The maximum takeoff weight of Rainbow-7 stealth drone is 13 tons and has a wingspan of 22 meters. It is also designated the Caihong-7 (CH-7) stealth UAV.
The claim is that the CH-7 is superior to the Lockheed Martin RQ-170 drone. The RQ-170 Sentinel was developed by Lockheed Martin’s Skunk Works as a stealth Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV). The RQ-170 is a flying wing design containing a single (as yet classified) engine and is estimated by Aviation Week as having a wingspan of approximately 66 feet (20 meters). The RQ-170 was introduced in 2007.
The US RQ-180 stealth drones has a 40 meter or larger wingspan. The RQ-180 is built by Northrop Grumman.
The RQ-180 is believed to be about the size of the Global Hawk. The Global Hawk weighs 32,250 lb (14,630 kg). They have similar 24-hour flight endurance and range 1,400 miles. ( 2,200 km)
Brian Wang is a Futurist Thought Leader and a popular Science blogger with 1 million readers per month. His blog Nextbigfuture.com is ranked #1 Science News Blog. It covers many disruptive technology and trends including Space, Robotics, Artificial Intelligence, Medicine, Anti-aging Biotechnology, and Nanotechnology.
Known for identifying cutting edge technologies, he is currently a Co-Founder of a startup and fundraiser for high potential early-stage companies. He is the Head of Research for Allocations for deep technology investments and an Angel Investor at Space Angels.
A frequent speaker at corporations, he has been a TEDx speaker, a Singularity University speaker and guest at numerous interviews for radio and podcasts. He is open to public speaking and advising engagements.
Nothing China produces is better than the US, especially when it comes to aircraft.
The only joke here is you .
Check out with processors power the strongerst supercomputer in Asia
Probably as they do not need the top of the notch engines as they have some 700 ICMBs pointed to the US which are well enough a deterrent for them.
A 10-15 lead for Space X?
They said the same about Intel 5 yeaars ago and now Chinese company TSMC is well ahead
Chinese processors? ahahahahaha :))))))))))))) It was a good joke.
Blah, blah, blah. Move hollow shell vapor ware. Easy to say, hard to do.
Probably as they do not need the top of the notch engines as they have some 700 ICMBs pointed to the US which are well enough a deterrent for them.
A 10-15 lead for Space X?
They said the same about Intel 5 yeaars ago and now Chinese company TSMC is well ahead
The only joke here is you .
Check out with processors power the strongerst supercomputer in Asia
Chinese processors? ahahahahaha :))))))))))))) It was a good joke.
The information does not in and of itself imply the chinese turbine blades are lighter and stronger than their german counterpart, or even can operate at higher temperatures than german blades, the wording specifically only implied improvement on an unidentified metric by a chinese source for the article. A simple “majority of metrics are equivalent and in some cases even superior to the german turbine blades” would put to rest any doubts regarding the statement itself (truthfulness of the source aside). If it was lighter and stronger, why not specifically say so, it would be something to be proud of? Or was there a tradeoff not mentioned for that improvement that was preferred left unsaid? Based on the provided information, I am increasingly led to believe the laser drill system provides an interesting advantage that is not primarily a direct reduction in cost per se. Guesses would include improved cooling from the drill patterns, or less damage during drilling, allowing longer lifetimes and/or greater periods between turbine teardowns. The engine may cost about the same, but reducing the depot maintenance cycles have operational cost advantages for an engine operator/lease pool operator.
China’s military aircraft and aerospace engineering as a whole is still way behind. R&W and GE dominate the military jet engine market world-wide. China barely has working prototypes of it’s WS-15 and its still an inferior engine to the P&W F119 engine that was designed 25 years ago. The J-20 is a fry cry from an F-22. When it comes to rocketry, SpaceX is a US company, it has 10-15 year lead at the moment. China still has yet to build a heavy bomber that can mach the 60 year old 5-52 in terms of speed, payload or range. Russia just keeps updating the SU-35s, I don’t expect them to build anything new for at least a decade. They are pretty much giving up on rocketry after SpaceX gets man-rated by NASA.
China’s military aircraft and aerospace engineering as a whole is still way behind. R&W and GE dominate the military jet engine market world-wide. China barely has working prototypes of it’s WS-15 and its still an inferior engine to the P&W F119 engine that was designed 25 years ago. The J-20 is a fry cry from an F-22. When it comes to rocketry, SpaceX is a US company, it has 10-15 year lead at the moment. China still has yet to build a heavy bomber that can mach the 60 year old 5-52 in terms of speed, payload or range. Russia just keeps updating the SU-35s, I don’t expect them to build anything new for at least a decade. They are pretty much giving up on rocketry after SpaceX gets man-rated by NASA.
I didn’t state anywhere the Chinese created an entire jet engine. Just one new process that improves the jet turbine blades. They started developing for better turbine fans on around 2010. J-20 was already shown to the world in 2011. The Chinese turbine blades were introduced like early this year so it would take minimum of a few years just to modify and incorporate into the J-20. But they’ll need a better engine to tap into the blade’s real potential.It’s always about the engine. Turbine blades simply convert the heat from fuel combustion into forward thrust. The new blades can potentially handle alot more heat, as well as being lighter and stronger. But you would still need a siffucently powerful engine to generate required heat to be able to tap into the turbine blade’s full potential. The proof in the pudding for now is simply the turbine blade. The fact that an engine hasn’t been created yet to complement it, is not an indicator that it’s a fail and not better than rival ones. And you strike me as a derivative thinker. Read the paragraph again. The lasers are only there to to drill ultra-fine holes in turbine blades to keep blades cool by increasing air flow. Do you actually think that’s the entire process? It’s merely an “unextraordinary” extra being offered on sale along with the advances. It’s not the advances itself. But merely to snag extra money for the chinese. The chinese want money but they are giving away a high tech process.so Might as well make some serous money. The Germans are not interested in the laser at all but the advances lolIt’s not like the chinese are offering them their KBBF laser crystals for sale to Germany. KBBF crystals are a fully Chinese creation that is embargoed by china as they are revolutionary and would never sell it.Those lasers are just to sweeten the deal for china if Germany agrees to buy the advances. So if Germany buys it, they also agree to commit to buying relevant laser machinery too. It’s a business package deal. That is all. Lol____________On unidentified metrics? That is just avoiding the simple sentence that Chinese created a turbine fan that can withstand higher temperatures than metallic alloys ….. How they did it is a moot point. The end result is they have a lighter stronger turbine blade than German ones and outperformed in certain benchmarks.
I read that to mean a different laser drilling process is what excited the germans in a tech trade and some M&A, but due to the strategic nature of jet engines is facing political roadblocks. As in a singular development, that allegedly has some benefits over western methods on unidentified metrics (which could mean things such as time/cost to machine, cost of production equipment, blade reliability, etc). The shaping of blade hollow cores doesn’t strike me as advanced over existing state-of-the-art, and spray on refractory coatings on blades via plasma deposition/CVD isn’t new either. This was not an announcement of all three occurring at the same time or to the same levels of improvement.Proof is in the pudding when the WS-15 has serious rollouts into the J-20 fleet, and trickles down into the WS-20 rollout for military and derivatives for commercial jets. That will be a major event, in all sorts of ways. Naturally, military jets/turboshafts will be first in line, but the real improvements in costs result from large scale civil production, for civil jet engines as well as power production gas turbines.Now that is where China could leapfrog, in design-for-production using 3D printing. GE has made large investments in transitioning to that, but China has arguably less reasons for staying with legacy design/manufacturing methodologies and going all-in on 3D printing of components for engines wherever possible. The demonstration of 3D printed titanium critical structures, and the expanded development of large format printers, shows they are serious right now.
Just wait five, ten year max. I am not your bro
Chinese engineers had figured out their unique new own *process*, that can make lighter and stronger blades that can withstand much higher temps than previous alloys……Hence the first and only country to do that particular *new* process. ________Google “China May Have Solved the One Thing That Was Poised to Stop Its Military Rise” Go ahead & read that article thoroughly if you think I’m pulling your leg.
Uh, no.Russians were first to hollow blades and ceramic/ceramic carbide refractory coatings for blades. The fact that the PLAAF were desperate for the latest engines in their recent russian block buy was precisely because domestic industry could not make the equivalent turbine blades, but the russians balked due to well founded fears of reverse engineering.
Tsmc is Taiwanese. Different Chinese government and separately controlled jurisdiction. Can’t say the mainland claims Taiwan’s achievements bro.
I think that’s the one achievement that china actually had succeeded in. They figured how to make lighter and stronger turbine blades using a hollow structure as well as single-crystal alloys. that can withstand high temperatures and a special coating to facilitate cooling…. These advances mean Chinese-made turbine blades are able to withstand temperatures several hundred degrees Celsius higher than the melting point of metallic alloys…..and they were the first to do it.
I read that to mean a different laser drilling process is what excited the germans in a tech trade and some M&A, but due to the strategic nature of jet engines is facing political roadblocks. As in a singular development, that allegedly has some benefits over western methods on unidentified metrics (which could mean things such as time/cost to machine, cost of production equipment, blade reliability, etc).
The shaping of blade hollow cores doesn’t strike me as advanced over existing state-of-the-art, and spray on refractory coatings on blades via plasma deposition/CVD isn’t new either. This was not an announcement of all three occurring at the same time or to the same levels of improvement.
Proof is in the pudding when the WS-15 has serious rollouts into the J-20 fleet, and trickles down into the WS-20 rollout for military and derivatives for commercial jets. That will be a major event, in all sorts of ways. Naturally, military jets/turboshafts will be first in line, but the real improvements in costs result from large scale civil production, for civil jet engines as well as power production gas turbines.
Now that is where China could leapfrog, in design-for-production using 3D printing. GE has made large investments in transitioning to that, but China has arguably less reasons for staying with legacy design/manufacturing methodologies and going all-in on 3D printing of components for engines wherever possible. The demonstration of 3D printed titanium critical structures, and the expanded development of large format printers, shows they are serious right now.
While there may have been some education via appropriation, airplane design is now largely a result of convergent evolution. There are good reasons why planes with similar missions end up looking similar. Physics does not know politics and language. That said, that governs overall shape though. Engines are a real pain though, and it that’s not so much shape derived as materials science and production capability derived. Chinese companies still have a lot of trouble with high temperature turbine blades for the high pressure turbines of jet engines. It’s hard. The russians were the first to crack single crystal differential solidification of blades in a production setting, and the US followed, but that took decades of materials science research and metallurgy. China is putting in the effort though, so they’ll get there eventually.
While there may have been some education via appropriation, airplane design is now largely a result of convergent evolution. There are good reasons why planes with similar missions end up looking similar. Physics does not know politics and language. That said, that governs overall shape though. Engines are a real pain though, and it that’s not so much shape derived as materials science and production capability derived. Chinese companies still have a lot of trouble with high temperature turbine blades for the high pressure turbines of jet engines. It’s hard. The russians were the first to crack single crystal differential solidification of blades in a production setting, and the US followed, but that took decades of materials science research and metallurgy. China is putting in the effort though, so they’ll get there eventually.
From the linked article with google translate assistance, “…According to Shi Wen, the general manager of the Rainbow series drone, the performance of “Rainbow-7″ surpassed the US RQ-170 stealth drone, which is close to the newly exposed RQ-180 stealth drone, which is expected to be in the next 1-2 years. Conduct a test flight. Shi Wen said that it has made China the world’s unmanned combat aircraft with long-haul strong penetration capability after the United States, meeting the needs of future symmetrical operations for high-end stealth unmanned combat aircraft. …”.So the manager of the project claims it beats the competition. Hmmm. I bet he gets to keep his job.
From the linked article with google translate assistance, “…According to Shi Wen, the general manager of the Rainbow series drone, the performance of “Rainbow-7″ surpassed the US RQ-170 stealth drone, which is close to the newly exposed RQ-180 stealth drone, which is expected to be in the next 1-2 years. Conduct a test flight. Shi Wen said that it has made China the world’s unmanned combat aircraft with long-haul strong penetration capability after the United States, meeting the needs of future symmetrical operations for high-end stealth unmanned combat aircraft. …”.So the manager of the project claims it beats the competition. Hmmm. I bet he gets to keep his job.
Just wait five, ten year max.
I am not your bro
Uh, no.
Russians were first to hollow blades and ceramic/ceramic carbide refractory coatings for blades. The fact that the PLAAF were desperate for the latest engines in their recent russian block buy was precisely because domestic industry could not make the equivalent turbine blades, but the russians balked due to well founded fears of reverse engineering.
While there may have been some education via appropriation, airplane design is now largely a result of convergent evolution. There are good reasons why planes with similar missions end up looking similar. Physics does not know politics and language.
That said, that governs overall shape though. Engines are a real pain though, and it that’s not so much shape derived as materials science and production capability derived. Chinese companies still have a lot of trouble with high temperature turbine blades for the high pressure turbines of jet engines. It’s hard. The russians were the first to crack single crystal differential solidification of blades in a production setting, and the US followed, but that took decades of materials science research and metallurgy. China is putting in the effort though, so they’ll get there eventually.
From the linked article with google translate assistance,
“…According to Shi Wen, the general manager of the Rainbow series drone, the performance of “Rainbow-7″ surpassed the US RQ-170 stealth drone, which is close to the newly exposed RQ-180 stealth drone, which is expected to be in the next 1-2 years. Conduct a test flight. Shi Wen said that it has made China the world’s unmanned combat aircraft with long-haul strong penetration capability after the United States, meeting the needs of future symmetrical operations for high-end stealth unmanned combat aircraft. …”
.
So the manager of the project claims it beats the competition. Hmmm. I bet he gets to keep his job.
No description of China’s drone?????
No description of China’s drone?????
In aircraft, America largely leads, and the rest of ’em largely catch up. -> ? Not considering that small company called Airbus, of course Oh, you meant military aircrafts? Then what about the 5th generation fighters from China and Rssia? Considered superior to the F35 or similar? As for other markets.. Chip manufacturing Intel (USA) was in the lead, now it is TSMC (China) Supercomputer: The US was alone in the lead, now it share everything with China High speed rails? China rulez alone (with the Europeans at most) and Japan Steel manufacturing?: China rule almost alone etc.
Sorry, what part of this clickbait “article” even has a suggestion of a basis for concluding that one of these aircraft is better than the other? All I see are some specifications about wingspans and whatnot. If your measure of how good an airplane is how big its wingspan is, I guess this is the article for you. If you think planes should be judged by what they can do, look elsewhere.
So, the J20 is absolutely not a copy of the F22, as they were unable to meet manufacturing tolerances, provide the needed engines, or even come close to matching technology produced in the 90s in the US.The “carrier killer” missile that has yet to be tested against a moving target, and that as of right now has shown no capability to be guided to the target from the range it has listed. Putting a missile on target against a moving ship will require a lot more than just launching it into a general area.And as far as KBBF Crystal’s, if you actually looked it up like you stated, APC produces them in the US. They are proven to be better Crystal’s than their Chinese counterparts, and are cheaper.Anything else?
No description of China’s drone?????
“It is not based on reason, but racism pure and simple.” That’ not a very bright statement. It has nothing to do with racism and never did. It has everything to do with China’s known theft of IP. China’s reputation is in tatters, and people just assume they stole it when they come out with something new. You can whine and call it racism as a weak minded attempt to insult others, but all it did was show how little you understand about the source of that kind of thinking.
In aircraft, America largely leads, and the rest of ’em largely catch up.
-> ?
Not considering that small company called Airbus, of course
Oh, you meant military aircrafts? Then what about the 5th generation fighters from China and Rssia?
Considered superior to the F35 or similar?
As for other markets..
Chip manufacturing Intel (USA) was in the lead, now it is TSMC (China)
Supercomputer: The US was alone in the lead, now it share everything with China
High speed rails? China rulez alone (with the Europeans at most) and Japan
Steel manufacturing?: China rule almost alone
etc.
“It is not based on reason, but racism pure and simple.” That’ not a very bright statement. It has nothing to do with racism and never did. It has everything to do with China’s known theft of IP. China’s reputation is in tatters, and people just assume they stole it when they come out with something new. You can whine and call it racism as a weak minded attempt to insult others, but all it did was show how little you understand about the source of that kind of thinking.
The same people who mindlessly shout out “copy” without any sort of evidence tend to be the ones who deny the existence of technologies unique to China like the ICBM carrier killer, KBBF crystals (google it China is the only source) and numerous other technologies.These aforementioned people tend to have 0 background in science and technology. So to these people a J-20 is a copy of the F-22, without any regard to the massively different computer systems and moving surfaces to make these dissimilar shapes move like they do thru air, without any regard to the force loadings and heat loadings of the various shapes as they undergo supersonic speeds.Airframes like the F-22 and J-20 are so aerodynamically unstable, and then when you throw in moving control surfaces and things like canards and thrust vectoring to introduce more stability it is a wonder how these things can even stay afloat. Surprisingly these same people will insist that a Japanese car that has similar specifications to a European car is not a copy, but any Chinese produced car with the same specs is a copy. The thought process is —> they kind of look like each other —> China made it —> therefore china copied It is not based on reason, but racism pure and simple. Now some people might call me a racist, but to me racism is when pure hatred overrides logic and reason to produce something that is a flat out lie. For example Saying that X group of people tend to have darker skin or lower intelligence based on scientific studies showing that X group of people tend to have darker skin and lower intelligence is not racist. Mindlessly disregarding scientific studies while insisting that a untrue statement is true is my definition of racism. The laws of science are the same in every country, so many things will tend to look similar to one another simply due to the laws of science. A car for instance, Well roads are expensive so you want to make the car as thin as possible, but also be able to fit a family of 4 comfortably, you want windows and mirror so the driver can see around the car. Now you also want front wheel drive since you are driving forward and you want traction to avoid a accident, and you need a heavy weight to balance out the trunk and passengers, you want more traction in the front. You want doors to go in and out of the car. No surprise there is a optimum layout and the vast majority of cars will follow this layout. And all cars looking like all other cars is not evidence that they all copied each other but rather they all created a similar design based on having the same requirements and based on the same laws of physics.
“Mineshaft gap”. I forgot how ridiculous that movie was. The fact that they’re imitating the US aside, I don’t think we’ve put this comparison in perspective. The RQ-170: 1) Was introduced more than a decade ago.2) May still be more advanced than this CH-7.3) Is the technology our government lets us know about. #3 is the one I find most interesting. It’s been a while since the RQ-170 was designed, and the R&D teams undoubtedly kept working. What might they have come up with that we don’t yet know about?
Our Dear Chinese Friends are quite good at copying stuff, that’s for sure. On the other hand, it also makes economic sense: one need only LOOK at a stealth plane to determine at least half of its ‘technology’ making it stealthy-to-RADAR. Those straight lines, planar surfaces, key angles. Thing is, competition in this department is good. Many commenters here pine about America losing its competitive edge, about it wasting billions on programs that after decades haven’t an apparent thing to show for the investment. America, simply, needs competition. It used to be The Ruskies (as we so warmingly called the Russians). The Ruskies… they’re going to get to the Moon first! They’re in space first! They’ve got Europe targeted with nukes First! The Ruskies!!! We cannot allow a mine-shaft gap!¹ And so on. The competition from the Old Soviet Union was intense: America wasn’t just competing with Russia over getting to space, advancing technology at a breakneck pace, and developing a competent Big Government Science network, it was also proving that the so-called Free World could rather handily BEAT the Russians at their own game, using open commerce, frank capitalism and rather light-handed government guidance to “get ‘er done”. Mind you, tho’ the Old Soviet Union ended up collapsing under its own socialist stultification, and while she was never a brilliantly “rich” country, her scientists did — and do — rather amazing work in the theoretical, giving rise to all nature of progressive development, without funding for experimentation. And Russia, old-and-new, also “learned to copy”. Today, it is the Chinese (as well as Russia, and let’s face it: France and England too.) In aircraft, America largely leads, and the rest of ’em largely catch up. And excel! Oft is the case that minus a key “magically irreproducible technology”, The Competition would handily be able both to challenge America’s developments, and some of the time, exceed them in performance, agility, utility, cost-effectiveness. After all, The Competition doesn’t really need a full-fledged Research and Development infrastructure, just to basically reverse-engineer their competing product line. In any case, as the saying goes, “Imitation is the Sincerest form of Flattery”. Just saying,GoatGuy________________________________________¹ – one of the key take-away quotes from the fabulously ingenious Dr. Strangelove Kubrick 1964 movie, in the scene where now committed to thermonuclear war, the Generals and President in the Strategic Command War Room are debating how long people would need to coexist underground in repurposed mine shafts. There are at least 3 dozen quote-worthy moments that any Dr. Strangelove aficionado would be able to spout whilst quaffing strong whiskey, but the Mineshaft-gap quote is near the top of anyone’s list.
The simpleton Chinese blogger is again using simple linear extrapolations to conclude that bigger is better.
“China Large Stealth Drone better than US RQ-170 drone””The claim is that the CH-7 is superior to the Lockheed Martin RQ-170 drone.”Misleading title aside, where is the data?
1st comment.
The same people who mindlessly shout out “copy” without any sort of evidence tend to be the ones who deny the existence of technologies unique to China like the ICBM carrier killer, KBBF crystals (google it China is the only source) and numerous other technologies.
These aforementioned people tend to have 0 background in science and technology.
So to these people a J-20 is a copy of the F-22, without any regard to the massively different computer systems and moving surfaces to make these dissimilar shapes move like they do thru air, without any regard to the force loadings and heat loadings of the various shapes as they undergo supersonic speeds.
Airframes like the F-22 and J-20 are so aerodynamically unstable, and then when you throw in moving control surfaces and things like canards and thrust vectoring to introduce more stability it is a wonder how these things can even stay afloat.
Surprisingly these same people will insist that a Japanese car that has similar specifications to a European car is not a copy, but any Chinese produced car with the same specs is a copy.
The thought process is —> they kind of look like each other —> China made it —> therefore china copied
It is not based on reason, but racism pure and simple.
Now some people might call me a racist, but to me racism is when pure hatred overrides logic and reason to produce something that is a flat out lie. For example Saying that X group of people tend to have darker skin or lower intelligence based on scientific studies showing that X group of people tend to have darker skin and lower intelligence is not racist. Mindlessly disregarding scientific studies while insisting that a untrue statement is true is my definition of racism.
The laws of science are the same in every country, so many things will tend to look similar to one another simply due to the laws of science.
A car for instance, Well roads are expensive so you want to make the car as thin as possible, but also be able to fit a family of 4 comfortably, you want windows and mirror so the driver can see around the car. Now you also want front wheel drive since you are driving forward and you want traction to avoid a accident, and you need a heavy weight to balance out the trunk and passengers, you want more traction in the front. You want doors to go in and out of the car.
No surprise there is a optimum layout and the vast majority of cars will follow this layout. And all cars looking like all other cars is not evidence that they all copied each other but rather they all created a similar design based on having the same requirements and based on the same laws of physics.
“Mineshaft gap”. I forgot how ridiculous that movie was.
The fact that they’re imitating the US aside, I don’t think we’ve put this comparison in perspective. The RQ-170:
1) Was introduced more than a decade ago.
2) May still be more advanced than this CH-7.
3) Is the technology our government lets us know about.
#3 is the one I find most interesting. It’s been a while since the RQ-170 was designed, and the R&D teams undoubtedly kept working. What might they have come up with that we don’t yet know about?
Our Dear Chinese Friends are quite good at copying stuff, that’s for sure. On the other hand, it also makes economic sense: one need only LOOK at a stealth plane to determine at least half of its ‘technology’ making it stealthy-to-RADAR. Those straight lines, planar surfaces, key angles.
Thing is, competition in this department is good. Many commenters here pine about America losing its competitive edge, about it wasting billions on programs that after decades haven’t an apparent thing to show for the investment. America, simply, needs competition.
It used to be The Ruskies (as we so warmingly called the Russians). The Ruskies… they’re going to get to the Moon first! They’re in space first! They’ve got Europe targeted with nukes First! The Ruskies!!! We cannot allow a mine-shaft gap!¹ And so on.
The competition from the Old Soviet Union was intense: America wasn’t just competing with Russia over getting to space, advancing technology at a breakneck pace, and developing a competent Big Government Science network, it was also proving that the so-called Free World could rather handily BEAT the Russians at their own game, using open commerce, frank capitalism and rather light-handed government guidance to “get ‘er done”.
Mind you, tho’ the Old Soviet Union ended up collapsing under its own socialist stultification, and while she was never a brilliantly “rich” country, her scientists did — and do — rather amazing work in the theoretical, giving rise to all nature of progressive development, without funding for experimentation.
And Russia, old-and-new, also “learned to copy”.
Today, it is the Chinese (as well as Russia, and let’s face it: France and England too.) In aircraft, America largely leads, and the rest of ’em largely catch up. And excel! Oft is the case that minus a key “magically irreproducible technology”, The Competition would handily be able both to challenge America’s developments, and some of the time, exceed them in performance, agility, utility, cost-effectiveness. After all, The Competition doesn’t really need a full-fledged Research and Development infrastructure, just to basically reverse-engineer their competing product line.
In any case, as the saying goes, “Imitation is the Sincerest form of Flattery”.
Just saying,
GoatGuy
________________________________________
¹ – one of the key take-away quotes from the fabulously ingenious Dr. Strangelove Kubrick 1964 movie, in the scene where now committed to thermonuclear war, the Generals and President in the Strategic Command War Room are debating how long people would need to coexist underground in repurposed mine shafts. There are at least 3 dozen quote-worthy moments that any Dr. Strangelove aficionado would be able to spout whilst quaffing strong whiskey, but the Mineshaft-gap quote is near the top of anyone’s list.
The simpleton Chinese blogger is again using simple linear extrapolations to conclude that bigger is better.
“China Large Stealth Drone better than US RQ-170 drone”
“The claim is that the CH-7 is superior to the Lockheed Martin RQ-170 drone.”
Misleading title aside, where is the data?
1st comment.
Sorry, what part of this clickbait “article” even has a suggestion of a basis for concluding that one of these aircraft is better than the other? All I see are some specifications about wingspans and whatnot. If your measure of how good an airplane is how big its wingspan is, I guess this is the article for you. If you think planes should be judged by what they can do, look elsewhere.
Our Dear Chinese Friends are quite good at copying stuff, that’s for sure. On the other hand, it also makes economic sense: one need only LOOK at a stealth plane to determine at least half of its ‘technology’ making it stealthy-to-RADAR. Those straight lines, planar surfaces, key angles. Thing is, competition in this department is good. Many commenters here pine about America losing its competitive edge, about it wasting billions on programs that after decades haven’t an apparent thing to show for the investment. America, simply, needs competition. It used to be The Ruskies (as we so warmingly called the Russians). The Ruskies… they’re going to get to the Moon first! They’re in space first! They’ve got Europe targeted with nukes First! The Ruskies!!! We cannot allow a mine-shaft gap!¹ And so on. The competition from the Old Soviet Union was intense: America wasn’t just competing with Russia over getting to space, advancing technology at a breakneck pace, and developing a competent Big Government Science network, it was also proving that the so-called Free World could rather handily BEAT the Russians at their own game, using open commerce, frank capitalism and rather light-handed government guidance to “get ‘er done”. Mind you, tho’ the Old Soviet Union ended up collapsing under its own socialist stultification, and while she was never a brilliantly “rich” country, her scientists did — and do — rather amazing work in the theoretical, giving rise to all nature of progressive development, without funding for experimentation. And Russia, old-and-new, also “learned to copy”. Today, it is the Chinese (as well as Russia, and let’s face it: France and England too.) In aircraft, America largely leads, and the rest of ’em largely catch up. And excel! Oft is the case that minus a key “magically irreproducible technology”, The Competition would handily be able both to challenge America’s developments, and some of the time, exceed them in performance, agility, utility, cost-effectiveness. After all, The Competition doesn’t really need a full-fledged Research and Development infrastructure, just to basically reverse-engineer their competing product line. In any case, as the saying goes, “Imitation is the Sincerest form of Flattery”. Just saying,GoatGuy________________________________________¹ – one of the key take-away quotes from the fabulously ingenious Dr. Strangelove Kubrick 1964 movie, in the scene where now committed to thermonuclear war, the Generals and President in the Strategic Command War Room are debating how long people would need to coexist underground in repurposed mine shafts. There are at least 3 dozen quote-worthy moments that any Dr. Strangelove aficionado would be able to spout whilst quaffing strong whiskey, but the Mineshaft-gap quote is near the top of anyone’s list.
The simpleton Chinese blogger is again using simple linear extrapolations to conclude that bigger is better.
“China Large Stealth Drone better than US RQ-170 drone””The claim is that the CH-7 is superior to the Lockheed Martin RQ-170 drone.”Misleading title aside, where is the data?
1st comment.