Just how safe is this tech

I have a basic question for you knowledgeable people:

Imagine a country such as Chad. Chad used to be a French colony but now? Not so much.

Given that France is part of NATO and Chad isn't, NATO countries are kind of obliged to back France, if not materially, at least regarding intelligence.
However France and many other NATO countries are not given modern tech such as the f-22 or whatever.

Anyway, my point goes a little more left field.

Imagine now that Chad becomes a problem for the USA for some reason.

What is to stop Chad, or whatever country really, from engaging USA, getting tech as an inevitable casualty of war and then selling it to the highest bidder?

These ideas confuse me, because I know that there are protocols in place, but I simply do not understand why they should be maintained.

a reply to: Jonjonj

You try and limit your most advanced weapons from getting out..

I can't imagine how many MiGs the US has captured over the years.. Or that Russian nuclear submarine we fished off the bottom of the ocean.

Remember the drone that crashed in Iran and Obama asked for it back? We didn't get it back.
Remember the stealth helicopter that crashed in pakistan?? We got that back after some days from Pakistan I think.. but who knows what they gleaned or if they kept any of it..

# happens..

Technology "sharing" is always a thing.

a reply to: Reverbs

I agree that sharing has always been a thing but...

is it still?

a reply to: Jonjonj

I had "sharing" inside quotes.. stealing..

But as far as sharing seems like Everyone is getting deliveries of the F35 including Turkey and Israel and UK and on and on.. Italy, Nethrrlands, Canada, Australia, Denmark, Norway.. Singapore

There will be a risk to losing those..

An F117 was shot down in Serbia was it?


Here about Mr stealth choppa

Wired
Subtitle: IF CHINA SAW U.S. STEALTH COPTER, IT'S NO BIG DEAL

Further in: "but if they took samples that's a big problem." Paraphrased..

Check it out

originally posted by: Jonjonj
I have a basic question for you knowledgeable people:

Imagine a country such as Chad. Chad used to be a French colony but now? Not so much.

Given that France is part of NATO and Chad isn't, NATO countries are kind of obliged to back France, if not materially, at least regarding intelligence.
However France and many other NATO countries are not given modern tech such as the f-22 or whatever.

Anyway, my point goes a little more left field.

Imagine now that Chad becomes a problem for the USA for some reason.

What is to stop Chad, or whatever country really, from engaging USA, getting tech as an inevitable casualty of war and then selling it to the highest bidder?

These ideas confuse me, because I know that there are protocols in place, but I simply do not understand why they should be maintained.

The newest Russian warplane is said to be a copycat of the F-22...They look almost identical as well...Russians don't need to shoot one down to know what's in it...Only one way that can happen...

a reply to: Iscool

No, it really isn't. It's a similar design, but most stealth aircraft are going to be similar to other stealth aircraft. There are only so many ways to build one.

a reply to: Zaphod58

they know its possible based on us.. it all balloons out after, like goimg under 4 minutes for a mile run..

once you know its a thing you look harder for the solution.

originally posted by: Reverbs
a reply to: Jonjonj

You try and limit your most advanced weapons from getting out..

I can't imagine how many MiGs the US has captured over the years.. Or that Russian nuclear submarine we fished off the bottom of the ocean.

Remember the drone that crashed in Iran and Obama asked for it back? We didn't get it back.
Remember the stealth helicopter that crashed in pakistan?? We got that back after some days from Pakistan I think.. but who knows what they gleaned or if they kept any of it..

# happens..

Technology "sharing" is always a thing.

Probably the worst breach in modern history:
en.m.wikipedia.org...
To add insult to injury, China wanted to be paid for the crew they held hostage. Poor Colin Powell was forced to apologize twice for our EP-3 getting in the way of their fighter. Worse yet, the plane could have been repaired, but the Chinese chopped it up and had the Russians ship it.

a reply to: Zaphod58

true there are only so many ways but a simple copy isn't going to perform the same, look at China's J-20 looks very similar at first glance but get a little closer and there are stark differences.

manufacturing tech is hard to copy from looking at the finished product alone. i mean just the canopy on allot of the new jets are technical feats all in their own right.

devils in the details.....

or should i say system intergration,skin,electronics and engine design

a reply to: penroc3

No they aren't. Russia and China have different ways of fighting than we do. The Su-57 was designed with super maneuverability in mind, so that when they do get into that WVR fight, which is going to happen eventually, they're not totally screwed.

China is going with a sensor/shooter package, where the J-20 is the sensor, and the J-16 the shooter. All it needs to do is get close enough to get a lock for the missile and give it initial guidance.

a reply to: Zaphod58

you cant say the J-20 doesn't look a bit like the F-22.

i can see the appeal of a sensor and a shooter pairing, but if you could incorporate the 2 of them into one aircraft it would seem that it would multiply the force you could deploy. having the sensor aircraft able to also shoot using different sensor craft seems better then 2 different dedicated platforms.

i was referring more to stealth, there are a ton of pictures of the B-2. you could get very close to the shape but the point i was making that shape isn't the only thing important to stealth. you need to know what to make the frame and skin of and how to manufacture it.

the integration of the electronics and systems is a challenge as well. when and how to use them i bet is a closely guarded secret, as far as emissions go.

he canopy thing was a story i heard that making it one piece and with the properties they needed was a challenge that took some time. again material science and decades of stealth manufacturing comes into play. and china does not have the time in manufacturing places like LM and Northrop have.

i'm not trying to put China down they just don't have the experience we have, im sure they will catch up but as for right now we're the leader

a reply to: penroc3

I didn't say that it didn't. Both the J-20 and Su-57 do. Form follows function. They don't really have to be as stealthy though, at least in the case of the J-20.

They're not dedicated though. They use the J-16 for the VLRAAM because it's too big to carry in an internal weapons bay. If you want a missile with extreme range, you can't put it into a weapons bay, unless you have it on a bomber sized platform.

Both China and Russia are building for their needs. The US does more foreign operations, and will have to operate in an offensive role in a near peer conflict. So we built VLO platforms. China looked at the way we fight, and built something to go after our support aircraft. Without them, in the Pacific, we're screwed. Russia went with a mix between the two.

a reply to: Reverbs

We did not "fish" a Russian nuclear sub off the bottom of the ocean. The Glomar Explorer was in the process of lifting a section of the sub when the retrieval claw broke, sending most of what they had back to the bottom. What they got was two nuclear torpedoes, six bodies, the ship's bell, and maybe a few obsolete code books. This took place several years after the sub went down for the last time, so most of the intel gleaned was probably of little use at that late date.

a reply to: Cohen the Barbarian

Actually, there's evidence that they got a lot more than that. But that makes a convenient face saving cover.

a reply to: Cohen the Barbarian

You're funny.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: Cohen the Barbarian

Actually, there's evidence that they got a lot more than that. But that makes a convenient face saving cover.

I love a good mystery. Can you point me toward that evidence?

a reply to: Cohen the Barbarian

I think it was Red Star Rogue that talked about it. They were met at the dock by a number of flatbed trucks that took some very large wrapped cargoes (too large to be torpedoes) and drove them to a secure handling area.

There are multiple newspaper sources from around the time that make the claim that they recovered at least the bow section of the sub, along with up to 70 bodies.

a reply to: Zaphod58

are you talking about the kursk?

a reply to: penroc3

No, but thank you for making me feel old as hell.

Project Azorian

a reply to: Cohen the Barbarian

Several people involved went on camera and admitted they got at least 38 feet of the bow. They said it broke apart forward of the sail. They had planned to recover 138 feet, but got the bow instead.