thanks for answering a question that I didn’t ask. I’m talking about the extent of Israeli input on the Lavi.

Mostly avionics like radar etc,. That is the Israeli speciality. The Lavi prototypes went on to be used for testbeds for Israeli radars long after the Lavi programe is dead.

Not the FBW system though which seems to be written in ADA, which makes it quite American.

At the same time, you need to explain why the rear of the J-10’s wings has two control surfaces while the Lavi only has one.

Something people need to consider is this:

Lavi was designed as primarily an air-to-ground platform.

J-10, given the “J” designator (not JH or Q) seems to be primarily intended to operate in an air defense role.

Now, isn’t it posible that any Lavi starting point, reworked for a new mission (which requires different emphasis on different aerodynamic aspects), would end up as the J-10?

Quotes from alleged chinese documents leaked into the web suggests that the name for the J-10 is actually “Quan Shi” which implies an attack plane. This has been mentioned in Jane’s as well if I recall.

Oh, and looking at that picture I too don’t see how the trailing edges of the canards are straight…..they look slightly canted inwards.

They are slightly canted outwards, quite the opposite direction of the Lavi. Can’t you tell? If you are canted inwards you would have more of an arrow look in the wings, instead of a triangular look.

At the same time, the Lavi’s canards are so arrow swept, part of them would overlap the main wing. The J-10’s canards are completely triangular and completely clear of the main wing. The J-10’s canards appear to have an aspect ratio similar to the Viggen while the wings have a planform closer to the Gripen.

Trying to lie about J-10 being not lavi shows yours.

The photos prove it. You’re the big liar here. Show me concrete evidence—technical and direct visual data.

sounds fair enough for your change in point of views, although I’m more interested in your change of thoughts of US/Israeli input on the Lavi rather than this J-10 deal :diablo:

The change comes from so many unanswered and perplexing details about the plane.

For example, why discard the wingtip rails for missiles like in the F-16 and Lavi and choose rounded wing tips instead?

Why the M2000 style fuselage hardpoint layout?

Why choose a shallower canopy, better for streamlining, but bad for visibility, over the bubble canopies of the F-16/Lavi? If the plane is optimized for subsonic aircombat, you don’t need a shallower canopy.

A more direct Lavi model and connection would have answered my questions and give me a much clearer picture of the J-10’s capability and performance parameters. But no longer. I am no closer to that answer as I was a few years ago.

I have learned that what the rest of the world thinks is of no consequence when they’re plain wrong pure and simple. The rest of the world thought that the plane would have Russian radar, be able to fire Russian AAMs like R-27s, R-77s and R-73s.

Up to now, we have seen hordes of pics of the J-10, many with missiles—and none of them has a Russian AAM.

Pretty much my opinion changed after much analysis of the plane, as my knowledge comes greater in depth and as much more data becomes clear. There is just way too many differences, too many inconsistencies, too many changes, too many questions…

Crobato,
As always you twist my words. At no point did I say the J-10 was a copy of the Lavi, but you can certainly see the influence there, and as someone else pointed out with all of the Israeli involvement in avionics, weapons, etc. there should be little doubt there was some contribution in the airframe. The Lavi was taken as the framework, and obviously major changes had to be made to accomodate a larger engine among other things.

Influence? How do you define that specifically? China’s Long March rockets are definitely influenced by the US Titans, not surprisingly they have the same Chinese designer. But can you say Airbus is influenced by Boeing? Toyota is influenced by Ford?

I don’t see “Israeli” influences on the Lavi. I still see what is basically an American plane in Israeli colors. I see American influences in the J-10, just like I see European influences in the JH-7, just as I see French influences on the 054G frigates, American influences on the 052C Red Aegis, and German influences on the ZTZ-99 tank.

There is no mincing on the words. I don’t think the Israelis contributed anything to the J-10 airframe at all. In fact I don’t even think they got much contribution to their own Lavi airframe at all.

And in fact before I typed that other post I was comparing various pictures of the Lavi and J-10. I can’t think of two other planes that look as similar as those two that aren’t related to one another in terms of the designers of one plane helping with the design of the newer one. The MiG-29 and F-15 look similar, but I can certanily point out more differences between those two than I can between the Lavi and J-10 (which believe it or not I can tell apart….in fact I found the noses of the two fighters to be more similar than I had thought originally although obviously not the exact same shape).

Oh really? The Lavi’s nose is flattened and oval much like an F-16, while the J-10’s nose is definitely deeper and rounder. The radars on the F-16 are quite oval for that reason. Ever saw the Russian radar proposed to the J-10? It was round.

Furthermore, you can see that the Lavi had a fixed oval intake. The J-10’s intake is squared one with variable ramps inside. The J-10’s intake is much closer in design to the Typhoon’s, or for that matter, the MiG 1.44.

I’m not saying the Chinese are incapable of producing an aircraft of the J-10’s quality, but the fact of the matter is that the J-10 has Israeli-influence in its design.

So tell me where is the Israeli influence in the design?

Low canopy — More of Russian.

Twin seater canopy with back seat higher — Pretty much Su-30 like, more of Russian.

Four hardpoints in the fuselage — No. The Lavi does not have that. The delta wing fighter with such a feature is French, and you can guess what it is.

J-10’s wings — Rounded wingtips. Very different from the Lavi and the F-16. But more like the Mirage 2000.

J-10’s front edge slats — Starts only halfway down the span, producing a slight kink when lowered or raised. The Lavi’s front edge slats extend the entire wing. Guess which fighter has its front edge slats only halfway the wing. The Swedish Gripen.

Let’s not even mention the fact that the J-10 has two control surfaces on the main wing, while the Lavi only has one. Why?

J-10’s rear stabilizer—Very tall and broad. Much more like a Rafale or Typhoon than the Lavi.

J-10’s curved back—Notice the raise on the back just behind the canopy? The Lavi does not have that. Which fighter does? That’s right. The MiG-29 Fulcrum C.

Have you ever seen the Rockwell-Messerschmitt X-31 demonstrator? That plane also has a lot of conceptual design commonalities—close coupled delta canard with squared variable intake to start with.

You always claim that I’ve never proven any of this to be true, but the fact of the matter is that you are one of the few who disputes the J-10/Israeli connection. To add to that, you’ve never proven to me the Israeli’s weren’t involved.

Wrong I dispute the Israeli connection at least in the final airframe. tehre are way too many aerodynamic differences in the final product that if the Lavi was ever used as a model—it was deliberately discarded.

You also fail to consider a recurring pattern when the Chinese choose to follow something or someone by example. That model has to be an unqualified success. The Lavi is not a success by any means.

You have little understanding that the design of an active canard plane is extremely difficult. Even the canards of the Lavi and the J-10 do not share the same design, sweep and no doubt, aspect ratio (the J-10’s looks higher). The canard is one of those things that is very difficult to get just right in this type of plane. Too big, and you have too much wake turbelence across the fuselage and over the main wings. Too small and you have inadequete control.

When I look at a J-8II carrying a missile that looks exactly like the Python-III, yet is a Chinese weapon called the PL-8, then I have a really hard time believing there was no Israeli influence in the design of the J-10, when there is a plane called the Lavi that has an uncanny resemblance to China’s newest fighter.

The PL-8 and the J-10 are two different things. Do you see any Israeli influences on the Chinese tanks and ships? What about the submarines? Furthermore, the Israelis have admitted to licensing the Python 3.

You take this discussion as a personal vendetta that everyone one of us who doesn’t believe you is trying to belittle China in some way, and that’s not

That’s bull****. I have a right to stand up and I simply will not stand for any attempt to distort the truth. This is especially so as more and more details of the J-10 surface. In fact, given the anedoctal evidence, the theory that the Israelis provided structural knowhow for the J-10 seems even more remote now. It’s pretty much to safe to say that Israeli influence is conflined to the plane’s systems like avionics and FBW—IAI Elta’s presence in China is well documented, including its interest to install radars on export J-7s—and the number of Israeli engineers in Chengdu seems much more appropriate for such projects than for the structural design of the plane. And like I said, with the extensive US and British involvement in the Lavi, it would be impossible for the Israelis to transfer such knowhow, unless Chengdu went on to hire said American and British engineers.

Your F-CK-1 example shows this. If I want to make a duplicate of such a fighter, why should I hire the ROC engineers, if I can get the US engineers involved in the first place because of the extent of US participation?

Originally Posted by PhantomII
This discussion again?? Personally I don’t know why it seems to “offend” people like plawolf and crobato when people are of the opinion that the J-10 at least partially has the Lavi to thank for its existence.

It is an opinion not a fact. What offends is pertaining to believing an opinion as if it was a fact. I prefer to keep an open mind and follow the truth.

Say what you will, but I personally believe the Israelis and the Lavi design were a big influence in the design of the J-10. The J-10 is certainly not a copy of the Lavi, but I think it does owe things to its design from the Lavi,

Like what.

Why don’t you provide me some direct details where the J-10’s components is a copy of the Lavi. Feel free to post pics like the plane’s planforms, wing designs, canard design, stabilizer design. I challenge you to start analyzing details of the two planes, take all the pictures and the models if you can, and you will see what I mean.

just as I believe the Lavi has some very F-16-style elements to it (there’s no denying that when you look at the air intake and nose).

And guess what, the J-10’s nose and air intake are very different from the Lavi and the F-16’s. There is no denying that either.

Again, I don’t know why it seems to offend certain people like it does. It’s just an airplane design afterall. For the most part, it’s still somewhat of an indigenous design. There was some outside help, at least initially I think, and I’m not just talking of avionics and the sort..I’m talking the airframe design itself.

When there is that many fundamental and visually clarifiable differences? What is wrong is to believe in a myth when the visual evidence is saying another thing.

The same could be said of the F-CK-1 Ching-Kuo. There was certainly some American involvement there, so why not Israeli involvement in the J-10?

The American involvement is documentable on the F-CK-1. There is plenty of American and it appears British involvment on the Lavi too. If I want to design a plane similar to the F-CK-1, why hire the Taiwanese if you might as well get the Americans who were involved in it? After all, they’re the crux of the project.

Ditto with the Lavi. Why get the Israelis if the Americans were the real brains behind the project? Notice how inconsistent you sound?

And why not Russian involvement in the J-10? Makes more sense since it’s their engine going into the plane. Since you are building the structure around the engine, guess who you should turn for advice. If MiG helped with the FC-1 through the Project 33 data, why not help Chengdu through their MiG 1.44 project? The nose and intake of the MiG has a lot more in common with the J-10 than the Lavi. Look at the wings of the MiG 1.44 and the J-10. And look at pictures of the deseign of the proposed “J-10C” and compare that with the MiG.

As far as the JH-7 is concerned, if you want to tout China’s capability to build a COMPLETELY indigenous fighter, then there’s your bird. I think it’s quite an accomplishment (though she could use some new engines), yet everyone always ignores it. Personally I like big, strong airplanes, as opposed to the daintier models, so the JH-7 is certainly an impressive airplane in my book. Why not talk more about it?

The J-10 is hardly dainty. It looks like it’s a lot more beefed up than the Lavi, bigger, heavier. It would need a lot of beef for that powerful engine of its and all those hardpoints.

The J-10 is inspired from the Lavi, just as the JH-7 is inspired from Western attack plane designs, the Panther from the T-34, or the Airbus is from Boeing. The relationship is conceptual, but not technical.