Who Dare Say Our China Be Able To Copy Only ?

TO BE CONTINUE

dragon will be angry








[edit on 14-2-2005 by John bull 1]

[edit on 7-3-2005 by Thomas Crowne]

You already have a thread saying exactly the same thing.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

This is my favourite photo of the J-10, maybe you will like it too?

Sorry KL I re-opened it because I've merged the two posts and trashed the other one.

IM at a loss of what this thread, apart from posting lots of wierd pics, is actually about? Can someone clarify?!

That's one sexy aircraft Emile! buy me one!

Does it have 2D or 3D TVC?

Don't you think the picture with the F-18 and Airforce one being shot is a little bit offensive for our American brothers?

check out the Lavi pics i posted on

www.abovetopsecret.com...

I have to say Stealth Spy that thing does look like a copy of the Lavi. They just look so much alike you cant deny it. Looks like a great plane though and I love those foward canards.

The picture of the J-10 shooting down Airforce One though

[edit on 14-2-2005 by ShadowXIX]

If it wasn't for Wal-Mart, China wouldn't have the money for those planes. Oh wait. With minimum wage at 30 cents the plane would cost about 2 grand. Nevermind.

Originally posted by ShadowXIX
I have to say Stealth Spy that thing does look like a copy of the Lavi. They just look so much alike you cant deny it. Looks like a great plane though and I love those foward canards.

The picture of the J-10 shooting down Airforce One though

[edit on 14-2-2005 by ShadowXIX]

China tried to build it initially by reverse engineering a pakistani F-16, but were uncessful, so they got friendly with israel. when US intervined , china stole most of the lavi, and with a few modifications, made the J-10

there is a quote from a chinese source www.sinodefence.com

Collaboration between China and Israel on fighter technology began in the early 1980's and full-scale co-operation was underway by 1984. After the 1987 cancellation of the Lavi programme, its design was taken over by CAC, and the J-10 was made.

Copy or not..As I've said before, if a plane is good then thats all that matters..if the copy is $hitty, then again thats much worse than an indigenous product being $hitty..
J-10 hasn't proved itself eitherway..so lets wait and watch..

Yes Im curious to know if it has TVC..I didn't think so..

And as for the AF1 being downed...thats poor taste..
What is that pic comparing two different types of exhaust nozzles??
PLAAF is purely a defensive AF..offensive capabilites are limited to Taiwan and maybe Japan..
Compare the PLAAF with the IAF, not USAF..
Whatever happened to that comparision thread of mine

[edit on 14-2-2005 by Daedalus3]

Emile,

If this were 1974 I'd be scared. Since it's 2005, however, I'm not... simply because your favorite airplane looks like something the USA would have rejected 30+ years ago.

Seriously, the thing looks like the fat half-brother of the F-16. It's almost as if an F-16 mated with a Eurofighter and had a really fat, really ugly child.

Contrary to the title of your thread, I see nothing really original in that plane.

Originally posted by onlyinmydreams

Contrary to the title of your thread, I see nothing really original in that plane.

I see something very original in the plane. A Chinese pilot.

I dare say: "Your China be able only to copy!!!"

Nice looking plane.

Nice behaviour from America's greatest ally besides the UK, way to go Israel, friend, not.

I suppose once Boeing have sold the Chinese all the information they will have to for the 60 or so new 787's they're intent on selling them then the Chinese will have just about closed any gaps and will have all the tech they need to make genuine gen 4.5 or 5 aircraft.

The latest composite materials and construction techniques, the latest computer control tech, the latest big turbo-fan tech.....the list just goes on and on.

But hey, no doubt some will just prefer to carry on bitching about the French gov wanting to relax some of the many current European EU restrictions on what military stuff we might be interested in selling them, huh?

You can't very well have an enemy if they are still fighting with sticks and you have gunpowder. You have to allow your technology to be given so that you can have an actual war. Israel is the friend of the U.S. and is doing everything exactly as they should. Saddam was/is a friend of the U.S. and he did exactly what he was asked to do. Order through Choas. Total control through War. Problem - Reaction - Solution. Populus Vult Decipi. Does anyone seriously believe that the U.S. could not have taken out Saddam without bombing the hell out of the civilians? Does anyone believe that the U.S. could not take out Kim Jong? They need him just like the needed Saddam. Just like the new game show on Comedy Central. It's all just Distraction. While all the masses are fighting over their sense of nationalistic pride the leaders are molding the world to the way they want. There is a resolution somewhere that states you can't take out heads of state. They need them protected. Against popular belief, there are not a large amount of evil people willing to sell-out whole populations of their countrymen for money. These people are a valuable resource and must be protected. Of course, such a resolution cannot stop the CIA from taking out democratically elected officials and replacing them with tyrannical regimes. At this point, you would think they would change up the game plan a bit. It's just so passe. Divide and Conquer. Problem - Reaction - Solution. It's getting old. But hey, if it ain't broke don't fix it right. If these ancient techniques didn't work for thousands of years they would be forced to change it up. If anything I wish people would wake up just so they change their techniques. I'm getting bored out of my mind watching this mickey mouse parade.

Emile,

If this were 1974 I'd be scared. Since it's 2005, however, I'm not... simply because your favorite airplane looks like something the USA would have rejected 30+ years ago.

That proofs to me that you are young and/or no nothing about aviation, this plane actually is similar to the X-31 in configuration and that was less than 20 years ago, and do you really think is ugly? I think it's quite nice looking

Seriously, the thing looks like the fat half-brother of the F-16. It's almost as if an F-16 mated with a Eurofighter and had a really fat, really ugly child.

I don't know how you could say that, you must be offended or feeling threatend or something, you are acting defensively.

Contrary to the title of your thread, I see nothing really original in that plane

I have to agree, there is nothing completely original from the outside.

it's coments like those that start flame wars and as I stated earlier, the AF1 going down picture is terrible and offensive.

Why can't we just avoid this kind of behaviour?

^^^ human nature...
Was china present at the aero-india show?

Current engines fitted to the J-10 do not have thrust vectoring... however the indeginous WZ-10 engine that is to be fitted soon does.

ok,if so, why don't you say the Janese F-2 copies from Jaguar, the soviet Tu-4 copies from B-29, the Tu-160 copies from B-1 Lancer. and Su-27 is only mix the F-14 & F-16? what do you think a couple of below. this type of aircraft came forth 15 years ago.