No one is opposed to the idea of that China had consultants. If Mig-23/Strevitel had treated the J-10 like the Gripen then no one would have bothered contradicting him.

Because if the Gripen doesn’t become an American plane just because it used American consultants then why should the J-10 become Israeli because of someone imagined the Lavi going to China.

But even that premise is patently false. The Lavi NEVER went to China All five prototypes remain in Israel. So why should a few drawing in Hebrew have such an impact?

China’s aviation infrastructure is entirely different from Israel. It’s like giving a kosher recipe in Hebrew to a Chinese restaurant. The Chinese cooks not only can’t read Hebrew but they can’t make it if they could since they don’t have the supplies or the rabbi in place for kosher meat.

If Israel cannot even produce and induct the Lavi for its own air force, why in hell would this American-dependent design suddenly work for China? Israel doesn’t have a full aviation industry. It depends on American technology, parts and financing. So where would the Chinese get those American parts?

Now, it would be FAR more plausible for American and British consultants to working in China and designing schematics for the Chinese infrastructure.

There is a reason why there were the JH-7, the Super 7 and Peace Pearl projects even though the British and Americans were far more experience aircraft designers than the Israelies.

Those American and British projects leveraged China’s own industrial infrastructure.

The Lavi is exactly the opposite. It is a plane so dependent on American parts that Israel could not build it without American agreement. It didn’t leverage the Chinese aviation infrastructure at all.

It is time we stop believing that a “design” would allow you to suddenly materialize an airplane. The real world is still made out of heavy machinery and metal. Not some “design” on paper. There are millions of designs in China. But until the 1980s, the Chinese infrastructure was not in place for anything beyond the J8II.

What the J-10 was built, it was because the Chinese infrastructure was in place for it. Not because of some drawings in Hebrew.

Tigershark/golden dragon

Israel is not inferior to China specially since China is not powering series aircraft without russian engines yet, rest of engines are copies Israel can make copies.

The Israel also cancelled the IAI Lavi due to US pressure but also under their own economical problems.

See this small detail, a five million country can have space launcher build by IAI, AWACS built by IAI, latest generation fighters and jet airliners, latest SAMs, you should give credit that that small nation tiny as an ANT can still have better AAMs than China adn even turn an F-16 into a warplane that can beat the Su-27, J-10 and Su-30MKI

Mig-23MLD

Crobato’s argument is perfectly legitimate. A fighter is normally built around an engine with former’s outer body acting like a skin around the latter. While in theory u can put Al-31F in say J-7/Mig-21 which uses WP-13, modifications for such a change would be so drastic that J-7 may not be even recogniseable after that.

Its easy for anyone to argue such a point. For example, anyone can claim that first SU-27/Mig-29 protypes were flown with WP-13. But could this be proven?

vikasrehman

Crobato is niether totally wrong niether totally right, aircraft are designed with some degree of growth potential, why? because any aircraft will be upgraded during it`s operative life, they are not doomed to just one type of powerplant, some powerplants will mean some degree of modification that many times the manufactures end up baptizing the new variant as a new aircraft, case IAI Kfir, F-20, MiG-27 etc etc however this has more to do with promotion of the new plane.

The MiG-23BN is basicly a MiG-27, the Pantera, Cheetah and Kfir are Mirage V.

What crobato claims is preferibly an aircraft will use same diameter and lenght engines in order to keep the less changed the airframe a very good example is the MiG-29.

Since the Russians articles i have read claim the Chinese used the R-13/WP-13 to power an early J-10 prototype this does not mean is not possible, the MiG-23M and MiG-23ML are powered by very slim engines as slim as the WP-13, the latest upgrade accepts AL-31, this proves you it is possible to fit an early J-10 with an WP-13.

Question is if the AL-31 was the second choice engine before Russia stepped up and the WS-10 was ready what engine was going to power the J-10 in 1993?

Not without extensive airframe modifications and frankly, i doubt any MiG-23 was ever fitted with the AL-31F and flew.

Idiot. The Kfit had its rear end completely changed. Even the heat shields for the J79 are different from the Atar’s. That’s why the Kfir is not the same aircraft as the Mirage III. There are extensive airframe modifications.

You are the one with the reality denial. You can’t prove a WP-13 J-10 proto.

If an engine is fitted you look for the best advantages.

[/QUOTE]
Crobato you are wrong here is the link that proved the Indian MiG-23 are being fitted with Al-31

Истребитель-бомбардировщик МиГ-27 получит новый двигатель

Основной истребитель-бомбардировщик ВВС Индии МиГ-27 получит новый двигатель, сообщает ИТАР-ТАСС.

Соответствующее заявление сделал генеральный директор ММПП “Салют” Юрий Елисеев на проходящем в Великобритании авиасалоне Farnborough-2006.

По проекту модернизации, на истребитель-бомбардировщик МиГ-27 устанавливается один двигатель АЛ-31Ф. Новый двигатель весит на двести килограммов легче устанавливавшегося ранее Р-29Б-300, имеет на одну тонну большую, нежели старый двигатель, тягу (12300 кг/с против 11300), и одновременно на 15 процентов меньший расход топлива в номинальном режиме работы.

На вооружении ВВС Индии находится 150 истребителей бомбардировщиков МиГ-27 Bahadur. В настоящий момент предполагается модернизация 60 этих машин. Модернизируемые самолеты также пройдут капитальный ремонт и получат улучшенное бортовое оборудование, что позволит значительно увеличить их возможности.

МиГ-27 Bahadur является основным истребителем-бомбардировщиком ВВС Индии. Он создан в середине 70-х годов, а в 1986-1996 производился в Индии по лицензии.

Этот сверхзвуковой самолет с изменяемой стреловидностью крыла предназначен для нанесения ударов по наземным целям противника с применением, в том числе, и высокоточного оружия (корректируемых бомб, управляемых ракет). Модернизация истребителей-бомбардировщиков МиГ-27 и их предшественников – МиГ-23БН, по мнению специалистов, способна принести российскому ВПК не меньше миллиарда долларов в течение ближайших 10-12 лет.

Ссылки по теме

basicly they say the Indians are retrofitting Al-31 to their MiG-27s and MiG-23BN a total of 60 aircraft will be upgrade, the AL-31 will replace the R-29B-300

Link http://www.lenta.ru/news/2006/07/20/bahadur/

modifications are natural what happens many manufactures prefers to avoid them as much as possible but retroffiting a new engine is plausible

The company management also advocates the replacement of regular MiG-23 and MiG-27 engines with AL-31 engines to increase thrust and reduce weight and fuel consumption.http://mdb.cast.ru/mdb/6-2002/di/cedm/

Thanks a lot for that !!!

I just need to change that statement only a little but to sum up this discussion:

If you want to me select a version in this discussion between a brilliant argumentation or a foolish list of unreliable sources without any technical argument to support it, I and the rest will go the brilliant, do you ?

I think there are some more who think the same !

Deino 😀

Oh now i am a loon, yes i am a loon but i prefer that to continue blind and deny my self the Lavi-J-10 connection as you do only because it bothers your ego

Please what can paper design do for you? I can draw a paper design of a hi-tech ceramic toilet bowl. And I’ll write the instructions in Chinese (or Hebrew, if you choose) and give it to you or your neighbor. I guarantee that you two would NOT be able to make that toilet bowl on your own. Not just because you won’t be able to understand my chicken scratches but also because you simply don’t have the infrastructure to shape and fire ceramic.

In the same vein, you can give a paper design of the F-16 to a tribe of bushmen or Yemen and it’ll stay a paper design. But for countries that has the infrastructure in place for things as such as the F-16, they already have the design part as well.

Drawing crap on paper is ALWAYS easier than the physical machinery needed to actually make those “designs” into reality.

The idea is to design items that YOUR infrastructure could build. The Lavi was designed around American technology and American parts. It’s less than useless for China and its infrastructure. Useless, unless China gets a hard copy, a prototype. Then it’ll be able to reverse engineer all the American pieces.

So even if I gave you my ceramic toilet bowl design, you would discard it for another design of a bowl made from wood or sheet-metal because your basement workshop could probably handle that.

China got aircraft tooling from the US

Chinese Firms Diverted U.S. Machine Tools, Commerce Department Finds

The Risk Report
Volume 2 Number 3 (May-June 1996)

Three Chinese companies “knowingly violated” U.S. export regulations by diverting sensitive American machine tools to a missile factory in Nanchang, according to a Commerce Department investigation completed in late 1995.

The companies, CATIC (China National Aero-Technology Import-Export Corporation), China National Aero-Technology and China National Supply and Marketing Corporation imported the machines under export licenses issued by the U.S. Commerce Department with the stated purpose of making civilian aircraft. The machines had been used previously to make parts for the B-1 strategic bomber. The machines were shipped to China between September 1994 and March 1995 by the McDonnell-Douglas Corporation and were destined for CATIC’s Beijing Machining Center. The Machining Center, however, did not exist at the time the licenses were granted and was never created. Instead, the tools were illegally sent to other locations, including the China Nanchang Aircraft Manufacturing Company which makes military attack aircraft and Silkworm anti-ship missiles.

Commerce Department investigators found that the three companies had committed “intentional and willful violations of U.S. export regulations” and that the diversion posed “an imminent threat to the security of the United States.” The investigators recommended that the three companies and their subsidiaries and affiliates be denied U.S. export privileges until they complied with the 1994 export licenses under which the machines were shipped.

Of the seventeen machines exported, eleven were sent to Tianjin where they were stored, and six were sent to the Nanchang plant where one was uncrated, installed and operated. McDonnell-Douglas first discovered the diversion in March 1995 and in August, a McDonnell-Douglas employee saw one of the diverted machines in operation. The Commerce investigators concluded that the Chinese companies “demonstrated neither technical errors nor negligence” and were guilty of “deliberate violations.” The machines consisted of a Wheelon hydraulic stretch press, a White Sunstrand numerical machining center, a Sheffield (Bendix) coordinate measuring machine and three Cincinnati Milacron vertical bed mills.

After discussions among McDonnell-Douglas and the U.S. and Chinese governments, the Commerce Department agreed to amend the export licenses in February 1996 to designate Shanghai, where McDonnell-Douglas maintains a joint venture facility. On April 19, 1996, Commerce Department spokesperson Rosemary Warren, in response to questions from the Risk Report, stated that the machines “will remain in Shanghai for use on the previously approved joint-venture with the Chinese.” Warren also said that the “future of these machines is under review as part of the overall investigation.” On February 23, 1996, Rep. Floyd Spence, chairman of the House National Security Committee, asked the General Accounting Office (GAO) to investigate the transaction.

Portions of an undated Commerce Department document summarizing the Commerce investigation are included here. It appears to have been written in late 1995.

http://www.wisconsinproject.org/countries/china/divert.html

China Nanchang Aircraft Manufacturing Company (CNAMC)
China Nanchang Aircraft Manufacturing Company (CNAMC) produces military and civilian aircraft, cruise missiles, and commercial products such as motorcycles. Nanchang produces the Q-5 Fantan single-seat dual-engined supersonic attack aircraft, which is exported under the designation A-5. Shenyang Aircraft Corporation [SAC] provided assitance to Nanchang Aircraft for the production of the Q-5. It also produces the Silkworm anti-ship cruise missile. Nanchang Aircraft also produces the K-8, a new jet trainer co-designed by China and Pakistan Aeronautical Complex.

McDonnell Douglas and China National Aero-Technology Import and Export Corporation (CATIC) entered into an agreement in 1992 to co-produce 40 MD-80 and MD-90 aircraft in China for the country’s domestic “trunk” routes. A contract revision signed in November 1994 reduced the number of aircraft to be built in China to 20 and called for the direct purchase of 20 U.S.-built aircraft. The four Chinese factories involved in the Trunkliner program include the Shanghai Aviation Industrial Corporation, Xian Aircraft Company, Chengdu Aircraft Company, and Shenyang Aircraft Company. The Shanghai facility is responsible for final assembly of the aircraft. All of these factories are under the direction of Aviation Industries Corporation of China (AVIC) and CATIC. CATIC is the principal purchasing arm of China’s military as well as many commercial aviation entities.

In May 1994, McDonnell Douglas submitted license applications for exporting machine tools to China. The machine tools were to be wholly dedicated to the production of 40 Trunkliner aircraft and related work. Under the Trunkliner program, the Chinese factories were responsible for fabricating and assembling about 75 percent of the airframe structure and the tools were required to produce parts to support the planned 10 aircraft per year production rate. The machine tools exported by McDonnell Douglas to China have military and commercial applications. Some of these US exported machine tools were subsequently diverted to a Chinese facility engaged in military production. The machine tools were shipped to three locations contrary to the license conditions and CATIC’s assurances regarding end use. Six machine tools were diverted to the Nanchang Aircraft Company, and the rest were stored in two locations in the port city of Tianjin. By August 1996, about 18 months after the diversion was first reported, all the machine tools were at the Shanghai aviation facility

source http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/china/cnamc.htm

Listen to me closely. There is no J-10 prototype flying in 1993. And even if they did, it would have been easier for them to use the Spey, which is already a turbofan and with an output much closer to the PW1120 than the WP-13. And certainly China has 50 of them before 1990 and only built four JH-7 prototypes. Won’t hurt to take one engine right?

lOl. Nothing but circular reasoning. Let repeat the bottom line.

You got no photo or tangible evidence to back up your claim that a WP-13 based prototype existed.

There is no mention of that in Chinese texts.

You don’t have a technical argument to support such. Even the JH-7 would have required a massive fuselage alteration and that’s for a plane that’s switching from turbofan to turbofan, and isn’t a monoque. What more the problems if the engine from a small turbojet to a fat turbofan (the AL-31FN is even wider and has a higher bypass than the standard AL-31F) and from a fuselage designed as a monoque.

You don’t have historical precedents from any of the other Chinese development projects, which during their development phase, used the WP-13 as temporary engine.

And lastly, there is no precedent at all, that the Chinese make special technology demonstrators. Everyone of their projects, from the J-8I, the J-8II, the JH-7, the FC-1 showed prototypes remarkably similar and very little changed from the definitive production versions.

Crobato you do not have any picture of the 1995 J-10s do you? all of the nine prototypes, the aircraft built in 1993 do you?

you are just following a childish reasoning you can modify the J-10 is not like you are saying, any aircraft can be modified so all your brilliant reason is so false because how in that case they plan to make a naval twin engine J-10 if they can not modiy the aircraft? any airframe can be modified to make room for a new engine , you are just going in a false reasoning path

Whatever troubles the Chinese had in obtaining the Spey, they still have 50 engines they received from the British, and that’s certainly more than enough to make a potential J-10 prototype out of that. And if you think fitting engines is that easy, if the Chinese had problems obtaining the Spey, why not design the JH-7 around two WP-13s like the J-8IIs?

Guess what, it can’t happen for the same reason why you can’t have a J-10 around the WP-13. It would require a massive redesign of the fuselage.

You really are out of technical arguments are you? The WP-13 is so different from the engine the J-10 was intended for that to use the WP-13 would result in a totally different aircraft. The Chinese know more than enough of the WP-13 to know that this will be the result. Hence not even the J-9 concepts ever called for using the WP-13.

To sum it up,

You got no photo or tangible evidence to back up your claim that a WP-13 based prototype existed.

There is no mention of that in Chinese texts.

You don’t have a technical argument support such.

You don’t have historical precedents from any of the other Chinese development projects.

No Crobato is not technical it is political, your technically is a false excuse you use i have shown you the MiG-23 acccepts engine of very different diameters and lengths, You have a very false reasoning in fact a very crucial flaw if the WS-10 was not ready in 1993, the AL-31 was not the first engine chosen to power the J-10 what engine was powering the first J-10 prototypes? not an AL-31 for sure not an WS-10 since it was not yet ready niether the Kunlun also was very foolish to built an airframe and wait 10 years just to be power by the WS-10, conclusion you are just giving excuses

I like to see them try without a major change of the airframe. Just remember the JH-7A was proposed for an AL-21 or AL-31F engine swap and the project was eventually cancelled because such a change would require a major change in the airframe. And the JH-7 isn’t a monoque.

If that’s so clever why are you not fitting MiG-21s with AL-31Fs?

Like I said this article is blatently lying. There is no proof or evidence that a prototype flew with the WP-13. As a matter of fact, neither did FC-1 and JH-7 prototypes ever flew with WP series engines so there is simply no precedent for it either.

However the AL-31FN is bigger than both of them, and the J-10 already needed a brand new airframe to accomodate the AL-31FN. Simply said, the Lavi won’t fit the AL-31FN either, and the same level of size difference exists between the PW1120 engine and the WP-13 engine. The Chinese would not make that kind of investment to redesign an airframe. And again there is no precedent for it from either JH-7 and FC-1 projects. Even the L-15 project showed that the prototype was designed with the intended engine from the get go.

Crobato

The MiG-23 accepts many different types of engine, redesign it`s possible.
However you try to say redesign is not possible, the J-10 was modified many times remember that.

now the Russians claim the chinese turn to the Russians for one simple reason they did not have a good engine, however the J-10 program was already in a very advanced stage when they asked to Russia for help, so tell me what engine they tried to fit? a ghost engine? in 1993 the only engine available they had is the WP-13 so it is obvoius they tried to fit it.

I feel the Russian account sounds more logic because claims the Chinese first tried to fly the J-10 with a locally built engine and go for domestic technology, the AL-31 was not the first choice.