How regulary? I mean, they cant watch EVERY Pakistan F-16 EVERY minute? And even that wouldnt be enouth as Chinese enginiers could be painted as Pakistan technicans (if Pakistan agreed to help China of course).The American team used to visit regularly, especially just to make sure that Pakistan din't give F-16(s) to China. There are several pics of it on the net. May be you can find some on DT as well.
Pakistan was sanction for their nuclear program, had nothing to do with giving chinese access to the F-16. IIRC, announced plans to buy 32 Mirage 2000-5 from France in 1997 but for some reason the deal fell apart.And USA DID punished Pakistan... they refused to sell new F-16 as long as they could. Denying the selling any longer would have resulted Pakistan buying Mirage/Rafale/Su-30/whatever. And this is NOT what USA want.
J-10 was the evolution and refinement of the J-9 project. J-9 project was initiated as the next generation fighter to replace Chinese forces of large Mig-21 fighters, it lost the bidding to the J-8. J-9 back then was deemed to be to risky and technologically challenging back then, since Chinese aerospace wasn't matured yet. J-10 utilises the J-9 foward canards configuration, repositions the airintakes from side mounts to belly mounted. Now misconception is the J-9 actually outdates the IAI Lavi about a decade.I think I remember something regarding this but I might have mixed things up.
Chinese were helped by the israeli's in desgning the J-10 and hence it was heavily based on the cancelled lavi, which in turn was supposed to be a super f-16. This caused the J-10 to look like a f-16?
I use super here because that's what lavi was supposed to be back then compared to older f-16s. I am not making any comparison to new Block-52 f-16s
Chinese J-10 'benefited from the Lavi project' - Jane's Defence News
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.
Both these sources are from different sides of the fence . If you compare the two its hard to accept your statement that J-10 is not derived from lavi.Jian-10 (J-10, F-10) Multirole Fighter Aircraft - SinoDefence.com
The development of the J-10 was reportedly assisted by Israel, which provided the technologies of its cancelled IAI Lavi lightweight fighter including the aerodynamic design and the software for the “fly-by-wire” flight control system.
There is no question that J-10 received help from both the Russians and Israelis, but that's it. If you just put a picture of J-10 and Lavi side by side, you will see a lot of differences. If you look at the dimension of J-10 vs Lavi, then look at the dimension/weight of the engines used by these fighters, you'd see a huge difference too.Jian-10 (J-10, F-10) Multirole Fighter Aircraft - SinoDefence.com
Chinese J-10 'benefited from the Lavi project' - Jane's Defence News
above two links from jane's and sinodefence both mention J-10's relationship to the lavi program.
Both these sources are from different sides of the fence . If you compare the two its hard to accept your statement that J-10 is not derived from lavi.
If they said J-10 is are version of the Flanker then you would believe that to then? Just overlap the 2 fighters over each other and you'll see their different. So if Israel assisted how come China had canard technology before Lavi was even on the drawing board? Common sense China had canard design on fighters before Lavi was even born, J-9 was cancelled due to the slow pace of the project and technology requirement back then. The J-10 is larger and heavier then the Lavi. I don't doubt the assistance given by Israel, but saying its heavily based of the Lavi doesn't seem correct. Its worked around the J-9 is evident with modifications here and there from influence of foreign fighters.Jian-10 (J-10, F-10) Multirole Fighter Aircraft - SinoDefence.com
Chinese J-10 'benefited from the Lavi project' - Jane's Defence News
above two links from jane's and sinodefence both mention J-10's relationship to the lavi program.
Both these sources are from different sides of the fence . If you compare the two its hard to accept your statement that J-10 is not derived from lavi.
As a head moderator at sinodefenceforum, I can tell you that sinodefence is far from infallible. JDW gets Chinese news wrong all the time. If you followed PLA enough, you would see what I'm talking about here. Just think about this, when you have to fit in a much larger engine, that requires changing the entire structure of the plane and have to go through wind tunnel testing and further modifications and such. So, there is no way they can actually copy Lavi. Best we can say is that the test results from Lavi helped the development of J-10 and that Israeli engineers working in China used their experience to help J-10. And probably more importantly, the avionics is probably where they got the most important help.I am constantly citing sources to you as reasons for my deductions.
While what you are simply making statements without backing them up. I really want to see some unbiased source saying that J-10 was not derived from lavi. We all know what official chinese and Israeli line is. I can even quote an unofficial Israeli source (I have already quoted sinodefence as the unofficial chinese source) that says J-10 is based on lavi.
The Phalcon Sale to China: The Lessons for Israel, by Jonathan Adelman
No I don't think J-9 is based on lavi. Not even considering that here has been no source claiming J-9 being based on lavi, other than the fact that both have canards(though not similar configuration) and single engine there is absolutely no similarity between the two project's designs.
Is there a source that makes you think it was just israelis helping china with simple avionics and such of J-10 and there was no 'inspiration/copying' from lavi's design?
[Ìùͼ][ÌÖÂÛ]Ô*¼ß-9×ÜʦÃ÷È··´¶ÔÂíÉϸã´ó·É»úÏîÄ¿£¡£¡£¡ --ÃÀÑÔÍø-¾üÊÂ-ÂÛ̳I am constantly citing sources to you as reasons for my deductions.
While what you are simply making statements without backing them up. I really want to see some unbiased source saying that J-10 was not derived from lavi. We all know what official chinese and Israeli line is. I can even quote an unofficial Israeli source (I have already quoted sinodefence as the unofficial chinese source) that says J-10 is based on lavi.
The Phalcon Sale to China: The Lessons for Israel, by Jonathan Adelman
No I don't think J-9 is based on lavi. Not even considering that here has been no source claiming J-9 being based on lavi, other than the fact that both have canards(though not similar configuration) and single engine there is absolutely no similarity between the two project's designs.
Is there a source that makes you think it was just israelis helping china with simple avionics and such of J-10 and there was no 'inspiration/copying' from lavi's design?
@tphuangAs a head moderator at sinodefenceforum, I can tell you that sinodefence is far from infallible. JDW gets Chinese news wrong all the time. If you followed PLA enough, you would see what I'm talking about here. Just think about this, when you have to fit in a much larger engine, that requires changing the entire structure of the plane and have to go through wind tunnel testing and further modifications and such. So, there is no way they can actually copy Lavi. Best we can say is that the test results from Lavi helped the development of J-10 and that Israeli engineers working in China used their experience to help J-10. And probably more importantly, the avionics is probably where they got the most important help.
Having said that, J-10B is using a whole different avionics structure from J-10, so it's completely different from Lavi now.
I'm honoured that you think I might have better knowledge of J-10's avionics than you do.@tphuang
The wind tunnel models that are used for testing are almost always very small (atleast the ones I have seen) and the basic idea is to get the design( placement of components intake shape etc.) right for the correct airflow, the same design once perfected then gets extrapolated to a larger frame for the actual aircraft, So if a wind tunnel test results are available the design can be extrapolated to a frame of any comparable(engine size accomodated, this might be different if there is a very big size difference since you don't want to unnecessarily increase the dimensions of other aspects of the airframe too much just so you can accomodate a bigger engine). in fact if you have the airflow patterns results, minor changes can be made in that design without requiring the testing of the airflow patterns etc. on the entire airframe by adding onto the tests already done. This is much quicker/simpler than going through the process of redesigning the entire frame.e.g. Su30MKI got canards to compensate for the changes of making a two seater etc. without having to go through complete redesign. Of course they ran wind tunnel test on it too, but they were much simpler/quicker due to minor changes. LCA TD1 had canards(LEVCONs) too which were removed later when the mastering of the wing design resulted in no significant further handing improvements with canards. My point here is minor changes are built over existing wind tunnel models all the time and that was probably what was done with J-10 over lavi's data, If you have a frame you can run tests on a perfected design and then its very much possible to go for additions.
I can't speak for avionics since that is more difficult to deduce. But you might have better knowledge in that area.
@HKSDU
I am not even going to bother commenting on things like your Nuclear weapons analogy. I hope you realize how silly that sounds.
@HKSDUreally you don't think so from this picture Falstaff.
http://img528.imageshack.us/img528/4043/2007472254124844.jpg