Chengdu J-10 Multirole Fighter Air Craft News & Discussions

[Deino]

You cannot stop? Don't You?? Again, no-one denies that there have been contacts, that the design is influenced but esp. in the point even the mentioned report from John W. Golan is wrong twice:

...
Israeli involvement in the J-10 appears to have begun at around the same time that China first opened diplomatic relations with Israel in January 1992 . . . Israeli contractors were engaged to provide the aerodynamic and structural outlines for the J-10. The Israeli influences on the J-10’s design are unmistakable: a close-coupled, canard-delta arrangement; a single-engine fighter featuring a ventral engine inlet; twin ventral strakes; and an area-ruled fuselage.

According to Golan, “Israeli involvement in the J-10 program appears to have been curtailed at around the same time, with Russia stepping in to market Soviet-developed avionics systems to supply production versions of the aircraft.”

First, the J-9IV was already a "a close-coupled, canard-delta arrangement; a single-engine fighter featuring a ventral engine inlet; twin ventral strakes; and an area-ruled fuselage" and the final J-10 is so much different to a Lavi but much closer to the J-9. And second, the J-10 does not use "Soviet-developed avionics systems to supply production versions of the aircraft.”

In contrast to you he however is correct with:

However, in 2008, Jane’s reported that in extended interviews with several visiting Russian engineers that Chengdu “benefited from significant, direct input from Israel's Lavi programme - including access to the Israel Aircraft Industries (IAI) Lavi aircraft itself . . . This has included extensive design and performance modeling, wind-tunnel testing and advanced aerodynamic design input . . . Jane's was told how Chengdu officials of the highest level stated how they had one of the IAI Lavi prototypes in their facilities.”

At any rate, the J-10 is more inspired by the Lavi than an outright clone. It is significantly longer and heavier, and has different wings.

So, why again you try to mix things, deny what other long acknowledged and try to still spin the theory of a clone? It is since in your world there is only black-and-white or since you are so much blinded by hate against anything from China and pure admiration on what's from Russia?

 

[Su33KUB]

You cannot stop? Don't You?? Again, no-one denies that there have been contacts, that the design is influenced but esp. in the point even the mentioned report from John W. Golan is wrong twice:



First, the J-9IV was already a "a close-coupled, canard-delta arrangement; a single-engine fighter featuring a ventral engine inlet; twin ventral strakes; and an area-ruled fuselage" and the final J-10 is so much different to a Lavi but much closer to the J-9. And second, the J-10 does not use "Soviet-developed avionics systems to supply production versions of the aircraft.”

In contrast to you he however is correct with:



So, why again you try to mix things, deny what other long acknowledged and try to still spin the theory of a clone? It is since in your world there is only black-and-white or since you are so much blinded by hate against anything from China and pure admiration on what's from Russia?

I did not write the article


John W. Golan has served as a designer, structural analyst, and engineering manager in the U.S. aerospace industry for the last two decades, developing future-generation technology concepts. He has published articles with Air Forces Monthly, Combat Aircraft, Aviation History, and the Jerusalem Post Magazine.




An engineer in the U.S. aerospace industry for over two decades, John Golan has been a designer, structures analyst and engineering manager. He has participated in the development and maintenance of the jet engines that power aircraft ranging from the Boeing 737 to the Airbus A380, and from the Boeing F-15 to the Lockheed F-35. His past aerospace publication credits include articles in Air Forces Monthly, Combat Aircraft, Aviation History, Tablet, and the Jerusalem Post Magazine.

If this is the J-9IV definitively this can not be a J-10 ancestor, just looking at the canard it easy to see it has more AJ-37 influence, the Viggen canard is designed more for STOL operations than agility, plus the wing lacks the aft strakes and lacks even Karman wing-fuselage junction which is pretty easy to see on Gripen.

J-10 has many features common with Lavi, any way remember not every one agrees with you and certainly the article was not written by me, it only happens i read Golan analysis and taught me a lot, i agree with him and in that was also expressed by the owner of the article i posted

 

[LKJ86]

I did not write the article


John W. Golan has served as a designer, structural analyst, and engineering manager in the U.S. aerospace industry for the last two decades, developing future-generation technology concepts. He has published articles with Air Forces Monthly, Combat Aircraft, Aviation History, and the Jerusalem Post Magazine.




An engineer in the U.S. aerospace industry for over two decades, John Golan has been a designer, structures analyst and engineering manager. He has participated in the development and maintenance of the jet engines that power aircraft ranging from the Boeing 737 to the Airbus A380, and from the Boeing F-15 to the Lockheed F-35. His past aerospace publication credits include articles in Air Forces Monthly, Combat Aircraft, Aviation History, Tablet, and the Jerusalem Post Magazine.

If this is the J-9IV definitively this can not be a J-10 ancestor, just looking at the canard it easy to see it has more AJ-37 influence, the Viggen canard is designed more for STOL operations than agility, plus the wing lacks the aft strakes and lacks even Karman wing-fuselage junction which is pretty easy to see on Gripen.

J-10 has many features common with Lavi, any way remember not every one agrees with you and certainly the article was not written by me, it only happens i read Golan analysis and taught me a lot, i agree with him and in that was also expressed by the owner of the article i posted

Maybe you would be interested in Novi Avion of the former Yugoslavia:

 

[Deino]

I did not write the article

I know, but my point was, he is wrong in two points. Or do you want to claim the J-10 uses a Russian radar and Russian avionics as he did?

If this is the J-9IV definitively this can not be a J-10 ancestor, just looking at the canard it easy to see it has more AJ-37 influence, the Viggen canard is designed more for STOL operations than agility, plus the wing lacks the aft strakes and lacks even Karman wing-fuselage junction which is pretty easy to see on Gripen.

Again, please do your homework ... this not the final J-9IV configuration, which evolved into the current J-10. This is a different even larger twin-engined concept - called J-9VI - probably to replace the former failed Shenyang J-10 long-range high-speed interceptor.

This is the J-9 which evolved into the J-10:

J-10 has many features common with Lavi, any way remember not every one agrees with you and certainly the article was not written by me, it only happens i read Golan analysis and taught me a lot, i agree with him and in that was also expressed by the owner of the article i posted

Yes, and once again: No-one denies this ... even the €Fighter has some similarities, but this does not make it a clone.

My point is - and I really don't know what's yours - that NONE denies these contacts between IAI & CAC, Yes for sure, the J-10 was influenced and surely Israel helped in refining the aerodynamics as well as developing the FCS.

But - and again I don't know what You want and why you always point to "not every one agrees with you" - could you please tell us in simple and clear words what's your point? Why you again and again nit-pick on these issues?

Sometimes I have the feeling in your world there is only black and white: The Lavi looks similar, that means it MUST be a clone, it "as many features common with Lavi" but the world is most often grey. Yes, a B737 looks similar to a A320 and the C919 too as well as the MS-21, but does this mean since they have "many features common with ... " they stole the design, they ripped off some data, they copied ??

Surely not.

 

[Su33KUB]

I know, but my point was, he is wrong in two points. Or do you want to claim the J-10 uses a Russian radar and Russian avionics as he did?






Again, please do your homework ... this not the final J-9IV configuration, which evolved into the current J-10. This is a different even larger twin-engined concept - called J-9VI - probably to replace the former failed Shenyang J-10 long-range high-speed interceptor.

This is the J-9 which evolved into the J-10:

View attachment 578523 View attachment 578524





Yes, and once again: No-one denies this ... even the €Fighter has some similarities, but this does not make it a clone.

My point is - and I really don't know what's yours - that NONE denies these contacts between IAI & CAC, Yes for sure, the J-10 was influenced and surely Israel helped in refining the aerodynamics as well as developing the FCS.

But - and again I don't know what You want and why you always point to "not every one agrees with you" - could you please tell us in simple and clear words what's your point? Why you again and again nit-pick on these issues?

Sometimes I have the feeling in your world there is only black and white: The Lavi looks similar, that means it MUST be a clone, it "as many features common with Lavi" but the world is most often grey. Yes, a B737 looks similar to a A320 and the C919 too as well as the MS-21, but does this mean since they have "many features common with ... " they stole the design, they ripped off some data, they copied ??

Surely not.

you are misunderstanding me, certainly it is not a clone, however the distinct models you presented lack features J-10 have in common with Lavi, aircraft design is science but also a kind of art, because aircraft have different requirements sometimes these are contradictory, for example the canard shape, Viggen has a canard with delta shape, this type of canard is really good for lift at high AoA, but is not the best for range, when you look at details of J-10 you can see the influence was major, not a simple or casual one, Golan explains that the limitations in jet engine made J-10 bigger than Lavi thus its ventral fins are much much bigger than the ones in Lavi same was the vertical dorsal fin, the canards of the production and prototypes J-10 are not like the one of the crystal model presented by LKJ86, but higher aspect ratio following a midpoint between lift and range and easy to see in the canard swept angle, also the wing in both aircraft have aft strakes and are much forward closer to the CG showing higher longitudinal relaxed stability , the drawing you present has a Mirage IV wing canard configuration, with no aft strakes and no ventral fins, the models you present or he presents only prove China was working upon a rather primitive J-10 still far far away from the J-10 we know today, the modern and real aircraft is much closer to Lavi, because Lavi was an excellent aircraft in the 1980s, J-10 is Chinese but it was drafted with Lavi DNA, the influence was major, but the end result is Chinese, the J-9VI has a MiG-25 type with viggen features, the crystal model is a J-10 with Mirage III NG features, the current production model is a J-10 with Lavi features, there is a gap in knowledge and technology, Golan presents how a simple change in engine in Lavi changed the size of major components of Lavi, adding a Al-31 will certainly change many things in Lavi, no one is belittling the chinese aviation industry, like Golan writes we are just trying to see the real influence J-10 has from Lavi, some people feel offended true, but there is no reason to get offended aircraft are not easy to develop and manufacture and many times require the joint effort of different countries, sadly some people feel offended, but aviation is in our days basically an international effort, people like it or not Regards

you can easily see the Chinese were not studying more advanced aircraft than Mirage III types or viggen

 

[ozranger]

A bit off topic that J-9IV and other twin engine variants were the ones which truly match what PLAAF initially aimed for. PLAAF had some unrealistic expectation on J-9 development, which includes twin engine, M2.5 and 25km flight altitude.

JU-20 development benefited from experience obtained in the work on J-9IV's canard, LERX and delta wing combination.

 

[LKJ86]

 

[LKJ86]

J-10S

 

[khanasifm]

I think rockets in western world airforces is thing of the past ??? Not seen anything fro usaf or others

I mean on high performance jets like f-16, Gripen , Rafael etc

 

[LKJ86]

I think rockets in western world airforces is thing of the past ??? Not seen anything fro usaf or others

I mean on high performance jets like f-16, Gripen , Rafael etc

Just for the training purpose.

 

[Su33KUB]

I think rockets in western world airforces is thing of the past ??? Not seen anything fro usaf or others

I mean on high performance jets like f-16, Gripen , Rafael etc

they still use them, Gripen

F-16

Harrier

Mirage 2000

Rafale

Hornet

What the J-10 is doing is normal, their use is mission dependant

 

[Deino]

Allegedly the first clear image of a J-10C's cockpit ...

 

[LKJ86]

Allegedly the first clear image of a J-10C's cockpit ...

View attachment 579533

From a television series?

 

[GeHAC]

Allegedly the first clear image of a J-10C's cockpit ...

View attachment 579533

Accurate configuration, but the UI is pretty fake to me...

 

[Dazzler]

Accurate configuration, but the UI is pretty fake to me...

Looks similar to jf-17's cockpit apart from up front control panel.