About china's 4th fighter

[Falstaff]

Lack knowledge thats pretty funny since I'm a Mechanical/Material Engineer.

I don't believe you. If you were, you wouldn't talk like that.

So you say basic can't be skipped oh is that so then China should go all the way back to foward propellor planes with manned machine guns. And since China never design cars before, their future car must be like those in the colonial days then hey? And their airliners don't exist, oh well what is the ARJ-21 then? A hot air ballon?

That Chinese industry is able to do what they do today is due to the fact that started with much simpler things and they developed their skills, sometimes with outside help. Rome wasn't built in a day, neither was Chinese industry. If you're so knowledgeable you should know very well what I'm talking about.
I agree that the ARJ-21 is a huge achievement for the Chinese aviation industry, but it comes nowhere near the Embraer 190, the MRJ or CS-Series in terms of technology or economy. That's a fact.

I know well that J-10 system is comparable to F-16.

How do you know that? No really, I (and a lot of people here) am very interested how good the J-10's systems are.

Pakistan F-16 was examined fully by Chinese Engineers, and if reports are true then most of Lavi technology would've been shown to them also. Lavi was mean't to be superior to both F-16/F-18 in respective terms of technology, America pulled out of the development cause they knew it would harm their sales.

What block? 15? What a comparison. And if Lavi technology was given to China is questionable at best. Won't comment on the last sentence.

China and India doesn't need to go toe-to-toe in technology, just cause some nation has this and the other doesn't. It doesn't prove that the other nation technology is inferior or not comparable.

Well you started comparing, didn't you?

China was the least hit by the financial crisis, and your so called developed Western countries being least effected. BS!!!! Europe, Australia, Japan, America, South Korea all well developed nation are hit very hard. China not that developed was hit the least. America knows this and are angry, and now eventually which China knew sooner or later would happen, are poking the finger at China saying its their fault. America yeah not effected much and recover soon BS!!

I'm basing my claim on an analysis in one of the biggest of our newspapers which happened to examine the impact of the financial crisis on Asia last weekend. If China is the least hit country will have to be seen. But I do think that the all the nations you mentioned will recover very soon.

Have some knowledge in technology and economy before posting BS. JH-7 read my post again, oh sorry your illiterate aren't you awwh. From the post you wrote I can clearly see that you have little knowledge of technology and military hardware.

This paragraph doesn't require a comment, kid.

 

[merocaine]

Just as a quick aside

Economy will be back again in a few months and then it's business as usual. Until then, a few more billions of federal deficit, but that's it.
The fact that many western militaries are reducing numbers and ending some projects in favor of others has nothing to do with the current crisis.

Thats a very optimistic view of the situation, most indicators point to a very tough couple of years, for everyone.
And it will never be business as usual again. We're in the middle of a world changing event.
America is going to have to prioritize, from now on its going to a series of tough calls, perhaps investment in new fighter aircraft will continue as before,
maybe it wont, that for the next couple of presidents to figure out.

I would say that the producer countries will suffer more than most in the short term (in relative growth terms). Thats commodities and countries like China that rely on exports to supply there growth. This crisis will spur China to increase domestic consumption to spend more rather than saving, something they have begun to do anyway. Thats a healthy development in the longterm IMV.

The impact of this crisis will def have a big effect on military budgets world wide. I dread to think what will happen to european budgets, they've been pared down enough as it is!

 

[Falstaff]

Yes, it's a shame this is way off topic and doesn't belong here. I'd love to discuss some aspects of it, esp. concerning producer countries. Sigh!

In order to clarify my opinion a bit concerning defense budgets: I believe that the US have overstretched their defense budget for many years for reasons we all know- it will decline in the future. In Europe, defense budgets have stagnated at best for several years. They won't rise much in the future. ReAl PrOeLiTeZ put this into context with the current crisis. I believe it won't have that much impact really. That's what I wanted to say with business as usual.

 

[crobato]

Not true. In terms of production technology (material science, special tooling, welding technology etc.) China is appr. 15-20 years behind Western Europe, e.g. friction stir welding. And at the moment, India is closing the gap faster than China.

http://www.twi.co.uk/content/spswkjune07.html

"There are many types of aluminium alloy ships, ranging from 5m long rigid inflatable boats, 50m long military patrol boats to more than 200m long luxury cruise ships. Therefore, the shipbuilding industry needs aluminium panels of different shapes and sizes. In 2003, China FSW Center (CFSWT) in Beijing designed and fabricated its first FSW industrial product-line for a small company in Chang Zhou ( Fig.21). This PLC controlled equipment can weld 2600 x 1100mm panels from 6mm thick aluminium extrusions for use in various sectors of the transport industry."

"China FSW Center designed and produced the first large FSW machine for wide ship-panels in China in 2006 after considering production, weight and transport aspects. This FSW machine ( Fig.22) is designed in separate modular parts."

"Nowadays, the concept of using prefabricated FSW panels for shipbuilding is popular at shipyards in Dalian, Shanghai, Wuhan, Guangxi and Guangzhou. These wide panels have successfully been used in many shipbuilding projects, including ships designed and fabricated in China for export to Vietnam and Micronesia"

"The Type 022 Houbei Class is the Chinese People's Liberation Army Navy's new-generation stealth missile fast attack craft (FAC). The boat features a unique high-speed, wave-piercing catamaran hull with evident radar cross-section reduction design features ( Fig.26). A number of Chinese shipyards across the country have been involved in the construction of the boat and it has been reported that FSW aluminium alloy panels have been used to produce this very advanced navy vessel in China."

"The Chinese Friction Stir Welding Centre was founded in 2002, after an agreement was signed by TWI and Beijing FSW Technology Ltd, which is an offshoot of BAMTRI - Beijing Aeronautical Manufacturing Technology Research Institute. The Centre has made remarkable progress in the last five years, employing over 30 people and building a number of different machines for customers. TWI now has 22 FSW licensees in China, most of them as a direct result of the collaboration with BAMTRI. So far the following Chinese companies have been licensed to use the patented FSW process:"

 

[crobato]

What block? 15? What a comparison. And if Lavi technology was given to China is questionable at best. Won't comment on the last sentence.

If you want a more valid comparison, you need to start comparing the J-10's systems with F-16 Block systems that would at least support AMRAAM and Sparrows, as well as with PGM and FLIR support. The J-10 is verified to support active and semi active BVRAAMs, PGMs and FLIR. Block 15 does not cut this. This is at least on the F-16C Block ranges.

I agree that the ARJ-21 is a huge achievement for the Chinese aviation industry, but it comes nowhere near the Embraer 190, the MRJ or CS-Series in terms of technology or economy. That's a fact.

Explain, since all the aircraft you mentioned are using the same West sourced engine and component avionics suppliers.

Generations of engineers laid the foundations for that.

Exactly. Except that the knowledge of these engineers aren't excluded from the Chinese knowledge base.

 

[funtz]

i agree with funtz on this one.
its not like China is gonna go to war with USA anytime soon.
any confrontation is likely to be via proxy.
and for that the j-10 / j-11 are more than sufficient.

as fo future development , i think china is on the right track....albeit behind the USA but still on the right track.

That is not what i said, all i said is that their is no point talking of a system that we know nothing about, nothing about its engines, its avionics, its weapons, not even its design.

 

[ReAl PrOeLiTeZ]

I don't believe you. If you were, you wouldn't talk like that.



That Chinese industry is able to do what they do today is due to the fact that started with much simpler things and they developed their skills, sometimes with outside help. Rome wasn't built in a day, neither was Chinese industry. If you're so knowledgeable you should know very well what I'm talking about.
I agree that the ARJ-21 is a huge achievement for the Chinese aviation industry, but it comes nowhere near the Embraer 190, the MRJ or CS-Series in terms of technology or economy. That's a fact.



How do you know that? No really, I (and a lot of people here) am very interested how good the J-10's systems are.



What block? 15? What a comparison. And if Lavi technology was given to China is questionable at best. Won't comment on the last sentence.



Well you started comparing, didn't you?



I'm basing my claim on an analysis in one of the biggest of our newspapers which happened to examine the impact of the financial crisis on Asia last weekend. If China is the least hit country will have to be seen. But I do think that the all the nations you mentioned will recover very soon.



This paragraph doesn't require a comment, kid.

Comparison, F-16 early blocks could only be equipped with SRAAM, No FLIR/PGM/AMRAAM, while the J-10 from its first batch has BVRAAM, FLIR, PGM, SRAAM and in order for these to be operational their system must support this. Which if you cross check it with F-16 production history it comparable to the C models or better. So you see China first multirole fighter wasn't from the baseline F-16, it was in the matured phase.F-16 development plus years of refinment after service to C model, while J-10 from development was on C model.
Economy, once economy crashes it'll take years to recover, why do you think that governments are acted in such emergency status if it'll recover soon? Media keeps the nation under control and in order, last thing they'll want right now is chaos and anger within their society.
Everybody learns basic foundations about everything, but you don't spend as much time as people did back then. What I'm saying is if your building technology thats already out there, you don't need to start building on its ancestor technology as starters before going larger, you can neglect this procedure. China helps builds parts for Boeing aircrafts parts, and in the end they would examine the technology, equipment and methods for their own purposes also.
In end I was talking about military technology, not industrial technology. Even if the military sector has the equipment and tools doesn't co-respond to the industrial sector having them.

"Through a joint venture company based in China, an Australian business, AMD, has sold designs for the hull and propulsion system of high-speed catamarans to the Peoples' Liberation forces. The Chinese military has built vessels based on those designs and then armed them with weapons systems including anti-shipping missiles."

"China's newest attack helicopter is powered by Canadian-built engines, a development military analysts say could spark a backlash against ..."

All of this China has technology exposure too, even they don't have it themselves they can jump start and acquire their own domestic technology faster.

 

[SABRE]

@ ReAl PrOeLiTeZ

I know well that J-10 system is comparable to F-16. Pakistan F-16 was examined fully by Chinese Engineers

Do you have any credible proof & source for this piece of information? Because officially & unofficially it is now recognized that China neither received any F-16 from Pakistan nor the Chinese engineers visited Pakistan to look at F-16s.

> LH-M team was regular to visit Pakistani F-16s even during the period of sanctions (untill sanctions were doubled when Pak tested nukes). [Pic available of LH-M team visiting PAF F-16s here on DT]

> PAF only had 40 (later 34) F-16s & with sanctions looming around it could not afford to rip open its limited number of F-16s to show it around to the Chinese.

> So far all studies show that J-10 is closely related to Levi (as you pointed it out) rather then F-16 but no credible proof is available on that. All expert who have written the piece of information have actually taken word of mouth from defence forums.

> At the most Pakistani engineers who worked on self upgradings & modifications of F-16s might have visited China & may have given out some information but not before 1990s.

I request that next time provide sources & proofs to such statements.

China was the least hit by the financial crisis, and your so called developed Western countries being least effected. BS!!!! Europe, Australia, Japan, America, South Korea all well developed nation are hit very hard. China not that developed was hit the least. America knows this and are angry, and now eventually which China knew sooner or later would happen, are poking the finger at China saying its their fault. America yeah not effected much and recover soon BS!! And ontop of that their in debt to China and Japan with $15 trillion in debt to them. Have some knowledge in technology and economy before posting BS. JH-7 read my post again, oh sorry your illiterate aren't you awwh. From the post you wrote I can clearly see that you have little knowledge of technology and military hardware.

Such behavior is unwelcomed under any circumstances. Refrain from being abusive, flamming, insulting others & personal attacks . This is th 1st Warning. If the other guy is creating some problems for you, you PM a moderator rather then misbehaving in front of everyone. It is assured that an action would be taken.

 

[SABRE]

General Warning:

- No discussion on economy

- No this vs that discussion

- If you claim "A" is equivalent, superior or even inferior to "B" then do so by providing facts.

- Provide sources/proofs to your claims.

- No off topic discussions.

& remember 3 warnings & you are banned for a week or more (depending on your violations).

- SABRE

 

[Feanor]

Guys I think that you both have a point. Nobody expects China to pull out a Raptorski tomorrow. Or in the next 5 years. But the truth is that China is catching up in terms of technology to many other developed nations. It may be some time before they get there, but it's really only a question of how long, not if. And even with how long we're at this point counting years not decades. Maybe the next Chinese fighter won't be a 5th. gen multi-role with super modern penetration capabilities, but there is no doubt that they will develop one eventually. Ultimately you're both very close to claiming the same thing, just approaching the question of when from two different sides.

I think it would be fair to conclude the discussion saying that China is likely to produce a 5th. generation platform and have it ready for serial production before 2025, but no sooner then 2015.

 

[Falstaff]

@crobato:
I know that FSW technology is used in many countries today and is used in China as well. The Welding competence center at my university worked on several occasions with Chinese partners on that. But as with every welding technology the question is: which materials can be connected, what are the process parameters and is your process applicable.

For those who speak german and are interested in welding technology: www.wir-fuegen-alles.de ("we connect everything" )

Explain, since all the aircraft you mentioned are using the same West sourced engine and component avionics suppliers.

Well, the ARJ-21 uses some components of the MD-90 and represents a somewhat conservative structural and areodynamical design approach (except perhaps for the wing) as well, possibly due to the adaption to harsh conditions. So there is a bit of structural overweight. This tranlates into a single digit % economical disadvantage compared to the Embraer 170/190 family and the SSJ-100 and a low double digit disadvantage compared to the upcoming MRJ and CS-series. IIRC the MRJ will be the first to utilise a geared fan, which probably will be seen on earlier models as well after some time.
Can all be read in FLUG REVUE 08/2008, which gives a brief summary and comparison of all the programs on the occasion of the SSJ-100's first flight.

Exactly. Except that the knowledge of these engineers aren't excluded from the Chinese knowledge base.

Yes, true, but if you want to design something innovative and new you have to do research and for that you have to know the principles. If you only apply the technologies that are publicly available you will always be a follower. And esp. in the military sector you don't want to be that, I guess. Would the Chinese engineers be able to design a J-10 if they hadn't built the J-5 and J-6 for decades?

If you want a more valid comparison, you need to start comparing the J-10's systems with F-16 Block systems that would at least support AMRAAM and Sparrows, as well as with PGM and FLIR support. The J-10 is verified to support active and semi active BVRAAMs, PGMs and FLIR. Block 15 does not cut this.

And that's exactly why it's rubbish to support the claim that the J-10 is on par with late model F-16s by claiming that the Chinese laid their hands on an early F-16, as ReAl PrOeLiTeZ did.

@ ReAl PrOeLiTeZ

China helps builds parts for Boeing aircrafts parts, and in the end they would examine the technology, equipment and methods for their own purposes also.

And then you can do technology that has been developed years ago elsewhere. And by that the time there already is something new evolving elsewhere. If you want to be a technology leader you can't just skip everything and just utilise what's on the market, you have to do research yourself.

@ SABRE

So far all studies show that J-10 is closely related to Levi (as you pointed it out) rather then F-16 but no credible proof is available on that. All expert who have written the piece of information have actually taken word of mouth from defence forums.

When the J-10 appeared some years ago the people who claimed any connection to the Lavi were slaughtered over at sinodefence-forum. I once had a discussion with a chinese who claimed he knew one of the engineers working on the program who rejected any connection between the two programs. Funny enough that sinodefence changes what is said about this topic from time to time. Obviously nobody knows for certain.


@ Feanor
Well said, I agree.

 

[SABRE]

Falstaff]@ SABRE
When the J-10 appeared some years ago the people who claimed any connection to the Lavi were slaughtered over at sinodefence-forum. I once had a discussion with a chinese who claimed he knew one of the engineers working on the program who rejected any connection between the two programs. Funny enough that sinodefence changes what is said about this topic from time to time. Obviously nobody knows for certain.

As I said the so called experts & Journalists who have written on J-10 being based on Levi have taken word-of-mouth from various defence forums & people on these forums have nothing but claims. There is no proof of either F-16 or Levi being the base of J-10. However, closer studies on design put J-10 closer to Levi. Nevertheless, there is nothing to base J-10 & Levi in terms of avionics & capabilities.

 

[crobato]

And that's exactly why it's rubbish to support the claim that the J-10 is on par with late model F-16s by claiming that the Chinese laid their hands on an early F-16, as ReAl PrOeLiTeZ did.

No but China did had direct access to the APG-66 before 1991. In the eighties, the Reagan Administration was trying hard to get some F-16 sales to China, which wasn't possible because the Chinese could not even afford it at that time. Nonetheless there was a program head by Grumman to upgrade the J-8IIs with the APG-66. That would have provided the Chinese with some degree of exposure. The possibility that the Israelis was also teaching the Chinese radar technology is there as well, through the ELTA M 2035 that was used on the Lavi. The modifications on the J-7 and J-8II radars to be able to use and que the PL-8, the Python-3 license, could have direct Israeli assistance and through this contact, the Chinese could have learned something.

In fact, it was rumored that after Tianammen Square, and the Grumman Peace Pearl project canceled, that the Israelis are in line with their own Peace Pearl like proposal for a J-8II modernization program using the ELTA 2032 or 2035. Later that was rejected and it was the Russian's turn to offer their own version of the proposal, leading to the F-8IIM with the Zhuk-8II.

Nonetheless, by 1995, the J-8C prototype was flying with the first Chinese made slotted array radar, the KLJ-1.

 

[crobato]

I know that FSW technology is used in many countries today and is used in China as well. The Welding competence center at my university worked on several occasions with Chinese partners on that. But as with every welding technology the question is: which materials can be connected, what are the process parameters and is your process applicable.

If you are asking me these, how do you know the Chinese are behind by 15 years as you stated?

To be able to fully access their level of technology, you would need to spend hours and even days first finding, then translating, and then going through dense abstracts like this.

http://www.shvoong.com/internet-and...-microstructures-mechanical-properties-al-li/

Website Review by: TsingHua
Author : Acta Metallrugica Sinica
Published: May 11, 2004

Friction stir welding (FSW) for 5 mm thick Al-Li alloy rolled sheet material has been completed with a cone-shape screw thread pin. The metallurgy experiment demonstrates that the dynamic recrystallization occurs in the weld nugget zone (WNZ), fine equiaxed grains form, and a large number of segregation phases appears at grain boundaries. The microstructure in the heataffected zone (HAZ) consists of coarse bar-shape recovery grain, and that of the thermo-mechanically affected zone (TMAZ) exhibits bent band-like character, but the deformation degree at the advancing side is bigger than that at the retreating side. Microstructures in TMAZ are also recovered, and the amount of recovery grain at retreating side is more than that at advancing side. Tensile test shows that the joint strength and elongation are 345 MPa at welding rate v=40 mm/min, and 9.6% at v=60mm/min respectively. Hardness measurement shows that the FSW joint is soften during welding, and the softened zone at advancing side is wider than that at retreating side. Fractographs confirm that the fracture of the joint is mixed mode of ductile and brittle fracture.

Well, the ARJ-21 uses some components of the MD-90 and represents a somewhat conservative structural and areodynamical design approach (except perhaps for the wing) as well, possibly due to the adaption to harsh conditions. So there is a bit of structural overweight. This tranlates into a single digit % economical disadvantage compared to the Embraer 170/190 family and the SSJ-100 and a low double digit disadvantage compared to the upcoming MRJ and CS-series. IIRC the MRJ will be the first to utilise a geared fan, which probably will be seen on earlier models as well after some time.
Can all be read in FLUG REVUE 08/2008, which gives a brief summary and comparison of all the programs on the occasion of the SSJ-100's first flight.

And so that qualifies this statement?

I agree that the ARJ-21 is a huge achievement for the Chinese aviation industry, but it comes nowhere near the Embraer 190, the MRJ or CS-Series in terms of technology or economy. That's a fact.

You have any access to the ARJ-21 for that matter?

 

[zeven]

Thanks. This design looks much stealthier and more 5th gen then the Gripen, NG or not. Why didn't Saab go straight to this design compared to a 4th gen design in the Gripen? $$$ problem?

its not about money, its about demand. right now.

why invest a lot of money in a LO platform is the demand aint there? no countries except SK, have had LO on their demand specifikations.

thats why the Demo plattform are here, other demands that needs to be satisfied, like longer range, increased T/W and so on. if Norway,Denmark,Holland,India,Brasil,Croatia,Bulgaria,Sweitz,Romania,Canada just to mention a few, had VLO as a demand. SAAB would have invested the extra money and time to make a Stealth Gripen reality.

SAAB has long experience with stealth like Sharc, FILUR and now Neuron.

its all about the custumers demands. and less about technology capability

 

[Todjaeger]

its not about money, its about demand. right now.

why invest a lot of money in a LO platform is the demand aint there? no countries except SK, have had LO on their demand specifikations.

thats why the Demo plattform are here, other demands that needs to be satisfied, like longer range, increased T/W and so on. if Norway,Denmark,Holland,India,Brasil,Croatia,Bulgaria,Sweitz,Romania,Canada just to mention a few, had VLO as a demand. SAAB would have invested the extra money and time to make a Stealth Gripen reality.

SAAB has long experience with stealth like Sharc, FILUR and now Neuron.

its all about the custumers demands. and less about technology capability

Discussion of the Saab Gripen is getting rather far afield from PRC aircraft and aircraft production. Having said that...

Being able to product a LO aircraft is very much dependent on technological capability. Also, given the potential for "game-changing" operations against opponents, it is a feature virtually every nation would like to field on at least some of their combat aircraft. However, most nations do not have the technological and economic base to develop, field and support such an aircraft. In point of fact, there has been a shrinkage in the number of countries which have the needed base to develop frontline fighter aircraft independently and keep them at a 'reasonable' cost.

I strongly suspect that the Gripen did not include LO features because at the time of design, Saab had not developed sufficient relevant measures to make the Gripen LO and therefore could not.

As I understand it, the shaping of an aircraft comprises something like 90% of the RCS reduction, IR management, etc which to large measure would explain why the F-117 has such odd shaping. The other ~10% covers materials developments like RAM, etc.

If this is correct, in order for the Gripen to be LO, it would have to started with the design of the airframe. Given that the first Gripen flew in ~1988, the design work for this would have pre-dated the US ATF program, the product of which is now known as the F-22A Raptor. As for using examples of UAVs as evidence of LO/Stealth competencies, they do not apply to making a LO Gripen, as the Gripen pre-dates these UAVs. The FILUR stealth demonstrator had a first flight in October 2005, almost 17 years after the first flight of the JAS 39 Gripen. The first flight for the Neuron UCAV has a first flight currently planned for 2011, again not something shows evidence applicable to a LO Gripen.

What is likely feasible would be to include a number of LO features and new materials to reduce the sig of the Gripen, but that is not the same thing as making the Gripen in a LO aircraft. Short of a total redesign of the aircraft, with the likely result of it looking quite different, the best which likely could be accomplished is like some of the sig reduction features included in the F/A-18E/F Superhornets (which incidentally is a completely different aircraft from the F/A-18A-D which it is based on).

-Cheers

 

[zeven]

If this is correct, in order for the Gripen to be LO, it would have to started with the design of the airframe. Given that the first Gripen flew in ~1988, the design work for this would have pre-dated the US ATF program, the product of which is now known as the F-22A Raptor. As for using examples of UAVs as evidence of LO/Stealth competencies, they do not apply to making a LO Gripen, as the Gripen pre-dates these UAVs. The FILUR stealth demonstrator had a first flight in October 2005, almost 17 years after the first flight of the JAS 39 Gripen. The first flight for the Neuron UCAV has a first flight currently planned for 2011, again not something shows evidence applicable to a LO Gripen.


-Cheers

I'm very much aware how stealth works,

You might be right about SAAB capability in the early 80.
However, if Stealth was one of the demands, for the new platform, (today the girpen platform) i'm pretty much convinced SAAB would have been able to meet Swedens demands on the stealth capability too.

but my post, was an answer: why not Gripen NG have the stealth characteristics shown on the photos of Gripen South Korea

ps.
sorry for the OFF topic.

 

[ReAl PrOeLiTeZ]

@ ReAl PrOeLiTeZ



Do you have any credible proof & source for this piece of information? Because officially & unofficially it is now recognized that China neither received any F-16 from Pakistan nor the Chinese engineers visited Pakistan to look at F-16s.

> LH-M team was regular to visit Pakistani F-16s even during the period of sanctions (untill sanctions were doubled when Pak tested nukes). [Pic available of LH-M team visiting PAF F-16s here on DT]

> PAF only had 40 (later 34) F-16s & with sanctions looming around it could not afford to rip open its limited number of F-16s to show it around to the Chinese.

> So far all studies show that J-10 is closely related to Levi (as you pointed it out) rather then F-16 but no credible proof is available on that. All expert who have written the piece of information have actually taken word of mouth from defence forums.

> At the most Pakistani engineers who worked on self upgradings & modifications of F-16s might have visited China & may have given out some information but not before 1990s.

I request that next time provide sources & proofs to such statements.





Such behavior is unwelcomed under any circumstances. Refrain from being abusive, flamming, insulting others & personal attacks . This is th 1st Warning. If the other guy is creating some problems for you, you PM a moderator rather then misbehaving in front of everyone. It is assured that an action would be taken.

when i say fully examined it doesnt always refer to as being in the hands of Chinese engineers for examination etc...fully examined i mean fully researched, given close attention to in aerial warfare combat that countries have deployed in battle. It like saying China has examined the F-22, doesn't mean they got there hands on its. But have just studied it, meaning examined.
And for each post you cannot always insert data to prove your claims, some are common knowledge and shouldnt need data to prove it. But your right some do. If F-16A/B<Lavi and J-10 is "influenced" by the Lavi/F-16 (tail design) then J-10 should in theory be F-16A/B<J-10. And remeber this early F-16A/B didnt precision bombs, FLIR and AMRAAMS. While J-10 has, so it is at least within the matured blocks of F-16.
For its manuverability, from official video release you can see the J-10 has a much superior rate of climb. And for proof here you go:
"The pilot did none of the show tricks like post-stall or tail slide or pitch-back, but turns were very tight, initial rate of turn very high. It was clear there is a lot of potential in this airplane to achieve the same maneuvers more quickly.

The pilot rarely used afterburner and the degrees of canard deflection were small. Still, the airplane flew very well. I reckon it will beat F-16C or MiG-29/SMT easily."
http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/th...chinas-j1.html

But that isnt official just someones thoughts.

Its foolish for people to compare J-10 with F-22, different weight class, different roles, and designed initially for different specifications. J-10 was meant to defend China airspace against regional threats, Japan, SK, Tawain, Russia. For doubts on J-10 performance view the Zhuai airshow videos to get some form of an idea. All these are not claims but opions and inputs to this thread.

 

[Feanor]

Its foolish for people to compare J-10 with F-22, different weight class, different roles, and designed initially for different specifications. J-10 was meant to defend China airspace against regional threats, Japan, SK, Tawain, Russia. For doubts on J-10 performance view the Zhuai airshow videos to get some form of an idea. All these are not claims but opions and inputs to this thread.

This is the real point that needs to be made. The J-10 is an airplane produced for a different set of requirements, on a different level of technology, and as such should not be compared to the F-22 on any level.