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.
Originally posted by chinawhite
Am i mistaken or are you completly ignorant.
It makes no mention of china recieving the LAVI or any lavi designs.
The program began in the late 1980s and is thought to be based on an Israeli design.
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.
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.
Originally posted by chinawhite
What has america done for humanity lately?
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
Originally posted by American Mad Man
If you bothered to READ the artical, it said:
The program began in the late 1980s and is thought to be based on an Israeli design.
Of course, I didn't mention this because it is well known that China based the J-10 off of the LAVI design. Sorry, I guess I was giving people on this forum more credit then I should have in terms of their basic knowledge of the aircraft being discussed. I will there for assume you know nothing of what is being discussed in this thread, and treat you accordingly.
My point was, that China did in fact get it's airframe technology from the F-16 via the LAVI. I said this in response to an outlandish, and frankly false assertion that the J-10 was a "generation" ahead of the F-16 in airframe technology. Again, that is patently false.
There are a lot of things that there is no definitive proof of, that are none the less based on very sound reasons and sources. This is one of them. Put it this way, I know people in "the buisness" that have said there is no doubt in their mind it happened. I will trust their word because they get paid to know.
Clear things up a bit?
So? It is still acurate in it's information - it just happened to be the first of THOUSANDS of links that said more or less the exact same thing. China designed the J-10 around the LAVI, which in turn was designed around US technology and the F-16.
Get over it. The J-10 is Chinas first attempt at making a viable modern fighter. They would be stupid not to copy a PROVEN design that has served the best air force in the world for 25 years.
Originally posted by American Mad Man
I guess sarcasm doesn't translate too well to Commy speek, eh?
If you really must know, we give more towards humanity in both money and manpower then any other nation on earth. So, how does more then everyone else do for an answer?
And to think, this coming from a Chinese communist?
See post above. For further information on the subject, see the thread All Chinese aircraft are pathetic copies originally authored by ATS member Stealth Spy. Don't worry, it doesn't just single out Chinas aircraft - it shows plenty of other examples too.
Oh yes, now they make copies and slap a new label on it! How original!
Since you are so into the literal use of words in the English language, you are wrong in your statement "the trend is already moving" as China has not designed and put into production a single new current "generation" aircraft that was not it's self based off of another nations aircraft.
The general direction in which something tends to move.
But I am done with this. This was a good discussion on the F-16, the J-10, it's history, and the forward canard-delta wing configuration. I would like to return to that.
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. ...........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?
Fair enough, though NASA calls them canards
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
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.
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. 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
American Mad Man
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.
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.
IMHO, China needs to outspend the US in R&D in order to catch up. To do that they need more money then the US.
The F-15 Eagle has a perfect combat record of 101 victories and zero defeats. F-15s downed four Mig-29 fighters during the recent Balkan conflict and 33 of the 35 fixed-wing aircraft Iraq lost in air combat during Operation Desert Storm. During the Balkan conflict, the F-15E was the only fighter able to attack ground targets around the clock, in all weather conditions.
www.boeing.com...
The Raptor will eventually replace the F-15 Eagle, an aircraft with an undefeated 104-0 combat record, according to Brig. Gen. Larry New, former 325th Fighter Wing commander. The general said that combat record will continue with the addition of the Raptor to the Air Force team.
www.af.mil...
Originally posted by chinawhite
Here it comes. something you cant dismiss you accuse them of being communist.
Congrats shows how americans handle situations.
I might be chinese but im not a communist nor do i approve of communist ideals.
Americans just cause trouble. iraq afganistan korea. You might give but you also take.
You pointed me out to a inaccurate aircraft list.
Your on a roll today. accuse someone of being communist then distorts information
The J-7 might be a Mig-21 looking airframe but its chiense from the inside. Also the basic Mig-21 has been changed in the J-7.
Wrong in my statment?
Meaning frm dictionary.com
The general direction in which something tends to move.
China started off building russian craft.
chinese craft with heavy russian/israeli influence.
Chinese designed and built without any outside influence.
That is a trend is it not?
Go have your discussion. i have left this thread with a lesson about americans
Originally posted by gooseuk
Can you direct me to a source for this claim? Does this include kills with F4 drones, helicopters, Hot air ballons, geese? I frankly can't find a source to back up your claim, I CAN find a few records of 2 launches, from F-15s, on fleeing Iraqi mig's during the first Gulf War. Thats it.
Whys that?
There are many ways to produce an effective design, because the US failed to adopt it, does NOT mean it is any less effective. We used different shaped helmets, it make them any less effective? No, you simply have a different way of producing an effective design, that meets your needs.
To believe that, for a design to be the best, it must have come from America, you are very arrogant.
Frankly,
Every country on the planet, has either bought or produced a copy from another countries military, either through license or without.
Some examples,
British Cobolt Armour on US Tanks.
US Sat Communcations for the UK Military
UH-60s for Aussie land
Apaches for the UK
Gripens for Cech airforce
::shrugs:: As you say, they might not have the funds to compete with the US for R&D funding. In all honesty, why bother? If there is another country that is selling equipment that is nearly of the same standard, why bother? They are spending their money on IMPROVING the design and operating it, is that not more of a threat?
That isn't true, the Russians didn't have the same budget in terms of R&D funding etc Yet their aircraft and missile technology was still listed as a threat to your armed forces, also, the UK doesn't have the same level of funds as the US yet your armed forces are using a version of British designed Tank armour
Frankly, your "Better than all" attitude with hit you when are least expecting it. Sadly people other than your self will end up being on the forefront of that. By not respecting the abilities of another nation, you are frankly leaving your self open to an attack. Its foolish.
Originally posted by American Mad Man
Well, since this has gone to chit-chat on BTS (thanks to your your inferiority complex about China) I will continue this discussion.
I guess we were causing trouble saving China from slaughter during WWII? Causing trouble by saving Kuwait? Causing trouble airdropping food into Berlin? Causing trouble liberating France from Germany?
Whatever you say. Just know that the only reason China is even it's own country today is because America was 'causing trouble."
And yes, we take. That is generally how diplomacy and politics work. You give and take. Except of course with China - we never get anything from them, and Dod knows all they do is take.
Distort information? I pointed you to another thread already on the subject of China copying other nations products because it would be more suited there. Basically, I was trying to redirect the conversation so as to keep this very thread in the aircraft forum.
Frankly, you are on a roll. You single handidly destroyed a very informative and technical thread, with a lot of historical information because you can not handle the fact that China has, in recent history, been completely unoriginal in it's technology - especially in the military sector. Bravo!
Just because it was made in China and relabled does not make it Chinese. It makes it a Chinese derivative of someone elses aircraft.
Again, it may not be an exact copy, but it is largely based on others work with little domestic technology. Thus, for all intensive purposes, it is a copy.
Yes, WRONG in your statement.
Unfortunately, you ruined this thread, so I will have to spend a great deal of time making another thread without your national insecurities.
Originally posted by American Mad Man
I believe Fred has pointed you to a few sources. If you would like more, let me know.
If you read my further posts, I do say that "inferrior" was a poor choice of word.
None the less, as I repeatedly pointed out, the US has been experimenting with the forward canard/delta design for nearly 40 years - we were in fact the first to do so. We had the technology to make it work, if not in the 70's, clearly in the 80's for the F-18 and the 2000's for the ATF and JSF programs.
The US has the best aircraft companies in the world. Spin it all you want, but no nation can rival Americas big 3. These are companies that sent man to the moon 40 years ago, produced the fastest plane in the world 40 years ago, built the first 4 stealth aircraft, etc etc etc.
Results count. Now, surely, if there were some clear advantege to having a forward canard/delta wing layout, Skunk works, Phantom works, or the Northrop advanced projects division would have incorporated this into one of the 3 fighters that have been introduced to the US military over the last 30 years.
Clearly, none of these design teams found it to be an advantage, or else they would have incorporated it into a design. That alone tells me it's not the best design, because these 3 companies have a PROVEN TRACK RECORD of designing the best aircraft in the world, BAR NONE.
The difference here is that the US has come up with original technology, as has the UK. NATO, and non NATO allies such as Australia have contributed to ground breaking projects.
China copies, and copies only. Seriously, name me one original (read: not heavily influenced by some pre-existing) thing they have made in the military sector.
First of all, Russia had inferior technology. They did have some systems that were equal to, or even in some cases exceeded America's, but overall they were far behind in everything from ICBM accuracy, to computer technology, to sub accoustics.
They were not our equal in quality, bet were our superior in quantity. Both sides understood that was the only way to compete with the other.
Secondly, Russia was starting from the same point after WWII. The only major advantage the US had was the nuclear weapon, but of course they stole that from us and were thus our relative equal in the 1950's.
China however is behind in nearly every area. They are 20 years (at least) behind in the aero-space field.
They have nothing that can compare to out naval systems.
They have nothing that compares to our heavy armour.
Same with communications systems.
And so on.
Not only that, but even if they were to get equal technology they would still need to BUY and PRODUCE it all, which would be even more expensive. And that is all assuming the US does not advance it's self.
Again, this is the reason I say they need to outspend the US to become our technological equals.
Frankly, I don't have a better then all attitude. In my very first post I pointed out that the IAF probably has the "best" pilots. I am the first to say that overall, the SAS is probably the "best" SOF forces (though for specific missions, I would argue specific units are).
You just see that because you don't want to have to deal with the fact that right now, overall, the US IS better then all. That isn't arrogance or blind nationalism - it's the reality of today.
No other nation combines our level of technology with our level of training, along with the numbers we have. That is why everyone with half a brain - China and Russia included - agree that the US is superior to them militarily at the moment.
Originally posted by chinawhite
I think you have the inferiorty complex to or you wouldn't have responded.
America never saved china from slaughter.. It was a stalemate in 1938. a stalemate which the japanese were losing.
Causing trouble killing civillians in korea.
Completey destroying indo-china. introducing drugs to every country you go in.
Giving saddam WMD.
If D-day never happened then the soviets would be in control of europe. It was in americas interest to liberate france.
This might surprise yo but china did have a stragery in WW2 againest japan. It was formulated by a german. Check it out.
A war had begun in Asia years before World War II started in Europe. Japan had invaded China in 1931. By 1937, war had broken out as the Japanese sought control of China. Roosevelt signed an unpublished (secret) executive order in May 1940 allowing U.S. military personnel to resign from the service so that they could participate in a covert operation in China: the American Volunteer Group, also known as Chennault's Flying Tigers. Over a seven-month period, Chennault's Flying Tigers destroyed an estimated 600 Japanese aircraft, sunk numerous Japanese ships, and stalled the Japanese invasion of Burma. With the United States and other countries cutting exports to Japan, particularly fuel oil, Japan planned a strike on Pearl Harbor on Sunday, 7 December 1941, to cripple the U.S. Pacific Fleet while consolidating oil fields in Southeast Asia. It is hard to determine whether the Japanese intended to release an advance declaration of war, however, as means of coordinating secret directives with public communication, particularly during a weekend in the U.S., were limited.
America is give a little take a lot
Yeah you should have stopped. blaming other people is a american policy
It takes two to tango. If i was the only one then i would have got a warning.
Do you know the later chinese varients of the Mig-21 do not share anything with the soviet ones. except the basic body shape?
Use a dictionary to find out the meanings of words sometimes.
A trend is The general direction in which something tends to move.
CHina started off building copies to aircraft with chinese equipment to a chiense aircraft that is built with foriegn help to a completely new aicraft.
THat is a trend.
Originally posted by gooseuk
::Shrugs:: Again that means nothing, every nation has a different way of producing their own produce, look at the buildings in France, German, Britain, then compare them to American, there are merely different ways to producing them.
Frankly because the US couldn't see any benefits does not mean there are not benefits of that design. Are you assuming that because the US did not develop it, means that the design isn't worth producing? I apologise, but to me that is arrogant.
Your quite right, don't forget about your german help Also, the Russians managed to get into space, including China now. What would you like me to say about the rest? Congrats?
See above. Also, many nations do not consider boeing the gods in terms how we should design our own fighters.
Your write, I am honestly having problems with this, will have to get back to you on this one.
The thing is, that a world war 1 rifle can still kill you if the sniper knows how to use it and where to aim. If you forget that fact, you will beable to ignore that the russians while still behind the us in R&D still could HURT the us and her troops. It comes down to how they use what they got, in iraq they are using RPGs and there is no effective high tech counter.
I agree that because of numbers and budget, the US are the leaders, not the best. There is a vast different between being the worlds best military and the worlds leading military, frankly I believe there are other nations that deserve the Best, title.
Originally posted by American Mad Man
No - simply defending my (correct) position.
Yeah, great strategy! "maybe if we let them commit genocide on us, they will tire themselves to death!"
Face it, you got your arses handed to you, and the US bailed you out. Otherwise, the Chinese would be Japanese slaves.
In the Korean war?
If we completely destroyed indo-china, then Why is China around today? Frankly, this is the typical "I am jellous of America, and as such shall blame all of our problems on them" attitude.
Drugs? Maybe if the Chinese had a little self control, they wouldn't have all become drug addicted junkies, eh? Seems to me, no other nation had that problem but the Chinese.
So what? He was fighting Iran, it was the cold war. BTW, it was CHINA that gave Iraq and Iran the delivery sytems they now possess to use them. Great job China!
Great job they did.
It was the US, and the US alone that saved Chinas collective arse. Hell, the only reason we were attacked at pearl horbor is because we cut oil exports to Japan after they invaded China.
link
Bull#. We give and give and give. What exactly have we "taken"?
No, unfortunately it doesn't. The fact that you took this thread off track proves it. I responded to your initial replies, and ended that we should drop the subject in this thread - because I KNEW if it kept up it would get moved.
I GAVE YOU THREE OPTIONS OF OTHER WAYS TO CONTINUE THE DISCUSSION! THREE! AND YOU HAD TO POST IN THIS THREAD, THUS KILLING IT!
It falls squarely on your sholders.
Great, so they only stole the complete aerodynamic shape of the aircraft?!
THis is seriously funny now
I give up. There is nothing the Chinese have done that indicates they can build their own competative aircraft from scratch. NOT ONE THING!
AMM said
How can you shrug off the fact that the three best military aircraft designers in the world have not found a single use for the forward canard/delta design?
Honestly? If one, or even two of them hand not designed an aircraft like that, I'd say maybe you are right. But all three?
Originally posted by FredT
Knock it off the both of you. STAY on topic