” You cannot say that an engine change could cause all this since the PW1120 is basically a downrated PW F100 and is nearly about the same size, and not that much smaller from an AL-31F. (The F-16A and the Lavi has the same empty weight, despite the F-16A’s more powerful engine). ”
If someone tries to look for differences, he has to understand the Lavi design at first. It started as a haevy weight two-engine concept at first, before becoming a single engine light-weight fighter design. For a while there was some cooperation with Sweden about that (Gripen). Both fighter had to use the GE F-404 engine (R-12)
Length 4 metre, diameter 0,88 metre and ~ 1 tons of weight.
But the Lavi had to offer better combat capabilities (fighter-bomber-role) compared to the F-16A. This demanded a higher MTOW (~19 tons) and a stronger engine. So the Israelis swichted to the F-16 design and a stronger engine. The “downrated” PW-1020 offered enough growth potential for that. They kept the Swedish formula for optimum drag-thrust-ratio for good performances and not relying on brute force only. To keep the Lavi “for ever young” it used a modular design concept.
The core of the Lavi was the three computer multiplex bus (MUX-BUS) system – one for flight control, another for avionics and an additional one for armament. When the original Lavi was terminated in Aug 1987, it was the fighter design with the highest ratio of avionik content.
We keep in mind that just for prototyps were built. This were not even preproduction examples. Most of the work on the airframe/flight control package has been shared by US companies such as Grumman, Singer Keafort, and others. (Which companies did the upgrade work for the J-8 and the design work for the later FC-1 at first?)
[The Lavi and the Gripen are the same fighter generation.]PW 1020: length ~ 4 metre, diameter ~ 1 metre, weight ~ 1,2 tons
AL-31F: length ~ 5 metre, diameter ~ 1,2 metre, weight ~ 1,6 tonsI am still intresed in a pic from first J-10 prototype without AL-31F. The engine was adoped years later, when becoming part of the J-11 agreement with Russia.
By the way, thousands of aeronautical workers and engineers had emigrated to Israel from the SU and Russia in the 80s and 90s. Many put there hopes into IAI and the Lavi program, which lived on for some years after termination as Lavi-TDI or Lavi-2000. No longer as an indeginous fighter but as a testbed, weapons-system-integrator to demonstrate the internal values of the Lavi.
To term both as similar in the sense of interchangeable in the same design is a rediculous claim.
At least when we know, that the AL-31F is not the same, we know from the J-11.
It is a redesigned AL-31F for single engine-use, with a new gear and ancilleries.
indeed you are right, here we have a design concept how would have looked the IAI Lavi if the single seat had ever been built
quit similar to the J-10 note the Python 3 in both IAI Lavi and J-10 coincidence? PL-3 and Elta on both designs coincidence? are the US reports founded or are not?
the single seat IAI lavi would have looked more like a J-10
here is the Arie an early Israeli design previous to the IAI Lavi
And you know they lied about the Lavi and J-10? How do you know?
You’re trying “prove” something with an opinion. Again, this is the same line of reasoning that UFO conspiracy nuts use. The US government denies that there were aliens at Roswell so that us is proof of aliens because the US gov is lying. What a stupid way to prove a connection.
Israel denies any connection between the J-10 and Lavi. That is a fact.
Do you know? How about the racial origin of everybody at IAI? Maybe there are Chinese working there or even South Africans or a Nepali or two? Who knows and who cares?
Just because you don’t know the racial origin of everyone at Chengdu from 1987, you are claimimg that is proof that the J-10 is Israeli? That’s the most idiotic thing I ever heard.
I don’t know the racial origin of everyone at General Dynamics from 1971 to today either so using the same logic the F-16 could also be based on some mythical jet that is Israeli or Martian or whatever race of the people you don’t know about.
This is conspiracy reasoning where lack of certainly is used as proof.
You logic is Israel is a small nation dependant on the US uncapable of doing any thing by her self well Einstein was Jewish, Otto Hahn was jewish, Edward Teller was jewish, the Jews for science are particularly good, well Karl Marx was Jewish, Sigmund Freud was jewish, Leon Trosky was jewish, the Python V is Israeli, many US personalities are jewish and by nature citizens of Israel, many US scientists are also jewish.
The Python V, Elta, Lavi, Phalcon are Israeli feats of engineering, the US has taken measures to punish israel for it`s deals with China; Israel is capable of putting satellites in orbit, designing tanks, Robots, aircraft and is just a small nation
the US presure to Israel is not only because some technology has being developed jointly with Israel but because Israel is doing deals with potential US rivals and the same has done pressuring the EU to do not lift the ban of arms sales on China.
well why dont you point out where exactly this ‘input’ lies?
and no, a generalistic view of the configueration doesnt count, as you can pretty much link all the recent dela-canard designs by vertue that they are all delta-canard designs. :rolleyes:
if china is going to spend ‘$500m’ on blueprints, surely they would use at least some of it.
ha, use your brain mate. which do you think uncle sam would be more p!ssed off about, israel upgrading china’s harpies, or israel giving china the info needed to upgrade the harpies themselves? :rolleyes:
like what kind of data?
you are just thinking backwards. :rolleyes:
your arguments is not structured in the form of, ‘there are XXX similarities, thus i feel there is a connection.’, as one would normally get from someone making a mental link after viewing the facts. your arguments are, ‘there is a link, i know it! but i just cant quite put my finger on exactly what that link is.’
this just shows that your views about the Lavi-J10 link were formed long before you ever saw a real, detailed pic of the J10. as such, its just personal prejeduous that is fueling your views and not the facts.
you dont agree with that assessment? start using real tangible facts and logic to base your views on instead of merely insisting that we all ignore our eyes, common sense and the FACTS and trust you on what you think is the case. :rolleyes:
well the J10 and Lavi also share an uncanny configurational similarity with the Typhoon, Rafale, Gripen and Mig1.44, guess they are all Lavi rip-offs huh? :rolleyes:
you have seen planes of the same family right?
go look at pics of the Mig25 v Mig31; Su27 v Su34 v Su33; F5 v F20; F17 v F18A v F18E; Harrier V AV8; MirageIII V M2K, Mig15 v Mig17/19…
there are ALWAYS considerable similarities between those planes and every other plane of the same family. that is what makes them a family. it is a process of refining and improving on the core design, but the core design is still there, and most of that core design will remain unchanged – ie, there are many many areas which are intentical. if not in the exact dimentions, then in the core areodynamic principles – the changes in the F18E’s wings for example, 30% larger, but EXACTLY the same areodynamic principle, only enlarge. not stretched or twisted or whatever, exactly the same.
the keys words here are refinement and improvement. that is what makes it worth while to continue work on that core design instead of starting again from scratch.
where are these similarties between the J10 and Lavi? there is not one area between the two that is identical (ok, maybe one near the engine nozzle that SOC pointed out, but that is hardly conclusive proof of a liniage).
so what you ask? well such a massive redesign would effectively render any technical data from the Lavi useless to the J10 project.
there is a reason that planes in a family rarely have major structural changes. that is because modern jet fighters are very finely balanced things. they are design so perfectly to shape and exploit the airflow that any small change in its design may throw the whole effect off (meaning everything would need to be re-calculated and the end result is seldomly better then the original, take the Su27 v Su34 for example). that is why structural and areodynamic changes in particular are kept at the bare minimum in any modification and upgrades.
as such, even if Israel did provide all the documents on the Lavi, it is extremely unlikely that they would have helped in the J10 project in any meaningful way (expect maybe meaning th CAC had one less conceptural design to test and discard). no way is that worth ‘$500m’.
so far, the only similarity you can point to is a very vague familiarality between the designs of the J10 and Lavi. so what? there is a striking similarity between the F22 and one of the proposed XXJ models, is anyone suggesting that lockheed is helping china out with that? :rolleyes:
there is a very simple theory that would easily explain not only the similarities between the J10 and Lavi, but also the vast differences. personally, i am very suprised that no one has thought of it ages ago considering how much time many ‘Lavi=J10’ conspiracy theorists must have put into this subject. :rolleyes:
the most, and only likely explaination is that the similarities between the J10 and Lavi comes from their commen ancestry – the F16.
the US was very chummy with china in the 80s, and china certainly got a detailed look at the F16 in the form of the blue angles who visited twice, as well as from countless highly detailed pics and vids of very minute detail of the plane (on the outside at least). as well as highly detailed specs of the plane that is easily available even to you or i.
the performance, history and fame of the F16 would also make it a far far more likely ‘role model’ for chinese designers then the unfinished, unproven and little known Lavi (which, face it, only become a common name in the military aviation feild because of its alleged links with the J10, ironic isnt it? :rolleyes: )
the vague and general similarities between the J10 and Lavi would be all but inevitable if two sets of designers (be it chinese or american/british) were to try and come up with a tail-less canard delta design based on the same plane.
all this means that at most, china based the J10 loosly on the areodynamic principle of the F16 (remember that pic of an F16 in what appeared to be in a chinese wind tunnel?), which could be easily calaculated with data freely available in open sources and maybe a closer peek at pakistan’s F16s for weight distribution and other less flaunted details.
that is, of course, only a theory, and the truth may be as innocent as the J10 designers getting the ‘feel’ for the design of the F16 after having one too many wet dreams about it. 😀
but anyways, either theory is a hell of alot more likely and believeable then israel risking its ever survival as a state to sell the Lavi tech (which was mostly funded by the americans anyways, so its not like they would loose that much from just binning it) to china, and also that china would be willing to spend a small fortune on it, and then to effectively discard it in the end. :rolleyes:
ha, that was not an attempt to put words in your mouth. its a nudge and finger telling you what areas you should be focusing on if you want to ‘prove’ that the J10 is based on the Lavi – instead of keep phaffing on about phantom links that we are supposed to trust you exists, why dont you point to distinctive and important areas where the planes are the same, or share the same core areodynamic principles. and then maybe we can evaluate how likely that is a result of one being ‘derived’ from the other.
this kind of analisys in reality does not prove anything, for example let`s give the Ching kuo and F-16 relation and later later the F-2
The Ching Kuo has several differences that belie it`s F-16 origins, first the Wing platform, the inlets, the canopy, the Fin are different from those seen in the F-16 and it is a twin engine this kind of analisys would make us think the Ching Kuo is not related to the F-16.
We know the Ching Kuo is related to the F-16 simply because to every body is a known fact that General Dynamics was involved with the Ching kuo and it was modelled upon the F-16 aerodynamics
By simple analisys of the pictures we would think the Ching kuo was not a very radical evolution of the F-16, however the same General Dynamics engineers assisted the Taiwanese AIDC to build the Ching Kuo upon the F-16 aerodynamics lines but it was modified to be fitted with twin engines
in the case of the F-2 the modications are less dramatic than in the Ching kuo, in fact it is the same F-16 and it is simply a japanese variant instead of a derivative like the Ching Kuo, we can see in the F-2 a different wing platform, a different and bigger tailplanes, different canopy, and a different radome and a dropped nose and it is little big bigger but still the aircraft is an F-16
In the case of the Lavi and J-10 external differences are not as great as in the F-16 and the Ching Kuo case, but the American intelligence reports affirm that IAI helped Chengdu beyond the Lavi`s Elta EL/M-2035 radar offer for the J-10 and it went much further into the airframe. avionics and flight control assistance, some early reports even claimed that a Lavi prototype was even shipped to China
the external differences are quit small if compared to the Ching Kuo and F-16 example between both the IAI Lavi and J-10, the single cockpit IAI Lavi was never flown and as in the Tu-22M2 and Tu-22M3 a different inlet is not a reason to say the J-10 is not a reworked IAI Lavi, other external differences are the wing platform but even the Su-33KUB and MiG-29K had different wing platforms if compared to the T-10S or the MiG-29A but the most important aspect of commonality was the ELTA EL/M2035 between both programs
Israelis on Chinese assembly lines? That’s a new one for everyone here. What reports? How do Americans know that there is even an assembly line for the J-10?
We know of the J-10 being in production only from Chinese reports, not American ones.
Idiotic. There is no official US intelligence report on the Lavi being transferred to China or else the Israeli wouldn’t be denying it. Don’t confuse non-official quotes about US intelligence.
Israel is not going to lie in front of conclusive proof from the American intelligence services. If there were such proof, the US will make Israel eat its lies.
This idiot Israeli conspiracy theory grows more and more illogical.
that is not a conspiracy theory, already China was affect by the US pressuring Israel to do not sell the Phalcon, Chile has Phalcons but China does not, do not pretend you do not know about the F-35 program Israeli participation mishap, there is concrete evidence and already the PLAAf operates Israeli equipment to deny Israeli involvement in Chinese military programs Brute Gorilla already gave some links and just check the american Scientists webpage you will find some details.
You might not like that a nation of 8 million helped China a nation of 1300 million people but for the american policy makers it has made them take measures real ones, you might like Chengdu could say WE developed the J-10 entirely upon chinese engineering but what is wrong with being help? any way the J-10 has too much foreign tech already.
I give you the merit that the US is accusing Israel of wrong doings in the area of tech transfers and China and Israel deny that but those are the current politics you can not disprove the US intelligence services simply because you believe China has the capability of building fighters by their own
Idiotic. Bashing photo analysis with even less believable opinions that contradict Israeli official denial. And then posting pictures after declaring that photo analysis is misguided :rolleyes:
There is no proof that IAI and Chengdu ever met on the J-10. But there is absolute proof that Israel denied any involvement in the J-10.
Photo analisys proves nothing unless you have statements by the manufacturers, we know perfectly Israel was involved in the J-10 simply because they offered the Elta EL/M-2035, that is widely known.
Israel denies helping with the airframe, but american reports say that Israeli engineers were seen at Chengdu in the J-10 assembly lines.
Posting pictures and make shallow analisys that only point out differences hardly can lead to a definitive and conclusive study.
opting for believing the Chinese Government or the Israeli Goverment instead of the US inteligence services is not a complete proof, just a posture, but the Chances Israel did not help in the flight control, avionics and AIRFRAME is highly unlikely because the J-10 has so much amount of Israeli involvement to be believeable simply the fact that Israel is though to have transfered the Elta, the Python 3, and the US has pressured Israel to stop that, besides the american inteligence services who affirm Israel transfered the Lavi airframe technology to China rest too much credibility to the Historical account that the Lavi never influenced the J-10
Misguided photo analisys claims that the J-10 has no relation whatsoever to the IAI Lavi as if we would claim the MiG-31 is not based upon the MiG-25; similar claims can be made for the F-2, and the Ching Kuo, that they are not related to the F-16.
This kind of wong analisys proves nothing, what proves the IAI Lavi-J-10 relation are the contacts between Chengdu and IAI, that`s what really tells the true history not childish photo analisys statements such as the J-10 has different inlet, is a single seat, the wings are different say nothing are not definitive proof only the links between IAI and Chengdu are definitive proof, the F-16 and the Ching Kuo are basicly an evolution of a design like the SU-34 is to the T-10; the General Dynamics involvement in the Ching Kuo is well documented as the Lavi`s Elta EL/M-2035 radar offer from Israel to China, this radar was to be fitted in the J-10s in competition with Russian radars, the Reports of israeli tech transfers by part of the US inteligence services are widely know however in the J-10/Lavi case the IAI Lavi airframe is still denied by both parties (China and Israel) nevertheless the IAI Lavi radar is not contested because the J-10 radar was going to be the Elta EL/M-2035 if it would ever won the bid
Sign In
