( 111395 )

      On the flip side, I bet that it would still be pretty fun to fly around in the Chinese version of the F-35.

      Sure, it's like getting the Temu version of the real thing, but it's still better than nothing if you're a Chinese jet pilot.

    • Don't let the appearance of cheap Chinese products fool you. They are by no means dumb or naive when it comes to manufacturing quality products for their military.

      • Don't let the appearance of cheap Chinese products fool you. They are by no means dumb or naive when it comes to manufacturing quality products for their military.

        Appearances can be misleading. The only real way to evaluate advanced weapons is in real combat. Something like the 1982 war between Israel and Lebanon/Syria where American-made fighter jets significantly outperformed Soviet-made jets (1 American jet downed compared to 80+ Soviet jets). Of course, the Israeli pilots were likely also greatly superior, so that has to be considered.

        • American-made fighter jets significantly outperformed Soviet-made jets (1 American jet downed compared to 80+ Soviet jets).

          According to Wikipedia, the Syrian jets lost were largely ground attack planes, not air to air fighters. The problem with all the public comparisons out there is that they are commercial ventures trying to sell their products, not military assessments. And in war, they are propaganda.

  • ...China hasn't been doing much war in recent decades, at least not as much as the USA & NATO. Sooo... maybe inexperienced designers with too little knowledge of what really matters in war?
    • Chinese soldiers are getting experience in Ukraine. I became aware of it when I saw a video blog produced by a guy serving in Ukraine in an auxullarly to the Russian Army. He was from Zhengzhou, where I know a lot of people, so it caught my eye. There is no doubt that they are observing this near-peer conflict and, like nearly everyone, taking lessons from it.

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by jonadab ( 583620 )
      > maybe inexperienced designers with too little knowledge of what really matters in war?

      That isn't the problem with this aircraft. The overall design is reasonably solid and, in fact, bears more than passing resemblance to the American F-35. The biggest issue (apart from things not directly related to the plane itself, like pilot training and command officer experience) is the jet engines: the PLA is not able to source the really-high-end ones from Western companies. They have been working on attempti

    • ...China hasn't been doing much war in recent decades, at least not as much as the USA & NATO

      The USA and NATO haven't been involved in a war against anything like a near peer since Korea. And the results of Ukraine's attempt at a counter-offensive using NATO equipment and training are not reassuring. Obviously Ukraine lacks control of the airspace, but that may be the future for all wars.

      Whether even the F-35 can evade the Russian s-400 air defense and establish control of the battlefield airspace is

      • ...lacks control of the airspace, but that may be the future for all wars.

        Wow, what a valuable insight! Maybe you can build a time machine to go back to WWI to warn somebody!

        • Maybe you can build a time machine to go back to WWI to warn somebody!

          Uh - future wars? The Ukraine offensive using NATO technology failed miserably. The United States has fought several wars where they had complete control of the air space over the battlefield. Not only was their opponent denied access to the air space but they were unable to limit its use by US forces. The Ukraine battlefield is nothing like that. Neither Russia nor Ukraine have anything like that level of control. So it may be the Ukraine offensive is not instructive if you can command complete control of

          • Yes, like you, I've decided that I'm no longer interested in being an armchair expert consultant in political campaigning & now I've decided I'm an expert consultant in modern warfare.
  • there was actual jet fuel in the tanks, as opposed to water. I guess we can call that progress?

  • As long as China are spending money on this useless prestige shit they aren't making anything more dangerous. The USA can far more easily waste money than their potential opponents, so for the USA it makes sense to do so as long as the idiots stuck in WW1 mentality follow along.

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by DarkOx ( 621550 )

      Don't kid yourself nobody knows what a real gloves off near-peer conflict would look like, let a lone if it is even possible.

      By possible I mean politically, while the neuclear genie prevents conflicts from turning hot in the first place if a real hot war between US and China, broke out nobody knows if a drat + more body bags returning than in generational member, that public option does not move to 'lets light those candles and roll the dice'

      We have done nothing by war games and proxy conflicts in the way o

  • Exhaust (Score:5, Informative)

    by Dan East ( 318230 ) on Tuesday November 12, 2024 @09:47AM (#64939687) Journal

    Looking at the video, one issue is readily apparent even to a layperson like me. The engine exhaust is totally exposed. You can see the round nozzles and jet plume totally exposed, which makes it very easy for heat seeking missiles to identify and track the heat source.

    The F-22 in comparison has rectangular ports with vectoring for the exhaust with radar-absorbing materials hiding the hot engine surfaces.

    Here's what I'm talking about with the F-22. [youtu.be]

    Then the J-35 in comparison, where the engine nozzles are totally exposed [youtube.com]. They don't appear to be vectored either.

    Basically what this means is 1980s heat seeking technology would have no trouble shooting down that jet, especially air-to-air launched from behind the J-35.

  • New Chinese Stealth Fighter (Score:3)

    by PPH ( 736903 ) on Tuesday November 12, 2024 @11:12AM (#64939871)

    I'll believe it when I see it.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by jonadab ( 583620 )
      Eh. It depends how you define "new" I guess.

      This is the PLA air-force version (so, intended to be operated out of a land-based airbase) of the existing J-35 that we've known about in its carrier-based iteration for a while. You know, the one that is obviously supposed to be a clone of the F-35 but has about half the effective range, for lack of really-high-end jet engines that the PLA can't buy from the West (because certain governments don't trust them with such things). Remember that? Yeah, it's that,

      • No one knows the range of the Chinese aircraft. The performance parameters of the aircraft are all classified.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by PPH ( 736903 )

        Does it count as a "new" aircraft when the big change is whether it's the carrier-based version or not?

        Don't know. After the F-35A came out, were the F-35B and F-35C "new"?

        Is the Furbish Lousewort a "new" (and endangered) species because Ms. Furbish found one growing in her back yard? Or is it just another weed endemic to the larger region? Depends on how much attention you want for your cause.

    • For true stealth, you should actually only believe it if you can't see it...
  • Isn't this the aircraft that F-35 JPO inserted into their Instagram tribute social media for 2024 Veteran's Day festivities
  • Are these those 5th generation aircraft I heard about?

Slashdot Top Deals

What we anticipate seldom occurs; what we least expect generally happens. -- Bengamin Disraeli

Close