1979 China's J-10 wood model preceded Israeli Lavi program

[Martian]

China's J-10 was an evolutionary design based on China's J-9 fighter jet. A 1979 Chinese "Youth Science Illustrated" children's magazine cover proves that the Chinese J-10 had no relationship to the Israeli Lavi program, which was not formed until 1980.

Picture of Aircraft III | Errymath

----------

1979 "Youth Science Illustrated" magazine in the cover! ! Jian Shi? ?

Look at the logo in the bottom right-hand corner. It says "1979" in blue letters.

 

[Srinivas_K]

Yes Chinese first made the aero plane and then the world copied their designs.

 

[shiphone]

oops...such OLD funny rumor are still spreading....LOL...
----------------

that is the cover of <Juvenile Science Pictorial>-- a very famous Popular Science magazine with a long history for the teenage...I had quite some issues of 1980's as well... that issue was publish in Jun 1979, but the model on the cover is not the 'future' J10 project at all...

at that time (late 1970s and early 1980s) , china Aviation industry were busy discussing and setting up the performance evaluation/request of next generation combat airplanes including : Heavy Figher(J-9 project) ,Light figher (J-13 project) ,Attacker( Q-6 project ), Light bomber ( H-7 project) etc...but most of them went into a dead end due to various reasons , eg. funds, technique difficulty ,talent fault...

and one of them is the protagonist of this rumor...the Shengyang J-13 fighter project
---
J13 (old)

few years later, the Shengyang Design institute brought the revised design based on the terminated J13 project to compete with the Chengdu Design institute's J10 project for the PLAAF new generation fighter bid in 1984... unfortunately it failed again...
---
(J13) new

since 1986, Chengdu design institute combined experience and knowledge gained during the development of J-9 project(several schemes) with the tech imported from the Israel 'dead' LAVI project to keep on developing the new J10
---
(J9-1)

---
(J9-2)

---
(J9-3)

finally they succeed in finishing the whole R&D course in 2004... it was an 18 years long hard journey...
---
(J10)

----------------
but the way , Q-6 is the contemporary Attacker project as J-13 which was also terminated shortly after the project started....both projects shared quite some tech and knowledge of that time so looks a bit alike more or less...
---
(Q-6)

 

[Martian]

I think you missed the point.

The claim had been that the superficial resemblance of the J-10 design to the Israeli Lavi showed copying.

Since the J-10 wood model (or J-13 as you allege) preceded the Israeli Lavi by one year, there was no copying of the Israeli Lavi.

 

[shiphone]

dear...just after reading a baseless blog you became a bully or expert ? I really doubt you know the reality indeed...

------------------------------

1.that's not a model of J10, at that time ,J10 didn't exist..

2. the model is about the project of Shengyang Aircraft Design institute , the competitor of J10 project's developer --the Chengdu Aircraft Design institute.

3. I didn't say J10 is the copy of Lavi either...but we did imported loads of tech of Lavi project which had been a dead end in Israel and they were applied on the J10 project... it's a great chance for China aviation design team to touch and learn the advanced western tech , and more importantly , the team set up a brand new western style/standard design methodology/ project management / Quality control system in China for the first time ever. we benefit a lot indeed.

 

[Martian]

It doesn't matter whether you call it J-10, J-13, or J-14.

The fundamental canard-delta wing shape with a rectangular air intake had already been designed by China in 1979.

The "J-10" wood model clearly shows that the superficial resemblances between the J-10 and the Israeli Lavi were coincidental.

 

[shiphone]

LOL...where is the Canard? delta wing？ ...you can't read or even look?

 

[Martian]

Let's assume the wood model is the picture shown below. This means that in 1979, China had a wooden model of the plane in your 1980 diagram.

The canard is missing from the child's wood model, but that is probably due to the difficulty in wood carving. We know there were canards on the preceding Chinese J-9. By looking at the schematic below, it is clear that there is a strong resemblance between the original 1979 design and the final J-10 design. The evidence still shows that the J-10 was an independent and earlier Chinese design, not a copy of the Israeli Lavi.

Most of China's planes were based on a delta wing design (e.g. J-7, J-8, and J-9). The J-7E was a double-delta wing design (like the illustration from 1980). Thus, a plane based on a canard-delta wing would be a traditional Chinese jet fighter design. The child's wood carving proves that the distinctive J-10 tail design (which is also seen on the Israeli Lavi) was an original Chinese design and not Israeli.

 

[Martian]

The J-10 wood carving is important for the following reasons.

The J-10 wood carving showed that most of the J-10 characteristic designs had already existed in China in 1979. None of these features were copied from the Israeli Lavi.

The usual allegations have been that the J-10 copied the Lavi in its air intake placement beneath the fuselage. The shape of the J-10 spine has been said to resemble the Lavi. The distinctive tail has also been mentioned to resemble the Lavi.

However, the 1979 child's wood carving showed that all of these Lavi-like features had already been designed into the J-10 by 1979. This is one year before the Lavi program was even conceived.

Canards on the J-10 were no surprise, because canards had already existed on the Chinese J-9.

Finally, the J-10 is a full delta-wing. This is consistent with China's J-7, J-8, and J-9 delta-wing design. In contrast, the Israeli Lavi is a clipped delta-wing design.

In conclusion, the J-10 is clearly an indigenous Chinese design. The subsequent similarities with the Lavi had already been in existence by 1979. The wing shapes are different. You cannot point to a list of features that China supposedly copied from the Lavi. China got there first in 1979.

 

[Compersion]

Is someone asking for royalty suddenly.

Would that be fair.

 

[Sakal Gharelu Ustad]

So Chinese make important fighter designs and then sell them in the toy market for kids to get feedback! It is a pretty smart way to build planes!

 

[Martian]

GlobalSecurity states Chinese F-13 (or "J-10" Wood Model) project began in 1971

According to American think-tank GlobalSecurity, the F-13 was a real Chinese fighter jet program that began in 1971. The F-13/"J-10" wood model and schematic are both real.

[URL='http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/china/j-13.htm']J-13 (Jianjiji-13 Fighter aircraft 13)/F-13 | GlobalSecurity[/url]

----------

 

[Martian]

Top 5 Reasons that the Israeli Lavi is a copy of China's Chengdu J-10/F-13 jet fighter

1. According to GlobalSecurity, China's F-13 program started in 1971. By 1979, a child's wooden model of the F-13 showed the J-10's distinctive rectangular air intake under the fuselage and the distinctive J-10 spine. A 1980 toy model of the Chinese F-13 showed the distinctive tail of the J-10. Since the Israeli Lavi program was not initiated until 1980, the distinctive design elements of the Chinese J-10/F-13 preceded the Israeli Lavi by many years. This is the CHRONOLOGICAL argument. Which came first? The Chinese J-10/F-13 came years before the Israeli Lavi.

2. The FINANCIAL argument is that China's J-10 program is well-funded. Only a well-funded program could have developed all of the cutting-edge fourth-generation technologies for the fighter jet. Since the Israeli Lavi was on a shoe-string budget and canceled, the Israeli Lavi obviously benefited from China's well-funded J-10 program. This argues that the three Israeli Lavi prototypes could never have been built without Chinese technological help.

3. This is the TECHNOLOGICAL argument. For the sake of argument, let's assume the Chinese J-10 is a copy of the Israeli Lavi. If true then China would depend on Israel for further development of the J-10. This means the Chinese government would somehow find a way to keep funding the Lavi. The fact that China's J-10B is progressing without a concurrent Israeli Lavi upgrade shows that the J-10 program is independent of Israeli technology.

The death of the Israeli Lavi and the continuous improvement in J-10 technologies prove that the J-10 program was the source of the fourth-generation fighter technologies. Not the poorly-funded and defunct Israeli Lavi.

4. This is the HISTORICAL and EXPERIENCE argument. China started building jet fighters with the J-5 in 1956. China had thirty years of experience in building jet fighters (e.g. J-5, J-6, J-7, J-8, J-9, and J-10) by the 1980s.

In contrast, Israel had very limited experience in building only one prior fighter (e.g. IAI Kfir) in 1973.

China had almost twenty more years of jet-fighter design experience than Israel.

5. This is the HIGH TECHNOLOGY argument. Which country is more high-tech? Is it China or Israel? Clearly, China is the more militarily high-tech country. China built the advanced indigenous WS-10A turbofan jet-fighter engine. Israel has never built an indigenous turbofan engine.

Take a careful look at the CHRONOLOGICAL, FINANCIAL, TECHNOLOGICAL, HISTORICAL and EXPERIENCE, and HIGH TECHNOLOGY arguments. It should be obvious that the Israeli Lavi is a copy of China's advanced Chengdu J-10 jet fighter.

 

[blueblood]

Only a well-funded program could have developed all of the cutting-edge fourth-generation technologies for the fighter jet. Since the Israeli Lavi was on a shoe-string budget and canceled, the Israeli Lavi obviously benefited from China's well-funded J-10 program. This argues that the three Israeli Lavi prototypes could never have been built without Chinese technological help.

Did you also sell them air to air missiles like PL-8 or did they asked for your AESA AEWCS?


Let me see, you may also have helped them with their BMD systems.

 

[Martian]

Did you also sell them air to air missiles like PL-8 or did they asked for your AESA AEWCS?


Let me see, you may also have helped them with their BMD systems.

Feel free to start your own thread on those topics.

They have nothing to do with the Chinese Chengdu J-10 vs. Israeli Lavi topic that I'm factually discussing in my thread here.

I am only making the claim that the Israeli Lavi is a copy of China's Chengdu J-10. I have not made any claim beyond this in my thread.

 

[blueblood]

Feel free to start your own thread on those topics.

They have nothing to do with the Chinese Chengdu J-10 vs. Israeli Lavi topic that I'm factually discussing in my thread here.

I am only making the claim that the Israeli Lavi is a copy of China's Chengdu J-10. I have not made any claim beyond this in my thread.

Do me a favour. There is site called Israel Military Forum, I suggest you join it and enlighten them about the Chinese contribution to IAI Lavi program.

http://israelmilitary.net/index.php

There are plenty of industry and services veterans at the forum and I am sure they are immensely grateful to China.

You do that and then we can discuss further.

 

[Martian]

Do me a favour. There is site called Israel Military Forum, I suggest you join it and enlighten them about the Chinese contribution to IAI Lavi program.

http://israelmilitary.net/index.php

There are plenty of industry and services veterans at the forum and I am sure they are immensely grateful to China.

You do that and then we can discuss further.

I don't join tiny forums that no one has ever heard of.

There is nothing for us to discuss. I have put forth facts and citations.

You have only rhetoric. You're wasting my time.
----------
You had multiple opportunities to disagree with me. Yet, you can't seem to stick to the topic.

1. The topic is which came first? The Chinese J-10 or the Israeli Lavi? I have made my case. If you have contrary evidence, show me the reputable citations.

2. I have made further rational arguments to support China's J-10 primacy over the Israeli Lavi. If you disagree, stick to the topic and explain why.

If you can't follow the simple rules for discussion, kindly leave my thread. Thank you.

You're trolling my thread and it's annoying.

 

[blueblood]

What you have is not an argument but a "letter to penthouse". It reads something like this.

Dear penthouse, I am 6'5" incredibly handsome fella and this story is about me, Kim, Khloe, Courtney and Kendal.

Come tomorrow you will claim that "China invented the sun" and I will be left to prove you wrong.

But when I told you say this in front of people who were actually there, you run away with tail between you legs. Stop wasting everyone's time and wave your red banner where people actually give a fuck.

 

[roma]

well , well , well ......tsk tsk

all i will say is that with china having started so much earlier than india on
aircraft design technology, it is to indias' credit that we are not too far behind even though

we started much later

now if Namo can address that issue and get our aircraft design to be another isro , then we could actually get ahead of china and stop paying high prices for foreign technology

and that would be real independence ......being ahead of china in one area of armaments after another

ref @LETHALFORCE @Sakal Gharelu Ustad @Rowdy @aliyah
@pmaitra @Kunal Biswas @Srinivas_K @cobra commando @roma