Aviation International News, Tuesday Issue Farnborough 2006

The direct quote in the article was “more or less a version of the Lavi… but there are a number of other pieces of other aircraft that are part of the configuration that they have acquired from different sources”. Which isn’t quite the same thing at all.

This is really a tough, super ambitious, and highly complex project. However, I do think the Russians are incapable of putting it together also, give how much potential Russian input was discarded (Russian avionics, radar and weapons integration for example). There are so many changes in components and requirements—the wings, tail and canards for example, are physically different from the Lavi—that the plane has to be remade from scratch. There are straight limits how far you can “alter” things, and you reach to a point working with legacy baggage becomes more counterproductive. Simply said, the actual plane design, dimensions, and details show this. No matter what the articles say, this is the bottomline physical evidence.

What if the Viet Nam War were fought today, with today’s more capable weapons systems? care to make any predictions…

yes the outcome will always be the same. Stronger weapons will not destroy the will and the heart of a people once they’re united and determined to fight you. Nothing will stop them.

To break that will and that heart, you need the ultimate weapon.

Which is something you already have in your wallet. The greenback.

It is obvious that the changes were immediately introduced into the project, since already in the spring of 1998 in the model “03” appeared the new type of engine it was modified the tail assembly. In the middle **of y998g. on this aircraft was overcome sound barrier. This test flight lasted more than 40 minutes. Thus, China became the first state in Asia, which independently created the combat aircraft of the fourth generation with supersonic cruising speed.

Super cruising? Woow…if this is true…

Thanks it has a lot of interesting information but there are some gaffes on it.

In 1994, when full speed went the modification of project taking into account the demands of Chinese military, in the geopolitical arena again burns the intrigue, connected/bonded with the “project № 10”. On obtaining in 1994 of information about possible sale by Russia of India of the party/batch of fighters Su-27 with **BRLS N —101, China declares the protest of Russia, since according to its characteristics it exceeds those already stocked up by China Russian **BRLS “beetle”. Israel became the response reaction of China to this transaction turning with the demand to partner in the joint — project. Its sentence about the acquisition **BRLS EL/.M 2035 for the installation on “Tsien -10” Israeli side accompanied **optsionom to the installation of control system of armament. As asserted Israeli side with the substantiation **of optsiona, during the equipment of aircraft with these systems and by the rockets/missiles of Israeli production, fighter will become strongest in its form.

It’s N001 not N101. And when did China stock up on Zhuks (Beetle) in 1994? The 2035 is the original radar for the Lavi, but it was rumored that the a variant numbered 2034 was proposed for the J-8II upgrade aka “Israel Pearl” while the Russians were proposing a Zhuk based J-8II upgrade aka “Russian Pearl”. This eventually lead to the Zhemchug variant.

To reequipment subjected also model for number “01”. In proportion to the entrance of the elements of new **BREO, the aircraft passed additional equipping. **On 12 March, 1997, took place its test flight with the new “board”. Piloted aircraft test pilot senior Colonel Juan binsin’. In the middle of 1997 occurs the event, which showed/rendered negative effect on the motion of “project 8810”. One of the engineers, which worked in the group of projects, unexpectedly disappears. As then it was explained, after receiving the possibility to leave for the line, it made a decision to remain there. After being decided to this step/pitch, it caught/tacked with itself some materials, which have great value for understanding of the essence of changes, by which underwent the primordial project **Of “lavi”.

The first flight of the J-10 took place in March 1998, not 1997. This was celebrated as an event described as a successful first flight of a “new fighter” without mentioning the plane in question.

At the end of 1997 during the test flight suffers catastrophe the model with the identification number “02”. Flights stop and to the explanation of the reasons for catastrophe throw all forces. The complex study of fragments is conducted on the flying test range of the institute **of 611 NII є – SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH INSTITUTE». In some western and Taiwan sources it was asserted that in this stage the Chinese side turned for help to the Russian specialists, with the aid of whom they were dismantled/selected at that occurred.

Already this is disproven. Prototype 1002 was actually photographed much later with PL-11s underneath its wings, and weapons testing with radar guided missiles could have occured as late as 2001-2002.

There was a publicized near mishap on June 2000, the event was actually documented on China’s national TV years later, about a test pilot who was awarded for saving the prototype (which remains unnamed) after some sort of failure (FBW? Engine?) The video did show J-10s.

During May 2002 **gonkongskaya newspaper **”sindao **zhibao”, referring to brief article from the corporate newspaper of company **”chenfey”, reported the transfer of first party of four vehicles of the affirmed model VVS on the ceremony of transfer fighters J -10 with identification numbers 30101 and 30102 (on the basis of other sources – 31001. 31002) together with two J -11 (Chinese name of those exported in C.P.R. є – CHINESE PEOPLES’ REPUBLIC» Su-27), which arrived flying from the air base chungking, completed joint demonstration flight. It is possible to assume that the discussion deals with the vehicles, transmitted in VVS **NOAK for the troop tests.

Said identification numbers belong to the 19th Division Su-27s. No J-10s would have these numbers in this period, unless in some future, the 19th Division in Jining MR would have a J-10 regiment of its own.

During February 2002 of 2 NII є – SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH INSTITUTE» VVS **NOAK completes the process of the tests of the new system of the aimings/sightings, and also other 15 systems of new **BREO. During March concludes the process of the finishing of control system of rocket armament in 618 NII є – SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH INSTITUTE» the system it is one of the component part of the weapon system of “project № 10”, and it considerably enlarges the possibilities of the combat employment of a fighter.

Institute 2 and 618 are not responsible for the radar and fire control systems of the J-10. Institute 14 is.

The basis of firepower “Tsien -10” composes rocket- bomb armament. In the list of rocket armament can be included the air-to-air missiles: – the near radius of the Chinese production Pl-8, the being copy Israeli rocket/missile “python -3”, Pl-9 (compilation of Israeli rocket/missile and Russian rocket/missile R -73), also the Chinese production: – the average/mean radius of action of Chinese production or to Russian **Rvv-aye (**NPO “pennant”).

PL-9s are not part of the J-10 armament and neither are R-73s.

retrofit a Al-31 to the J-10 also would have not been easy for a nation like China that was learning fast but lacked knowledge at the time, it is not like i have Al-31 and i can fit them right away to any aircraft, it does not work like that, you have to modify the aircraft and know how to modify it, it requieres knowledge and it is obvious China lacked that knowledged because they needed Russian Help and colaboration

Equally stupid, since you already made it a point that the Russians could assist on this (Lyulka, SIBNIA). Given the circumstances, I doubt that Lyulka and SIBNIA would suggest putting the WP-13 on the J-10 either.

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.

Exactly.

There are Cincinnati Milacron machines in CAC and I don’t think they’re there because of Russian input. I don’t think the Russians could have thought the Chinese how to operate 5 axis milling machines when as late as 2002, their own firms like KnAAPO are complaining about the lack of funds needed to obtain the latest milling machines. There are pics inside CAC’s design offices that show modern workstations running CAD software, and these are stuff I don’t think the Russians or the Israelis ever thought CAC. In one picture posted in the CDF not too long ago, there is a picture of J-10 prototype that appeared to be undergoing tests with a PC and an HP printer, with the PC apparently running some sort of diagnostics program. The make of the HP made PC and the printer, an HP 5L, easily dates the picture to the mid nineties. That sort of stuff I don’t think came from the Russians either.

And you think after more than a decade without any evidence of such a WP-13 powered J-10, that there is going to be any evidence at all? After all this time, if there is going to be any evidence, it would have risen by now.

You’re really full of bull****. I have already given you all the valid technical reasons why the J-10 could never be powered by the WP-13. You cannot translate the Russian experience with the Chinese experience. Even the MiG-23 R27 engines have an output and weight similar that is similar to he AL-31F engines (something like 26000lbs of thrust vs. 27000)—which by the way, still has NOT actually flown. The power difference between the AL-31FN and the WP-13 is nearly 100%—that is 6600kg VS 12,500kg. Where is your technical reasons, eh?

SIBNIA’s alleged participation in the J-10 project is not proof that any WP-13 powered J-10 prototypes exist. As a matter of fact, the Russian article you pertain offers no new information but added speculation based on a collage of internet rumor and speculation, not to mention full of gaping errors such as not knowing accurately when the first J-10s entered service despite the Russians themselves having already mass supplied the engines prior to 2004. In other words, that “source” of yours have no claim or access even to inside Russian information that could have been involved with the J-10.