Wouldn't be at all surprised major Chinese aircraft designers want input from someone who flew F-16s. It offers a perspective and a learning opportunity beyond what Chinese alone could achieve. But you seem to be suggesting that he is making it out like he is solely responsible for design suggestions and inputs. First of all aircraft design is one problem. Implementing design is the real challenge. Actually manufacturing the implemented design is a monumental challenge.
For example with J-10. We know the similarity with Lavi. But Lavi existed as a prototype. The difference between that and a finished product is leaps and bounds. Look at J-20 prototype staging to J-20 in service and F-22 prototype flight in 1995 to introduction around 2005 and the difference between prototype and actual.
J-10A is different to Lavi in some external ways already. They both have the same position of canards and ventral fins for example but the dimensions, materials, and geometry of just these are already very slightly different. This slight difference still changes the aerodynamics. J-10A is taller, longer, and wider than the Lavi with a completely different geometry intake. It uses a different engine to what the Lavi was designed around. This is just surface stuff. The weapons control, avionics, electronics, FCS, software, they're all Chinese and integrated by CAC tested, tweaked, and manufactured!
Sure J-10 is absolutely based off the Lavi and I personally do not doubt that CAC designers based the J-10A solely off the Lavi and had fly by wire development assistance from the Israelis and/or Russians. Who cares, lessons learned and adapted. Lessons paid for as well.
I think the above needed to be said again because so many stupidly use J-10 and Lavi as some sort of example to prove Chinese inability as if something from the 80s is somehow still relevant nearly 40 years later.
As for user input. That's a minuscule part of aircraft development and this Pakistani guy was only asked for input to see what someone used to modern western fighters thinks. Chinese pilot inputs would also have been gathered and used when developing cockpit layout and the like. Also since J-10A was developed years before JF-17 and is a more difficult and ambitious project, the cockpit technologies would have been even older since the project would have taken longer overall. JF-17's cockpit though does seem very modern even by today's standards. It was amazing they managed to develop fully digital cockpit for JF-17 at such a low price. Makes me wonder about the quality of components but then honestly all crystal cockpit's challenge is software so quality should be a non issue.
There is just no equivalence between the guy who says "I want three multifunction displays to digitise all flight data" with the guy who actually designs and implements. The difference is like one between an architect with some fancy sketches and renderings and an engineer who really knows how to execute. The engineer can actually get by without the architect and develop it perhaps not to the same effect but the architect alone can get absolutely zero substance made alone. And this is being generous.
For example with J-10. We know the similarity with Lavi. But Lavi existed as a prototype. The difference between that and a finished product is leaps and bounds. Look at J-20 prototype staging to J-20 in service and F-22 prototype flight in 1995 to introduction around 2005 and the difference between prototype and actual.
J-10A is different to Lavi in some external ways already. They both have the same position of canards and ventral fins for example but the dimensions, materials, and geometry of just these are already very slightly different. This slight difference still changes the aerodynamics. J-10A is taller, longer, and wider than the Lavi with a completely different geometry intake. It uses a different engine to what the Lavi was designed around. This is just surface stuff. The weapons control, avionics, electronics, FCS, software, they're all Chinese and integrated by CAC tested, tweaked, and manufactured!
Sure J-10 is absolutely based off the Lavi and I personally do not doubt that CAC designers based the J-10A solely off the Lavi and had fly by wire development assistance from the Israelis and/or Russians. Who cares, lessons learned and adapted. Lessons paid for as well.
I think the above needed to be said again because so many stupidly use J-10 and Lavi as some sort of example to prove Chinese inability as if something from the 80s is somehow still relevant nearly 40 years later.
As for user input. That's a minuscule part of aircraft development and this Pakistani guy was only asked for input to see what someone used to modern western fighters thinks. Chinese pilot inputs would also have been gathered and used when developing cockpit layout and the like. Also since J-10A was developed years before JF-17 and is a more difficult and ambitious project, the cockpit technologies would have been even older since the project would have taken longer overall. JF-17's cockpit though does seem very modern even by today's standards. It was amazing they managed to develop fully digital cockpit for JF-17 at such a low price. Makes me wonder about the quality of components but then honestly all crystal cockpit's challenge is software so quality should be a non issue.
There is just no equivalence between the guy who says "I want three multifunction displays to digitise all flight data" with the guy who actually designs and implements. The difference is like one between an architect with some fancy sketches and renderings and an engineer who really knows how to execute. The engineer can actually get by without the architect and develop it perhaps not to the same effect but the architect alone can get absolutely zero substance made alone. And this is being generous.
Last edited:
