J-XX Fighter Aircraft

otester said:

F-35 is a joint development between BAE and the American defense contractors.

We did make the harrier after all



What I mean is that those things weren't built from the ground up, they're just built based on Russian development, but not always directly copies.



I was refering to the IAI's Lavi.



If I take a T-80 and turn it into a Type 99 then yes, it is merely a heavily modified version, with your own electronics etc.

Something like the Arjun is more of an example of a self-built tank.



The J-8 project was largely made possible due to the transfer of MiG-21 technology from the Soviet Union in 1961. However this aircraft lacked the speed, range, altitude, and radar capability the PLAAF needed in an all-weather interceptor. The nascent Chinese jet aircraft industry was mostly established with Soviet assistance and Chinese designers followed Soviet design methodology for the J-8. A Soviet experimental aircraft known as the Ye-152 "Flipper" with similar configuration may have influenced the J-8 layout, as did the Sukhoi Su-15 'Flagon-A' airframe.

(Source:Wikipedia)



Uses licensed Rolls-Royce Spey Mk202 engine copies.



If the rumour is correct the SD-10 has the electronics from the Raytheon-Motorola bid for the AIM-120 (which lost but Raytheon bought Hughes later on), either that or it's a re-boxed R-77 with a Chinese motor.



Under this ostensibly civilian program, various key Western helicopter manufacturers Eurocopter (rotor design,consultancy), Pratt & Whitney Canada (PT6C turboshaft) and Agusta Westland (transmission) was able to provide considerable technical assistance to the program.[3] The WZ-10 attack helicopter will enter active service in 2008.

(Source:Wikipedia)



WS-10A is based on the USA CFM-56 engine.

(Source:Wikipedia)

Click to expand...

buddy research more deeply in resources, when you say source from wikipedia I laugh at that...I could if I want say that F-15 was copied from Su-27 on wikipedia. It aint a reilable source...The J-8 bears little resemblance to Mig-21.

Lets start J-8 has air intakes on the side, solid nose, length is ~6m longer, wingspan 2m wider, height is ~1m taller, use 2 turbojet, empty weight and loaded weight heavier.

Lastly J-8 is one of the fastest fighters in the PLAAF inventory so it does not "lack" speed.

Z-10 the overall design is domestic, we were talking about designs not powerplants and etc...i know very well what the Z-10 uses....

WS-10 uses some traits of US engines but dont think that US didn't copy some of Soviet technology too...overall WS-10 is a domestic design...

JH-7 we were talking about designs not powerplants...

Tanks aren't the same they have simular configuration but different designs!!!

If you are designing stuff you tend to look for proven and tested platforms and use a small portion in basing your own design around it...Harrier is directly taken from un-finished french project yet they make it sound like the design it themselves

otester said:

Only problem with this method is that the designing countries will always be one step ahead.

Click to expand...

So what? Nazis were well ahead of both the Soviet Union and the western allies. The Romans were well ahead of the Germanic tribes. Go ahead and take comfort in having slightly more advanced technologies.

The Chinese more not going to be fazed if it can maintain a position in the top tier, for its political goals, it doesn't need to be absolutely number 1.

PrOeLiTeZ said:

buddy research more deeply in resources, when you say source from wikipedia I laugh at that...I could if I want say that F-15 was copied from Su-27 on wikipedia.

Click to expand...

Check my previous posts, other sources have been given.

PrOeLiTeZ said:

Z-10 the overall design is domestic, we were talking about designs not powerplants and etc...i know very well what the Z-10 uses....

WS-10 uses some traits of US engines but dont think that US didn't copy some of Soviet technology too...overall WS-10 is a domestic design...

JH-7 we were talking about designs not powerplants...

Click to expand...

I am talking about the designs in general, they may include... foreign power-plants or foreign consultations.

PrOeLiTeZ said:

If you are designing stuff you tend to look for proven and tested platforms and use a small portion in basing your own design around it...

Click to expand...

No, that's what the Chinese do, the idea of doing your own designs is that you are bringing new ideas to the table and trying to bring about another technology breakthrough, this also coincides with my Harrier comment, we took a concept turned it into a real thing, the designs China has copied/heavily modified weren't designed from concepts but other peoples real things. This however may not directly apply to every single design, but where this is not found, foreign parts are.

PrOeLiTeZ said:

Harrier is directly taken from un-finished french project yet they make it sound like the design it themselves

Click to expand...

Source?

Roger604 said:

So what? Nazis were well ahead of both the Soviet Union and the western allies. The Romans were well ahead of the Germanic tribes. Go ahead and take comfort in having slightly more advanced technologies.

The Chinese more not going to be fazed if it can maintain a position in the top tier, for its political goals, it doesn't need to be absolutely number 1.

Click to expand...

The Nazis lost due to their political leaders poor decisions, not their war machines quality, same goes for Rome & the USA.

Korea - Stopped the North from taking the South.

Vietnam - Won every important battle, South Vietnam lost because the USA had no way to help them due to political changes (election), North Vietnam would not have attacked again if the USA was still interested in keeping South Vietnam intact, if they had it would have been very foolish.

Afghanistan - Taliban removed from power (don't go into current occupation status since all unwelcome occupiers go through this).

Iraq '91/'03 - Completely annihilated the Iraqi army (don't go into current occupation status since all unwelcome occupiers go through this) and removed Saddam from power.


Although these wars have been against inferior powers and not an equal, they did show that Soviet technology (disregard Afghanistan/Iraq) was inferior.

Furthermore, most if not all of the wars that have been fought by the USA (listed above) were not justified and only fought for the advantage of the bankers, which own the various industries which profit from wars and take part in empire building and world domination.

otester said:

I just try to add sources where possible, saves people asking later for more information & adds more credibility to the post.

Click to expand...

Adding Wiki sources, especially with regards to the topics we talk abt on this forum, actually does the opposite of adding credibility to your posts.

Schumacher said:

Adding Wiki sources, especially with regards to the topics we talk abt on this forum, actually does the opposite of adding credibility to your posts.

Click to expand...

I give all sources so people can compare the information, so they can improve their knowledge, I am not going to exclude/hide a source because some/I may feel it's biased/unreliable, it's a source, so I list it.

Wiki is usually only politically biased, not militarily.

If I take a T-80 and turn it into a Type 99 then yes, it is merely a heavily modified version, with your own electronics etc.

Something like the Arjun is more of an example of a self-built tank.

Click to expand...

Do you have any sources for this? I do bot think there is enough similarity between T-80 and Type 99.

J-8 is an enlarged version of the J-7, a MiG-21 copy.(1)
F-8II will use Zhuk radars.(2)

Click to expand...

So? They later changed it. Eurofighter uses AIM-120 and LITENING pod, but it is very much an European designed fighter.

J-10 was probably designed with some degree of foreign help, but so are every other fighters in the world. Because there are no embargo, so the technology transfers are not as scrutinized.

I don't think something close to F-22 is likely, because the general technology level is not there yet. I am talking about the flight computers, the material engineering, ect...

otester said:

I give all sources so people can compare the information, so they can improve their knowledge.

Wiki is usually only politically biased, not militarily.

Click to expand...

You're new here. You're not the first one we see here who think research is all abt googling wiki. Wiki really has not so good reputation here & few other military sites I've seen. Actually, as far as I can tell, most here don't think too highly of the info on this Sinodefence site as well, note not the same as the forum here.
Stick around if u want to learn & not just make empty claims, there're a few here who have real knowledge abt PLA & other technical issues.

Schumacher said:

You're new here. You're not the first one we see here who think research is all abt googling wiki. Wiki really has not so good reputation here & few other military sites I've seen. Actually, as far as I can tell, most here don't think too highly of the info on this Sinodefence site as well, note not the same as the forum here.
Stick around if u want to learn & not just make empty claims, there're a few here who have real knowledge abt PLA & other technical issues.

Click to expand...

Please re-read the post you quoted.

optionsss said:

Do you have any sources for this? I do bot think there is enough similarity between T-80 and Type 99.

Click to expand...

Also... similarities:

-Gun
-Autoloader
-Interior layout fits that of a Russian designed tank.

optionsss said:

So? They later changed it. Eurofighter uses AIM-120 and LITENING pod, but it is very much an European designed fighter.

Click to expand...

The thing is, each of the countries involved has previously researched, designed and built their own things from scratch, I can't find any Chinese hardware that has followed this path.

The AIM-120C-5/7 will soon be replaced by the superior Meteor, it's merely a place-holder, however I am not too sure about the LITENING pod though, but it's probably the same case.

otester said:

Please re-read the post you quoted.

......

Click to expand...

ok, I see u edited your post that '..I am not going to exclude/hide a source because some/I may feel it's biased/unreliable..'.
You're not making sense. Why use a source u feel is unreliable unless being used as a critique ?
If u feel the labeling of your sources as unreliable is unfair, it's best to demonstrate some knowledge of the issue to counter it rather than googling more general internet PLA 'news'.
If u looking thru here, this forum really do have low regards for general internet commentaries on PLA & with good reasoning, not just some feel like it.

Schumacher said:

ok, I see u edited your post that '..I am not going to exclude/hide a source because some/I may feel it's biased/unreliable..'.
You're not making sense. Why use a source u feel is unreliable unless being used as a critique ?
If u feel the labeling of your sources as unreliable is unfair, it's best to demonstrate some knowledge of the issue to counter it rather than googling more general internet PLA 'news'.
If u looking thru here, this forum really do have low regards for general internet commentaries on PLA & with good reasoning, not just some feel like it.

Click to expand...

Some of the information on there is ok thought, for example specific details of a tank for example.