Exactly. They don’t need no lectures on basic aerodynamics. What they needed at the time was a fighter plane, and guess what?
The Israeli experts knew most of their knowledge from the Lavi, and even the Arye. So in any case, if there was any Israeli help (and Arthur, don’t catch me on words please), it probably had to do with the Lavi, or the principals of the Lavi’s design (i.e canard delta and so on).

lol, that was just a rather extreme example of the range of activities that could have been included under that broad heading.

the israelis may, and probably did give china some lessons in ac design principles, but even if they did, it does not mean that the J10 is anything close to a LAVI offshoot.

if there was any assistant, then i would tend to lean on the side that the israelis were giving tips on how to modify and improve existing designs instead of making totally new ones. (which they had experience, and showed they can do pretty well).

after all, israel has never designed an indiginous fighter before (while china had attemptedmany), and even the LAVI had substantual US input, which did not make their design lessons very attractive.

hell, i’d go off on a limb and say that the J7MG probably had more israeli input them the J10.

I went to the libarary to the “Haaretz” newspaper archive. It is written there that in the 03/04/95, David Ivri, then the CEO of the Ministry of defence and former Air Force commander, admited that “Israel has provided and is providing military technologies to China, especially knowledge related to airplanes design”. BTW, it is also written there that two weeks eariler, the late Itzhak Rabin admited that in the mid 80s “Israel recieved a positive decision to provide China with upgrade kits for its tanks fleet and a non advanced air to air missile of the Rafael” (today we know it’s the PL-8).
Also written is that the week before the article was published, the American Los Angeles Times revealed that China is developing the J-10 with the help of the IAI, that in return for help in characterization and designing of the plane recived about a half a billion dollars.

‘knowledge related to airplanes design’

that alone could mean anything, they could have been giving lectures about basic areodynamic design for all we know.

when put into context with the other items metioned, the possibility of that ‘knowledge’ being LAVI blueprints becames even more remote as the other two were fairly specific. had the wording been alone the lines of ‘assistance in designing airplanes’ or ‘consultations on airplane design’, then your theroy would be more believable.

also, since when has the LA times become a reliable military publication? with all the right wing stuff they put out, you’d think china was secretly massing troops to invade the east coast or something. :rolleyes:

has anyone got a rating yet? can you only vote for one person once?

and i have also noticed that the smilies what been changing a little lately, must be a few bugs in the system or something.

well the flankers have AAM hardpoints right under their intakes, and it obviously isnt causing them a problem. also, many AAMs can be dropped a certain distance from the launch a/c before igniting their rocket engine, would that still affect the fighter’s engines?

as for pods, well i think the real J10 does have small hardpoints there (or planed to be put there) for pods and small free fall bombs. however i was just exploring the idea of using those hardpoints for AAMs instead.

lol, i have also seen this PSed pic. thought it pretty amusing. 😉

however, the two add-ons on the chin intake doesnt seem that senseless, and i cant really see a reason who small AAMs cant be kept there.

is there something really simple im missing that would rule out placing missle rails there? (the intake would need to be strengthen of course, but that shouldnt be too hard to do).

cheers Hyperwarp, interesting link. however i dont really fancy translating the whole thing. :p

will pick out som interesting points when i have some free time.