Yes, Chinawhite actually did a sound job by keeping asking the other party to confirm Why should it be that “LCA can look 1st” if only it’s physically smaller.

.

Possible SD-10 MRAAM going to be 1st time fired for test, That only will be done by the PT 06 platform

Hahaha…

Change engine of a modern jet is more or less a carpenter’s job of measuring diameter… 😀 😀 😮

Wow, somebody 1st got a rude translation of J10 speculation written by an anonymous Chinese as his argument Bible, then found another internet based portal as his saint source for arguing, ridiculous as I can see people avoid answering directly to the evidence harden points as raised by other members but only sought such “Bibles said “treatments :rolleyes:

How convenient, cheap tricks only make debate cheap :diablo:

From AVIC1’s official website: the JF-17 PT06 takes maiden flight on Sept 10, 06

http://www.avic1.com.cn/chinese/xwzx/detail/20060922_7.htm

A brief translation from this news in Chinese:

The full-status JF-17 PT06 took the maiden flight on Sept 10, 2006 with improved fuel system and ALL CHINESE MADE avionics, the initial assessment is the PT06’s flight status is better than the previous prototypes.

When I saw the article alleges that one J10 prototype flied with WP-13 before 1995, then I know this article is worth nothing, Even J-10’s precedent, the J-9 fighter which also mentioned in this article, trying to use the Turbofan engine to power it, but because of the Chinese Aviation infrastructure then is still weak, the WS-6 Turbofan intended to power J-9 didn’t succeed. The Author simply forget the logic that if Chinese want to power an earlier version of J-9 to use turbofan based powerplant, why they want to take one step back to use a technically inferior Turbojet engine like WP-13 to power later version of J10?!

The Chinese develops the J-10 with the Turbofan powered engine firm in mind at the very beginning, the official AVIC1 website clearly, no uncertain words states the WS-10 engine, which start developing in 1987, is missioned to power the fighter planned in projector 8810. however, the initial development of the WS-10 is again not so smooth for the same reason I mentioned above that leads to the introduction of AL-31F, after 6 months or so minor re-design of the AL31F to become AL31FN, the prototype of J10 eventually took the flight.

Well, for the rest of article, I feel nothing fresh, every aspect being touched in previous posts. The Israelis at most as agreed also by the article, transferred some design figures of their LAVI to Chinese, This may lead 2 outcomes dependent on how Chinese utilize such info:

1, Clone the LAVI, as it reborn as J-10, some members here in forums firmly believes, but their arguments are running out of steam, because many eye to see pictures and figures confirm the J-10 is essentially different from LAVI, no matter its mission or aerodynamic features.

2. Chinese analyst the LAVI’s data ( for 2 years as the article said), and selected or absorbed some of the data their think is useful for their design of J-10, thus cut short of their development of the J-10 airframe. But nothing, the J-10 is a clone of LAVI

After viewing the article, I also find no clue leading people to think that Israelis played a consultant role like General Dynamics consulted for the Ching Kuo, for the latter, the Yankee terms were working side by side/hand by hand with the Taiwanese and use the off shelf product from US aviation establishing, how come Israelis play the same role?! For simple logic again, Will Chinese stupid enough to allow the closest US ally to gain their most frontline fighters’ 1st hand info?!

As we all can see, how the “repute” western sources usually look at Chinese indigenous development, always through bias and pre-emptied assumption, failed to look at simple facts or logic

…In the current issue, the author argues that IAI acted as a consultant, just like General Dynamics consulted for the Ching Kuo, to design an aircraft for China’s needs, or Dassault was consulted on the Novi Avion. Even SAAB contracted Rockwell, MBB, and BAe for support in various areas for the Gripen. I don’t see why certain forum members seem so opposed to the idea that IAI, SIBNIA, or Mikoyan might have been contracted to support J-10 development.

To be more precisely, IAI gave the kind of consultant in forms of “ class teaching”, which could have transferred some of their experiences o LAVI including some failure experience, This scenario is like you go to school, graduated and you work, you can apply what you have learned in the actual work, but hardly people will award one individual’s work to his school, although school plays an important part in developing correct personnel. The early input from Israelis and Russians play an important role for developing CAC ,especially 611 institute’s team, which did the excellent jobs in designing fighter jets like J10 and FC-1.

From the revealing ofJF-17, actually we should be well aware the strength of CAC’s design team, the demonstration of DSI/LERX etc in such short timeframe should reveal their massive capacity of handling CFM. I would say, this is part of infrastructure mentioned by Goldendragon. No Chinese poster against foreigners indeed provide support to J10’s development. In my turn, I equally can’t understand why so many members in the same forum emphasis a design concept or blueprint so much but try to ignore how the infrastructure’ s role in J10’s developing. You could have beautiful drawings and idea, but end of the day, is your term, your infrastructure that can prove your design in a wind tunnel, your expertise and capacity in aerodynamic related calculation that can back up and enrich a mere drawing , your tooling in machining such parts that enable your product matching your blueprint, your various testbeds which provide sufficient data to make a metal piece to fly and fly like a bird. In this regard, I would put Europeans in front of either Russians or Israelis for contributing J10’s developments. The EU aviation companies, which usually incorporated in France, contributed a lot to the infrastructure of CAC and their expertise. In 1990s, when some certain parts of J10 is still not manufacturable in China, such EU companies indeed provided machining of those parts. However, as China develops, the machining bottleneck in 1990s no longer be a huddle in today’s China.

…

As for how “a few tanks” can take power so easily… the ousted PM was not personally very popular anymore, and it appears most of the populace is taking a “wait & see” attitude as to whether this coup is aimed at replacing him & the old constitution with another or if it is to be another Junta-style government.

Not convince at all, concurrently there’s another event comparable happening in Taiwan. Talking popularity, the current TW president Chen S.B is not matching of Thaksin, according to all the polls, the highest approval rate of the Taiwan president is only 18% released by his own party. At least I know Thaksin never got such a low rating. Also, both Chen S.B & Thaksin’s supporters are rural area based. Both Chen & thaksin faces massive protest at home, just last Friday, there were 1 million Taiwanese dressed in red to protest Chen, no matching event for the ousters in Thai.

However, there are major differences that lead to totally different outcome, while ROC army traditionally is pro-KMT party which is pro United with China against Chen SB’s pro independent DPP party, the army never take the chance of the low popularity of Chen to oust him, people always can cast their unhappiness via vote, like what we had seen, the DPP already lost the local election by very large margin to KMT, I expect they will lost the parliament in the year and 2008 president election. If the oppositions pre-emptily assume Thaksin is “unpopular”, why not show their power in ballot but show off their “ formidable “ MK41?!