plawolfMate it can get you a small does of lead in the head!
unless you happened to be using a camera so big as for it to mistaken for a MANPAD, that will not happen.
there have been pics of planespotters happily doing their business right outside active military bases, and they didnt exactly look like they just got out of their camo cloaks to pose for the shot. 😀
the chinese athorities dont like people peeking at their toys, and they would rather nobody did it. but they are not going to shoot anyone for doing it outside the base. it might be a different matter if people tried to sneak onto an AFB or if personnel working on the base did it. but then that is hardly unique or suprising.
plawolfthis appeared on the net some months if not years ago (cant really remember as i didnt give it that much thought at the time 😮 ), i always assumed that it was for later upgraded versons of the J10 based on the pic. but its nice to see the tech has matured enough for it to be applied to the FC1 now.
plawolfso, are you saying the US supplied the russians (SU then) with the design for a weapon concived to fighter the SU in the first place? :diablo:
plawolfI think there’s two groups of people in here. One group thinks that the J-10 was a direct derivative of the Lavi design. Personally, I side with group two, which believes that the J-10 was developed with the assistance of Lavi engineers. The J-10 is obviously not a direct copy. Then again, it is rumored that a J-10 design first flew in like 1996 and crashed, leading to a redesign. Maybe that original platform, if it did in fact exist, bore more of a resemblance to the Lavi?
so what would be the reasoning behind that belief?
why would israel risk so much for so little in return? why would china be interested in help from a nation that has even less indiginous design experience then it did?
since much of the pro-Lavi link camp has effectively given up on trying to explain why israel would risk so much to sell the Lavi because they cant even come up with a credible hypothesis, lets just look at the technical side for the sake of it.
but even confined here flaws still appear in that argument if we look a deeper.
since the Lavi relied so massively on american technology and parts (much of which not even israel had the ability to make no their own, the engine is a good example). this means that even if israel did turn over all the blueprints, the design would still have been close to useless for china, since the critical american parts would never become available.
for china to build a Lavi clone, as some here have been ludicrusly claiming, israel would needed to have exported not only the blueprints, but also whole industries (engines, advance matericals, super accurate machine tooling etc), industries not even israel has.
if the earlier claim that it was british and american engineers and technicians that did the bulk of the actual design work for the Lavi while the israelis merely managed the project (which is not unlikely considering the past experience in aircraft design that israel had) is correct, any design suggestions israel has to offer becomes even less attractive.
so, in summery, the Lavi blueprints would have been useless since much of the parts required cant be made without direct US paticipation. add to that the probablility that the israeli team behind the Lavi was unlikely to have that much detailed first hand knowledge and experience to share on how to come up with a decent design from scratch (because they have never managed it before or after the Lavi).
the end result is that israel had neither a finished, ready to build design to sell, nor the technical know-how needed to help chinese designers turn their own designs into real, working planes. so what could israel have been offering in the first place?
israel might have helped in the J10 project, but that help is extremely unlikely to have touched on the airframe design. any help israel gave is likely to have been confined to radars, ECM, FBW etc electronic related feilds. that is what israel is good at, and is what is likely to be attractive to china.
plawolfIf you want to assume…it is most likely dut to the first time China ever operates such an advanced aircraft. Many countries have problem introducing 4th gen aircraft without some serious effort…and this will only get worse when 5th gens comes in.
people really should start reading more carefully.
i said, ‘contributed’, which means it added to the difficulties, not that it was the sole cause.
plawolfSeriously, speaking of PLAAF aircraft cockpits, a dumb question that I’ve always wanted to ask: In PLA aircraft, are the cockpit instruments and gauges, and especially the MFDs in a glass cockpit, labelled in Chinese or English?
After all, I doubt the MFDs in the FC-1/JF-17 or J-10/F-10 have a boot-up screen that allows the pilot to choose to display the OS (possibly a Hong Qi (Red Flag) variant of Linus) in Cyrillic, English (USA), Chinese (Simplified), Hebrew, Korean, or Urdu fonts?
(I read in newspapers that Chinese astronauts, including (then) Lieutenant Colonel YANG Li Wei, had to learn some English and Russian, but this was because they were partly trained in Russia.)
all chinese built ac, including the J11 are all marked in chinese, same with the MFDs. the only planes that the PLA operate that has foreign markings are the imported stuff, like Su27s (probably also Su30MMK/MK2) and S70 black hawks etc.
as such, all of china’s first batches of flanker pilots had to learn russian (both writing and verbal as the cockpit vioce warning was also in russian), which is likely to have contributed to the type’s longer then usual induction period.
plawolfunlikely, any torpedo would have been picked up on sonar by the russian bultic fleet sitting right on top of them. and if the surface fleet picked up a torpedo and then an explosion underwater, they would have been doing ASW sweeps as standard to ensure their own safety.
none of that happened.
plawolfLookie here, a 1:1 model of the J-11.
Now that’s what we call modeling, no?
guess the minsk’s hanger is going to get a little bit more crowded once that thing is finished. 😉
plawolfI guess my kit-kat didn’t work…!! 😮
its chocolate, its gives people energy. 😉
plawolfBecause the Israeli government never lied about anything?
ha, that is just desperate. :rolleyes:
governments dont lie their a$$es off every time they open their mouth you know. :rolleyes:
for israel to lie, there must be some reason it would want to lie.
if israel did transfer the Lavi tech, then it would have reason to lie. but why would it want to transfer the Lavi tech to start off with?
get your cause and effects right. :rolleyes:
And who said it was official? Maybe some ex-Lavi designers went to China on their own steam. Do you know the racial origin of every Chengdu employee from 1987 to date? Do you know how many US and British engineers and designers have worked overseas?
well maybe some alien UFO crashed in chengdu and CAC REed it, or maybe CAC made a time machine and send one of the future designs back, or maybe they opened a portal to a paralel universe where china and US are best of friends and america designed the Lavi for china instead of israel…:rolleyes:
istead of desperately reaching for any far fetched excuse to keep your prejedicial belief alive, how about we stick to what we know for a fact huh? :rolleyes:
plawolfAs far as the J-10 goes, the input lies in the design itself. The J-10 and Lavi are both canard deltas, but they are considerably different from the others you’ve mentioned. First off, aside from the Gripen all the others are twin engined planes. The air intake on the Typhoon and 1.44 is similar to that of the J-10, but it feeds one engine on the J-10 and two on the 1.44 and Typhoon.
The air intakes on Gripen and Rafale are of course very different from Lavi and J-10. So in the case of the Typhoon and 1.44 the intake may be somewhat similar to J-10, you’re feeding twin engines.
please, thats just picking out a distinction for the sack of picking out a distinction. :rolleyes:
the design of the intake for the J10, Typhoon and Mig1.44 are far far more similar to each other then any of the are to the Lavi. the only difference being that for the Typhoon and 1.44, there are small changes in the ducting to feed two tightly spaced engines instead of one. that is certainly a hell of smaller change then changing the design from a fixd round, intake to a rectangular, variable one.
The Gripen is more similar to the J-10 and Lavin in that it is a single-engined design and the canards are fairly large compared to the wing, but that’s where the similarities end. The air intakes and totally different and that’s just for starters.
please. for someone so ‘good’ at spoting phantom similarities between the J10 and Lavi, you are not do a very good job of it for others. i wonder why.:rolleyes:
the positioning of the canards on the Gripen is far more similar to the J10 then the J10 is to the Lavi. the positioning of the tail and landing gear is also pretty similar in a general, none specific way (like ALL of the similarities you pointed out between the J10 and Lavi).
in fact, the design between the Gripen and Lavi is far more profound then that between the Lavi and J10. because for both, you have a very smiliar wing design, coupled with the F16-esc fuselage design and landing gear configeration. the only major difference is the intake. but hey, if the change from a round, fixed intake to a rectangular, variable one doesnt matter, why should the move from chin intake to side intake? :rolleyes:
The 1.44 is much much larger than the J-10 and is obviously a twin engined design. The wing on the 1.44 is so big that even the large canards on it look fairly small in comparison. Additionally, it has two vertical tails. So I see nothing in common with the J-10 short of the box like intake.
ha, the J10’s wing is HUGE, and is a completely different design compared to the Lavi’s, yet it didnt stop you drawing a conclusion that they are of the same design. why should the differences in the wing design matter now? :rolleyes:
also, the canopy design of the 1.44 is far more similar to the J10s the the J10’s compared to the Lavis. and once again, the generalistic layout of the landing gears appear to be similar.
Then when you look at the J-10 and Lavi though you see much more similarity. The single engined design coupled with the ventrally mounted air intake, and the fairly large canards as compared to the main wing. The landing gear assembly even looks similar. Then, there is the ventral fins and their location on each of the two types. The lower portion of the vertical tail also looks similar, with the rather large base on each of the two types (similar to the F-16….especially European F-16’s with the extended tail base).
that is also a very very generalistic veiw, and so there is nothing specific that any israel designer could have help out in. there is just no Lavi tech that would be worth using since NOTHING is indentical. what, you think you can just apply the FBW codes from the F16 onto the japanese F2 and have the thing fly? :rolleyes:
design and testing data needs to be extremely exact. there is no leway for a couple of milermetre’s worth of difference never mind the massive changes you see between the two.
in essence, all you are arguing is that the J10 has a ‘Lavi-esc’ feel to its design, that there is a slight resemblence in the design style of the two.
you dont need Lavi engineers working with you to get that effect. for the kinds of general style similarities, just using the basic outlines of a plane as a stating point on the drawing board is sufficient. and guess what, if that was the case, the plane the outlines belonged to would almost certainly be the F16 instead of the Lavi. :rolleyes:
If you were to put the Rafale, Typhoon, Gripen, 1.44, Lavi, and J-10 together and picked a random person to pick the two that looks the most similar then they would invariably pick the J-10 and Lavi.
HA HA HA! that is just halarious! 😀
out of all the recent designed delta-canards, the J10 is the one ‘most’ like the Lavi, so the J10 must have benefited from Lavi tech?
are you even reading what you are writing? :rolleyes:
put the Lavi, F16, japanese F2 and J10 in a line and ask any random person off the street to pick the odd one out and 99.9% of them would pick the J10.
have a long hard look at pictures of the first three, and maybe then you would realise what real family linerage is supposed to look like. :rolleyes:
Obviously with China’s different requirements and the different engine, the design is going to change, just look at what the Japanese F-2 changed from the regular F-16C. Obviously, the F-2 is much more closely related to the F-16 than the J-10 is to the Lavi, and I’m not even saying the J-10 and Lavi are in the same family, but there was and is Israeli input in the design of the J-10.
ha, just listen to yourself. :rolleyes:
if CAC was just going to change the engine, why change the intake, wing, cannopy, nose, canard, tail, fuselage…?
as you yourself admits, not one single part of the J10 and the Lavi are the same, and most of the important components like the wing, intake and canard positioning arent even generally similar. why?
the F16I has a far more powerful engine put in, did they need to change the intake design for it? it has a changed role compared to the standard F16, is there any major structure design changes apart from the conformal tanks (which were put in for their own sake as opposed to any real areodynamic need to compensate for other structure changes)? same for the japanese F2.
the F18E is also a major change from the F18C and also designed for a different role with completely new, far more powerful engines. apart from the change in intake shaping (more for stealth then airflow), what other major structural changes are there?
even the J8II which changed from a nose intake to side intakes and is essentially a whole new airplane can be easily and unquestonably linked to the J8I.
why spend ‘$500m’ on detailed technical specs that are never going to be used when a $0 freely downloaded pic of the F16 would do just as well? :rolleyes:
how can there be a family resemblence between the J10 and Lavi when there is not one place identical about the two, and any similarities are general and disappears as soon as the planes are examined in any real detail? and if there is no family resemblence between the two, how can anyone reasonable deduce that there was an israeli influence by just looking at pics of them? the israeli link becomes even more unlikely seeing how the design style of the Lavi is essentially american to start off with.
you are just stubbenly clining on to the israeli link when there is not one shred of fact that supports that view.
its just getting to the point of being sad now. :rolleyes:
plawolf“althought it was started long ago, the 1.44 is still just a first go at the tail-less canard design on the part of the russians.”
That’s what he said, and it is wrong. Crobato was commenting on the design history, not PLAWolf.
my bad on the design history part. sorry. 😮
Something people need to consider is this:
Lavi was designed as primarily an air-to-ground platform.
J-10, given the “J” designator (not JH or Q) seems to be primarily intended to operate in an air defense role.
Now, isn’t it posible that any Lavi starting point, reworked for a new mission (which requires different emphasis on different aerodynamic aspects), would end up as the J-10?
if anything, that makes the theory that the J10 was based on the Lavi even less likely. how good a figher woulda re-designed A10, Su25, Jaguar, JH7 etc make?
the only trends have been fighters being coverted to strikers, and i am aware of only one incident of the reverse happening – harrier to sea harrier. but that was not a planned thing, and only occured after the harrier has ‘proven’ itself after being pressed into an unfamiliar role in the falklands (and the reason for that is more down to the AIM9L and the fact that argintine pilots were instructed to aviod the harriers and go for the ships, as opposed to the true ability of the harrier itself).
trying to turn a (generally) lumbering bomb truck designed more with its carrying ability then agilty in mind into a nimble fighter able to out perfrom planes concieve and designed as fighters from the very start would almost certainly be a greater engineering challenge then to try and design a good fighter from scratch to start with. not really a challenge a design team making an attempt at their very first modern fighter would welcome i’d imagine.
if another design was used as a ‘role model’ to get things started, that design is far more likely to be the F16 then the Lavi ( refer to my earlier post for more detailed reasoning).
plawolfplawolf,
At no point did I say the Lavi or items from it were offered for export. I don’t know where you could have come up with that to begin with. I’m saying that there was an Isareli input into the design of the J-10.
well why dont you point out where exactly this ‘input’ lies?
and no, a generalistic view of the configueration doesnt count, as you can pretty much link all the recent dela-canard designs by vertue that they are all delta-canard designs. :rolleyes:
if china is going to spend ‘$500m’ on blueprints, surely they would use at least some of it.
This doesn’t necessarily mean selling things for export.
ha, use your brain mate. which do you think uncle sam would be more p!ssed off about, israel upgrading china’s harpies, or israel giving china the info needed to upgrade the harpies themselves? :rolleyes:
Personally, I think the extent of Israeli involvement was providing data on the J-10 and aspects of its design to aid Chengdu in developing the J-10. The thing is still mostly a Chinese designed and built fighter, but there is clearly Israeli input.
like what kind of data?
you are just thinking backwards. :rolleyes:
your arguments is not structured in the form of, ‘there are XXX similarities, thus i feel there is a connection.’, as one would normally get from someone making a mental link after viewing the facts. your arguments are, ‘there is a link, i know it! but i just cant quite put my finger on exactly what that link is.’
this just shows that your views about the Lavi-J10 link were formed long before you ever saw a real, detailed pic of the J10. as such, its just personal prejeduous that is fueling your views and not the facts.
you dont agree with that assessment? start using real tangible facts and logic to base your views on instead of merely insisting that we all ignore our eyes, common sense and the FACTS and trust you on what you think is the case. :rolleyes:
Additionally I did not ever say that any aspect of the J-10 and Lavi was identical. They share some similarities (configuration, ventral fins, etc.), but at no time did I say any aspect of them was identical, so stop asking me to look at the two and find where they are identical as some way to try to prove to me they aren’t related.
well the J10 and Lavi also share an uncanny configurational similarity with the Typhoon, Rafale, Gripen and Mig1.44, guess they are all Lavi rip-offs huh? :rolleyes:
you have seen planes of the same family right?
go look at pics of the Mig25 v Mig31; Su27 v Su34 v Su33; F5 v F20; F17 v F18A v F18E; Harrier V AV8; MirageIII V M2K, Mig15 v Mig17/19…
there are ALWAYS considerable similarities between those planes and every other plane of the same family. that is what makes them a family. it is a process of refining and improving on the core design, but the core design is still there, and most of that core design will remain unchanged – ie, there are many many areas which are intentical. if not in the exact dimentions, then in the core areodynamic principles – the changes in the F18E’s wings for example, 30% larger, but EXACTLY the same areodynamic principle, only enlarge. not stretched or twisted or whatever, exactly the same.
the keys words here are refinement and improvement. that is what makes it worth while to continue work on that core design instead of starting again from scratch.
where are these similarties between the J10 and Lavi? there is not one area between the two that is identical (ok, maybe one near the engine nozzle that SOC pointed out, but that is hardly conclusive proof of a liniage).
so what you ask? well such a massive redesign would effectively render any technical data from the Lavi useless to the J10 project.
there is a reason that planes in a family rarely have major structural changes. that is because modern jet fighters are very finely balanced things. they are design so perfectly to shape and exploit the airflow that any small change in its design may throw the whole effect off (meaning everything would need to be re-calculated and the end result is seldomly better then the original, take the Su27 v Su34 for example). that is why structural and areodynamic changes in particular are kept at the bare minimum in any modification and upgrades.
as such, even if Israel did provide all the documents on the Lavi, it is extremely unlikely that they would have helped in the J10 project in any meaningful way (expect maybe meaning th CAC had one less conceptural design to test and discard). no way is that worth ‘$500m’.
so far, the only similarity you can point to is a very vague familiarality between the designs of the J10 and Lavi. so what? there is a striking similarity between the F22 and one of the proposed XXJ models, is anyone suggesting that lockheed is helping china out with that? :rolleyes:
there is a very simple theory that would easily explain not only the similarities between the J10 and Lavi, but also the vast differences. personally, i am very suprised that no one has thought of it ages ago considering how much time many ‘Lavi=J10’ conspiracy theorists must have put into this subject. :rolleyes:
the most, and only likely explaination is that the similarities between the J10 and Lavi comes from their commen ancestry – the F16.
the US was very chummy with china in the 80s, and china certainly got a detailed look at the F16 in the form of the blue angles who visited twice, as well as from countless highly detailed pics and vids of very minute detail of the plane (on the outside at least). as well as highly detailed specs of the plane that is easily available even to you or i.
the performance, history and fame of the F16 would also make it a far far more likely ‘role model’ for chinese designers then the unfinished, unproven and little known Lavi (which, face it, only become a common name in the military aviation feild because of its alleged links with the J10, ironic isnt it? :rolleyes: )
the vague and general similarities between the J10 and Lavi would be all but inevitable if two sets of designers (be it chinese or american/british) were to try and come up with a tail-less canard delta design based on the same plane.
all this means that at most, china based the J10 loosly on the areodynamic principle of the F16 (remember that pic of an F16 in what appeared to be in a chinese wind tunnel?), which could be easily calaculated with data freely available in open sources and maybe a closer peek at pakistan’s F16s for weight distribution and other less flaunted details.
that is, of course, only a theory, and the truth may be as innocent as the J10 designers getting the ‘feel’ for the design of the F16 after having one too many wet dreams about it. 😀
but anyways, either theory is a hell of alot more likely and believeable then israel risking its ever survival as a state to sell the Lavi tech (which was mostly funded by the americans anyways, so its not like they would loose that much from just binning it) to china, and also that china would be willing to spend a small fortune on it, and then to effectively discard it in the end. :rolleyes:
This discussion is ridiculous because people keep shoving words in my mouth that I did not say. That’s not exactly how you carry on a debate.
ha, that was not an attempt to put words in your mouth. its a nudge and finger telling you what areas you should be focusing on if you want to ‘prove’ that the J10 is based on the Lavi – instead of keep phaffing on about phantom links that we are supposed to trust you exists, why dont you point to distinctive and important areas where the planes are the same, or share the same core areodynamic principles. and then maybe we can evaluate how likely that is a result of one being ‘derived’ from the other.
plawolfbut the russians went with veriable wing and then the ‘traditional’ wing design of the Mig29 and Su27.
either they found a better solution then the canard delta (unlikely considering their choice for the 1.42/1.44), or they didnt fully develop the concept until the 1.44, by which time they didnt have the money to progress with it.
plawolfUnsure, it could be for J-10 or J-8II or JH-7.
why couldnt it be the same?
the J10 and JH7’s radars are supposed to be related after all.
Sign In
