Support NeoGAF

[numble]

Yet the Chinese are still under-represented when it comes to scientific advances despite such a large population and look to continue to do so for the foreseeable future.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Chinese_Nobel_laureates

None of the Nobel Laureates in science listed above were Chinese nationals when they won their award. The one Chinese national who did win one (for Peace), was imprisoned by the Chinese themselves.

This difficulty is hinted at in many articles including this one:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3953902...-faces-hurdles-amid-quest-nobel/#.UGIIV1HheR4

China is currently posting an inferior model that will never 'catch up' as it stands and the change required to do so will result in an internal social change that will nullify them as an opponent, in the sense that the technological advancement of the UK or France is not to be considered a threat.

I think looking at Nobel laureates is a red herring. Look at the list of science laureates and their biographies see that their educations came during eras when you really couldn't get an education in China. There was basically no real academia until the Cultural Revolution ended in 1979. The next generation of Chinese leaders are still ones that spent their "college years" working on farms in the countryside per Mao's policy to send youths to work amongst the people.

I don't think you should look at representation based on population either, when a ton of kids stop schooling at age 16 and head off to work in factories.

I think current patents, graduate students, graduate/college student quality, and academic publication are better indicators. Looking at a list of people educated in the 1960s-1970s (or earlier) as an indication of education quality 40 years later is extremely imprudent. Look at the names of valedictorians at "elite" schools. Look at the names on patents put out by Western companies considered to be innovators.

I think there are issues with the overall Chinese education system. But I've met some of the smartest Chinese nationals while in attendance at a US college and grad school both considered to be in the top 5 in the US, as well as when studying abroad at a Chinese university considered to be in the top 5. Yes, maybe the top 1% in the West is better than the top 1% in China, but China can probably skate by just by sheer numbers.

 

[JiuJitsuka]

after I saw the red colours at the bottom of the ship while having the picture of an American carrier in my mind, I thought about command conquer =\

 

[Phoenix]

Haha. How submarine will shoot incoming missiles, which is the the big threat? The submarines protect against any submerged vehicle but not incoming missiles. Submarines can´t do shit against incoming missiles.

That's what the rest of your battle group is there to do. A carrier has a layered defense network. The AWACS equivalent should spot the targets well before they enter the threat zone so your interceptors can get at them. If they or the CAP can't deal with them your surface ships that are there to support you should be launching missiles of their own. If that doesn't work you should be launching your own missiles and close-in support weapons to deal with the threat.

If that doesn't work, well hopefully you've got some good damage control and fire suppression systems.

In the waters where you're most likely to face this carrier, you're also likely to encounter high altitude and low altitude Chinese CAP from the mainland. The PLAN is not a blue water navy so they wouldn't be fighting this boat in the open sea.

 

[Visualante2]

exhortynge alle Englande to kepe the see enviroun

As a result, the Royal Navy has accepted a deal that promises “jam tomorrow”, in the form of one or two aircraft carriers (with or without catapult-launched fixed-wing aircraft) in or around 2020, in return for increasing levels of pain and further cuts to other naval forces until 2015 and beyond. Most significantly, the Royal Navy has now – post-SDSR – demonstrably ceased to have a “balanced fleet”, the lodestone of much of the post-Cold War era, and the basis even today for countering a range of generic and emerging risks.

 

[Technosteve]

Actually it is Ford Class Carriers are next with the magnetic launch system.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_Aircraft_Launch_System

Man I had the more manly class

 

[tino]

Huh? Explain that to me...

Whenever things happen that don't appeal to us, we just send a carrier or two over to that area of the world and act like we own the place. The biggest purpose of these massive carriers and the huge number of them we sustain is exactly to project power across the entire globe.

Why do I need to explain it. The reason China want a carrier is exact the reason all the European countries want to have at least one carrier.

There are many instances of China having a dispute with countries that America has no interest in one way or the other. With Vietnam for example.

 

[gryz]

Do you seriously need a carrier to do that. You can do it with a decently fast ship. More like the military was trying to score some free PR points.

what?

a "decently fast ship" is going to be too small to be of any help.

 

[Atrus]

I think looking at Nobel laureates is a red herring. Look at the list of science laureates and their biographies see that their educations came during eras when you really couldn't get an education in China. There was basically no real academia until the Cultural Revolution ended in 1979. The next generation of Chinese leaders are still ones that spent their "college years" working on farms in the countryside per Mao's policy to send youths to work amongst the people.

I don't think you should look at representation based on population either, when a ton of kids stop schooling at age 16 and head off to work in factories.

I think current patents, graduate students, graduate/college student quality, and academic publication are better indicators. Looking at a list of people educated in the 1960s-1970s (or earlier) as an indication of education quality 40 years later is extremely imprudent. Look at the names of valedictorians at "elite" schools. Look at the names on patents put out by Western companies considered to be innovators.

I think there are issues with the overall Chinese education system. But I've met some of the smartest Chinese nationals while in attendance at a US college and grad school both considered to be in the top 5 in the US, as well as when studying abroad at a Chinese university considered to be in the top 5. Yes, maybe the top 1% in the West is better than the top 1% in China, but China can probably skate by just by sheer numbers.

So basically, ignore all contrary evidence and go with the idea that China (the nation) is a rising technological innovator because there are Chinese expats, working for Western R&D, who have post-secondary education in Western universities.

The issue is not one of people who are of Chinese descent.

Sheer volume is also insufficient for technological advancement. Just because China is producing a lot of academic papers doesn't mean that the quality or impact of those journals is as significant or even on par.

Currently and for the foreseeable future, China builds what everyone else invents.

 

[lastplayed]

I hope the Chinese pilots have brushed up on their carrier landing skills. If video games taught me anything, it ain't easy!

 

[numble]

So basically, ignore all contrary evidence and go with the idea that China (the nation) is a rising technological innovator because there are Chinese expats, working for Western R&D, who have post-secondary education in Western universities.

The issue is not one of people who are of Chinese descent.

Sheer volume is also insufficient for technological advancement. Just because China is producing a lot of academic papers doesn't mean that the quality or impact of those journals is as significant or even on par.

Currently and for the foreseeable future, China builds what everyone else invents.

I don't think it matters whether their scientists are educated in the West or in China, education has globalized, such that their state-owned companies are being run by nationals with Western MBAs, and most scientists and professors (at least at the top research organizations) have foreign education and degrees.

I was talking about publication in Western journals such as Nature, by the way:
http://www.naturechina.com.cn/nchina/press_releases/20120524_publishing_index_eng.pdf (This article also offers further data on the most cited scientific writing)
http://www.natureasia.com/en/publishing-index/china/#.UGIcJJEayK0

China now publishes more than 6% of the papers published in Nature journals, according to the Nature Publishing Index 2011 China. Published today as a supplement to Nature, the Index provides yet more evidence that China is fast becoming a global leader in scientific publishing and scientific research.
Papers with authors from China represent 6.6% (225) of the 3425 papers published in Nature journals in 2011, up from 5.3% (152 papers) in 2010. By comparison, authors from China published just 12 papers in Nature journals in 2000.

The Nature Publishing Index 2011 China also presents a new analysis of ISI Web of Knowledge data, showing that China now publishes more than 10% of the world’s most cited scientific research. China increased its share of the top 1% of highly cited scientific articles from 1.85% (127 out of 6,874 articles) in 2001 to 11.3% (1,158 out of 10,238 articles) in 2011, and now ranks fourth globally.

 

[tino]

So basically, ignore all contrary evidence and go with the idea that China (the nation) is a rising technological innovator because there are Chinese expats, working for Western R&D, who have post-secondary education in Western universities.

The issue is not one of people who are of Chinese descent.

Sheer volume is also insufficient for technological advancement. Just because China is producing a lot of academic papers doesn't mean that the quality or impact of those journals is as significant or even on par.

Currently and for the foreseeable future, China builds what everyone else invents.

Hehe this is the perfect time to post the China Don't Care.jpg

 

[Indrid Cold1]

I just wanna know why the yanks are naming the most powerful and advanced class of the most powerful and advanced warfighting machines on Earth after a pretty lame President.

I guess it would be like, I dunno, if we Brits sent the first man to mars or something and called the craft the HMS John Major.

 

[jstevenson]

I just wanna know why the yanks are naming the most powerful and advanced class of the most powerful and advanced warfighting machines on Earth after a pretty lame President.

I guess it would be like, I dunno, if we Brits sent the first man to mars or something and called the craft the HMS John Major.

He was in the Navy and he died right when they were figuring out the name for the first ship in that class and the naming and such.

 

[SpectreFire]

The US actually has 19 carriers in total, not 11.

They have 11 supercarriers and 8 baby carriers that can launch Harriers and F-35s

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wasp_class_amphibious_assault_ship

Basically, if they really need to, they can always load up a WASP with fighters and use it as a stop-gap.

Umm yes. Carrier servers as an airbase, control hub, medical facility, water desalination, tonnes of personnel, long range surveying of damage, mass supplies on board. A "decently fast ship" could only do a fraction of that.

Assault carriers are actually better equipped for that sort of stuff since they're designed as ground combat HQs. They have the capacity to service 600 patients on board, and the 2000 marines each ship carriers are much more useful for rescue and relief operations than a supercarrier.

Do you seriously need a carrier to do that. You can do it with a decently fast ship. More like the military was trying to score some free PR points.

They could send a destroyer, but what the fuck is a destroyer going to do?

"AMERICUH IS HERE TO HELP. WE'RE GOING TO BE SEND AID VIA THE ONE HELICOPTER AND TWO CORPSMEN ONBOARD THIS DESTROYER WE HAVE. I HOPE YOU DON'T HAVE TOO MANY CASUALTIES."

 

[Atrus]

I don't think it matters whether their scientists are educated in the West or in China, education has globalized, such that their state-owned companies are being run by nationals with Western MBAs, and most scientists and professors (at least at the top research organizations) have foreign education and degrees.

I was talking about publication in Western journals such as Nature, by the way:
http://www.naturechina.com.cn/nchina/press_releases/20120524_publishing_index_eng.pdf (This article also offers further data on the most cited scientific writing)
http://www.natureasia.com/en/publishing-index/china/#.UGIcJJEayK0

The vast majority of Chinese publications have very low impact factors.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Academic_publishing_in_the_People's_Republic_of_China

That China has increased is irrelevant to the amount of publications produced elsewhere that are of a much higher quality.

What you think does not translate into actual technological innovations, discoveries, and technologies. Until there is actual evidence, you are basing it off of conjecture of what might be in theory rather than reality.

Unless China changes, it will only advance against the US by the failings of the Americans.

 

[DonasaurusRex]

guess that narrows down our priority targets in the pacific in case of a conflict....

 

[Vilix]

I had read a news story some time ago that Vietnam is getting very chummy with the US. Especially since they do not want to put up with N. Korea and China protracting their influence over them.

 

[numble]

The vast majority of Chinese publications have very low impact factors.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Academic_publishing_in_the_People's_Republic_of_China

That China has increased is irrelevant to the amount of publications produced elsewhere that are of a much higher quality.

What you think does not translate into actual technological innovations, discoveries, and technologies. Until there is actual evidence, you are basing it off of conjecture of what might be in theory rather than reality.

Unless China changes, it will only advance against the US by the failings of the Americans.

I'm not talking about Chinese publications. I'd think most are low impact simply because they are in the Chinese language. I'm talking about Nature and the ISI Web of Knowledge citation index. Why does it matter if Chinese journals have low impact factors if Chinese researchers have the ability to publish in Western journals like Nature (which is rated as having the highest impact factor)? Even the Wikipedia article states this:

The impact factor of Chinese scientific journals is relatively low. In 1999, the top-cited journal—Mining and Geologica Sinica—had an impact factor of 1.487, and the average number of citations per article published in the Chinese journals covered by Science Citation Index was 0.326. One reason for the low impact factor is that Chinese scientists tend to use relatively few references in their publications (average, 6.6 references per article). A second reason is that scientists in China, like those in other countries, prefer to publish their best papers in major or top English-language journals. In fact, for such purposes as promotion to senior positions, Chinese scientists must have published in Western journals. According to the Institute of Science and Technology of China, the number of articles written by Chinese scientists and published in non-Chinese journals increased from 13,134 in 1995 to 24,476 in 1999—a 95% increase.

Do you question the quality of Nature, one of the most well-regarded scientific journals, or the citations in the ISI Web?

I indicated a reality of increasing publication in Nature and in being highly cited in the ISI Web. These writings are the basis of scientific discoveries and often of Nobel prizes in science. I don't know why you think it is irrelevant and conjecture:

China now publishes more than 6% of the papers published in Nature journals, according to the Nature Publishing Index 2011 China. Published today as a supplement to Nature, the Index provides yet more evidence that China is fast becoming a global leader in scientific publishing and scientific research.
Papers with authors from China represent 6.6% (225) of the 3425 papers published in Nature journals in 2011, up from 5.3% (152 papers) in 2010. By comparison, authors from China published just 12 papers in Nature journals in 2000.

The Nature Publishing Index 2011 China also presents a new analysis of ISI Web of Knowledge data, showing that China now publishes more than 10% of the world’s most cited scientific research. China increased its share of the top 1% of highly cited scientific articles from 1.85% (127 out of 6,874 articles) in 2001 to 11.3% (1,158 out of 10,238 articles) in 2011, and now ranks fourth globally.

The 2010 version of Nature's Publishing Index also indicates the rise of Chinese publications in the most well-regarded science journals:
http://download.bioon.com.cn/upload/201105/16135344_6087.pdf

Another indicator may be patent filings under the PCT:
http://www.wipo.int/pressroom/en/articles/2012/article_0001.html

Why did you completely ignore my evidence of Chinese publications in Nature, the scientific publication with the highest impact factor? Until there is actual evidence, you are basing it off of conjecture of what might be in theory rather than reality.

 

[GungHo]

Why not reduce the number of US carrier to like 6?
They'd still have three times or more aircraftcarriers than everyone else, but the savings of not having to run the remaining 5 ones could be put towards implementing public healthcare (or given to NASA).

Because they're an incredible capital investment and because having multiple carriers in multiple theaters increases your force projection astronomically. There's no one else in the world that can literally park 5 fully operational air bases within striking range of an enemy and also be able to protect all of their flanks well in advance of any possible attack. We're a superpower because we're a naval power and we're remote.

Do you seriously need a carrier to do that. You can do it with a decently fast ship. More like the military was trying to score some free PR points.

I don't think you have a concept for how monumentally large an aircraft carrier and its support group actually happen to be. They're floating military cities.

 

[numble]

Looks like they've finally tested landing and launching:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_dkmNz8rm0Y

 

[Upsidedown Fuji]

Looks like they've finally tested landing and launching:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_dkmNz8rm0Y

Any plans to build more and how many pilots do they have that are capable of a hook and line carrier landing?

 

[MasterOfPastures]

I'm hoping that by the time China finishes building it's 10th self-built carrier (20-30 years), the US pulls a surprise and reveals the first space-based defense platform sitting on a Lagrange point or in high orbit. Maybe they'll fall down the same hole the soviets did: overspend so much in certain items (nukes for soviets, carriers for china) that they beggar themselves into ruin.

 

[Valnen]

Do theirs have laser guns like ours will have in a couple years?

 

[Wyndstryker]

Do theirs have laser guns like ours will have in a couple years?

With the way things are going, once the laser guns are in service they'll copy it and release it 5 years later.

Rebuilt a Russian carrier
Copied Russian aircraft
Copied American carrier operation procedures

It's only a matter of time they'll copy everything else.

And even if the copy sucks, they'll just make a million more of them.

 

[Dead Man]

I'm hoping that by the time China finishes building it's 10th self-built carrier (20-30 years), the US pulls a surprise and reveals the first space-based defense platform sitting on a Lagrange point or in high orbit. Maybe they'll fall down the same hole the soviets did: overspend so much in certain items (nukes for soviets, carriers for china) that they beggar themselves into ruin.

Like the US is doing?

 

[CiSTM]

That's cool and all but what's the point of staffing a warship with a bunch of academics?

It's really not a warship, it's a "warship". Basically it's used to wield some minor power around seas of China but true purpose is to train and learn until China commissions their own build carriers.

 

[MasterOfPastures]

Like the US is doing?

Nukes were actually a response to that crazy spending. Eisenhower pushed for nuclear development because he saw the sense in owning nukes instead of battleships. But as soon as everyone else has them, it's back to horses and bayonets.

 

[Timedog]

China has no reason to build a huge military. No one is going to invade China. The only reason to be doing all this shit is to compete with the US on some meta level or do some world police shit at some point.

 

[Phoenician_Viking]

I'm hoping that by the time China finishes building it's 10th self-built carrier (20-30 years), the US pulls a surprise and reveals the first space-based defense platform sitting on a Lagrange point or in high orbit. Maybe they'll fall down the same hole the soviets did: overspend so much in certain items (nukes for soviets, carriers for china) that they beggar themselves into ruin.

Lol, if China´s economy is ruined, the US economy will follow. The US and China rely to much on each other economically and if one falls the second won´t be far behind. China was largely lucky to escape the latest recession, but it had an effect on China. And lol at you for wishing economic ruin on another country, yet alone the most popular country. You´re sad for wishing that 1.3 billion people suffer because of your damned insecurity.

China has no reason to build a huge military. No one is going to invade China. The only reason to be doing all this shit is to compete with the US on some meta level or do some world police shit at some point.

carriers = projection of power. But Russia has nuclear missiles that is also o projection of power. China´s projection of power is it growing economic power. Projection of power comes in different ways, and China is really upping its military both budget wise and technologically.

China needs to up its military powers to protect its interests around the world.

 

[ThoseDeafMutes]

China has no reason to build a huge military. No one is going to invade China. The only reason to be doing all this shit is to compete with the US on some meta level or do some world police shit at some point.

China does not currently have any reason for it, but China would certainly be interested in having the capability to do what the US can do - which is project military power to almost anywhere in the world. They probably don't have any short-term goals in mind for this carrier, but they want the capabilities of a true superpower for the long term.

With the way things are going, once the laser guns are in service they'll copy it and release it 5 years later.

I think 5 years is too generous, but it's no secret that playing catch up is cheaper than breaking new ground, even without technological espionage.

 

[Phoenician_Viking]

China does not currently have any reason for it, but China would certainly be interested in having the capability to do what the US can do - which is project military power to almost anywhere in the world. They probably don't have any short-term goals in mind for this carrier, but they want the capabilities of a true superpower for the long term.



I think 5 years is too generous, but it's no secret that playing catch up is cheaper than breaking new ground, even without technological espionage.

Does China, by itself, have the capability to build new innovative military hardware without playing catch up? I mean why build 4th generation aircraft when you can just start building 5th for example? They can reverse engineer a fighter jet and improve on it.

 

[antonz]

Its a decent carrier but as far as power goes its mediocre at best though when you figure they are looking to wield power over a ton of nations with no carriers it will suffice.

Technology wise its newer but its about on par with WWII era capacities etc

 

[MasterOfPastures]

Lol, if China´s economy is ruined, the US economy will follow. The US and China rely to much on each other economically and if one falls the second won´t be far behind. China was largely lucky to escape the latest recession, but it had an effect on China. And lol at you for wishing economic ruin on another country, yet alone the most popular country. You´re sad for wishing that 1.3 billion people suffer because of your damned insecurity.

Easy there, buddy. I can't put all of your words in my mouth at once.

China would do better to keep investing in cheap asymmetric weaponry than try to match the US tit-for-tat, regardless of whether or not they just want to project their influence over their corner of the world. Downing satellites and sinking carriers with missiles is a good start. But whatever the case, China is heading for it's own huge economic crash in the next few years. The ghost cities being built show that much.

 

[GrizzNKev]

That ramp gives the boat terrible aesthetics but in practice it looks pretty cool.

 

[ThoseDeafMutes]

Does China, by itself, have the capability to build new innovative military hardware without playing catch up? I mean why build 4th generation aircraft when you can just start building 5th for example? They can reverse engineer a fighter jet and improve on it.

Chinese Scientists and Engineers are by no means inferior, what they are lacking is the existing technological base to build from. In your example, you can't build an indigenous 5th generation aircraft until you have experience with 4th generation ones, because the technology of one requires the other as a starting point. It's not easy to get their hands on a 5th generation fighter to just copy, for example, which is why they are trying to develop their own.

Technology wise its newer but its about on par with WWII era capacities etc

Let's not go crazy with the mud slinging, lol. It's a late cold-war USSR equivalent carrier, which means it is indeed inferior to her US counterparts, because Soviet carriers were always worse than American ones in terms of both capabilities and doctrine, but it's still lightyears beyond a WWII era aircraft carrier.

 

[xenist]

Easy there, buddy. I can't put all of your words in my mouth at once.

China would do better to keep investing in cheap asymmetric weaponry than try to match the US tit-for-tat, regardless of whether or not they just want to project their influence over their corner of the world.

It's not directly about cost effectiveness. It's about having a big bulge in your pants. It's about parking it where it can be seen while there are people negotiating selling you their minerals. If the US has carriers and you hope to compete with them diplomatically you have to have carriers.

I also have to laugh at those thinking of the US Navy laughing at it. You better hope they don't.

 

[Safe Bet]

It's not even a full-size Carrier.

Not to mention the lack of a Fleet to protect and support it.

 

[waypoetic]

Is it happy to see me? Dat front..

And what's up with the flags? China, we know you're not our friend/ally. Stahp fooliin uss!

 

[CiSTM]

Its a decent carrier but as far as power goes its mediocre at best though when you figure they are looking to wield power over a ton of nations with no carriers it will suffice.

Technology wise its newer but its about on par with WWII era capacities etc

The carrier itself was build in mid 80s and retrofitted now, so WWII comparasion is far fetched.

It's not even a full-size Carrier.

Not to mention the lack of a Fleet to protect and support it.

China does have warships, so there is a fleet once it set sails into to the brave new world. Also it's almost on bar with Nimitz class (Supercarrier) when it comes to size. So it indeed is full-sized carrier.

 

[Safe Bet]

Also it's almost on bar with Nimitz class (Supercarrier) when it comes to size. So it indeed is full-sized carrier.

hrmn..

I had no clue.

Assumed it was a mini-carrier based on design.

 

[Synth_floyd]

Too bad Mitt Romney wasn't elected president. He'd close the aircraft carrier gap, weapons gap and the soon to be mine shaft gap.

 

[Dynamite Shikoku]

Japan, you are already dead

 

[michaelius]

Does China, by itself, have the capability to build new innovative military hardware without playing catch up? I mean why build 4th generation aircraft when you can just start building 5th for example? They can reverse engineer a fighter jet and improve on it.

They don't have too.
Everyone else is building theirs using chinese parts

Also even if this one is inferrior you can bet pilots and officers trained on this one will be backbone of crew for next 10

 

[dalin80]

India is also currently putting a lot of effort into trying to get a few carrier hulls in the water although that's proving difficult-

There is the INS Viraat, ex-Centaur class British carrier built in 1953 making it one of the oldest serving ships in the world and is expected to still be in service til 2030. The Centaur class were study built to survive hits which has allowed the ships long life but the ships design if far from optimal for today's aircraft.

Then we have the INS Vikramaditya, ex soviet rust bucket that has been slowly rotting in the Ukraine fallowing the fall of the soviet union, was supposed to have been purchased on the cheap for a quick and easy recon job to add to India's surface fleet. It has now cost India several billion for a ship that tried to blow itself up on its first run out due to issues with the boilers and has added at least another year on to the already overdue delivery date.

And finally the INS Vikrant, India's first domestically built aircraft carrier, facing massive cost overuns and delays as the shipyard and associated supply chains have put there hands up and admitting to not quite knowing what they are doing.

Tricky business building a carrier especially now there seems to be a bit of arms race kicking off.

 

[tino]

Philippines literally has one ship in the their whole navy. China doesn't need to have a bigger carrier than they have now. They are going to built a home made one anyway, probobly with a catapult launcher.

On a side note, I can't get used to such sexy looking flighters from PLA. China has had ghetto looking military planes for so many years.

 

[Timbuktu]

But whatever the case, China is heading for it's own huge economic crash in the next few years. The ghost cities being built show that much.

Can't wait for another decade of shitty global economy.

 

[SiteSeer]

On a side note, I can't get used to such sexy looking flighters from PLA. China has had ghetto looking military planes for so many years.

dude, two stealth shaped jets in as many years. i, for one, welcome our new sexy stealth overlords!

 

[dalin80]

dude, two stealth shaped jets in as many years. i, for one, welcome our new sexy stealth overlords!

Built quite quickly as well, scratching out the 'property of the US air force' sticker from the designs didn't seem to take to long.

 

[SiteSeer]

Built quite quickly as well, scratching out the 'property of the US air force' sticker from the designs didn't seem to take to long.

my bad, i forgot america owns everything.

 

[TacticalFox88]

dude, two stealth shaped jets in as many years. i, for one, welcome our new sexy stealth overlords!

That plane looks badass then a motherfucker.

But still, the F-22 would rapestomp it. Believe me when I say the Top Brass (no matter how many people believe otherwise) treat the Chinese military with complete indifference.