I was not aware that the J-10 had compound sweep on it’s leading edge, or is it just the angle?

No, but it has gull wings.

http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/showpost.php?p=1480711&postcount=372

I think IAF is capable of destroying PAF infrastructure, (runways, radars, towers etc) before the Chinese can get involved. 😀

PAF will be on the receiving end, but before everyone start assuming IAF is going to do a ODS on Pakistan we should be reminded that the IAF has not yet demonstrated that kind of air-to-ground capability. Just because USAF pulled it off on Iraq doesn’t mean every large air force can duplicate the effect. Even USAF had a hard time with Serbia, and Pakistan is considerably bigger than Serbia and Iraq put together.

China sent people over to have a look at the Harrier in the late 1970s. But economic reform broke out and defense budget was slashed. I don’t know if there were any attempts by 3rd parties to stop the sale. In those days the West wanted to sell all sorts of weapons, but China had no money.

Georgia would have to replicate the IDF to make its deterrent effective. That would require serious $$$ from American tax payers.

In the short term the best option is probably to get some Patriot batteries manned by American soldiers ala Poland.

Russia is doing in Georgia what India wish it could in Pakistan. In fact all major powers have its own Georgia in their sphere of influence. A small annoying neighbor with powerful friends.

India has the geostrategic advantage of being able to pull off friendship with America, Europe, and Russia without having to step on any of their toes. So what do they care about Georgia?

actually, it was mainly because J-9 was too ambitious for China at that time. Even for J-10, they had contingency plans for a turbojet engine.

Certainly. But the main area of overreach was the WS-6 turbofan. Had they went with a turbojet to begin with, the project would likely have been successful.

Other factors are the Cultural Revolution and bad project management.

a lot of the requirements for J-10 supposedly derived from J-9 (although I guess aiming less for the fast speed and more for maneuverability). It’d be nice to get the full J-9 requirements, so we can get a better idea of J-10’s requirements.

J-9 as originally defined in the mid 1960s (before the double 27 and double 26 requirements) was to be able to out dogfight a F-4 and intercept the F-105 and B-58 in all weather conditions, and have significantly greater combat radius than the MiG-21. The J-9 was the competitor to the J-8, and the later won the competition, primarily due to the unreliable WS-6 turbofan engine the J-9 was designed around.

In 1970 the J-9 project was radically altered from a Mach 2 MiG-21 replacement, to a MiG-25 type pure interceptor with a double 27 requirement. That is to say Mach 2.7 and max ceiling of 27,000 meters. This was later lowered to a double 26 requirement, but still well beyond actual capability of the industry at the time and finally canceled in 1980 in favor of the J-8. The J-9 from conception was always described as a single engine turbofan fighter. This is the first time I’ve heard about a twin engine proposal.

If you can read Chinese:

http://calf.cn/viewthread.php?tid=29643&extra=page%3D1