Monday, January 10, 2011


This is coolbert:

From a comment to the blog:

"Steiner said... The bigger story, entirely ignored by the mainstream press, is the deployment of the Chengdu J-10, which was developed with Israeli assistance from technology developed for the Lavi fighter"

The Chinese Chengdu J-10. A multi-role combat aircraft [MRCA] of the foremost type, design, and performance.

"The Chengdu J-10 . . . is a multi role fighter aircraft designed and produced by the People's Republic of China's Chengdu Aircraft Industry Corporation . . . the J-10 is a multi-role combat aircraft capable of all-weather day/night operation, that various sources have compared to the F-16, Mirage 2000, Rafale and Su-27"

The J-10 a very sophisticated combat aircraft. "Loaded" as they say, with all the bells and whistles, beyond what the average aviation enthusiast would expect from a Chinese design?

I do remember quite well the controversy involving the Lavi. A jet combat aircraft of indigenous Israeli design. Comparable to but better than the American F-16. The development project of the Lavi cancelled with a lot of recriminations from the Israeli public sector - - aircraft manufacture and design. Two prototypes of the Lavi kept in use subsequent to cancellation of the program, primarily to test: "The avionics of the Lavi were considered to be innovative and groundbreaking, and included self-analysis equipment to make maintenance easier".

That the Chinese J-10 owes A LOT [?] to the Lavi, the Lavi supposedly studied [?]by the Chinese, the final design [?] of the Chengdu incorporating design elements borrowed directly from the Lavi. Since the Lavi was funded by both the Israeli and Americans and a considerable [?] amount of American aircraft technology was used in the Lavi, well, figure it out for yourself what this means.

"According to some sources China was in possession of a Lavi during development of the J-10. Furthermore, due to the high level of American involvement in terms of technology sharing as well as funding, if these allegations were proven true, the sale of a Lavi and technical assistance in the production of the J-10 would represent a direct and illicit transfer of American technology to the Chinese by the Israelis. In sum, to a degree, the most advanced Chinese aircraft in the world would contain the most advanced American technology. However, the designer of the J-10, Song Wencong . . . has denied any connection whatsoever with Lavi program"

My perception is that the J-10 is analogous in many respects to other foreign designed aircraft, BUT that the J-10 is NOT a "clone" of the Lavi. I would also suspect the Chinese had a good look at the Lavi and incorporated many avionic concepts and technologies as originated by the Israeli into the J-10. NOT so much the "outside" package but the "inside"!

Here now with some images of the J-10 and other MRCA in the same "league" as the Chengdu "indigenous" design. Place close attention to the various similarities:

1. Chengdu J-10.

2. Eurofighter.

3. X-31.

4. Lavi.

5. Ye-8.

The Soviet Ye-8, first built in 1960 "Two built. 1960..1962.", an experimental aircraft based upon the design of the MiG-21, incorporates some interesting features not to be found on "western" combat airplanes until MUCH later.

"E-8 234.0K - Experimental fighter . . . The E-8 was a single-seat, single-engined aircraft with a delta wing and tail surfaces . . . but also with canard foreplanes. The fuselage was similar to that of the X-31 or the EFA [EuroFighter]"

This comment most appropriate: "(how long it took for the West to copy abandoned Soviet project...)" Copy is not so much the right word? You have to judge this all for yourself.


1 comment:

Steiner said...

Isreal's many, many supporters in Congress and the media may protest at the suggestion that significant assistance with the J-10 has been rendered to Red China, but the Jewish state's record of espionage against the United States and the transfer of military technology to the Communists is well established. Accordingly, it is in order to resolve any ambiguity in this matter against Israel, and to place the onus of guilt on that country and its advocates.