J-10 Thread IV

[ougoah]

Look up the J-9 with canards. J-10 is a natural progression of J-9, and it does incorporate Israeli tech but the DESIGN (with canards) precedes Lavi by decade or more.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Definitely. I wonder if J-10 vs J-9 comparison has ever been created? That would prove even more evidence that China didn't copy-cat Lavi's canard design if J-9 is super similar to J-10.

J-10 and Lavi do have some similarities. They are both single high thrust engine, close coupled canard 4th gen fighters. Just like Su-27 and F-15 also do have some similarities. J-10 has different weight distribution, FCS, materials, intake, engines, uncropped delta wings, sweep angles, and the list goes on. The list would be hundreds of pages long when we go below the surface. It doesn't take away China's effort. In fact at most Lavi's consultants that were paid to assist with J-10 project in whatever (if any) form, would still be a tiny fraction compared to what Chinese engineers put into it and of course even more importantly, the end result (product), the lessons learned, the industry formed, and the people who would continue developing other things.

Lavi was an unfinished prototype. It wasn't sold to China BUT Chinese government itself has said quite openly (in the form of interviews and documentaries) that Israel and Russia were both hired at parts of China's development of fly by wire for a 4th gen fighter program. The J-10 is called fully domestic because the semantics of that refers to fully Chinese made with every component sourced from China and it has mastered the entire thing along with every piece of technology and science behind whatever component it may be. So a fly by wire system that received purchased consultation (must have been relatively minor because no one sells the full set of expertise) to verify Chinese efforts and help with the project, is still entirely Chinese after it is mastered and all done in China for the J-10. This doesn't detract from CAC's efforts at all. They would still have done the lion share of work. If it was that easy, every second country would have done it and yet even the rich ones haven't even tried... because it isn't that easy and it isn't buying every piece of expertise off the shelf like purchasing the services of an accountant during tax season.

It should also be noted that China LOVES to play it safe. China hedges everything. It bought a share of Covid vaccine projects from the west in case its own efforts fail. It bought a share to Europe's Galileo GNS+GIS ecosystem with major equity. Again that was a hedge against China's own Beidou failing. Beidou is currently the most technologically sophisticated GNS+GIS system until GPS receives and finishes upgrades (to be an equal more or less). Galileo is slow and steadily going nowhere too quickly. Even specs and performance is far from impressive particularly for a delayed project. In this sphere, China also hedged with Glonass when USSR started running it. So with J-10, they had domestic teams doing FBW but felt safer with consultants who have completed that task. Even in that field, they got in two separate consultants for verification and any assistance needed - Russia and Israel.

The mistake those observers and commenters make is believing that China's hedges are evidence of its failures. It's laughable because of how untrue it is from HSR to GNS to FCS/fly by wire.

 

[Deino]

Actually I was not suggesting they're already producing batch 07. But you seem to think that's fairly plausible. ?
May I ask what do you base that assumption on? If the highest serial number we saw so far is 19-06, and if we saw it just now - how does that support the idea that the seventh batch must already be produced? Of course, I am not talking about long term pre-production items, but delivery of at least one batch 7 aircraft.

You are correct, I thought we saw a first Batch 06 earlier in 2020, but indeed, first rumours about a Batch 06 popped up on 1st November 2020 ...



As such based on my assumption that these batches have a size of about 40 aircraft - for all batches but the second one 3-39 & 4-40 have been the highest number which also fits nicely to the number of units confirmed - it would correspond to about 3.33 J-10s per months (in fact a rather low production rate).
Anyway, my assumption was, that if indeed 0601 was spotted in November, then today about 7 months later they should have built about 22-24 J-10Cs ... but yes, maybe - most likely - they are not yet in Batch 07!

 

[Inst]

Not a clone, but I think it's safe to say it was partly "inspired" by the Lavi. And there's no shame in accepting help/copying when one's domestic industries are weak. Everyone has to start somewhere and everyone has done it before. As long as you eventually progress to something greater than that.

TBH, when you do a close comparison, there are way too many similar design features.

Notably, the aircraft share a very similar aerodynamic formula, with the key differences being that the Lavi had swept wings, whereas the J-10 had a delta, and that the Lavi had close-coupled canards, whereas the J-10 had mid-coupled canards. In all other features the differences are in the details.

Anhedral-Dihedral canard-wing layout? Check. Tailfins built onto the engine pod? Check. ECM pod built between the engines and the wings? On both fighters.

Admittedly, there are only so many ways you can design a fighter.

 

[latenlazy]

TBH, when you do a close comparison, there are way too many similar design features.

Notably, the aircraft share a very similar aerodynamic formula, with the key differences being that the Lavi had swept wings, whereas the J-10 had a delta, and that the Lavi had close-coupled canards, whereas the J-10 had mid-coupled canards. In all other features the differences are in the details.

Anhedral-Dihedral canard-wing layout? Check. Tailfins built onto the engine pod? Check. ECM pod built between the engines and the wings? On both fighters.

Admittedly, there are only so many ways you can design a fighter.

Close vs mid coupling, swept vs delta, are not trivial differences. They completely change the aerodynamic properties of the plane.

 

[foxmulder]

TBH, when you do a close comparison, there are way too many similar design features.

Notably, the aircraft share a very similar aerodynamic formula, with the key differences being that the Lavi had swept wings, whereas the J-10 had a delta, and that the Lavi had close-coupled canards, whereas the J-10 had mid-coupled canards. In all other features the differences are in the details.

Anhedral-Dihedral canard-wing layout? Check. Tailfins built onto the engine pod? Check. ECM pod built between the engines and the wings? On both fighters.

Admittedly, there are only so many ways you can design a fighter.

Similarities between LAVI and J-10 is equal that of Mig-25 and F-15.

 

[Inst]

Similarities between LAVI and J-10 is equal that of Mig-25 and F-15.

Except that the real reason the MiG-25 underperforms as an air superiority fighter is its heavy weight. Initial NATO observations assumed that the MiG-25 was built out of lighter weight materials, but in actuality the MiG-25 employed nickel steel for its interceptor role, allowing it to survive high speeds at low cost.

With the J-10 and the Lavi, both were intended for strike fighter roles, although the Lavi was more tilted toward ground attack and the J-10 toward air defense. In practice, the J-10 evolved toward the Lavi's role.

====

A key issue with the J-10 and Lavi connection is that for the J-10 to have been derived from the Lavi design, the Israelis would have had to cooperated with what became an American rival. Consequently, neither the Israelis nor the Chinese will admit to considerable cooperation (beyond the known information on FCS aid).

Another factor, IMO, is that the design appearance of the J-10 vs the Lavi seems more similar to the X-35 vs the F-35; i.e, the Lavi in comparison to the J-10 seems more like a prototype.

===


As for swept wings vs delta wings; the primary advantage of swept wings vs delta wings is that swept wings offer a better lift to drag ratio, enhancing maneuverability. However, delta wings have a general superiority in terms of space for fuel storage, supersonic performance, and can be more competitive with swept wings once LERX or canards are added in. The Israeli choice of swept wings might indicate their willingness to trade off range for maneuverability, given the very low strategic depth of Israel.

As for the close-coupled vs mid-coupled canards, the J-10 being a mid-coupled canard design is compensated for simply by the fact that it has significantly larger canards than the Lavi. The mid-coupled vs close-coupled canard, once you consider the canard size, is not as major as the difference between the close-coupled vs long-coupled canards on the Rafale vs the Eurofighter, where the Eurofighter doesn't even make an effort to compensate for the loss of low-speed maneuverability provided by the choice of long-coupled canards.

===

In general, there are just too many similarities between the J-10 and Lavi. If it were the ventral strakes alone, we could just chalk up the J-10 to being also a straked canard fighter. But what I think is most distinctive (and underappreciated) about the J-10, the anhedral sweep of the inner wing, also shows up with the Lavi to a lesser extent, and there we have to start suspecting greater collaboration on the design stage.

 

[foxmulder]

Except that the real reason the MiG-25 underperforms as an air superiority fighter is its heavy weight. Initial NATO observations assumed that the MiG-25 was built out of lighter weight materials, but in actuality the MiG-25 employed nickel steel for its interceptor role, allowing it to survive high speeds at low cost.

With the J-10 and the Lavi, both were intended for strike fighter roles, although the Lavi was more tilted toward ground attack and the J-10 toward air defense. In practice, the J-10 evolved toward the Lavi's role.

====

A key issue with the J-10 and Lavi connection is that for the J-10 to have been derived from the Lavi design, the Israelis would have had to cooperated with what became an American rival. Consequently, neither the Israelis nor the Chinese will admit to considerable cooperation (beyond the known information on FCS aid).

Another factor, IMO, is that the design appearance of the J-10 vs the Lavi seems more similar to the X-35 vs the F-35; i.e, the Lavi in comparison to the J-10 seems more like a prototype.

===


As for swept wings vs delta wings; the primary advantage of swept wings vs delta wings is that swept wings offer a better lift to drag ratio, enhancing maneuverability. However, delta wings have a general superiority in terms of space for fuel storage, supersonic performance, and can be more competitive with swept wings once LERX or canards are added in. The Israeli choice of swept wings might indicate their willingness to trade off range for maneuverability, given the very low strategic depth of Israel.

As for the close-coupled vs mid-coupled canards, the J-10 being a mid-coupled canard design is compensated for simply by the fact that it has significantly larger canards than the Lavi. The mid-coupled vs close-coupled canard, once you consider the canard size, is not as major as the difference between the close-coupled vs long-coupled canards on the Rafale vs the Eurofighter, where the Eurofighter doesn't even make an effort to compensate for the loss of low-speed maneuverability provided by the choice of long-coupled canards.

===

In general, there are just too many similarities between the J-10 and Lavi. If it were the ventral strakes alone, we could just chalk up the J-10 to being also a straked canard fighter. But what I think is most distinctive (and underappreciated) about the J-10, the anhedral sweep of the inner wing, also shows up with the Lavi to a lesser extent, and there we have to start suspecting greater collaboration on the design stage.

What is this? Writing longer posts does not make you right. Let's assume China got all the design details from Israelis. The "end result", J-10, is soooo different than Lavi, Lavi can be at best considered as an inspiration for J-10 at this point. At this level, same "amount" of inspiration came from Su-27, F-16 and Mig-21 into J-10 design, too!! Frankly, I can see more of Mig-21, F-16 (which was inspiration to Lavi) and Su-27 in J-10

J-10 is a 20+ton fighter. Lavi is only 12 ton!
J-10 engine produces 50% more trust
J-10 flies more than Mach 2, Lavi is 1.5??

And Lavi had *never* finished its design process. It had only 2 flying prototypes. The remaining work to put in operation is arguably more of a challenge that what it achieved

They are not even same class. This is like saying Y-20 is copy of C-17 just because they look like each other

Anyhow this is futile because you just want to say "J-10 is a copy of Lavi" without saying it to look more "sophisticated"

 

[stannislas]

Emmm... sorry, but have you ever read what you posted before you pressed the "Post reply" button?

Except that the real reason the MiG-25 underperforms as an air superiority fighter is its heavy weight. Initial NATO observations assumed that the MiG-25 was built out of lighter weight materials, but in actuality the MiG-25 employed nickel steel for its interceptor role, allowing it to survive high speeds at low cost.

With the J-10 and the Lavi, both were intended for strike fighter roles, although the Lavi was more tilted toward ground attack and the J-10 toward air defense. In practice, the J-10 evolved toward the Lavi's role.

First, you skiped of respond to the argument of 'Mig-25 and a "mig-25 inspired" F-15 are very similar', and redirected to "underperformance of mig-25", which is not true btw, as mig-25 and f-15 is even not in the same generation, and scared the western for like 10 years.

A key issue with the J-10 and Lavi connection is that for the J-10 to have been derived from the Lavi design, the Israelis would have had to cooperated with what became an American rival. Consequently, neither the Israelis nor the Chinese will admit to considerable cooperation (beyond the known information on FCS aid).

Than imply because iseral and china has connection, so J-10 and Lavi much be close connected... uhhh, ok? you did high school math right? becuase I'm not complete understand the logic of the argument here.

Another factor, IMO, is that the design appearance of the J-10 vs the Lavi seems more similar to the X-35 vs the F-35; i.e, the Lavi in comparison to the J-10 seems more like a prototype.

I'm not attacking you man, but even if you are a troll, please go find another optometrist, your current one clearly did a poor job

As for swept wings vs delta wings; the primary advantage of swept wings vs delta wings is that swept wings offer a better lift to drag ratio, enhancing maneuverability. However, delta wings have a general superiority in terms of space for fuel storage, supersonic performance, and can be more competitive with swept wings once LERX or canards are added in. The Israeli choice of swept wings might indicate their willingness to trade off range for maneuverability, given the very low strategic depth of Israel.

As for the close-coupled vs mid-coupled canards, the J-10 being a mid-coupled canard design is compensated for simply by the fact that it has significantly larger canards than the Lavi. The mid-coupled vs close-coupled canard, once you consider the canard size, is not as major as the difference between the close-coupled vs long-coupled canards on the Rafale vs the Eurofighter, where the Eurofighter doesn't even make an effort to compensate for the loss of low-speed maneuverability provided by the choice of long-coupled canards.

Ok, listern careful here, reagradless of why Israelites did this and Chinese did that, such big differences in airframe between J-10 and Lavi required two complete different designs...

In general, there are just too many similarities between the J-10 and Lavi. If it were the ventral strakes alone, we could just chalk up the J-10 to being also a straked canard fighter. But what I think is most distinctive (and underappreciated) about the J-10, the anhedral sweep of the inner wing, also shows up with the Lavi to a lesser extent, and there we have to start suspecting greater collaboration on the design stage.

"In general, there are just too many reduculous arguments you made between J-10 and Lavi.", ok that's enough...

Seriously, what's your goal here? why you try so hard to make so many absurd arguments like "J-10 and Lavi have more similarities than X-35 and F-35"?
No offence, I'm just curious, and apologies if this is not very appropriate, but were you got paid to say things like this? Sorry to say this, but regular internet trol don't normally do this, after been slapped in face, they normally move on and choose somewhere else to troll in order to save their diginity. but to the best of my memory, this is not first time, a lot of people have repeataly told you many time on this, in this fourm, but clearly, you choose to ignore all of them, and stick on this argument and posted every now and then... uhhh....why?

 

[Inst]

I think it's highly probable, that if we have a 100 year span, and people declassify things, the J-10 will be shown to be derived from the Lavi, given the considerable design similarities between the Lavi and the J-10. The J-9 might form part of the J-10's heritage, but there are simply too many design similarities between the J-10 and Lavi for there to be no design relationship.

As I've said above, the most distinctive trait of the J-10 is the anhedral inner wing and the dihedral canard set-up, which allows the J-10 to have a lower canard angle that would be possible otherwise. The Lavi, coincidentally has something similar, and this trait is seen on no other canard fighter, with either there being an absence of anhedral inner wings, or that the entire wing is anhedral (Rafale).

That said, it should be considered that the J-10 is substantially improved over the base Lavi. The Lavi as originally designed seemed to have been a Gripen class fighter, with a relatively anemic T/W ratio. The J-10, even with Al-31s, at combat loads would have had a substantially superior T/W ratio.

In comparison with the moderately lighter Lavi, the J-10 is faster, longer-ranged, and carries a bigger payload. Earlier versions of the J-10 might have lost to the Lavi in a WVR fight, depending on how much advantage the swept wings provided over deltas in ideal, not real, circmustances. However, later J-10s simply had enough engine power that the Lavi would be hard pressed to outperform the J-10 for most of its flight envelope.

===

Which is why I'm saying that if, as I expect, the Chinese and Israelis eventually admit the Lavi and J-10 relationship, that will be between that of a prototype and the final version. The J-10, compared to the Lavi, even at comparable maturity levels, is simply a better fighter.

 

[PiSigma]

I think it's highly probable, that if we have a 100 year span, and people declassify things, the J-10 will be shown to be derived from the Lavi, given the considerable design similarities between the Lavi and the J-10. The J-9 might form part of the J-10's heritage, but there are simply too many design similarities between the J-10 and Lavi for there to be no design relationship.

As I've said above, the most distinctive trait of the J-10 is the anhedral inner wing and the dihedral canard set-up, which allows the J-10 to have a lower canard angle that would be possible otherwise. The Lavi, coincidentally has something similar, and this trait is seen on no other canard fighter, with either there being an absence of anhedral inner wings, or that the entire wing is anhedral (Rafale).

That said, it should be considered that the J-10 is substantially improved over the base Lavi. The Lavi as originally designed seemed to have been a Gripen class fighter, with a relatively anemic T/W ratio. The J-10, even with Al-31s, at combat loads would have had a substantially superior T/W ratio.

In comparison with the moderately lighter Lavi, the J-10 is faster, longer-ranged, and carries a bigger payload. Earlier versions of the J-10 might have lost to the Lavi in a WVR fight, depending on how much advantage the swept wings provided over deltas in ideal, not real, circmustances. However, later J-10s simply had enough engine power that the Lavi would be hard pressed to outperform the J-10 for most of its flight envelope.

===

Which is why I'm saying that if, as I expect, the Chinese and Israelis eventually admit the Lavi and J-10 relationship, that will be between that of a prototype and the final version. The J-10, compared to the Lavi, even at comparable maturity levels, is simply a better fighter.

I won't repeat myself again. The j10 is not based on the Lavi and I got evidence. So if you post more of this Lavi crab, I'll just report you for trolling .