It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


Some nice high res pics of the J-10.

page: 2
<< 1    3 >>

log in


posted on Mar, 14 2006 @ 04:53 PM

external image

posted on Mar, 14 2006 @ 05:01 PM
Ooh yes, thats a copy, its got rubber tyres and a hinge at the back of the canopy! Bloody identical!

Actually chinawhite, I don't think he was saying it was 'like the Typhoon' as much as he was emphasising it was different from the F-16.

posted on Mar, 14 2006 @ 05:26 PM
I was just showing how chinas F-16 was more of a copy of the EF.

And just waiting for his response.

"copied the europeans with F-16 influence now".

skippytjc did i predict the future?


Check list

1) airplane
2) Conards(your spelling)
3) wheels

Must be a copy aye. fits your requiments?

[edit on 14-3-2006 by chinawhite]


posted on Mar, 14 2006 @ 05:50 PM

Originally posted by waynos
Actually chinawhite, I don't think he was saying it was 'like the Typhoon' as much as he was emphasising it was different from the F-16.

I'm not sure if this is about me and what I wrote, but if so, then yes. I don't think the J-10 looks much like the Typhoon either, but it has some closer resemblance in the layout of the overall design. More so then compaired to the F-16 for sure.

Either way, it doesn't really look like a copy of any particular aircraft.

[edit on 14-3-2006 by jra]

posted on Mar, 14 2006 @ 05:57 PM
Sorry for the confusion but it was directed at skippytjc.

posted on Mar, 14 2006 @ 06:12 PM

originally posted by figher master FIN
And the tail...???

i think the tails look almost identical

the j-10 looks simmilar to the f-16 in quite a few respects but it obviously isnt a clone.


posted on Mar, 14 2006 @ 06:52 PM
Since I have seen these pics before I thought I'd share a good 3 view of the J-10, the J-10 definitly grew to become one of my favorite aircraft and definitly my favorite from the Asian continent.

Please visit this link for the 3 view.

Mods, members, how do you post resized pics on the fly again, what code was it again? I can't remember and can't find it either.

posted on Mar, 14 2006 @ 06:58 PM

Originally posted by GrOuNd_ZeRo
Mods, members, how do you post resized pics on the fly again, what code was it again? I can't remember and can't find it either.

Mod Note: Image Size – Please Review This Link.

posted on Mar, 14 2006 @ 09:13 PM
i think J-10 is complete different plane thanb then the F-16. they may look the same but the radar and the missile it carries are not the same. juts look at Saegeh-80 and compare it to F-5. they both look the same but different avoinics and R&D.....

posted on Mar, 14 2006 @ 09:32 PM
What is with this obssession and the American Superiority Complex?

The J-10 is a very fine aircraft, and looking at it; right off the bat I could distinguish several features different than the F-16. It's also a completely different plane on the inside, different engines, different avionices, different everything.

Why people insist on saying "china copies everything" I do not know why.

Shattered OUT...

posted on Mar, 14 2006 @ 09:44 PM

Originally posted by GrOuNd_ZeRo
Please visit this link for the 3 view.

Wow. where did you get that?. Nice find.

posted on Mar, 14 2006 @ 10:47 PM
Oh Please,

It doesn't 'look like' it IS the _Lavi_, revisited. Since, using American funds, the Israelis refurbished the third prototype and /took it/ to China.

Does this show that the Chinese are incompetent boobs unable to design a plane to defend their own lands properly? Of course. Because they've stuffed a 27,000lbst RUSSIAN engine into an airframe whose spec'd dimensions seem to echo the Lavi almost to a T. And the Lavi only has 5,000lbs or so of gas in it.



Is China. The third largest country in the world. And they are using an aircraft originally built as an /A-4/ replacement to guard their borders.


OTOH, are the Chinese boobs for making a jet that they can sell as an airshow sex toy with 'superior maneuverability to the F-16'? No. Because they are all about making money.

Money is the key to global power. Money buys your enemy out of his debts and into yours.

The simple, sad, fact is that the J-10, even with PL-12/SD-10 missiles (all of two) is just next to worthless as an air to air machine because 'even an F-16' with AMRAAM C-7 or 8 and an AWACS assist, can plink it's hide from over 100km away.

And /despite/ all the hooplah on 'dogfighting not being dead'. The simple results of Cope India _prove_ that the USAF approach is the right one. Because the difference between the stick and throttle monkeys is /nothing/ with equal training and tactical discipline 'even the Indians' can kick the snot out of the USAF.

Provided we agree to play with tethered-all-the-way AMRAAM of less than 20km pole out.

I get so /pissed/ of hearing the same old argument: "It's just a copy." "No it's not and even if it were, similar problems breed similar solutions!"

When in point of truth you have to be a point-blank MORON to fight the way your enemy has been fighting best for /decades/ worth of paradigm plateau investment in force structure and latest-gimmicks and whistles.

If you want to fight the U.S. Or even the U.S. backed Taiwanese. Or even the Russian backed Indians. _Don't copy some stupid Israeli's vision of a license to print money_.

Invent something that totally alters the way the game itself is played.



posted on Mar, 15 2006 @ 01:51 AM

Originally posted by ch1466
Does this show that the Chinese are incompetent boobs unable to design a plane to defend their own lands properly? Of course. Because they've stuffed a 27,000lbst RUSSIAN engine into an airframe whose spec'd dimensions seem to echo the Lavi almost to a T. And the Lavi only has 5,000lbs or so of gas in it.


You used this same argument in a post before about the size of the J-10 and fuel load into the lavi fuel load. While the information your reading or get your opinoins from are sources which just quote the lavi wingspan and weight size and everything they base it on outdated or inccorect information. Because as you know they match to the T. I thought you might have would have thought that they might be incorrect since these are different designs and clearly the J-10 is bigger while still having the same specs displayed in almost all websites. From pictures we can determine that the J-10 is larger and also heavier than the lavi.

Here is the ratio determined by denio on this forum. There was a picture of the J-10 with the standard aircraft towing aircraft and it sure isn't only 14m

Here is also a comparison of the F-16s F-100 engine and the J-10s AL-31FN soon to me the or already is the 13,200kg thrust AL-31FN-M1

I know the lavi was going to use the 1120 which was more compact and lighter but its being made up for by a more powerful engine with similar fuel consumtion.

And for fuel load. The lavi and J-10 and many other fighters make up for the little internal fuel load by the dispensable external load. If you had a large internal load, you'll reach the battle with a empty tank whilst with drop tanks you can dispose of them and come in with a clean confriguration. Benifits are obvious like smaller design more compact. and leaves you without the empty space when your in WVR or BVR.

One big person eats his food straight away while one other person carries his food with him. It was a design choice which to me making more sense than trying to make your plane bigger for your fuel

A comparison between the J-9 J-10 and the lavi. The J-9 was also designed by institute 611 aka Chengdu which also designed the canard fighter we know as the J-10. A competitor to the J-8 and was cancelled sometime in 1980-1981. And a few years later the J-10 project was born. coincidence?. While there is no doubt that the lavi did influence the J-10 design, where was the J-9 in all of this, which did make it to the mock up stage and having been designed by chengdu.

From offical israeli denials they stated they did help china with the project but only with technology and never with design. I think mostly in the fields of avonics while the russian supposely helped with the radar.

David Lari, director general of Israel's Ministry of Defense, acknowledged in an Associated Press interview that "some technology on aircraft" had been sold to China and that some Israeli companies may not have "clean hands".

In the late 1980s, at least 20 engineers from Israel Aircraft Industries (IAI) were part of the fighter's design team at Chengdu."

"IAI also helped with windtunnel testing in the early design stage. The Israeli presence has been scaled down in the last three years"

Flight's 1994 disclosure of the Israeli J-10 connection

20 engineers out of a project which had 1500 engineers. And with these engineers they would have been almost exclusively on the avonics like FBW system which was the main trouble of the J-10 project and with the J-6 testbed having trouble with the system so the israelis being consulted.

Here is what a british engineer which worked on the lavi project had to say

I just happened to come across this forum by chance, but you may be interested to know that I was one of the design engineers working on the Lavi project in 1983 thru 1986. I am not Israeli, I am a British aerospace structural designer, and there were nothing like 1,500 engineers on the project. There were about 500 in total, mostly British, with very few Israelis.
The Israelis mostly headed up groups, but relied heavily on British and American design expertise.
Since the Lavi was cancelled some time ago, and most Israelis were made redundant, I cannot see how China would need any input from Israel.

From Key forum Aviation. member goof

Theres very little information on the actual project on the internet but thats some good confirmation and information from a first hand source.

Thanks to ImageShack for Free Image Hosting

[edit on 15-3-2006 by chinawhite]

posted on Mar, 15 2006 @ 02:30 AM
Double post. I thought edited the first post but i made a second post

[edit on 15-3-2006 by chinawhite]

posted on Mar, 15 2006 @ 06:50 AM
Basically anybody who can't SEE that there are fundamental differences that make them two separate designs needn't bother to continue demonstrating their ignorance of aeroplanes, we've all seen it now thank you.

To come back to the Iranian project pictured above, what you can see here is a genuine local attempt to re-engineer an existing airframe as the F-5 airframe is completely unchanged apart from the stylistic decision to give it two fins (which may also improve controllability at high AoA, maybe).

The J-10 is so clearly NOT of the same ilk at all. At worst the fuselage *shape* of the Lavi was copied because they liked it, every other design parameter is different, its as plain as day to anyone prepared to look.

posted on Mar, 15 2006 @ 09:46 AM
The tails are differnet...



And the engine...?? If you can't see the diference, you need a pair of glases...

Peoples, I talk Swedish... my mothertongue... it has never been called Gripfen... in Swedish you can't put and f after a p...

[edit on 15-3-2006 by Figher Master FIN]

posted on Mar, 15 2006 @ 06:56 PM
I got those pics for a friend since I had to model an accurate model of it in a game mod I am working on.

He is a big aviation buff from Indonesia and makes some impressive models.

posted on Mar, 16 2006 @ 01:31 AM
According to the lastest information the AL-31FN was custom built for the J-10 hence the gearbox on the bottom instead of the top. This could mean that the AL-31FN is just a stop gap for future WS-10 engines. Because the WS-10 has its gear box at the bottom also or so they say. So could this mean that the WS-10 could some day find its way into a J-10?.

Maybe use the AL-31FN on the J-10 and wait until the technology on the WS-10 has matured on the J-11b upgrades first. My first impression is its longer than the FN but similar in size to the F or might be a similar size. Could the FN have been made into a more compact version to better fit into a single engined aircraft?




This picture does not show its gear box but most of the other parts of the engine seem to be on top implying it would fit into a J-11 because they use a top gear box

[edit on 16-3-2006 by chinawhite]

posted on Mar, 16 2006 @ 05:35 AM
J-10s just recently produced.

By the way im sourcing this from so you can also check out his J-10 page

posted on Mar, 18 2006 @ 04:53 PM
That's a pretty sexy shot of the J-10 there, I really dig the lines and the colors.

Weren't there rumors of trust vectored engines on the J-10?

top topics

<< 1    3 >>

log in