It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

J-10 vs F-16

page: 2
0
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 12 2005 @ 06:16 PM
link   
I think it would come down to pilot skills and tactics along with the systems support that USAF pilots have enjoyed in every modern conflict. Judging by those two things I have to say that USAF pilots are better trained than their Chinese counterparts, and our planes have better support systems. So I would pick the F-16.


[edit on 12-10-2005 by WestPoint23]




posted on Oct, 12 2005 @ 07:57 PM
link   
None of these two airplanes are pure fighters, they are both multirole fighters. But down to the end, J-10 is too mysterious to be compared with anything, too little is known. We barely know anything other than we can see. Infact, right now in China, J-10 technically does not exist, PLAAF does not acknowledge the existence of the plane.

China's KJ-2000 (Improved Phalcon tech mounted on a IL-76 airframe) shouldn't do too bad in combat. Israelis claimed their Phalcon was technologically more advanced that their E-3 American counterpart.

Chinese pilots receive less training than their American counterparts but we are increasing that, last year they increased fighter pilots' flight hours to 220 hours/year and they are gonna increase that bit by bit over the years after.

Aerodynamically speaking, J-10 is practically a generation ahead of the F-16. J-10 has a variable intake. J-10 has big canards. And I believe bigger wing area? J-10 will also be equipped with thrust vectored WS-10A engine which will have around 30000 pounds of thrust and 360 degree 3D thrust vectoring nozzle which is gonna put the maneuverability of the J-10 WAYYY over the F-16.

J-10 is only a springboard for China's own aviation industry, the experience gained from the J-10 is transfered to the J-XX program. China doesn't want too many J-10s, only around 300 because Su-30MKK3 can do the job just as well as J-10 generally speaking and even better in some aspects. China will be purchasing the J-XX like crazy when it enters service in around 2015.

F-16s will be become obsolete when JSF enters service and JSF is definitely superior to J-10/


[edit on 12-10-2005 by COWlan]



posted on Oct, 12 2005 @ 11:15 PM
link   
Dont you guys understand why the US spends 500 Billion a yr on defense, why we put billions upon billions of dollars into every single program we have. Dont you understand why Lockheed martin, boeing and Northrop to name a few are the best in the world. Dont you people get it? The US strives to be so far ahead of the pact that they never have to fight a competitive fight, you know why, because if another country thought they had a chance, guess what, they would take it. Can you imagine Iran with a thought in their heads that they could take us on, you think for one second they wouldnt attempt it. Why do you keep making excuses, can you not accept the fact that we make simply the most advanced, sophisticated jets man has ever seen. Why cant you get this through your thick skulls, The j-10, whats that a second gen plane, PLEEEEEZ PEOPLE. Look at the Chinese space programs rocket, its a hunk of garbage compared to even the saturn 5 of 40 yrs ago!

We have the computer advancement, we have the highest skilled engineers, we have the sophisticated manufacturing processes, we have all the top secret technology, and most importantly, we have the money to do it. The j-10 vs the f-16, give me a break, not even worthy of discussion people. F-16 has best missile systems, best support infrastructure, better power to weight, better radar, best airframe, better pilot interface, and surely better pilot training. And if it was obsolete as you suggest, guess what, they would just upgrade all the systems like they have before and make it better.

Train



posted on Oct, 13 2005 @ 03:45 AM
link   
I think the expression is 'blinded by patriotism'



posted on Oct, 13 2005 @ 04:45 AM
link   
I've had enough of these x v/s y comparisions.

Please shut the thread down before it turns into another 100 page flame war.

Also this "READ THIS BEFOR POSTING" page >> www.abovetopsecret.com... clearly says :


There will no longer be allowed:
* 'this "versus" 'this topic threads


Thanks.



posted on Oct, 13 2005 @ 06:24 AM
link   
Is it just me or does this plane look like a scaled-down MiG 1.44? Minus one stabilizer?



posted on Oct, 13 2005 @ 07:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by BigTrain
Why do you keep making excuses, can you not accept the fact that we make simply the most advanced, sophisticated jets man has ever seen. Why cant you get this through your thick skulls, The j-10, whats that a second gen plane, PLEEEEEZ PEOPLE. Look at the Chinese space programs rocket, its a hunk of garbage compared to even the saturn 5 of 40 yrs ago!


Oh you mean the rocket that was designed under the direction of ex-German scientist Wernher von Braun, that was based on the V2 rockets he built during the war. An excellent example of an all American design you have there! Your kind of thinking is not new, "Japanese can't fly because they carry their babies on their backs and they can't build good planes" said the redneck before the pacific fleet was sunk. The F-16 is a great plane no doubt but assuming it is better than the J-10 just because of it's country of origin is silly. No one knows for sure which is better because the J-10 is still very new and not much is known about it, so guess away but don't think your guesses are fact.

en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Oct, 14 2005 @ 01:40 AM
link   
Ahhhhhh.... So many things to comment on





originally posted by gooseuk
Yes the American F- Series you mentioned all have a fine record, on the most part the F-15s combat record is due to the F-15s with the IAF, rather than the USAF. F-14s have also been shot down, Iranian F-14's, but none the less a F-14, also F-16s and F-18s have been brought down in Bosnia etc or for that matter over the gulf, due to triple A or SAMS. The ZERO claim you make is myth on the most part as in most USAF engagements over Iraq with the F-15, were made on fleeing aircraft.


Mostly due to the IAF?


The F-15 and the F-16 have EACH had over 100 kills in A2A combat with ZERO losses due to enemy aircraft. You can't spin this, it is simple FACT. The IAF hasn't come CLOSE to 100 kills with either aircraft, much less both of them. However, they are undefeated as well, and so prove the dominance of the teen series aircraft




Originally posted by sminkeypinkey
There's many an RAF (or any one of a clutch of European, oh and mustn't forget the Canadians and Aussies!) airmen/squadron that would fiercly dispute this (and have the competitive exercise results to prove it).


You forgot the IAF, who probably ARE the best pilots in the world on pilot to pilot basis.


The USAF's strength is in the combination of high level training, vastly superior technology, and a high level of quality in large quantities. There is simply no other nation that brings all of these aspects together into a single airforce.



Originally posted by COWlan
Aerodynamically speaking, J-10 is practically a generation ahead of the F-16.


You do know that the J-10 is based off of Isreals Lavi program, right?
You do know that the Lavi program was based off of the F-16, right?

Your statement is uninformed hog-wash. The US experimented with a delta canard design 30 years ago. It was found to be INFERIOR, and thus the F-16 was born without it. Just because the FC/delta design is just being produced does not make it a "new generation".

The J-10 is esentially the F-16's bastard cousin.

AS FOR THE QUESTION AT HAND...

As any honest person would tell you, I don't know.

That said, if I had to make a guess, I would say the F-16 is the better aircraft (big surprise there, right?).

My reasons are not so much based on the airframe, but on the electronics and weapon systems. US aircraft provide much better situational awareness in it's aircraft, generally speaking, when compared to other aircraft. That, coupled with battle proven extremely accurate missles would give it the edge in my mind, pilot skill aside.

Of course, this isn't really a good comparison, as the F-16 is a 30 year old design and the J-10 is brand new. At the least, I think it really shows the quality and effort that go into building the USAFs aircraft that 30 years later, the F-16 is being compared to a brand new aircraft which was in fact derived from the Falcon in the first place!

[edit on 14-10-2005 by American Mad Man]



posted on Oct, 14 2005 @ 02:46 AM
link   
Great post there AMM, I found myself nodding in agreement and shaking my head in disagreement in almost equal measure throughout it



Originally posted by American Mad Man
Mostly due to the IAF?


The F-15 and the F-16 have EACH had over 100 kills in A2A combat with ZERO losses due to enemy aircraft. You can't spin this, it is simple FACT....etc


Not disagreeing with this, but a thought upon it. This fact is always thrown about by fans of the teen series, naturally enough, but there are aspects to it that bear thought.

The fine combat record is there all right but it would be nice to see the adversary that was defeated (if 50 of them were ageing F-86's for example it would not be so impressive, but MiG 29's etc would be very much so). Also you have to bear in mind the willingness (or necessity) of the US and Israeli military to go into combat and in what numbers, compared to other nations. What I mean by this is simply that yes, it proves that these forces do what they do very well, but does it prove a superiority of the type of aircraft used over another type that has not seen such frequent use?

For example, if the F-16, in exactly the same form as it exists today, was French and the Mirage 2000 was American, again, with no actual difference from the aircraft that actually exists today, the situation would be reversed with the USAF fans proclaiming the Mirage 2000 the best in the world with a 100% kill ratio, do you see what this cack handed example is trying to say?

Its like in the Falklands, the RN and RAF Harrier forces enjoyed a 100% kill ratio against mach 2 Mirages with no A2A losses among the British aircraft BUT (and probably to the BAe sales departments annoyance
)the RN pilots simply said that if Argentina had the Harriers and we had Mirages the result would be the same.

As you say;


The USAF's strength is in the combination of high level training, vastly superior technology, and a high level of quality in large quantities. There is simply no other nation that brings all of these aspects together into a single airforce.





You do know that the J-10 is based off of Isreals Lavi program, right?
You do know that the Lavi program was based off of the F-16, right?


YOU do know that the Lavi programme was an independant Israeli fighter design that in the LATER design stages began incorporating as much of the F-16 as was practical for cost saving reasons in full co-operation with General Dynamics, right? Hence the later still decision to just buy F-16's and stop messing about.

you do know that the Lavi was only a very loose pattern for the J-10 to save time rather than anything else, right? The J-10 is actually bigger than the Lavi and quite different in most areas EXCEPT the superficial external lines that everybody leaps upon.


The US experimented with a delta canard design 30 years ago. It was found to be INFERIOR, and thus the F-16 was born without it.


Now this has got me interested, it does read a bit like a knee jerk kick out against canards in general but I think your posts are more informed than that. Firstly, I'd like to know more about these designs if possible and secondly (and here's where my doubts set in) in what way 'inferior? Seeing as the 2nd and 3rd best fighters in the world are delta canards, and at a fraction of the cost of the actual best, we Europeans must count ourselves very lucky seeing as we chose the wrong planform, and only after a couple of decades research into it too [end of sarcasm
]



PS I've just order the Trumpeter 1:72 J-10 kit so maybe that will help me gain some more understanding of the plane, its partly from building models since the age of 8 that I now know as much about planes as I do, they're a great learning tool if you do them properly because the of the research you do and the way they familiarise you with the overall form of the plane.


[edit on 14-10-2005 by waynos]



posted on Oct, 14 2005 @ 05:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by waynos
The fine combat record is there all right but it would be nice to see the adversary that was defeated (if 50 of them were ageing F-86's for example it would not be so impressive, but MiG 29's etc would be very much so). Also you have to bear in mind the willingness (or necessity) of the US and Israeli military to go into combat and in what numbers, compared to other nations. What I mean by this is simply that yes, it proves that these forces do what they do very well, but does it prove a superiority of the type of aircraft used over another type that has not seen such frequent use?


That is a fair point, no doubt. The quality of our opponents has not been of an 'elite' status, and thus it may skew the results some what. However, using a sports analogy (which I do love to do), does the fact that a dominant team thoroughly defeats an inferior oponent take away anything? Is there an "*" that needs to be put next to the records set against such an oponent? Do they only really count when they are set against a foe who is percieved to be more of an equal?

My opinion is, while it may be more impressive for the US to have the same record against Russia in a WWIII situation, it doesn't take away anything from what has been accomplished.


For example, if the F-16, in exactly the same form as it exists today, was French and the Mirage 2000 was American, again, with no actual difference from the aircraft that actually exists today, the situation would be reversed with the USAF fans proclaiming the Mirage 2000 the best in the world with a 100% kill ratio, do you see what this cack handed example is trying to say?

Its like in the Falklands, the RN and RAF Harrier forces enjoyed a 100% kill ratio against mach 2 Mirages with no A2A losses among the British aircraft BUT (and probably to the BAe sales departments annoyance
)the RN pilots simply said that if Argentina had the Harriers and we had Mirages the result would be the same.


Absolutely... The support that Western nations, and the US in particular, give their fighters in the form of training, AWACS coverage, etc etc play a large part in the combats record, as does their frequent use against lesser foes.

I can't argue with that. However, in the reverse situation the Mirages would have been proven in actual combat, and the Falcon would not have, and thus it would be a fair statement that the Mirage was the best.




YOU do know that the Lavi programme was an independant Israeli fighter design that in the LATER design stages began incorporating as much of the F-16 as was practical for cost saving reasons in full co-operation with General Dynamics, right? Hence the later still decision to just buy F-16's and stop messing about.

you do know that the Lavi was only a very loose pattern for the J-10 to save time rather than anything else, right? The J-10 is actually bigger than the Lavi and quite different in most areas EXCEPT the superficial external lines that everybody leaps upon.


If you look back, I was responding to a claim that the J-10 is a generation ahead of the F-16 in airframe technology. The fact that it's airframe is based on an aircraft which it's self is based off of the F-16 would at the very least call this statement into doubt, would it not?

BTW, the LAVI was given to China after Isreal ditched the LAVI for - drum roll please - the F-16!


Thus, the technology derived from the LAVI did infact include technology from the F-16.




Now this has got me interested, it does read a bit like a knee jerk kick out against canards in general but I think your posts are more informed than that. Firstly, I'd like to know more about these designs if possible and secondly (and here's where my doubts set in) in what way 'inferior? Seeing as the 2nd and 3rd best fighters in the world are delta canards, and at a fraction of the cost of the actual best, we Europeans must count ourselves very lucky seeing as we chose the wrong planform, and only after a couple of decades research into it too [end of sarcasm
]


Perhaps inferior was the wrong word - it is a bit harsh, and in that respect was a bit of a knee jerk comment. Never the less, the US did experiment with a forward canard/delta design in the 70's (it may have even been 60's - I am going off memory here). This of course was during the time when the YF-16 was being tested. Obviously, the forward canards never did anything that special, or they would have been incorporated.

In fact, the F-16 it's self has been fitted with forward canards.



Again, this was done in prelude to the YF-35 JSF... And again, it was a design aproach which was for whatever reason not deemed to be needed on the F-16 or the JSF.

I do remember reading a paper online about the test results, but unfortunately I can not find them. I do remember that there were spacific reasons why the forward canard/delta configuration was not used, but I can not recall them off hand.

All I can say is that the USAF has never produced a fighter with them. If the forward canard/delta design was such a potent configuration surely in the nearly 40 years that the USAF has played with the technology they would have implemented it.

Of course, aircraft designs are always a compromise of characteristics and abilities, and the best designers are those who can blend them the best. IMHO, the forward canard/delta configuration is a bit overhyped, and mainly due to it's looks. Yes, it provides a great deal of manueverability, but is that configuration really needed to do it? I don't think so.

And perhaps most imprtantly...A canard designed aircraft depends a great deal on those canards for it's stability - more so then a conventional configuration does on it's tail section. We have all seen the photos of the F-15 which flew with one wing safely back to base after a mid air collision. The forward canard/delta aircraft would have a much harder time doing this because of the sensativety inherent in the design. At least that's how it was explained to me, so please correct me if I am wrong on that.


PS I've just order the Trumpeter 1:72 J-10 kit so maybe that will help me gain some more understanding of the plane, its partly from building models since the age of 8 that I now know as much about planes as I do, they're a great learning tool if you do them properly because the of the research you do and the way they familiarise you with the overall form of the plane.


Never thought of that. If I had the time between school and work I would very much like to try my hand at modeling.



posted on Oct, 15 2005 @ 05:59 AM
link   
Good and thought provoking answers again AMM, you're making a habit out of it



The quality of our opponents has not been of an 'elite' status, and thus it may skew the results some what. However, using a sports analogy ........


You are so right, a saying I use myself is "you can only beat the team in front of you" whenver anyone points out an imbalance, whether that imbalance is RAF versus Argentina or Rotherham United versus Doncaster Rovers, the point is the same.


If you look back, I was responding to a claim that the J-10 is a generation ahead of the F-16 in airframe technology. The fact that it's airframe is based on an aircraft which it's self is based off of the F-16 would at the very least call this statement into doubt, would it not?


I can put this tigether with ;


the US did experiment with a forward canard/delta design in the 70's (it may have even been 60's - I am going off memory here). This of course was during the time when the YF-16 was being tested. Obviously, the forward canards never did anything that special, or they would have been incorporated.


and;


All I can say is that the USAF has never produced a fighter with them. If the forward canard/delta design was such a potent configuration surely in the nearly 40 years that the USAF has played with the technology they would have implemented it.



In terms of airframe structure I would say you are right, there is most likely nothing in the construction of the J-10 that is so different from that of the F-16. But I thought he was speaking in terms of the layout, delta canard versus conventional tail?

One factor that may come into play, is that despite the desire to introduce canard fighters for at least 40 years ( XP-55 for example) it was not practical to do so because although the theoretical benefits were well understood, controllability was a major problem. The fact that canard designs were rejected in the '60's or '70's (the F-16 flew in 1974 and entered service in 1979 and any alternative fighter would have to meet this in service date) may have something to do with the fact that a practical FBW control system for a canard fighter was not even flown successfully until the 1986 EAP and Rafale demonstrators, after many years research with the CCV F-104 in Germany and the ACT Jaguar in the UK alongside the AFTI F-16 in the USA. This fact alone demonstrates that no canard fighter was practical until the 1990's, far too late for the USAF's Light fighter programme, and the fact that no all-new US fighter was introduced into service between 1985 and 2000 may explain the absence of the canard from the US inventory. The absence of the layout from such as the F/A-22 can be explained by the advent of TVC and the overriding requirement of stealth that now dominates fighter design.

Also, in the picture of the F-16, they are not actually canards, they are providing no lift and the airframe is still balanced by the F-16's conventional tail, they are more like destabilising front fins and there to test the capabilities of the FBW system rather than the aerodynamic layout.




IMHO, the forward canard/delta configuration is a bit overhyped, and mainly due to it's looks. Yes, it provides a great deal of manueverability, but is that configuration really needed to do it? I don't think so.



I used to have all this information at my fingertips and if I can find it I will post more but I do remember that a canard design is a more efficient lifter than a tailed design because a tailplane produces downforce, which is lift subtracted from that generated by the wings whereas a canard layout is an 'all-lift' generating layout, which is also why it is unstable and requires an FBW control system for it to work, it also enables the design to be smaller and lighter than a tailed design to meet the same parameters.

Also the natural instability of the layout is considered an advantage in fighter design because it make the aircraft 'twitchy' and much more quick to respond to control inputs than a tailed design wich has to be forced off its stable comfy flight pattern, thats how I remembr reading it anyway, there is more to it than that but I simply don't remember.





And perhaps most imprtantly...A canard designed aircraft depends a great deal on those canards for it's stability - more so then a conventional configuration does on it's tail section.


Thats not really true, its the canards on the latest generation of fighters that make the design unstable. If the Typhoon lost its canards it would be as stable as a Mirage III, ie very. In fact the French modified a Mirage III with canards in the 1980's, although they were very small so as not to destabilise the aircraft too much they did impart such a genuine increase in manouverability that they were fitted to all Swiss AF Mirages, for Dassault the mystery was that more customers didn't ask for the mod.

Not all canard designed are unstable, the '60's Viggen is extremely stable with them and their sole purpose on that design is to impart it with the STOL ability needed to take off from a main road, a standard Swedish requirement of any combat aircraft.

I don't know about them being overhyped, in the early '80's when the European air forces were looking for a new fighter the canard layout would have been a very bold and risky layout to follow without a very real advantage for doing so, a great number of alternative desings were prepared by France the UK and Germany in those days and while some were a bit 'off the wall' there were also some very competent conventional designs too ( a UK design aped the F-16 while a German one was very close to the F-18, even the F-18L was itself a contender that was much hyped at the time) therefore the benefits of pursuing the canard layout must have been very real to take the risk as I have said, none had been successfully demonstrated anywhere in the world at that time.



posted on Oct, 15 2005 @ 06:05 AM
link   
Kudos to both Waynos and American Mad Man for such an interesting exchange


[edit on 10/15/05 by FredT]



posted on Oct, 15 2005 @ 06:20 AM
link   
Fred, you are a gentleman



posted on Oct, 15 2005 @ 11:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by American Mad Man
BTW, the LAVI was given to China after Isreal ditched the LAVI for - drum roll please - the F-16!



No it wasn't





posted on Oct, 16 2005 @ 12:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by chinawhite

Originally posted by American Mad Man
BTW, the LAVI was given to China after Isreal ditched the LAVI for - drum roll please - the F-16!


No it wasn't


Yes, it was.




The showpiece of many years' work, dating back to the late 1980s, recently happened - albeit unobserved - when China confirmed the existence of, but did not unveil, the Jian-10 fighter jet.





Chinese engineers developed the J-10 from a single F-16 provided by Pakistan, and with assistance from Israeli engineers associated with Israel's US-financed Lavi fighter program, which was canceled in 1987, according to the Federation of American Scientists website. The Lavi was based on the US F-16 and built with US$1.3 billion in aid from Washington.



You are wrong.

As always the Chinese have nothing original, they just make copies of everyone elses old stuff.

link



posted on Oct, 16 2005 @ 12:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by waynos
In terms of airframe structure I would say you are right, there is most likely nothing in the construction of the J-10 that is so different from that of the F-16. But I thought he was speaking in terms of the layout, delta canard versus conventional tail?

One factor that may come into play, is that despite the desire to introduce canard fighters for at least 40 years ( XP-55 for example) it was not practical to do so because although the theoretical benefits were well understood, controllability was a major problem. The fact that canard designs were rejected in the '60's or '70's (the F-16 flew in 1974 and entered service in 1979 and any alternative fighter would have to meet this in service date) may have something to do with the fact that a practical FBW control system for a canard fighter was not even flown successfully until the 1986 EAP and Rafale demonstrators, after many years research with the CCV F-104 in Germany and the ACT Jaguar in the UK alongside the AFTI F-16 in the USA.


Well, here is where I have to dissagree with you. If FC/Delta designs were such a superior configuration, the US would have made it work.

Simply stated, digital fly by wire systems were available in as of 1972. If the light fighter would have been better with a forward canard/delta design, they would have incorporated the FBW systems needed into the R&D budget for the aircraft. Both the F-16 and digital FBW systems came out at roughly the same time. When has the USAF ever given up a potential advantege when it was so close to realising the needed technology?

To me, it's pretty simple. The Canard/Delta design benefits were negligable, and most likely gave up things in other areas.

To further expand on this, why then did the F-18 not get the design? It came out in 1983 - 10 years after the fly-by-wire digital systems were first introduced. Again, if this was such a - or even somewhat - superior design, why was it never used?



Also, in the picture of the F-16, they are not actually canards, they are providing no lift and the airframe is still balanced by the F-16's conventional tail, they are more like destabilising front fins and there to test the capabilities of the FBW system rather than the aerodynamic layout.


Fair enough, though NASA calls them canards




Also the natural instability of the layout is considered an advantage in fighter design because it make the aircraft 'twitchy' and much more quick to respond to control inputs than a tailed design wich has to be forced off its stable comfy flight pattern, thats how I remembr reading it anyway, there is more to it than that but I simply don't remember.



Yes, I understand this. The problem is with recoverability. Again, from how it was explained to me, I am under the impression that the delta/canard design is specifically harder to control after damage is done to control surfaces. I do understand that all modern fighters worth their salt are very unstable, but the canard design makes it nearly unrecoverable if they are damaged, where as an aircraft such as the Raptor could simply hit the throttle to gain lift, and have a decent chance of getting back home.



I don't know about them being overhyped, in the early '80's when the European air forces were looking for a new fighter the canard layout would have been a very bold and risky layout to follow without a very real advantage for doing so, a great number of alternative desings were prepared by France the UK and Germany in those days and while some were a bit 'off the wall' there were also some very competent conventional designs too ( a UK design aped the F-16 while a German one was very close to the F-18, even the F-18L was itself a contender that was much hyped at the time) therefore the benefits of pursuing the canard layout must have been very real to take the risk as I have said, none had been successfully demonstrated anywhere in the world at that time.


Again, you make a very fair argument. All I can say, is that I personally do not believe it was the great undertaking that you do. FBW systems were readilly available at this point; the technology to do it was there.

IMHO, the canard design was used because it allowed Europe to make an aircraft that could rival any percieved fighter in manueverability at a reasonable cost.

To me, I look at the Raptor, and even if you were to take away it's stealth ability, it can still turn with any fighter in production. Had they thrown out the stealth requirement, we'd see a Raptor with 3D TVC instead of 2D, and surely a lot of the planes shape could be modified to make it even more manueverable.

BTW -thanks for a very enjoyable discussion



posted on Oct, 16 2005 @ 12:59 AM
link   


Yes, it was.

True but not the whole truth.

And the Israelis chose not to produce the Lavi mainly because it was much easier and cheaper to buy F-16's. Also because we refused to sell Israel the parts to produce it, and especially considering the fact that we paid them to buy F-16's instead.

The J-10 is heavily influenced by the Lavi in design, but it's also a very different aicraft. Larger, heavier, with very different wings and canards, different control surface layouts, and a very different intake. The Lavi's technology was used to modify the existing J-9 design, to produce the J-10.

Chengdu J-9:




As always the Chinese have nothing original, they just make copies of everyone elses old stuff.

You do know they invented paper, right?


[edit on 10/16/05 by xmotex]



posted on Oct, 16 2005 @ 01:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by xmotex
You do know they invented paper, right?


Good for them.

I am American - I have to live up to our 'what have you done for me lately' attitude


In all seriousness though...They have a VERY bad habit of copying military hardware because they are not advanced enough to do it themselves.

This could be a trend we see changing soon though.



posted on Oct, 16 2005 @ 01:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by American Mad Man


Chinese engineers developed the J-10 from a single F-16 provided by Pakistan, and with assistance from Israeli engineers associated with Israel's US-financed Lavi fighter program, which was canceled in 1987, according to the Federation of American Scientists website. The Lavi was based on the US F-16 and built with US$1.3 billion in aid from Washington.

You are wrong.


Am i mistaken or are you completly ignorant.

It makes no mention of china recieving the LAVI or any lavi designs.

your quote
BTW, the LAVI was given to China after Isreal ditched the LAVI for - drum roll please - the F-16!


Sadly journalism has come a long way when the truth is not always the truth. The F-16 was only rumoured to have been given to china because china sold pakistan missiles.

There has been no proof that pakistan gave china a F-16 nor is any F-16 technology in the J-10.



As always the Chinese have nothing original, they just make copies of everyone elses old stuff.


difinition of copy from dictionary.com

An imitation or reproduction of an original; a duplicate: a copy of a painting; made two copies of the letter.


Nothing in the F-16 is found in the J-10. Know explain your difinition of a copy.

PS: your original article was written using secondary sources.



posted on Oct, 16 2005 @ 01:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by American Mad Man
Good for them.
I am American - I have to live up to our 'what have you done for me lately' attitude


What has america done for humanity lately?



In all seriousness though...They have a VERY bad habit of copying military hardware because they are not advanced enough to do it themselves.
This could be a trend we see changing soon though.


And what hardware are you refering to.?

China stopped making out-right copys of hardware in the 60s.

THe trend is already moving. It soon wont be chinese equipment influenced by so and so but chinese equpment



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join