backtop


Print 72 comment(s) - last by tyson766.. on Jun 13 at 5:33 AM


Chinese J-20 Stealth Fighter
Apparently Liang forgets the new stealth fighter China is showing off

The tensions in Asia over the growing might of the Chinese military are easy to see and understand. China is using its booming economy to fund the development of new weapons programs. China wants the world to believe that it is merely being sure it can defend the sovereignty of its nation while others fear that China will use the military might to take resources and possibly attack other nations in the area.

With tension growing, Chinese Defense Minister General Liang Guanglie said at the 10th Shangri-La Dialog in Singapore that the Peoples Liberation Army (PLA) is 20-years behind the U.S. Military. Guanglie said, "I would call the gap big. [The PLA] main battle equipment of our services ... is mainly second-generation weapons." He continued saying, "For example, the army is still being motorized, not mechanized."

Liang acknowledged that the modernization of the Chinese military has drawn attention and concern from around the world. Liang says that China has a right to protect is "core interests" such as protecting its sovereignty. Liang also explained at the conference that relations between the Chinese and U.S. military were improving. This year's Shangri-La dialog was in face the strongest turn out for the Chinese after years of ignoring the conference.

In addition to Liang there were a number of other Chinese officials at the conference including Rear Adm. Guan Youfei, deputy chief, Foreign Affairs Office, Ministry of National Defense; Senior Col. Ou Yangwei, director, Center for Defense Mobilization Studies, National Defense University; Major Gen. Song Dan, deputy director general, General Office, Central Military Commission; Lt. Gen. Wei Fenghe, deputy chief of general staff, PLA; and Xiao Jianguo, director, Department of Ocean Affairs, Ministry of Foreign Affairs. 

As much as Liang wants the world to believe China has a massive gap between its military and the U.S. military (and other armed forces of the world), the country is investing heavily in next-generation weapons. A the most high profile new weapons program is the Chinese J-20 stealth fighter. The J-20 completed its second flight in April and has been captured on video as it has been tested. Some speculate that China obtained the stealth technology that is used in the J-20 from a U.S. F-117 stealth fighter that was downed in 1999 in Serbia. China is known to have had agents crisscross the area where the fighter crashed buying up the wreckage from local farmers.

The Chinese military is also believed by many around the world to be carrying out very sophisticated and successful hacks against military and corporate networks. Many digital attacks have been traced back to parts of China where the government is known to have a strong military presence. The Gmail hack that was revealed earlier this month is believed to have been perpetrated by China, though Chinese officials have denied any involvement. China is also allegedly the source of the hacking attacks that compromised networks at Lockheed Martin using stolen RSA SecurID dongles. Those hacks are believed to have targeted Lockheed Martin military projects. 



Comments     Threshold


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

20 year gap.
By MrTeal on 6/8/2011 1:22:04 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
As much as Liang wants the world to believe China has a massive gap between its military and the U.S. military (and other armed forces of the world), the country is investing heavily in next-generation weapons. A the most high profile new weapons program is the Chinese J-20 stealth fighter. The J-20 completed its second flight in April and has been captured on video as it has been tested. Some speculate that China obtained the stealth technology that is used in the J-20 from a U.S. F-117 stealth fighter that was downed in 1999 in Serbia. China is known to have had agents crisscross the area where the fighter crashed buying up the wreckage from local farmers.


The F-117 was introduced in 1983, with the first flight in 1981. The J-20 had it's first flight in 2011, 30 years later. Now, we don't know how much of the J-20 is based on the Nighthawk and it's likely more stealthy than the F-117 was, but it's not likely in the same class as the the F-22. Keep in mind the F-22 had it's first flight in 1997, 14 years ago. Why is it so hard to believe that the Chinese are 20 years behind the US in high tech areas? The gap is probably even larger than 20 years in the naval capabilities.




RE: 20 year gap.
By Reclaimer77 on 6/8/2011 1:46:46 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
Now, we don't know how much of the J-20 is based on the Nighthawk and it's likely more stealthy than the F-117 was


Not even close. The doctrine laid down by stealth pioneer Denys Overholser still stands: the four most important aspects of stealth are shape, shape, shape and materials. And the J-20's current shape is nothing like the flat and faceted shapes of past, and future, stealth aircraft.

The F-117 was a TRUE stealth aircraft. Not simply radar resistant, not just minimized cross section, but true stealth. Even the exhaust was cooled to defeat infra-red detection. You can clearly see the J-20 has a standard engine configuration. White hot exhaust, not good.

I would say it probably has a radar cross section similar to the F-35, which is to say, not stealthy at ALL.


RE: 20 year gap.
By EJ257 on 6/8/2011 2:21:18 PM , Rating: 2
The Chinese probably learned a great deal about the materials (structure, skin, the famous stealth coatings) used on the F-117 from the wreck. The avionics were hopefully all destroyed in the crash and subsequent fire.

I think the J-20 is going to be used as a standoff platform. It'll use the front aspect stealth to get close to a USN CVBG, launch some anti-ship missiles, turn tail and run before the defense can react. That combined with a missile barrage from the coast is probably what the PLAN are hopping will take out the US carriers. Maybe time it so the two arrive at the same time and try to overwhelm the missile defense systems. Good thing we got that laser system coming online.


RE: 20 year gap.
By geddarkstorm on 6/9/2011 5:22:20 PM , Rating: 2
That's a good analysis.

We better get those lasers on line soon, as China is definitely in a war ramp up mentality. Launching their own aircraft carriers as well lately, and have dedicated a lot of their military research into exploiting our weaknesses. Hopefully it's all just posturing to project power and have a better bargaining position against the US and other developed nations (most likely case). A real war is never something anyone should wish for.


RE: 20 year gap.
By nafhan on 6/8/2011 2:28:23 PM , Rating: 2
Can't curved shapes be more stealthy than flat faceted shapes (i.e. B2, F22)? Anything I've seen of future stealth aircraft makes it look like "flat and faceted" may be a thing of the past...


RE: 20 year gap.
By Reclaimer77 on 6/8/2011 3:00:28 PM , Rating: 1
I'm not an expert, but I would say curves are worst because some part of the curves arc will be pointed back to the radar source. With angles and sharp edges we can deliberately deflect radar energy away from the receiver and scatter it.

Newer designs might also be relying more on radar absorbing materials so they don't have to compromise so much on the shape.


RE: 20 year gap.
By seamonkey79 on 6/8/2011 4:12:37 PM , Rating: 2
Some of the material used in these curved shape platforms is radar neutral, doesn't really reflect much of anything back... the shape of the reflective structure underneath is the same angular shape that the F-117 was externally, so the radar waves are still directed, albeit not always as well as the F-117.


RE: 20 year gap.
By wiz220 on 6/8/2011 6:14:06 PM , Rating: 4
Yes, this is correct. The faceted shapes were due to limited computing power in the 70's when the F-117 was developed. Now, with modern computers being able to precisely model how shapes will react to radar energy we can create curved surfaces that are actually much more stealthy and have much better aerodynamic properties.


RE: 20 year gap.
By Reclaimer77 on 6/8/11, Rating: -1
RE: 20 year gap.
By erple2 on 6/9/2011 6:38:08 PM , Rating: 2
I think that it's the response of the "true stealth aircraft" comment - while the F117 was, in fact, the first "true stealth aircraft" (though some German WW2 flying wings turned out to be stealthy nearly by accident), it's stealthiness could have been substantially better, as evidenced by the B2 - a much larger aircraft with a much smaller Radar Cross Section.

That's all.


RE: 20 year gap.
By Reclaimer77 on 6/9/2011 8:50:38 PM , Rating: 2
The B-2 didn't have to be designed to dogfight as well as attack ground targets. It's not a fair comparison to be honest. It didn't even require vertical stabilizers because it only had to be designed for level flight and mild maneuvers at best. But what is this? My dads stealth is less than yours? Both are amazing machines and deserve their place in history.

Reduced radar cross section is only one of five factors the designers addressed to create a truly stealthy design. The F-117 was designed to disguise its infrared emissions to make it harder to detect by infrared homing ("heat seeking") surface-to-air or air-to-air missiles. Designers also addressed making the aircraft less visible to the naked eye, controlling radio transmissions and other passive/active systems, and noise abatement. THAT'S why I said it's a "true stealth aircraft". Anyone saying otherwise is just wrong.

Comparing the F-117 to it's replacement, the F-22, would have been more accurate.


RE: 20 year gap.
By Bad-Karma on 6/10/2011 1:47:16 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Comparing the F-117 to it's replacement, the F-22, would have been more accurate.


The F-17 was never intended nor used as a fighter. It is strictly a light attack bomber. It has 0 air-to air capability. Also , its faceted shape makes its maneuverability quite poor. You could compare it's air combat maneuvering (ACM) to something closer in line to the much older B-47.

The F-117 is inherently unstable and takes quite a bit of computational power just to keep it pointed straight and level. If fact the avionic computers will actually override the pilot's commands if he pushes to close to the flight envelope.

Disregarding test and development aircraft the F-22 is the actual first stealth fighter.

Or you could go quite a ways back and point to the YF-12A Oxcart variant that was equipped with a a fire control radar and air-to-air-missiles as the first "stealthy" fighter. Of course how far they got into testing and or production can only be speculated. While the Y-12s and its follow on were quite stealthy they didn't have the advent of Bill Schroeder's mathematical RCS modeling inherent in the F-117.

The more powerful computers of the 1980s allowed the mathematical model to be incorporated into the continuous curvature we see in the B-2. Jack Northrope's original B-49 design, on which the B-2 was patterned, was actually quite stealthy, and he intentionally used as little vertical stabilization as possible to keep down the RCS. Large vertical stabilizers are more about in-flight stability than maneuverability. In fact those attributes are considered a counter to each other in regards to flight characteristics.

Due to desired performance characteristics demanded by fighter aircraft, both the faceted and curved techniques are readily apparent in the F-22 & F-35 even though the F-35's design is far more dedicated to the ground strike role than air superiority.


RE: 20 year gap.
By Calin on 6/10/2011 5:29:01 AM , Rating: 2
The F-117 wasn't designed to dogfight at all - it doesn't even have a gun (or a way to mount one, as was the case with some 'missile fighters' of the old). The F in the name stands for stealth bomber (light bomber, or what you would call ground attack craft), not for fighter. Also, it's black because it only flies at night.


RE: 20 year gap.
By Reclaimer77 on 6/11/2011 1:07:08 PM , Rating: 2
A gun on a nearly undetectable stealth aircraft would be absurd. At the time it was in service, NO air based radar system or infra-red detection known to man could defeat the F-117's stealth. So WWII gun style "dogfighting" is stupidly obsolete. Standoff weapons fired from a completely stealth platform are extremely devastating. The USAF maintained that the F-117A could carry air-to-air missiles, and while much of the information about it was/is classified, that's good enough for me.

But I did absentmindedly use the term "dogfight", so that's my bad. I didn't mean traditional "dogfighting". My point was just to illustrate that the F-117 was designed in part with air to air combat in mind. Whereas the B-2 has ZERO.


RE: 20 year gap.
By MrTeal on 6/8/2011 2:35:00 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Not even close. The doctrine laid down by stealth pioneer Denys Overholser still stands: the four most important aspects of stealth are shape, shape, shape and materials. And the J-20's current shape is nothing like the flat and faceted shapes of past, and future, stealth aircraft.


The flat and faceted shape of the F-117 was due to the fact that they could not model more complex shape with the computers at the time. The B2, F-22 and F-35 all have a lower RCS than the F117, and each of them have more curved surfaces than the F117.

http://www.f-22raptor.com/news_view.php?nid=203&yr...


RE: 20 year gap.
By Reclaimer77 on 6/8/2011 3:06:55 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
and F-35 all have a lower RCS than the F117


What? The F-35 isn't even a stealth aircraft!

http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-2009-01.html

Very long, but the conclusion on the F-35's stealth capability is this:

" The Joint Strike Fighter is demonstrably not a true stealth aircraft in the sense of designs like the F-117A, B-2A and F-22A, as its stealth performance varies much more strongly with aspect and threat radar operating frequency band. "


RE: 20 year gap.
By 91TTZ on 6/8/2011 2:37:42 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Not even close. The doctrine laid down by stealth pioneer Denys Overholser still stands: the four most important aspects of stealth are shape, shape, shape and materials. And the J-20's current shape is nothing like the flat and faceted shapes of past, and future, stealth aircraft.


This isn't true. The F-117 was shaped with a small number of angles because of the computations involved with designing a stealth aircraft. Back in the 70's when it was designed they didn't have the computing power to make an elaborate smooth surface stealth aircraft. But by the mid 80's they did, which explains why the B-2 and most newer stealth designs are rounded.


RE: 20 year gap.
By Reclaimer77 on 6/8/11, Rating: -1
RE: 20 year gap.
By Fracture on 6/8/2011 3:41:30 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
1) ...the J-20 is based on the Nighthawk and it's likely more stealthy than the F-117 was...
quote:
2) Not even close...I would say it ... is ... not stealthy at ALL.
quote:
3) This isn't true. ... most newer stealth designs are rounded.
quote:
4) What's not true? He said this J-20 is more stealthy than the F-117. I can tell you with utter certainly it is NOT.


Follow the conversation. Post 2 in the chain said the J-20 is LESS stealthy than the F-117. I would not doubt that modern design could create a more effective rounded design to optimize radar profile against aerodynamics and use better materials (like CNT-based paint).


RE: 20 year gap.
By ddownes on 6/9/2011 6:28:32 PM , Rating: 2
I think YOU should follow it. Post 2 and 4 are by the same person. "He" in post 4 is referring to the poster of 1. Post 4 is defending post 2, but with a weak argument.


RE: 20 year gap.
By Solandri on 6/8/2011 2:18:43 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Now, we don't know how much of the J-20 is based on the Nighthawk and it's likely more stealthy than the F-117 was, but it's not likely in the same class as the the F-22. Keep in mind the F-22 had it's first flight in 1997, 14 years ago. Why is it so hard to believe that the Chinese are 20 years behind the US in high tech areas?

The F-22's first flight was in 1997, but the YF-22's first flight was in 1990. The Y designation is for a prototype. And by all accounts, the J-20 we've seen thus far is just that - a prototype. So yeah, about 20 years behind.


RE: 20 year gap.
By Uncle on 6/8/2011 2:45:49 PM , Rating: 2
I'm not in the air force, but if you have a stealth fighter plane, how much stealthier can you get. Either you can be seen or you can't. Need some expert advice here.


RE: 20 year gap.
By fredgiblet on 6/8/2011 4:18:13 PM , Rating: 2
It's a spectrum, not an on/off switch, stealth makes you harder to see meaning that you can't be seen reliably until you are closer, it doesn't mean that you simply disappear.


RE: 20 year gap.
By cmdrdredd on 6/8/2011 9:16:22 PM , Rating: 2
There are also rumors of some technology in the works but no working prototype of the design yet, that can make the aircraft invisible almost completely. Both from radar and view. Using complex sensors and computer systems that regularly change the properties of the structure to mimic the environment. So you would not be able to see it very well as it flys over(would look something like predator active camo) and since it's stealth, you cannot see it on radar, and maybe sound dampening? Who knows. Right now it's not possible, but the theory is sound and it's a cool idea.


RE: 20 year gap.
By Solandri on 6/8/2011 4:20:45 PM , Rating: 2
Read up on radar cross section.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radar_cross-section

The B-52 has a RCS of ~100 m^2
The B-1B has a RCS of ~10 m^2
The F-16 has a RCS of ~1.2 m^2

The F-117, B-2, and F-22 have a RCS of ~0.01-0.0001 m^2. Classified so nobody who knows for sure can say, but I've heard it described as a marble or a tennis ball.


RE: 20 year gap.
By Calin on 6/10/2011 5:41:16 AM , Rating: 2
I think the returned energy varies by the RCS and by the inverse square of the distance - so you could get radar returns out of a B-52 at ten times the distance from where you could get radar returns from an F-16, and (assuming the F-117 has 0.01 m^2 RCS), the F-117 would be detectable from about one hundredth of the distance from where an B-52 could be detected.
Assuming my radar sees an B-52 at 1000 km, then it can find the F-117 at 5 km. So, one F-117 can fly 12km/7miles high and have not a care in the world.
Reduce the radar cross section another 100 times, you reduce detection range tenfold, and the F-22 could fly at 4000 feet.


RE: 20 year gap.
By mars2k on 6/8/2011 3:30:04 PM , Rating: 1
Yes, they want to protect their sovereignty which of course includes Taiwan. They will take it back one day gap or no gap. What will we do when the epicenter of techno-production is no longer available to us? Look at what they are doing with rare earth metals now. We’re fools if we don’t begin thinking strategically about this.


RE: 20 year gap.
By geddarkstorm on 6/9/2011 5:28:36 PM , Rating: 2
Agreed. The US is currently not well positioned to deal with such economic fall out, as far as we know. We have reserves, and there's always the possibility the government has a lot more mining development done than we know (we'd truly be fools to put all our cards on the table. We -should- know exactly what our country can produce in an emergency; that is extraordinarily valuable intel). We'll just have to see how this plays out, but China is definitely pointing its guns towards Taiwan.


RE: 20 year gap.
By tng on 6/10/2011 10:40:58 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Yes, they want to protect their sovereignty which of course includes Taiwan. They will take it back one day gap or no gap.

The problem is that they probably wont stop at Taiwan. If the US allows China to take Taiwan, then the Chinese military will eye Japan, South Korea, Vietnam, etc.... Once the US lets them get away with Taiwan, then we will be powerless to stop them.

Allot to of the tech companies in China that produce the stuff that we use everyday are owned in part or whole by the Chinese military.

Maybe I am just paranoid?


RE: 20 year gap.
By AssBall on 6/8/2011 5:03:59 PM , Rating: 2
When you are talking about numbers in a time frame, "20 years behind us" is not the same at all as it was in 1990. China has enormous fiscal and industrial potential that is just getting revved up.

20 years behind us for China in 2011 speak would be more like 5 if China plays their cards right.

Their technology, industrial, and military curve has a much much steeper positive slope than ours does right now.


RE: 20 year gap.
By Targon on 6/9/2011 6:29:47 AM , Rating: 2
Cut exports from China for six months, and their economy will implode. Keep China from trading with others for one year, and their government would collapse due to so many people being out of work.


RE: 20 year gap.
By Calin on 6/10/2011 5:42:39 AM , Rating: 3
Cut exports from China for 6 months, and the United States will implode. Not to mention Europe or other places


RE: 20 year gap.
By tyson766 on 6/13/2011 5:33:02 AM , Rating: 1
China will implode long before it becomes a competitor to the US. Their centralised beaurocracy has no idea how to run the country properly, with heavy handed and often moronic responses to their problems. The one child policy is going to have a disastrous effect on their growth when it kicks in proper, and they are currently handling their massive property bubble incredibly badly. Until they fix the running of their country through revolution you have little to worry about.

20 years behind is about right.


RE: 20 year gap.
By inperfectdarkness on 6/8/2011 7:50:01 PM , Rating: 2
...except in the area of cyberwarfare; where china is probabyl 20 years ahead of us.

just saying.


RE: 20 year gap.
By cmdrdredd on 6/8/2011 9:10:38 PM , Rating: 2
I'd say the stuff the Navy is doing with lasers is closer to 30 years ahead of anyone else in the world.


RE: 20 year gap.
By tng on 6/10/2011 10:42:50 AM , Rating: 2
And rail guns....


Nothing to worry about here/so small
By JasonMick (blog) on 6/8/2011 1:24:25 PM , Rating: 2
They wouldn't be trying to MISLEAD us would they...

(Courtesy of South Park:)

Mayor: People, please! We can only speak one at a time. Now, Mr. Garrison, you were saying…

Mr. Garrison: I can't take it, Mayor. You have to put an end to this Chinpoko Camp.

Sharon: [Randy holds her] My son hasn't made any sense in days.

Fr. Maxi: I tell you, Mayor, these Japanese are trying to change our American children somehow!

Mayor: Alright, people, Mr. Hirohito and Mr. Ose were nice emough to stop by to talk to you. Gentlemen?

[Mr. Hirohito and Mr. Ose step up]

President Hirohito: We at the Japan Toy Compnay are vetty cohncerned about-a your cohncerns. That is why we make Chinpokomon camp.

Randy: Well, how is it good?! We don't understand what the point of your product is!

President Hirohito: There is nothing to worry about. We at Japan Toy Compnay are in awe of your large penis.

Mr. Garrison: What?

President Hirohito: You see, Japanese penis so small [holds his hands about an inch apart]

Mr. Ose: [set his index finger an inch from his thumb] So-eh small.

President Hirohito: You Americans have such humungous burbous penis.

Mr. Garrison: Well, uh-I guess that's true.
Mr. Ose: Oh, suh-n nice-a big penis American.

President Hirohito: What can we possubruh do with such small penis? We cannot take over your city, filled witha men awith such mastodonic penis.

Jimbo: Huwell, uh he's got a point there.

Randy: Well, I guess that settles that.

Fr. Maxi: We're sorry we took your time, gentlemen.

President Hirohito: [bowing with Mr. Ose] Oh, no. Thank you. Another chance to be in same room with big American penis. [exits]

[DISCLAIMER: The opinions I express in this comment are my own and not to be confused with the text of my articles.]




RE: Nothing to worry about here/so small
By Connoisseur on 6/8/2011 1:34:31 PM , Rating: 2
Although that is a great episode, South Park was talking about the Japanese. This is the Chinese... their penises may be of different stature.


RE: Nothing to worry about here/so small
By JasonMick (blog) on 6/8/2011 2:25:10 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Although that is a great episode, South Park was talking about the Japanese. This is the Chinese... their penises may be of different stature.

Oh I know, it just popped into my head. I didn't mean it to be serious, obviously... just comedic relief.

In all seriousness, I would guess they are significantly behind the U.S. in defense tech (maybe 10 years behind), but not as far behind as they're letting on. At the least the gap is closing quickly.

It should be noted they spend far less than the U.S. on military tech, so this is not surprising:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_...

[DISCLAIMER: The opinions I express in this comment are my own and not to be confused with the text of my articles.]


RE: Nothing to worry about here/so small
By Reclaimer77 on 6/8/2011 3:36:32 PM , Rating: 2
Right because we know how good Communist nations are at reporting and revealing their military expenditures...

I bet during the Cold War, Russia also was "spending less" than America on the military too, right?

But the Wiki says it, so it must be true.


By JasonMick (blog) on 6/8/2011 3:44:44 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Right because we know how good Communist nations are at reporting and revealing their military expenditures...

I bet during the Cold War, Russia also was "spending less" than America on the military too, right?

But the Wiki says it, so it must be true.

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world...

Well consider the CIA Factbook's estimate... 4.3 percent of GDP; 10.09 Trillion GDP (2010) ... that works out to $43B USD. The Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) database estimate actually comes in slightly higher at $114B USD.

...so if anything they're spending LESS (if you believe the CIA) than Wikipedia/SIPRI's figure...

[DISCLAIMER: The opinions I express in this comment are my own and not to be confused with the text of my articles.]


RE: Nothing to worry about here/so small
By Gzus666 on 6/8/2011 4:03:07 PM , Rating: 1
Yet neither one of them are or were communist. Maybe you should verify the definition of communism, as it requires getting rid of social class, wages, private property ownership and so on, which none of them did. Most of the places claimed to be communist are Socialist dictatorships and even then, only loosely.

The reality is that a communism never has and probably won't exist for a very long time until it becomes the only option (when we can make anything we want with "replicator" type devices, yes I know it is Star Trek tech, but it is something science is pondering).


RE: Nothing to worry about here/so small
By Reclaimer77 on 6/8/2011 4:06:25 PM , Rating: 1
Saying the CCCP wasn't Communist is absurd. End of discussion.


RE: Nothing to worry about here/so small
By Gzus666 on 6/8/2011 4:18:35 PM , Rating: 1
Clarify with definitive proof set in the guidelines defined by the definition of communism. Like usual, you banter stupidly and say you are right with an assertion. You are truly the god of logical fallacy.


RE: Nothing to worry about here/so small
By Reclaimer77 on 6/8/2011 6:03:19 PM , Rating: 1
Me? Dude everyone in the WORLD referred to Soviet Russia as Communists. Are you high?

Shove it up your ass Gzus. As usual, you're starting an argument over some stupid trivial thing that has nothing to do with the discussion. I'm not playing your game this time.


By smitty3268 on 6/8/2011 9:19:42 PM , Rating: 2
Everyone in the world calls the US a democracy, as well, and that isn't true. We're a republic. Anyway, you're right that this doesn't matter at all.


RE: Nothing to worry about here/so small
By SlyNine on 6/8/2011 9:22:05 PM , Rating: 2
Actually you are wrong, Karl Marx came up with communism. It is widely accepted that his vision has never been even close to being realized. So despite "everyone in the world" calling Russia communists, Russia and China are not true communists and the previous description " socialist dictatorships" is a more apt description.

Try using more logic and objectivity to avoid your general failures in arguments on dailytech.


RE: Nothing to worry about here/so small
By Reclaimer77 on 6/8/11, Rating: 0
By Bubbacub on 6/9/2011 7:31:35 AM , Rating: 2
dude - seriously - read some political history.

fascism, communism, marxism and socialism are all completely different.

i believe you are american (correct me if i'm wrong). its possible that as you grew up (i'm guessing you were around in reagan times) that you may have been on the end of some socially prevalent themes that may have mis-represented world history. correct me if im wrong in making these assumptions.

fascism and communism (as implemented by the russians) were diametrically opposed ideologically. they had similar models of centrally controlled planned economies because this was seen as the 'modern way forward' to get countries out of the mess of the great depression of the 30's. this functional similarity can be attributed due to both forms of government arising at more or less the same time in response to the failure of capitalist democracies in central and eastern europe in the twenties and thirties. their political origins however are polar opposites.

marxism has never really been implemented.

finally socialism is alive and kicking and working well for its people in for example most of northern europe. at least this has seemed to be the case last time i visited denmark and sweden.


By Gzus666 on 6/9/2011 9:53:35 AM , Rating: 4
I was under the impression it just made you feel dumber (however daunting that task may be) which is why you lash out with your freak out sessions.

Oddly enough, we use different words to describe these things because they are different things. Granted there are always synonyms, but this isn't one of those times.

What main discussion? Your xenophobia against the Chinese? I'm sure you are going to solve the world's problems here on Dailytech. It is a blog, you aren't doing anything here.

Honestly I just like messing with you cause it is hilarious to watch you flip out. The fact that you are insane and don't understand much of anything just adds to the fun.


RE: Nothing to worry about here/so small
By Gzus666 on 6/8/2011 9:39:49 PM , Rating: 2
I didn't realize reality was based on consensus. By definition then, everyone is WRONG. They started a war on communism and defined them all as communists as a form of xenophobic propaganda. This is valid because you are still perpetuating the xenophobia (I'd go so far as to say you are the new spokesperson for it), which I think most everyone would agree is a bad thing in any form.

Did you forget the game of calling someone communist as a way to win any argument? It was a new version of "she's a witch". You should be familiar, you and logical fallacy are butt buddies. Get used to the fact that you will never win an argument on logical terms with me, cause you always default to illogical drivel.


RE: Nothing to worry about here/so small
By Reclaimer77 on 6/8/11, Rating: 0
RE: Nothing to worry about here/so small
By dotpoz on 6/9/2011 4:26:13 AM , Rating: 2
If everbody say something it must be true, right ?
Also if it is on TV or on the interweb.......

By definition comunism is a social-economical theory elaborated by Marx and Engels. The URSS was a marxist-Leninist ditactorship. marxist-leninist comunism go towards a more centralized power.

I'ts true that we always called them comunist but it was't the comunism theorized by marx


RE: Nothing to worry about here/so small
By Reclaimer77 on 6/9/2011 2:41:56 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
I'ts true that we always called them comunist


But when I use the term is needs to spark a huge debate? My, I'm honored.

So I guess when someone says "the sun came up" you then launch into a pointless diatribe about how the sun doesn't really come up, the Earth is just rotating to face it?

There are appropriate times to correct someone. Correcting someone for calling the USSR "Communist" on a discussion that's NOT about Communism is just a dick move.


RE: Nothing to worry about here/so small
By Gzus666 on 6/9/2011 3:22:20 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
But when I use the term is needs to spark a huge debate? My, I'm honored.


Oh stop playing innocent. You know you said "communist" to incite an emotional response to try to have people agree with you. I took the wind out of that sail on purpose to piss you off as well as point to that fact that it was completely unnecessary to point out that China was "communist" (even though they aren't) for your argument.

You added it in to try to sway people to your way of thinking with fear and hate, it is the oldest manipulation trick in the book. You literally do this non-stop about every stupid thing you can, usually liberals or whatever other crap you decide to parrot that day as a manipulation tactic. Every time you get called out on it, you get super defensive and deflect the conversation into personal attacks or some other manipulation tactic you monkeys like to use other than logic, cause you fail miserably in that realm.


By Reclaimer77 on 6/9/2011 4:18:17 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
You know you said "communist" to incite an emotional response to try to have people agree with you.


No, I absolutely did not. Truth, take it or leave it. As far as caring if people agree with me or not, I think you know better than that. If I cared about that, I think my posts would be a bit more neutral, don't ya think?

When I think Soviet Russia, I think Communists. It's as simple as that. And please, I'm HARDLY alone in that regard. Same goes for present day China.

quote:
You added it in to try to sway people to your way of thinking with fear and hate


... are you SERIOUSLY making this big of a deal over it? Yes, I was using "fear and hate" by pointing out that China black books a lot of their military spending. For that matter, so do we.

You are just projecting, that's all. You have always been very socialist leaning in your opinions, so I can see why you are taking this position. But it's obvious I hit a nerve and the voracity of your response is NOT in proportion to anything I said.

You are making too much of a deal about this and taking it way too personal. You can reply if you want, but I'm done with this.


By delphinus100 on 6/9/2011 9:47:22 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The reality is that a communism never has and probably won't exist for a very long time until it becomes the only option (when we can make anything we want with "replicator" type devices, yes I know it is Star Trek tech, but it is something science is pondering).


Even an advanced nanotechnological, post-scarcity world doesn't automatically lead to communism as you (correctly, I believe) described it (the following pasted from my own web site)...

A 'Post-Scarcity' world: We all want it, but how do we get there? How would it work? Will there still be money? Would we still know what to do with ourselves?

http://ieet.org/index.php/IEET/more/2674/
http://www.thezeitgeistmovement.com/joomla/index.p... (streaming video)
http://ieet.org/index.php/IEET/more/anissimov20090...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post_scarcity
http://io9.com/5266289/star-trek-is-what-we-should...


No it is 70 years behind from NAVY point of view
By Roy2001 on 6/8/2011 2:49:14 PM , Rating: 2
No it is 70 years behind from NAVY point of view. They don't have an aircraft carrier yet.




By AssBall on 6/8/2011 5:12:39 PM , Rating: 2
You are right, but in 10 years the carrier is no longer going to be the end all. Submarines launching automated weapons and or drones and multipurpose ships are becoming more important, and more efficient.

I love the old monster battleships, but they were phased out, and my guess is that big carriers will also be in my lifetime. Everything is getting more dynamic, efficient, and multipurpose now.


By Reclaimer77 on 6/8/2011 6:00:22 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
You are right, but in 10 years the carrier is no longer going to be the end all.


I respectfully disagree. Submarines can't hold hundreds of troops or support personnel. They can't conduct sustained self defended surface operations. I mean, the things carriers can do simply can't be "phased out" or replaced by drones or submarines. Multipurpose? There is hardly anything floating that's more multipurpose than a carrier.

I'm getting so sick of reading on here that drones will just magically replace our fighting force in 10 years or whatever. That's such a crack pot and unrealistic statement.


By AssBall on 6/8/2011 9:30:35 PM , Rating: 2
The new amphibious vehicles and new cruisers carry an assload of troops and support a small amount of more effective troop landing hardware much more efficiently.

Granted, we don't need that much force anymore, but we haven't fully unloaded a carrier since world war 2. Drones will not replace troops on the battlefield, i definitely agrethat e there, but there are many better options nowadays for incursion than a full carrier group.

Don't get me wrong they are awesome and they kick ass at supporting a long term campaign. They are also arguably the most intimidating thing that mankind has yet constructed. But I don't think they are gonna hold up with newer conflict stratagem and technology for very much longer.


Military?
By Raiders12 on 6/8/2011 1:15:07 PM , Rating: 3
Of course there is a huge gap, and it doesn't phase them. They can launch sophisticated cyber attacks, and mess with critical infrastructure and DoD networks from afar. They also own us economically. We need them to make a majority of our imports, and to purchase our debt.




RE: Military?
By invidious on 6/8/2011 1:31:36 PM , Rating: 2
Cyber attacks only threaten the government and the economy. The USAF does not run their opperations on the public internet. Sure there is a link to the internet but that is quickly and easily severed.

None of the advantages that China has that you listed mean anything in a time of war.


RE: Military?
By kleinma on 6/8/2011 2:28:10 PM , Rating: 2
Except a ton of our govt military spending goes to 3rd party contractors which are being hacked (or attempts at it) left and right. Who would really want to hack into RSA, compromise RSA security, and then launch attacks on 2 major US military contractors that do work on top secrect classified systems? China certainly would, to bridge that supposed 20 year gap a bit quicker.


RE: Military?
By Raiders12 on 6/9/2011 8:30:13 AM , Rating: 2
China was certainly capable of hacking into the Pentagon.
And yes, our debt and being economically tied to China, whom we don't exactly see eye to eye, will eventually lead to war.


Are you kidding DT?
By theapparition on 6/8/2011 1:31:55 PM , Rating: 2
Of course they are 20+ years behind. I'd estimate even further.

So what if they have a modern figher with some "stealth" capabilities? Our first stealth crafts were designed in the 60's, and stealth work began in the 1950s. The F117A, who some speculate they stole technologies from, had it's first flight in 1983. That's 28 years ago.

Regardless, China's military capability is very, very limited. They have a huge army, which is thier strength. But as mentioned, they have tremendous difficulty deploying that army arcoss thier country. They have very limited airpower which can be classified as local defense only. They have zero ability to project power (think carrier battle groups), nor do they have signifigant missle or ordinance technology. China also seriously lacks the communications infrastructure required.

China has lots of bodies, but not the capability to use them effectively. I'm not suggesting that they couldn't be a threat at some time, but just because they have a modern aircraft with some steath features does not for one second mean they are anywhere close to cutting edge defence capabilities.




RE: Are you kidding DT?
By Brandon Hill (blog) on 6/8/2011 1:40:33 PM , Rating: 2
I have no doubts that the Chinese were studying the F-117, but from a layman's viewpoint, the J-20 shares more in common design-wise with current generation Russian fighters and Russia's stealth fighter.

http://www.dailytech.com/As+F22+Raptor+Production+...

The F-117 was all about faceted panels with no curves. The J-20 is more of a "blended design" like the F-22 or F-35.

Now as far as avionics or engines go, that's anyone's guess.


RE: Are you kidding DT?
By 91TTZ on 6/8/2011 3:59:38 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The F117A, who some speculate they stole technologies from, had it's first flight in 1983. That's 28 years ago.


The F-117A in its final production form first flew in 1981, but there were prototypes which looked very similar flying since the mid/late 1970's.

Here's the Have Blue prototype, it looks nearly the same with the exception of the rudders:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Have-blue.jpg


If we've learned anything since the Cold War
By StanO360 on 6/8/2011 2:19:29 PM , Rating: 3
it's that logistics, training and integration are dominant. The Gulf Wars, showed that a well equipped and well trained military can crush a well equipped but poorly trained army. Not just beat (we knew that would eventually happen in both Gulf Wars), but devastate.

I would imagine that the Chinese will never reach the well trained level, materials are valued in a Communist government. A bureaucrat can always point to new equipment (even if it's junk) and say he succeeded, just as the Russians did. But a motivated, educated, volunteer military is very difficult to master.




By tng on 6/10/2011 10:57:48 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
showed that a well equipped and well trained military can crush a well equipped but poorly trained army.

Yes, but as was shown by the Russians in WW2 against the Germans, having huge numbers of less sophisticated troops, planes, tanks to constantly throw at the enemy can eventually overwhelm a more well trained and equipped force.

China doesn't need to have as advanced equipment, they can use the equipment they have in huge numbers, that is their advantage.


20years behind?
By RedemptionAD on 6/8/2011 1:38:44 PM , Rating: 2
Anyone can make a skin model from pictures or other items. It's whats on the inside that counts. The parts that may have been aquired through buying parts of a crashed aircraft may not do them anygood depending upon what was found. It's many small innovations put together that make our military tech the cut above the other parts of the world. As far as what they are hacking, systemic fragmentation protects from this kind of attack.

A non-military aircraft has design parts in potentially hundreds or thousands of fragments. The final and complete designs are kept in non-networked, non-outside contact accessable location. The issue is only if they can build it, is it a threat. Unless, they can do that, or create a suitable countermeasure for our tech with what they had divulged is any real threat created to our military national security. Their farthest behind tech is probably 20 years behind, however they most likely have tech that is current in parts.

It's kinda like that johnny cash song "One Piece at a Time" where he takes the parts from the car one piece at a time and ends up with a completed car from parts over 10 years of time. It is not any one of the cars from the pieces took, but it is still a car.




By Subzero0000 on 6/8/2011 10:03:38 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
China wants the world to believe that it is merely being sure it can defend the sovereignty of its nation while others fear that China will use the military might to take resources and possibly attack other nations in the area.


What about - U.S. wants the world to believe that it is merely being sure it can defend the freedom of other nation while attacking others with its political and military power.

In terms of aggressiveness at the world stage, no one is better than U.S.
"to take resources and possibly attack other nations in the area.", It's funny to say because that is exactly what the U.S. has been doing.
China is only aggressive when dealing with internal affairs. It's such a puss when dealing with other countries.

Sure, U.S. wants everyone to see China as evil and ambition. It's their way to take down competition.
I'd bet that if there aren't so much complication between U.S. and China, then U.S. would have come up with any excuse to invade China. (e.g. WMD, dictator, terrorist, freedom, human rights, etc...)




"We basically took a look at this situation and said, this is bullshit." -- Newegg Chief Legal Officer Lee Cheng's take on patent troll Soverain














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