ErezI am a friend of the reporter that wrote the article on the Arye, he sent me some material and info. Contact me at mail or PM for info and a few pictures. I don’t wish to upload them here though. He did allowed me to show them but he asked me not to publish them on the net.
ErezI’m out of this thread. I’m sick and tired of people that believe in themselves too much.
I’m also tired out of the fact that several people here don’t go out and do some study before speaking out here.
ErezDon’t forget that some Labanese Mirages were shot down by Neshers in 1973, I believe.
ErezI wonder how much indigenous design the Lavi has considering much of the body appeared lifted off from the F-16.
Bull$hit. Try hard, but you’ll never find a single part in the Lavi lifted from the F-16. Even the intake is different.
During the J10 handover ceremony in 2003, the designer, Soon Wen Cong, referred to the J-10 like an 18 year old child that has finally grown up and enlisted. 18 years, and this puts the beginning of the project around 1985.
So?
The Lavi’s design was finished in 1985 also. What’s the point?
And why do you think he has no reason to lie?
by your logic, the works of every single student is a copy or offshoot of his teacher’s ideas.
Why not?
In a way it’s true.
Erez says that China got J10 aerodynamic priniciples and canards and delta wings design from Israel. It’s so ridiculous. Modern aviation industry / aerodynamic know-how requires large scale infrastructure such as wind tunnel groups and long term test experience. Small country like Israel is impossible to own aerodynamic core technology. China already spent 30 years to build world class wind tunnel groups, Only USA, Russia, China and Euro own such wind tunnel groups.
LOL :p
You think Israel doesn’t have a wind tunnel facility?
That’s so… untrue :p
We have at least one which is known to the public, in the Technion of Haifa. We have all the experience needed today, from the Kfir to the Arye and the Lavi. I suggest you to check out the Technion’s website, and see some of the wind tunnel designs of the airplanes the students are designing there.
Listen all, this is really getting to nowhere. Non of us has enough knowledge of either Israel’s aviation industry or China’s.
IMHO, you have to be really blind in order not to see the traces of the Lavi in the J-10. Maybe it’s because I’m not just an internet warrior, and I actually do some research. I been studying the Lavi project, the IAI and the whole aviation sales related security system of Israel. For example, you find an atricle from 1994 saying that “China has completed the building of a Lavi plane in cooperation with Israel”, and that’s without having any pics of the plane to demonstrate of how really the two planes are similar, and a few years later when we can see good pics of the J-10, it is similar to the Lavi. Coincidence?
Everyone in entitled to his opinion.
ErezSo there is much life left in that old beast. Certainly more then in the B-1Bs.
LOL, the B-52 may actually replace its replacer 😀
ErezCongratulations Germany 🙂
Have fun with the new bird, and also, please don’t make him to be a challenge for the IDF/AF :p
Erezthe israelis may, and probably did give china some lessons in ac design principles, but even if they did, it does not mean that the J10 is anything close to a LAVI offshoot.
All I suggest about are roots (mainly aerodynamic).
if there was any assistant, then i would tend to lean on the side that the israelis were giving tips on how to modify and improve existing designs instead of making totally new ones. (which they had experience, and showed they can do pretty well).
And that existing design was?
Santa’s chariot?
after all, israel has never designed an indiginous fighter before (while china had attemptedmany), and even the LAVI had substantual US input, which did not make their design lessons very attractive.
Indigenously design – yes, indigenously built – no.
ErezErez, stop breaking our balls with your J-10/Lavi campaign.
The Israeli government had categorically denied any involvement in the J-10.
Now either it’s telling the truth or it’s lying because it is held hostage by the need for American handouts
Sorry GD, I know our relationship was getting warmer lately, and I hope this won’t put a setback to it. But there are just some things left undone.
Bear in mind that Israel had denied many, if not most, of its arms deal, especially in the early 90s and 80s, especially with countries that an arms deal with them would cause a scandal (for example South Africa at the time, and China).
Sadly, part of the reasons we hide some of our arms deals is indeed the fact that Israel is addicted to the American aid.
Does anyone know what the predecessor to the Lavi was called? It had a similar design, but now I forget what it was called….
You probably refer to the Arye (lion).
Rather unlikely.. Chinese might not have been state-of-art constructors at that time but they surely had the guts in even mnch more than just basic aerodynamic design. Think of the J-/J-7/J-8/J-12 series. We are not talking about Zambia or Cabo Verde, those people definitely don’t ned Israelis for just basic lectures.
Exactly. They don’t need no lectures on basic aerodynamics. What they needed at the time was a fighter plane, and guess what?
The Israeli experts knew most of their knowledge from the Lavi, and even the Arye. So in any case, if there was any Israeli help (and Arthur, don’t catch me on words please), it probably had to do with the Lavi, or the principals of the Lavi’s design (i.e canard delta and so on).
ErezWell, i am pretty strict in this… but any admission, be that official or not, from either Israel or China (the latter being extremely unlikely of course) that Israel in any sort of way contributed to the design or development of the J-10. I want sources, not suggestions.
I went to the libarary to the “Haaretz” newspaper archive. It is written there that in the 03/04/95, David Ivri, then the CEO of the Ministry of defence and former Air Force commander, admited that “Israel has provided and is providing military technologies to China, especially knowledge related to airplanes design”. BTW, it is also written there that two weeks eariler, the late Itzhak Rabin admited that in the mid 80s “Israel recieved a positive decision to provide China with upgrade kits for its tanks fleet and a non advanced air to air missile of the Rafael” (today we know it’s the PL-8).
Also written is that the week before the article was published, the American Los Angeles Times revealed that China is developing the J-10 with the help of the IAI, that in return for help in characterization and designing of the plane recived about a half a billion dollars.
Back then there were only vague pictures of J-10 models, nothing substantial to base any connections on except for a layout similarity. By now we do have detailed images of the J-10, but still nothing more than layout similarity. I am only asking you to back up your Lavi-ancestry claims, nothing more. Just like i backed up my claims that the Lavi was eventually a mostly American aircraft rather than an indigenous Israeli one Besides, i can equally argue that the Lavi was based on the Ye-8 (rather than on the F-16).
Oh no, not that again…
The Lavi is an ISRAELI design. Its PRODUCTION, though, was joint US-Israeli.
You get genuine sovereignty if you’re not taking handouts from someone else.
Handouts?
Now that really makes me mad 😡
Read some histroy pal, and find out why do we even get this aid.
ErezHey, only i get to declare my opinion to be humble. And this time, it ain’t
Please cite some sources and quotes for “most of the important names of military aviation press” in their beliefs that the J-10 has its roots in the Lavi. I don’t think any aviation expert citing the Lavi – J-10 relation by pointing out the canopy can be taken serious. Ever seen an F-15 canopy, Erez? I’m sure you’ll immediately dismiss that the Lavi canopy was taken from the F-15, so why do you think this red herring holds up for the J-10?
You don’t need me to quote you all the articles that appeared since the mid 90′ in Janes, Aviation week and the rest of the good old guys.
The similarity between the J-10 and the Lavi is just a bit too great to be a coincidence.
So now it’s probably again? If you like to think that the J-10 is based on the Lavi, that’s fine but you need to come up with more to substantiate your beliefs. Canopies and ventral fins are not enough.
You know what, I was wrong to write probably.
And to your unhumble opinion, what is a good enough proof?
ErezAny chance comparing it with Global Hawk?
It does sound a bit like a Global Hawk wannabe doesn’t it? 😉
BTW, are the Delilahs still operational? I know the Hunters are .
The Delilah isn’t a UAV my dear neighbor 🙂
ErezWell, then please contact that engineer for us. But pointing out details like the shape of the cockpit (i assume canopy?) or the ventral fins as proof for ancestry is pure nonsence. As for the location and shape of the ventral fins, those are quite often more or less an afterthought on the aircraft when extra keel area is needed. It’s definately not something you stick to when you’re converting design X for another role.
Yes, the canopy. If you ever happen to see any of the models the IAI made in the eighties of the single seat Lavi, you would know better.
Pure nonsence?
Maybe to your humble opinon. Even though most of the important names of military aviation press agree with me. Most of them believe that the J-10 has its roots from the Lavi. Nothing more.
Besides, it would have been a lot more work to actually redesign the Lavi to cope with a bigger engine, give it another fuselage, change aerodynamics and weight in general, than it would be to actually design something from scratch. I think you’re having a bit of the should-be-invented-here syndrome which was (and occasionally is) so populair in certain circles when looking at Soviet aircraft.
I truly admire the Chinese for being able to (IMHO) redesign that much.
But from scratch?
No, not when it probably (IMHO) had an existing base.
ErezNo one, at least I, have never said that the J-10 is a carbon copy of the Lavi. I suggest that the Lavi’s design is hiding quite deeply under the hard work the Chinese did in converting a design of a striker with secondery air defence role, to an air superiority fighter with less strike capability. Under the limitation of being unable to get US made components, they also had to chance several things in the structure. For example the engine. They took a bigger and more powerful engine, so they had to change the fuselage and make it bigger.
Also, if you look at the panels on the Lavi, you’ll see that they are only to the fuselage sides, with the top of the fuselage looking like a solid surface. On the J-10 the panels are much higher. Neither is the number or configuration of the panels the same: the J-10 seems to have three ‘lower’ panels and 7 upper panels, with the Lavi looks to have six of both.
Indeed, as part of the engine change.
Then there are the wings. The Lavi just has one flaperon on it’s trailing edge, while the J-10 has two surfaces, most likely separate flaps and ailerons. The position of the canards of the two aircraft are significantly different too: above the wing for the Lavi, well forward for the J-10. The leading-edge surfaces are different too: the Lavi has full-span slats, while the J-10 seems to have shorter ones (as can be seen at http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/at…tid=16602&stc=1 ).
Indeed again, as part of the change of role, they had to redesign the wings.
But then again, look at the parts they didn’t had to change, such as, for example, the small vertical fins, and the form of the cockpit.
Look at that this way:
Take a good team of aeronautic engineers and give them the plans for the Lavi. Ask them to redesign this plane in order to make it an air superiority fighter, and tell them to change only the parts necessary.
IMHO, the outcome will be named J-10.
ErezWe know that it will be jet powered, high flyer, with wingspan of 26 meters.
Two prototypes are being built right now.
ErezI think the link doesn’t work.
Sign In
