GoldenDragon[url]The ground-mapping capability of the AN/APG-68(V)9 was behind the Israeli exspections.
The range of the J-7 and the warload of the Q-5 is well discussed by Chinese and so were a thousand and one different things in many Chinese journals who pushed massively hard for Western-style project management in the past two decades. The original HUDWACs and Skyranger radar for the Airguard was judged entirely inadequate by both the Chinese and their customers which led to the Grifo for the PAF. So how are the Chinese projects any less “transparent”?
Who were the people most convinced that the old communist Russian-style systems of the Chinese aviation industry are backward? The Chinese themselves. In fact, knowing the faults of the style system and changing it is what is driving China’s economic boom.
Let’s face, the way this silly term “transparency” is being used in this thread is just a way introduce some intangible and unprovable counterpoint to the argument when presented with facts. There are no such thing as a “transparent” military project. If it were then it’s nothing but a technology demonstrator.
Aircraft that are built in partnership and pushed for exports F-7PG, F-16, FC-1, F-35, L-15, Y-12, etc.) are infinitely more “transparent” than home projects with no impact on the world market (J-10, LCA.)
Trying to say a Western project is any more “transparent” than the FC-1 project for example is just a bias that has no grounds in reality.
GoldenDragonSee the Arab-Israeli conflicts about that. The Israelis are ashured to stay in their superior position as long as they are willing to discuss their military shortcomings, when the Arabs did/do all to hide theirs from the own public.
Tell me what shortcomings of their American aircraft, the Israel were willing to expose for the Arabs?
Why would Pollard and other Jewish Americans needed to spy for Israel if things were so “transparent”?
We’re playing around with this term “transparency” and we’re making judgement based on stereotypes that Chinese projects are less “transparent” than Western ones.
The SR-71 and U-2 were FAR, FAR, FAR less transparent than the Chinese J-7 projects like the Airguard where the specs were passed out to Western publications to facilitate export.
So what does “transparency” means? No military project is “transparent.” If we define transparency by its english meaning, it cannot be applied to a military project.
Because there were no blueprints exposed by the F-16 and F-15 projects. So how does that make those projects transparent?
Much more transparency about the F-35 will be a win of the USA!
You’re simply assuming that the “transparency” of the F-35 is somehow greater than that of the FC-1 for example. The F-35 is hardly anymore “transparent” than the J-11. Far less transparent than the L-15.
GoldenDragonIf your goalpost is *orders*- then by those standards the LCA is a viable program. With 37 orders already, more than the FC-1 has at this stage and GOI support for IOC & FOC – its a viable program.
If my goalposts were simply “orders” but I said deliveries. Over hundred deliveries and another 100 on order proves viability while 37 orders (which can be changed, denied or trimmed) do not. At the very least, it shows the huge difference between the state of the two programs.
By the same standards, the LCA prototypes alone have two two seaters, one from the AF and one for the Navy. This apart, there will be two seaters in the LSP batch of 8 and the IOC batch of 20.
Huh? There are only four prototypes/demonstrators of the LCA, none of which is a two-seater. There are pictures of two-seater J-10s today not in some future aircraft.
Or it could be that the initial J-10 maneuverability was found lacking, and the PLAAF went for TVC to compensate.
Even if it were (and there is nothing to substantiate that), it would still mean a new mark for the J-10. You don’t go from standard to TVC while still working out your basic design.
That is not transparency. That is PR. You can have positive reports galore about a particular export oriented program (and you have to avoid the negative reportage for fear of alienating customers), but we have little on actual audit reports or internal development goals and achievements available to the PRC decision makers declared publically, like the LCA’s is.
Information is information. Any program that has been exported or will be exported would by nature be more “transparent” than one that is used only the host nation.
“Transparency” is a ludicrous idea for military programs anyways. “Transparency” is brought up as an arguing point only by Indians. A “transparent” military project is no longer a military project. If the LCA were really “transparent” (maybe it is) then it’s a technology demonstrator and nothing more. Military projects cannot be transparent unless you want every weakness known by possible foes.
Why should it? Its an internal program for the Indian armed forces first and foremost.
That basically contradicts the idea of “transparency.” An internal Indian project covered only by Indian press is pretty much less “transparent” than Chinese aircraft that are exported.
Second, there are geopolitical aspects to it. If the PRC was not deemed as the next threat to the US or the like, there would be little interest in the F-10 etc- they would be yet another “interesting” Asian fighter project. But since its otherwise, and there is secrecy, people like to follow it.
Friend, PRC aircraft had been of great interest to people for decades, even during the period when it was not a “threat” but a nominal ally. Just read the thread on the US Peace Pearl project. We’re posting scans from publications printed in 1979.
If you look at the annual editions of Jane’s, you’ll find the Chinese section massively larger than the Indian one, year after year after year. “Transparency” had not expanded anyone’s knowledge of Indian aircraft.
If this “transparency” was helpful in anyway at all concerning the LCA, someone would have been able to state so and so is the date of the LCA’s induction and we would not have this continuous cycle of people claiming the LCA imminent induction/deployment and then retracting those statements.
Seriously, we could argue that the current state of the LCA is less well-known than either the J-10 or the FC-1.
GoldenDragonGDs statement was wrt the question was of program viability indicated via support. The 37 orders with 20 more options are more than the FC-1s at this point of time, and the GOI has committed itself to IOC and FOC which is sufficient to address that exact claim.
Actually, you’ve shifted the goalposts forward for an easier score. I said the J-10 is viable because we know from the Russians that Salyut had delivered over 100 AL31FN engines. I did NOT mention the 100 AL31FN M1 thrust-vectoring in that the Russians said were ordered on top of that. Actually, the first 50 of the M1 TVC engines would have arrived in full by now.
If my goalposts were just “ordered” engines then the J-10 has over 200+ ordered and delivered (identified by the Russians) to the LCA’s 37.
Also there are two very obvious signs beside the numbers of aircraft that the J-10 is viable and in production.
One, there are multiple two-seat J-10s. It was a fighter that was developed as single-seater (none of the original J-10 prototypes were twins unlike the EF2000 which had its two-seater developed in parallel.) In order for a two-seater to created for the J-10, the design had to be mature. Chengdu would not be able to create a twin-seater if their base design is a still evolving.
Secondly, the TVC engine orders is another sign that base design has matured. It is extremely unlikely that any aircraft firm would change engines (especially one of massively different capability such as moving from standard to vectoring) in the midst of an immature initial design.
In both the J-10B twin-seater and the TVC J-10 Chengdu is already into second generation variants or “marks” of the J-10. The LCA base design is still in demonstration mode.
But I absolutely agree that the J-10, as aircraft in a totally different stage of development and production and as an unofficial project, it should not be compared with the LCA.
The FC-1 which enjoys even more press attention and scrutiny than the LCA is a far better project to gauge the LCA against.
Talk wrt the context please. GD made the claim that a) One is known thanks to the Pak Govt b) The other is known due to National Geographic.
Thats clearly and patently false.
Nope, I merely said that while the latest progress report on the LCA that is near ready comes from a National Geographic report, the latest report on the progress of the FC-1 is that it will actually be in Pakistan (and out of its Chinese incubator at Chengdu) by March according to the Pakistani government.
You may not be interested in Indian reports and bureaucracy, but those reports and bureucracy act as oversight and ensure a proper feedback mechanism to ensure that the developers stick to their word. And contribute to overall program transparency which is more than either PRC fighter.
Except for the J-10, and I’ve already agreed that the J-10 not be compared because it is unofficial (even with the engines deliveries confirmed by the Russians), Chinese aircraft like the J-7PG, MA-60, K-8, etc. and now the FC-1 are FAR better known to the aviation world than the LCA. They have to be “transparent” to great extent because they are exported (or are designed from the ground up with exports in mind like the FC-1 or L-15.)
Most of the information we get from the LCA are from Indian newspapers reporting on Indian officials. No insult intended, but the press in the third world are tabloidish and jingoistic to the extreme.
Whatever the abilities or capabilities of the LCA, it is has not engendered much interest or investigation from the rest of the world (outside the internet.) There are rarely any first world publications delving into statements on the LCA and dissecting the LCA. There is no reason to. It’s not considered a possible export or have any impact on the world market.
On the other hand, there are massive amounts written on Chinese aircraft by Western and other third party publications over the years because they are on the world market. Much of them are actually critical (in fact, it is the wide coverage by Western publication on Chinese aircraft that provides the most sources for those posting on PLAAF aircraft on English language forums like this since most members don’t read Chinese.)
So let’s not talk about transparency when you drag in a hidden project like the J-10. The J-10 is not even acknowledged by the Chinese government.
Look at a Chinese export project like FC-1 and then compare that to the LCA. I actually see far MORE transparency in the FC-1 program than the LCA.
Look at the volume of pictures and articles on the FC-1 compared to the LCA.
Look at the threads of the FC-1 here. We knew in advance when test flights are coming and had threads waiting for the pictures we knew will arrive because they were reported in Chinese, Pakistani and world press.
We saw huge design changes like the DSI on prototype 04 months before the actual aircraft flew because there were models of the 04 on display at international shows.
GoldenDragonThis discussion is very premature and is leading to the kind of flames that we are seeing.
You’re correct. It is premature. And by a very wide margin.
Now we’re talking about the number of visitors to a country and about press freedom rankings.
The only reason that was brought up is because of this stupid and patternly false retort that the LCA is somehow more widely covered and known than Chinese aircraft like the FC-1 or the J-7PG. When presented with facts including pictures, we always get the “India free, China unfree” silliness as an argument.
Sorry, China might have a communist government but the sheer volume of world attention on China simply outweighs whatever news in coming out of India. Everything from the FC-1, Y-12, etc. to hidden projects like the J-10, Yuan class SSK, 052/051/054 warships, etc. are ferretted out by people and publications from across the globe.
Go look up the section of China and that of India as a whole or that of the J-10 or FC-1 or JH-7A and the LCA on Jane’s “All the World’s Aircraft.” Do you see non-coverage of the Chinese aircraft because China is “commie”?
GoldenDragon85% of the 90 million inbound tourists in China are from HK, Macau and Taiwan (CNTA director)
Reporters Without Borders ranked China a very respectable 159th out of 167 countries in its 2005 index of press freedom.
Press freedom is different from coverage by Western and outside press. Chinese publications have little freedom and don’t concern us much anyways since they’re in Chinese and for Chinese consumption.
American and Western press presence in China is far more massive than in India. Everything in China is covered far more closely by the Western press than any other country in Asia, including Japan.
HK, Macau and Taiwan are among the richest regions in Asia bar Japan and have the freest press there. Much of it is actually very critical of China.
There are far critical stories of China in the Western and world press simply because there infinitely more coverage of China from the world press.
This extends to coverage of aviation matters. You will find far more stories of the FC-1 or the ARJ-21 even in English-language publications than you do of the LCA.
Of course in Chinese-language media of free-Chinese societies like HK, Taiwan and Macau, Chinese news (aviation) is heavily covered.
All of this coverage from Western and East Asian media — much of it critical of China — simply overwhelms any news coming out of India (where coverage is done mainly by Indians with a positive bias towards themselves.)
GoldenDragonThe theme that is repeated here that India is somehow better covered by news is false.
There are far, far, far more Western news agencies in China than India. All of the major American, European, Japanese, South Korean and Hong Kong/Taiwan media have full time reporters in Shanghai and Beijing and many have reporters in other cities. Check the Wall Street Journal on a daily base. Chinese related articles are the dominant foreign stories.
Besides the professional reporters, Western tourists and expatriates to China are exponentially greater than those for India since China is attracts around 90m tourists a year to India’s 3m.
The truth is there is far more third party news and views coming out of China than certain people would want to believe.
If you check aviation publications you find infinitely more articles and listings on not just the FC-1 but the K-8, J-7, etc. than the LCA.
GoldenDragonThe J-10 is a viable aircraft since we KNOW that there are over 100 AL31FN engines delivered for it, we have no idea if the LCA is.
By the same standards, with 37 orders already, its clear that the LCA is a viable aircraft.
If they were delivered and put into planes then it most certainly is. At the moment, we know there are only four prototypes.
It is in prototype stage but is “rapidly nearing service.” Whereas Indians can quote National Geographic, FC-1 followers can quote the Pakistani government.
ROTFLMAO @ the spin. Indians can quote their own Govt, audit reports, test pilots reports and more besides on every detail of the project including access to the developers and meeting them in person. Please do inform us when you can do the same.
There is far more world press coverage of the FC-1 than the LCA. We know exactly how many prototypes, the days of initial flights, etc. We even got taxing tests and assembly pictures.
The FC-1’s engine, radar (or lack thereof initially) and number of aircraft for its main customers were all public from the very beginning.
We even saw design changes like the DSI andd enlarged LERX in models months before we saw it on the live aircraft prototype 04.
All this was chronicled in some of the largest and longest running threads on AFM. There were simply massive amounts of material on it.
GoldenDragonA Q-5 (D?) and its accessories.
GoldenDragonFull PS/CG jobs are easy to spot. It is hard to get the highlights and shadings correct.
PS jobs on aircraft that is already there in the picture are harder to spot. A really good PS that is hard to spot would require a the J-10 to be in the picture. You can PS numbers, details and whatnot with a chance of getting away with it undetected. But certainly not a whole aircraft.
It’s idiocy to think you could just “PS” in a new plane or change a F-18 into a J-10 and not be called out.
That said, the J-10 isn’t the aircraft to compare the LCA against. They belong to different weight classes, roles and viability. The J-10 is a viable aircraft since we KNOW that there are over 100 AL31FN engines delivered for it, we have no idea if the LCA is.
The aircraft that would be a more appropriate comparison is the FC-1. It is in prototype stage but is “rapidly nearing service.” Whereas Indians can quote National Geographic, FC-1 followers can quote the Pakistani government.
GoldenDragonIf it’s secret how did they know?
GoldenDragonGoldie Bearcat
You are basing your opinions upon the idea Israel is nation utterly dependant on the US, something which is not accurate, all the nations have governments, independent governments.
Israel is a nation that is utterly dependent on the US.
If it were an independent nation, it would have mass-produced and inducted the Lavi into the Israeli Air Force and we would not be having this discussion.
The Israeli government does what is the best for the Israeli people
Exactly. Stabbing its protector and only friend in the back is not doing what is best for its people.
This is why all five prototypes of the Lavi remain in Israel and why Israel would not have given the Lavi to China. No government of Israel, if it wants Israel to survive, would have sold the Lavi to China. There is no gain from China worth the risk of Israel losing its protector.
The IAI lavi cancelation was only good for the Mc donnell Douglas and General dynamics
The Lavi was cancelled because it was a failed project pure and simple. It depended on American technology and parts which the Americans weren’t giving.
Israel has NEVER developed an aircraft independent of American technology or money. It’s aviation infrastructure is far inferior to China’s let alone the US.
You are allowing your ethnicity color your perception of Israel. Try to have a little less pride. Israel survives only because of American money and American protection.
Selling the Lavi to China would have been a massive betrayal of trust. Israel would be hung by the US public if this had actually happened.
There was no transfer which is why Israel is not being blasted in the US for its betrayal.
GoldenDragonGoldie bearcat
There are no nation that is populated by Angels and Saints, generalize is foolish, we can not say all the population of a nation is unworthy of trust
The Israeli government still insists that it never past along the Lavi. If what you say is the truth then they are continuing to lie in your opinion. That makes them untrustworthy as a nation. It doesn’t matter if there are trustworthy folks in Israel. The government is untrustworthy and is willing to stab its protector in the back for a billion dollars or less.
So not only are the Israelies greedy if you are right but they are suicidal as well.
however the americans complained
The Americans have not complained. Because there is no hard evidence to contradict Israel’s claim.
If you can find out that Israel had transferred the Lavi to China then the US Congress could and so could everyone else out there who dislike Israel. There are no shortage of those people in the US.
If there were hard evidence, Israel would be strung up by its toes.
So in effect you are saying that you are know more than the US Senate and House of Representatives. Or you are saying those who are elected to protect the American people would not call this out and punish Israel for this act of betrayal? Are all Americans in power in the backpocket of Israel?
I doubt it. If there is evidence that the Lavi was transferred then Israel would be placed on open hearings and the US people would have a chance to discuss the trustworthiness of this “ally.”
I trust in the ability of the American intelligence arms to know the truth more than you, Strevitel. If there is no US punishment of Israel for the Lavi transfer then it never happened.
GoldenDragonDoes the J-7 contain Russian parts?
No, which is why it’s the J-7 and not the MiG-21.
GoldenDragonStrevitel is also saying that Israelies are liars and are untrustworthy and will betray the US for a billion dollars or less.
Sorry I believe in the Israeli government over Strevitel and his conjectures.
1) Israel denies any transfer of the Lavi to China,
2) ALL five Lavi prototypes are in Israel, not China,
3) the Lavi is failed design from an inferior industry that depended on American parts.
If Lavi can’t be inducted in Israel without American parts, it certainly can’t fly in China without US parts. The J-10 flies and is in the PLAAF. It cannot be the Lavi design when it contains no US parts.
Sign In
