Sponsor Message:
Military Aviation & Space Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Russians: 'Chinese J-10 Benefited From The Lavi'  
User currently offlineF27Friendship From Netherlands, joined Jul 2007, 1125 posts, RR: 5
Posted (6 years 7 months 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 5729 times:

Well, this is something already widely speculated on this forum, but it seams some Russian engineers who have worked with the Chinese confirm it:

http://www.janes.com/news/defence/systems/jdw/jdw080519_2_n.shtml

Quote:
Russian aerospace engineers have confirmed to Jane's that China's Chengdu J-10 fighter aircraft benefited from significant, direct input from Israel's Lavi programme - including access to the Israel Aircraft Industries (IAI) Lavi aircraft itself.

In a number of interviews Jane's has talked at length with several engineers, designers and technical specialists - some of whom have been working with their Chinese counterparts for decades and have had first-hand experience on Chinese military projects. They have provided detailed accounts of the assistance given to various Chinese manufacturers and their military aircraft projects. This has included extensive design and performance modelling, wind-tunnel testing and advanced aerodynamic design input.

Senior Russian engineers who spoke to Jane's recalled their many visits to Chengdu, and elsewhere in China, some of which began in the 1980s. Jane's was told how Chengdu officials of the highest level stated how they had one of the IAI Lavi prototypes in their facilities. Describing his conversations with Chengdu concerning possession of a Lavi aircraft, one Jane's source commented: "I did not consider that to be a revelation ... doesn't everyone know that already?"

It is not possible to independently verify the Russian comments. The charge of Lavi technology transfer has been made before, but this time the claims come from individuals with sustained personal experience of the programme. Both Chinese and Israeli officials have long refuted any purported links between the J-10 and the Lavi.



27 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineTGIF From Sweden, joined Apr 2008, 277 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (6 years 7 months 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 5702 times:

Interesting article!

I have been trying to go deeper in this matter but some questions are left...
a) What kind of technology from the Lavi program are the Chinese interested in; air frame, FCS, avionics?
b) What will the Israelis benefit from this; money, technology transfer?
c) Is the reward in b) big enough to jeopardize the relations with US?


User currently offlineF27Friendship From Netherlands, joined Jul 2007, 1125 posts, RR: 5
Reply 2, posted (6 years 7 months 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 5685 times:

well, please not that you should put your questions in the past tense,

I reckon they made some money out of it


User currently offlineBoeing4ever From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (6 years 7 months 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 5609 times:

Well I guess we can now rate the F-16 as officially comprimised.

Then again if the Russians and Chinese haven't been able to already study the F-16 in detail before the Lavi, then I'd have to say they're losing their touch.

Thank you once again to Israel. With friends like you, who needs enemies?  Yeah sure Maybe now we can shut off the aid tap.

 airplane B4e-Forever New Frontiers airplane 


User currently offlineF27Friendship From Netherlands, joined Jul 2007, 1125 posts, RR: 5
Reply 4, posted (6 years 7 months 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 5595 times:

many consider the Lavi a more capable aircraft than the F-16.
Apart from the funding, how much of the Lavi is actually US technology? Israeli engineers aren't really the worst you know


User currently offlineBoeing4ever From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (6 years 7 months 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 5566 times:



Quoting F27Friendship (Reply 4):
Apart from the funding, how much of the Lavi is actually US technology? Israeli engineers aren't really the worst you know

On paper, the Lavi was becoming very similar to the F-16 and F-18. In reality, however, Israel possessed neither the technology nor the capital required for such a project. According to a 1983 General Accounting Office (GAO) study,

Israel will be significantly dependent on US technology and financing for major portions of the aircraft. Israel will also require US approval for the planned third country sales because of the US engine and the significant amount of US origin high technology used in the Lavi's airframe construction, avionics and planned weapons system.13

Examples of this technology include Pratt and Whitney PW1120 engines; graphite epoxy composite materials; electronic countermeasures (ECM) parts; radar-warning receivers and their logarithms; wide-angle, heads-up display; programmable signal-processor emulator; flight-control computer; single-crystal turbine technology; and computer and airframe system.14

******

Although Israel lost a symbol of technological prowess, it gained access to the latest US aerospace technology, obtained sophisticated US aerospace industry computers-which have a variety of other uses-and gained irreplaceable experience in state-of-the-art aeronautical processes.22 Indeed, in 1988 Israel surprised the world with its first space launch. 23 More than likely, the technology and experience gained from the Lavi project, together with space technology acquired in joint Strategic Defense Initiative research with the US, provided Israel with the technological base for this achievement.

*******

At the time the Lavi program was terminated, US contractors were building approximately 40 percent of the aircraft's systems. According to Defense Minister Rabin, 730 US firms were either subcontractors or vendors on the program.28 The issue of technology transfer was a prime point of contention, and Israel initially found itself at odds with the US State Department and Department of Defense.29 To resolve this roadblock, Israel played on the personal relationship between Israeli minister of defense Arens and US secretary of state George P. Shultz.

*******

During the course of the Lavi's development, Israel was able to take advantage of US R&D on a variety of systems such as derivative engines, composite-materials technology, avionics, and ECM for the F-15, F-16, and F-18.35 In addition to the formal technology licenses and the plethora of US subcontractors and vendors, who also provided direct insights into the US aeronautical system, Israel pursued another source of technological information: scientific exchanges. "In March of 1984 the U.S. and Israel signed a Memorandum of Agreement concerning exchanges of scientists and engineers, and cooperation in research, development, procurement and logistics support for selected defense equipment."36

******Transfer of Advanced Technology

According to a 1983 GAO report, "Israel more than any other country has been provided with a higher level of military technologies having export potential."55 On more than one occasion, this technology transfer occurred over the objections of DOD and US aerospace firms and placed Israel in a more advanced technological position than even the closest US allies, such as Great Britain and West Germany.56

A 1983 study of the Israeli defense industry raises another point about sharing technology with Israel:

A number of U.S. companies have expressed concerns that doing business with an Israeli company would probably result in all of the U.S. company's ideas and designs being appropriated without proper compensation. The U.S. company could expect to find itself competing with its own technology and designs in the international marketplace.57

Although this sentiment may be too generalized, it represented the feelings of some US industry officials, based on prior experience with the basic Sidewinder and AIM-AL air intercept missiles.58

Despite assurances to the contrary, Israel probably would have exported the Lavi because of the small domestic market and the immense national stake in advanced-technology exports as a means of financial recovery. The Washington Post report on the Lavi revealed the existence of an IAI marketing document of the early 1980s that outlined plans to sell the aircraft to third world countries.59 Further, Moshe Keret, the head of IAI, stated in 1987 that IAI had no specific customers in mind but that by the mid-1990s the Lavi "would be able to speak for itself in export competitions. [At that time,] it might be possible to sell a stripped version of the aircraft in the export market."60 While there is no firm evidence indicating that Israel has offered the Lavi or its technology to other nations, some open source reports suggest that the People's Republic of China has purchased a sophisticated Lavi radar system and is seeking Lavi avionics.61

********

The United States made a serious error when it became directly involved in the Lavi project with Israel. The resultant loss of US technology, money, and jobs, as well as the ill will generated among other Middle Eastern allies, is testimony to an ill-conceived, hastily executed policy. Further, the pattern of behind-the-scenes maneuvering that typified the project is eye-opening and indicative of the overwhelming support enjoyed by Israel in Congress, the influence of Congress on foreign policy, and the ease with which bureaucratic roadblocks can be overcome by a skillful, determined effort.

The Lavi story is not a happy one for any of the participants, and its termination--while justified on both financial and political grounds--left bitter feelings in many quarters. The Lavi represented a dream for Israel and galvanized tremendous support and enthusiasm. Completely redesigning the aircraft in 1982 proved to be a fatal flaw, leading to major cost overruns and drawing the United States into the role of major partner, banker, and provider of technology. The Lavi project was not in the best interests of the United States, and we should have recognized that fact in 1983.



http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/row/3fal90.htm

 airplane B4e-Forever New Frontiers airplane 


User currently offlineMoo From Falkland Islands, joined May 2007, 4088 posts, RR: 4
Reply 6, posted (6 years 7 months 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 5509 times:



Quoting TGIF (Reply 1):
c) Is the reward in b) big enough to jeopardize the relations with US?

This is nowhere big enough to jepordise relations with the US, the Israeli lobby in the US is simply too large and has too much power in the political parties.

Israel would have to be taking delivery of a brand new F/A-22 and slapping a 'Deliver to: China' sticker on it before the political will in Washington got enough dirt to overcome the lobby.


User currently offlineF27Friendship From Netherlands, joined Jul 2007, 1125 posts, RR: 5
Reply 7, posted (6 years 7 months 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 5485 times:

thnx for the extensive overview Boeing4ever.

However one remark:

If they deliberately sold technology to China, I can't imagine they would deliberately violate US export laws (since they turned down other deals that were closed be signed after US intervention). The current embargo imposed on China dates back to 1989 if I'm not mistaken and the US was involved in upgrading the J-7 fighters and probably trying to sell other high-tech weaponry as well.

Could it be that this tech-transfer from Israel has taken place before this new embargo with the go-ahead of the US?
I can imagine that such information is not necesarily public and it would explain, that as far as I know, this has not become a scandal of any sort?

so it could all be true, but the US government knew it al along?


User currently offlineMoo From Falkland Islands, joined May 2007, 4088 posts, RR: 4
Reply 8, posted (6 years 7 months 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 5413 times:



Quoting F27Friendship (Reply 7):

If they deliberately sold technology to China, I can't imagine they would deliberately violate US export laws (since they turned down other deals that were closed be signed after US intervention).

Why not? US law is not Israeli law, however much the US likes to export its will.

It always makes me laugh that I have to 'agree' not to ship my Dell to Iran or someplace either directly or indirectly, because it would violate US law - even though I am not in the US, the computer never came from the US (built and shipped in the UK), and I am not a US citizen. Never the less, I have to agree not to violate US law.


User currently offlineGreaser From Bahamas, joined Jan 2004, 1101 posts, RR: 4
Reply 9, posted (6 years 7 months 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 5303 times:



Quoting Moo (Reply 8):
even though I am not in the US, the computer never came from the US (built and shipped in the UK), and I am not a US citizen. Never the less, I have to agree not to violate US law.

Yea but you're in a different situation. 1: your dell computer is not big time tech. 2. You're only shipping 1 dell. 3. It's not militarily important.

Sure, any country such as Israel could theoretically ship the latest batch of US tech to North Korea/Iran. But don't count on getting ANY more significant shipments of US military goods. The Israelis would shut themselves out of a supplier (and financier) who they cannot shut out.



Now you're really flying
User currently offlineBoeing4ever From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 10, posted (6 years 7 months 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 5289 times:



Quoting F27Friendship (Reply 7):
If they deliberately sold technology to China, I can't imagine they would deliberately violate US export laws (since they turned down other deals that were closed be signed after US intervention). The current embargo imposed on China dates back to 1989 if I'm not mistaken and the US was involved in upgrading the J-7 fighters and probably trying to sell other high-tech weaponry as well.

Could it be that this tech-transfer from Israel has taken place before this new embargo with the go-ahead of the US?
I can imagine that such information is not necesarily public and it would explain, that as far as I know, this has not become a scandal of any sort?

so it could all be true, but the US government knew it al along?

Don't know for sure, but irregardless IAI would have been pressured to not sell any US technology period to prevent home industry from facing it's own tech overseas.

Furthermore, even if Israel had deliberatly violated the embargo, the aforementioned lobby is powerful. And forget the lobby, there is an ingrained and short-sighted sense that Israel is vital to our national security interests in one of the most volitile regions on the planet. Israel has a bit more of a cushin than say Germany which now can be supplanted by Poland or the Czech Republic.

 airplane B4e-Forever New Frontiers airplane 


User currently offlineF27Friendship From Netherlands, joined Jul 2007, 1125 posts, RR: 5
Reply 11, posted (6 years 7 months 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 5243 times:



Quoting Moo (Reply 8):
Why not? US law is not Israeli law, however much the US likes to export its will.

that's not how it works

Quoting Moo (Reply 8):
It always makes me laugh that I have to 'agree' not to ship my Dell to Iran or someplace either directly or indirectly, because it would violate US law - even though I am not in the US, the computer never came from the US (built and shipped in the UK), and I am not a US citizen. Never the less, I have to agree not to violate US law.

if you would do that on a personal initiative, not a lot would happen; however, if you would set up a bussiness of some sort, or would take your dell laptop with you on business travel, there is a much higher chance the related US services will find out about it. And when they do, you better not set foot on US soil, because you will get arrested.

US Export laws are not always easy to understand, but it's not necesary for example, that the computer was built in the US to be falling under the export regulations.


User currently offlineTrex8 From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 4871 posts, RR: 14
Reply 12, posted (6 years 7 months 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 5182 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting Boeing4ever (Reply 3):
Well I guess we can now rate the F-16 as officially comprimised

it is already widely held that Pak F16s have been avaialble for Chinese scrutiny for years


User currently offlineBoeing4ever From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 13, posted (6 years 7 months 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 5128 times:



Quoting Trex8 (Reply 12):
it is already widely held that Pak F16s have been avaialble for Chinese scrutiny for years



Quoting Boeing4ever (Reply 3):
Then again if the Russians and Chinese haven't been able to already study the F-16 in detail before the Lavi, then I'd have to say they're losing their touch.

 Wink

I think the bigger deal here is that a supposedly close ally of ours sold our technology to one of our adversaries. We know Pakistan can't be trusted, heck they're likely protecting Bin Laden.

 airplane B4e-Forever New Frontiers airplane 


User currently offlineTrex8 From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 4871 posts, RR: 14
Reply 14, posted (6 years 7 months 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 5039 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting Boeing4ever (Reply 13):
I think the bigger deal here is that a supposedly close ally of ours sold our technology to one of our adversaries.

everyone looks out for number one and of all our "close allies" I would suggest that the Israelis are far more likely to put their interests before the mutual interests of the US and Israel. Let us not forget that for the first quarter century of its existence we weren't that "close"


User currently offlineBoeing4ever From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 15, posted (6 years 7 months 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 4967 times:



Quoting Trex8 (Reply 14):
everyone looks out for number one and of all our "close allies" I would suggest that the Israelis are far more likely to put their interests before the mutual interests of the US and Israel. Let us not forget that for the first quarter century of its existence we weren't that "close"

Then it would be in our interests, therefore, to not support Israel anymore. Indeed, every nation has to look out for itself...but you give a little, you get a little. Stabbing us in the back will be remembered. They have to decide how important we are to their interests...their survival. Europe largely stopped selling them military hardware...we picked up the slack. Iran has made numerous threatening references to Israel. I'm pretty sure they wouldn't like it if we got pissed off enough to cut them off.

That of course is the wide world of global politics.

 airplane B4e-Forever New Frontiers airplane 


User currently offlineTrex8 From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 4871 posts, RR: 14
Reply 16, posted (6 years 7 months 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 4876 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting Boeing4ever (Reply 15):
Europe largely stopped selling them military hardware...we picked up the slack.

it was also a case of if you give a 1/3 of their military budget to them courtesy of the US taxpayer, you end up getting US goods. thats why NG were going to build them German subs in the US till it looked like a poor idea from an industrial viewpoint and Bonn were willing to cough up the actual money for the subs besides the design.


User currently offlineBoeing4ever From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 17, posted (6 years 7 months 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 4862 times:



Quoting Trex8 (Reply 16):
it was also a case of if you give a 1/3 of their military budget to them courtesy of the US taxpayer, you end up getting US goods. thats why NG were going to build them German subs in the US till it looked like a poor idea from an industrial viewpoint and Bonn were willing to cough up the actual money for the subs besides the design.

All the more reason to shut off the tap to countries like Israel, Eqypt, etc. They may very well be pressured into buying US goods, but if we're getting reports of the "J-10 benefited from the Lavi", we need to start considering the long term impact on our defense industries as well as our national security. Everyone has to look out for number one...

 airplane B4e-Forever New Frontiers airplane 


User currently offlineTrex8 From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 4871 posts, RR: 14
Reply 18, posted (6 years 7 months 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 4858 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting Boeing4ever (Reply 17):
Everyone has to look out for number one...

if only it were that easy! if that was the only criteria guiding US foreign policy in the Middle east we would never have recognized Israel to begin with as oil is far more important than principles and religious dogma from a practical viewpoint!


User currently offlineF27Friendship From Netherlands, joined Jul 2007, 1125 posts, RR: 5
Reply 19, posted (6 years 7 months 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 4855 times:

maybe we can get back OT and discuss the J-10 and it;s similarities with the lavi (and/or F-16?)

User currently offlineBoeing4ever From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 20, posted (6 years 7 months 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 4850 times:



Quoting Trex8 (Reply 18):
if only it were that easy! if that was the only criteria guiding US foreign policy in the Middle east we would never have recognized Israel to begin with as oil is far more important than principles and religious dogma from a practical viewpoint!

Not necessarily. Part of looking out for number one is having allies. Besides, Israel might have been recognized, but we might not be in so deep that everyone accuses us of having a pro-Israel bias.

Quoting F27Friendship (Reply 19):
maybe we can get back OT and discuss the J-10 and it;s similarities with the lavi (and/or F-16?)

Difficult to do. The Lavi/F-16 breech is a sore thumb sticking out in the topic of US-Israel relations. But we'll try.  Smile

 airplane B4e-Forever New Frontiers airplane 


User currently offlineVoodoo From Niue, joined Mar 2001, 2101 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (6 years 7 months 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 4676 times:

Well it can always work both ways with arms exports. You can see the ironic headline already sometime in the future:
'US protests to Beijing over large Iranian 'Chengdu J-10' fighter order'.  Big grin



` Yeaah! Baade 152! Trabi of the Sky! '
User currently offlineGDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 13252 posts, RR: 77
Reply 22, posted (6 years 7 months 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 4607 times:

Speculation I know, but I cannot help but consider just how big a story this would be had China got, through deliberate transfer, advanced military technology from certain EU nations, with US elements or not.
I think there would be a rather large collective bursting of blood vessels!

Still, they helped Apartheid South Africa get the bomb (though these were dismantled after 1994) as well as all manner of other weapons.
This was dead against US policy at the time.

Then there is the espionage in the US....

Saying that 'well they are just looking out for themselves' would not be heard too much, in the case of my hypothetical example above.


User currently offlineF27Friendship From Netherlands, joined Jul 2007, 1125 posts, RR: 5
Reply 23, posted (6 years 7 months 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 4604 times:

the US was trying to sell the radar meant for the F-20 Tigerschark to China prior to the boycot

User currently offlineTrex8 From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 4871 posts, RR: 14
Reply 24, posted (6 years 7 months 22 hours ago) and read 4552 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting F27Friendship (Reply 23):
the US was trying to sell the radar meant for the F-20 Tigerschark to China prior to the boycot

actually the US had approved the F16s APG66 for Grummans upgrade for F8 fighters,(the APG67 was never in line to be sold to PRC, it had already been selected by the ROC for its IDF Ching Kuo fighter), US also sold them the design of the Mk44 ASW torpedo (and fortunately Chinese machine tools are metric so they gave up on that idea and went Italian A244 instead!)


25 Wvsuperhornet : The Chinese were given an F-16 by Pakistan in turn china agreed to make them the lightweight fighter "I cant remember the name of it, if someone can
26 Boeing4ever : Brilliant ideas haven't been a staple of our government for quite some time... F-22s or F-35s in Israeli hands...oh dear. As long as they don't turn
27 Wvsuperhornet : can't argue with that!!!
Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic Russians: 'Chinese J-10 Benefited From The Lavi'
Username:
No username? Sign up now!
Password: 


Forgot Password? Be reminded.
Remember me on this computer (uses cookies)
  • Military aviation related posts only!
  • Not military related? Use the other forums
  • No adverts of any kind. This includes web pages.
  • No hostile language or criticizing of others.
  • Do not post copyright protected material.
  • Use relevant and describing topics.
  • Check if your post already been discussed.
  • Check your spelling!
  • DETAILED RULES
Add Images Add SmiliesPosting Help

Please check your spelling (press "Check Spelling" above)


Similar topics:More similar topics...
Lessons From The Navy's LCS Acquisition... posted Fri Apr 25 2008 10:07:27 by MedAv
X-files From The Cnes posted Fri Mar 23 2007 18:20:59 by Tancrede
Chinese J-10 posted Fri Dec 8 2006 07:54:34 by Wrldwndrer
A-10 Yanked From Halifax Airshow posted Thu Sep 7 2006 16:40:46 by Bmacleod
What Is This Space Project From The 60's posted Sun Jan 1 2006 12:12:33 by Aak777
Any Pictures From The Cockpit Of SR-71/U2? posted Fri Nov 11 2005 22:52:25 by KDTWFlyer
Earth Views From The Moon posted Fri Oct 21 2005 07:56:06 by HAWK21M
Photos From The Miramar Air Show posted Mon Oct 17 2005 07:13:44 by PizzaPolli
Military Women From The World posted Tue Oct 4 2005 05:48:31 by Duce50boom
B-25C Lifted From The Bottom Of Lake Murray, SC posted Tue Sep 20 2005 17:07:54 by Garnetpalmetto

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format