Because the J-15 is a su-33 clone with totally different avionics, sensors, weapons, and electronic packages. It's also a triplane, making it very different to a Lavi. I get what you're trying to say but those naysayers cannot afford to go full retard like that otherwise they would have even less credibility.
J-15 carrier-borne fighter thread
- Thread starter Jeff Head
- Start date
Because the J-15 is a su-33 clone with totally different avionics, sensors, weapons, and electronic packages. It's also a triplane, making it very different to a Lavi. I get what you're trying to say but those naysayers cannot afford to go full retard like that otherwise they would have even less credibility.
Actually, it had happened.
In a post of J-16 in reddit there is one guy said that it looks like an F-18.
MastanKhan
Junior Member
Hi,
If you want to claim to be stupid---you may make that claim---but even being stupid has its limitations---.
Says the one who claims at the PDF that the FC-31 is a F-35-clone!
The German sense of humor is strange, but he's not picking up my sarcasm. And the FC-31 is substantially similar to the F-35 in terms of aerodynamics; the details vary, of course, as it's twin-engined and the LERX / delta configuration is informed by the JF-17. Compared to the J-20, the J-31 isn't trying anything new.
MastanKhan
Junior Member
Says the one who claims at the PDF that the FC-31 is a F-35-clone!
Hi,
I know you for longtime now---. You try hard to PIN PRICK so the truth can slip out---. Ain't falling for that.
Stop acting TOO CLEVER---. Be the school teacher that you are---.
I trust Retd Air Vice Marshall Shahid Latif over some key board warriors---.
Honestly, this "copy" claiming is so much annoying and even if there are surely cases in which this is justified, most who claim this sometimes mantra-like are either politically so much biased and not interested in facts by the slightest way, use this due to other reasons but know exactly that it is more an advanced reason or simply they are stupid and uninformed. At best i would accept something like "there is another perception or definition of copy and clone".
IMO the definition is simple. Everything as you say, which is "similar to XXX in terms of YYY" but otherwise differs in detai cannot be called a copy or clone. Just look, what a copy or in genetics a clone is: a 1:1 replica and as such the FC-31 cannot be a clone, the J-10 is not a Lavi clone and everyone who insists this is plain wrong. And this includes even senior members from other forums, Retd Air Vice Marshalls or US politicians. Period.
Or are all cars on each street in every country clones of each other only since they are "similar to XXX in terms of YYY"?
I think in this case it is a curious example of human psychology. In most Pakistanis mind's the US has a mythical status in technological dominance. This isn't just true for Pakistanis, almost all peoples feel this way including Chinese in the past. But as one approaches the US, they feel they need to start removing these psychological barriers in order to meet or exceed the abilities of the best. Otherwise it becomes impossible. However for those who are nowhere on this scale of abilities, they must preserve the status quo because a quickly changing world is uncomfortable for most people. Especially one where they are still going absolutely nowhere.
It is entirely true that many Chinese organisations copy commercial product designs. But this is only those who do that! They are usually managed by uneducated older generations who have gone through the cultural revolution and do not have quite the "taste" and "style" levels of the West. They order their employees to go for these stupid copy designs but at the same time it works because it sells. However this is not all businesses in China and increasingly not the case. In fact China is responsible for quite a lot of innovation. Invisible because these days innovation is more detail oriented, it's transistor design, small modules, software changes, manufacturing tolerances etc. This is happening and the more people pretend it doesn't exist, the further they fall behind. China is an industrial power and an innovator approaching that of Japan, USA, and Germany.
Design copies are superficial anyway. It's only a surface attribute. What lies underneath is what's really interesting. For the small private car makers who are still copying surface designs, they're engineering underneath are usually crap or obsolete anyway. J-10 and Lavi/ J-31 and F-35 are entirely different beasts. Japan can make great cars, they cannot anymore make great planes without much investment and time.
It is entirely true that many Chinese organisations copy commercial product designs. But this is only those who do that! They are usually managed by uneducated older generations who have gone through the cultural revolution and do not have quite the "taste" and "style" levels of the West. They order their employees to go for these stupid copy designs but at the same time it works because it sells. However this is not all businesses in China and increasingly not the case. In fact China is responsible for quite a lot of innovation. Invisible because these days innovation is more detail oriented, it's transistor design, small modules, software changes, manufacturing tolerances etc. This is happening and the more people pretend it doesn't exist, the further they fall behind. China is an industrial power and an innovator approaching that of Japan, USA, and Germany.
Design copies are superficial anyway. It's only a surface attribute. What lies underneath is what's really interesting. For the small private car makers who are still copying surface designs, they're engineering underneath are usually crap or obsolete anyway. J-10 and Lavi/ J-31 and F-35 are entirely different beasts. Japan can make great cars, they cannot anymore make great planes without much investment and time.
Last edited: