reply to post by andy1033
Good point, well presented! How else did America develop the B1-B 'Lancer' if they did not aquire the blueprints for the Concord or the Tu-144?
Nobody can say, "Well, take one B-52 J; stretch it; whack on 4 Olympus style engines and.............................";
How else did America develop the M1A1 'Abram' MBT if they did not aquire the blueprints (probably Chieftain)from the UK?
To jump technologically from the M60 'Patton' to a future generation in one design step, accepting the co-operation of Rheinmettal-Borsig, is simply
mind blowing;
You see? It's so easy to point the finger at another country and acuse them of spying without a single shred of evidence!
As another poster has said, it is not humans that design aircraft these days, it is computers. That is how we Brits developed the much vaunted
Eurofighter 'Typhoon'.
You simply tell the computer you want your aircraft to do this, that and the other; give it a good few lines of binary coding; add the odd pinch of
salt and..................................hey presto!
One new aircraft which the whole ATS membership will say, categorically, is inferior or superior to everybody else's air force.
The furore about the PAK-FA and its ability,
vis-a-vis air to air combat and being stealthy will continue to grumble on and on and on, like a
very old Ariston and on one thing we should all agree.
Until the Russians mass produce this aircraft and it has flown combat missions against any reasonably armed enemy air force, we cannot sit in
judgement and pass comment on what it can or cannot do.
It's a bit like speculation on what the F-22 or F-35 can or cannot do..................................................