http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dummy_tank
A dummy tank is a type of decoy intended to fool an enemy into believing a fake tank, usually inflatable or wooden, is real. Dummy tanks emerged soon after the introduction of real tanks in World War I, but dummys were not widely used until World War II
(caption): World War I, Australian troops carrying a dummy, Mark IV tank (1917)
Originally posted by zeeblebot...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dummy_tank
A dummy tank is a type of decoy intended to fool an enemy into believing a fake tank, usually inflatable or wooden, is real. Dummy tanks emerged soon after the introduction of real tanks in World War I, but dummys were not widely used until World War II
(caption): World War I, Australian troops carrying a dummy, Mark IV tank (1917)
The Red Army also employed dummy tanks to increase their apparent numbers, and mask their true movements.[10]
Why doubt if it's real? It's relatively clear its a new plane, and still a prototype. What motive would china have -- with a military budget second only to the US (and some have estimated exceeding it) -- to make a "Dummy plane" to try to fool us. They obviously have the budget, and probably at least a good portion of the technology - to make a real one...
The real question to me isn't if it exists - but whether it is competitive to it's supposed peers (F-22, F-35, PAK-FA).
if it's bigger it's likely heavier, probably especially they lack the same use of lighter-weight composites.
ability to copy the lines of an aircraft from published photos does not translate to ability to copy in any measure control laws for inherently unstable aircraft, the flight computers which run them, or even the design of the frame.
i don't really see any stealth in the J-20, unless you count grey paint (may or may not be stealth), and the line running nose to tip along the side (may or may not be stealth). note how the F-22's tail lines resemble other stealth aircrafts', and the J-20's doesn't.
Originally posted by zeeblebotThe J-20's tail lines are like those of the F-35 and F-117. That's why I think it's a strike aircraft. The PAK-FA and Raptor are high altitude interceptors.
if it's bigger it's likely heavier, probably especially they lack the same use of lighter-weight composites.
ability to copy the lines of an aircraft from published photos does not translate to ability to copy in any measure control laws for inherently unstable aircraft, the flight computers which run them, or even the design of the frame.
i don't re ...[text shortened]... note how the F-22's tail lines resemble other stealth aircrafts', and the J-20's doesn't.
Originally posted by zeeblebotThey do have a space program and while they may not be where the current state of the art is, they are catching up viz a viz their knowledge of things aerospace/aeronautical. One thing you could never totally discount is technology/insight they may have been able to buy from their former Soviet friends. The other thing is numbers. If they field 20 J20's for each Raptor, then Houston, we may have a problem....
if it's bigger it's likely heavier, probably especially they lack the same use of lighter-weight composites.
ability to copy the lines of an aircraft from published photos does not translate to ability to copy in any measure control laws for inherently unstable aircraft, the flight computers which run them, or even the design of the frame.
i don't re ...[text shortened]... note how the F-22's tail lines resemble other stealth aircrafts', and the J-20's doesn't.
Assuming we can lock onto them and they can't lock onto us, a large difference in sheer numbers isn't as bad as it looks.
Besides we have other aircraft too. The new lightning aircraft would do a lot of damage. I think it's cheaper, so it will give us a bigger bang for the buck.
Originally posted by EladarIt's supposed to be cheaper but I don't think it is. It's got a zillion high tech thingies that the Raptor does not, from V/STOL to carrier capability to being a flying internet router to shooting enemies behind them etc etc etc.
Assuming we can lock onto them and they can't lock onto us, a large difference in sheer numbers isn't as bad as it looks.
Besides we have other aircraft too. The new lightning aircraft would do a lot of damage. I think it's cheaper, so it will give us a bigger bang for the buck.
It's become just another super duper fancy airplane with less of an air dominance focus instead of the cheap alternative to the Raptor.
Originally posted by AThousandYoungDepends on how you measure it I suppose. They only built 187 F-22s, but plan to build 3100 F-35s. If you consider how the R&D costs amortize across all those, makes the F-35s look cheaper. The F-35s are supposedly cheaper to build too, if you don't consider the STOVL variant. F-35B. Which, it's starting to sound like nobody is actually going to build/use anyway...
It's supposed to be cheaper but I don't think it is. It's got a zillion high tech thingies that the Raptor does not, from V/STOL to carrier capability to being a flying internet router to shooting enemies behind them etc etc etc.
It's become just another super duper fancy airplane with less of an air dominance focus instead of the cheap alternative to the Raptor.
