Nearly 200 J-10s have been built so far, but the design has not worked out as hoped.
Sources please? The last time I checked, PLA offcials applaused the craft and were particularly pleased with Chengdu's design. Nearly 200? Even their planned figure was below that. Where are you getting this?
The J-10 is based on the abandoned Israeli Lavi (an improved F-16) project.
The DoD has yet to prove this. How can you say with such certainty. Non speculative sources, please?
But the United States leaned on the Israelis to back off making the Chinese air force too lethal, given the probability of American pilots possibly having to fight the Chinese air force some day.
The last time I checked, the United States forced Israel to back off from Lavi because it largely utilized American technology and posed competition.
The Chinese developed their own avionics, based on Russian equipment. But this did not work out well.
Sources?
The J-10 turned out to perform poorly in air-to-air combat.
Who says?
In response, the Chinese have been reconfiguring some of them as a fighter-bombers (the J-10C). This two seat version can carry over four tons of bombs and missiles and has been equipped with a fire control system for delivering missiles and smart bombs. The J-10C will have a weapons officer to concentrate on hitting things on the ground.
Wasn't it rumored to be carrier-borne? When did it become a ground attack aircraft?
Despite all that, the Chinese are quite proud of the J-10, as it is the first high performance jet fighter designed (albeit with Israeli plans) and built in China.
More Indian speculation?
Sir, did you pull this out of a freely edited encyclopedia? ...as the vocabulary and speculation levels represent that of a Wikipedian. Furthermore, this kid hates the J-10 with a passion and backs it up with facts, which are yet to ascertained by intelligence agencies from United States, Russia, Israel or third-party orgs like Janes or Stockholme.
Please do not be afraid to post the sources, which do not exist, or may very well be from your brain. Unfortunately, affixing a publish date onto your article, does not make it pro.
Mod, please delete this thread. No sources and a lot of 14 year old speculation.