Alberchico From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 2461 posts, RR: 0 Posted (4 years 4 months 2 weeks 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 30860 times:
http://www.defencetalk.com/pictures/showgallery.php/cat/3239
here are some interesting pics on this airplane. Is it supposed to be a copy of an existing design or what? Is it the equivalent of the F-15 or F-16. Does anybody think that in a battle this plane would be able to win against modern American or Russian fighters??? Is this plane really a threat or a piece of Chinese junk???
short summary of every jewish holiday: they tried to kill us ,we won , lets eat !
Acheron From Spain, joined Sep 2005, 1186 posts, RR: 2 Reply 1, posted (4 years 4 months 2 weeks 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 30829 times:
A derivative of the IAI Lavi. The US lobbied against the project(or so I've heard, to get more F-16 orders) so it was cancelled, and a few years after that, Israel sold the blueprints and one of the prototypes to China along with some american equipment in it(hence the "joke" that would be cheaper to sell the F-22 directly to China than have Israel as a middleman) and the rest is history.
The net is not exactly bursting with specs of the jet, except that its engine is russian(Su-27 engine) as well as its gun.
Alberchico From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 2461 posts, RR: 0 Reply 4, posted (4 years 4 months 2 weeks 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 30756 times:
Don't want to get dragged into politics but why on Earth why would our rock solid ally Israel sell any technology to China so they coulkd make a high tech fighter like this???
short summary of every jewish holiday: they tried to kill us ,we won , lets eat !
Boeing4ever From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 5, posted (4 years 4 months 2 weeks 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 30738 times:
Quoting Alberchico (Reply 4): Don't want to get dragged into politics but why on Earth why would our rock solid ally Israel sell any technology to China so they coulkd make a high tech fighter like this???
Simple. They're not a "rock solid" ally. They're a dubious one at best.
* Crew: 1 (basic), 2 (trainer variant)[6]
* Length: 16.5 m (54 ft [citation needed])
* Wingspan: 11.3 m (37 ft 2 in[citation needed])
* Height: 6.0 m (15 ft 6 in[citation needed])
* Wing area: 45.5 m² (490 ft²[citation needed])
* Empty weight: 8000~9,730 kg (21,460 lb[15])
* Useful load: 5,500 kg (9 920 lb[citation needed])
* Max takeoff weight: 19,277 kg (42,498 lb[citation needed])
* Powerplant: 1× Saturn-Lyulka AL-31FN or Woshan WS-10A "Taihang" turbofan
o Dry thrust: 89.43 kN / 89.17 kN (17,860 lbf / 20,052 lbf)
o Thrust with afterburner: 122.5 kN / 129.4 kN (27,557 lbf / 29,101 lbf)
Performance
* Maximum speed: Mach 2.2 at altitude[6], Mach 1.2 at sea level[2]
* g-Limits: +9/-3 g (+88/-29 m/s², +290/-97 ft/s²[2]
* Combat radius: 750+ km[6] (1000 nm, [citation needed]
o Maximum range: 2,940 km (1,370 nm, [citation needed])
* Service ceiling: 20,000 m (65,617 ft)
* Wing loading: 335 kg/m² (64 lb/ft²)
* Minimum thrust/weight:
o With afterburner: 0.98
Armament
* Guns: 2× 23 mm internal cannon
* Hardpoints: 11, 3 under each wing and 5 under the fuselage
* Missiles:
o Air-to-air: PL-8, PL-9, PL-11, PL-12
o Air-to-surface: PJ-9, YJ-9K, 90 mm unguided rocket launcher pods
* Bombs: laser-guided bombs (LT-2), glide bombs (LS-6) and unguided bombs
Data from GlobalSecurity.org[1], Milavia[22], TaiwanAirPower.org[23]
General characteristics
* Crew: 1-2
* Length: 14.21 m (46 ft 7 in)
* Wingspan: 9.46 m (31 ft 0 in)
* Height: 4.42 m (14 ft 6 in)
* Wing area: 24.2 m² (260 ft²)
* Empty weight: 6,500 kg (14,300 lb)
* Loaded weight: 9,072 kg (20,000 lb)
* Max takeoff weight: 12,000 kg (27,000 lb)
* Powerplant: 2× TFE1042-70
o Dry thrust: 27 kN (6,000 lbf) each
o Thrust with afterburner: 42 kN (9,500 lbf) each
Performance
* Maximum speed: Mach 1.8
* Range: 1,100 km (600 nmi, 680 mi)
* Service ceiling: 16,800 m (55,000 ft)
* Rate of climb: m/s (ft/min)
Armament
* Guns: 1× 20 mm (0.787 in) M61A1 cannon
* Missiles:
o 2× Sky Sword I
o 2× Sky Sword II
o Wan Chien cluster bomb
* Crew: 2
* Length: 42 ft 7 in (12.98 m)
* Wingspan: 30 ft 1 in (9.17 m)
* Height: 15 ft 8.25 in (4.78 m)
* Empty weight: 14,200 lb (6,441 kg)
* Max takeoff weight: 26,400 lb (11,985 kg)
* Powerplant: 1× General Electric F404 afterburning turbofan
o Dry thrust: 11,925 lbf (53.07 kN)
o Thrust with afterburner: 17,775 lbf (79.1 kN)
Performance
* Maximum speed: Mach 1.4
* Range: 1,150 mi (1,851 km)
* Service ceiling: 48,000 ft (14,630 m)
Armament
* Guns: 1× M61A1 Vulcan 20 mm Gatling gun
* Rockets: LAU-3/68
* Missiles:
o Air-to-air: 2× AIM-9 Sidewinder
o Air-to-ground: 6× AGM-65 Maverick
* Bombs: 5× CBU-58 cluster, 9× Mk 82, 3× Mk 83/MK 84, and 9× Mk 20
* Crew: 1 pilot
* Length: 14.97 m (49 ft 1 in)
* Wingspan: 9.46 m (31 ft 0 in)
* Height: 4.77 m (15 ft 8 in)
* Wing area: 24.4 m² (ft²)
* Empty weight: 6,320kg (14,220 lb)
* Loaded weight: 9,100 kg (20,062 lb)
* Max takeoff weight: 12,700 kg (27,337 lb)
* Powerplant: 1× Russian-made RD-93 turbofan (49.4 kN)(81.3 kN) 1, 8,290 kgf (18,277 lbf
* Production version to have further improved RD-93B with 10% more thrust. For the long term, TVT or thrust vectoring nozzle to enhance maneuverability will also be an option in the future upon customer's request.)
Performance
* Maximum speed: Mach 1.8.[16] (1,120 mph)
* Ferry range: 3,000 km (1,864 mi)
* Service ceiling: 16,700 m (54,790 ft)
* Wing loading: kg/m² (lb/ft²)
* Thrust/weight: 0.95
The specifications could just be cross-checked with more authoritative references as you come across those.
Wvsuperhornet From United States of America, joined Aug 2007, 498 posts, RR: 0 Reply 7, posted (4 years 4 months 2 weeks 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 30698 times:
My guess would be its as good as block 5-/52 F-16's but most chinese pilots are poorly trained so I doubt right now they would be much of a threat to Tiwan, Japan or the US.
Jutes85 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 8, posted (4 years 4 months 2 weeks 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 30684 times:
Quoting Alberchico (Reply 4): Don't want to get dragged into politics but why on Earth why would our rock solid ally Israel sell any technology to China so they coulkd make a high tech fighter like this???
Arniepie From Belgium, joined Aug 2005, 1254 posts, RR: 1 Reply 9, posted (4 years 4 months 2 weeks 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 30642 times:
Quoting Wvsuperhornet (Reply 7): but most Chinese pilots are poorly trained so I doubt right now
How can we know if they are poorly trained or not?
Knowing their work ethics and education level ,there is no reason to believe that they are worse than any of their possible opponents.
Just take a look at how that other large Airforce evolved (Indian) over the last decade, now the Chinese AF has more financial strength than ever before there is no reason to believe that they are not making big leaps forward in their training techniques.
Also the notion that this bird could not be developed without the help from IAI (and indirectly the US) is somewhat ridiculous.
There is more than enough knowledge and expertise present in almost all technological fields in China.
They have millions of highly trained and educated engineers that are on parity with the rest of the world.
The Lavi maybe allowed them to cut a few corners and gave them a point of reference but it doesn't mean that they couldn't have done it all by themselves if they didn't have the Lavi to begin with.
Wvsuperhornet From United States of America, joined Aug 2007, 498 posts, RR: 0 Reply 10, posted (4 years 4 months 2 weeks 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 30425 times:
Quoting Arniepie (Reply 9): How can we know if they are poorly trained or not?
Knowing their work ethics and education level ,there is no reason to believe that they are worse than any of their possible opponents.
Just take a look at how that other large Airforce evolved (Indian) over the last decade, now the Chinese AF has more financial strength than ever before there is no reason to believe that they are not making big leaps forward in their training techniques
Because there has been several articles on the net and in the air magazines that have noted that the chinese have lost several aircraft due to pilots being poorly trained and not experienced in night flying thats how. I am not saying that the Chinese are stupid they arent, but you will not get an airforce that large trained well enough overnight to compete with western or even most old soviet block standards it will take several years for that to happen.
Michlis From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 737 posts, RR: 2 Reply 11, posted (4 years 4 months 2 weeks 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 30395 times:
Quote: Simple. They're not a "rock solid" ally. They're a dubious one at best.
Remember that if someone is your "ally" that does not necessarily always make them a "friend." Alliances are born out of political convenience and you need to watch your back. Doubtless, the Israelis have used us to further their interests and we have used them to further ours. Such is the nature of the game.
If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the outcome of a hundred battles.
OD720 From Lebanon, joined Feb 2003, 1903 posts, RR: 45 Reply 12, posted (4 years 4 months 2 weeks 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 30381 times:
Quoting Wvsuperhornet (Reply 10): Because there has been several articles on the net and in the air magazines that have noted that the chinese have lost several aircraft due to pilots being poorly trained and not experienced in night flying thats how. I am not saying that the Chinese are stupid they arent, but you will not get an airforce that large trained well enough overnight to compete with western or even most old soviet block standards it will take several years for that to happen.
Don't take it as a rule. Every air force has its elite well trained experienced pilots. The general state may be poor and the articles are probably right but never underestimate your enemy.
Bennett123 From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2004, 5743 posts, RR: 2 Reply 14, posted (4 years 4 months 2 weeks 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 30319 times:
Never forget that effectiveness is combination of factors. If they have a lot more planes then that would counter differences in quality.
GDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 12235 posts, RR: 84 Reply 16, posted (4 years 4 months 2 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 29933 times:
Alberchino, hate to tell you this, but Israel has done plenty more than just help China build an aircraft rather more modern than they have ever done before (all those Mig-19 and early model Mig-21 versions come to mind).
They even tried to sell their AEW radar system to China, but this time, the US put it's foot down, like Lavi, developed with US help, funded by lots of your tax $ too.
Also, likely count in Israeli weapons like their long established air to air missile series, better than another warmed up copy of the primitive AA-2, itself a very early model Sidewinder copy, that China produced before.
As to the aircraft itself, it's probably pretty capable enough, China has a large fleet of often museum pieces, some local oddities that would have been potent enough a few decades ago-though much better than what they replaced.
They are not just going to licence build Sukhoi aircraft ad-infinitum, they want a decent domestic design capability too.
I saw a doc years ago, showing the very poor training and limited hours of Chinese pilots, but that was then, it is known they have since invested a lot more in training since then-(the poor guys in the doc just had early model Mig-21 copies too).
RedFlyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 4013 posts, RR: 32 Reply 17, posted (4 years 4 months 2 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 29907 times:
Quoting Arniepie (Reply 9): There is more than enough knowledge and expertise present in almost all technological fields in China.
No disrespect intended, but is that why they have to copy everything to get a home-grown version? In addition to their latest fighter, which appears to be a copy of someone else's, they would not have managed to put a man in space had it not been for the almost identical copy of the Russian Soyuz and related equipment.
I'm not saying the Chinese won't become experts in all kinds of technology eventually, but I would say they have a ways to go yet. I think there are two Asian nations that are far more advanced technologically -- Japan and South Korea. Both of which have a powerful and indigenous industrial base.
Quoting Bennett123 (Reply 14): Never forget that effectiveness is combination of factors. If they have a lot more planes then that would counter differences in quality.
One of the benefits of getting older (and following history and politics closely along the way) is that you hear the same things again eventually. The old quantity vs. quality debate was all the rage back in the 70's and 80's. The U.S. was "gold-plating" all of their military hardware at staggering expense while the Warsaw Pact was churning out massive numbers of hardware on the cheap. I think that argument started to fall from headlines after the Israeli-Syrian Bekaa Valley dogfights of 1982 that resulted in some 80+ Syrian jets -- Soviet planes flown using Soviet tactics -- being shot down with no Israeli losses. And that argument was finally laid to rest (apparently not for good) during the first Gulf War.
Quoting OD720 (Reply 12): never underestimate your enemy
At the end of the day, that is probably one of the most important, if not the most important, tenets of military strategy.
AeroWeanie From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 1584 posts, RR: 54 Reply 19, posted (4 years 4 months 2 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 29810 times:
If the PLAAF crashes them like they have been crashing their Su-27s, there will be little to worry about. They have lost roughly a third of their Su-27s and half of the remainder are not airworthy at any given moment (source: recent issue of Aviation Week & Space Technology, backed up by crash reports in Air Forces Monthly). Reportedly, PLAAF Su-27s pilots only get 120 hours of flight time a year! The NATO minimum for fast jet pilots is 160-180 hours a year.
Quoting Acheron (Reply 1): Israel sold the blueprints and one of the prototypes to China along with some american equipment in it
The official disposition of the Lavi prototypes is: #1 and #2 were completed and flown, while #3, #4, and #5 were incomplete at the time of the program cancellation. Parts from #1 and #2 were used to complete unit #3 as the private-venture technology demonstrator (TD) aircraft after program cancellation. The gutted unit #2 was put in the Israeli Air Force museum at Beersheba for static display, and the rest (#1, #4, & #5) were scrapped. I have seen Lavis #2 and #3 with my own eyes in the last five years.
Flighty From United States of America, joined Apr 2007, 6468 posts, RR: 3 Reply 20, posted (4 years 4 months 2 weeks ago) and read 29752 times:
Quoting Arniepie (Reply 9): Also the notion that this bird could not be developed without the help from IAI (and indirectly the US) is somewhat ridiculous.
There is more than enough knowledge and expertise present in almost all technological fields in China.
The idea China can develop high-grade weapons is ridiculous. They just don't have the ability yet.
In 2025, yes they will. In 2007, no. China can't even build a decent car without a foreign-owned design. How could the possibly build a first-rate fighter jet? They are no Russia either in terms of aviation prowess.
China is about 30-40 years behind the USA in weapons technology. They are catching up though. And this is not an insult. It's just a note that it's crazy to think the USA's technology is/was a simple matter to replicate in a few short years. The USA took 60 solid years post-WWII to get the technology it has today. China's been spending real money for only 10 years now. They are getting what they have through espionage. Make no mistake about it. They could invent, but it would take decades for them to invent our technology. It took us that long, with far more money for 60 years.
F27Friendship From Netherlands, joined Jul 2007, 1106 posts, RR: 6 Reply 21, posted (4 years 4 months 1 week 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 29708 times:
Quoting AeroWeanie (Reply 19): The NATO minimum for fast jet pilots is 160-180 hours a year.
keep in mind that even high class nato airforces do not always reach this figure
Quoting AeroWeanie (Reply 19): The official disposition of the Lavi prototypes is: #1 and #2 were completed and flown, while #3, #4, and #5 were incomplete at the time of the program cancellation. Parts from #1 and #2 were used to complete unit #3 as the private-venture technology demonstrator (TD) aircraft after program cancellation. The gutted unit #2 was put in the Israeli Air Force museum at Beersheba for static display, and the rest (#1, #4, & #5) were scrapped. I have seen Lavis #2 and #3 with my own eyes in the last five years.
Quote: "In formal (official) Chinese sources, the J-10 is said to have been developed from the canceled Chengdu J-9, which was a canard-configuration fighter program earlier than the Israeli Lavi[11] - a fact that arguably counters the Lavi related speculations. In an interview, the general designer of J-10, Mr. Song Wencong (宋文骢 said, "Our nation's new fighter's external design and aerodynamics configuration are completely made by us and did not receive foreign assistance, this made me very proud and filled with pride. Our nation developed J-9 in the 1960s, this adopted the canard configuration. So, those statements that said J-10 is a copy of Israeli Lavi are just laughable."
Although the AL-31FN engine provides 6,000 lbf more dry thrust and 10,000 lbf more with afterburner than the F/A-50's F404, the J-10's OEW of 21,500 lbs, MTOW of 42,500 lbs and estimated US$41M cost put it in the heavier F-16's division, which is common in the region. However, it's also likely to see the smaller and more sprightly Golden Eagles south across North Korea.
Meanwhile, the JF-17's emerging adversary in its class bracket, the KAI T/A-50 Golden Eagle is reportedly close to to realizing its first export orders.....
Quote: "Enter the T-50/A-50 Golden Eagle, which offers a supersonic high-end trainer and light fighter aircraft at an attractive price, just as many of the world's training fleets are reaching ages of 30 years or more, and high-end fighters are pricing themselves out of reach for many countries. That combination may be about to spark some buyers on the international market, as well as the ROKAF.
[.....]
With a length of 43 feet and a wingspan of 30 feet, the 2-seat T-50 is about 4 feet shorter than the F-16; overall, it's only about 80% of the F-16's size. The relative size of the control surfaces and tails are larger, however, to improve handling characteristics at lower speeds and make the aircraft easier to land. Larger landing gear is also fitted, to absorb harder landings, which is to be expected from student pilots. Its form's resemblances to Lockheed Martin's F-16 are suggestive, and include the blended mid-set wing, complete with leading-edge root extensions and rear 'shelf' fairings ending in F-16-style split airbrakes. The air intake layout on the sides is somewhat similar to the F/A-18 Hornet or Northrop's F-20A Tigershark, and the aircraft is powered by the same engine: GE's popular, reliable and fuel-efficient F404, with slight improvements over the F404-GE-102's turbine and afterburner. The T-50 carries a navigation / attack system, and can carry Sidewinder missiles on the wingtips, as well as fuel, rockets, or qualified precision weapons on its 5 underwing and center pylons.
The T-50 family's empty weight is 14,000 pounds, and maximum takeoff gross weight is 29,700 pounds; the F404-GE-102 engine produces 17,700 pounds of thrust. Maximum rate of climb is 39,000 feet per minute; and the maximum speed is Mach 1.5. Service ceiling is 55,000 feet, the design load factor is 8gs, and the trainer airframe is designed for up to 10,000-hour service life (8,344 hours for the A-50).
[.....]
All in all, the T-50 may remind some people of the F-16 that was originally designed by the "Fighter Mafia" back in the 1970s, when they were busy breaking every big-jet, multi-role, high-priced rule the USAF had cultivated for over a decade. Its thrust/weight ratio ensures that it's no F-16; even so, 25 years after the F-16 was entering service, it retains one more comparison point: a similar price point in absolute dollars. A $20 million price point in the modern era places it firmly on the high end for a trainer, but its supersonic performance and versatility could still make the T-50 very popular indeed."
All told, a very worthy replacement for the many F-5s still in service, while still promising some growth potential, and a convincing counterfoil to the F-C1/JF-17, Yak-130 and Tejas LCAs that would likely replace the many MiG-21s and older generation Chinese fighters in the region and elsewhere - while also allowing acquisition in greater numbers to neutralize to some extent the huge Chinese buildup.
Quote: "DID's Benelux reader David Vandenberghe tips DID to the original RIA-Novosti report that Iran has signed a contract with China for the delivery of two squadrons (24) of its J-10 fighter planes, which are powered by Russian engines and avionics. Representatives of the Iran Aircraft Manufacturing Industrial Company said China would deliver the jets during the in 2008-2010 time frame. Novosti adds that 'Experts, estimating one fighter at $40 million, put the contract's value at $1 billion.' Iran's most advanced fighters are currently MiG-29s, many of which once belonged to Saddam Hussein and fled to Iran during the 1991 Desert Storm war.....
.....Nonetheless, it retains the aircraft's canard-delta layout and some of its capabilities, and its aerodynamics suggest an aircraft that is equal or slightly superior to American F-16 C/Ds. This could complicate Israeli strikes on targets related to Iran's nuclear program, though many other variables would also come into play for such scenarios.
[.....]
The Jerusalem Post recently covered the sale in the context of a possible early IAF in-service date for the F-35A , and added that there have been reports of a pending J-10 sale to Syria as well. Syria's fighter fleet is aging, and the addition of Chinese J-10s would complement its forthcoming multi-role MiG-29M2s… unless those are in fact bound for Iran, as Russian newspaper Kommersant reported."
"Everyone is entitled to my opinion." - Garfield
25 N74jw: That's about right. There is no end other than that. Israel does not like the pressure that comes with being a political ally to the U.S. All warfare
26 DEVILFISH: Apparently, the US now thinks so..... http://www.flightglobal.com/articles...ds-taiwan-air-threat-says-usa.html China's J-10 fighter leads Taiwan air
27 MCIGuy: China has said it will build four J-10s for every F-22 the US builds. I've got news, fellas, it ain't enough.
Sponsor Message: 
From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 2461 posts, 
From Spain, joined Sep 2005, 1186 posts, 
From Philippines, joined Jan 2006, 3973 posts, 
From Bahamas, joined Jul 2005, 2931 posts, 
B4e-Forever New Frontiers 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
From Belgium, joined Aug 2005, 1254 posts, 
From Lebanon, joined Feb 2003, 1903 posts, 
From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2004, 5743 posts, 
From Netherlands, joined Jul 2007, 1106 posts, 
).....
said, "Our nation's new fighter's external design and aerodynamics configuration are completely made by us and did not receive foreign assistance, this made me very proud and filled with pride. Our nation developed J-9 in the 1960s, this adopted the canard configuration. So, those statements that said J-10 is a copy of Israeli Lavi are just laughable."
Sponsor Message: 
Printer friendly format
