backtop


Print 52 comment(s) - last by Mitch101.. on Nov 29 at 2:56 PM


Chinese CH-4 Drone  (Source: Want ChinaTimes)

MQ-9 Reaper Drone  (Source: Wikimedia Commons)
Chinese defense companies copy the US

The Chinese military establishment has long copied military hardware from other parts of the world, including the U.S. Some Chinese military drones have been seen at China's Zhuhai air show in model form.

China Aerospace Science and Technology Corporation built the CH-4 and it’s clear that the U.S. Reaper drone heavily influenced its design. The CH-4 has a claimed endurance of 30 hours and can travel nearly 2,000 miles at altitudes of up to 5 miles.
 
Another drone on display is built by Chengdu Aircraft Design is called the Wing Loong, and it also resembles the Reaper according to reports.

Of all the military drones on display at the air show, however, Defense News reports that the Wing Loong garnered the most attention. That drone reportedly has export deals in the works and the static display at the show features four hard points for weapons (laser-guided bombs, air-to-ground missiles, etc).

Another weapon on display, the Bateleur, was said to be a copy of the Bell-Boeing V-22 Osprey and is capable of vertical takeoff and landing. However, simply copying the V-22 Osprey would be a difficult endeavor, as that highly complex aircraft has been plagued with numerous problems during its lifetime.
 
This isn’t the first time that mimicry has struck Chinese aircraft design. China’s J-20 stealth fighter looks suspiciously similar to Northrop-Grumman and Lockheed Martin stealth fighter designs.

Source: Defense News



Comments     Threshold


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

RE: Knockoff
By SigmundEXactos on 11/27/2012 10:17:35 AM , Rating: 1
Oh yes, they have "never" innovated...like paper, gunpowder, the compass, and the printing press. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Chinese_inven...

*sigh*

And Boeing just copies Airbus! And the US "copied" several parts of the Mig25 design for the F15!

Or how about there are only so many ways to make aerodynamic bodies with long hovering times? This one does have a stronger resemblance, but just copying the rough external shape doesn't buy you much. You still have to run the same set of complex simulations to determine the *exact* shape to both allow and optimize flight, which is basically almost as much work as working from scratch. The only thing copying helps you do (unless you have an intact copy to play with) is to seed your start point.

Personally I'm comforted that the Chinese are still copying US designs -- it means there will still be work for us. What you really should be dreading is the day they stop copying and really start innovating. What will you do then?


RE: Knockoff
By Shadowself on 11/27/2012 10:41:33 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
And the US "copied" several parts of the Mig25 [sic] design for the F15!


Excuse me? What sane person would ever claim this?

I read the reports back in '76 (when they were still classified) about the MIG 25 that surprised a LOT of people -- like a significant fraction of the MIG 25 was made out of stainless steel, the radar bay was huge, but the radar was still tube based and thus very weak and had very poor functionality even for its day, the engines were the only truly interesting (or leading edge) thing in the entire craft, etc., etc.

Other than an extremely general profile, there was virtually nothing the same between the MIG 25 and the F15.

Before the 1976 defection and the U.S. getting its hands on a fully functional MIG 25 (which Japan gave back) there were many outlandish theories of the abilities of the MIG 25. Those drove the design capabilities of both the F15 and F16 in the early to mid 70s. However, neither were anywhere near copies of the Foxbat.


RE: Knockoff
By sorry dog on 11/27/2012 11:59:24 AM , Rating: 2
Actually the Mig 25 radar has a considerable amount of energy output. The use of vacuum tubes made it more resilient to fallout and easier to service in the field....the downside is higher maintenance and much greater weight. Also, it was not really a lookdown radar.

As for copying...the Mig mosts likely took some cues from the A-5 Vigilante such as the wedge shaped intakes and ramps to control shock waves in front of the compressor faces.


RE: Knockoff
By Jeffk464 on 11/27/2012 11:22:56 PM , Rating: 2
The mig 25 was never designed to be a fighter. It was designed to take off and get to a high altitude and speed extremely fast. It was designed specifically to hit the high speed high altitude bomber we were developing. It would have done this job extremely well by the way. Stainless steal was used to cope with the high temps it would experience reaching these speeds. Its failure was that it was designed for a mission that was never needed.


RE: Knockoff
By Jeffk464 on 11/27/2012 11:25:56 PM , Rating: 2
I think he was talking about the wing shape and the twin vertical stabs, placement of the engines, its all pretty similar. By the way the push for the f15 was to come with an answer to the mig25, which I think at the time we didn't really know its performance characteristics.


RE: Knockoff
By WinstonSmith on 11/28/2012 9:23:28 AM , Rating: 2
"The use of vacuum tubes made it more resilient to fallout"

No, to EMP. But that was just a claim by our military industrial complex that took apart the one flown to us by a defector. That claim was to prevent too much derision and realization in our country about the extent to which our DoD had incorrectly made the Soviets look 10 feet tall when they were not since solid state devices can also be protected against EMP.

"It was designed specifically to hit the high speed high altitude bomber we were developing."

Yes, that was the XB-70, an amazing, technologically ground breaking aircraft.

"Stainless steal was used to cope with the high temps it would experience reaching these speeds."

But the big surprise was their use of very heavy steel instead of magnesium which the Soviets had been touted as expert users of.


RE: Knockoff
By inperfectdarkness on 11/28/2012 2:22:28 AM , Rating: 2
"...still be work for us"?

Ok, let me break this down for you. Defense spending is directly tied to R&D, which is (in turn) directly tied with how advanced our weapons systems are (relative to our counterparts). If we are hemorrhaging technology to our counterparts (read enemies and potential enemies) left and right, we end up having to spend money on defense at an increasingly faster rate in order to try and keep any "edge" over our said entities.

To be fair, a technological edge isn't always required for victory. However, lack thereof is most often associate with overwhelming superiority of numbers (we have < 1/3 of China's population), and/or a willingness to accept tremendous amounts of casualties (which is certainly not the case, seeing as how averse we have become to the almost insignifant body-count of the past 11 years, compared to the body counts of Vietnam, WWII, or especially the US Civil War).

Therefore, not only is the military being told to do more with less (as has been the case since at least WWII) but it is also being told that it has less and less room for friendly casualties at the same time.

Bleeding out our military technology secrets to the Chinese isn't just a fringe effect, our technological advantage is THE last remaining advantage we truly have to bring to bear. Once we lose that, there will be no such thing as a "guaranteed" victory, no will there be adequate defense against foreign aggression on domestic US soil.


"If you look at the last five years, if you look at what major innovations have occurred in computing technology, every single one of them came from AMD. Not a single innovation came from Intel." -- AMD CEO Hector Ruiz in 2007














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki