There is no problem about technical help. Except some license fees, which someone way avoid, when not give-in. The Russian examples from 1945+ and Indias present problems showed, that it takes decades to close technical gaps in development work. Someone who does not believe in superhuman capabilities and miracles has no problem about that. Pics do not proof something.
Ford for examples has 4 common platforms to built ~50 “different” cars and not all of that labled Ford even.
We had that problem before Ye152/J-8. Q-5/MiG-19 share still the same technical platform, when the external similarity is no longer given.
When someone denies heritage or external help, he has to give the reasons for that.
Israeli (USA) help ‘no’, but Russian help ‘yes’ for the “indigenous” J-10 shows some sort of political twisting. Such people are in hope of our short memory. They claim an indigenous J-8 without Russian help, but have no ‘problem’ to give-in the same for the J-10, just to counter the ‘Lavi’ related help.
Politics aside or political related claims gives much more credibility. China has to bridge a gap of over 30 years in aeronautical engineering and development at least. The developments are moving on at a slower pace now, but do so in all fields with the USA in the lead. I exspect from the Chinese, that they will use every technical help, they can get from someone to close in. The JH-7 looks a bit outdated now, but it allows the Chinese to close-in in other technical fields and gain practical experiences by that.
Nothing less and nothing more.

Sens judging by pictures you can not know if the J-10 is based on the IAI Lavi as the Mirage III is related to the SAAB Viggen;

The theorists of the Indigenous design aways deny any russian or israeli involment, always claim China has very smart people who developed the J-10 by themselves and China can develope every thing by it self.

It is impossible to reason with the J-10 indigenists because they always point out the differences as an example of the J-10 uniqueness.

While Israel denies any link with the J-10 project it is very difficult to see a direct link between both projects.

The americans claimed Israel helped China in the J-10 project. logic dictates that if Israel offered weapons and radar they have might offered the fuselage, under the current indigenous theory, China developed the J-10 by it self and Israel`s help was only very limited.

The posibility that China was helped by Israel and Russia is too high, is very likely that the J-10 is a modified, improved, enhanced IAI Lavi and that the Lavi was the base for the J-10.

why? becuase China has too much foreign components in all it`s aircraft even the J-8II has MiG-23 influences and technologies but the current indigenist theorists always deny any foreign involvement.

Can China build aircraft by it`s own? the answer is not, China has copied any russian development and is uncapable of designing aircraft without russian help or westen help, the only aircraft that seems far from russian or western influences is the JH-7 even it has westen engines and it is an obsolete design, China designing by it self a J-10 is simply a fantasy because China used Russian and Israeli inputs.
However the Chinese in order to build and do not pay royalties always deny copying as in the MiG-21 and MiG-19 case but the reality China to do it`s leap frogs in aircraft technology has used Russian and Israeli inputs.

The problem is that China despite being uncapable of designing entirely 100% indigenous aircraft they have adquired the technology to build fighters and bombers sophisticated enough even if China is uncapable of design them by it self thanks to Russia they have the technology to build them.

well, i ‘hate’ to throw a spaner in that ‘well worked’ chain of thought of yours, but aside from the obvious verhement denals of both governments (which in good old conspiracy theory fashion, seems to be taken as yet more proof of a conspiracy), there are a number of other issues that simply cannot be explained by that theory.

1) why would CAC need israeli engineers for help in such superficial configuerational aspects? if they merely needed insparation as to what a modern high performance ac should look like, there are plenty of pictures and scale models they can have a look at for free (not that it would ever come to that of course).

the theoretical work is often the easy bit. for example, continuous curviture stealth was theoretically proven for decades before the technology arived to tranform it into reality. there were tons of paper airplanes in china that while looked very promising (and some were even fairly advanced for their time), fail in the end. and it was always china’s inability to manufacture them that proved their downfall as opposed to the designs themselves. so what was the use of the Lavi design without the material and machine tooling technology to go along with it?

more importantly, if you studied chinese aviation history, you would know that engines have been the key bottleneck until quite recently. the Lavi is just a paperweight without its american engine (and the AL31 was never an option in 85, since, ironically, the J10 was concieved to fight Mig29s and Su27s).

it is just laughable to assume that CAC would invest half an billion dollars in a design only to sit twiddling its thumbs waiting for a suitable engine to materialise (since israel couldnt share the engine tech even if it wanted to, and the WS10 – the chinese engine origally planed to power it, was nothing like the F100 engine of the Lavi).

CAC might as well have gone to paramount and bought the blueprints for the enterprise for all the good the Lavi blueprints would have been on their own.

2) if china needed help with modern ac design, why would they turn to israel – who has even less experience at it then china did?

if you are to use the argument that it was extremely unlikely for china to make something like the J10 with only experience ‘copying and modifying’ existing planes before (which anyone who knows much about the early chinese aviation industry will know to be planly wrong). then the same argument will apply to israel, even more so in fact.

this means that if we were to follow your logic about the J10, it would mean that the Lavi is in fact just an israeli modified F16 at best, and an american modified one at worst.

this is not an attemp to try and change the subject or merely trying to discredit israeli work out of spite before anyone starts. just saying that for the argument that the J10 cant be all chinese (in the airframe design at least) to stand, the same must be true of the Lavi.

the point in this being that if the Lavi was not design by israel from scratch, israel has no indigious design knowledge (of the kind that china might be interested in anyways) to share to start off with, hence no secret deal.

3) why would israel ever go along with such a deal?

the Lavi was clearly stated as a none-export plane, and that was part of the reason for its demise. its not like the python or harpy which israel can sell without too much consequence (the phalcon and harpy deals shows even such wholely israeli systems are not risk/hassle free to sell). so what in the world would convince israel to risk loosing the countless billions of american aid, and more importantly, american protection just for ‘$500m’?

doesnt really fot with common sense does it?

so, in the end, china has little reason to be interested in the limited help israel has to offer (especially not for half a billion, in yesterday’s dollars i might add), and israel has no reason to offer it in the first place.

for people to suggest that israel has helped in the J10 project is totally believable, but this help would only be likely in the feilds of radars/avionics and composite materials, not aircraft design.

the redesign of the J10 might have been as a result of a number of factors. but the most likely ones would have been the aquisition of the Su27. not only is this one of the planes the J10 was originally designed to counter (hence a plane design with fighting it in mind might not be such a good idea now), it also represented a qantum leap in capacity over anything else the PLAAF has ever had, and naturally, they would not want their future indiginous fighter (ie what well make up the bulk of their uture fleet) to be too far behind it. the aquisition of the flanker would have also have bought the PLAAF extra time to work on the J10, since their immediate need to counter taiwan’s F16s and M2ks have been met to a certain degree already.

i want to point out thet this debate is based on opinions, the Chinese members always try to hide the foreign inputs seen, heard, reported for chinese aircraft etc etc etc…while western members or even Israeli members might try tro prove that the J-10 basicly owes more than what it is acknowledged by the Chinese members.

Let`s face it, China has designers can design their aircraft but no single aircraft built by China is entirely Chinese i mean avionics weaponry, engine or even airframe.
Known license built aircrat are of course no chinese in origin such as the MiG-19 or MiG-21 derivatives.

China invited Israel and Russia to help them in the J-10, the first Chinese models of J-10 have nothing to do with the Lavi, the later and final configuration was a Lavi adapted with a larger russian engine, has israeli missiles (built in china under license) and as the IDF Ching Kuo Israel help has been disguided under political pressure, the J-10 radar some reported was based on Lavi technology but since Russia offered other radars and the Chinese have a tendency of calling license built with local denomination is hard to know up to what degree the Israeli influence is present in the whole project.

But since Israel and Russia were the foreign partners well Russia Improved the Israeli technology that was transfered to China and as the MiG-31 was a derivative of the MiG-25, the Israeli Lavi can be modified in the same way even if it means modify almost everything it would be still based upon the IAI Lavi that has been done with other fighters in the past such as the basic Mirage III was the base for al the Mirage Family and Kfirs or the earlier Kestrels were the Modern Harriers GR7.

But let`s remember i am not a member of the J-10 design team as no one is here so all are speculations and that includes everybody here posting.

denial cow

Man this time you are really cool i like it

[QUOTE=Spurg002]

Thanks flogger, for showing how to put an argument across in a civil manner.
Its a pity others on here cant do the same 😎

There is good and bad on all sides through history. We are all human, and as humans we all have the capacity to destroy.

Greed being the guiding light that drives powerful nations, means that these nations will always find it nescersaary to interfere in others affairs…

Intervention in wars is, on the most part a strategic or economical decision. It is rare, when nations intervene solely for humanitarian matters.

Only when public outrage starts to filter through, do countrys find the courage to intervene. Nato and the EU just sat and watched the horrors of the balkans unfold in front of them.

Belgium troops in rwanda watched and did nothing to stop the genocide happen there.

In darfur, it is only now filtering through to goverments in the west, the scale of whats happening there..and some might point to the length of time intervention is taking…

There is only a few countrys in the world, that has the military and economic capacity to put things right, but all too often we only see it being used in a strategic way…i.e Iraq, and afghanistan….

Whatever the rights or wrongs of the above examples, it does so the seeds of discontent, and the bitterness shown towards the states only grows..

Only when, a truely ethical foriegn policy is implemented by the west, can this be rolled back, and its vital if. there is to be a positive outcome in the war on terror.

A good start on this would be to wipe out third world dept. But we all know how far that will go, since it comes back to greed. :diablo:

The US is a great Nation in fact i would say it has been the trend setter in the modern life, of amost all the modern aspects of modern life were borned in the US, Aviation, Computers, PCs, Cars, internet, elevators etc etc it has been the US lead in technology that has kept the US as the most advanced nation, this has been achieved by the US through the development of Democratic institutions, the Problem with the US in modern times is they need to have stability because the US has become like any great power an International Dictartorship of the Strongest and we need to face that to stay in power you need to bring Progress and the current US model is starting to become obsolete in the era of Globalization because now more than one nation can develop technology and the US needs to adapt it self to that reality.

It is true the US has fought Fascism, Communism Imperialism, and modern extremism saving humanity many times of more inhumane dictatorships but also has commited great mistakes against democracy particularly in Latin America and now the US needs to face the reality that for South America the American Model is not bringing too much development and that is what Venezuela and Brazil are complaigning as Cuba has done it in the Past.

The modern reality is that if the US wants to lead Latin America needs to become a benign nation not a reactionary Empire, Now Brazil represents more a young model for the Latin American development; as as Spain and Portugal lost their empires due to the Napoleonic wars in Europe and their stagnant economies, the US is becoming the same with it`s petrowars and commercial deficits, Europe and China have profited from that but the Nation that wants to emerge as the true leader of South America and even the whole Latin America is Brazil.

The Brazilian model is based in technology transfers and diversification of commercial partners , and exchange of technology with other local powers such as China, Russia and Europe, that has been followed by Venezuela and the vast of South America.

I am sure that Brazil wants to mediate between Venezuela and the US to bring the venezuelan crisis to a peaceful settlement, howevert the Brazilian wanted to sell AMX to Venezuela, offered their ALXs and Tucano and now are offering follow their example by buying Russian military hard ware or trade with China or India.

Venezuela has accepted to license built Tucanos in Venezuela and joint oil projects with Brazil and Argentina, that has infurated the US but Brazil is a very pragmatic nation that knows the US is needed in Latin America but new ways of commerce and development have to be develop to allow latin America to depart from Poverty.

Flogger,
Many nations would most certainly disagree that Brazil is the true leader of S. A., though it may be the largest, and would very much disagree about the notion of Brazil’s leadership role. There are bitter political disputes and rivalries among the leading Latin American powers, and this prevents L. A. in acting in a unified manner. I more see the rise of these economic blocs as South America as an example of globalization of the economy, and not a ‘rejection’ of the idea of the Monroe Doctrine, it may be formed to undercut American economic influence in the region.

I don’t see a unified South American nation in the near future. As Brazil continues to grow in power, and neighboring nations as well, there will be natural increase in rivalries, though their economic ties will be more facilitaed. There was too much cultural and ideological differences for Latin American countries to stay together following Gran Colombia and RFC, and after nearly a 100 years of nationalism, rivalry and wars, I am not optimisitc in seeing that within my lifetime.

Baron David,
Name one country that hasn’t acted in the fullest possible matter (strategically speaking) to secure its own interests, and I’ll show you a hypocrite. One can gush and grin in rhetoric about imperialism, but the fact of the matter is all countries force their presence outward to the best of their ability. If you don’t understand the definition of ‘imperialism’, ‘democracy’ and whatever self-redefined buzzwards you wish to throw out at me, than it really is not my bloody problem.

Now what country is it that you hail from?

I disagree in Latin America Brazil and all the latin American nations are very similar, all nations have these three ethnic groups however in different degree or the mixture of them:Blacks. white and Indians
The langague is the same Portuguese and spanish are basicly dialects of the same language there is no need for formal education to learn spanish from portuguese or viceversa since they are so close both languages are easy to understand to any of the speakers of one of each other without any formal training same religion and economically that is the most important is moving all the nations towards an economic union in South America that is the reason of the RIO latin American leaders meetings.

Brazil is an Emergening Power and as such needs to protect it`s natural resources and their supply also Brazil economy amounts for 50% of the South American GDP or more and the only way they will protec their economy against the US is a common economy in South America.

Thinking that Brazil or Argentina just because they buy different aircraft are in an arms race is like saying Germany and France are planning war against each other because Germany buys Eurofighters and France Rafales, already almost all South American nations are buying Embraer Aircraft and Venezuela will license build Embraer Tucano, Enaer of Chile is included in many Embraer aircraft and the economic cooperation in many areas will be increased until they form a common South American Union a la European Union Style