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.
There will no longer be allowed:
* 'this "versus" 'this topic threads
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!
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.
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).
Originally posted by COWlan
Aerodynamically speaking, J-10 is practically a generation ahead of the F-16.
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
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?
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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 ........
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?
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.
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.
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.
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!
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Yes, it was.
As always the Chinese have nothing original, they just make copies of everyone elses old stuff.
Originally posted by xmotex
You do know they invented paper, right?
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.
As always the Chinese have nothing original, they just make copies of everyone elses old stuff.
An imitation or reproduction of an original; a duplicate: a copy of a painting; made two copies of the letter.
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
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.