Thanks alot, Israel...

[Bort]

Israel likely has no greater friend than the United States, yet they were more than willing to export the design of the Lavi, a cancelled Israeli fighter funded by US bucks to the Chinese. Their new J-10 looks and performs an awful lot like the Lavi. Oh, Israel... :roll:
The story:http://atimes.com/atimes/China/DL04Ad01.html
http://www.israeli-weapons.com/weapons/aircraft/lavi/lavi_c2.jpg
The Lavi
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/china/images/j-10-Image12.jpg
The J-10

[Ducimus]

Looks like an F16. :roll:

[TteFAboB]

I hope there's a secret transponder built-in, so well hidden not even Israelis would be able to find it if they wanted to, and a remote satellite pilot ejection device, besides from the usual self-destruction system, just in case the ejector seat fails.

Because that's what the Chinese put inside the industrial goods they export to us, you know.

[bradclark1]

Clinton gives them missile technology, Israel gives them Jet Fighters. Gee, nothing like shooting yourself in the head!!!!

[scandium]

Looks like an F16. :roll:

Doesn't look like any F-16 I've ever seen.

[Ducimus]

Looks like an F16. :roll:

Doesn't look like any F-16 I've ever seen.

http://www.israeli-weapons.com/weapons/aircraft/lavi/lavi_c2.jpg

http://www.backroadswest.com/images/Edwards/F16-04.JPG

[lesrae]

Looks like an F16. :roll:

Doesn't look like any F-16 I've ever seen.

From that angle I agree with Ducimus, it has strong similarities in the radome, intake and cockpit areas.

http://www.afterburnerseminars.com/resource/downloads/hi_res/F16.jpg

Edit: Started writing this before Ducimus reply showed up :oops:

[Ducimus]

Im not saying it IS an F16, only it looks like one, obviously VERY closely related to one,and derived from F16 technology aquired from the US. THey may as well have given china an F16 for all intents and purposes.

The only MAJOR visible difference between the two planes from the pics above is the front winglet on isreals version.

[Happy Times]

http://www.sinodefence.com/airforce/fighter/j10.asp

[TLAM Strike]

No worries we got the 100 mile range AIM-54 Phoenixes to deal with them before they are even in our area... Oh wait... Sh!t! :damn: :roll:

[Bort]

No worries we got the 100 mile range AIM-54 Phoenixes to deal with them before they are even in our area... Oh wait... Sh!t! :damn: :roll:

:rotfl:

[SUBMAN1]

Looks like an F16. :roll:

Doesn't look like any F-16 I've ever seen.

From that angle I agree with Ducimus, it has strong similarities in the radome, intake and cockpit areas.

http://www.afterburnerseminars.com/resource/downloads/hi_res/F16.jpg

Edit: Started writing this before Ducimus reply showed up :oops:

The Lavi, and now the J-10 was an F-16 improvement program. Yes it is an F-16 with forward canards. Wings, Body, and Tail are all the same. I assume the J-10 probably has Isreali avionics though, but at a cost of only $10 mil a copy, it is actually more likely to have Russian, possibly MiG-21 type avionics. Regardless, with a engine like that in it, it is probably a very agile dogfighter.

There is one disadvatage to this J-10 however - with that engine in it, it has got to be extremely short ranged (the Russian engines are fuel hungry and you need a platform like the SU-27 to carry enough fuel) - so just run it our of gas like the Isrealies did to the Syrian MiG's way back when.

The F-16 only holds 7200 lbs of fuel - which is fine for the P&W and GE engines it is supposed to carry,

-S

[kiwi_2005]

They sold it to the chinese?!? Money the root of all evil ;)

Oh well NZ sold there airforce altogether! :nope:

[DeepSix]

To go out on what I am sure will be a controversial limb (although not for the sake of stirring any up, though): I don't like the idea of selling military tech to the Chinese either; however, as others have pointed out, it's an F-16 in shape and wing, but not necessarily in other ways. Even if it does not use the fuel hungry Russian engines, it still lacks the range of new birds like the F/A-22, which can cruise at supersonic speed.

A lot of how you look at this depends on how you look at air doctrine. The U.S. seems to be moving back toward the tactical bomber role after the last couple decades of favoring air superiority (they sneak in the "A" in the model number; I think even the F-117 was originally conceived as a "B-x" or "A-x" plane). I'm not saying one doctrine's better than another, just that the U.S. seems to go in cycles. In the late 50s and early 60s it was all about higher and faster, then it evolved into favoring maneuver. The F(A)-22 may or may not be the ultimate fighter, but IMO the U.S. is still setting the pace in terms of R&D. Selling the J-10 *may* not be giving away as much as we think.

Just my opinion.

[Abraham]

Although there are certainly similarities between the F 16 and the Lavi, it still is a completely new all-Israeli design, using some of the F 16 innovative features. If you realise that the F 16 is a mid-wing plane and the Lavi a low-wing plane, you'll appreciate that the fuselage construction is completely different.
The Lavi has capabilities comparable to the F 16C.

The Lavi had a very checkred history, being an Israeli prestige object, funded by US Dollars and intended to be independant of the US aircraft industry (and to compete with the US industry in Latin America!).
The US got fed up with the Israeli attitude (basically demanding a $ 500 M per year grant over the develloping period!) during the years long Lavi negotiations and found that Isreal's security interest was better served by buying cheaper F 16's and ordering 3 submarines in Germany. This was consequently decided.

Obviously Israel found a new possibility to recoup some money out of the failed project.

P.S. I once (I think in 2000) saw the only prototype when I was leaving Ben Gurion airport; painted white, beautifull plane.

For an inside look into this US-Israeli political crisis, read: "Flight of the Lavi" by Dov S. Zakheim (Brassey's Inc. ISBN 1-57488-065-9).

[The Avon Lady]

As many people said in French here back when they canceled th project: c'est Lavi! :dead:

[JSLTIGER]

To go out on what I am sure will be a controversial limb (although not for the sake of stirring any up, though): I don't like the idea of selling military tech to the Chinese either; however, as others have pointed out, it's an F-16 in shape and wing, but not necessarily in other ways. Even if it does not use the fuel hungry Russian engines, it still lacks the range of new birds like the F/A-22, which can cruise at supersonic speed.

A lot of how you look at this depends on how you look at air doctrine. The U.S. seems to be moving back toward the tactical bomber role after the last couple decades of favoring air superiority (they sneak in the "A" in the model number; I think even the F-117 was originally conceived as a "B-x" or "A-x" plane). I'm not saying one doctrine's better than another, just that the U.S. seems to go in cycles. In the late 50s and early 60s it was all about higher and faster, then it evolved into favoring maneuver. The F(A)-22 may or may not be the ultimate fighter, but IMO the U.S. is still setting the pace in terms of R&D. Selling the J-10 *may* not be giving away as much as we think.

Just my opinion.

To nit pick: The Raptor was renamed prior to entering service from F/A-22 to F-22A.

[DeepSix]

To nit pick: The Raptor was renamed prior to entering service from F/A-22 to F-22A.

Interesting; I thought it was the other way 'round. Thanks!

[TLAM Strike]

To nit pick: The Raptor was renamed prior to entering service from F/A-22 to F-22A.

Interesting; I thought it was the other way 'round. Thanks!

It started as the F-22 (many years ago) then it became the F/A-22 then about a year ago it became the F-22A. Easy to get it all confused.

... all they really did was move the 'A'... :roll: :rotfl:

[Bort]

It started as the F-22 (many years ago) then it became the F/A-22 then about a year ago it became the F-22A. Easy to get it all confused.

... all they really did was move the 'A'...
That was a classic case of "selling" a weapons system to congress. The Secretary of the Air Force renamed it a few years ago to F/A-22 when its funding seemed to be at risk, trying to convince congress that the Raptor was just as much an attack plane as a fighter and therefore more valuble-right :roll:. When the funding was secure, lo and behold the Raptor was once again the F-22. Cute.

[Bort]

To go out on what I am sure will be a controversial limb (although not for the sake of stirring any up, though): I don't like the idea of selling military tech to the Chinese either; however, as others have pointed out, it's an F-16 in shape and wing, but not necessarily in other ways. Even if it does not use the fuel hungry Russian engines, it still lacks the range of new birds like the F/A-22, which can cruise at supersonic speed.

A lot of how you look at this depends on how you look at air doctrine. The U.S. seems to be moving back toward the tactical bomber role after the last couple decades of favoring air superiority (they sneak in the "A" in the model number; I think even the F-117 was originally conceived as a "B-x" or "A-x" plane). I'm not saying one doctrine's better than another, just that the U.S. seems to go in cycles. In the late 50s and early 60s it was all about higher and faster, then it evolved into favoring maneuver. The F(A)-22 may or may not be the ultimate fighter, but IMO the U.S. is still setting the pace in terms of R&D. Selling the J-10 *may* not be giving away as much as we think.

Just my opinion.
Agreed, sort of.
While there is no way the J-10 will ever be as good as the F-22, the concern I have is in sheer numbers. With the USAF buying as few as 180 Raptors, it could be difficult to cover all the bases in a major war with China. I have no idea how many J-10s the Chinese plan to make, but I'll bet its gonna be a boatload. The chinese have a habit of mass producing this kind of stuff on epic scales. And a ton of fighters comparable to F-16's in performance with top of the line Israeli and Russian electronics can't be good. :o

[TLAM Strike]

* Bort]And a ton of fighters comparable to F-16's in performance with top of the line Israeli and Russian electronics can't be good. :o No big deal on that the F-16 isn’t that good. It can’t do high G turns with a full internal tank like an F-15 can. Let me give you an example an ANG buddy of mine told me;

An F-15 pilot decides he wants to show some F-16 pilots waiting to take off a thing or two, the F-15 pilot takes off does an immediate 180 degree turn and lands on the adjacent runway. He tells the 16 pilots “Do that!” :rock:

The F-16 is a cheap “filler” aircraft for when the USAF didn’t have the funding to buy a solely F-15 force that it wanted. The 16 was really just a replacement for the F-104 Starfighter and F-5 Tiger and we know how far those planes went in the USAF (Only thing they are good for is when a pilot wants to play at being a MiG pilot or needs to train for spaceflight). :roll:

[JSLTIGER]

* Bort]To go out on what I am sure will be a controversial limb (although not for the sake of stirring any up, though): I don't like the idea of selling military tech to the Chinese either; however, as others have pointed out, it's an F-16 in shape and wing, but not necessarily in other ways. Even if it does not use the fuel hungry Russian engines, it still lacks the range of new birds like the F/A-22, which can cruise at supersonic speed.

A lot of how you look at this depends on how you look at air doctrine. The U.S. seems to be moving back toward the tactical bomber role after the last couple decades of favoring air superiority (they sneak in the "A" in the model number; I think even the F-117 was originally conceived as a "B-x" or "A-x" plane). I'm not saying one doctrine's better than another, just that the U.S. seems to go in cycles. In the late 50s and early 60s it was all about higher and faster, then it evolved into favoring maneuver. The F(A)-22 may or may not be the ultimate fighter, but IMO the U.S. is still setting the pace in terms of R&D. Selling the J-10 *may* not be giving away as much as we think.

Just my opinion.
Agreed, sort of.
While there is no way the J-10 will ever be as good as the F-22, the concern I have is in sheer numbers. With the USAF buying as few as 180 Raptors, it could be difficult to cover all the bases in a major war with China. I have no idea how many J-10s the Chinese plan to make, but I'll bet its gonna be a boatload. The chinese have a habit of mass producing this kind of stuff on epic scales. And a ton of fighters comparable to F-16's in performance with top of the line Israeli and Russian electronics can't be good. :o

However, there are a few things that remain in the USAF's favor. More planes require more fuel, something that as we can see is increasingly becoming a problem. The F-22 is certainly far from economical in that sense, but the ability to supercruise is certainly invaluable.

The Chinese air force is known not only for its quantity over quality philosophy, but also is notorious for its maintanence problems. On a regular basis, a large proportion of the air force is grounded due to maintanence problems.

Finally, do not forget that in simulations using the currently unbeaten-in-combat F-15s, F-22s regularly splash large numbers without losing any of their own. Granted these are simulations and do not reflect real life, but they are designed to see just how effective the F-22 is. For a more accurate exercise, trying the F-22 against the MiG-29 and Su-27 would prove interesting.

[DeepSix]

Yeah, IMO the F-15 has proven to be the better of the two (over the 16), and its combat record is impressive to say the least. Another advantage for the 22 is that it is stealthier than other air superiority fighters (theoretically, of course - I can't prove it :D ).

As for the F-5 and Starfighter, I might be wrong but I was under the impression that they were never really intended for front line duty with the USAF anyway; seems like I read (a looong time ago) that they were developed for use as MiG stand-ins in training and for us to sell to "friendly" nations (back when that sort of thing was less frowned upon). But again, I could be wrong.

I agree that having the J-10 in "numbers" might pose something of a threat, but think the USAF's definite advantages in stealth and night-strike capability (turn-around/number of sorties we can fly, too) would *probably* counteract that. Probably. Hope it won't take combat to bear that out, though.

[Abraham]

Russian and Israeli electronics will do a lot to keep the J-10 a valuable fighter for a few decades but being designed in the late '80's / early '90s and being comparable with an F 16 it will never be able to make the leap towards the new generation on 21 century fighters.
Furthermore I fear no war with China. China needs to keep it's more and more vocal population quiet by turning them into consumers. Any war wouls throw the Chinese economy completely out of gear...

The problem with the J-10 is that it might compete on the world market with westers fighters. But whether that is a big problem? I doubt it.

My conclusion is: let the Chinese build the Lavi/J-10. Makes them less dependant of Russia. And the plane will never be a serious challenge for the newest generation of US fighters.

I even bet that the US tacidly agreed with the sale of the license building of the Lavi in China. The days of the US-Israeli Lavi war are long gone...

[TLAM Strike]

As for the F-5 and Starfighter, I might be wrong but I was under the impression that they were never really intended for front line duty with the USAF anyway; seems like I read (a looong time ago) that they were developed for use as MiG stand-ins in training and for us to sell to "friendly" nations (back when that sort of thing was less frowned upon). But again, I could be wrong. The F-104 was designed to be a US MiG for front line duty after our Pilots experience in Korea (They wanted a small, fast, maneuverable, lightweight, and simple fighter). It didn't go far because it turn out to be inadequate in every mission assigned and ended up being more successful in export.

The F-5 the Army wanted for front line duty but the USAF said no way your getting a fixed wing and we don't want them. So the Kennedy Administration put them up for export.

[NeonSamurai]

An F-15 pilot decides he wants to show some F-16 pilots waiting to take off a thing or two, the F-15 pilot takes off does an immediate 180 degree turn and lands on the adjacent runway. He tells the 16 pilots “Do that!” :rock:

That story is so full of holes its not funny. There is no way the tower would ever let a 15 pilot pull a stunt like that as it breaks many many different rules and safety regulations, plus it's excedingly dangerous, and if the pilot did that with out permission he would get court martialed and sent to prison so fast his ears would be spinning.

Second F16's can pull full g's with full internal tanks while carrying typical air to air weapon loadout of 4 AIM-9's 4 AIM-120's and the standard underbelly jammer pod, though it will bleed off energy quicker then a 15 (mainly because of the 15's 2 bigger, stronger engines) however it cant do that while carring its full air to ground loadout (but then again the F15E cant either). 16's have a tighter turn radius, and faster turn rate then the 15 and can carry a much larger ratio of ordinance then the 15, 16 can carry just about its dry weight in additional ordinance, the 15 i think can carry half its dry weight (i should probably look it up though to be sure).

In my opinion the F16 has always been a good solid plane that does it's job well, it is also very economical to operate vs a F15, and easily upgradeable, Its also one of the best multi roll fighters available and can easily switch from an air to air mission to an air to ground mission just by changing whats straped on the wings and is very effective at both missions. However it is not designed as a dedicated air to air interceptor/superiority platform, thats the F15 and F22's main job.


Ok with that out of the way, im surprized no one has noticed the one major difference between the lavi and the J-10 which is clearly shown in those 2 photos... Which is the size difference between the 2 aircraft. I meen look at the cockpits and notice the amount of space each takes up. The J-10 looks to be about twice the size of the lavi or F16. Around the same scale as a f15 or f14 or mig 25. That would significantly change how the aircraft would perform and the types of missions it would be capable of doing. As well as fuel consumption and the ammount it can carry. Not to mention changing its internal structure significantly.


As for the supercruising F22's engines. Let me explain what supercruise is for those who may not know :) Basicly supercruise allows a plane to go supersonic with out using afterburners (afterburners use incredible ammounts of fuel, your typical plane will empty a full tank of gas in 10 minutes or less using full afterburners). However operating the F22 in supercruise is not super efficent, it still takes 2 massivly powerfull engines and a lot of fuel to do it. But it does give the F22 the ability to more quickly get into shooting range with out empting its tanks as fast as afterburners would, which makes that ability usefull.

[Deathblow]

* Bort]Israel likely has no greater friend than the United States, yet they were more than willing to export the design of the Lavi, a cancelled Israeli fighter funded by US bucks to the Chinese. Their new J-10 looks and performs an awful lot like the Lavi. Oh, Israel... :roll:

This probably isn't as big a deal as it seems. Sure the frame and design of the two are problably modelled after each other, but remember that the potency/effectiveness of a fighter is more dependent on its internal packaging (electronics, weapons capabilities, targets, sensors, ECM, communication networking, passive stealth, etc) than on its frame. All similarly roled fighters have comparable engine performance. Its whats on the inside that counts.

I remember questioning my pops about this several times when I was growing up, since defense contracting of airforce electronic systems is what he does for a living, and he always mentioned that most of the time there were two versions of military systems. One for the US and one for exporting to other countries, with strict policies and auditing make sure what is shared isn't too important, which the assumption that that the techonology would eventually be exposed.

Probably doesn't really make a difference if the airframe or engine is compromised, as long as its not a revolutionary engine upgrade they don't already have, or the internal sensors and weapons isn't shared...

[Wildcat]

Sounds like there's a lot of armchair piloting going on. If you think an F16 can't turn damn hard with fuel tanks on you're dead wrong. It may lose some of its maneuverability but it's still the most maneuverable aircraft in any branch of the US armed forces, with the F-18 being the next best thing. Well, maybe the F-22 is 2nd best now, but it still doesn't turn as tight as the F16. Nevertheless, even with fuel tanks on the F16 is extremely maneuverable and has no problem reaching +6g's with fuel tanks on.

[DeepSix]

...
Well, maybe the F-22 is 2nd best now, but it still doesn't turn as tight as the F16. Nevertheless, even with fuel tanks on the F16 is extremely maneuverable and has no problem reaching +6g's with fuel tanks on.

But I don't think that matters much to strategists at the moment. The emphasis these days seems to be - for better or worse - on tactical delivery of guided munitions (air to ground), not so much on dogfighting (air to air), based on the type of threats the US appears to face. Arguably, at the moment there's no other air force in the world that could go toe to toe with the USAF for air superiority, whereas there are plenty of threats from command and control bunkers, SAM sites, WMD labs, etc. - ground installations. Again, it's about the prevailing doctrine - sometimes it favors planes with more dedicated roles, others it favors multi-role planes.

Of course this is just my armchair speculation, but I think it would be interesting to see some sort of comparison between sorties and type of aircraft used in the First Gulf War and sorties/type of aircraft used so far in the Second. The First one marked a turning point in U.S. air strategy - it's been all about "smart bombs" ever since.

[NeonSamurai]

Yes it can hit 6g's+ with tanks and air to air weapons loadout, but pilots try not to do that as you overstress the airframe which cuts back on the life exectancy of the plane. Fully loaded out there is a computer G limiter which limits it to no more then 3.5g. If they get into a furball the first thing they do is jettison all external tanks and air to ground ordinance.

The main advantage the F22 has in a turning fight is its vectored thrust engines which can angle up and down along the vertical axis, which definatly can help improve its turn radius and rate, and also helps it get nose on for a weapons launch more easily.

As for enemies who could deny the US air control in a war, none of the countries the US is likely to attack can. Of course the US does like to start fights with 2nd-3rd world countries where the US has both technological and numerical superiority, and also far better trained pilots. But the US certainly isnt forgetting the possibility of conflict with an enemy that does have a proper airforce and continues to develope new anti air weapons and equipment.

[bradclark1]

Of course the US does like to start fights with 2nd-3rd world countries where the US has both technological and numerical superiority, and also far better trained pilots.

Here we go. :roll:

[NeonSamurai]

Name one country post world war 2 that the US got into an armed conflict with that wasnt third or second world with a vastly inferior military vs the US. :) That's my point. The only incident that comes even close would be when China got activly involved in the Korean war.

So naturaly they do well militarily when going against countries with very poorly trained pilots and other military personel, vastly inferior (usualy) equipment, that is often not even properly maintained. It would be hard not to.

[The Avon Lady]

Name one country post world war 2 that the US got into an armed conflict with that wasnt third or second world with a vastly inferior military vs the US. :) That's my point. The only incident that comes even close would be when China got activly involved in the Korean war.

So naturaly they do well militarily when going against countries with very poorly trained pilots and other military personel, vastly inferior (usualy) equipment, that is often not even properly maintained. It would be hard not to.
That wasn't the point.

Your words that made eyes roll here were "Of course the US does like to start fights."

[Deathblow]

As for enemies who could deny the US air control in a war, none of the countries the US is likely to attack can.

Be more specific. Who are you referring to specifically?

Name one country post world war 2 that the US got into an armed conflict with that wasnt third or second world with a vastly inferior military vs the US

Pre 1990 the Iraqi military was considered a very forminable military armed with capable soviet designed systems, extensive air defense radar network with capable SAM armanments, an extensive army of over than 1 million men most of which were battle hardened from years of conflict with Iran, and a scrupulous leader that was willing to sacrafice hundreds of thousands of solidiers to get his objectives...

It was only after all the dust settled in the first few days that it became clear that the Allied strategy and tatics had hit the lenchpins of the Iraqi defense to put the entire system into dissarry, ... it was also only then that just how superior the USAF tatics/technology were first came to light. No other time before that had air power been *that* decisive determining the war outcome with the first few air campaigns.

[TLAM Strike]

Name one country post world war 2 that the US got into an armed conflict with that wasnt third or second world with a vastly inferior military vs the US. :) That's my point. The only incident that comes even close would be when China got activly involved in the Korean war.You are forgetting the Soviet Union was actively (but covertly) involved in the Korean War.

The North Vietnamese had one hell of an Air Defense system. Their Air Force while small and low tech came as a nasty surprise (forgot how to Dog Fight we had… oh god I sound like Yoda). The USAF lost more F-4 Phantom IIs in combat than the NVAF lost total aircraft (382 to 200).
(Sourced tabulation of losses: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aircraft_losses_of_the_Vietnam_War)
The NVA unlike the VCs was a real military while nowhere near as well equipped they were quite skilled and could gain the upperhand if you weren't paying attention. I've known some who fought them and they can attest to that.

[GunnersMate]

Does anyone have any pictures of that F-16 that had a delta wing without the elevators?

[JSLTIGER]

It was called the F-16XL, and was a competitor to the F-15E.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:F-16xl.jpg

http://1000aircraftphotos.com/Contributions/Visschedijk/2584L.jpg

[NeonSamurai]

Ok from the top..

It is true and that was my point from the other thread. I dont meen the us is going around picking fights with everyone nessisarily, but wars they have started (or got involved with if you prefer) pre vietnam (before the technology gap realy started to widen) were all against 3rd or 2nd world countries with largely inferior militaries. Conflicts the US belive they can easily win. They dont go toe to toe with armies that are even close to their own capabilities if they can possibly avoid it.

Countries the US is not likely to attack in the near future... the EU, Russia, China and other similar countries with modern armies and realtivly top line equipment (granted russia is slipping quickly). These are about the only countries that have any chance of denying the US air control in a war for any period of time. Every other country just about on the planet either doesnt have the numbers (planes, pilots, etc), or technology equality, or training programs to do it. Because of this the US would be very unlikely to get into an armed conflict with any of those countries (diplomatic relations asside) unless their hand was forced, due to the likely very high casualties.

Yes Russsia was involved in Korea, but they were acting more as advisors/suppliers unlike China which activly got their military involved in the conflict.

Iraq's military was only considered formidable vs the other countries surrounding them. Though they did have some very recent soviet equipment, the vast majority of it was obsolete dating back to as far as WW2. Their Command and Control was poor, and most of their military was poorly trained other then the republican guard and not very well equiped. Though their troops were as you say battle hardned, their expirence was vs another military similar to their own (Iran), not the ultra modern US military and similarly well equiped and trained western powers. Not to mention the Iraqi airforce was horribly trained and other then a few mig-29's very poorly equiped. The fight was no contest especialy in the air, the only question was the number of casualties inflicted on the coalition's side. One of the biggest problems the Iraqi's had was they had all this equipment which was generations apart. Trying to mix 40's grade techology, with 50's 60's 70's and 80's generation equipment. Its no surprize that they failed and the US was able to exploit that.

As for the decisiveness of airpower, one could point to the WW2 bombing campaigns of the allies which contributed a significant ammout to the allied victory as being the first example. However you are correct in that the first Iraq conflict demonstrated just how much air power could realy do. But the airforce didnt win it alone either.

Yes in Vietnam their anti air defence over Hanoi was quite successfull, but this was also partly to do with the rediculous target rules coming out of the pentagon, where one day you could target SAM sites and the next day you couldnt or risk a court martial. Alot of things were very badly handled in the Vietnam conflict both on the ground in south Vietnam and the air war over North Vietnam. Also back then the technological gap wasnt quite so dramatic as it was with the first conflict in Iraq. In Vietnam alot of the new US weapon systems were untested and very crude and military planners had put their air to air eggs into one basket, missles, which proved fatal. The air to air kill ratio is more telling then the US air kills vs total number of F4's shot down in total. I belive it started out at around 2-1 US-NVA and droped to almost 1-1, then the us started putting guns back on their planes, and also started the Top Gun school which taught pilots how to dogfight, after that the kill ratio went up to 6-1. Plus the NVA didnt put up very many aircraft to begin with. I could make a very large thread just on why the US lost vietnam, or what went wrong with the air war over North Vietnam for that matter, im just lightly scuffing the surface :)

Anyhow back on the original topic :)

That F-16XL prototype/test version photo is alot closer to the scale you can see in the photo of the J-10 on the first page, though the J10 im pretty sure is even bigger. Look at the cockpit and pilot to give it a sense of scale, also the wing mounted ir missles on both (and remembering that the chineese/russian ir missles tend to be a bit bigger then their NATO counterparts). The J-10's wings are mounted alot lower on the frame like the Lavi vs the 16 and 16XL. To me though the J-10 looks more like a recently designed large Mig fighter but single engine with wings, tail and landing gear placed similarly to an 16, and 2 canards placed above and ahead of the wings. Though there are several similarities, there are also numerous differences between the 3 design wise. One thing is for sure, judging from that photo, the J-10 isnt a copy of the Lavi, thought it probably has copied several of the design concepts.

[DeepSix]

...
Yes Russsia was involved in Korea, but they were acting more as advisors/suppliers unlike China which activly got their military involved in the conflict.
...

A little OT here, but what about the Soviet pilots that were flying combat in "MiG Alley?"

[TLAM Strike]

Back off topic: On that note, interesting note the North Koreans sent pilots to fly for the North Vietnamese Air Force. The true scale of the Vietnam War tends to be ignored. ;)

[NeonSamurai]

Yes there were russian pilots flying Korean marked Migs, but unofficialy as advisors ;) ;) China however got heavily involved with ground troops, pilots and equipment of its own and clearly marked as so. Russia on the other hand tried to maintain deniability of their own involvement.

Yep there were some North Korean pilots in nam, also many russian advisors (though not many Chinese this time as the vietnamese have a long history with chinese, invasions etc, and dont exactly trust them).

[TLAM Strike]

Oh and lets not forget the activities of Russian Submarines off Korea. (http://members.tripod.com/~breastroker/mckeansubhistory.htm) They almost tired the same sh@t in Vietnam as well. :yep:

[Deathblow]

Ok from the top..

Countries the US is not likely to attack in the near future... the EU, Russia, China and other similar countries with modern armies and realtivly top line equipment (granted russia is slipping quickly). These are about the only countries that have any chance of denying the US air control in a war for any period of time. Every other country just about on the planet either doesnt have the numbers (planes, pilots, etc), or technology equality, or training programs to do it. Because of this the US would be very unlikely to get into an armed conflict with any of those countries (diplomatic relations asside) unless their hand was forced, due to the likely very high casualties.

Very true. The US has avoided conflicts that have *World War III* written all over them. And I'm glad for it too. :lol:

[DeepSix]

Thought I'd dredge up this thread because I remembered saying something like "Oh, it probably doesn't matter if Israel sold China those planes." Oh, the irony - guess who owns 'em now....

[Syxx_Killer]

Thought I'd dredge up this thread because I remembered saying something like "Oh, it probably doesn't matter if Israel sold China those planes." Oh, the irony - guess who owns 'em now....

It was just on the news. I forget how many they sold, but they sold them for $1B a piece.

[nikimcbee]

Looks like an F16. :roll:

Doesn't look like any F-16 I've ever seen.

http://www.israeli-weapons.com/weapons/aircraft/lavi/lavi_c2.jpg

http://www.backroadswest.com/images/Edwards/F16-04.JPG

I guess China got tired of copying Russian technology.:oops:

[JSLTIGER]

There is actually a distinct, major difference between the two planes, that being the placement of the wing. The F-16 is of a mid-mounted wing design, while the Lavi features a low mounted wing. This is actually a very significant aerodynamic difference.

[Happy Times]

There is actually a distinct, major difference between the two planes, that being the placement of the wing. The F-16 is of a mid-mounted wing design, while the Lavi features a low mounted wing. This is actually a very significant aerodynamic difference.

The Lavi/J10 turns better?

[Chock]

I think the old argument of Chinese stuff being inferior to US and European aircraft is wearing a bit thin these days, in actual fact the Chinese are proving very go ahead in these areas and one has to consider that many of their military aircraft programmes are not merely aimed at arming themselves, but aimed at the lucrative cheap mid range fighter market which has a big gap in it, that they are intending to fill.

It is wrong to assume that these Chinese aircraft are reliant on Russian technology too. The Chinese know that sales of their aircraft would of course be hurt by a reliance on Russian materiel, and as such then have not created either the J-10 or the J-17 to be hindered by such reliance. This also removes many of the strings that come with purchases in the nature of either the US or the Russians, and the Chinese are well aware that such attachments are a major turn off for buyers if they mean sanctions can interfere with maintenance. This is one of the reasons why the Pakistanis are a major partner, as (notwithstanding their fragile war on terror alliance with the US) their military is not limited by being in bed with the US, or the Russians (as their longstanding enemy, India is).

In addition to the J-10, the FC-1 Xiaolong (J-17 to the West) is intended to fill the gap left by any other aircraft suitable as a viable more modern replacement for the 'second line' fighters of Western and (former) Eastern Bloc origin, namely the MiG-21/Shenyang J-7 and the Northrop F20 Tigershark/F-5 Freedom Fighter.

Aerobatic capabilities aside, success with a combat aircraft these days tends to be more about avionics and missile capabilities than maneueverability. That assuming this capability would succeed was certainly a mistake in Vietnam, with unreliable Sparrows and early Sidewinders, but the technology these days can now (more often than not) live up to what the brochure claims it can do. As such, sustained turn rate is probably not as important as instantaneous turn rate for aerial combat in localised conflicts, that and a combination of helmet-mounted sighting systems and all-aspect missiles with a fast rate of turn can prove a winner, with (more than ever) the aircraft merely being the means to put these in a halfway decent firing position.

Cheap as it is, the FC-1 is capable of launching the AIM-120C-5 AMRAAM and the much more capable French MBDA Mica BVR missiles, with the Mica also offering a close-in capabilty too. And even if these are not available, the Sino SD-10/PL-12, is another option, all of these missiles can integrate with the FC-1's Nanjing K-7 radar (which the PAF claim is a lot better than the APG-66 fitted in most export versions of the F-16). And all this technology is cheap too, with an FC-1 costing just 15 million bucks, which is peanuts for a fighter with that capability, so expect this to sell like hot cakes.

And the widespread use of these aircraft will doubtless lead to more upgraded capability. It is already planned to add ground-attack capabilities to the cheaper FC-1, including the ability to launch the Denel Raptor II stand off weapon, so GPS-style accuracy is in the bag for even this bargain-basement aircraft. One can imagine that the more expensive and far more capable J-10 is going to do a lot better than that too.

Being a joint Sino/Pakistan project, the FC-1 will also equip the fifth generation AIM-9 Sidewinder, and the Boeing Helmet mounted sighting system, which the Pakistanis got when they ordered the F-16 means that this technology is available too, so blaming Israel for a technology drain (as this thread originally did) is only half the story, and it is clear that the PAF purchase has something to do with the F-16 looks of several Chinese projects, including the J-10 and J-17.

All the sales revenue for the FC-1 will of course help fund the much more capable J-10, and it is likely that China and Pakistan (at the very least) will use this method.

Don't underestimate your (potential) enemies. The days of cannon-fodder export MiG-21s with a shaky tube-filled High Lark radar, are long gone.

:D Chock

[elite_hunter_sh3]

thank you israel!!! ( im surprised im saying that :doh:)

china!!!:arrgh!: their j-10 looks very good !!:hmm:

[DeepSix]

It was just on the news. I forget how many they sold, but they sold them for $1B a piece.

You must have been watching Fox, too.:) There were about two dozen of them that were sold to Iran.

[Edit - not refering to any particular post here, just a general observation. The real issue for me is this: it doesn't matter if this thing is as aerodynamic as a Remington statue or if the avionics are outdated. It only has to be able to tote a WMD as far as Israel, or Iraq, or Kuwait, or Saudi Arabia, or any other current or potential Western ally. Granted, there are other aircraft in Iran's fleet that could do the same thing, but Iran would appear to be ramping up for anticipated conflict. I'd be interested in knowing if they're shopping around for some secondhand F-14 parts....]