China officially admitted "Red B2"!

[Cyberian]

What are the chances the government will let the people see the plane in this decade? Or, must we wait for the plane to first attack, Philippines, Japan and Vietnam and then make it public?

 

[canadian icehole]

What are the chances the government will let the people see the plane in this decade? Or, must we wait for the plane to first attack, Philippines, Japan and Vietnam and then make it public?

My understanding of their methods is to first release a grainy picture of it followed by more clear pictures. The political and or technological situation will determine when the first grainy picture will be released.

 

[Martian2]

when will china come up with an original concept instead of. copying USA

Chinese ASBM is an original design and capability

1. Chinese ASBM is an original design and Mach 10 carrier-killer. It is not a copy (see citation below) and cannot be stopped by CIWS or RIM-116.

2. For military weapons, form follows function. China wants to build an intercontinental stealth bomber to retaliate against the other superpower. The only design choice is a fuel-efficient flying-wing lifting-body. Thus, the design must resemble a B-2. Form dictates function in many circumstances.

----------

It looks like the Chinese ASBM (anti-ship ballistic missile) has been deployed. The U.S. military says it has an "immediate need" to develop a missile to replicate the Chinese ASBM flight characteristic to enable tests of American naval defense capability.

Eventually, after years of tests, the U.S. might be able to stop one Chinese ASBM. Possibly even a few. However, can the U.S. stop 100 ASBMs in five minutes?

Simulated ASBM strikes on aircraft carrier deck mock-up on land.

----------

China’s Anti-Carrier Ballistic Missile Now Opposite Taiwan | Bloomberg

"China’s Anti-Carrier [Ballistic] Missile Now Opposite Taiwan, Flynn Says
By Tony Capaccio - Apr 18, 2013 4:37 PM ET

The Chinese military has deployed its new anti-ship ballistic missile along its southern coast facing Taiwan, the Pentagon’s top military intelligence officer said today.

The missile, designated the DF-21D, is one of a “growing number of conventionally armed” new weapons China is deploying to the region, adding to more than 1,200 short-range missiles opposite the island democracy, U.S. Army Lieutenant General Michael Flynn, the Defense Intelligence Agency director, said in a statement to the Senate Armed Services Committee.

Flynn’s reference to the DF-21D follows one made by U.S. Navy Admiral Samuel Locklear, head of the U.S. Pacific Command, in congressional testimony on April 9. He highlighted the “initial deployment of a new anti-ship missile that we believe is designed to target U.S. aircraft carriers.”

Flynn’s brief reference to the DF-21D today is significant because it advances the DIA’s assessment last year, when U.S. Army Lieutenant General Ronald Burgess, then the agency’s director, said China’s military is “probably preparing to deploy” the weapon.

The disclosure may spark increased scrutiny in Congress this year about the vulnerability of the Navy’s aircraft carriers, including the new Gerald R. Ford class being built by Newport News, Virginia-based Huntington Ingalls Industries Inc.. (HII)

The Navy estimates that the first new carrier will cost at least $12.3 billion, and the service’s budget request for the fiscal year beginning Oct. 1 includes $1.68 billion for new aircraft carriers, more than double this year’s $781.7 million request. Of that, $945 million would pay for continued design and construction of the second Ford-class carrier, the USS John F. Kennedy.

‘Immediate Need’

Michael Gilmore, the Pentagon’s director of operational testing, warned in his January 2012 annual report that the Navy lacked a target needed to check its defenses against the DF-21D. The Navy had an “immediate need” for a test missile able to replicate the DF-21D’s trajectory, Gilmore said.

Last July, Gilmore told Navy Secretary Ray Mabus in a memo that testing to evaluate the new carriers’ “ability to withstand shock and survive in combat” would be postponed until after the Kennedy is built, and may not be completed for seven years.

The DF-21D is intended to give China “the capability to attack large ships, particularly aircraft carriers, in the western Pacific,” the Pentagon’s 2012 China report said. The report cites estimates that the missile’s range exceeds 930 miles (1,500 kilometers).

Carrier Hunters

The missiles are designed be be launched to a general location, where their guidance systems take over and spot carriers to attack with warheads intended to destroy the ships’ flight decks, launch catapults and control towers.

U.S. Chief of Naval Operations Admiral Jonathan Greenert told defense reporters in March 2012 that the Navy is evaluating how to defeat the missile during all phases of flight, using methods such as jamming the missiles’ sensors, reducing the electronic emissions from U.S. ships, and intercepting the missile.

“Some call that links of a chain,” Greenert said. “You want to break as many links as possible.”

In its fiscal 2014 Budget Highlights book, the Navy said it’s working a “kill chain” against an unspecified weapon.

The Navy, the book says, wants to integrate the capabilities of the Falls Church, Virginia-based Northrop Grumman Corp.’s (NOC) E-2D Advanced Hawkeye surveillance aircraft; Bethesda, Maryland-based Lockheed Martin Corp.’s (LMT) Aegis surveillance and missile defense system; and Waltham, Massachusetts-based Raytheon Co.’s (RTN) Cooperative Engagement Capability sensor network linking ships and Standard Missile-6 interceptors “to keep pace with the evolving threat.”

Analysts including Mark Gunzinger, a senior fellow with the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, and some naval officers worry that the new carriers, while formidable warships, may not be able to get close enough for their planes to attack enemies, such as China and Iran, that are armed with precision-guided anti-ship cruise and ballistic missiles."

[Note: Thank you to EastWind for the second picture.]

 

[A1Kaid]

^ With this capability China can sink India's air craft carrier, crippling the Indian navy in the event military conflict arose in the Indian Ocean or Malacca strait.

China tests and "sinks' DF-21D missile on mock US aircraft carrier in Gobi desert

 

[Wright]

The Chinese, as other East Asians, are gentically gifted in engineering due to the highest average spatial IQ in the world, higher than Germans, and far higher than the Ashkenazis Jews even who get the lead in verbal IQ though. Given some ´recoving` time, Chinese engineering will lead the world again.

Arabs and Indians also claim the same.

 

[gambit]

Eventually, after years of tests, the U.S. might be able to stop one Chinese ASBM. Possibly even a few. However, can the U.S. stop 100 ASBMs in five minutes?

We do not need to stop all 100, assuming China can launch that many in the first place. If 100 are need to assault one ship, that does not say much about the quality of the weapon.

If 100 are needed to assault one ship, we only need to seduce/distract most and stop the few.

 

[BeyondHeretic]

haha , chinese officials watch too much TV

 

[Akasa]

when will china come up with an original concept instead of. copying USA

When aircraft can be designed with no wings.

 

[Beast]

when will china come up with an original concept instead of. copying USA

It's never about copy but using a basic physic concept of RCS reduction. US copy the Nazi WWII stealth bomber concept. Becos this shaping is proven to be the most effective way reducing RCS while still maintain certain flight profile.

I shown you the picture to see who copy who first.

Nazi Stealth bomber in WWII

American B-2 bomber

If China red B-2 end up like the shaping of Nazi Bomber or American B-2 is nothing surprised and its never about copy. Its using a best shaping concept. You can make a very original bomber design shaping that is totally different from B-2 or Nazi stealth bomber but retains a huge RCS. Then what is the point? Are we entering a beauty contest or fighting a war? Tell me?

 

[BeyondHeretic]

It's never about copy but using a basic physic concept of RCS reduction. US copy the Nazi WWII stealth bomber concept. Becos this shaping is proven to be the most effective way reducing RCS while still maintain certain flight profile.

I shown you the picture to see who copy who first.

Nazi Stealth bomber in WWII

American B-2 bomber

If China red B-2 end up like the shaping of Nazi Bomber or American B-2 is nothing surprised and its never about copy. Its using a best shaping concept. You can make a very original bomber design shaping that is totally different from B-2 or Nazi stealth bomber but retains a huge RCS. Then what is the point? Are we entering a beauty contest or fighting a war? Tell me?

true , the british made the radar , and nazis made that to evade that

 

[Fsjal]

The Chinese, as other East Asians, are gentically gifted in engineering due to the highest average spatial IQ in the world, higher than Germans, and far higher than the Ashkenazis Jews even who get the lead in verbal IQ though. Given some ´recoving` time, Chinese engineering will lead the world again.

Some people find this offensive. Since I am Southeast Asian myself, I am a little bit offended, but sadly, this is fact, not fiction.

 

[BeyondHeretic]

Some people find this offensive. Since I am Southeast Asian myself, I am a little bit offended, but sadly, this is fact, not fiction.

you mean jews?

 

[RangerPK]

Agreed.

Or

It is the most efficient (i.e. faster, cheaper, safer hence overall better) to "copy" as far and as many as you could when you are behind. Fixed for ya

I don't see what is wrong with "copying" technology. Most countries only wish they were capable of reverse engineering technology.

 

[BeyondHeretic]

I don't see what is wrong with "copying" technology. Most countries only wish they were capable of reverse engineering technology.

true , the chinese are masters of that , only they seem to use rare earth metals to construct the model

 

[shuttler]

I dont think we have seen a clear pic yet. do we?

Also as stated by the OP, the pix posted was just an american B-2

According to the OP:

The consensus on the mil fora seems to be that it would be slightly smaller than B2, aiming mainly to cover Guan, Hawaii to the East (or the US East Coast in case it's a bigger version), Darwin(AUS) in the South, Diego Garcia / entire India in the S West, Western Asia/Eastern Africa in the West.

it would be slightly smaller than B2

this is the only mentioning of the Chinese bomber's comparison with the american B2.

We basically have zippo idea of what this "China-made Bomber" looks like? Where is the copying frenzies about, out of the vacuum?