The Russian article is nonsense. You got low credibility for posting low credibility article that by itself is a collage of articles from internet speculators. WP-13 J-10 prototype story is actually an invention of a Chinese internet poster.

Furthermore, you fail to respond to my questions, why do you want to demonstrate a prototype with an engine nearly half as weak as the one projected. Do you know that even the power differential between the Lavi’s PW1120 and the the WP-13 is enormous?

The Lavi issue has nothing to do with the WP-13 issue. Even if Israelis were onboard and you have a Lavi copy, you still would not be putting a WP-13 in that plane. YOu would be better off smuggling in a PW F100 and use that. The tasks of reengineering would not only be enormous but it would justify creating a brand new airframe.

The issue that there is a redesign does not mean a prototype was ever built. Do you know the simple explanation that you can always redesign your plans even without making a prototype? The redesign is from an engine based on the CFM56, which is the original WS-10 to the AL-31FN. That’s a thrust from 24,000lbs projected to 27,500lbs thrust. Compare that to the early WP-13 at 13,000lbs.

You simply have no concept that the WP-13 represents an engine of a totally different weight and thrust class than the ones eligible for the J-10/Lavi/F-16.

You have lost all credibility here. Its just obvious you’re a simple fool.

Hehehehehe

Crobato you are a comedian, tell me what engine was going to be fitted that forced the J-10 modification when they re engined the J-10 with the Al-31?

So if it was not a WP-13 it had to be a P&W 1120 so that would any way prove the J-10 is a clone of the Lavi as SIBNIA says when they claimed the J-10 more or less being a IAI Lavi Variant 😉

Crobato saddly even your own buddies from Sino defense say the West banned sales of military technologies to China and in that you include jet engines, the evidence is against you and is saddly you still pretend to be right 😮 :rolleyes:

Your explanation about the WS-10 is also foolish, the WS-10 will fit as well in the J-10 as the Al-31 and it was not ready in 1993, the WS-10 does not need redesign of the engine bay because it is more or less in the size of the Al-31

Take these Russian claims with a big bag of salt.

In the past there have many instances where some Russian sources have pretended to know more about Chinese military projects than they really do. And these Russians have been known to claim credit which they do not deserve. These Russians want to make it seem like they are responsible for China’s achievements.

China is a rising competitor in the world military market and these Russians have a self interest in putting out their propaganda about Chinese projects.

Of course Russian firms are involved in some Chinese projects. A good example is the L-15.

Yakovlev OKB has been honest is saying that they did nothing more than design consultancy at the preliminary stage of the L-15 project.

And Yakovlev’s consultancy has been confirmed by Chinese sources so we know its true. In fact Hongdu Aviation Company has openly spoken to the Chinese media about Yakovlev’s involvement.

What a foolish statement blueshark

First when nations buy aircraft they only care in two aspects price and performance, Russia is not interested in claiming like the US the IAI Lavi is the base of the J-10 or they helped the Chinese over commercial matters.

If the want to sell aircraft they only take them to Airshows such as Le burget or MAKS, they invite military observers to fly their aircraft and stablish commercial links with the nations they intent to sell their aircraft.

here we have only some forum members very upset and angry because SIBNIA has already proved the Russian and Israeli involvement in the J-10, they claim all class of ridiculous reasons to minimize the Russian or Israeli involvement.

The PLAAF and Russian aircraft companies contrary to many forum members statements understand that joint programs is the best way they can achieve success either economically or technologically.

😡 😡 😡 actually,this topic make me feel sick.why those guys try that much to prove J10 is the son of LAVI???did that make any sense?we all know the tech from F16,LAVI,M2K do exist in J10,but this didnt equal a copy!also we know the tech&thought from f15 involve in SU27,and can anyone say this is a copy of F15?
tell you as i know, china is one of the earliest and longest country studying the canard-wing.the present configuration of j10,is mainly due to the twenty years study by chinese!!!OVER

SOSOLP

You can even throw away but facts are facts the Lavi was the base for the J-10, you can get sick, complaign and hate the people who says the Lavi was the base of the J-10 but already SIBNIA spoke up and when they say the J-10 is a Variant of Lavi they meant it was based upon Israeli tech.

The Kfir had a completely restructured rear end compared to the Mirage V. There are quite some differences with where you put the heat shields for the J-79 vs. that of the Atar.

The F-16 and the F-15 was both designed around the PW F-100. The GE F110 is also similarly size and power. Yet the GE powered F-16s had considerable modifications in their inlet and air duct.

The TF-30 and the F-110 which are used on the F-14s are both turbofans.

Yes, they fitted the J-79 on the F-16 but the performance was so bad, no one would take it even when it was offered cheap. Even a country desperate for a new fighter like Taiwan refused it.

None of the examples above show a dramatic difference of 100% of thrust and intake airflow between the “smaller” engine and the “larger” one.

At the same time, you never bothered to relate similar questions.

Why don’t they fit the WP-13s on the JH-7 prototypes if they’re short of engines?> The WP-13s (6600kg) and the Speys (9000kg thrust) are much closer than the AL-31FN (12,500kg).

Why don’t they fit the WP-13 on the FC-1 prototype especially when the difference of power is much closer (WP-13B 7000kg; WP-14 Kunlun 7500kg; RD-93 8100kg)?

Tell me what technical value do you achieve fitting a prototype with an engine 50% less power than the original specifications? Tell me why don’t you use the Spey whose output is actually much closer to the PW1120? Oh, why don’t you just any of the spare AL-31Fs China had acquired since 1992?

At the same time, for a project already in trouble with the authorities, you want to dick around showing Communist Party officials a tremendously underpowered prototype as the results of your achievement?

Crobato

read this article
The J-10 programme officially began in 1986. Following a slow start, the project entered full-scale development when Chengdu took over the IAI Lavi fighter design, which was cancelled in 1987 under the US pressure, while IAI continued with the development of avionics for the fighter. Initially China wished to obtain high-performance turbofan engine technology from the West to power the J-10 fighter, but this soon became impossible as the US and other Western countries imposed an arms ban on China following the June 1989 incident. This almost traumatised the J-10 development, but China’s new ally Russia saved the programme by agreeing to offer its Lyulka-Saturn AL-31F turbofan engine as an alternative.

The J-10 went through some major redesign work because the oversized Russian AL-31 engine would not fit in the aircraft’s fuselage. This had caused some further delay in the programme. The first flight of the J-10 took place in late 1998. By late 1999 Chengdu had built six prototypes (1001~1006), two of which were used to static tests. The flight tests of the J-10 fighter was then transferred to Yanliang-based China Flight Test Establishment (CFTE) in Spring 2000. The aircraft received its design certificate in Spring 2004.

This is from sinodefence
http://www.sinodefence.com/airforce/fighter/j10.asp

This is a very good example why the Russian article is logic

While you continue minimizing the IAI lavi influence the Sino defences goes along well with the american reports and Russian reports, but check they say

this explains very well why the chinese did not fit a spey
Initially China wished to obtain high-performance turbofan engine technology from the West to power the J-10 fighter, but this soon became impossible as the US and other Western countries imposed an arms ban on China
Check here they say China was developing the aircraft even before Russian jumped into the program it means they were not going to build the airframe without an engine
This almost traumatised the J-10 development, but China’s new ally Russia saved the programme by agreeing to offer its Lyulka-Saturn AL-31F turbofan engine as an alternative.

However as the Russian article claims the WP-13 powered J-10 prototype did not satisfy the Chinese needs
Check they are saying they modified the engine bay because previously the first J-10 was powered by another engine what engine was it? The Russian article says it was a WP-13
The J-10 went through some major redesign work because the oversized Russian AL-31 engine would not fit in the aircraft’s fuselage. This had caused some further delay in the programme

Now check the J-10 was to be the mass built aircraft, the J-10 is the fighter to have the F-16 role in the Chinese air force along side the Su-27/J-11 that has the Role of the F-15.

Crobato your theory is not as logic as the Russian article because if China could had gotten a Western engine they would have taken it.
Proof the only nation that accepted to power the J-10 was Russia but only after the J-10 program was in troubles, well the J-10 early program would not have been built if they would not have an engine to power the aircraft.

The Russian article claims the WP-13.

Now if you can not see that you can not answer any of the questions you have asked me because once Russia and England accepted to power the Chinese aircraft well China could move to build aircraft with modern and better engines than the ones it was manufacturing in the 1990s.

If you consider the J-10 will have an F-16 role and the F-16 has been built in larger number than any fourth generation fighter aircraft we can see the Chinese are building the J-10s qith the Idea of keeping good quality and good quantity as the americans did with the F-16 and F-15s

Wow. You resort to the magic argument when you got nothing.

Stop embarrasing yourself.

Crobato

How is possible you have same engine in two different aircraft with different inlet design example F-15 and F-16? how is possible you have two different engines in the same aircraft MiG-23, F-16, MiG-21 etc etc?
Crobato you are giving lame excuses, inlets are designed upon speed, altitude and engine factors.

The J-10 is different to the F-16 due to the speed even when you have F-16 variants which have more powerful engines than the Al-31.

Modications are done in aircraft in order to fit different engines.

You can fit a J-79 to a Mirage V or a Snecma with due modifications.
You can fit an F-100 to a fixed inlet F-16 or a VG inlet F-15
You can fit a different inlet to an TF-30 example F-111 and F-14A

Operational aircraft show you are wrong there is no aircraft that has not been modified or re-engine.