ZT China's latest F-80 air to air missiles

[Viper0011.]

I've no doubt that their engineers took a darn close look at whatever information regarding the EODAS they could get their hands on (which may or may not include stolen data), but the fact of the matter is that nobody knows which aspect of the F-35's blueprints they stolen, how much was compromised, and whether the EODAS was part of it at all.

How do you think these super confidential systems work? It's not my yahoo account you hacked and stole my family pictures. These are sophisticated systems and have multiple levels of logging.

So may be Gambit and I, and some others on here don't know "how much" was compromised. But TRUST ME, folks responsible to monitor these hacking attempts and espionage related areas DO KNOW and with EXACT Quantity.

 

[gambit]

I've no doubt that their engineers took a darn close look at whatever information regarding the EODAS they could get their hands on (which may or may not include stolen data), but the fact of the matter is that nobody knows which aspect of the F-35's blueprints they stolen, how much was compromised, and whether the EODAS was part of it at all.

Granted, there is indeed a possibility that their new sensor indeed has stolen components, given the aesthetic similarities between the two. Nonetheless, until further evidence comes into view, the accusation of "reverse engineering" in this case will remain as such: an accusation.

You do not need to have the components. In industrial espionage, plans on how to use EXISTING machines into new machines that do something new are just as good as having the physical goods.

Take my industry -- semiconductor -- for example. Does my competition -- Samsung -- have wafer processing chemicals ? Of course they do. Do they have devices that controls temperatures of those chemicals ? Of course they do. Do they have robotic benches that processes those wafers ? Of course they do. In fact, when I used to work for Santa Clara Plastics, later SCP Global, my clients were competitors of each other and everybody knows SCP sells to everybody. What matter are the recipes that contains the precise amount of chemicals, the temperatures, the timing, etc. Those recipes are the equivalent of 'state secrets' vital to company success. Companies buy each other products and dissect them under the SEM all the time. From that I can guess of those recipes, but nothing beat having the actual recipes themselves.

Distributed Aperture System (DAS) was not a Chinese innovation and whatever Chinese fighters have them, no matter in what variations, it is true that China copied from US.

 

[Oldman1]

what's so special about tracking giant falcon 9 rocket launch? you can see it from bazzilion miles away even with naked eyes without any special sensor. small fighter jets and AAMs don't generate that much heat or long huge hot smoke trail.. lol

here's pics of missile tests from hundreds of miles away taken by supa consumer cell phone cameras

‘A God’s Eye View Of The Battlefield:’ Gen. Hostage On The F-35 « Breaking Defense - Defense industry news, analysis and commentary

LOL! You seem to have forgotten that fighter jets and missiles do emit heat. Even for an instant it pops up. Hence the General in the video I posted mentioned that they can detect stealth fighters at least 5 times the radar range of most fighter planes to 10 times as much. Its that sensitive. And if you think that pilots should depend on eyes or regular cameras from pics you post to see beyond 1,000 miles or so, then China wouldn't need such technology right? This system is very useful to detect fighter planes, bombers, air to air missile launches, ballistic missile launches, as well as surface to air missile launches.

Sensors, Data And Decisions

The DAS is a remarkably sensitive and discriminating set of six sensors that gives the pilot data not just from in front of his aircraft, but directly below, above and to the sides — in military parlance he’s got 360 degree situational awareness. How sensitive is the system? I’ve been told by two sources that the DAS spotted a missile launch from 1,200 miles away during a Red Flag exercise in Alaska. But DAS, just as with the older Defense Support Satellites used to search the world for missile launches, may not know exactly what it’s looking at right away.

That’s where the F-35’s data fusion library comes in, combing through threat information to decide what the plane has detected. The plane, after combing through thousands of possible signatures, may suggest the pilot use his Eletro-Optical Targeting System (EOTS) or his AESA radar to gather more data, depending on the situation. The F-35 that spots the apparent missile launch will share its data with other F-35s and the Combined Air and Space Operations Center (CAOC), which will be managing all the data from US and allied aircraft and satellites so that bigger computers on the ground can crunch the data from those sensors and make recommendations if any single plane hasn’t gathered enough information with enough fidelity. (Of course, the CAOC can also do that whole command thing and coordinate the F-35s flying with other aircraft, ships and ground troops.)

The loop will be complete once a target is identified. Then the plane’s fusion center will recommend targets, which weapons to use and which targets should be killed first. Given the Chinese government’s vast and persistent espionage enterprise it won’t be surprising if the J-20s boast some of the F-35’s capabilities, but I have yet to speak with anyone in the Pentagon or the intelligence community who says the Chinese appear to have developed software and sensor capabilities as good as those on the F-35.

Northrop Grumman reports success for F-35 Lightning device - UPI.com

BALTIMORE, Feb. 11 (UPI) -- U.S. company Northrop Grumman reports that detection of hostile ground fire has been added to the capabilities of its Electro-Optical Distributed Aperture System.

The AN/AAQ-37 was designed for use by F-35 Lightning IIs for simultaneously detecting and tracking aircraft and missiles in every direction and for providing visual imagery for day or night navigation and targeting purposes.


Northrop said the new capability was demonstrated by the AN/AAQ-37 DAS while being flown aboard a test aircraft. The Distributed Aperture System detected and located tanks that were firing live rounds during preparations for a military exercise.

"Although hostile fire detection is not an F-35 requirement for the DAS, the system design makes it ideal for this mission," Northrop Grumman said. "This inherent capability enables DAS to harvest, process and deliver key battlespace information to ground forces and other aircraft autonomously, without the need for cueing or increasing pilot workload.

"The ability to gather this live fire data expands the mission possibilities of the sensor to include close air support and ground fire targeting."

In addition to detecting artillery, the system has also demonstrated a capability to simultaneously detect and pinpoint the location of rockets and anti-aircraft artillery fired in a wide area, Northrop said.

 

[Akasa]

You do not need to have the components. In industrial espionage, plans on how to use EXISTING machines into new machines that do something new are just as good as having the physical goods.

Take my industry -- semiconductor -- for example. Does my competition -- Samsung -- have wafer processing chemicals ? Of course they do. Do they have devices that controls temperatures of those chemicals ? Of course they do. Do they have robotic benches that processes those wafers ? Of course they do. In fact, when I used to work for Santa Clara Plastics, later SCP Global, my clients were competitors of each other and everybody knows SCP sells to everybody. What matter are the recipes that contains the precise amount of chemicals, the temperatures, the timing, etc. Those recipes are the equivalent of 'state secrets' vital to company success. Companies buy each other products and dissect them under the SEM all the time. From that I can guess of those recipes, but nothing beat having the actual recipes themselves.

Distributed Aperture System (DAS) was not a Chinese innovation and whatever Chinese fighters have them, no matter in what variations, it is true that China copied from US.

The argument's fault lies in the fact that so far, we simply don't know whether the Chinese EOTS is related to the F-35's EOTS, the assumption of which ultimately emanated from a shared role and appearance. Granted, there is a possibility that the two are indirectly related to each other, since they happen to be the only two such systems that exist (apart from the J-20's EOTS), but I find it a tad difficult to believe that no other engineer on earth could've conceived a system that functions like the EOTS when it comes to putting the eyes and ears on 5th generation aircraft.

The crux of my skepticism is that while the Chinese may have indeed adopted the concept of the EOTS, the question of whether the technical blueprints of the Chinese system was based on those of the F-35's EOTS is still up in the air.

How do you think these super confidential systems work? It's not my yahoo account you hacked and stole my family pictures. These are sophisticated systems and have multiple levels of logging.

So may be Gambit and I, and some others on here don't know "how much" was compromised. But TRUST ME, folks responsible to monitor these hacking attempts and espionage related areas DO KNOW and with EXACT Quantity.

Then it should be those "folks", not you, who put forth such claims.

 

[gambit]

The argument's fault lies in the fact that so far, we simply don't know whether the Chinese EOTS is related to the F-35's EOTS, the assumption of which ultimately emanated from a shared role and appearance. Granted, there is a possibility that the two are indirectly related to each other, since they happen to be the only two such systems that exist (apart from the J-20's EOTS), but I find it a tad difficult to believe that no other engineer on earth could've conceived a system that functions like the EOTS when it comes to putting the eyes and ears on 5th generation aircraft.

The crux of my skepticism is that while the Chinese may have indeed adopted the concept of the EOTS, the question of whether the technical blueprints of the Chinese system was based on those of the F-35's EOTS is still up in the air.

I am not saying -- or even implied -- that no one else could have come up with that concept. What I am saying is that someone has to come up with a concept, then at least make a working experimental model of it, if not finalize it for mass production.

As far as the Distributed Aperture System (DAS) concept goes, it was an American innovation, and even if China did not have access to the plans and/or components of the American model, China essentially at least copied the concept. Since China is technologically adept enough to have radar, optics, electronics, mass manufacturing capabilities, etc., it would be illogical for China to reinvent the wheel, or re-innovate the concept.

If the American design have an optical sensor at A/B/C locations, copy that. The wiring that connect one optical sensor to the computer is not the issue, but the location of that optical sensor -- is the issue. Why did the American design have that there ? The American engineers must have put that sensor at THAT location based upon their military's inputs, right ? So in just one degree of separation, the Chinese benefited from the American experience.