Home » Air » Chinese developing C-17 clone

Chinese developing C-17 clone

by Mike Hoffman on December 27, 2012

The Chinese military confirmed that it is developing a large transport aircraft.

The announcement comes after blurry photos leaked onto aviation forums on Christmas Eve. The photos were taken at Xian Aircraft Corporation’s airfield. As Danger Room pointed out earlier, the photos show an aircraft that looks a heck of a lot like the U.S. Air Force’s C-17.

The aircraft features four jet engines and looks to be the same size as the C-17 albeit the blurry photos make it tough to discern too many details. Following questions about the plane the Chinese issued this statement:

“To meet the needs of the national economy and social development, and in the service of military modernization, better disaster relief, humanitarian relief and other emergency tasks, our country is developing a large transport aircraft,” the statement read.

Designated the Y-20, the photos, it has been suspected for years that the Chinese have been working on developing an aircraft similar to the C-17. In order for their military to continue to grow into a global power, it needs a transport workhorse similar to the U.S. Air Force’s C-17.

It appears from the photos, the Chinese are well on their way.

Share |

{ 188 comments… read them below or add one }

Lance December 27, 2012 at 2:15 pm

Not surprised they copy almost everyone's designs. IE J-7 copy of Russian MiG-21, J-31 copy of F-35, Type-59 Tanks Russian T-55 copy.

China rarely gets there own ideas they love to copy them.


okay whatever December 27, 2012 at 4:36 pm

By copy you mean steal, right? Yeah, why spend the time and money on engineering when you can steal the plans?


Mat December 27, 2012 at 6:49 pm

Y20 was developed with help of Ukrainian Antonov Design Buro you know the guys that know more than anyone else about cargo planes .

In cargo planes form follows function and so all look more or less the same. High wing ,T tail big fuselage ,landing gear in sidepods ect.

This notion of Chinese copying US designs is a knee jerk feel good reaction , before the Chinese everything Soviets did was rumored to be copy of western desgins ,just look at scientiifc papers published in US universities half of the authors are Chinese,Koreans,Japanese


Guest December 27, 2012 at 11:50 pm

you should look at the pictures of the plane. it is clearly very similar to the c-17.


andy December 27, 2012 at 9:23 pm

China claim they invented the NOODLE AND GUN POWDER TOO…????lol

They also just invented the entire China sea too.


Matrix3692 December 28, 2012 at 12:16 am
Yoda December 31, 2012 at 9:01 am

They invented the noodle and gun powder, isn´t it?
I´m sorry, i don´t understand your comment


Ranger1989 February 17, 2013 at 9:03 am

obviously lives in Red State/ DEEP SOUTH. Your statement reflects intelligence that has been directly related to inbreeding.


krazykmw December 28, 2012 at 8:38 pm

and in our infinite wisdom WE PAY THEM TO DO IT by having them manufacture everything for us.


wych December 29, 2012 at 7:12 pm

The problem with your argument is that the Russians are claiming that the Chinese plane is a copy of the An-70. So which of the An-70 & the C-17 is a copy of the other?


JACKSON December 30, 2012 at 1:46 pm

Not to mention now that GM is going to screw US work force their going to build 13 CAR PLANTS IN CHINA & the government gets all the tech info. USA WAKE UP"


Riceball January 3, 2013 at 6:47 pm

They can have all of our car tech, American cars just aren't what they used to be.


UAVGeek January 7, 2013 at 5:39 pm

They're way better than they used to be. Better reliability, power, efficiency, handling and safety. Thank goodness too.


Ranger1989 February 17, 2013 at 9:04 am

welcome to REAL WORLD. where have you been for last 20 years?


Penny Mc December 30, 2012 at 3:06 pm

Well, when I was working at McDonnell Douglas, we had Chinese 'guest workers' at the plant. We were separated from them only by a cipher-lock door. As each person left the plant, he/she was required to open their briefcase and show the guards.
So, how hard would it be to get notations all in Chinese past the guards? BTW, the
new Chinese Stealth fighter is a dead-bang copy of the F-23, the proposed new stealth fighter. The F-22 was chosen, though, IMHO, the F-23 was a better buy. But I could be prejudiced.


blight_ January 2, 2013 at 11:25 pm

"So, how hard would it be to get notations all in Chinese past the guards"

Simple. Seize everything that isn't in English.

However, a good spy would use a microdot or a clandestine camera, rather than risk writing something openly hoping that English speaking guards weren't suspicious.


Tuan January 2, 2013 at 8:57 pm

You are right, 4000 years of history, of "innovation" went to sh…when it became a communist state


blight_ January 2, 2013 at 11:26 pm

China had been flushed down the toilet for centuries. Hasn't been quite the same since the fall of the Han, or I could be generous and call it after the Ming.


crackedlenses January 2, 2013 at 11:40 pm

Definitely. Probably the reason the Chinese copy so much is that they have been playing from the rear ever since they encountered the West and the West's superior technology.


Ranger1989 February 17, 2013 at 9:08 am

ditto – somebody who actually knows how to read a history book. Avg. reading level of white male american – 8th grade if you are lucky.

Ranger1989 February 17, 2013 at 8:54 am

sounds like good plan to me. why work harder than you have to.


whoaa December 27, 2012 at 2:21 pm

Hey, if it works why fix it lol.


Kole December 27, 2012 at 2:32 pm

Well, seems that they are pretty late to the party when it comes to transport aircraft… then again, they are late to everything…


Bill Huang December 28, 2012 at 3:46 pm

Well, the Americans are surely prone to heart attacks and surprises whenever the Chinese are late to the party.


blight_ January 1, 2013 at 10:14 am

And hysteria. Ai yah!


TommyGun January 2, 2013 at 5:12 pm

Chinese has to wait for someone to make it first so then can copy. From outside it looks similar. Inside, it's has gucci pleather seats, $3 bulova and rolex indicators, oh yeah, the fight deck partition material is chinese drywall


EW3 December 27, 2012 at 2:44 pm

I'm sure there are those on this site that will say it's stealthy /sarc


Jeff January 3, 2013 at 8:54 am

No, but it is sarc, and Stealthy, got that from my sources inside the Chicom Government.


RunningBear December 27, 2012 at 3:13 pm

How close is the copy of the C-17, is it more of a C-17A or did they go for the improved but never built C-17B? Does this indicate that they only build the production versions?

Happy New Year! :)


marc27 December 27, 2012 at 4:30 pm

only the exterior looks like the c17 the interior components are total crap just like everything the chinese domestically built. even the russians said in a statement that the chinese copy of the su27 is total crap that would never be as powerful as their version.


Yoda December 31, 2012 at 9:08 am

Yeah, sure that everything good is in north american, and the rest of the world just copy them and make junk. how much arrogance. Mmm, I think the Chinese invented gunpowder, they do not turn out so bad, right? And all copied him and use that invention, including the United States … as copied and / or have appropriated many other inventions and things that worked. But do not say any of that.


Matt December 31, 2012 at 5:23 pm

Well modern gun powder is more of a "copy" of French smokeless powder, if anything.

And there's a big difference between a technology invented hundreds of years ago spreading around the world and a gov/corporation blatantly copying copyrighted foreign designs (not saying its defiantly the case here, just that it's China's usually tactic).


cs4 January 1, 2013 at 9:47 pm

Funny people. When Chinese innovations were copied, it is not stealing because it was spread around the world, while American innovations were copied, it is considered stealing. Oh, I forgot about the copyrights/patents, I wonder how the west learned to make silk fabric, tea and porcelain.


Matt January 1, 2013 at 10:14 pm

There's a massive difference between trading and adopting ideas in say the Medieval age and stealing a corporation's investment in an era of globalization and (supposedly) universally accepted copyright laws.

Not to mention that Europeans by all accounts likely got gunpowder second hand from either Arabs or Mongols; hence "spreading around the world" (as apposed to hacking into servers to steal data)

Yoda January 3, 2013 at 12:32 pm

Goog point too. I agree and that illustrates my point to Matt

Yoda January 3, 2013 at 12:28 pm

Right. Good point. What I'm saying is that you should not underestimate his intellect. Just do things in a different, and their time. And certainly are making great strides.

The trouble is that many are saying that the Chinese copied their designs, but they say that their electronic components, materials, and manufacturing parts send them to China because labor is cheap and capable of mass production. They manufacture everything we eat there because "the Chinese are cheap" phones, computers, televisions and any other equipment. Even the F22 have Chinese technology in their circuits. Why complain if the Chinese decide then make something on your own and copy?
As if besides Russia, USA and many other technologies or not avail brains … as did Russia and USA experiencing technologies and sometimes copying machines of Nazi Germany after the war, and to take their brains also distinguished, which were later used for example to develop atomic bombs and other things. Not only the Chinese appropriate the knowledge of others. Ever happened, and everywhere. He who is without sin … cast the first stone.
Other than that, returning to the topic Matt: this particular aircraft, can you tell me, with his hand on the heart, which is more like a C17 than a Antonov 76 or 78? no, right?


Papi1960R January 5, 2013 at 1:09 pm

Yoda, if you go onto the "Luft 46" web page you will see that there has been no innovative aircraft designs in 40-50 years. Technology marches on, but usually to the beat of a very old drum.
Reminds me of the retirement of the old "Banana Plane", the Blackburn Buccaneer. When asked what the old Buccaneers should be replaced with the heads of the FAA and the RAF both replied "with new Buccaneers".

Sir Sapo December 27, 2012 at 4:56 pm

While the Chinese dont seem too shy about blatantly copying designs, I think this is more a case of form following function. There’s a reason nearly every large military transport has the same basic layout, and that reason is because there isn’t really a better way to do it. Lockheed had it figured out with the C-141, 50 years ago…


lcarman January 3, 2013 at 7:56 am

You got that right – after over 6,000 hours as a Loadmaster on the C-141, I can say the old girl was some fine aircraft.


redordead December 27, 2012 at 5:49 pm

more importantly, they have the money and/or are willing to spend it on a bewildering number of military designs.


matt December 27, 2012 at 5:49 pm

looks more like a larger version of Embraer KC-390


Yoda December 31, 2012 at 9:16 am

Yes! or the older Ilyushin 78 "midas". But ome people still says its a C17 copy. jajaja!!!
The Ilyushin 76 "Candid", too.


Benjamin December 27, 2012 at 5:57 pm

What I would look at is how powerful the engines are. A transport that size would need an engine bigger then what is on the IL-76. Engines have been the achilles heel of the Chinese so far.


Tom December 28, 2012 at 12:31 pm

You can tell from the diameter of the engines on this thing they are not up to Western standards in jet engine technology.


Bill Huang December 28, 2012 at 3:45 pm

I think the production version will be installed with the WS-20 engine as tests run by.


El Guapo January 5, 2013 at 1:14 pm

They will probably just buy large Turbofans from Airbus, as Airbus signed a coop agreement with China for coop on a turboprop transport similar to, but slightly smaller, than the A-400 Grizzly.


jack December 27, 2012 at 6:16 pm

Chinese haven't developed anything on their own since fireworks.


Yoda December 31, 2012 at 11:24 am

Yeah, but all of us are copied the fireworks and gunpowder and we are using it ;-)
and – no matter who likes it, they manufacture all parts and electronics worldwide, from our cell phones, televisions, and washing machines to F22 avionics and most of our computers and weapons systems.
Do not be silly, they are not stupid, and are making great strides in all fields of technology. Have achieved in five years, other developments that take you 20 years. And the criticism addressed to it when something new is not as good as its western verion is another nonsense. They have their carriers, their fighters stealth, its heavy cargo, and are not perfect, but they are there and it is a breakthrough. They are not perfect? sure! because they are something new. Or when the West creates a new fighter or bomber, never wrong? I am reminded of things like when F14 crashed in its inaugural flight. No longer so excellent weapons platform, a superb machine. (Yes, it's one of my favorite aircraft)
And the Chinese are many … many :)


Yoda December 31, 2012 at 11:47 am

Auto-correction: The prototype F-14A Tomcat made ​​its first test flight on 21 Dicimebre 1970 from Calverton, but few days later crashed into the ground as a result of a ruptured hydraulic pipes. Not crashed in it´s maiden flight, sorry.
It's just an example saying that a new device it´s not perfect, or free from any defects to correct.


PrometheusGoneWild December 27, 2012 at 8:28 pm

This will allow then to fly troops quickly to every spot in their country where they are oppressing minority groups….
Soon they will have as many white elephants as we do and we will start buying their government issued bonds…..


mi1400 December 28, 2012 at 12:45 am

If it would have been some other countries … all patent trolls and legal battles would have been waged on that country … if some powerful country is doing that … US etc just bad mouth, moan and groan .. nothing else. ….


Ranger1989 February 17, 2013 at 9:10 am



metfan lou December 28, 2012 at 9:11 am

Heck they have billions of our bonds, just use the m oney to buy them from us. Sounds just too easy.


W.R.Monger January 2, 2013 at 3:30 pm

there is the ITAR (the document that governs and/or restricts transaction of military tech to other countries) to consider in a transaction of military equipment from the US to ANY other country. that in itself would likely kill any plans to sell the Chinese even a single C17. besides it doess have the appearance of the much earlier C15 (which few have ever seen much less known about.


SANDMAN December 28, 2012 at 9:54 am



charlie g December 28, 2012 at 2:38 pm

I second that, but it has to be a really big one.


Mike January 3, 2013 at 5:26 pm

Ah but that will entail stealing of the Imperial plans… and Leia and the Bothan's have already done that :-)


Jimmy J December 28, 2012 at 10:30 am

HHH – “Thanks Unions”

Wake up, the problem today is “CORPORATE GREED” in the Board Room, not Lunch Bucket Joe who needs two incomes to survive in this world !!!!


William_C1 December 28, 2012 at 4:16 pm

But when union bosses are greedy and corrupt as they are in too many unions it certainly isn't helping matters at all.


Belesari December 28, 2012 at 6:43 pm

Yet the difference between the average Chinese worker and their bosses is far worse. Yet they are getting the jobs? So its not that. In addition jobs are being shipped to non union states and are doing great. So why is it everywhere the unions rule there is economic trouble worse than that in non union controled?


Tinkersdam December 31, 2012 at 2:53 am

Hard to take that seriously with Detroit union workers making upwards of 100K/yr to do a job that should pay minimum wage.


blight_ January 1, 2013 at 10:10 am

Which jobs would those be? I-banker at Ally Bank?


@epobirs December 31, 2012 at 11:49 am

You've mistaken workers for unions. They are separate entities, with one existing as a parasitic growth upon the other.


Matt December 31, 2012 at 5:30 pm

If the average union's goal was to actually help works, then they wouldn't be so nervous every time a state gov. decides that they can't /force/ workers to join. Union's have a purpose, but far too many union bosses have done exactly what too many corporate bosses do when they can't stay competitive (jump in bed with big gov.)…


Taylor December 28, 2012 at 11:39 am

When it comes to military equipment, stealing the enemy's designs is fair game. If we are stupid enough to let them do it, shame on us. The Chinese seem to be pretty smart people except that they don't seem to be able to master freedom and goodness so far. That takes an advanced civilization. They do have a Christian underground that probably gets those concepts.


justsaying December 28, 2012 at 1:14 pm

The idea that goodness requires Christianity is silly. More arrogance and idiocy from the religious right, driving to church every Sunday in their starched up suits to listen how to be good when they could actually be using that time to help others. The irony seems to be lost on them.


crackedlenses January 1, 2013 at 2:53 am

Without Christianity, everyone is left making up their own definition of "good". And your assumption that Christians go to church instead of helping people is as ridiculous as saying that all Muslims are psychopathic terrorists. Seriously……


orly? January 1, 2013 at 10:13 am

You tell the Japanese that have behaved more civil than some Americans after 2 natural disasters and one nuclear event at one time that they aren't good.


crackedlenses January 1, 2013 at 6:24 pm

I'm not saying Americans are perfect by any means; they most definitely have issues, and plenty of them. As for the Japanese, their Buddhist/Shinto heritage left them some good traits (as in their response to disasters), and plenty of bad ones (kamakazies and treatment of POWs anyone?).

As for the definition of "good", I prefer to let God define that. Our relative definitions are far too limited in scope.

Riceball January 3, 2013 at 7:01 pm

So you're saying that Christianity's definition of good is the only one that counts? I find that pretty arrogant and laughable, like the Crusades and Inquisition were all that good.


TonyC December 28, 2012 at 12:23 pm

China is determined to match the West and Russia in military capabilities. Then they will invade Taiwan knowing the US will not be able to stop them. These transports are meant for taking troops to Taipei, not humanitarian relief. Once they have subdued Taiwan, then they will turn their attention to other areas.


rome December 30, 2012 at 4:13 pm

well they already trying too claim even the south china aka west philippine sea and even try to bully every country beside that sea and so i blame Nixon going there in the first place when the are very very poor. and give them the WTO member of UN. Now they even challenging the USA now. they back stabber, china!!!!


Riceball January 3, 2013 at 7:03 pm

I don't think that China has any plans to ever invade Taiwan unless they absolutely have to. With all of the business that they do with Taiwan there's no need to invade them so long as no one there gets stupid and declares Taiwan to be an independent and sovereign state and not a part of China,


rich December 28, 2012 at 12:50 pm

First an aircraft carrier, then a F-22 clone on steroids, now a long range heavy lift cargo jet. China is developing the tools she needs to have an offensive capability far beyond the first island chain. I wonder when amphibs in the US style will be launched? I'd think Australia, Indonesia, Thailand, Japan would start getting nervous about their future in about 10 years. Not that China intends on invading but that China could overwhelm them in short order, if she had a mind too. In the case of Australia, China could cut off air and sea lanes with the US, something the Japanese attempted in 1942.


cs4 December 28, 2012 at 8:25 pm

The Chinese are NOT Japanese, please don't think that all Asians who look the same to you think alike.


tinkersdam December 31, 2012 at 3:17 am

Wow, you're making a LOT of assumptions about "rich," whoever he is. Are you familiar with the term "ad hominem?"


cs4 January 1, 2013 at 10:48 pm

Sorry, doesn't speak Latin.


rich January 2, 2013 at 1:24 pm

Do you read a post before replying? Your reply makes no sense to me.


cs4 January 2, 2013 at 10:58 pm

Please enlighten.


Benjamin December 29, 2012 at 10:08 am

At that point of time in 1942, the Japanese had superior forces in the PAcific and failed. I think the same would be said of the Chineses forces.


Matt December 31, 2012 at 5:36 pm

But, compared to the Japanese we had better/more industry and more natural resources…
Is that still the case when compared to China? Unfortunately, while we have the potential it would seem too many in our nation don't have the political will…


crackedlenses January 1, 2013 at 2:53 am

I'm afraid you're probably right. 3,000 Americans dead and we still can't decide what we should have done. There is no guaruntee anymore that another Pearl Harbor would "awakening a sleeping giant".


rich January 2, 2013 at 1:31 pm

Did you see the photo recently of Newport News showing 7 carriers plus amphibs all lined up nice and neat? In 1942 we had a naval expansion underway for 2 years which enabled the US to start reinforcing the Pacific by 1943 to reclaim superiority. Should we lose 7 carriers today, it would take a decade or more to rebuild. Times have changed. The point I'm making is China is in the early stages of acquiring the naval and air force assets to assert her will all across the Pacific. Not that she will, but she will have the tools to threaten and intimidate. On the flip side the US is entering the early stages of a steep decline in naval power with all the deterioration to our industrial base that decline portends. The decade of 2010 isn't the decade of 1940's obviously but China is obviously intending on becoming a rising power in the Pacific and she has the industrial and financial clout to be the dominate power for at least 1000 miles from her shorelines.

W.R.Monger January 2, 2013 at 3:43 pm

very true. you can have all of the technology in the world but without the will to use it that tech might as well be ham sandwiches… which would probably work really well against those in the middle east…


blight_ February 17, 2013 at 11:06 am

They are probably thinking the same thing, but plugging in the USN wherever IJN is, and assuming that not having day one superiority means you are still in the game.

If the Navy is committed and defeated in a decisive battle like Midway, it will take years to build new carriers.


Ranger1989 February 17, 2013 at 9:13 am

WW3 is looming in the horizon. Apocalypse NOW! bring it on.


Alex December 28, 2012 at 1:18 pm

Looks like a C-17? Really DT?

Looks far more like an Antonov/Ilyushin influenced design than anything else.

Of all the defense sites I regularly peruse, DT is definitely closest to the tabloid mag of the industry.


George December 28, 2012 at 1:30 pm

And we are going to close down the production line because we have "enough" C-17's. Amazing.


Juuso December 28, 2012 at 1:40 pm

Transport aircraft gap! US of A must build at least 500 C-17 to close it.


Gen. King December 28, 2012 at 2:22 pm

The Y-20 is about 80% of C-17 in size and weight. Its "wing-above-fuselage" design is totally different from C-17's "wing-through-fuselage" design. Antonov claims they have contributed to the design. Y-20 really looks kind like an enlarged An-70, albeit with a T tail instead of a conventional tail.


Nicky December 28, 2012 at 2:42 pm

Looks like the Chinese copied parts of the C-17 and parts of the A-400 Atlas to come up with a Cloned version of the two.


Yoda December 31, 2012 at 11:05 am

Defense Tech Note: I extend my comment for you also read it, and become informed before waving nationalism, ignorant comments to people who do not read or reported.
Tabloids seem


El Guapo January 5, 2013 at 1:20 pm

The A-400 is the "Grizzly" not the "Atlas".


johnvarry December 28, 2012 at 7:53 pm

A former Boeing employee was convicted in June 2009 of selling technical info on the C-17 to China. The C-17 data may have influenced the design but its not a direct copy, The dimensions are all slightly smaller.


karl johnson December 28, 2012 at 8:07 pm

That is what happens when you let Boeing operate in China. Just like Apple and any other technology company.
As well as allowing export to/importation in of anything.
They copy it, they pay no royalty fees to copywright/trademark/tradedress/registered owners.


SANDMAN December 29, 2012 at 7:54 am

So why are we still putting up factories in china???? We are just feeding their people, their economy, their war machine! If we need cheap labor, why not set up in countries which we are aligned to and who needs our help. If we move out of china and our allies follow, the chinese economy will burst!


Reverend Clint December 29, 2012 at 4:01 pm

it looks more like an AN than anything western other than it has wings and round fuselage.


Stan December 29, 2012 at 5:57 pm

Since no one bothered to do this here is a simple search result showing images of Il-76, An-124, and An-225 among others. https://www.google.com/search?q=an-12&hl=en&a

Feel free to do the same for American planes. Sometimes a cigar is just because you want to have a big smoke you can hold in your hand.


@1mucho December 30, 2012 at 8:50 am

It looks nothing like the C-17 to me.


@1mucho December 30, 2012 at 8:51 am

The Chinese never said it was a clone of the C-17.


John Gardner December 30, 2012 at 7:32 pm

As usual, this transport is going to be another piece of junk that the Chinese have fabricated, God forbid we 'll have to buy them so as to pay off our debt to them.


Dfens December 31, 2012 at 10:54 am

Oh no, it will take us 30 years and untold billions of dollars to come up with a new cargo jet. And even then we will outsource most of it to China, because it's not like we have any factories in this country that can build a military airplane anymore.


Raptor Leader December 31, 2012 at 2:50 pm

C-17 has been in service since the 1990s. The Chicoms are late as usual. Looks more Russian than American. By the time it is in production the C-17s will be super ceded by its replacement. China, a land of copiers not innovators.


NeoconBrony December 31, 2012 at 3:48 pm

No biggie, by the time they're ready for mass production, we'll probably have a blended wing body replacement for the C-17.


blight_ January 1, 2013 at 10:13 am

Mimicking aerodynamic shapes is the most sincere form of flattery, but without FEA and generating the model yourself in testing, a model derived from pictures and guesswork won't be very good.

If you have cad files corresponding to aircraft shape, then it gets more interesting; but I would assume that shaping assumes many other factors remain the same: weight distribution, engine profile, material of construction. If they're not the same, the same benefits won't be derived from exact mimicry of the shape.

If they're using the C-17 as a starting point and adjusting the design based on their materials construction capability, available engines, avionics and geopolitical needs of the aircraft, more power to them. Are their engines better than the export-grade engines that will go out with American or Russian aircraft?


blight_ January 1, 2013 at 12:35 pm
@weixue3 January 1, 2013 at 9:12 pm

just face it USA, your country is not going to last as the world leader. China will dominate Asia and then Europe and later USA. We can be proud later for our status soon. It is our destiny for country, the "Middle Kingdom". I know countries are worried but you have to know that China is peaceful and friendly. bye bye USA


Mike January 2, 2013 at 12:06 am

Up yours…..


Mike January 3, 2013 at 5:31 pm

China… peaceful… friendly…

Heres another three little words for you:

Tienanmen… Square… Massacre…

Sort of sums up the Government of the Middle Kingdom.


@weixue3 January 5, 2013 at 2:24 am

here's some facts for you,

Slavery, segregation, bloody wars, colonialism, invasions, racism, all courtesy of the good ol USA


crackedlenses January 7, 2013 at 1:02 pm


Fixed that with a devastating civil war. You can stop bringing it up now.


Fixed that too.

"Bloody wars"

And that is our fault how? If you haven't noticed, we don't invade countries to take them over. We invade them to either free them or eliminate a threat to ourselves. May not always work, but nothing to be ashamed of.


Not really sure what you're talking about there. Besides within our borders we have not colonized anyone.


See above.


And once again this is our fault how? Are you saying that we are the world's sole source of racism, or that we promote it abroad?


RAMON January 2, 2013 at 12:23 am



cs4 January 2, 2013 at 1:48 am

They see themselves as the top dog, everyone else is the challenger despite being saddled with illnesses.


crackedlenses January 2, 2013 at 2:07 am

We were the top dog, for a while at least. You can't expect kings to start acting like peasants at the drop of a hat.


cs4 January 2, 2013 at 3:46 am

Well, start learning and see the world without the top dog glasses.


Dfens January 2, 2013 at 2:51 pm

If you think the biggest threat to your freedoms are domestic, then you're completely out of touch with reality.


Jeff January 2, 2013 at 6:37 am

The Chinese are Copiers! We send drawings and spec's to them daily and they make the parts or products and ship them to us to sell in our stores. Whats the difference here they took a picture and copied it. They are just doing what they are good at.!


dee January 2, 2013 at 12:42 pm

The electronic components have been made over their for years – I realize this doesn't include the software but that was acquired through hacking……..

Doesn't Boeing have a plant making aircraft components in China?

All our puzzle pieces have been laying on the table for someone else to assemble. We cannot be shocked when another country does it.


Halfbreed citizen99 January 2, 2013 at 6:15 pm

So what's so surprizing??? They will copy anything they can; and will get away with it; because not a single country will challenge them; and even if they did


EricX January 2, 2013 at 9:03 pm

Will we see it sell at WalMart?


tony January 2, 2013 at 9:29 pm

let them be.they don`t have the tech.


carl baumann January 2, 2013 at 10:00 pm

maybe we should get rid of them now before its to late, if we dont get them, they'll get us.


Adam Majkowski January 2, 2013 at 10:54 pm

Transport aircraft are the only ones worth building. To transport supplies to people in need and transport people away from natural disaster areas. Too bad when our country gets attacked by itself or a natural disaster we have no response from our worthless military. I wonder if China leaves it's people to die after a hurricane like we do.


blight_ January 2, 2013 at 11:22 pm

"I wonder if China leaves it's people to die after a hurricane like we do."

Did you sleep through Sichuan earthquake? Disaster relief sucks, and is an inevitable opportunity for incompetence, malice and greed to appear. Same everywhere on the planet.


crackedlenses January 2, 2013 at 11:44 pm

I still remember pics from an oil spill off the Chinese coast that was just pathetic. Some of the workers were using their hands (and in one case) chopsticks to clean up the oil.


OMEGATALON January 2, 2013 at 11:00 pm

The US Government should consider selling the C-17 production line to China like Russia did with it's TU-22 bomber especially as the US doesn't plan on buying more C-17s and the aircraft like is scheduled to close; China can deduct the cost from the $4-Trillion that the US will be adding to the National Debt.


FlyBoy January 2, 2013 at 11:02 pm

In our free society this is why we, as a nation, have to spend three times the cost to stay a couple of years ahead of the technology we make available to the rest of the world! Years ago the Russian's used OUR Freedom of Information Act to obtain plans to the C-5, the Chinese probably did the same. Go figure.


blight_ January 2, 2013 at 11:21 pm

Considering we couldn't even build the C-5 ourselves if we wanted to…

Besides, they already have bigger aircraft. What could they possibly want with our C-5?


Dfens January 3, 2013 at 1:24 pm

Hell, it took us twice as long to re-engine the C-5 than it took to design the whole airplane including its original engines from scratch. It is ironic, given the huge fiasco that was the C-5 development program, that by current standards the original program would be considered a huge success.


blight_ January 3, 2013 at 5:15 pm

Or the tech upgrades from C-5 to C-5M.


vrns January 3, 2013 at 1:44 am

i think this flying postbox have a similarity to An-70 too. but i think to spare some dev time, it's not cheating to copy layout from a sucessful plane , btw all fliyng postboxes are have similarity, because to reach the best cargo roomshape, every big cargo plane must have this elliptic tube form:)


Tanko January 3, 2013 at 4:27 am

We cannot forget they showed interest in the defunct An-70!!!!


Valbonne January 3, 2013 at 5:01 am

Chinese Y-20 took inspiration from Russian IIyushin II-76 because they have been fly them for years. Russian engineers were said to be behind some of the design work. I hope nobody will get paranoia about this.


Paul January 3, 2013 at 8:00 am









Woody January 3, 2013 at 8:52 am

Yea so what if they build a bad copy of America planes or whatever, their stuff is crap…well, most of it….how's that old Russian carrier workin' out for them?….and that supposed "stealth" fighter?…..not a single original thought in that entire overpopulated country…..idiots…


Charles January 3, 2013 at 11:39 am

What kind of spy plane was it that collided with the Chinese jet and ended up landing in China intact. The Chinese copied every single part by dismantling it a piece at a time and that is how we got it back.


Dfens January 3, 2013 at 1:25 pm

That was a P-3. It's so old, no one would want to copy it.


blight_ January 3, 2013 at 2:37 pm

It was an EP-3 with semi-modern surveillance gear. We could care less about the aircraft, but the real question is what was learned from the equipment; even if the airmen had enough time to trash and destroy everything (unlike the Pueblo, the aircraft was not over-run, but was simply unable to leave due to mechanical issues.


Benjamin January 3, 2013 at 4:59 pm

Word is they did not have enough time to destroy all of the classified stuff


blight_ January 3, 2013 at 5:10 pm
eprida January 3, 2013 at 12:07 pm

President Clinton gave the 3D tools mechanics, F-16, WQ-89, XB-70 Walkiria, submarines, torpedoes, all they need to make the World in Red. Now, they are doing the same to destroy USA. Iran, Russia, Cuba and Venezuela are developing Biological and Chemical Weapons, DoD nothing do against them.
Chinese had very good skill to spy technology and I ask where is the FBI, no one China's spy in electric chair sit. Still the China are 25 five years back and they never will be reach the our metallurgy and electronic develop to do the same thing, remember the weight and the strength need to play an important role in the design, the Russian Weapons has the same problem, it never result in good stuff.


blight_ January 3, 2013 at 2:43 pm

I stopped taking you seriously at "WQ-89" and "Walkiria". Pretty sure it was the failed XB-70 Valkyrie, which was designed before modern Computer Aided Design.

Would you like to play again? (Y/N)


eprida January 3, 2013 at 7:24 pm

Please, search for the Start's Report in 630 pages you will read a lot of gift from Mr.Clinton to China in high technology. The document was written by the US Attorney.


KbarMike January 3, 2013 at 2:39 pm
Guest January 3, 2013 at 3:57 pm

Let's not underestimate them. Their super carriers are formidable. They are allowed to attend our most prestigous universities in america. They are as smart as our engineers. Let's be careful so that we ourselves keep technologically advanced ahead of them. However, with declining military budgets, we won't be able to do that. World super powered threats should not be taken lightly. We should not weaken our military by to many budget cuts. The enemy is waiting to take advantage of that.


blight_ January 3, 2013 at 5:12 pm

What super carrier?

*nobody* builds supercarriers except the United States. Even the marine amphibious carriers are large enough to be carriers in the fleets of other nations navies.

The Liaoning is an old Kiev-class aviation cruiser stripped of its forward armaments turned into a complete flight deck. If you think that makes it a "super carrier", I have some Japanese helicopter destroyers and Korean gator ships for you…


Benjamin January 3, 2013 at 5:14 pm

I am thinking that this is not a production design. Being that the engines are what is on the IL-76 and this is a larger plane there is going to be weight issues. This is also the first transport plane built by the Chinese. If they were going to install new engines there would have to be major work done to the pylons.
Since it isthe first time China has developed a transport plane, I would use a prototype to determine exactly what size i want the plane to be for what it is supposed to transport. If you want to transport tanks you need more room then say a Humvee.
I see a lot of changes being done to this design beyond the engines if it was a production model.


Simple Man January 4, 2013 at 5:01 pm

Was at the military museum in Beijing where they had their own copy of the Hummer on display. Pretty sad.


El Guapo January 5, 2013 at 1:59 pm

Was at the Patton museum at Ft. Knox, KY. They had the American copy of the 1972 proposed Italian IVECO Light Military Transport. I think the copy was called a Hummer.


El Guapo January 5, 2013 at 1:56 pm

Wow, everybody is conditioned to view somebody as the anti-American Boogie Man. Since we were at conflict with each other in Korea in the 1950, how many military interventions, police actions, and out right wars have the Chinese participated in?
How many has the USA participated in, financed and even instigated? I'm retired Army(ISA) and have deployed to atleast 54 countries for operations that have absolutely nothing to the defense of the United States.
China attack Australia? Hopefully not on the Gold Coast, as a assault woud kill tens of thousands of Chinese tourists.


Valbonne January 7, 2013 at 2:24 am

Generally Chinese are not anti-American at all and one can see lots of Chinese believes in "American Dream" by the increase of large numbers of Chinese immigrants to America. American mass-media has created the view that Chinese are anti-American Boogie Man in order to increase 'American Government Defense Spending'.


Benjamin January 7, 2013 at 12:39 pm

They may not be anti-american but they are very anti-Japanese (borderline racist) and Fillipino. Both are U.S. allies. They also hate the Vietnamese and Indian.


crackedlenses January 7, 2013 at 1:03 pm

I don't blame them for hating the Japanese; as for the others it sounds like just plain hatred of those not like them.


Vinyl Truck Advertis March 8, 2013 at 7:56 am

Chinese are smart people, they not only copy the ideas, they make the ideas more glittering and shiny the always keep their self one step ahead of other powers.
They not make advancements only in the military area, they much more concentrate on their economic growth more than their military, and the example is their latest treaty with Pakistan to get total control of the Gawadar deep seaport.


Donald Saelinger May 14, 2013 at 2:38 am

I always feel good to hear about the successful advancement in field of technology by any country of the world because this advancement in technology triggers a competition in the field which results in advancement of our world.


ev temizlik şirketi July 18, 2013 at 11:35 am
ukrainian flower August 8, 2013 at 2:14 pm
Sailboat Charters Kemah August 8, 2014 at 5:52 am

This opening can be tightly sealed to prevent any water seepibg into cabin. The function to lower the spinnaker is to on skippers instruction;
un-jam the spinnaker halyard and release the spinnaker sheets in a controlled manner, then pulling
in on the down haul which will allow the spinnaker to collapse down into the spinnaker
chute until fully stowed and jammed off. It is the horizontal structural,
support for the mast.


Bumper Repair Sheffield August 18, 2014 at 3:12 pm

Hello! I just wanted to ask if you ever have any
trouble with hackers? My last blog (wordpress) was hacked and I ended up losing many months of hard work due to no backup.

Do you have any solutions to stop hackers?


Dean December 27, 2012 at 10:05 pm

Perhaps you prefer the working conditions in a Chinese factory?

Yes. This is a cargo plane that looks like ours. Does it have the same weight-to-thrust? What about maximum take-off weight? What about range? Inflight refueling? Can it use anything other than a 10k foot runway? Plus, this is just one aircraft. We have airlift capacity to pretty much form an aluminum conveyor belt from Continental US to Afghanistan. I'm not going to lose a wink of sleep until we know more.


John Deere December 28, 2012 at 8:47 am

"Thanks unions".

Only 6% of the US workforce is unionized. In Germany it's over 20% and it hasn't done them any harm.


eprida January 3, 2013 at 12:21 pm

I agree 100%


Steven December 28, 2012 at 8:37 am

The DT's editorial staff may have erred in their title with the use of the word 'Clone', however, throughout the article they use the word 'similar' which does not mean 'exactly' like but having the characteristics of a cargo aircraft that fits the niche that the C-17 does. You should be ashamed of your last paragraph. Dolt!


Tom December 28, 2012 at 9:50 am

I would add that the first thing I noticed when looking at the pictures is the relatively small diameter of the engines on the Chinese plane, indicating to me they are still at least two generations behind in engine technology.


Yoda December 31, 2012 at 8:56 am

Excellently expressed. A good argument, with good foundations.


bigfingo December 28, 2012 at 9:08 am

Made ya look!!!

From: Past Master of the Obvious


rome December 30, 2012 at 3:51 pm

the chinese are master of thief of patent and cloning = no 2nd thought about it. mostly in movie and in airplane = copied from russia and america!!!


justsaying December 28, 2012 at 1:11 pm

That's because they're Germans. More intelligent on average and less lazy too. Americans ruin lots of good things.


Tinkersdam December 31, 2012 at 2:43 am

It can't hurt that so many of their low-end laborers are Turks and eastern Europeans.


eprida January 3, 2013 at 12:24 pm

Because in Japan, Germany and other country the Union figth for the same thing the the Owner, more income for the company, more income for the workers. The result is more productivity, low production cost, more competitive products, very simple.


John Deere December 28, 2012 at 1:45 pm

Jay, trolling is a art you haven't mastered.


mike December 28, 2012 at 7:22 pm

Your spelling's too good for someone who actually thinks this, though the shit grammar's a good start. Next time, make those ellipses, I dunno, seven long and put a couple exclamation marks at the end of each.


Yoda December 31, 2012 at 10:52 am

Just a racist? no… racist, ignorant, and stupid.


blight_ January 1, 2013 at 10:05 am

Soon people will say he is a communist and a Salafist at the same time. And we all know the two are mutually exclusive.

Well, most of us do…


Ranger1989 February 17, 2013 at 9:14 am

no, you are an idiot!


cs4 December 28, 2012 at 10:05 pm

Well, what do you expect from the self-proclaimed "Kings of Innovation and Ingenuity". Even if Y-20 is an ekranoplan, they will still claim it as a C-17 clone modified to operate as one.


crackedlenses January 1, 2013 at 3:00 am

Ignorant and stupid? Maybe.

Racist, not really.

Then again, I haven't seen all his posts.


blight_ January 1, 2013 at 10:03 am

And you think China is better how?

Workers, work more cheaply. Apple thinks its okay, and we don't care any more than they do.

Here, have some nets.


cs4 January 1, 2013 at 10:46 pm

Are you the mouthpiece of God? If not please keep religion to yourself.


Riceball January 3, 2013 at 6:59 pm

Buddhism/Shintoism had nothing to do with their military's behavior during WW II, it was the resurrection/perversion of Bushido that led to the atrocities; for what it's worth, the average Japanese enlistedman wasn't treated all that well by their NCOs and officers either. That and Asian cultures generally place a different value on human life than Western cultures do,


cs4 January 2, 2013 at 1:09 am

Justifications, justifications. So someone picking your pocket is different from hacking into your bank account.


Yoda January 3, 2013 at 12:54 pm

Matt, good to discuss with you, really. Good language and respeto.También with CS4.
Maybe we expanded on the issue, instead of just talking the plane. Because but the issue is more extensive and complex. If we talk about getting outside servers and steal information or intervene, both know that several countries do, some under the guise of protecting the security … We could talk about that too, but best left as a subject for another debate, friendly, at another time, if you agree.
I appreciate your comments, and respect for dissent, without fanaticism.
(I still think that the new aircraft is more like an IL76 or 78, haha!)
Best wishes, and Happy 2013!


crackedlenses January 2, 2013 at 2:05 am

Just because you haven't figured out what is true and what is not doesn't mean I have to shut up. My point was that only God can be the absolute standard on "good". All other standards are relative to whatever human makes them.


orly? January 2, 2013 at 8:10 am

The worst of "'America's sins" (since you've opened the door with things that the Japanese military have done instead of the populace) is pretty hardcore genocide and mainstream slavery when "God" was in apparently everything there was about America.

Your argument is pretty flawed.


crackedlenses January 2, 2013 at 1:43 pm

"that the Japanese military have done instead of the populace)"

You completely leave out the roles Japanese culture played in Japanese military practices.

"pretty hardcore genocide"

Bunk. A decades long battle between a technologically advanced minority and an indigenious war-like majority is not a genocide.

"mainstream slavery when "God" was in apparently everything"

Completely ignoring the large number of Christians who worked actively to free the slaves. And, considering that they fought a devastating war to settle that question, I'd say Americans took the issue pretty seriously.

Swiss cheese, anyone?


blight_ January 3, 2013 at 2:40 pm

We got plenty of low-end labor here too. Except we put them to work mowing lawns, selling flowers by the highway and cleaning houses.

Unless by luck of the draw, the Germans get "the hard working ones" and America gets "the lazy ones".


blight_ January 3, 2013 at 2:41 pm

'cause they know the welfare state has their back. CEOs don't ask for 100x the wages of the worker, they don't fight the worker to pare back benefits.


Guest January 3, 2013 at 3:49 pm

So the argument would be that the wright brothers invented heavier than air flight and globally everyone is stealing from the US?


Leave a Comment

Previous post:

Next post: