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

Oh please. The PW1120 was built in so small a quantity that Israel could not spare them to China. Whatever was left was used on the Kurnass program updating the F-4. One of the reasons the Lavi project could not go on was because it was uneconomical to manufacture the PW1120 by itself just for the Lavi.

And once again, answer my last post, when did ever the MiG-23s used the R-11 or R-13 series huh?

You surely don’t know how Soviet aircraft are built don’t you? They are literally hand built aside from power drills. They were literally meant to be built by people no better trained than farmers.

You keep lying again?

What manufacturing tools? The Russians did not provide manufacturing tools specifically for the J-7. They handed over a plane and some plans that’s it.

The plane is so evolved that every nook and cranny of the plane has been substituted. Like I said, from the cockpit, radar, and the avionics perspective, it’s not even faintly recognizable anymore.

“fighter mafia” within the USAF consider FB-111 a failed aircraft,it do not look like bomber,and do not like fighter either,true,the aircraft was orignally design to satisfy USN requirment,in the end it just junk by USN in favor of more manuever F-14 tomcat.

The F-111 was the brain product of the “bomber” clique in the USAF. Since the Soviets crushing the Hungarians to the ground, completely destroying the latter’s airforce on the ground, there was a growing perception that the classic concept of air superiority by winning air to air battles is in doubt and the best way to assure air dominance is to destroy the enemy on ground. [The Six Day War proved that theory wasn’t a fluke.] Hence with, every fighter designed has a growing ground pounder capability, and fighter designs polarized into two types. You’re either half a bomber or you’re something meant to intercept that bomber.

The USN didn’t want the F-111 because first of all, it was a product of the Air Force, and the USN always must have their unique fighters, like their F-4 Phantom. Kind of a sacred thing to them. Second the F-111 did suck in air to air combat. Yes it was the complete antithesis of Boyd’s EM theories, which by the way, laid the basis for fourth generation fighter design. And thirdly, the USN needed a fleet defense interceptor, not a bomber.

Answer my questions directly you moron.

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?

No i do not see any problem, modifications are to adopt solutions to problems, engineers have ingenuity, they solve problems.

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

Stop embarrasing yourself.