Russia says will retaliate if U.S. weapons stationed on its borders

a reply to: Zaphod58

that seems to contradict this:

->two Chinese aircraft flew that had incredible similarities to the F-22 and F-35. Similarities that had to have come through the plans. Amazing coincidence that.

I didn't mean to imply the us had fully committed to actually buying those chunks.
just that these waivers sound very close to an admission that they have. and other countries have no such legal restrictions.

chips are the last thing you want to be buying from the Chinese FFS. to easy to stick malicious stuff in them. Chinese usb sticks nearly all come with hardware embedded to breach systems. some really quite advanced (some of the most advanced breach red black isolation via their own embedded os and wifi controllers)

a reply to: devilmoon

They used magnets. That's it. That's all. That's hardly "chunks" of anything. They found a cheap source of magnets for the systems and bought them. The few that they bought were used, and waived for them to use.

Have you even seen the J-20 and J-31? They do look remarkably like the F-22 and F-35. You think the US is buying pieces of those to use in the F-35? China got some information from Lockheed and incorporated it into their own fighter designs, as well as using shape for stealth, since shape is the biggest key to stealth.

a reply to: Zaphod58

so those similarities in the Chinese planes that flew were just the magnets they used?

erm. you what? I don't understand what you are trying to say.

did they fly their own copies of the f22 and f35 or not?

a reply to: devilmoon

OK follow along here, this is really easy.

You claimed China is building F-35 components. They're not. They built some magnets that were used in the F-35 for radar and landing gear systems.

The aircraft they built have nothing to do with the F-35 except for some visual similarities. Shape is the key to stealth so there are going to naturally be some similarities, that added to some of the data they got from Lockheed led to it looking like portions of the F-35.

That's it. They're not building F-35 components, or the F-35. They're not copies of them anymore than the Tu-160 is a copy of the B-1. Form follows function, and in this case a little access to data they didn't have led to more similarities than usual.

a reply to: Zaphod58

ok. following.

so most important question.

did their copies have supercruise.

because if they did the engines had to have been near carbon copies from the plans IMHO. and are by far the most valuable and difficult part of those programs to recreate. at least from the little bit of hardware engineering I know. aiui it was difficulties with the engines which killed the concorde program.

a reply to: devilmoon

No they don't have to be near carbon copies. Supercruise isn't specific to the F119 engine. The Typhoon uses a completely different engine and can supercruise at Mach 1.5.

Chinese engines are Russian engines. Russian engines are under powered and unreliable.

The Concorde was killed because of several issues, including the fact that they weren't economically viable. The engines weren't an issue and were quite reliable considering what they did.

a reply to: Zaphod58

another reason I say they are sharing.

because its aparently the russians that are developing the supercruise capability. .. and the final version of the j20 is specified to include supercruise.

as much as stealth gets raved about. they only real benefit of fifth gen fighters is the range increase you get from supercruise. nearly everything else you can get from upgrades to existing designs. but supercruise is as complicated as electronics and hardware get.

I just checked the concorde thing. it's the engines that made them uneconomical. achieving supercruise means everything needs to operate flawlessly. from fuel to control timing at insane fractions of time to mad materials capable of sustaining crazy stresses for long periods of time. slightest glitch and the whole thing rips itself to pieces and totals the plane.

afaik neither russia or china have any real experience in that field. to claim they expect to have it so soon means they got a good head start.

a reply to: devilmoon

It wasn't the engines that made Concorde uneconomical, it was the fact that they couldn't go supersonic within 250 miles of land. So you still had a good bit of flight at subsonic speeds before you could go supersonic.

There's a lot more to fifth generation than supercruise. It involves a number of things you can't just add to a fourth generation fighter.

Of course Russia and China share, China is the biggest buyer of Russian military equipment outside of Russia. Which they usual turn around and either copy or license build.

a reply to: Zaphod58

you might as well say all planes that can't go supersonic aren't economical.

4590 was all about the engines.

supercruise is hard. getting access to the research that makes them possible in a fighter jet is possibly the biggest military loss in history.

originally posted by: devilmoon
a reply to: Zaphod58

you might as well say all planes that can't go supersonic aren't economical.

4590 was all about the engines.

supercruise is hard. getting access to the research that makes them possible in a fighter jet is possibly the biggest military loss in history.

Supercruise has been around since the 60s I know the mirage could do it. It's not difficult.. The trick is to be able to do it with with weapons loads and stealth capabilities. That is all about aircraft design and not the engines so much. You could give the design of an engine away still doesn't mean it can surpass mach 1 without also getting the scooby vs right. So id say probably not as important as you would think.

As pointed out the concords could do it without afterburners. Stealing parts of plans isn't as useful as one would think you still have to design the aircraft test it so does it really save that much time in Development??

a reply to: devilmoon

That's quite a leap. The whole point of Concorde was that you could get to your destination fast. But you had to go subsonic a long way before you could go fast. It was limited in the markets it could service. They also were approaching a major overhaul. The simple fact is that if the British and French governments hadn't underwritten the cost of it, it never would have flown.

a reply to: Zaphod58

hmm.
supercruise. economically is no different than subsonic.

except the engines are difficult to maintain. because the tech is so complicated and put under such enormous stress.

going supersonic is quite easy with afterburner or on small, light airframes. but on afterburner you only get a few hundred km range.

supercruise gives you 100 times that. they are engines at the worlds peak of efficiency and power. every single component pushed to the absolute limit.

add to that low carrying capacity (can't carry that many people) and you have an uneconomical plane.

where else do you think the money went? airframes and avionics cost peanuts by comparison.

even stealth is little more than a few hours comp simulation plus some materials science. and the British lost the formula for that decades ago. with the russians perfecting it for their tanks shortly after. (kept very secret until fairly recently)

you build the plane round the engines. that's why they need new airframes.

at least all that is as far as I know. perhaps a seperate thread on the topic to discuss it?

a reply to: devilmoon

You don't really know much about engineering, do you?

a reply to: devilmoon

You really don't know much about aircraft do you. Supercruise isn't as hard as you make it out to be anymore. Stealth is expensive as hell and extremely difficult to work with.

a reply to: Zaphod58

pretty sure you've got that backward.

if that was the case the j20 would have started with supercruise and got stealth afterwards.

rather than getting stealth the instant they got the plans and super cruise still being a work in progress for every single country.

biggest military advantage comes from supercruise (range of a long range bomber in a fighter airframe). stealth is rarely needed, or planes would already be regularly falling out of the sky.

a reply to: devilmoon

Can you provide specific examples? Most of the current conflicts are civil wars where range is irrelevant.

a reply to: devilmoon

Look at the countries that have supercruise capabilities. They all have really good engine programs and produce really reliable and efficient engines.

China uses Russian engines. Russia has never been able to produce a good, reliable, efficient engine. They have been buying Western engines for several of their commercial projects, as well as partnering with Western manufactures to build their engines.

That means China and Russia both are going to have problems with supercruise. Stealth on the other hand is made from relatively easy methods compared to supercruise.

You are vastly over stating supercruise as well. It does not give "bomber ranges in a fighter". No fighter will ever have the range of a larger platform. Supercruise gives you a short dash capability, that's all.

NP

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: Gianfar

What's happening between the US and Middle East aggression, and with the US and Russian, Chinese aggressions is not about service contracts. You're focusing on small, after the fact points that have relatively little context in these most important global events. It seems that you don't have the larger, regional - global view in mind. Take another look at the result of what the US actually did in the Middle East (not what they thought they were doing) and how that has shaped a totally new paradigm in the global competitiveness of the three super powers. Come back with something we can really chew on.

Please explain, in your own words, what you believe the actual goals of the United States are, what strategy they have adopted and then, most importantly, what concrete actions they have taken and how these tactics support that strategy. (In other words, why don't you start a new thread? I would be happy to engage you there.)

There's nothing to explain or believe, its simply an observation of behavior. The US evaluates its national security through the petrol dollar. With public support, it invaded the most oil wealthy nation on the planet and promoted sectarian strife (terrorism) to obfuscate the administrative transformation. Now that conflict has become outright rebellion against westernization, and the situation has devolved beyond that which the west intended, the very resources that it wanted to control is now threatened. The heresy of proclaiming itself an example of democracy while underhandedly maintaining repressive regimes of western policy (not democracy) has become openly clear. If US interests allow them to invade and decimate Middle Eastern nations for oil, then Russia should exert its regional interests in Crimea and Ukraine. China also should exert its own economic agendas by expanding its influence in the pacific rim nations.

a reply to: Gianfar

You are absolutely spot on.
The US only gets rid of dictators or regimes in these countries if they no longer adhere to Washingtons interests.
Everybody around the world knows this aswell as half of the American population and can see where it is leading.
You would need to be blind not to see whats going on.

U.S. Love Affair with Murderous Dictators and Hate for Democracy