The J-10 / Lavi connection

Figured I’d move this to a separate thread to see if we could generate some sensible discussion on this issue.

Ok. Let’s examine a few things regarding the potential Lavi-J-10 relationship. The Chinese defense establishment has a history of extrapolating on existing designs to create their military aircraft. When presented with the aircraft or the designs to work from, they are able to produce Xerox copies, such as the J-7 and H-6. When they are given outside assistance, their designs tend to resemble those of the assisters’ product they are trying to emulate. The L-15 is a good example of this.

The J-10 would seem to be one of two things. Either totally indigenous, or in the latter of the two aforementioned categories. Now, the second option is the more likely one in my opinion. The Chinese defense establishment had no experience with 4th Generation aircraft. The Chinese military did have a relationship with Israel, hence the PL-8 and the Harpy. The Chinese defense establishment was just getting out from under the crippling effects of the Cultural Revolution and the political aftermath of Tianamen Square (which resulted in certain exports and assistance being barred or revoked…see PEACE PEARL). All of these factors suggest that the J-10 was indeed developed with some degree of outside assistance.

Now, the J-10 is clearly not a Lavi carbon copy. However, it seems logical that Israeli design assistance may have entered the fold. It probably went like this: PLAAF wants new fighter, Chengdu slated to design, Israeli assistance sought, Lavi general aerodynamic layout chosen as a baseline for development. Now, since Israel didn’t exactly develop the Lavi all by themselves, they wouldn’t be in a position to necessarily offer up the complete plans. They probably also didn’t want to jeopardise their continued existance by irritating the USA either, and as such, given that their involvement was, in the grand scheme of things, relatively minor yet still obviously important, they probably would want to keep their involvement secret. If the US discovers the truth, so what? Plausible deniability-it’s not the Lavi, after all.

However, Lavi engineers could have provided assistance in the areas of general design (they were, after all, aerodynamicists, right?), production methods, and other details. China would have taken the Lavi configuration of canard delta and designed it to suit their own needs, with Israeli assistance at some basic levels early on. Obviously the first thing to go would have been the rear fuselage: not getting a PW engine! Then the nose and forward fuselage need to be designed around Chinese avionics sets. Extrapolate the rest out, and you get the J-10. It’s not a Lavi clone. It’s a mostly Chinese product. But the prospect, and the likelihood, of Israeli involvement cannot be ignored. Unfortunately it cannot be decisively proven OR disproven either, so at this point it makes for nothing more than some interesting speculation. Personally, however, given the criteria outlined above, I tend to agree that there was probably some sort of Israeli involvement.

There is still the matter of the powerplant. China probably began preliminary WS10 development with the aim of fitting it to the J-10. Then they run into some trouble, as it’s a little more high-tech than anything they’ve dealt with before (reference India and the Kaveri). A bunch of FLANKERs are ordered and arrive with the AL-31F in the same class. Minor alteration, and the AL-31F is fitted to the J-10, at least for now. Of course, that is pure speculation on my part. However, it would seem to be plausible, given the F100 and F110 in the F-15 and F-16. How is that relevant, you ask? Simple. Both aircraft have interchangeable powerplants (at least they do now, in the case of the Eagle). That is something of an oversimplification, but the fact of the matter is that the engines can be fitted to either aircraft due to their similar size. The WS10 also fits into the J-11B, which at one point was powered by the AL-31F. It would seem logical that the WS10 would therefore also be compatible with the J-10s airframe, structurally and volumetrically, of course. Again, pure speculation on my part, but it would seem to make sense, and it is entirely plausible.

Does anyone have any sensible thoughts to add? And just an FYI: I’m looking for a coherent debate, not a simple argument consisting of “look what Russia said, they have to be right”.