J-10 vs LCA Development Similar timeframe.

[Shiji]

Yes Miss Emo you too!

 

[desimorty]

I think some of you are confused. The J-10 has little to do with Lavi or F-16. Chengdu used F-16 style wings which are one of the best but the basic design remains a radically rediesned F-7. Thats how the early design started. They have been experimenting with the F-7 for the longest time, something they did with Mig19 and the Q-5 looks nothing like the Mig19. If the Chinese recieved help from Israel to that extent, they wouldn't have denied it. Which is why Chengdu is proud of the J-10 project. Aside from the wings, the design is theirs.
Apparently one of you thinks that the PLA loves the J-10. Not in its current configration. Why do you think they added IRST and DSI vents? Project is on going. The PLAAF ordered althose because they had to show support. They freeze the GQSR and induct it as late as possible to fit it in the larger picture. IAF doesn't do that, they don't freeze GQSR. The constantly update it.
J-10 isn't a interceptor, no more than the Su-27, but the PLAAF already has large airfields for multiple runways, thats their solution. Look at the FC-1. Pakistan is getting 150? JF-17's and 20-40 J-10s? Does that make sense? THe J-10 is nearly the same price. 10-20, is that a BIG difference? Compare that to F-16s? No. So why is the PAF buying so many FC-1s that have a smaller payload and range? Because they can't afford the reaction time. If the J-10 takes 30 seconds longer to get in the air, the IAF would have already bombed the airfield. PAF isn't going wait for GODS miracle to get the big aircraft inthe air. They are going to get a quick reaction aircraft to get into the air asap so it can be usefull in a short but intensive war with IAF.
IAF thinks the same way the PAF does. Hence the LCA project. But the Tejas, has one thing that is very unique that trait that it shares with the J-10. Both have a large wing area and great thrust. Either due to the weight of the aircraft or an oversized engine. Making them ideal for High Alititude take offs from the highest airfields in the world.
The Tejas, advantage over the J-10 like the FC-1 is its short take time. But unlike the Fc-1, the Tejas has the payload aswell, thanks to a great engine which was the mother of Eurojet and M88 engines on rafale.
Another thing about all three aircraft is that they were designed to be very easy to fly. A bigginer pilots aircraft. Perfect low end aircraft.

 

[sancho]

The J-10 has little to do with Lavi or F-16. Chengdu used F-16 style wings which are one of the best but the basic design remains a radically rediesned F-7.

Without any offense, but I think it's very clear where the design of J10 comes from or?

Chengdu J-7:

And in comparison the J10 and the Lavi :

 

[gogbot]

LoL
this thread seems to be spiraling out in all directions. I like to thank everyone, for keeping this debate alive.

and i would also like all of us to give a big hand to SinoIndusFriendship

China will have 6th gen BEFORE India will have 100% indigenous LCA (incl engine, avionics, radar/sensors, missiles). It is because of the lack of prior experience and infrastructure for this delay.

He tells good jokes.

Seriously Sino are you a comedian, if not you should seriously consider it as a career option.

You can find him joking around all over defence.pk ,be sure to see some of his other work.

Again he tells the best jokes

Niel Armstrong OPENLY LIED about "landing on the moon".... Man, do I love that video where he is sweating bullets in front of the press conference and he is asked questions like "How was the star system?" and he didn't know how to answer...

Apollo Moon Landing HOAX

 

[desimorty]

Pictures, thats your proof to debunk what I just posted? There pictures of the earliest J-10 designs that date back to the 80's. THe Chinese forumers could find it, it was circulating the internet. You on the other hand would assume the truth from anything you see and here and post and worst yet, get appualeded for false information. The only thing the J-10 and Lavi have in common is their configuration! Do you think the engine was built around the airframe of the airframe around the engine?
I'm not going to go look for the image but I will say this. The Chinese did recieve the Lavi design, what did they learn? Almost nothing. They can draw too! When Pak gave them their old F-16 they learn a lot more and redesigned the wings. The J-10 the same as a Lavi but its still Chinese. Thats why Chengdu denies it! Because its far from the truth! Lavi was designed around a F404? J-10 is their own like the LCA project for India.

Look similair don't they? How much do they have in common? As much as a F-16 and Mig-29



Don't look similair at all! How much do they have in common? A lot more than the J-10 has in common with Lavi.

Look at the physical differnce on the skin and notice how much they have in common!

How the fcuk did the Chinese learn to build an aircraft like a Lockhead from a J-7? They didn't! They went through training mechanics for Su-27 assembly lines and started building something they were frimilair with!

Why do you think the LCA is a slow development? Because HAL doesn't have the skilled workers nore the machines for large scale manufacturing of a completely new aircraft the likes of they have NEVER built! same applies to Chengdu! Chengdu got their experience from the Su-27s and F-7s. Where does HAL intent to get their experienced from? MMRCA tender!

You are so in the dark.
Design is the easy part. Manufacturing with quality assurance on a large scale is a lot, a lot harder.

 

[applesauce]

Alright So the PLAAF had the choice of getting the j-10 or ?

That's the reason for the quick acceptance. PLAAF need a plane and the j-10 was the only one that was available, For the role.

The IAF on the other hand has the option to buy a wide range of planes wit full ToT. an the Tejas has to compete with all of them before being selected.

At least all the is over now and the IAF is finally after 19 years going to Induct the first squadron of LCA

The same way the PLAAF did after 18 years.

1.there are always russian choice given enough money, also jf-17 had the j-10 not been developed.

2.see reason one, also j-10 is accepted because it fits plaaf requirements, and is indigenous in that during a time of war all components of the plane is or can be made in china by the chinese.

3. uh huh so that mean tejas will never be selected as the planes india can import are far superior(dispite what the indian media tells u) but in fact india never meant for the plane to be top notch it is a project that will enable india to have a plane of her own can is effective but also in a time of war can be made in india without external help.

4. yes finally we'll find out more about the capabilities soon once its delivered

5. again i do not say that the lca is a terrible plane merely trying to explain why people see it as a failure, also as a note, the future can change as long as the thing is not already in hand it cant compete with something that is already deployed.

6. ps. also on a side note, this may not have to do with the design of the plane with it does have to do with perceptions, china was and still is under sanctions by the western world ie: no help of any kind except russian and maybe Israeli. while india is free to get tot from all kinds of weapons. again not saying they actaully got help but just saying the perceptions there that a country sactioned from advance tech can putout something advanced(2002) while one that is not still has yet to do so. (2009)

 

[gogbot]

1.there are always russian choice given enough money, also jf-17 had the j-10 not been developed.

2.see reason one, also j-10 is accepted because it fits plaaf requirements, and is indigenous in that during a time of war all components of the plane is or can be made in china by the chinese.

3. uh huh so that mean tejas will never be selected as the planes india can import are far superior(dispite what the indian media tells u) but in fact india never meant for the plane to be top notch it is a project that will enable india to have a plane of her own can is effective but also in a time of war can be made in india without external help.

4. yes finally we'll find out more about the capabilities soon once its delivered

5. again i do not say that the lca is a terrible plane merely trying to explain why people see it as a failure, also as a note, the future can change as long as the thing is not already in hand it cant compete with something that is already deployed.

6. ps. also on a side note, this may not have to do with the design of the plane with it does have to do with perceptions, china was and still is under sanctions by the western world ie: no help of any kind except russian and maybe Israeli. while india is free to get tot from all kinds of weapons. again not saying they actaully got help but just saying the perceptions there that a country sactioned from advance tech can putout something advanced(2002) while one that is not still has yet to do so. (2009)

You make some very valid points. And a logical analysis.
But
The J-10 no doubt, meets the PLAAF requierments. But IF the CCP wants a indigenous plane , for the PLAAF. Then What the CCP wants the CCP gets.

Although the J-10 may meet the PLAAF requirements. it had no competition when it was ready, it would join the PLAAF .

In India its another story.
The IAF has always imported planes, and are not under any obligation to accept a Domestic product like the Tejas.

If the Tejas wanted to be in the IAF , it would have to meet the IAF requirements obviously. But also compete with other planes from around the world. Only then would the IAF want the tejas.
Other wise the IAF can always just get a more renowned and expensive foreign plane.

 

[SinoIndusFriendship]

Pictures, thats your proof to debunk what I just posted? There pictures of the earliest J-10 designs that date back to the 80's. THe Chinese forumers could find it, it was circulating the internet. You on the other hand would assume the truth from anything you see and here and post and worst yet, get appualeded for false information. The only thing the J-10 and Lavi have in common is their configuration! Do you think the engine was built around the airframe of the airframe around the engine?
I'm not going to go look for the image but I will say this. The Chinese did recieve the Lavi design, what did they learn? Almost nothing. They can draw too! When Pak gave them their old F-16 they learn a lot more and redesigned the wings. The J-10 the same as a Lavi but its still Chinese. Thats why Chengdu denies it! Because its far from the truth! Lavi was designed around a F404? J-10 is their own like the LCA project for India.

Look similair don't they? How much do they have in common? As much as a F-16 and Mig-29



Don't look similair at all! How much do they have in common? A lot more than the J-10 has in common with Lavi.

Look at the physical differnce on the skin and notice how much they have in common!

How the fcuk did the Chinese learn to build an aircraft like a Lockhead from a J-7? They didn't! They went through training mechanics for Su-27 assembly lines and started building something they were frimilair with!

Why do you think the LCA is a slow development? Because HAL doesn't have the skilled workers nore the machines for large scale manufacturing of a completely new aircraft the likes of they have NEVER built! same applies to Chengdu! Chengdu got their experience from the Su-27s and F-7s. Where does HAL intent to get their experienced from? MMRCA tender!

You are so in the dark.
Design is the easy part. Manufacturing with quality assurance on a large scale is a lot, a lot harder.

Thank you for clearing these false rumours that the J-10 is based on the Lavi. Idiots....

 

[sancho]

The only thing the J-10 and Lavi have in common is their configuration! Do you think the engine was built around the airframe of the airframe around the engine?
I'm not going to go look for the image but I will say this. The Chinese did recieve the Lavi design, what did they learn? Almost nothing. They can draw too! When Pak gave them their old F-16 they learn a lot more and redesigned the wings.
The J-10 the same as a Lavi but its still Chinese. Thats why Chengdu denies it! Because its far from the truth! Lavi was designed around a F404? J-10 is their own like the LCA project for India.

Mate just check the part that I quoted from you in my last post!
You said that the basic design is from F 7 and that J10 has a little to do with Lavi and F16. But on the other hand you admit that it receive the Lavi design and redesign the wings of F16. That was exactly my point and if you check my earlier posts in this thread you will see that I also see the J10 as a Chinese development, just as LCA is an Indian, but that doesn't mean that the design is also fully Chinese, or Indian. J10 is more than obviously a Lavi with some further developments, so is LCA! IAF is was always very happy with the Mirage 2k, so is it a wonder that LCA design is pretty similar? No, HAL also took it and further developed it.
J10 might incorporates similar construction ways like you said earlier, but the design has nothing to do with F 7!

 

[desimorty]

Mate just check the part that I quoted from you in my last post!
You said that the basic design is from F 7 and that J10 has a little to do with Lavi and F16. But on the other hand you admit that it receive the Lavi design and redesign the wings of F16. That was exactly my point and if you check my earlier posts in this thread you will see that I also see the J10 as a Chinese development, just as LCA is an Indian, but that doesn't mean that the design is also fully Chinese, or Indian. J10 is more than obviously a Lavi with some further developments, so is LCA! IAF is was always very happy with the Mirage 2k, so is it a wonder that LCA design is pretty similar? No, HAL also took it and further developed it.

What do the J-10 and the Lavi have in common? Configration? Looks? Have you seen the manufacturing process of the J-10? The Lavi is internally a F-16 and externally still a F-16 with delta configration. You think you'd get a J-10 if you placed the Girpen's ducts on the bottom? No! The Girpen is redesigned F-16 internally! It may come out looking like something else, but its the fabric inside that makes the aircraft. Every aircraft has something in common, expecially on the out side.
IAF is happy with the low mantenance of the Mirage 2k. But that doesn't mean that they designed the Tejas with Mirage deltas! The Mirage 2k is a metal airframe with LRU. The Tejas is a Compisote airframe with exstensive LRU's. Tejas wings are widly uncommon and new. Manufacturing process for the wings arrived from Italy! The mirages delta give it high speed agility while comprimising low speed. Tejas does both, creating greater drage than these, which is why Gripen, Rafale, J-10, Typhoon have greater top speeds. The Deltas produce great amounts of constant drag in the case of Tejas, while the Canards are used for greater lift when needed, to produce drag while they turn static with the airflow at top speeds. Tejas wings do it at constantantly to provide lift and agility at low speeds. Thus no need for canards or extra weight. The wings are stronger, low mantiance even compared to deltas on the Mirage. But on the positive side, they provide the low speed handling capability. On the negative side, it produces drag and gives the Tejas lower top speed. The shoulders on the wing of the aircraft push up like Canards. HAL at first at concept expected a Gripen like design, similair on the inside and out. But eventually because of their moto to redisien the wheel they added Cranked Delta wings and removed the Canards. Reducing weight and increasing wing payload and fuel compacity. At take offs and landings the Tejas is very fuel effiecient. Comprimise.
What you said is that the J-10 is stolen Lavi technology. I'm not deneing the Israelis gave them blueprints, but they didn't learn much from looking at. Jews didn't go to China and tell them how to assemble like Lockhead. Russians did, but they gave away their soviet era techniques, Chinese used these methods on their J-10s. Look at the amount of bolts and rivits in the J-10 and new aircraft in this decade. Doesn't seem like the same workmanship. Because they aren't. Differnent build. The way the Chinese built their aircraft is very similair to a build of a J-7 or Su-27. Heavy metal airframes that require a lot manpower. Cost of airframe is dropped but mantaince is high.

HAL assembled aircraft before. But had no dedicated assembly line. They started with the newest avaliable technology on the market. China does not have that luxery. It is why you here of so many Chinese spyies. They are left in the dark. HAL learnt from the Tyhpoon project, Rafale, Girpen etc... which is why Tejas just like these aircraft have extensive LRUs and compisote materials. Cost would have been the same if the manufactured a metal airframe or compisote. But the former is less mantiance heavy. HAL will import compisote material manufacting machines and expertise. This just means that the Tejas, has more value as a project and fighter jet.

Aircraft don't have to be the greatest or hottest. They just have to get hte job done at the lowest possible price in the end. If you can't understand this than theres not point in me posting again and agian.


The Tejas and J-10 are in differen't leagues. The J-10 has a heavier airframe of mostly metal. Many hard points, powerfull engine, with greater take off time. Canards give it low speed agility, something you don't need if you were designing a interceptor to fire BVR missiles because its just added weight. The four pylons under its fueslage carry dumb bombs. A dead giveaway for what it is intended to do. I think the PLAAF have large amounts of gravity bombs and this is the aircraft they can use. Its no quick reaction interceptor like the FC-1 or Tejas. Its not light, it doesn't have a low RCS, even with the DSI to reduce this. Of course it has BVR ability, but so does a J-8. J-10 has to many arms for a interceptor and too small as a dedicated airsuperioty like the Su27 which has range and two engines for the job.

FC-1, short reaction time till launch. Not many hardpoints, ideal for carrying the correct amount for payload vs thrust. Simple J-7 assembly line with advanced avoinics. Small RCS, no large vents or too many external stores. Ideal interceptor/multirole aircraft.

Tejas, Low RCS, quick reaction, decent payload and range. Interceptor/multirole aircraft. This is what PLAAF wanted before the sanctions. Now they use a two teir solution which costs more but what are the other options? Where are they going to get F404 manufacturing line?

 

[ebungo]

What do the J-10 and the Lavi have in common? Configration? Looks? Have you seen the manufacturing process of the J-10? The Lavi is internally a F-16 and externally still a F-16 with delta configration. You think you'd get a J-10 if you placed the Girpen's ducts on the bottom? No! The Girpen is redesigned F-16 internally! It may come out looking like something else, but its the fabric inside that makes the aircraft. Every aircraft has something in common, expecially on the out side.
IAF is happy with the low mantenance of the Mirage 2k. But that doesn't mean that they designed the Tejas with Mirage deltas! The Mirage 2k is a metal airframe with LRU. The Tejas is a Compisote airframe with exstensive LRU's. Tejas wings are widly uncommon and new. Manufacturing process for the wings arrived from Italy! The mirages delta give it high speed agility while comprimising low speed. Tejas does both, creating greater drage than these, which is why Gripen, Rafale, J-10, Typhoon have greater top speeds. The Deltas produce great amounts of constant drag in the case of Tejas, while the Canards are used for greater lift when needed, to produce drag while they turn static with the airflow at top speeds. Tejas wings do it at constantantly to provide lift and agility at low speeds. Thus no need for canards or extra weight. The wings are stronger, low mantiance even compared to deltas on the Mirage. But on the positive side, they provide the low speed handling capability. On the negative side, it produces drag and gives the Tejas lower top speed. The shoulders on the wing of the aircraft push up like Canards. HAL at first at concept expected a Gripen like design, similair on the inside and out. But eventually because of their moto to redisien the wheel they added Cranked Delta wings and removed the Canards. Reducing weight and increasing wing payload and fuel compacity. At take offs and landings the Tejas is very fuel effiecient. Comprimise.
What you said is that the J-10 is stolen Lavi technology. I'm not deneing the Israelis gave them blueprints, but they didn't learn much from looking at. Jews didn't go to China and tell them how to assemble like Lockhead. Russians did, but they gave away their soviet era techniques, Chinese used these methods on their J-10s. Look at the amount of bolts and rivits in the J-10 and new aircraft in this decade. Doesn't seem like the same workmanship. Because they aren't. Differnent build. The way the Chinese built their aircraft is very similair to a build of a J-7 or Su-27. Heavy metal airframes that require a lot manpower. Cost of airframe is dropped but mantaince is high.

HAL assembled aircraft before. But had no dedicated assembly line. They started with the newest avaliable technology on the market. China does not have that luxery. It is why you here of so many Chinese spyies. They are left in the dark. HAL learnt from the Tyhpoon project, Rafale, Girpen etc... which is why Tejas just like these aircraft have extensive LRUs and compisote materials. Cost would have been the same if the manufactured a metal airframe or compisote. But the former is less mantiance heavy. HAL will import compisote material manufacting machines and expertise. This just means that the Tejas, has more value as a project and fighter jet.

Aircraft don't have to be the greatest or hottest. They just have to get hte job done at the lowest possible price in the end. If you can't understand this than theres not point in me posting again and agian.


The Tejas and J-10 are in differen't leagues. The J-10 has a heavier airframe of mostly metal. Many hard points, powerfull engine, with greater take off time. Canards give it low speed agility, something you don't need if you were designing a interceptor to fire BVR missiles because its just added weight. The four pylons under its fueslage carry dumb bombs. A dead giveaway for what it is intended to do. I think the PLAAF have large amounts of gravity bombs and this is the aircraft they can use. Its no quick reaction interceptor like the FC-1 or Tejas. Its not light, it doesn't have a low RCS, even with the DSI to reduce this. Of course it has BVR ability, but so does a J-8. J-10 has to many arms for a interceptor and too small as a dedicated airsuperioty like the Su27 which has range and two engines for the job.

FC-1, short reaction time till launch. Not many hardpoints, ideal for carrying the correct amount for payload vs thrust. Simple J-7 assembly line with advanced avoinics. Small RCS, no large vents or too many external stores. Ideal interceptor/multirole aircraft.

Tejas, Low RCS, quick reaction, decent payload and range. Interceptor/multirole aircraft. This is what PLAAF wanted before the sanctions. Now they use a two teir solution which costs more but what are the other options? Where are they going to get F404 manufacturing line?

good post !

 

[Adios Amigo]

come on guys,lets take a break,i think its too early for us to debate on a topic like this the fact j10 is fully developed and is flying with its airforce and have made sales to foreign customers+ not to mention its B version has also arrived, while lca i guess has some time to get there,untill then we can wait 4 it. and then we would be in a better position to debate SIMILAR TIMEFRAME issue.
regards.

 

[sancho]

Very interesting post, but you should calm down a bit a understand what i said, or read my earlier posts and you will see that we have pretty much the same view of LCA and J10 differences and developments. The problem is you are missing my point!

What do the J-10 and the Lavi have in common? Configration? Looks?

As I said before the similar airframe design! Just look at the comparison pic I posted and you will see several similarities in the airframe design and as I said in my last post, I also agree that the construction of J10 might be based on the experience of forme Chinese fighters, but there should be no doubt about the bases of J10 airframe design comes from!

What you said is that the J-10 is stolen Lavi technology. I'm not deneing the Israelis gave them blueprints, but they didn't learn much from looking at. Jews didn't go to China and tell them how to assemble like Lockhead.

At first, I never said they stolen Lavi techs! Secondly I think here you are mistaken, because China got way more from Israel than you might think and as the following sources confirms:

The development of the J-10 was reportedly assisted by Israel, which provided the technologies of its cancelled IAI Lavi lightweight fighter including the aerodynamic design and the software for the “fly-by-wire” flight control system.

Jian-10 (J-10, F-10) Multirole Fighter Aircraft - SinoDefence.com

...that the Israeli contribution to the new airplane's design became plainly evident: The J10 featured a close-coupled, canard-delta configuration, with an area-ruled fuselage, packaged into a single-engine design, with a ventral engine inlet and a pair of ventral strakes. The similarities to Israel's canceled Lavi fighter were unmistakable.

J10 tail fin image by muradk_photo on Photobucket

Israel's military relationship with China included cooperation on the J-10 advanced fighter plane (modeled on the Israeli Lavi jet fighter) and a series of other military projects. Trade between the two sides reached over $500 million by 2000.4

The Phalcon Sale to China: The Lessons for Israel, by Jonathan Adelman

 

[applesauce]

You make some very valid points. And a logical analysis.
But
The J-10 no doubt, meets the PLAAF requierments. But IF the CCP wants a indigenous plane , for the PLAAF. Then What the CCP wants the CCP gets.

Although the J-10 may meet the PLAAF requirements. it had no competition when it was ready, it would join the PLAAF .

In India its another story.
The IAF has always imported planes, and are not under any obligation to accept a Domestic product like the Tejas.

If the Tejas wanted to be in the IAF , it would have to meet the IAF requirements obviously. But also compete with other planes from around the world. Only then would the IAF want the tejas.
Other wise the IAF can always just get a more renowned and expensive foreign plane.

i agree that the j-10 has few competition to gain acceptance from the plaaf, non the less i was saying that there are choices if need be.

ur points are correct, and as u can see these all combine to paint a better image for the j-10 than the lca which was part of my reason in answering the OP's question

 

[hembo]

~~~~~~
Jews didn't go to China and tell them how to assemble like Lockhead. Russians did, but they gave away their soviet era techniques, Chinese used these methods on their J-10s. Look at the amount of bolts and rivits in the J-10 and new aircraft in this decade. Doesn't seem like the same workmanship. Because they aren't. Differnent build. The way the Chinese built their aircraft is very similair to a build of a J-7 or Su-27. Heavy metal airframes that require a lot manpower. Cost of airframe is dropped but mantaince is high.

HAL assembled aircraft before. But had no dedicated assembly line. They started with the newest avaliable technology on the market. China does not have that luxery. It is why you here of so many Chinese spyies. They are left in the dark. HAL learnt from the Tyhpoon project, Rafale, Girpen etc... which is why Tejas just like these aircraft have extensive LRUs and compisote materials. Cost would have been the same if the manufactured a metal airframe or compisote. But the former is less mantiance heavy. HAL will import compisote material manufacting machines and expertise. This just means that the Tejas, has more value as a project and fighter jet.

Aircraft don't have to be the greatest or hottest. They just have to get hte job done at the lowest possible price in the end. If you can't understand this than theres not point in me posting again and agian.

The Tejas and J-10 are in differen't leagues. The J-10 has a heavier airframe of mostly metal. Many hard points, powerfull engine, with greater take off time. Canards give it low speed agility, something you don't need if you were designing a interceptor to fire BVR missiles because its just added weight. The four pylons under its fueslage carry dumb bombs. A dead giveaway for what it is intended to do. I think the PLAAF have large amounts of gravity bombs and this is the aircraft they can use. Its no quick reaction interceptor like the FC-1 or Tejas. Its not light, it doesn't have a low RCS, even with the DSI to reduce this. Of course it has BVR ability, but so does a J-8. J-10 has to many arms for a interceptor and too small as a dedicated airsuperioty like the Su27 which has range and two engines for the job.
~~~~~

Excellent analysis!!