Talk:Chengdu J-10

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is part of WikiProject China, a project to improve all China-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other China-related articles, please join the project. All interested editors are welcome.

???

This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.

[edit] Counter USA?

One statement is: "The program started in 1986,[1] to counter new fourth generation fighters then being introduced by the USSR (namely, the MiG-29 and Su-27)". Someone changed it from USSR to USA, which does not make sense. During 1980s, U.S. and PRC joined in effort to counter USSR. China may not have trusted US completely, but China did have a serious fallout with USSR. In the recent years China and Russia relationship has improved a lot, but that all happened after USSR collapsed. Ch2000 05:54, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

And the events of Tianamen Square were the trigger of the stall of U.S.-PRC collaboration. --Henrickson 20:54, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Talk about conspiracy theorists, wouldn't make more sense that they simply "developed" it? 24.89.245.62 16:02, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Specifications

Captions from CCTV 7 are apparently revealing some stats on the J-10; I'm not sure if these are official or not.

roll rate: > 300 degrees

Instantaneous turn rate: > 31 degrees

highest speed at sea level: 1450 KM/h = mach 1.18

service ceiling: > 20000 m

G-limit: +9G/-3G

Can reach mach2.0 with 3 fuel tank + 4 AAMs

Can reach a maximum speed of mach 2.34 with nothing loaded

In comparison: F-16 can barely touch mach 2.0 with nothing loaded and su-27 can only reach mach 1.72 with full load of missiles.

range:

for long range air superiority mission with 3 external tanks + 2 Pl-8/2 PL-12 - in hi profile, combat radius is 1110 kM

for interception mission with 1 external tank + 4 PL-12/2-PL-8, in hi profile, combat radius is 900 km.

Not including in-flight refueling

J-10's maximum subsonic unstable degree? 10 degrees (apparently this is higher than that of Typhoon).
Also the New designation used by CCTV and Chinese literature for the twin-seater is no longer J-10B but instead J-10S
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Dsong2006 (talk • contribs)

"apparently this is higher than that of Typhoon", There you said it. These figures are highly doubtful. En51cm 03:09, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] General

I have heard some reports that the J-10 entered service in late 2004. Can anyone confirm this?--Todd Kloos 23:33, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

As of today, I believe that 3 regiments of J-10 are in service in the Nanjing Military Region.

The article leads the reader to believe that Israel give china the technology for the Chengdu, this is pure speculation and should not be presented as solid fact. I have deleted the passages which do this.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg 01:11, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree that the article should not state that as a fact, however, the J-10 is strikingly similar to the Israeli Lavi, and the J-10 is also radically different than all other Chinese designs so it seems probable that there was some foreign influence. I think the article should at least mention that there is some belief that the J-10 may have been built with some Israeli assistance. Edrigu 14:21, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

I have to say, for those who envy the J-10 should be consider as normal, because they can't develop such a jet with so much good function,and lower price than F-16 but better function than F-16

why envy? F-16 developed decades ago. and J-10 is just recent. Why don't you compare it with Raptor(f-22)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.214.9.174 (talk) 19:36, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

The statement "J-10 is also radically different than all other Chinese designs" is not true. J-10 is quite similar to the canceled J-9 which was also developed by Chengdu Lizhuoru 16:51, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm changing a few words in this paragraph to make it more NPOV. However, I think we should leave it in, since it's valid speculation. --205.250.250.154 19:37, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

The similarity is completley superficial, one might as well state that the Israelis gave the technology to the Swedes when they developed the Saab Gripen as it looks just as similar. The reason that all these aircraft look similar has to do with similar roles and aerodynamics.

Note: Gripen did recieve technologicial assisantance from BAE Systems which designs Eurofighter Typhoon. En51cm 06:53, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

^Ludicrous. It's widely believed (and JANEs even mentions this) that it was based on the Israeli Lavi. It's worth mentioning in the article, and moreover, the Gripen has twin side intakes, while the Lavi and J-10 have one at the bottom. Sorrowek 10:33, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

I have added the role that the J-10 plays in C & C Zero Hour reborn as I have used this plane in multiplayer games (trust me, it rules the skies ;). I cannot, however, find any external links: perhaps someone else can.) --The1exile 21:13, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Someone else has added references to the model of the MiG being the Mig 1.44 or MFI. I cannot find any references to either of these models on wikipedia or on any other source. can someone please explain what these models are, or I will revert. At least clear up the redlink. --The1exile 21:04, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

On a different note, what is all the chinese text at the top of this talk page? I cannot see all the characters for the first and last phrases but the second one says, if my chinese is not completely wrong, "The secret is not easy to reveal". --The1exile 21:10, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

It says "We have something even more exciting! It's not easy to reveal the secret! Come to China and see!" Typical childish stuff, please disregard that. --Ledrug 04:12, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

This article has too much speculations. Some of it look like very good educated guesses based on original research, but it should be made clear to readers that these are not commonly accepted hard facts.

Btw, who wrote the J-10 engine is built by Pakistan, its ridiculous. The engine originated from Russia and the Russian would never license a copy of their engine to Pakistan.

By the way, I removed the fifth-generation link, because in the news article, it is unclear whether the Pakistani Official is referring to the fifth generation for PAF, or fifth generation in general. The so-called "generation" classification often carries different definitions and unnecessary controversy. With the exception of the few, generally people do not regard J-10 to be in the same class as F-22 (which is usually what the "fifth generation" refers to). Ch2000 02:00, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

AFAIK, J-10 is officially only a GEN 4++ fighter. Russia has also since approved the sale of engines much to the displeasure of it's ally India. don't believe JANES on this, they were speculating. Akinkhoo 04:09, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] False Information

Not that anybody seems to care, but another comment by me. According to Global Security, which is listed as a source, the J-10 can do Mach 1.85, and yet the article claims that the plane can do M2+. If there are no objections, I will change this. --The1exile 17:00, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Global Security is wrong. They just took the Lavi top speed and assumed that it would be the same for the J-10. However, the some of the design features of the J-10 such as the variable geometry inlet indicate that it should have a much higher top speed than the Lavi. The dimentions that they give for the aircraft are also based on the lavi, so they are probably a bit off as well.--Todd Kloos 19:57, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Ok then, thats enough to knock Global Security of the external links page; providing misinformation is not what Wikipedia is about. --The1exile 20:14, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] chief designer

According to the Chinese press, the chief designer is Song, Wencong (宋文骢), not Yang, Wei. ——Nussknacker胡桃夹子 ^.^tell me... 19:50, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Serious references wanted

Such sentences in the first paragraph without serious references seem to be a personal conjecture, and could be considered to delete, Wikipedia should not be ragout of all kinds of rumors:

A series of press reports in February 2007 indicated that the aviation community now strongly suspects that the J-10 was built in part with secret Israeli assistance, specifically obtained from Israel Aerospace Industries, using design knowledge gained on the now-canceled IAI Lavi fighter[citation needed], as well as by illegal copying design elements from a U.S.-made F-16 Falcon fighter secretly (and illegally) donated by Pakistan[citation needed]. As a quid pro quo, Pakistan is now the only non-Chinese user of the J-10.

——Nussknacker ^.^tell me... 17:27, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Pakistan Air force is not a user of J-10

I also do not think PAF should be listed as a current user of J-10. Even if the order is true, there is no official confirmation from Chinese source, and PAF has not begin to operated it. BTW, I will try to update the J-10 wiki entry with some referrences in the coming weeks. I might also restructure the entire thing. Hopefully some people could help me proof-read and edit the thing when I update. Ch2000 10:00, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

ACM TANVIR MAHMOOD AHMAD is quoted as saying 18 F-16C/Ds, 150 JF-17 and 36 F-10A would be join PAF. However I could find an official statement on it. china did have the F16 and possibly some data on Lavi as claim but the level of useful is questionable as the J-10 is quite different from both plane; afaik, it is only a POV by some and not widely supported because of a lack of evidence. Akinkhoo 03:46, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] J-10 Image

There used to be an image of a J-10 taken from the side that has somehow disappeared. Who removed it and could someone at least replace the image that was unnecessarily removed? (Psychoneko 22:06, 9 June 2007 (UTC))

The images were removed because they were supposedly not licensed properly, meaning the person who deleted them was unsure if they could be used legally on Wikipedia. The only image remaining image is a sunset shot, and it does not show the aircraft very well. We'll just have to wait until someone else supplies legally-usable images. - BillCJ 22:45, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 1979

However, a Chinese magazine (zh:少年科学画报, ISSN1000-7776) published in June 1979 showed a boy holding a model of J-10. [4] The picture showed that the project began long before 1979.

How sure are we about this? The source itself cannot be confirmed in English, and the plane in the picture is significantly different from the current J-10 design -- it lacks the forward canards, and the wings are clearly not in the delta wing configuration. The air intake is very similar, but could it be from another plane? Ham Pastrami 14:41, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

The J-10 was originally designed in Isreal, not China. The US thought the J-10 would be competing in the international markets with the F-16, therefore under US pressure the development was halted. In return the Isreali air-force got a discount rate for US air technology. Against the US wishes, the designs were sold to China. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.157.154.249 (talk) 13:03, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] On the section concerning Israel

The persons quoted in the section are Israeli citizens, and their remarks are rather direct and strong for this topic. I removed the word "Possible" for that reason. The J-10 is a Chinese Lavi, in both content and appearance.--Jackkalpakian 00:41, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

The actual content of the section as it is now contradicts what you wrote. The Chinese are claiming that J10 and Lavi are unrelated. The claims of similarity between the two aircraft are (entirely valid) speculation by some reputable sources. No hard evidence is presented on this site, or any other source which I have seen. Thus, "possible" is best. It is also possible that you are just reverting based upon spite, in which case, don't let my anti-spitism stop you. Wee Lion (talk) 15:18, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, you need to set your nationalism aside, Wee Lion, the Israelis are admitting that they helped China -- you are substituting Chinese histriography for the truth, and you are also absolving Israel from its obligations to its allies. Admission is enough, the Israelis are openly saying they helped, and also the planes look alike, what more??? China deserves credit for reviving the Lavi, no mean feat. --Jackkalpakian (talk) 17:16, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

There is no doubt that Israel sells military technology to China. I believe there is also ample confirmation that J10 contains Israeli technology. The question is whether any special expertise was shared, from the Lavi project or from elsewhere. The only evidence for this, beyond speculation, is the visual similarity between J10 and Lavi, which is shared by a number of other planes such as the Eurofighter Typhoon. I would be especially interested to see any evidence that J10 contains American technology obtained from Israel, which is what you are insinuating, though poorly. At any rate, my point about spite still stands. Wee Lion 14:55, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Let's have a vote!

To everyone: I noticed lately that the word "Possible" has been removed and re-added to the "Israeli participation" section header over and over again. Some of us want that word to stay, others want it to be gone.

Now, to prevent this issue from becoming an endless revert/edit war, let's all make a single, final decision about it. Vote now to the following question:

Should the word "Possible" be included in the section header of "Israeli participation" or not?

A) Yes, include the word "Possible" in the header.
B) No, do not include the word "Possible" in the header.

You can vote starting now. All votes will be compiled one week from today, on December 08.

I vote: B. --Henrickson ^{User talk | Contribs} 08:39, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

It's probably best to discuss other possible options before just accepting those two. I think we can come up with headings that better reflect the paragraph's content, but that will be less prone to revert wars. - BillCJ 08:53, 1 December 2007 (UTC) (I see you standing in the fire. And I won't forget you.)

I vote B--Jackkalpakian (talk) 21:47, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vote results

OK, it's already December 13, and here are the results:

Total	2	100%
	Vote counts	Percentage
A	0	0.00%
B	2	100%

The outcome is: B) No, do not include the word "Possible" in the header.

It is interesting to note that the original section header used by the editor who wrote that section was "Possible Israeli participation?", with the question mark at the end. He already knew that the word "Possible" was going to create conflicts. A revert war began when someone removed that question mark. --Henrickson ^{User talk | Contribs} 23:33, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Section header suggestions

As BillCJ said, it's better to come up with a new or different section header to the section "Israeli participation", rather than use "Israeli participation", "Possible Israeli participation" or "Possible Israeli participation?". Here are mine:

Israeli influence in the J-10's design
Israel's contribution to the the J-10's design

What would you suggest? (If we can't find any good one, "Israeli participation" will be the default header.) --Henrickson ^{User talk | Contribs} 23:33, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

i would actually suggest Israeli technology transfer. because participation sound like the israeli actually work on the plane, where by they might just be providing whatever they HAD, eg. fly-by-wire, radar, missile.. etc to the chinese. which really sound more of a transfer than participation unless is israeli actually develop anything they didn't already have for the chinese, which would be very questionable! Akinkhoo (talk) 09:46, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The part is biased and against common sense

"A simple comparison of known IAI Lavi prototype photographs and J-10 photographs (now officially released) confirms J-10 being further development of IAI Lavi."

From a logical point of view, you cannot derive the relation of two aircrafts from photos. Can I say that "Tu-160 is a further development of USA B-1"? Words like "a simple comparison" should be removed.

Since you have included the photos for J-10 and Lavi, in order to make it NPOV, you should include the photos of J-9(which shows the relation of J-10 with J-9). To me, there are clearly a few differences between J-10 and Lavi, the canards, the delta wing and the air intake are quite different. The canards and delta wing of J-10 is more similar to J-9, though the air intake is completely different. The J-9 photo is here http://www.china-defense.com/aviation/chinese_fighter_development/2b.jpg

Lizhuoru (talk) 08:23, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah! Why nobody mention J9? Is that copied from Lavi also? I am not saying that there is no Israel tech transferred to China, but saying that J-10 is designed in Israel is ridiculous. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.116.76.165 (talk) 15:03, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Developed from

The article sais it is developed from the J-9, but I have always heared it has been developed from the Israeli IAI Lavi. The Honorable Kermanshahi (talk) 17:04, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

because they are misleaded, the J-9 exist before the Lavi but few know or seen the J-9 design. and since most western analyst only know of the Lavi, they draw the line incorrectly because the Lavi was the most similar design they know of. it is basically 1 big rumour because china kept the program secret until quite recently. but large amount of misinform material were already written about it. Akinkhoo (talk) 07:18, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] J-10 Operational Range

A maximum range of 3000 km without refueling for a lightweight fighter? Isn't this grossly unrealistic for a lightweight fighter? (Psychoneko (talk) 13:10, 13 February 2008 (UTC))

It is. According to Jane's All The World's Aircraft, the maximum ferry range with max fuel in internal and external tanks is 1850km. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rpine75 (talk • contribs) 00:43, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I went ahead and updated the ferry range as well as the combat radius which was also grossly overstated. The odd thing is that even the source that had been cited didn't list such a huge combat radius, but rather one of 550km, which is within the range predicted by Jane's.Rpine75 (talk) 00:57, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thrust vectoring

This part is mostly irrevelent to the main topic. Also it is short of citation. I think it should be combined with the former part "engine", or be deleted at all.(Dale_Zhong) —Preceding comment was added at 13:01, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] MiG MFI

Seriously guys? Am I the only one who thinks that this plane is IDENTICAL to MiG MFI? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.118.191.48 (talk) 05:19, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Hidden categories: Start-Class military aviation articles | Military aviation articles needing attention to referencing and citation | Military aviation task force articles | Start-Class Chinese military history articles | Chinese military history articles needing attention to referencing and citation | Chinese military history task force articles