So after two times of reading it you missed this huh:

“”several times” in recent years.”

Seeing how it’s more than likely that US recon satellites are passing over China several times DAILY I’d say it’s a big stretch (to say the least) to say US satellites are “being blinded”. Most likely they just took a shot (IF they took a shot) to see if 1. “Can we do it” and 2. “Will they notice” and 3. “Will they say anything”.

1) and 2) do not make sense. It would be silly to assume that the PLA would use the dazzaler on a foreign spysat before they tested it on one of their own first since the foreign nation in question is highly unlikely to tell the PLA the exact effects. If the PLA already tested the thing against one or more of their own sats, then there would be little point in testing it against a foreign sat. It is also not in the PLA mentality to show off, they like to keep their power and abilities hidden as much as possible to have the greatest chance of maximising returns from the investments put in to develop those abilities if war occoured. After all, you can’t prepair against something you did know existed now can you?

It would be most likely that the PLA decided to use the dazzaler to blind foriegn spysats during important tests or excerises to keep the weapons and/or results/tactics as secret as possible. The rest of the time, spysats can take pictures of nothing in particular all day long and they’d be welcome.

The FC-1 project in contrast, seems to have an exponential degree of more openness and publicity, so one can’t really say that information isn’t generally available. If this type is going to go into PLAAF service ( I don’t think China would invest so many resources just for Pakistan’s sake ), it should be considered equally sensitive.

Thats poor reasoning. The J10 is clearly the more capable platform and is regarded in far greater regard by the PLAAF top brass as opposed to the export orientated FC1. Thus suggesting that the two are equally sensitive is plain nonesense and would be akin to suggesting that the F22 is equally sensitive as the F35 export models.

For goodness sake can we just ignore Flogger and do away with all this pointlessness? How is repeating the same thing time and over again achieving anything other then encourage him?

Didn’t Israel design the Arye fighter jet? Never got built, but that’s design experience. IAI also built the Lavi demonstrators, so there’s actual production experience as well.

Note the use of ‘established’. Sure, Israel did design some planes with extensive foreign input, but anyone can design a failed plane, not main can design a working one, and fewer can design a working one independently. Israel hasn’t managed any of that, not even a successfully designed plane with foreign help. That hardly put them in the same league as the likes of Dassault, GD and BAe etc. Even China in the 70s and 80s can claim to have more indiginous design expertise.

As for the production experience, well note my eariler post in which I speculated that Israel may have passed some advanced production technology and/or methods onto China which would have aided the J10 project.

Involvement, possibly, even probably, but not in designing of the airframe.

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”.

Before the LAVI, what examples are there of an indiginously DESIGNED Israeli warplane? Hell, even the LAVI isn’t indiginously Israeli designed, and seems to be a vastly modified F16.

China on the other hand had been able to make huge modifications of existing designs for decades as shown by the Q5 and J8II as well as having an extensive range of highly (in the end, too much so) ambutions designs of their own (J9 and the original J10 and J11, Q6, indiginous jet liner etc). At the time of the alleged LAVI tech transfer, the Israelis had far less indiginous design experience then China, and if the post regarding the level of foreign involvement on the LAVi is true, then it seems to show that Israel had very little hand in the design of the LAVI itself. There is very little Israel has to offer China in terms of design expertise.

On the other hand, Israel, because of its American and European connections, are world leading radar and avionics experts. The LAVI manufacturing offset deal may have also given them advanced construction technology and experience with composites. If Israel contributed anything to the J10 programme, then it stands to reason it would be in those fields. The quantum leap in the Chinese military electronics industry seems to be circumstantial evidence of this. The advancements made in radar and avionics in recent years have certainly been spectacular (although China’s booming civilian eletronics industry almost certainly played a critical role as well).

The designing of airframes is also mostly down to details, and it is in details that the J10 and LAVI differ the most. You can get the general shape from photos or scale models if you must, but its the detailed design features that really defines a plane, after all, the Mig29 started as merely two ‘wing shapes’ according to an interview with its chief designer. If China merely wanted a general design to start from, why pay millions when you can get a plastic model for pennies? And remember, at the start of the J10 programme, China was pretty poor, so those millions would have really eat into the budget.

Not everything, only those with grave results that has been mentioned before in serious discussions. No one talked about alien invasion that leads to a war in Taiwan Strait, but PRC internal problems is different.

Like “China Threat” theory, it may not be correct but it cannot be ignored. Even PRC’s People’s Daily newspaper discussed this.
http://english.people.com.cn/200206/14/eng20020614_97837.shtml
June 17, 2002
“From Concocting ‘Theory of Threat’ to Dishing up ‘Theory of Collapse'”

Did you even read that article? :rolleyes:

If I can be bothered, I’m sure I can dig up some people’s daily articles dismissing alien invasion, does that make alien invasion an any more legitimate theory? :rolleyes:

You have also failed completely to understand why I compaired your theories to alien invasion, which is pretty impressive since I explained it in plain english more the once already.

Actually that’s something you have to do, since you are the one who claim Taiwan independence is the only likely scenario that could lead to war and all other scenario “unlikely”. See #35, your own words to remember what you said. I never said anything about it before #35.

I’m truely shocked that someone, anyone, can have such a messed up impression of what it is to debat a point. :rolleyes:

I put forward the notion that Taiwan declearing independence is the only likely scenario that might lead to war in the straits. You don’t agree, thats your parogative. However, if you wish to challenge that notion, then it is up to YOU to present examples where something might trigger war in the straits that is also LIKELY to actually happen. Thus far, NONE of the theories you put forward are remotely likely to happen. How hard is that to get?

No defense planning completely ignores future threats because there could a war soon. If you only think of today, the opponent could just wait for a few more years and buildup in the mean time, then deliveries the death strike. There must be a balance between present and future needs, always. 9-1, 7-3, 5-5, 4-6, or 2-8, whatever the division, there must be a balance.

Yes yes, all true, and generalistic and irrelevent. Now how about we don’t just stop after scratching the surface and actually examine this a little deeper? Yes there is always a choice to be made between weapons now or weapons latter. What determines where that balance lies? The threat level. The higher the threat level, the shorter the planning cycle must take, and vice versa. Can you understand this?

If you can, then you can take this to yet another level and apply this THEORY to REALITY. Based on Taiwan’s past weapons purchases, its absolutely clear that they do not feel that they are in imminant threat, for example, PAC3s were offered in 2001, but only ordered in 2004 which, IIRC, are yet to be delivered. Now does that strike you to be the choice a regeme who feels it might be attacked at any time would make?

That process can be applied to every one of your points. There are two, three, four or more levels of examination and evalution that should take place to reach a balanced conclusion. You stop at the first level of basic definition with no future analysis of any kind, and you expect to actually convince people with such shoddy work? Hell, most of your points don’t even specifically meantion how it applies to the issue you are replying to.

AV-8B also needs manufacturing or upgrades, not to mention new pilot trainings for a new fighter type and VSTOL operations. That would easily take 5~10 years for it to actual enter service in numbers. By your own standard then, upgrade PAC-2 to PAC-3 and additional PAC-3 would take shorter time and therefore a better solution, if we only use “time” as the criteria. That’s not the way decisions are made.

Yes, finally you are actually debating by giving reasons and examples. Why did it take this bloody long?

But you see, facts don’t agree with you. The AV8Bs would come with upgraded radar as standard, and first delivery was predicted for 2005, and that should be a pretty concrete date since it was a mature project without the risk of technical delays of new weapons systems. Anyhow, your time frames are all messed up.

PAC3 was offered in 2001, Taiwan actually went asking for harrier proposals in 2003. If they wanted to get weapons deployed asap, why was PAC3 only ordered in 2004? Also, why did they even bother with the harrier if, as according to you, they wanted PAC3 more?

You had simple assumptions, not simple logic.

Fraid it just ain’t so, for someone so opinionated, you have an amusingly little amongt of knowledge about what you are talking about. :rolleyes:

Only if it’s that simple. AV-8B’s heavy O&M needs could make the sortie generation rate look ugly. Although it’s called “vertical takeoff”, AV-8s usually only do STOL because VTOL sucks up a lot of fuels and severely reduces the weapon load. These two negatives could make the already bad exchange ratio even worse against Flankers.

God, VTOL is what it can do, its not what it HAS to do. I would have thought that that was taken as given, apparently not. Harriers can take off and land on tennis courts, so as long as there is that much of flat concrete on Taiwan, they can still operate. It’ll never come to that, which would have been obvious. With that example, I was pointing out that with harriers, there was never going to be a risk of the planes being grounded on account of a lack of runway. Harriers can do conventional take-off like any jet, it can also use its TVC nozzles to do short take offs and landings, its basics, surely I don’t have to explain everything this detailed.

AV-8’s radar isn’t going to be superior because of the sizes. If I remember correctly Harrier’s APG-65 has shorter range than Hornet’s APG-65.

And whoever said anything about superior radar? (and FYI, the Boeing deal would have seen the AV8s’ radar upgraded to ‘the same level as that of F16s’).

If BVR isn’t great, the load is small, range is short, and maneuverability is not superior, how is the mere ability to takeoff a great thing?

The AV8B’s radar might not be on par with flankers in terms of range, but its still more then sufficient to fully use the AMRAAM, so I don’t know where you get this ‘BVR isn’t great’ stuff from. You only need superior ranged radars when you are out hunting for opponents, don’t think the ROCAF will be facing such a problem if the PLA attacks. In most cases, it’ll just be a matter of taking off, switching on the radar to lock onto the nearest/juiciest target, firing and letting the missile do the work after it gets in seeker range, then its about landing and hiding before the PLAAF bring its superior numbers of quality to bare. The ability to continue launching fighters, BVR capable fighters no less, throughout any possible conflict will put enormous pressure on PLAAF planning and operations, and will almost certainly slow the pace of its attack. That extra time can be critical.

It’s true AV-8 may look better than the grounded F-anything, but if you look at the amount of resources needed, is it really better than more SAM and more investment in passive defense?

It doesn’t matter what I think, the fact of the matter is that Taiwan’s military wanted the harrier enough to go asking for it. This wasn’t a case of the US offering stuff and Taiwan deciding which items they would take, the military wanted the capabilities the harrier would offer. If the politions thought there was an imminant enough threat, the military would have got what it wanted, instead of having to make difficult choices since Taiwan could certainly have afforded Harriers AND patriots and whatever else, within reason.

You could disagree with the above description and say it’s too pessimistic, but certainly you couldn’t say this particular view doesn’t exist and everyone must consider AV-8B great.

Did I ever claim the AV8 to be some super-fighter? :rolleyes: Where does all these misquotes come from?

Besides, you missed the point/significance of the harrier decision. The military single-out the harrier’s S/VTOL capability as something they think they desperately need. The politions said ‘no’ mostly because of cost. Thats not what someone who thinks war might break out soon would do. Hence, Taiwan’s leaders themselves did not, and does not, view war as likely anytime soon. And these are the people who have the most to loose in war, and who have some of the best intell there is on how likely the PRC is to attack.

First, I wasn’t suggesting PLA or ROCA decide when the war would start. I talked about official views (military and civilian) because official views determine defense policy directions. That’s the whole point of mentioning official views, not just official views of ROCAF or PLAAF.

And how does that affect how likely it is for a war to break out?

Second, doctrine and thinking decides how wars would be fought and defense planning/capability. Defense planning and capability does affect when a war might be fought. If US military did not have the first strike military doctrine, Rapid Dominance thinking that appears to make victory fast, would US policy maker support attacking Iraq in 2003? Not really. In this sense, you could say military doctrine is sometimes a precondition for deciding the timing of war, because ultimately military doctrine/thinking affect actual capability and self-assessment.

Poor example since in the case of GWII, it was Bush’s ‘pre-emption’ policy that resulted in the war. The military didn’t say to Bush, ‘we need to attack now or we won’t have a chance in hell of winning’, Bush said to the military (if you beleive the official verson), ‘we ain’t gonna let Saddam have WMD, take him out boys’. If the US attacks Iran over its nuclear programme, then it’ll be the same political policy that decides it, not military doctrin. The military decides what time to start the war after the decision to go to war has already been made, and they decide how to fight (most of the time), that’s as much freedom and choice as they get, they don’t get to choose who to go to war against nor why or whether to go to war, thats the job of the politions.

The only example I can think of in ‘recent’ military history where the military might have decided when to go to war was in WWII Japan when it attacked pearl. But at the time, the military was in effect running the government, so that’s hardly a realiable comparison with the situation today in the straits.

Which point have I “ignored”?

How about this for a start?

The China-internal conflict scenario, you only asked “And is that remotely likely to happen in the forseeable future?” To the foreign intervention scenario, you said “Neither scenario is even remotely likely, thus irrelevent.” To the Taiwan internal conflict scenario, you said “full blown civil war is far from likely.” That’s not “reasons”, that’s essentially saying “I believe it so it’s right.”

“And is that remotely likely to happen in the forseeable future?”

Did I get abducted by aliens or was that a question? Where is your answer?

There are so many questions that you have not answered that to go back and find them all would take far more time then I’m willing to waste. Just go back and look for question marks and you should find about half of the issues you did not reply to, and if thats not ignored, then what is?

Anyways, the other two points you made in the quote above are irrelevent as well. I have made my points, if you disagree, prove them wrong.

TV programs? Why don’t you look at NAVSO P-6071 from US Navy, or US AFMC Pamphlet 63-101, or other formal defense acquisition documents, and see how “irrelevent” these basic steps are.

It is irrelevent because we are not submitting a formal document. This is a board to discuss issues, not act like a bunch of bean counting drones who complain because a form wasn’t fill in triplicate. :rolleyes:

“Assessment” or “analysis”, whatever you want to call it. It is being done everyday in defense planning, not some “arbitrary structure” no one uses.

And when did this discussion become a formal document? :rolleyes: Not following formal rules does not mean anything here as long as it makes sense while mindlessly following ‘procedure’ without a thought about its relevence is pointless.

Not being unique doesn’t make it irrelevant.

Missed the point completely. :rolleyes:

Besides it’s not the same. When ROCAF made decisions about IDF and F-16, ATBM weren’t considered at all. The procurement of IDF certainly did not include the possibility of countering Flankers because the Soviet still existed. The procurement timing and fleet introduction time is also very different for F-5E replacement and F-104 replacement.

Focusing on the little detail at the expense of the big picture. What am I not suprised? :rolleyes:

If the details are important enough to affect the final conclusion, then it’s only natural to point out the incorrect parts.

Oh, care to actually list these ‘details’ and how exactly they effected the final conclusion instead of just repeating the same tired old line over and over and over again? :rolleyes:

The minor details could be overlooked, unfortunately you are ignoring the OFFICIAL POSITIONS and arguably the most relevant views. That’s not “trivia”.

So what offical positions are you talking about then? :rolleyes:

I discussed plenty of different issues. If you think making sweeping grandiose statements without context is the only way for discussion, that’s your problem not mine.

Ha! Look whos talking. When was the last time you actually debated an actual point instead of running away and hiding behind generalistic ‘procedural’ issues or shooting off non-related trivia?

In an ideal world where civilian leadership is supreme or that party has absolute direct control over the army, maybe. In reality military professionals often have strong influences, simply because not all politicians know defense issues in depth. Meddling to the degree of Saddam Hussein isn’t common, and that type of involvement often signal disaster. Most nations try to structure the system so that the political leaders only give strategic directions, not detailed battle implementation plans.

General trivia with zero expansion about how that is of ANY relevence to the issue at hand.

You also cannot assume military and civilian views are always completely different. Sometimes these reflect each other on many issues.

Yet more generalistic summery that can apply to any number of issues. HOW IS THIS RELEVENT TO THE TOPIC AT HAND?

Finally, it’s not just PLAAF or ROCAF. All official views must be considered, political or military.

I think another quote from you best answers that:

Unless you have a specific issue in mind, that’s not a question.

To sum up, you have added not a single word that is actually SPECIFICALLY relevent to the discussion, nor have you disussed a single point in any meaningful way. Yet when faced with the kind of demands you throw around as a course of retine, you bulk and try to weasle your way out.

Ha, you can’t resist taking a few snipe shot?

Lol, how big is your ego to think that everything is related to you? :rolleyes:

Any complex planning always starts with:
1. Identification of problems.
2. Analyze the problems.
3. Prioritization of problems.
4. Find solutions and backup.
5. Execute.

No one skips the second step and prioritize randomly according to personal feelings. The point is never to invest into every scenario, but systematically analyze everything using appropriate tools, then and only then – choose the right ones for detail planning.

Your problem is the same, no matter how much mud you’re slinging. Without analysis or stating the “why”, everyone could make meaningless random predictions and be equally “correct”.

Yawn, is that all you can do? Thus far I have not seen you make one solid point in support of your position, all you have done is bring in irrelevent strutural demands that seem propular in TV programmes like battleplan and jump up and down and refuse to discuss the merits of the points written simply because people don’t follow that arbitrary struture.

You also seem to only see what you want to see. Go back and re-read the exchanges again if you failed to understand what was being said the first time round, maybe then you would realise how irrelevent your ‘lesson’ is. :rolleyes:

You are at it again. All you are doing is imposing your views of what you think should happen, then use your own assumption to infer the reality without any regards to actual participants’ opinions.

How is that ‘imposing’ my views exactly? :rolleyes: Do you know anything about the AV8 deal and what Taiwan actually said? :rolleyes:

Defense planning is never simple. Similar to PLAN’s internal debate of sub vs. carrier, there are always internal debates in ROCAF. Taiwan MND believes the fighter replacement should begin around 2020, while ROCAF prefers 2015. This assumption alone could have great impact on the analysis and solution choices.

Opponents of AV-8B did not reject it because they believe it’s impossible for PLA to attack. There are many different reasons:
1. Some question AV-8B’s ability to counter Flankers. They argue it is not enough to have more sorties for fighters, if the exchange ratio is deemed horrible and the service entry date late, then it won’t be an effective solution.
2. Some believe the resources for AV-8B is better used for upgrading SAM network.
3. Some believe ATBM is a much more urgent investment.

And how exactly is that unique to the AV8 deal? Its the same fight for resources whatever is bought, and the same arguements can be used for pretty much any plane, be it IDF, F16 or Harriers.

Your idea of discussion is to nit-pick about ‘detail’ without any regard for what was omitted and why. It would be obserded to demand that every post someone writes examines exhorstively every possible scenario and examine every detail, yet that is the ONLY thing your posts have ever done. You never discuss the issue, you merely dismiss them because it isn’t ‘comprehansive enough’ or ‘detailed ‘enough, and then bring in some irrelevent bit of trivia as if it was some critical issue that was missed.

Its shallow, insincere, immature and totally pointless.

When you talk about PLAAF, you cannot completely ignore PLA’s doctrine and thinking. When you are talking about ROCAF, it’s no different. Until you understand this simple rule, repeatedly saying you use “judgment” and “logic” doesn’t make your conclusions any better.

There you go again, bring in irrelevent crap to try and confuse the issue and ignore what was said. :rolleyes:

You forget that the PLA abd ROC military does not decide when and even to some degrees, how a war will be fought. Their job is to make sure that they can win in battle when their politions choses to send them in. Training and purchases will be influenced by the framework their political masters set for them.

Anyways, how about just for once you actually make a point instead of taking pot-shots? Care to eleborate on the PLAAF’s ‘doctoring and thinking’ and do the same for the ROCAF? :rolleyes: