News Stories

[flying ^]

pls summarize this for us non-chinese speakers

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4t54Q...eature=related

[yezhanquan]

Originally Posted by Kamui4356

It is better to cut back on fishing and put some fishermen out of work, than allow it to continue unchecked, driving the populations to near extinction, and putting all the fishermen out of work.

Sadly, that may be the end-game scenario.

Besides my personal dislike of fish (I think I eat too much of it, thanks to Mom), I guess I'm keenly aware of the fishing crisis. (Can't even remember the last time I ate tuna in a family setting, aka not around with colleagues or friends) Point is: people's habits have to change. Tuna lovers have to recognise that they must cut back on their demand, or there won't be any left.

[Mr_Paper]

Originally Posted by Hooves

To me it looks like the F-22, but I'm poor at judging which plane is which so I'm probably wrong here but China is really on a stream with their inventions...

Originally Posted by MeoTwister5

Oddly enough it looks like the Raptor sans the streamlined engine exhaust.

It is the best knock off of an F-22 the Chinese could produce. It is larger, slower and has greatly reduced stealth capabilities compared to the F-22 and is lacking most of the innovative features of the F-22. It has only limit supersonic functionality and no thrust vectoring to speak of (they added canard wings to the nose in an attempt to compensate).

Stay classy China, stay classy.

[Ithekro]

My knee-jerk reaction to a Chinese F-22 would be to blame the Clinton Administration for all those tech trades in the 1990s.

Purely reactionary response however without anything else.

[Kamui4356]

It doesn't look anything like an F-22. It has some shared gen 5 features, but it's a larger aircraft that clearly shows Chinese design trends. The wing layout for example, has more in common with a J-10 than an F-22. The size would suggest that it's also designed for a different role, likely an interceptor or strike aircraft vs an air superiority fighter. I'd expect an F-22 or a PAK-FA to rip the thing apart in air to air combat. Though it'd be interesting how it compares in air to air combat vs an F-35.

When I first saw pictures, I thought of this:



Which raises the question of how long before Clint Eastwood steals it.

[Jinto]

I don't know. Avionics ???, flight computers ???, and no thrust vectoring using this design... is it actually an advancement to their Su-27 rip offs? I mean just because something does look like stealth technology doesn't mean it 1) flys 2) is stealthy 3) can utilize the stealthiness 4) is maneuverable. Maybe I am just pessimistic here, but I don't think they are that far in their own aircraft research/development yet. Imo the stealth factor is overrated, even the F22 in a simulated BVRAAM attack (Beyond Visual Range Air-to-Air Missile) was visible for counter meassures of previous generation Eurofighters. I guess whats more important is cruise speed, range of aircraft, costs and attack/counter meassures.

[Kamui4356]

Originally Posted by Jinto

even the F22 in a simulated BVRAAM attack (Beyond Visual Range Air-to-Air Missile) was visible for counter meassures of previous generation Eurofighters.

From what I hear, F-22s in combat exercises are fitted with reflectors to increase their radar returns. I don't have a firm source on that, so it could be a rumor though.

[flying ^]

Originally Posted by Mr_Paper

It is the best knock off of an F-22 the Chinese could produce. It is larger, slower and has greatly reduced stealth capabilities compared to the F-22 and is lacking most of the innovative features of the F-22. It has only limit supersonic functionality and no thrust vectoring to speak of (they added canard wings to the nose in an attempt to compensate).

Stay classy China, stay classy.

what?

this sounds... dismissive

this leak, should make east asians under US protectorate tremble in fear!

also, those new dong fengs have enougjh range to keep US fleet out of philippines

[Kamui4356]

Originally Posted by flying ^

what?

this sounds... dismissive

this leak, should make east asian nations under US protectorate tremble in fear!

also. those new dong fengs have enougjh range to keep US fleet out of philippines

The problem being this plane is roughly where the F-22 was in development in 1990. It hasn't even flown yet.

[Ithekro]

Considering in the article you linked the Department of Defense was dismissive of the new fighter as well for the reasoning that the Chinese haven,t gotten a handle on their fourth generation fighters much less fifth generation.

One the Americans, Europeans, and likely Russians still have a technological edge on the Chinese and two, have numerical superiority with the most modern jets.

[ZephyrLeanne]

Originally Posted by Kamui4356

Which raises the question of how long before Clint Eastwood steals it.

Nah, the question now is to ask: How long before the (former) governor of Kallifurniah hijacks it. Since he's got a lotta free time.

In other news...

Christchurch laughs off bid by Hobart to poach Antarctic service
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/n...ectid=10698084

Bob Parker has described as a "bit of a joke" lobbying by Australia to have the long-standing United States Antarctic operations in the city relocated across the Tasman.


And the United States Antarctic Programme itself has no plans to leave New Zealand and is, in fact, looking to extend its presence in Christchurch.
The apparent efforts to poach Operation Deep Freeze, after 50 years of being based in Christchurch, are revealed in a WikiLeaks cable, which comments on a discussion last year between Australian Environment, Heritage and Arts Minister Peter Garrett and US Ambassador Jeffrey Bleich.


"Garrett pointed to the availability of air transport from Australia in only four hours [compared with eight hours for US aircraft based in New Zealand] as a strong incentive to travel there, and suggested senior USG [US Government] officials interested in travelling in Antarctica could use Australia as a base vice (sic) the existing infrastructure in New Zealand," Bleich wrote in the cable.


Mr Parker said facts outlined in the cable were wrong. Christchurch offered a more direct route to the American airfields in Antarctica than the Australian link from Hobart, and times depended on aircraft type.



"I'm not the least bit concerned about this leak. In fact, if I was Mr Garrett, I would be a bit embarrassed about it because it does portray a significant lack of understanding of both the relationship and the logistical common sense of using Christchurch," he said.


"It's a bit of a joke really. In saying that, I'm certainly not taking for granted the relationship that we have with both the US and the National Science Foundation [manager of the Antarctic programme], which we value above the economic returns it brings to our city. We value it because Christchurch City and Operation Deep Freeze are brothers-in-arms."


National Science Foundation representative Art Brown told the Herald: "We have no policy discussions, and are making no plans, to relocate from Christchurch.
"In fact, right now, we are in negotiation with the Christchurch Airport for extending one of our leases, which would be an indication that we have an interest in staying in Christchurch in the long term."


Christchurch offered an international airport, a port and an excellent flight industry and medical infrastructure, Mr Brown said.
"Those are key things for us. And I would also say that through the years we have developed mutually shared values ... and mutually beneficial programmes."

That aside... PETER GARRETT!? He's a MINISTER!?
As in, THIS Peter Garrett!?

Julia Gillard, bad choice...

And, FYI...

http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i...to+ross+island

Christchurch, New Zealand to Ross Island: 3796 km, 4h 20m

http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i...to+ross+island

Hobart, Tasmania to Ross Island: 3965 km, 4h 30m

10 minutes! Oh come on... The cost of moving isn't worth it anyway...
Peter Garrett, dd you fail maths?

[SaintessHeart]

Originally Posted by Jinto

I don't know. Avionics ???, flight computers ???, and no thrust vectoring using this design... is it actually an advancement to their Su-27 rip offs? I mean just because something does look like stealth technology doesn't mean it 1) flys 2) is stealthy 3) can utilize the stealthiness 4) is maneuverable. Maybe I am just pessimistic here, but I don't think they are that far in their own aircraft research/development yet. Imo the stealth factor is overrated, even the F22 in a simulated BVRAAM attack (Beyond Visual Range Air-to-Air Missile) was visible for counter measures of previous generation Eurofighters. I guess whats more important is cruise speed, range of aircraft, costs and attack/counter measures.

The plane looks more like a PAK-FA ripoff for me.

As for Stealth Fighter lookalikes, they are built to almost look the same because of one thing - a internal weapons system to reduce an imagery ping by an electronic eye. The "sleek and futuristic" designs are simply to counter imaging technologies; a stealth machine's real stealth still lies with its internalised D/ECM (Detection/Electronic Countermeasure) electronics.

[Tom Bombadil]

Originally Posted by flying ^

pls summarize this for us non-chinese speakers

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4t54Q...eature=related

A few quick points. The selections are not claimed to be complete or impartial by any means.

• The current Chinese planes in service is 20 years behind the super-jets in the US or the west.
• The hongkong commentator mentioned one big weakness of the Chinese plane is the engine, the mechanics need improvement as well, while the Beijing commentator said that the mechanics is on par with the rest of the world, and some areas (avionics, etc.) even have an advantage (which I consider mostly bluffing).
• The new planes are scheduled to make the test flight in one year and deployment in 3 years.
• The hongkong commentator mentioned that the Chinese air force has yet to be well integrated with aircraft carrier.
• One interesting fact they mentioned is that in the last year, there were 44 confrontational encounters of Chinese and Japanese jets in the disputed waters.

From my point of view, this is most likely a feel-good project so they can get more money from the top. Most of the youtube video consists of still images, so it is too early to say anything about its capability. Rumor says that they are also developing a new engine for this plane, on which a youtube commenter sharply pointed out that there is simply no precedence of any country developing a brand new engine for a new plane. As for its significance, it merely confirms a well known trend that China is on a fast track to modernize its military. However, considering the recent tensions in east Asia, it couldn't be more ill timed.

Anyway, the impact of this unveiling of next generation of jets will be quite ironic. It is very likely that the plane will fail to deliver many of its promises since it is a matter of fact that certain areas of technology is not there yet. On the other hand, the news itself will prompt other countries to allocate more resources in advancing their own air force, which only will make the gap even larger, and confrontations more fierce and devastating. In other words, totally the opposite of the effects they plan to achieve.

[Kamui4356]

Originally Posted by Tom Bombadil

The new planes are scheduled to make the test flight in one year and deployment in 3 years.

They're being hopelessly optimistic about the development time of a 5th gen aircraft. Sure, you can do a lot better than the 20 years the US took for the F-22, but 3 years, and aren't expecting flight tests for another year yet? The US is projecting 2016 for the F-35 now, and it has production variants undergoing flight testing, and the Russians are projecting 2015 for the PAK-FA, which I suspect will be pushed back, and it's already been in flight testing for almost a year.

[ZephyrLeanne]

Starbucks gets a new face – and drops the mugs

Major rebranding will see coffee chain remove the lettering from its logo and withdraw its distinctive heavy mugs from shops


http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2011/jan/05/starbucks-rebranding-new-face-drops-mugs

Starbucks' familiar chunky white mugs will disappear from its British stores this year as part of a major rebranding exercise that will also see the American company drop its name from its well-known logo.


The revamp will make the face of the woman who appears in the logo – known as the "Starbucks siren" – bigger and dispense with the white-on-green lettering that surrounds her. Chief executive Howard Schultz told staff tonight that the rebranding was a "meaningful update" that fitted in with Starbucks' plans to increase its groceries business, which already sells branded tea and ice-cream in supermarkets.


Schultz returned to the helm of the coffee chain in 2008 after sales

stalled during the recession and identified that one of the problems was the "commoditisation" of the brand, which in the past has been a target for anti-globalisation campaigners. He has since led a successful turnaround that saw nearly 1,000 stores close, mainly in the US, and has introduced a series of innovations including a new customer loyalty programme and the launch of its instant coffee brand Via.


Starbucks has 700 shops in Britain. Its UK managing director, Darcy Willson-Rymer, denied that the subtler approach to branding reflected a desire to look less corporate as consumers tire of identikit high streets: "We are not trying to be something else – we are definitely trying to look like a Starbucks," he said. "The number one letter in my postbag [says] 'please can I have a Starbucks in my area?'."


The big heavy mugs used in stores, which Willson-Rymer said had become a "bit dated", are being replaced with bone china as the company responds to increasingly sophisticated coffee consumers and tough competition on the high street.


Starbucks would not say how much is being spent on the overhaul but in Britain alone some 140,000 cups will be replaced. The new tableware will start arriving in March, when the new branding will also begin to appear.


This will not be the first makeover the Starbucks siren has received. Her image has been cropped several times: she was originally topless, with her mermaid's tail on show.


The company has also brought its store design in-house and will bring a series of new formats to Britain this year, including its first small "neighbourhood" store in London's Soho, which will boast a restored Georgian facade. It will also open its first "walk-through" store on Borough High Street in east London, which will have no seats and will be just 17 feet wide.

All right, a few things.


1. launch of its instant coffee brand Via.
What, Starbucks is so desperate, they're going into instant? After telling the world to frown and disdain instant? Goodness, that's like Willow Rosenberg losing her magic.


2. one of the problems was the "commoditisation" of the brand.
Then what are you doing selling instant coffee and teabags in supermarkets?

3. big heavy mugs used in stores, which Willson-Rymer said had become a "bit dated", are being replaced with bone china
Bone china? Yeah right, that was the hallmark of Starbucks - the heavy mugs lent respectability and gravitas to the coffee - bone china is more for tea (cools down faster)

4. first "walk-through" store on Borough High Street in east London, which will have no seats and will be just 17 feet wide.
Hello, I go to SBUX for the ambience, ever since you people insisted on over-roasting your coffee.
(Even the "how to grind your coffee" pamphlets are all WRONG: I use a french press and I find their grind TOO FINE. I might as well just boil the coffee beans)

5. revamp will make the face of the woman who appears in the logo – known as the "Starbucks siren" – bigger and dispense with the white-on-green lettering that surrounds her.
Fine, the lettering was quite dated. BUT SO WAS THE SIREN! Maybe you should just have "Starbucks" in fancy handwriting.

Look, I'm so nice, I'll include an example.



Honestly, isn't that up to their (obviously failing) Marketing department to figure out?

[ganbaru]

More than 200 Chinese children poisoned by lead
http://ca.reuters.com/article/topNew...7051LI20110106

[Ithekro]

One advantage I would give to the Chinese in terms of advancing their technology is that they don't have to prove it works. They already know it works since they Americans or others are already using the technology. This is why their space program can move much faster than the American and Russian programs...they aren't using trial and error and exploring the unknown. They are copying past success so they can hit tech levels rapidly.
1. Test to see if system A works like Russian system A....check, good, move on.
2. Test to see if system B works like American system C....check, good, move on.
3. Test to see if system C works like Russian system F...no, okay step back.
4. Test to see if system C works like Russian system E...check, okay back on track....etc, etc....

Troubles happen because while they might know something works, they might not have all the little details to get things to work in total...such as the engines in this J-20's cases.

[MrTerrorist]

PROMISES, PROMISES: GOP drops some out of the gate

If there's one thing i learn about US politics, it's that no matter who rules the House, the party in charge will always fail to keep the promise they were elected for.

[Jinto]

Originally Posted by SaintessHeart

The plane looks more like a PAK-FA ripoff for me.

As for Stealth Fighter lookalikes, they are built to almost look the same because of one thing - a internal weapons system to reduce an imagery ping by an electronic eye. The "sleek and futuristic" designs are simply to counter imaging technologies; a stealth machine's real stealth still lies with its internalised D/ECM (Detection/Electronic Countermeasure) electronics.

I know that much... can you tell me how they want to camouflage their thermal signatures when using barely covered jet engines? Thats the problem with most stealthy designs... flies like a brick because the aero dynamics are bad => higher engine power needed => more thermal signature (except if there was something done in that regard with the engine and directed vent off) => more fuel consumption, shorter range, slower => less durable. I really don't know if it is a critical advantage in air to air or land/sea to air combat. Especially if the radars advance like they do at the moment. Almost all the newest NATO frigates come with radars that can detect so called stealth fighters (question is if they can also id them... detection alone may not be sufficient in an attack).

[Tsuyoshi]

lawmakers won't be allowed to propose changes to the legislation despite Republican promises to end such heavy-handed tactics from the days of Democratic control.

There goes Freedom of Speech