Chinese carrierborne fighter - what will they go for?

[Deino]

According to an article in International Air Power Review from last year, there is a family connection between Lavi and J-10.  Wish I could find the book right now, else I'd quote it.

Sorry ... that's not true !!

It has been finally "agreed" that there was an "influence" by others, which gave advices and methods ... but the J-10 is completely an indigenous concept (at least by CAC's words).

One could only agree that they share the same or at least similar configuration in the same way as the F/A-18E/F is based on the original YF-17.

Maybe You should quote that IAPR-text ! 


Deino

[Deino]

Maybe You should quote that IAPR-text ! 

O.k. ... so let me quote myself !

... One interesting "confession" of this external assistance can be found in an recent interview with CAC's project director Yan Xiang: "Through international cooperation, our technical level was noticeably improved, especially in engineering and the personnel technical skills to update the design concepts. So we need to emphasize that the J-10 fighter is totally independent and indigenous design concept. Others just gave us some ideas and methods to finalise it."

PS: added are some of the twin engined J-10B carrier-capable what-if's !

Deino

[Sauragnmon]

Interesting stuff, Deino.  I'll have to keep those images in mind when I get that Typhoon and the J-10 models that are on order somewhere.

Of course, then I'll chase it by building a J-10B

Aside - that J-10C you posted looks to be based off the J-10S Trainer version.  Still, looks cool.

[Deino]

Regarding the B & C designations ... these were just chosen, to make them different from the A model at a time, the Trainer/twin-seater was still expected to be called B .... and the C is like "carrier" !

Deino

[Shasper]

I'm predicting they'll end up outright owning an insolvent global neighbor, and help themselves to a nice new batch of F/A-18 E's and F's. . .

For my sake I hope that doesn't happen . . . otherwise it WONT be the PLAN Rhinos I'll be worried about . . .


Shas

[Gary]

Not that I should be quoted here but I thought the stink over Israel's "involvement" in the J-10 was simply to supply the Chinese with 20 year old air tunnel data that was generated when the Lavi was being tested. Hardly the basis for saying the design came from Israel.

[anthonyp]

According to an article in International Air Power Review from last year, there is a family connection between Lavi and J-10.  Wish I could find the book right now, else I'd quote it.

Sorry ... that's not true !!

It has been finally "agreed" that there was an "influence" by others, which gave advices and methods ... but the J-10 is completely an indigenous concept (at least by CAC's words).

Deino, like I said, I wish I could find the book.  And by family connection, "influence" is what was meant, not the horse-hockey that the Lavi was a prototype for the thing, nor that a Lavi ended up in Israel.

This isn't Secret Projects.  There's threads of this stuff over there, and I don't feel like dragging up old arguments other than to say IAPR had something in its article, which you quoted and doesn't make my statement any less false.

[Sauragnmon]

Oh, I fully acknowledge that, Deino.  Of course, now we have the J-10B (with the DSI and such), and I've read the twin-seat is the 10S, which means still a navalized or further variant would be a 10C in principle.

I'll still be getting some practice for that off my Super-Viper project.

[Thorvic]

According to an article in International Air Power Review from last year, there is a family connection between Lavi and J-10.  Wish I could find the book right now, else I'd quote it.

Sorry ... that's not true !!

It has been finally "agreed" that there was an "influence" by others, which gave advices and methods ... but the J-10 is completely an indigenous concept (at least by CAC's words).

Deino, like I said, I wish I could find the book.  And by family connection, "influence" is what was meant, not the horse-hockey that the Lavi was a prototype for the thing, nor that a Lavi ended up in Israel.

This isn't Secret Projects.  There's threads of this stuff over there, and I don't feel like dragging up old arguments other than to say IAPR had something in its article, which you quoted and doesn't make my statement any less false.

Erm Anthony you should REALLY find the article as then you will discover that Deino wrote it and Sentinel Chicken illustrated it. Deino is the resident expert on Chinese post war aircraft and picked up quite a few gaffs in Yefims recent book on the subject......(In fact probably the best on the subject in the public domain).

His last one on the Flying Leopard is also very good, and i know their next one will be excellent.

Geoff

[Gary]

According to an article in International Air Power Review from last year, there is a family connection between Lavi and J-10.  Wish I could find the book right now, else I'd quote it.

Sorry ... that's not true !!

It has been finally "agreed" that there was an "influence" by others, which gave advices and methods ... but the J-10 is completely an indigenous concept (at least by CAC's words).

Deino, like I said, I wish I could find the book.  And by family connection, "influence" is what was meant, not the horse-hockey that the Lavi was a prototype for the thing, nor that a Lavi ended up in Israel.

This isn't Secret Projects.  There's threads of this stuff over there, and I don't feel like dragging up old arguments other than to say IAPR had something in its article, which you quoted and doesn't make my statement any less false.

Erm Anthony you should REALLY find the article as then you will discover that Deino wrote it and Sentinel Chicken illustrated it. Deino is the resident expert on Chinese post war aircraft and picked up quite a few gaffs in Yefims recent book on the subject......(In fact probably the best on the subject in the public domain).

His last one on the Flying Leopard is also very good, and i know their next one will be excellent.

Geoff

I love this site! There is so much talent and expertise here and so little pretentious bluster and BS!

[GTX]

Some relevant news reports:

China tells Japan it wants aircraft carrier    
Mar 23 02:33 AM US/Eastern
China will not remain the world's only major nation without an aircraft carrier indefinitely, state press Monday cited the nation's defence minister as telling his Japanese counterpart.

Liang Guanglie made the remarks to visiting Japanese Defence Minister Yasukazu Hamada on Friday, the Oriental Morning Post said, in discussions that took place after a recent spike in tension in the South China Sea.

"Among the big nations only China does not have an aircraft carrier. China cannot be without an aircraft carrier forever," the paper quoted Liang as saying, citing Japanese official sources.

"China's navy is currently rather weak, we need to develop an aircraft carrier."

Liang's comment is the highest-level recent confirmation that China aims to acquire an aircraft carrier, a sophisticated piece of military hardware that can be used to project power far beyond a nation's shores.

It comes after several similar calls in recent months by senior members of the People's Liberation Army.

"Building aircraft carriers is a symbol of an important nation. It is very necessary," the China Daily quoted Admiral Hu Yanlin as saying earlier this month.

"China has the capability to build aircraft carriers and should do so."

In December, defence ministry spokesman Huang Xueping told reporters that China would "seriously" consider getting an aircraft carrier.

Defence Minister Liang was speaking after Chinese vessels confronted and nearly collided with a US naval surveillance ship in what Washington says are international waters off south China earlier this month.

The confrontation was described by US intelligence director Dennis Blair as the most serious military incident involving the two powers since a US spy plane collided with a Chinese fighter jet in April 2001.

China said the US naval ship Impeccable was carrying out illegal activities in its exclusive economic zone.

Beijing has also reacted angrily to a Philippine law passed earlier this month that laid claim to parts of the Spratlys Islands in the South China Sea which are claimed by China and other nations in the region.

China called the law "illegal and invalid," and dispatched a civilian patrol boat to the region.

Reports: China Confirms Intent to Build Aircraft Carrier

China will develop an aircraft carrier in line with its status as a major global power; state press Monday reported the nation's defense minister as saying.

The comments by Liang Guanglie, which come shortly after a spike in tension when Chinese vessels confronted a U.S. naval surveillance ship, are the latest high-level confirmation that Beijing is beefing up its military.

Liang told visiting Japanese Defense Minister Yasukazu Hamada on Friday of China's ambition, according to reports carried widely by the state press.

"Among the big nations, only China does not have an aircraft carrier. China cannot be without an aircraft carrier forever," the Oriental Morning Post -- citing Japanese official sources -- quoted Liang as saying.

"China's navy is currently rather weak," he added, "We need to develop an aircraft carrier."

Senior members of the People's Liberation Army have also called in recent months for China to acquire its first aircraft carrier, a sophisticated piece of military hardware that can be used to project power far beyond a nation's shores.

"Building aircraft carriers is a symbol of an important nation. It is very necessary," the China Daily paper quoted Admiral Hu Yanlin as saying earlier this month.

"China has the capability to build aircraft carriers and should do so."

The defense ministry refused to immediately comment on Liang's remarks, but in December, ministry spokesman Huang Xueping told reporters that China would "seriously" consider getting an aircraft carrier.

Liang was speaking after Chinese vessels confronted -- and nearly collided with -- a U.S. naval surveillance ship earlier in March in what Washington says are international waters off south China.

The confrontation was described by U.S. intelligence director Dennis Blair as the most serious military incident involving the powers since a U.S. spy plane collided with a Chinese fighter jet in April 2001.

China said the U.S. naval ship Impeccable was carrying out illegal activities in its exclusive economic zone.

According to generally accepted definitions, a nation's exclusive economic zone extends 200 nautical miles (370 kilometers or 230 miles) into the ocean from its coastline.

Beijing also reacted angrily to a Philippine law passed earlier this month that laid claim to parts of the Spratly Islands in the South China Sea which are claimed by China and other nations in the region.

China described the law as "illegal and invalid" and dispatched a civilian patrol boat to the region.

"China needs an aircraft carrier because its global status is rising and it needs to defend its maritime territory and help maintain international peace," Jia Qingguo, an international security expert at Peking University, told Agence France Presse (AFP).

"Sooner or later China will build an aircraft carrier. When it happens will mainly depend on whether the demand for this intensifies or not."

Liu Jiangyong, an expert on international security at Tsinghua University, told the Global Times that a carrier was needed to protect shipping interests in an increasingly interlinked world.

"China has the need and the capability to build an aircraft carrier," the paper quoted Liu as saying.

"Building an aircraft carrier will raise our strength in the high seas and is a necessary choice for a strong China."

In China's annual parliamentary session earlier this month, Prime Minister Wen Jiabao vowed to modernize the nation's military across the board as his government asked legislators for a 15.3 percent increase in defense spending for 2009.

The defense budget will rise to 472.9 billion yuan (69 billion dollars) in 2009, an increase of 62.7 billion yuan on last year.

The figure represents a doubling of defense spending since 2006.(AFP)


Beirut, Updated 24 Mar 09, 19:31

Regards,

Greg