Print 49 comment(s) - last by sorry dog.. on Sep 25 at 1:11 AM

Aircraft looks similar to the F-22 Raptor

A photograph of a second Chinese Stealth fighter has turned up online. It's worth warning, however, that Aviation Week reports faked photographs of Chinese aircraft are notorious. However, the same photograph turned up on some official Chinese publications giving weight to the fact that the photograph is genuine. 
We've already seen numerous photographs of another Chinese stealth fighter called the J-20, which has already flown. The new fighter aircraft seen in this photo is clearly different from the J-20. The J-20 has canards on the front, whereas this new aircraft does not.

Aviation Week reports that this Chinese aircraft, which looks suspiciously like a Lockheed F-22 Raptor, is a twin-engine single-seat fighter. The aircraft is said to be somewhat shallower in the body than the F-35, but shares a similar span of about 37.5 feet. The estimates on the aircraft size were gleaned from comparing it to the commercial aircraft vehicle towing it on the runway.
The aircraft is said to feature a large internal weapons bay and the wings appear to be swept less than 45° on the leading edge according to Aviation Week. The engines are believed to be Klimov RD-93s that were imported from Russia.
The new aircraft indicates that China is spending heavily on developing new stealth aircraft to replace its aging fighter jet fleet. The aircraft is thought to be a potential replacement for the Chengdu J-10 that entered service in 2006.

Source: Aviation Week

Comments     Threshold

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

What's so hard about copying?
By Mizerable on 9/19/2012 9:58:02 AM , Rating: 3
Every news source says "they totally hacked and stole the designs for the f-35 and f-22, that's why they look so similar"

but can't you copy the look of the f-22 and f-35 by just looking at photographs that are everywhere online ?....

RE: What's so hard about copying?
By hankw on 9/19/2012 10:01:39 AM , Rating: 5
Probably similar to the way Samsung must have "stolen" Apple's designs. (yes I went there)

RE: What's so hard about copying?
By V-Money on 9/19/2012 10:51:02 AM , Rating: 5
Probably similar to the way Samsung must have "stolen" Apple's designs. (yes I went there)

So you are saying that their fighter is superior to ours? ;-)

By Cypherdude1 on 9/22/2012 3:22:05 PM , Rating: 2
Every news source says "they totally hacked and stole the designs for the f-35 and f-22, that's why they look so similar"

Yes, the Chinese government has employed hackers who have been able to hack into US government and private firm computers. Our government has been criminally negligent in computer security enforcement. I think they have been so incompetent, they simply don't want to admit it. Furthermore, don't forget the espionage side of it. The Chinese have also been buying schematics and materials compositions from paid informants. Every single time the USA creates a new technology, the Chinese don't have to do any research to match it. They simply steal it on the cheap.

RE: What's so hard about copying?
By Uncle on 9/19/12, Rating: 0
By imaheadcase on 9/19/2012 12:21:18 PM , Rating: 5
We don't have to do any of that, china does that internally enough so we don't have to.

RE: What's so hard about copying?
By MZperX on 9/19/2012 12:37:12 PM , Rating: 5
Wow, you seem to have issues man. Way to turn a discussion about a Chinese jet into an anti-American rant. Got a chip on your shoulder? Oh what the hell, just let the butthurt flow through you...

RE: What's so hard about copying?
By Uncle on 9/19/12, Rating: -1
By dark matter on 9/19/2012 1:17:40 PM , Rating: 2
He makes a valid point that you have yet to offer any alternative.

RE: What's so hard about copying?
By nocturne_81 on 9/21/2012 7:31:57 PM , Rating: 3
Actually, China has had a long harsh history of being cut up and subjugated by western influences, including the USA. It's pretty damn s####y what we've done to them, and they certainly have their reasons to hate us.

RE: What's so hard about copying?
By Ammohunt on 9/24/2012 2:12:23 PM , Rating: 1
You must be a product of modern revisionist history books because i am not aware of any instance where the united states "cut up" the Chinese. We helped liberate them from Japan in the 40ies only to fight off their communist aggression in Korea and later via a proxy war in Vietnam. They have been on the wrong side of freedom more often then not since Mao arrived and deserve all the criticism they have received.

RE: What's so hard about copying?
By FITCamaro on 9/19/12, Rating: -1
RE: What's so hard about copying?
By Azethoth on 9/19/2012 2:07:15 PM , Rating: 1
Sometimes you present as someone knowledgeable. But then sometimes you come up with things like this retarded conspiracy gem.

Hopefully you avoid sounding like an imbecile in a work environment.

RE: What's so hard about copying?
By Rhaido on 9/20/2012 1:07:17 PM , Rating: 2
I am not sure which is greater - your arrogance or your ignorance. I read this book over 10 years ago but I do remember John Huang had Top Secret clearance and received CIA briefings. It was extremely unusual for this type of clearance to be given to anyone in the Commerce Department.

RE: What's so hard about copying?
By michael67 on 9/20/2012 8:49:03 AM , Rating: 3
There is little doubt that either by direct theft or economic espionage

And so how is that different of what the US have bin doing, or do you think if the US can get some secret document on weapons design from BAE Systems (Europe's largest defense contractor), they would hesitate taking them if they think they can get away with it.

And its not like China is a allied nation of the US, why would they not get there hands on it if they can, as i would also have no problem steeling from some one that holds me responsible for all things that go wrong with the US economy, and is called by many politicians as enemy Nr2 after Nr1 Al Qaeda.

Espionage is as old as the time of the caveman, when tribe 2, watched tribe 1 how to make fire.

Every less developed nation (overall or on specific fields, including the US) has stolen tech from more developed nations, as everyone wants to be at equal terms with other nations.

Blaming others for something they done and do them self's can be called a little hypocritical, but that's just me.

By theapparition on 9/20/2012 12:13:32 PM , Rating: 2
You've obviously never been associated with anything regarding espionage.

But way to keep up the nonfactual information.

RE: What's so hard about copying?
By jmarchel on 9/19/2012 8:59:02 PM , Rating: 2
I thought US has stolen stealth technology from Horten brothers. You know, NAZIS.


By johnsmith9875 on 9/22/2012 1:02:51 AM , Rating: 2
Actually we got stealth legally from an obscure Russian mathematician that published an entire book about radar reflectivity. The Soviets didn't think much of the work, but we did.

By johnsmith9875 on 9/20/2012 3:04:19 AM , Rating: 2
Why not. China has fake Apple stores, fake IKEA stores, they're experts at copying stuff badly and selling it at a fraction of the price of the original.
Most satellite reception equipment made in China is a copy of either a Russian, Korean, or Japanese design and reboxed with hacked firmware. I've seen knockoff speed skates that look like American, Italian and Australian designs except they're 1/3 the price and inferior quality.

Nothing they do is original these days.

RE: What's so hard about copying?
By przemo_li on 9/22/2012 7:22:11 AM , Rating: 2
Aerodynamics are easy...

But putting insides of plane in right order and spot is hard.

Its like pushing row of bills by stick. Perfect alignment or no fun.

By MrBlastman on 9/24/2012 11:56:42 AM , Rating: 2
The engine exhaust nozzles are clearly inferior to the F-22's. They might be thrust vectored... but only barely and have a far higher RCS due to the design. They also have a much greater IR signature due to using an older design.

RE: What's so hard about copying?
By f148vr on 9/24/2012 11:12:30 AM , Rating: 2
I just hope the Chinese did not copy the oxygen generator design used in the F22.

I suspect aircraft design, much like the cars today, are beginning the look the same. While I'm sure some of these are intentional "copying", I suspect companies are converging on an optimal shape/profile. Furthermore, it is not uncommon for one company to emulate a feature done by another that seems to work as this is quite common in Formula 1. The bottom line is that anything goes when the objective is to get that competitive edge, this is especially important when nations are often judged by their military prowess.

As a NASCAR crew chief once said, "It's my job to cheat, and official's job to catch me."

By WinstonSmith on 9/19/2012 9:44:51 AM , Rating: 2
Just like the Soviet Buran looked nearly identical to our Shuttle and for the same reason.

Fortunately for us, the user manual for their fighter is incomprehensible.

By Brandon Hill on 9/19/2012 10:04:00 AM , Rating: 2
Yup, I was just thinking about the Buran the other day. For some reason, I was thinking of Tetris single-player on the Gameboy, and how once you got to a certain level it's show a clip of the Buran taking off with a "Congratulations" banner.

Then I said to myself, "Friggin' thieves!" ;)

By WinstonSmith on 9/19/2012 10:16:18 AM , Rating: 1
Yeah, but what's really funny is when they trust us so much that they perfectly copy a total piece of junk , like our incredibly stupid M17 gas mask design that had difficult to change filters inside the mask. Our NBC instructors always used to point out how stupid that design was and compare it to vastly better foreign designs which they had to show us:

By Ammohunt on 9/24/2012 2:22:36 PM , Rating: 2
Don't get me started on the M-17 the person(s) who invented that should be beaten. Changing the cheek pouch filters was at least an hour endeavour...I was resigned to the fact that if i we ever were attacked by chemical weapons that i would live as long as the filters would last...2 hours maybe? They got smart though the new masks have twist on filters.

By Shadowself on 9/19/2012 11:54:44 AM , Rating: 2
If they copy it *exactly* and have no way to "read the manual" or interact with it, maybe we need to put a 24/7 body guard on Sigourney Weaver (aka Tawny Madison) so they can't ever talk to it. But then maybe it's not advanced as the Soviet Firefox of 1982 and it's push button operated.

By fic2 on 9/19/2012 12:26:19 PM , Rating: 2
An article on ars about the development of NASA's lifting body spacecraft traces it to Soviet technology. Also, interesting that the U.S. probably would have had serious lifting body spacecraft except for the bureaucracy studying the feasibility to death.

By johnsmith9875 on 9/20/2012 3:08:06 AM , Rating: 3
The Buran is surprisingly different from the shuttle. The Russians addressed the shortcomings of the shuttle and made significant design changes, such as removing the orbiters engines and instead using the Energiya's heavy lift system. The tiles are larger, and Buran used a different computer system that allowed completely autonomous operation. They flew the thing without pilots and landed it with computers.

The Soviets realized how expensive Buran was and it was as big a mistake as the US Space shuttle, so they canned the project. We went on, spending billions on an obscenely expensive system that didn't really have many benefits other than making the Department of Defense happy.
(The DOD used it to loft their KH-11 keyhole satellites, which incidentally are the same size as the Hubble, but they have SIX of them in orbit)

Stolen or Not
By seraphim1982 on 9/19/2012 10:37:39 AM , Rating: 3
Either way, if it was stolen or not, it the US's own fault for having poor internet security.

RE: Stolen or Not
By Creig on 9/19/2012 11:08:02 AM , Rating: 2
Well, I hope that if your car gets stolen or your house gets burglarized that you just shrug it off and say, "Oh well, it's my own fault for not having enough security".

Blame the person committing the crime, not the victim.

RE: Stolen or Not
By Ringold on 9/19/2012 11:30:45 AM , Rating: 3
It also presumes it was achieved by some over-the-internet hack.

Chinese spies have been caught operating here before; we've got some in prison. Someone on the inside being on the take is probably just as likely. When a key individual is a foreign agent it can be hard to stop theft (though I know a lot of effort goes in to trying).

I recall a story from maybe 7 or 8 years ago, cops raided a trailer, on drug charges I think against some guy, and found a bunch of Q-level security clearance documents, nuclear warhead designs and all, belonging not to the drug addict but his girlfriend that admitted taking home (to her trailer park..) the documents to file them or some such.

She was no Chinese spy, just retarded, and knew she was breaking the law. But there they were, in a random trailer park, our closest nuclear secrets. Even the best laid policies can't stop stupid. :P

RE: Stolen or Not
By ClownPuncher on 9/19/2012 1:50:36 PM , Rating: 1
U shouldna weared them sexy short shorts, ez access for a rappist.

RE: Stolen or Not
By km4c on 9/21/2012 7:38:30 PM , Rating: 2
Actually the way he phrased it you would have to respond with:

Well, I hope that if your car gets stolen or your house gets burglarized that you just shrug it off and say, "Oh well, it's my own fault for not having enough "internet" security".

Seriously doubt these secrets were stolen from the internet.

By Amiga500 on 9/19/2012 11:08:12 AM , Rating: 3
So don't be surprised to see they find similar solutions to similar problems.

On a detail level, its aerodynamics are nothing like either the F-22 or the F-35. Of course, various bits and pieces are similar to bits found on the F-22 or pieces found on the F-35.

But sticking them together produces a completely different package.

For instance, the fuselage is significantly flatter than F-35, yet incorporates much less forebody contouring than the F-22. The wing trailing edge looks to be a continuous straight edge like the F-35, but yet the wing leading edge has significantly more sweep.

The elevators are also significantly further forward in relation to the nozzle exits than either the F-22 or F-35; which may be a function of longer TVC nozzles or expected elevator authority or of reliance on TVC for primary pitch control.

To flat out call it a copy is well, more a reflection on the (lack of) knowledge of the person saying its a copy than anything else.

By Amiga500 on 9/19/2012 11:10:32 AM , Rating: 3
Now... whether subsystems and equipment under the skin are copied from the F-22, F-35, Rafale, Eurofighter, Gripen etc etc...

... that is an entirely different story.

But its a story that cannot be told by a few photographs. :-)

By Ringold on 9/19/2012 11:37:04 AM , Rating: 2
I really look forward to another 20, 30 years down the road.. When all the people currently involved in all these things is in a nursing home and wants to get a payday to send all the grandkids to college, they'll start spilling all kinds of interesting stories, from 1990-2010. Like 'deep throat' finally letting a book be released.

Not to take away anything from the Cold War generation, they lived with vastly higher stakes, but I think the stories they'll tell will be just as interesting, if not more. Cold War was somewhat static; this has been a crazy 20 year run.

By Manch on 9/24/2012 2:40:24 AM , Rating: 2
You make an excellent point.

Hell, You should have been a Lawyer for Samsung...might have turned out differently for them!

old news
By shin0bi272 on 9/19/2012 11:12:53 AM , Rating: 2
a picture of this plane came out over a year ago where have you been?

RE: old news
By Gondor on 9/19/2012 12:17:06 PM , Rating: 2
This one ? Are you perhaps referring to J-20 ? That one indeed was filmed and photographed last year, but it looks different.

By Belard on 9/24/2012 2:36:28 AM , Rating: 2
The Taiwanese FCK1 fighter is very cool looking. The USGov. prevented the sale of 66 F-16s to the country. So they developed their own.

Check out the pages/pics below. It looks like a cross between an F16 and an F18. So imagine a body of an F16 (single "rudder") with two engines and F-18-like air-intakes.

By sorry dog on 9/25/2012 1:11:50 AM , Rating: 2
It should look like an F16...General Dynamics did a bunch of the design work. for the above stealth fighter...last I read, the the indigenous turbines for their Su27 knockoff (J-11) were still falling short of designed reliability and TBO's. So they have bought more motors from Russia to fill the gap, since their copy of that motor has performance problems and reportedly QC issues in the manufacturing.

I would guess that some parts of this article,
are conjecture, yet continued orders for Russian motors seemed to confirm a lot said in that article has some truth to it. Also, the Russian designed motors, that the Chinese copies have not matched in reliability, already have depot level refurb intervals that are less than half western equivalents.

So, even with the copies right in front of them, they still seems to be on a learning curve when it come to things like material science and volume production of high precision parts like turbine blades. I don't doubt they will eventually equal or exceed their Russian teachers, but not without a lot of time and money. Just like companies like GE and and Pratt&Whitney had to do.

Given that, even if this experimental planes meets its objectives, it is still quite far from an operational plane.

For example, the YF22 and F22 look almost identical, yet the F22 is really a different airplane that took years to develop after the YF-22 flew and it is still being improved to upgrade capability and address flaws.

Based on that, I feel that the Chinese have a very long way to go before they can start production of a fighter with similar capabilities.

But really.
By Uberlico on 9/19/2012 11:05:07 AM , Rating: 3
Unless the author is blind the layout is too different from the F-22. The head is closer to F-35 but with a larger wingspan, dual engines, these alone would require major engineering changes, so it is different jet altogether.

Its right there.
By Mitch101 on 9/19/2012 12:26:15 PM , Rating: 1
I can totally see it. Its right there in the picture. You don't even have to squint your eyes its right there.

RE: Its right there.
By johnsmith9875 on 9/22/2012 1:05:05 AM , Rating: 2
Terrible stealth plane, its quite visible.

Big deal
By TechIsGr8 on 9/19/2012 12:57:00 PM , Rating: 1
This is something to be worried about? Really? If the toxins in the cabin environment don't take out the pilot first, it will be the cheap components that fail right when he/she needs them. The Communist Chinese can't even keep poison out of their milk and baby formula supples, how will these people make a steath fighter jet that won't be taken out by its own designe-in failures?

RE: Big deal
By FaaR on 9/19/2012 4:35:05 PM , Rating: 2
The Americans have already been there, done that with the toxic cabin environment... ;)

By FITCamaro on 9/19/2012 9:42:06 AM , Rating: 2
Doesn't look familiar at all...

"Can anyone tell me what MobileMe is supposed to do?... So why the f*** doesn't it do that?" -- Steve Jobs

Latest Headlines

Most Popular ArticlesAre you ready for this ? HyperDrive Aircraft
September 24, 2016, 9:29 AM
Leaked – Samsung S8 is a Dream and a Dream 2
September 25, 2016, 8:00 AM
Yahoo Hacked - Change Your Passwords and Security Info ASAP!
September 23, 2016, 5:45 AM
A is for Apples
September 23, 2016, 5:32 AM
Walmart may get "Robot Shopping Carts?"
September 17, 2016, 6:01 AM

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki