Chinas Stealth Fighter.

User avatar
Scrat
Posts: 1406
Joined: Mon Sep 20, 2010 9:29 pm

Chinas Stealth Fighter.

Post by Scrat »

There's a good possibility that the aircraft carriers that the US have always relied upon for our version of gunboat diplomacy just became obsolete. Or in the very least much more vulnerable than they have ever been. This plane along with the Chinese version of the Yakhont (NATO designation Sunburn) cruise missile means it could get scary.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/06/world/asia/06china.html?_r=1&nl=todaysheadlines&emc=tha22
gmc
Posts: 13566
Joined: Sun Aug 29, 2004 9:44 am

Chinas Stealth Fighter.

Post by gmc »

Mr. Zhu, who directs the international security program at Peking University, suggested that China’s military establishment — not unlike that in the United States — was inclined to inflate threats and exaggerate its progress in a continual bid to win more influence and money for its favored programs.

And that may be true. If so, however, the artifice may be lost on China’s cross-Pacific rivals.

“Ultimately, from a U. S. perspective it comes down to an issue of whether the United States will be as dominant in the western Pacific as we always have been,” Bonnie Glaser, a China scholar at the Washington-based Center for Strategic and International Studies, said in a telephone interview. “And clearly the Chinese would like to make it far more complicated for us.”

“That’s something the Chinese would see as reasonable,” she said. “But from a U. S. perspective, that’s just unacceptable.”



It's ironic that that least imperialistic nations on the planet is worried about losing it's dominant position.
User avatar
Saint_
Posts: 3291
Joined: Wed Nov 04, 2009 3:05 pm

Chinas Stealth Fighter.

Post by Saint_ »

I've always thought that ships are particularly vulnerable to missile threat, especially after the Falkland Islands. Wan't that where the Exocet missiles took out a ship?

Of course, threat drives innovation and America responds to nothing better than a threat!
gmc
Posts: 13566
Joined: Sun Aug 29, 2004 9:44 am

Chinas Stealth Fighter.

Post by gmc »

Actually we lost more to conventional bombs and would have lost even more ships to conventional bombs but the Argentines set the fuses wrong so not all of them exploded.
User avatar
Scrat
Posts: 1406
Joined: Mon Sep 20, 2010 9:29 pm

Chinas Stealth Fighter.

Post by Scrat »

If you look closely at the plane one thing becomes very apparent. It's bigger than the F-22 or Russias PAK-FA. It's doesn't look like an air superiority oriented aircraft or even a multipurpose design to me. It looks like a bomber to me, a delivery system.

Read up on the Yakhont anti ship missile. If this aircraft is meant to carry and deliver that to a target it adds a whole new dimension. It's already been said that all Russia has to do is extend the PAK-FAs fuselage by 2 feet and it can carry 2 Yakhonts.
User avatar
spot
Posts: 37439
Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2005 5:19 pm
Location: Brigstowe

Chinas Stealth Fighter.

Post by spot »

And the Chinese have now confirmed it's been test-flown, so it's not just a cardboard mockup.

BBC News - China conducts first test-flight of stealth plane
Nullius in verba|||||||||||
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game!
User avatar
spot
Posts: 37439
Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2005 5:19 pm
Location: Brigstowe

Chinas Stealth Fighter.

Post by spot »

And it's in operational colors too. There's a message in that somewhere.

When you consider value for money - the Chinese are paying 3 cents a head for every current Defense Dollar spent in America and over 50% of current US taxation[1] will be spent on Defense (even after any proposed $68bn reduction in the unlikely event of that happening which it obviously won't) - you might wonder what would result if the Chinese sportingly pressed the arms accelerator. Not a lot of slack left, is there.

Is there nobody who feels that a Chinese-style engendering of more friends in the world is a profitable national ambition?

There's a neat graph at the BBC today about the State Visit. It shows that in 2000 China had the same national purchasing power as the US had twenty years before. In 2010 that gap's dropped to ten years - China now has the same purchasing power, as a country, that the USA had in 2000. That's an amazing pace of catch-up.

There used to be an aspiration called the American Dream, that all Americans would one day own their home with a driveway and a car and happily schooled children growing up the way their parents always hoped they would. What America achieved instead was the world's widest gap in earnings between the wealthy half of society and the poor half of society. Nothing about top or bottom ten percents, I'm talking halves. That's where the American Dream died. Maybe the Chinese can achieve it instead. The US is currently walking away from that goal, not toward it.



[1] - no, that wasn't a typo. See the figures in Budget Breakdown for 2011
Nullius in verba|||||||||||
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game!
User avatar
Saint_
Posts: 3291
Joined: Wed Nov 04, 2009 3:05 pm

Chinas Stealth Fighter.

Post by Saint_ »

spot;1351223 wrote: And it's in operational colors too. There's a message in that somewhere.



The message isn't hidden at all...It's right out in front.

Is there nobody who feels that a Chinese-style engendering of more friends in the world is a profitable national ambition?



Profitable for whom?



There used to be an aspiration called the American Dream, that all Americans would one day own their home with a driveway and a car and happily schooled children growing up the way their parents always hoped they would.



We achieved that dream in the early 1960s. After that, everyone got stoned and gave up on it.



Maybe the Chinese can achieve it instead.



But of course. In "the Lucifer Principle: An Exploration into the Forces of History" Howard K. Bloom makes it perfectly obvious that the best a civilization can do is about a century or two in the spotlight. After that the pressure of the pecking order will make it's allies turn against it and another civilization will emerge. That is especially true in the 21st century. China is the next big thing. I've seen it coming for over thirty years. Ever since I read about the amount of American real estate the Chinese were buying in the early 1980s. That was about the same time the Air Force replaced the silhouette posters of Russian MIGs over the urinals in the flight deck building ...with posters of Chinese jets.

It's all good, though. It's not like America will vanish, we'll just turn into "Great Britain - the Sequel."



The US is currently walking away from that goal, not toward it.



Actually, America isn't walking away from it at all. They're just sitting on their couches watching "Dancing with the Stars," getting stoned and drunk, and completely forgetting about it....who cares if you're poor if you have cable?
User avatar
Scrat
Posts: 1406
Joined: Mon Sep 20, 2010 9:29 pm

Chinas Stealth Fighter.

Post by Scrat »

Profitable for whom?



What's the point in the question? I think that at best Chinas way of doing things is better than ours. At least they don't bulls**t entire peoples and start wars that cost millions of lives, so far. They use the live and let live approach. We use the more fascist way of influencing things. Mercs and armies.

For a military budget about 15% of ours they certainly get more bang for the buck. The idiots in Washington don't seem to understand that OFFENSIVE OCCUPATIONS of countries COST FAR MORE than a defensive stance. All the money we pour down the ratholes in the ME could be better spent here in military research, upgrades and the infrastructure of this country. Someday those idiots might figure out that a healthy prosperous country is more important than the Great Game. I think the Chinese know this and unlike Americas ruling junta (who don't really give a damn) are taking steps to ensure their future.
User avatar
Saint_
Posts: 3291
Joined: Wed Nov 04, 2009 3:05 pm

Chinas Stealth Fighter.

Post by Saint_ »

Scrat;1351264 wrote: What's the point in the question? I think that at best Chinas way of doing things is better than ours. At least they don't bulls**t entire peoples and start wars that cost millions of lives, so far. They use the live and let live approach.



I'll bet the dead at Tianamen Square, a certain Nobel Peace prize recipient rotting in prison, and the entire population of Tibet would beg to differ with you.

For a military budget about 15% of ours they certainly get more bang for the buck. The idiots in Washington don't seem to understand that OFFENSIVE OCCUPATIONS of countries COST FAR MORE than a defensive stance. All the money we pour down the ratholes in the ME could be better spent here in military research, upgrades and the infrastructure of this country. Someday those idiots might figure out that a healthy prosperous country is more important than the Great Game. I think the Chinese know this and unlike Americas ruling junta (who don't really give a damn) are taking steps to ensure their future.



Of course defensiveness implies isolationism...and that has never really worked well for us, has it? (See: Pearl Harbor and 9/11)
gmc
Posts: 13566
Joined: Sun Aug 29, 2004 9:44 am

Chinas Stealth Fighter.

Post by gmc »

Posted by saint

But of course. In "the Lucifer Principle: An Exploration into the Forces of History" Howard K. Bloom makes it perfectly obvious that the best a civilization can do is about a century or two in the spotlight. After that the pressure of the pecking order will make it's allies turn against it and another civilization will emerge. That is especially true in the 21st century. China is the next big thing. I've seen it coming for over thirty years. Ever since I read about the amount of American real estate the Chinese were buying in the early 1980s. That was about the same time the Air Force replaced the silhouette posters of Russian MIGs over the urinals in the flight deck building ...with posters of Chinese jets.



Did he also point out that what destroys empires is usually overreaching itself and going bankrupt fighting foreign wars and seeing enemies and threats to their interests everywhere.

Of course defensiveness implies isolationism...and that has never really worked well for us, has it? (See: Pearl Harbor and 9/11)



I'll bet the dead at Tianamen Square, a certain Nobel Peace prize recipient rotting in prison, and the entire population of Tibet would beg to differ with you.



How would you explain vietnam then? How does that equate with isolationism?

Rather than seeing china as a threat why don't you ask why your industrial base has been destroyed by your own industrialists and economists. It's not china that moved production abroad from the US. That's the other things about empires, they are destroyed from within either corruption or the people get fed up fighting imperial wars and call time on it all.
User avatar
spot
Posts: 37439
Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2005 5:19 pm
Location: Brigstowe

Chinas Stealth Fighter.

Post by spot »

Saint_;1351258 wrote: [quote=spot]Is there nobody who feels that a Chinese-style engendering of more friends in the world is a profitable national ambition?


Profitable for whom?

The nation, whichever nation it is that chooses to adopt a Chinese-style engendering of more friends in the world. America, for instance, should it choose to do that rather than deploying its damnable Armed Forces to far distant lands over which it has no natural right.



Saint_ wrote: [quote=spot]

There used to be an aspiration called the American Dream, that all Americans would one day own their home with a driveway and a car and happily schooled children growing up the way their parents always hoped they would.


We achieved that dream in the early 1960s. After that, everyone got stoned and gave up on it.


I have a strong feeling that your opinion there is commonplace among a particularly smug category of me-first American which forgets segregation and remembers the lifestyle of post-war white Anglo-Saxon protestantism north of the Mason-Dixon line. The brothers and sisters tell a different story.
Nullius in verba|||||||||||
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game!
User avatar
Scrat
Posts: 1406
Joined: Mon Sep 20, 2010 9:29 pm

Chinas Stealth Fighter.

Post by Scrat »

I'll bet the dead at Tianamen Square, a certain Nobel Peace prize recipient rotting in prison, and the entire population of Tibet would beg to differ with you.



Oh please Saint, we heard that tired tune so many times we know it by heart. Don't mix up internal affairs with what goes on outside Chinas borders. China is a land of dozens of different ethnicities and they have a history of fighting one another. Such whining about human rights is simply politics and all of the whackos who hold up those flags couldn't care less about the victims to begin with. It's better to have a few hundred dead in Tianamen square and a guy in prison than the 4 horsemen of the apocalypse running rampant over half a continent. That of course is what America would like to see though.

Of course defensiveness implies isolationism...and that has never really worked well for us, has it? (See: Pearl Harbor and 9/11)



We've never really tried it. Americas history has been one long series of wars and expansion. Who're you trying to BS? The 100s of 1000s of Iraqi civvies who died since 2003? Those million plus Viet Namese who died? How about the Oregon and California Indians tribes that were virtually exterminated by US government paid thugs?

You have too look at why 9/11 and Pearl Harbor happened. I doubt you have any Idea about what's in the tree you're barking up.
User avatar
Scrat
Posts: 1406
Joined: Mon Sep 20, 2010 9:29 pm

Chinas Stealth Fighter.

Post by Scrat »

Here's another set of pics, better. I still wonder how long it is and what the internal capacity would be.

Multi-angle sights of China's J-20 fighter - Xinhua | English.news.cn

Return to “Warfare Military”