Thanks alot, Israel...

[SUBMAN1]

Originally Posted by lesrae

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

http://www.afterburnerseminars.com/r...hi_res/F16.jpg

Edit: Started writing this before Ducimus reply showed up

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!

[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!

[JSLTIGER]

Originally Posted by 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.

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

[DeepSix]

Originally Posted by JSLTIGER

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]

Originally Posted by DeepSix

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'... :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 . 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.

[TLAM Strike]

Originally Posted by *[FOX

* 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.

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!�

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).

[JSLTIGER]

Originally Posted by *[FOX

* Bort]

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.

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 ).

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]

Originally Posted by DeepSix

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.