• Hi Guest! Forum rules have been updated. All users please read here.

"China's copying of foreign weapons systems and subsystems" stuff

Status
Not open for further replies.

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
13,110
Reaction score
1,166
kaiserbill said:
sferrin said:
kaiserbill said:
Unless someone has crawled over it's canopy with a micrometer or digital measuring device, no one can say for certain whether it is a carbon copy, or was very closely inspired by the F-22's canopy, via espionage. If it has just one or 2 parameters that are changed, or different, well then
Yeah, the writing on it is in Chinese instead of English so I guess it's not a "carbon copy". ::)
I see your sarcasm on the matter illustrates nicely that you actually can't coherently refute my point.
You had a point worth refuting? I didn't see one.
 

kaiserbill

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Jun 7, 2006
Messages
1,283
Reaction score
91
sferrin said:
kaiserbill said:
sferrin said:
kaiserbill said:
Unless someone has crawled over it's canopy with a micrometer or digital measuring device, no one can say for certain whether it is a carbon copy, or was very closely inspired by the F-22's canopy, via espionage. If it has just one or 2 parameters that are changed, or different, well then
Yeah, the writing on it is in Chinese instead of English so I guess it's not a "carbon copy". ::)
I see your sarcasm on the matter illustrates nicely that you actually can't coherently refute my point.
You had a point worth refuting? I didn't see one.
Yet you seem to be trying.

Why is it so hard for you, after using the F-22 canopy example, to admit the probability of this?
None of us know whether it is a (extremely unlikely) carbon copy.
I understand the habit of some to uncritically defend their own country, whilst always denigrating others.

Even if this makes no sense to me, and actually gets in the way of clear, rational thought.

Your use of the sarcasm emoticon doesn't change this, and I've utilised a polite and rational argument whilst looking at this matter.
I'm struggling to find neutral rationality in your last few posts after your F-22 canopy example.

Are you saying that your example of the F-22 canopy being a straight carbon copy, as opposed to be modelled on it is provable?
 

Kadija_Man

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 26, 2011
Messages
2,016
Reaction score
99
kaiserbill said:
Orionblamblam said:
kaiserbill said:
I thought the Allied plundering of German technological knowledge, as well as the wholesale ignoring of German private company patents has been well established,

No. Germany started a war then *surrendered.* As a consequence, they lost control of their stuff. It's quite unlike peacetime piracy; more akin to the legal system taking your stuff after you've been tried and imprisoned for, say, fraud.
I understand that you will feel that way, as a citizen of a beneficiary nation.
The wholesale plundering of private company patents is not so glibly explained away.
It's interesting that after both World Wars, many British and American companies paid the royalities they owed to German companies for various license built items which they had produced during the wars to fire at and kill many German citizens. I'm aware of Vickers having to pay large quantities of monies for various fuses, while the US Government had to pay for various gun designs.

The seizing of various items of technology and even whole industries were all covered by due legal process within the Allied Occupying powers. Admittedly, some weren't. The snatching of the Nordhausen V-2 factory in the Soviet Sector by the United States was one such case. Most of it however essentially came down to being plunder. There was no legal German government to prevent it, so it was done by those who had won. Such is war.
 

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
13,110
Reaction score
1,166
kaiserbill said:
sferrin said:
kaiserbill said:
sferrin said:
kaiserbill said:
Unless someone has crawled over it's canopy with a micrometer or digital measuring device, no one can say for certain whether it is a carbon copy, or was very closely inspired by the F-22's canopy, via espionage. If it has just one or 2 parameters that are changed, or different, well then
Yeah, the writing on it is in Chinese instead of English so I guess it's not a "carbon copy". ::)
I see your sarcasm on the matter illustrates nicely that you actually can't coherently refute my point.
You had a point worth refuting? I didn't see one.
Yet you seem to be trying.

Why is it so hard for you, after using the F-22 canopy example, to admit the probability of this?
None of us know whether it is a (extremely unlikely) carbon copy.
I understand the habit of some to uncritically defend their own country, whilst always denigrating others.

Even if this makes no sense to me, and actually gets in the way of clear, rational thought.

Your use of the sarcasm emoticon doesn't change this, and I've utilised a polite and rational argument whilst looking at this matter.
I'm struggling to find neutral rationality in your last few posts after your F-22 canopy example.

Are you saying that your example of the F-22 canopy being a straight carbon copy, as opposed to be modelled on it is provable?
Do you honestly believe that if they used Phillips head screws instead of Torx that somehow their design is completely original? Of course you don't. No sane person would. So again, if you have a point, what is it?
 

chuck4

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Jan 17, 2011
Messages
803
Reaction score
6
Kadija_Man said:
There was no legal German government to prevent it, so it was done by those who had won. Such is war.
So is business, to say nothing of the military business. In cases where technology is stolen during diplomatic peace, obviously there was also no such government that was effective in preventing it.


No country worth its salt would allow itself be inconvenienced by other people fig leaf of legality when its own prosperity or security is at stake. Only when threat of retaliation is credible and exceed the value of theft could the theft be deterred. When the thief perceive itself to have a legitimate grievance, to be under threat from owner of the technology in the long run without any alliance structure to offset the threat, there is no retaliation short of war that can exceed the perceived value of the theft of military technology. Such theft can't be deterred. It can only be thwarted..
 

chuck4

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Jan 17, 2011
Messages
803
Reaction score
6
Radical said:
What about the design of the M1903? Pretty much ripped straight from Mauser design.

As I recall, the US dragged the Mauser patent case on until after WWI, and then used the propagative of the victor to summarily dismiss the claims of Mauser.

Other examples of this practice of dragging on patent infringment until the case is dismissed through war includes the Kodak's color film technology, on which it founded so much of its postwar prosperity, which is also a rip off from Germany's Agfachrome.


A few other examples of close copying not involving patent suits includes:

1. Republic-Ford JB-2 Loon - straight copy of the V-1

2. General-Electric A-1 Hermes missile - a straight copy of the V-2 with wings

3. Seizure and delivery the mechanization equations of V2 control, guidance, and navigation system to all US manufacturers involved iin the basis of all immediate postwar US ballistic missile efforts, up to and beyond the Redstone

4. German swept wing technology

5. Me-262's floating slats, copied as closely as between F-22 and J-20's canopy, by the F-86

6. The receiver of the M-60 machine gun , copied from MG-42

It probably wouldn't be hard to find similar thefts, or at least close copying, in reverse, from the US to Germany. Much of German stress skin monocoque airframe technology prior to WWII was taken from the US, and FW-190 owned not so little to pre-war US air racer designs.

In cases of many military technology, it's not even clear that theft is indeed illegal, as there might be no patent or copy right of any sort. What theoretically enforceable patent protects diverterless intake, or F-22 canopy design?
 

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
13,110
Reaction score
1,166
chuck4 said:
In cases of many military technology, it's not even clear that theft is indeed illegal, as there might be no patent or copy right of any sort. What theoretically enforceable patent protects diverterless intake, or F-22 canopy design?
Do you think every part that goes into an aircraft gets a patent? And how does whether it does nor not have anything to do with whether or not somebody copied it?
 

chuck4

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Jan 17, 2011
Messages
803
Reaction score
6
sferrin said:
chuck4 said:
In cases of many military technology, it's not even clear that theft is indeed illegal, as there might be no patent or copy right of any sort. What theoretically enforceable patent protects diverterless intake, or F-22 canopy design?
Do you think every part that goes into an aircraft gets a patent? And how does whether it does nor not have anything to do with whether or not somebody copied it?
If there is no patent, then there is nothing even just theoretically wrong with copying it.
 

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
13,110
Reaction score
1,166
chuck4 said:
sferrin said:
chuck4 said:
In cases of many military technology, it's not even clear that theft is indeed illegal, as there might be no patent or copy right of any sort. What theoretically enforceable patent protects diverterless intake, or F-22 canopy design?
Do you think every part that goes into an aircraft gets a patent? And how does whether it does nor not have anything to do with whether or not somebody copied it?
If there is no patent, then there is nothing even just theoretically wrong with copying it.
Yeah, sure. ::) Besides, whether it's legal or not isn't even the topic of this thread. China copied the F-22's canopy. That's obvious to even a blind man. Whether there was or wasn't a patent involved it doesn't change the fact. And patent or no, if you had to literally STEAL the data to make your product then yeah, you broke the law.
 

kaiserbill

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Jun 7, 2006
Messages
1,283
Reaction score
91
sferrin said:
kaiserbill said:
sferrin said:
kaiserbill said:
sferrin said:
kaiserbill said:
Unless someone has crawled over it's canopy with a micrometer or digital measuring device, no one can say for certain whether it is a carbon copy, or was very closely inspired by the F-22's canopy, via espionage. If it has just one or 2 parameters that are changed, or different, well then
Yeah, the writing on it is in Chinese instead of English so I guess it's not a "carbon copy". ::)
I see your sarcasm on the matter illustrates nicely that you actually can't coherently refute my point.
You had a point worth refuting? I didn't see one.
Yet you seem to be trying.

Why is it so hard for you, after using the F-22 canopy example, to admit the probability of this?
None of us know whether it is a (extremely unlikely) carbon copy.
I understand the habit of some to uncritically defend their own country, whilst always denigrating others.

Even if this makes no sense to me, and actually gets in the way of clear, rational thought.

Your use of the sarcasm emoticon doesn't change this, and I've utilised a polite and rational argument whilst looking at this matter.
I'm struggling to find neutral rationality in your last few posts after your F-22 canopy example.

Are you saying that your example of the F-22 canopy being a straight carbon copy, as opposed to be modelled on it is provable?
Do you honestly believe that if they used Phillips head screws instead of Torx that somehow their design is completely original? Of course you don't. No sane person would. So again, if you have a point, what is it?
Another oblique, sidestep reply, delving into screwheads this time....
Ah, come now friend... ;D

My point, that no other poster seems to be deliberately missing, is that there is no measurable evidence that the J-20 canopy is a carbon copy, as you have intimated now twice. Once with "chinese writing", now with "screwhead differences".

In the friendliest of terms, the sarcasm smileys to me and other posters aren't helping to generate honest debate either. :D

Can you provide evidence that the J-20 canopy is a copy, rather than just inspired by the F-22 canopy?
This was my obviously very clear point, and one that you keep skirting around, for some reason.
We are all aware of the espionage concerning F-35 and F-22 technologies, but I'm trying hard here to ascertain whether you're saying the canopy is an F-22 to J-20 direct copy.

As I'm not sure a clear-cut answer will be forthcoming again, may I ask your opinion on the following, Sferrin?
What do you think the US political leaders should do in the face of Chinese espionage?
What should your political leaders have done in the past?
 

bobbymike

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Joined
Apr 21, 2009
Messages
9,909
Reaction score
972
Some commentors here have said;

1) Everyone does it to some extent or another
2) The cycle is copy and improvement

IMHO this does not explain in most respects the US's consistent lead in the vast majorities of tech for decades (no not everything but lots)

If 1) and 2) were true then you would see a cycle of copy, improve (by country A) followed by copy (Country A version) improve Country B. Then Country B would have the best technology and then Country A would be forced to copy, improve, etc.

The US's ability to invent and innovate on the scale that it has is pretty unique in human history. Just look at the number of Nobel Prize winners, patents, etc AS A percentage of global population.

Please note: Just because I have not mentioned the incredible contributions to science and technology of other nations DOES NOT MEAN I discount or disregard them.

Of course this can ALL BE EXPLAINED from stolen Nazi technology ::)
 

kaiserbill

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Jun 7, 2006
Messages
1,283
Reaction score
91
bobbymike said:
Some commentors here have said;

1) Everyone does it to some extent or another
2) The cycle is copy and improvement

IMHO this does not explain in most respects the US's consistent lead in the vast majorities of tech for decades (no not everything but lots)

If 1) and 2) were true then you would see a cycle of copy, improve (by country A) followed by copy (Country A version) improve Country B. Then Country B would have the best technology and then Country A would be forced to copy, improve, etc.

The US's ability to invent and innovate on the scale that it has is pretty unique in human history. Just look at the number of Nobel Prize winners, patents, etc AS A percentage of global population.

Please note: Just because I have not mentioned the incredible contributions to science and technology of other nations DOES NOT MEAN I discount or disregard them.

Of course this can ALL BE EXPLAINED from stolen Nazi technology ::)
Human history is a little bit longer than 521 years, or 236 years depending on your criteria. ;)

The Chinese themselves have an extremely long tradition of innovation, stretching back thousands of years.

I have no idea why this "you're either with us, or against us" idea should be put forth by some though.

A lot of countries have fine traditions of innovation, not least the United States.
 

bobbymike

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Joined
Apr 21, 2009
Messages
9,909
Reaction score
972
kaiserbill said:
bobbymike said:
Some commentors here have said;

1) Everyone does it to some extent or another
2) The cycle is copy and improvement

IMHO this does not explain in most respects the US's consistent lead in the vast majorities of tech for decades (no not everything but lots)

If 1) and 2) were true then you would see a cycle of copy, improve (by country A) followed by copy (Country A version) improve Country B. Then Country B would have the best technology and then Country A would be forced to copy, improve, etc.

The US's ability to invent and innovate on the scale that it has is pretty unique in human history. Just look at the number of Nobel Prize winners, patents, etc AS A percentage of global population.

Please note: Just because I have not mentioned the incredible contributions to science and technology of other nations DOES NOT MEAN I discount or disregard them.

Of course this can ALL BE EXPLAINED from stolen Nazi technology ::)
Human history is a little bit longer than 521 years, or 236 years depending on your criteria. ;)

The Chinese themselves have an extremely long tradition of innovation, stretching back thousands of years.

I have no idea why this "you're either with us, or against us" idea should be put forth by some though.

A lot of countries have fine traditions of innovation, not least the United States.
As I put in my post my not mentioning other countries, cultures was due to brevity and not to discount their achievements.

And while mankind has been inventing and innovating, possibly for millions of years, the pace of technological change in the last two hundred has exceeded the prior millions by a considerable degree.

I will try and find a chart I once saw that graphed the pace of innovation, invention, development and it basically went from flat to straight up over that timeframe. Obviously given the number of people and improvements in mass education along with other global trends, things like immigration to nations like the US, makes this not too surprising. I would still argue the US's unique economic and political system better fosters invention and innovation than other countries.


There is just a much larger "Global Brain" working. There are brilliant people everywhere ;D
 

kaiserbill

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Jun 7, 2006
Messages
1,283
Reaction score
91
bobbymike said:
kaiserbill said:
bobbymike said:
Some commentors here have said;

1) Everyone does it to some extent or another
2) The cycle is copy and improvement

IMHO this does not explain in most respects the US's consistent lead in the vast majorities of tech for decades (no not everything but lots)

If 1) and 2) were true then you would see a cycle of copy, improve (by country A) followed by copy (Country A version) improve Country B. Then Country B would have the best technology and then Country A would be forced to copy, improve, etc.

The US's ability to invent and innovate on the scale that it has is pretty unique in human history. Just look at the number of Nobel Prize winners, patents, etc AS A percentage of global population.

Please note: Just because I have not mentioned the incredible contributions to science and technology of other nations DOES NOT MEAN I discount or disregard them.

Of course this can ALL BE EXPLAINED from stolen Nazi technology ::)
Human history is a little bit longer than 521 years, or 236 years depending on your criteria. ;)

The Chinese themselves have an extremely long tradition of innovation, stretching back thousands of years.

I have no idea why this "you're either with us, or against us" idea should be put forth by some though.

A lot of countries have fine traditions of innovation, not least the United States.
As I put in my post my not mentioning other countries, cultures was due to brevity and not to discount their achievements.

And while mankind has been inventing and innovating, possibly for millions of years, the pace of technological change in the last two hundred has exceeded the prior millions by a considerable degree.

I will try and find a chart I once saw that graphed the pace of innovation, invention, development and it basically went from flat to straight up over that timeframe. Obviously given the number of people and improvements in mass education along with other global trends, things like immigration to nations like the US, makes this not too surprising. I would still argue the US's unique economic and political system better fosters invention and innovation than other countries.


There is just a much larger "Global Brain" working. There are brilliant people everywhere ;D
Some good points.

I would argue that rapid, or more latterly instantaneous, communication since the telegraph, radio, and telephone onwards to todays commstech has been driving this.

To use an admittedly simplified, abstract, and "what-if" example, imagine Whittle and von Ohain sharing ideas, or being privy to each others research on a clearer basis, pre-war.

Bizarrely, espionage is quite an enabler for the rapid development of ideas and technology, seen in this way.

On the previous exchange, I've found this picture purporting to be a comparison between the F-22 and J-20 canopy.
Disclamer: Not to sure of the accuracy of this photo, but here it is anyway.
Very clearly closely modelled, but with differences, if the photo is indeed accurate.
 

Attachments

chuck4

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Jan 17, 2011
Messages
803
Reaction score
6
bobbymike said:
The US's ability to invent and innovate on the scale that it has is pretty unique in human history. Just look at the number of Nobel Prize winners, patents, etc AS A percentage of global population.

Please note: Just because I have not mentioned the incredible contributions to science and technology of other nations DOES NOT MEAN I discount or disregard them.

Of course this can ALL BE EXPLAINED from stolen Nazi technology ::)
German scientists won more nobel prizes in natural sciences than all other countries in the world, including the US, combined between 1900-1914, and again in the years after WWI. German preeminiance in both basic and applied sciences were, if anything, even more pronounced between 1900 - 1930 than that of the United States now.

Many of the top tier German scientists responsible for this and who were still active migrated to the US around and after WWII.

So NOT ALL can be explained by stolen, appropriated, and defected elements of the German scientific and technological establishment, but a GREAT DEAL, at least during the post WWII era when the United States first gained its scientific preeminiance, CAN.

For the United States, an more alarming thing than the fact that other countries have in the past been just as innovative and scientifically preeminiant as the US is now, is the fact that multiple lines of evidence point to the fact that our scientific preeminance is slipping. Our scientfic establishement is less highly respected and taken more for granted by our own citizens and major political parties. Many of out most prominant publically supported research universities are starved of funds. Native students increasingly shy away from top tier scientific and technological education. Foreign students making up the difference seems increasingly to find their home country to afford better opportunities than the US, and are going back home and in effect exporting American education to their home science and technology establishment rather than staying here and letting the education benefit American scientific and technological preeminance.

It's nice to think some ineffable and unchangible inner quality of the US makes us scientifically preeminant. But that is a dangerous fantasy.
 

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
13,110
Reaction score
1,166
kaiserbill said:
On the previous exchange, I've found this picture purporting to be a comparison between the F-22 and J-20 canopy.
Disclamer: Not to sure of the accuracy of this photo, but here it is anyway.
Very clearly closely modelled, but with differences, if the photo is indeed accurate.
Assuming that it is accurate (I have some similar pictures at home) the differences are trivial. To the point that to dissemble further that it's not a copy would be absurd.
 

chuck4

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Jan 17, 2011
Messages
803
Reaction score
6
sferrin said:
kaiserbill said:
On the previous exchange, I've found this picture purporting to be a comparison between the F-22 and J-20 canopy.
Disclamer: Not to sure of the accuracy of this photo, but here it is anyway.
Very clearly closely modelled, but with differences, if the photo is indeed accurate.
Assuming that it is accurate (I have some similar pictures at home) the differences are trivial. To the point that to dissemble further that it's not a copy would be absurd.
You have no idea of what the specification for the J-20 was, nor from engineering perspective how many different practical ways there really were to fill those specifications. So you have no way of knowing whether, even if the Chinese had never seen the F-22, how much room their engineers really had to design a canopy that met all the specifications and yet would be strikingly different from the canopy on the F-22.

Visual similarity is emotive. But unless you are an engineer deeply buried in the field and also familar with the specifications, it is not conclusive.
 

kaiserbill

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Jun 7, 2006
Messages
1,283
Reaction score
91
sferrin said:
kaiserbill said:
On the previous exchange, I've found this picture purporting to be a comparison between the F-22 and J-20 canopy.
Disclamer: Not to sure of the accuracy of this photo, but here it is anyway.
Very clearly closely modelled, but with differences, if the photo is indeed accurate.
Assuming that it is accurate (I have some similar pictures at home) the differences are trivial. To the point that to dissemble further that it's not a copy would be absurd.
Ok, so it's not a perfectly straight copy then.

Certainly very closely inspired, and obviously the spionage angle has come in handy, but there are quite a few differences at eyeball range, never mind probable materials and manufacture levels.
IMHO, of course.

Maybe post some of those pictures of yours?
 

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
13,110
Reaction score
1,166
kaiserbill said:
sferrin said:
kaiserbill said:
On the previous exchange, I've found this picture purporting to be a comparison between the F-22 and J-20 canopy.
Disclamer: Not to sure of the accuracy of this photo, but here it is anyway.
Very clearly closely modelled, but with differences, if the photo is indeed accurate.
Assuming that it is accurate (I have some similar pictures at home) the differences are trivial. To the point that to dissemble further that it's not a copy would be absurd.
Ok, so it's not a perfectly straight copy then.

Certainly very closely inspired, and obviously the spionage angle has come in handy, but there are quite a few differences at eyeball range, never mind probable materials and manufacture levels.
IMHO, of course.

Maybe post some of those pictures of yours?
Will do, tonight.
 

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
13,110
Reaction score
1,166
chuck4 said:
You have no idea of what the specification for the J-20 was, nor from engineering perspective how many different practical ways there really were to fill those specifications. So you have no way of knowing whether, even if the Chinese had never seen the F-22, how much room their engineers really had to design a canopy that met all the specifications and yet would be strikingly different from the canopy on the F-22.

Visual similarity is emotive. But unless you are an engineer deeply buried in the field and also familar with the specifications, it is not conclusive.
::)
 

bobbymike

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Joined
Apr 21, 2009
Messages
9,909
Reaction score
972
chuck4 said:
bobbymike said:
The US's ability to invent and innovate on the scale that it has is pretty unique in human history. Just look at the number of Nobel Prize winners, patents, etc AS A percentage of global population.

Please note: Just because I have not mentioned the incredible contributions to science and technology of other nations DOES NOT MEAN I discount or disregard them.

Of course this can ALL BE EXPLAINED from stolen Nazi technology ::)
German scientists won more nobel prizes in natural sciences than all other countries in the world, including the US, combined between 1900-1914, and again in the years after WWI. German preeminiance in both basic and applied sciences were, if anything, even more pronounced between 1900 - 1930 than that of the United States now.

Many of the top tier German scientists responsible for this and who were still active migrated to the US around and after WWII.

So NOT ALL can be explained by stolen, appropriated, and defected elements of the German scientific and technological establishment, but a GREAT DEAL, at least during the post WWII era when the United States first gained its scientific preeminiance, CAN.

For the United States, an more alarming thing than the fact that other countries have in the past been just as innovative and scientifically preeminiant as the US is now, is the fact that multiple lines of evidence point to the fact that our scientific preeminance is slipping. Our scientfic establishement is less highly respected and taken more for granted by our own citizens and major political parties. Many of out most prominant publically supported research universities are starved of funds. Native students increasingly shy away from top tier scientific and technological education. Foreign students making up the difference seems increasingly to find their home country to afford better opportunities than the US, and are going back home and in effect exporting American education to their home science and technology establishment rather than staying here and letting the education benefit American scientific and technological preeminance.

It's nice to think some ineffable and unchangible inner quality of the US makes us scientifically preeminant. But that is a dangerous fantasy.
chuck4 - In a blog post about something so complicated as what we are discussing, veritably, the history of invention, innovation since the dawn of time, you do understand that every point cannot be made and that the absence of some point or fact does not imply someone believes or does not believe something.

I was not addressing, in totality, every society and culture from the dawn of civilization merits as inventors and innovators trying to make the ultimate list of who is number one.

Many nations have gone through eras of technological pre-eminance and decline due to numerous factors and yes the US is going through a 'relative' decline largely from the quicker rise of other nations.

But again, while no nation is perfect, it is obvious, I beleive, to most that the combination of free market, rule of law, global immigration (YES EVEN German scientists) has AND does make the US's rise to pre-eminent economic and military power unique JUST AS the rise of other nations and the factors that caused their rise to be unique.

History tells us this won't be forever and no one was saying it would.
 

Orionblamblam

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 5, 2006
Messages
7,756
Reaction score
860
Website
www.aerospaceprojectsreview.com
chuck4 said:
1. Republic-Ford JB-2 Loon - straight copy of the V-1
Yup. But then, you could harldy say that the design was stolen from the Germans... the Germans were busy throwing them at the Allies.

2. General-Electric A-1 Hermes missile - a straight copy of the V-2 with wings

Not even close. It was a copy of the Wasserfall, not the V-2. But it did not enter service.

3. Seizure and delivery the mechanization equations of V2 control, guidance, and navigation system to all US manufacturers involved iin the basis of all immediate postwar US ballistic missile efforts, up to and beyond the Redstone

4. German swept wing technology

5. Me-262's floating slats, copied as closely as between F-22 and J-20's canopy, by the F-86

6. The receiver of the M-60 machine gun , copied from MG-42
They lost a war they started, thus they forfeited the tech they developed during that war.
 

Orionblamblam

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 5, 2006
Messages
7,756
Reaction score
860
Website
www.aerospaceprojectsreview.com
kaiserbill said:
Human history is a little bit longer than 521 years, or 236 years depending on your criteria. ;)
Sure, but most human history more than 236 years old pretty much sucked.

The Chinese themselves have an extremely long tradition of innovation, stretching back thousands of years.
But an even bigger tradition of *stagnation.* Had aliens coem to Earth 2000 years ago, they probably would've assumed that the future would belong to either China or Rome. But Rome collapsed and China froze in place.

There's no reason why, today, the descendants of those Chinese from 2,000 years ago should not be out colonizing distant stars. They had the promise and the smarts... but they were shackled to a hidebound culture that shunned innovation.
 

Orionblamblam

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 5, 2006
Messages
7,756
Reaction score
860
Website
www.aerospaceprojectsreview.com
kaiserbill said:
The wholesale plundering of private company patents is not so glibly explained away.
THEY LOST A WAR THEY STARTED.

Really, is this that difficult to understand? In prior eras, the victors would have walked off not only with the spoils, but the *people.* Hell, the Soviets did; IIRC, some 4 million German POWs simply vanished.
 

kaiserbill

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Jun 7, 2006
Messages
1,283
Reaction score
91
Orionblamblam said:
kaiserbill said:
The wholesale plundering of private company patents is not so glibly explained away.
THEY LOST A WAR THEY STARTED.

Really, is this that difficult to understand? In prior eras, the victors would have walked off not only with the spoils, but the *people.* Hell, the Soviets did; IIRC, some 4 million German POWs simply vanished.
Nobody is disputing that.
Nor the wholesale plunder of military or state technology.

I'm referring to private enterprise technology and patents that were pillaged too, in contravention of international law.

On some of the early posts:
A piece of V2 technology that hasn't been mentioned, that certainly helped the US rocket programme, was it's engine, but particularly its turbo-pump technology.
It was the first prize.
Huntingdon has a V2 and Redstone engine right next to each other, and the evidence is pretty much plain, obvious, and there for all to see wrt lineage.
The Redstone, as we all know, launched America's first live missile nukes, satellite, and astronauts, and what followed was components from that programme that showed clear lineage to, and as part of, the Saturn.

Either way, this is digressing from the thread, and I think I'll stick to the original premise of the original thread post/question.
 

quellish

I am not actually here.
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 6, 2007
Messages
2,102
Reaction score
98
kaiserbill said:
On some of the early posts:
A piece of V2 technology that hasn't been mentioned, that certainly helped the US rocket programme, was it's engine, but particularly its turbo-pump technology.
It was the first prize.
Huntingdon has a V2 and Redstone engine right next to each other, and the evidence is pretty much plain, obvious, and there for all to see wrt lineage.
The Redstone, as we all know, launched America's first live missile nukes, satellite, and astronauts, and what followed was components from that programme that showed clear lineage to, and as part of, the Saturn.

Either way, this is digressing from the thread, and I think I'll stick to the original premise of the original thread post/question.
A Method of Reaching Extreme Altitudes?
 

kaiserbill

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Jun 7, 2006
Messages
1,283
Reaction score
91
quellish said:
kaiserbill said:
On some of the early posts:
A piece of V2 technology that hasn't been mentioned, that certainly helped the US rocket programme, was it's engine, but particularly its turbo-pump technology.
It was the first prize.
Huntingdon has a V2 and Redstone engine right next to each other, and the evidence is pretty much plain, obvious, and there for all to see wrt lineage.
The Redstone, as we all know, launched America's first live missile nukes, satellite, and astronauts, and what followed was components from that programme that showed clear lineage to, and as part of, the Saturn.

Either way, this is digressing from the thread, and I think I'll stick to the original premise of the original thread post/question.
A Method of Reaching Extreme Altitudes?
He was a pioneer, of course.
He did try develop a piston pump, but failed, and reverted to back pressure.

The V2 turbo pump is from a different universe.
A brief description and pic from the Smithsonian exhibit:
http://airandspace.si.edu/collections/artifact.cfm?id=A19790951000
 

kcran567

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Aug 15, 2009
Messages
664
Reaction score
11
Orionblamblam said:
kaiserbill said:
Human history is a little bit longer than 521 years, or 236 years depending on your criteria. ;)
Sure, but most human history more than 236 years old pretty much sucked.

The Chinese themselves have an extremely long tradition of innovation, stretching back thousands of years.
But an even bigger tradition of *stagnation.* Had aliens coem to Earth 2000 years ago, they probably would've assumed that the future would belong to either China or Rome. But Rome collapsed and China froze in place.

There's no reason why, today, the descendants of those Chinese from 2,000 years ago should not be out colonizing distant stars. They had the promise and the smarts... but they were shackled to a hidebound culture that shunned innovation.
And western culture is becoming increasingly shackled by a variety of unsolvable problems that threaten its very existance, or at least a global crisis point looming: dependence on fossil fuels, incredible amounts of debt and wealth disparity, an increasingly dumbed down population, eroding freedoms and top down rule from government/corporate/banking partnerships... our current system doesnt seem to have any answers to these problems either. Heck, an alien visitor to earth circa 1960 could very well predict the USA would be out colonizing distant stars by now.
 

chuck4

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Jan 17, 2011
Messages
803
Reaction score
6
Orionblamblam said:
kaiserbill said:
Human history is a little bit longer than 521 years, or 236 years depending on your criteria. ;)
Sure, but most human history more than 236 years old pretty much sucked.

The Chinese themselves have an extremely long tradition of innovation, stretching back thousands of years.
But an even bigger tradition of *stagnation.* Had aliens coem to Earth 2000 years ago, they probably would've assumed that the future would belong to either China or Rome. But Rome collapsed and China froze in place.

There's no reason why, today, the descendants of those Chinese from 2,000 years ago should not be out colonizing distant stars. They had the promise and the smarts... but they were shackled to a hidebound culture that shunned innovation.
Eh, no. Most of human history more than 236 years old is what made now possible. If it weren't for then, you'd be eking out a a short, nasty, brutish living on the African plains, running from hyenas. And that really would suck for you. So be grateful for all those thens that it took to put you safely far from hyena's menu.

And no, whether something is stagnation is not to be measured against your over-confident and under-informed hindsight wish-thinking, where but for the want of a few great Orion blam blams the sword and sandals civilization of 2000 years ago would have leapt into interstellar travel in a few short centuries. In the real world where solving real problems means facing real challenges, the chinese innovated plenty between 2,000 years ago and now. In fact, from about 500 - 1500, they were consistently the most advanced and most innovative society on earth, with the possible exception, for a brief period only, when the Arabs were competitive. The fact that they were as innovative as human societies ever got for over a thousand years tells you progress is harder than you imagine.
 

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
13,110
Reaction score
1,166
kaiserbill said:
sferrin said:
kaiserbill said:
On the previous exchange, I've found this picture purporting to be a comparison between the F-22 and J-20 canopy.
Disclamer: Not to sure of the accuracy of this photo, but here it is anyway.
Very clearly closely modelled, but with differences, if the photo is indeed accurate.
Assuming that it is accurate (I have some similar pictures at home) the differences are trivial. To the point that to dissemble further that it's not a copy would be absurd.
Ok, so it's not a perfectly straight copy then.

Certainly very closely inspired, and obviously the spionage angle has come in handy, but there are quite a few differences at eyeball range, never mind probable materials and manufacture levels.
IMHO, of course.

Maybe post some of those pictures of yours?


 

Bill Walker

Per Ardua ad Nauseum
Joined
Feb 13, 2012
Messages
482
Reaction score
8
Website
rwrwalker.ca
Are we to assume that whoever designed the F-22 canopy had the idea spring into their mind, full blown, without any benefit of past experiences, their own or others?

Or, did the F-22 canopy designer look back on previous canopies, and what worked and didn't work, as did the guy who designed the J-20 canopy?

Come on people, lets get real. My pants have two legs. Your pants have two legs. How dare you copy me!
 

quellish

I am not actually here.
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 6, 2007
Messages
2,102
Reaction score
98
kaiserbill said:
He was a pioneer, of course.
He did try develop a piston pump, but failed, and reverted to back pressure.

The V2 turbo pump is from a different universe.
A brief description and pic from the Smithsonian exhibit:
http://airandspace.si.edu/collections/artifact.cfm?id=A19790951000
He started work on pump driven liquid fuel engines in the 20s. While the first liquid rocket to fly was pressure fed, later version used turbopumps. The Germans at Raketenflugplatz and later Peenemunde were well aware of Goddard's work, and he was a target of German intelligence collection. Several features unique to Goddard's designs later surfaced in the V-2.
Peenemunde had significantly more resources than Goddard and was able to take the turbopump farther than he was able to.

http://airandspace.si.edu/collections/artifact.cfm?id=A19850177000
 

kaiserbill

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Jun 7, 2006
Messages
1,283
Reaction score
91
quellish said:
kaiserbill said:
He was a pioneer, of course.
He did try develop a piston pump, but failed, and reverted to back pressure.

The V2 turbo pump is from a different universe.
A brief description and pic from the Smithsonian exhibit:
http://airandspace.si.edu/collections/artifact.cfm?id=A19790951000
He started work on pump driven liquid fuel engines in the 20s. While the first liquid rocket to fly was pressure fed, later version used turbopumps. The Germans at Raketenflugplatz and later Peenemunde were well aware of Goddard's work, and he was a target of German intelligence collection. Several features unique to Goddard's designs later surfaced in the V-2.
Peenemunde had significantly more resources than Goddard and was able to take the turbopump farther than he was able to.

http://airandspace.si.edu/collections/artifact.cfm?id=A19850177000
Thanks Quellish.

It appears though that these Goddard attempts came after the initial German turbo pumps, looking at the dates on the link you provided.
I do know that his first attempts were piston pumps, which weren't too successful.
He accomplished his first pump assisted flight on the 9th of August 1940.
Whilst the A4/V2 first flew in 1942, by 1941 the essential technology was in place, pending decision on going forward. Thisincluded the large, powerful turbo pump, which had been developed on the basis of earlier, smaller turbo pumps.

The VfR and Goddard were exchanging correspondence before the Nazi's came into power.
Info was a 2 way street.

Thisis not to denigrate the pioneering earlier work of Goddard, btw.
Von Braun has given him due respect for his influence, ashe has done to other pioneers, such as Hermann Oberth.
 

kaiserbill

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Jun 7, 2006
Messages
1,283
Reaction score
91
Thanks for the pics Sferrin.

Whilst obviously very closely modelled on the F-22 canopy, there are also quite a few differences from what I can see.
 

overscan (PaulMM)

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Dec 27, 2005
Messages
12,111
Reaction score
2,603
Not sure this topic has much value, I'm afraid, and it seems to have drifted off topic rather.
 

icyplanetnhc

CLEARANCE: Confidential
Joined
Aug 16, 2015
Messages
119
Reaction score
29
Website
aiaa.seas.ucla.edu
The two renderings are so comically similar that you can't pay me to say that it wasn't intentional. Funny enough, a number of people surmised that the B-21 configuration would be a cranked kite based on that rendering and we know how that turned out.
 

Attachments

bobbymike

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Joined
Apr 21, 2009
Messages
9,909
Reaction score
972
sferrin said:
dark sidius said:
Incredible copycat :eek:
Just China being China.
With current trade negotiations between the US and China and politicians and Trump commenting on stolen patents and IP, copyrights, etc. I don't put it past the Chinese to imply "We've stolen the 'plans' to your most high tech weapon system" to get a reaction.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top