JF-17 Fighter: China's Weird MiG-21 and F-16 Hybrid

[randomradio]

And these sites are all wrong and you are always right what a loser you're @randomradio then your out this universe 100000000000 gen cow piss , vedic TEJ@$$ based on these designs @randomradio
View attachment 484254

View attachment 484255
@randomradio keep blabbring without a base @randomradio

No one in India denies that LCA was designed without basing it on existing airframes. The people who designed the LCA had no prior experience. They designed a lot of different airframes and zeroed-in on the Mirage inspired design because it fit requirements.

Check this one out. This is also LCA.

In fact this aircraft was designed before the J-10 program itself started formally. So does that mean the Chinese copied our LCA design?

Nobody helped us when we designed the LCA. And we didn't have prior experience like the Chinese did with the Mig-21. Had we also created an indigenous Mig-21 design and then progressed to LCA, our LCA would have also been a Mig-21 inspired design. No one is stupid enough to make a revolutionary design when the objective is to make a cheap aircraft.

For India, both LCA and AMCA are revolutionary designs. For the Chinese, JF-17 and J-10 are evolutionary designs from the Mig-21.

Why don't you go around telling your Chinese members here the JF-17 is a Russian design, let's see what they have to say.

 

[niaz]

Designing any aircraft ‘ab initio’ is an expensive, time consuming and risky business and quite often the new aircraft is more expensive but less effective than the one it replaces, especially if a new power plant is also required.

Whatever the path of JF-17 design & evolution may have been; the end result is a capable low-cost lightweight fighter; definitely a couple of steps ahead of the fighters it is supposed to replace. This is good enough for me.

LCA is a different beast and evolved for different reasons with different constraints. IMHO evolutions of JF-17 & LCA are not directly comparable.

 

[Ultima Thule]

No one in India denies that LCA was designed without basing it on existing airframes. The people who designed the LCA had no prior experience. They designed a lot of different airframes and zeroed-in on the Mirage inspired design because it fit requirements.

Check this one out. This is also LCA.

In fact this aircraft was designed before the J-10 program itself started formally. So does that mean the Chinese copied our LCA design?

Nobody helped us when we designed the LCA. And we didn't have prior experience like the Chinese did with the Mig-21. Had we also created an indigenous Mig-21 design and then progressed to LCA, our LCA would have also been a Mig-21 inspired design. No one is stupid enough to make a revolutionary design when the objective is to make a cheap aircraft.

For India, both LCA and AMCA are revolutionary designs. For the Chinese, JF-17 and J-10 are evolutionary designs from the Mig-21.

Why don't you go around telling your Chinese members here the JF-17 is a Russian design, let's see what they have to say.

One word french consulting for feasibility, R&D for your mighty LCA, thats your revolutionary design is based on
this design @randomradio

ATLAS CARVER

​

@randomradio


And what you talking about J-10 its combinations of canceled J-9/LAVI but surely not J-7 evolution and you're a here on PDF @randomradio none of senior members/professionals take you seriously @randomradio even your countrymen take you seriously @randomradio but as a jester @randomradio yes JF-17 is a Soviet/Russian design but not from J-7/Mig-21 but from the project-33 @randomradio

And evolutionary design is safe to become a successful project as compare to revolutionary design @randomradio


And tell me you jester @randomradio what is revolutionary in your mighty LCA at a time of project started @randomradio

 

[Taimoor Khan]

Are you referring to me on this post ??

No. The Indians in general and the dude who is hell bend on proving that Jf17 is the follow up act from Mig21.

 

[denel]

No one in India denies that LCA was designed without basing it on existing airframes. The people who designed the LCA had no prior experience. They designed a lot of different airframes and zeroed-in on the Mirage inspired design because it fit requirements.

Check this one out. This is also LCA.

In fact this aircraft was designed before the J-10 program itself started formally. So does that mean the Chinese copied our LCA design?

Nobody helped us when we designed the LCA. And we didn't have prior experience like the Chinese did with the Mig-21. Had we also created an indigenous Mig-21 design and then progressed to LCA, our LCA would have also been a Mig-21 inspired design. No one is stupid enough to make a revolutionary design when the objective is to make a cheap aircraft.

For India, both LCA and AMCA are revolutionary designs. For the Chinese, JF-17 and J-10 are evolutionary designs from the Mig-21.

Why don't you go around telling your Chinese members here the JF-17 is a Russian design, let's see what they have to say.

Man, you need to get your facts right on J-10. It is from Lavi NOT Mig-21.

 

[Ultima Thule]

Man, you need to get your facts right on J-10. It is from Lavi NOT Mig-21.

@randomradio is jester @denel no one take him seriously sir

 

[denel]

@randomradio is jester @denel no one take him seriously sir

yes, it is a waste he just likes to take rubbish from all over and throw it around. Amazing mods never take him offline.
This thread needs to be shut down; this topic has been discussed multiple times and we need to move on.

 

[randomradio]

Man, you need to get your facts right on J-10. It is from Lavi NOT Mig-21.

No, it's not.

It's from the old J-9 that predates Lavi.

CGI

https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/china/j-9.htm
At the beginning 1976 the final layout of the J-9 in the version J-9B-VI was specified briefly: delta-canard-layout with a 60° leading edge sweep, 50m2 wing area, canard wings with 55° leading edge sweep and each 2,85m2 area, as well as two lateral air intakes.

This aircraft lost to J-8. We are talking about the 60s here.

The J-8 that beat the J-9.

The J-9 lost because it was a bit too radical and didn't have a suitable engine, while the J-8 simply used the Mig-21's engines.

Here's the follow up to the J-9.

After J-9's loss, the chief designer of the J-9 left the SAC to CAC, and then conducted more studies with Grumman through the Super 7 program and out came JF-17 and J-10.

You have so many Chinese members here, just ask them.

 

[denel]

No, it's not.

It's from the old J-9 that predates Lavi.

CGI

https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/china/j-9.htm
At the beginning 1976 the final layout of the J-9 in the version J-9B-VI was specified briefly: delta-canard-layout with a 60° leading edge sweep, 50m2 wing area, canard wings with 55° leading edge sweep and each 2,85m2 area, as well as two lateral air intakes.

This aircraft lost to J-8. We are talking about the 60s here.

The J-8 that beat the J-9.

The J-9 lost because it was a bit too radical and didn't have a suitable engine, while the J-8 simply used the Mig-21's engines.

Here's the follow up to the J-9.

After J-9's loss, the chief designer of the J-9 left the SAC to CAC, and then conducted more studies with Grumman through the Super 7 program and out came JF-17 and J-10.

You have so many Chinese members here, just ask them.

You are really really a MORON. I was there at Atlas when we were testing wind tunnels models and my IAI/altas colleagues were part of the J-10 Lavi exchange. You are talking of a period that the best Chinese could do was a J8. Here you are putting forth chinese propaganda rubbish. Just take a chinese battery and put it to specs; you will find everything written in false - if you understand my analogy. They are as pompous and ignorant as you are.

You flipping take garbage from internet and spew it all over place. Get a handle on the key board and go and put yourself though university. Looks like you have plenty of time to waste why not use it productively. No joke but serious advice.

 

[Ultima Thule]

No, it's not.

It's from the old J-9 that predates Lavi.

CGI

https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/china/j-9.htm
At the beginning 1976 the final layout of the J-9 in the version J-9B-VI was specified briefly: delta-canard-layout with a 60° leading edge sweep, 50m2 wing area, canard wings with 55° leading edge sweep and each 2,85m2 area, as well as two lateral air intakes.

This aircraft lost to J-8. We are talking about the 60s here.

The J-8 that beat the J-9.

The J-9 lost because it was a bit too radical and didn't have a suitable engine, while the J-8 simply used the Mig-21's engines.

Here's the follow up to the J-9.

After J-9's loss, the chief designer of the J-9 left the SAC to CAC, and then conducted more studies with Grumman through the Super 7 program and out came JF-17 and J-10.

You have so many Chinese members here, just ask them.

you're really a retard man @randomradio then show us the prove that SAC J-8 designers were transferred to CAC you're claiming without reading history of J-10, and if they were transferred to CAC that didn't mean it is J-7/J-8 version but a whole new design to intercept emerging threats from the west/Soviet, F-16/F-15, Su-27/Mig-29, and your above pic is for artist pics of J-9 not a J-10 you retard @randomradio

 

[Raider 21]

No one in India denies that LCA was designed without basing it on existing airframes. The people who designed the LCA had no prior experience. They designed a lot of different airframes and zeroed-in on the Mirage inspired design because it fit requirements.

Check this one out. This is also LCA.

In fact this aircraft was designed before the J-10 program itself started formally. So does that mean the Chinese copied our LCA design?

Nobody helped us when we designed the LCA. And we didn't have prior experience like the Chinese did with the Mig-21. Had we also created an indigenous Mig-21 design and then progressed to LCA, our LCA would have also been a Mig-21 inspired design. No one is stupid enough to make a revolutionary design when the objective is to make a cheap aircraft.

For India, both LCA and AMCA are revolutionary designs. For the Chinese, JF-17 and J-10 are evolutionary designs from the Mig-21.

Why don't you go around telling your Chinese members here the JF-17 is a Russian design, let's see what they have to say.

Dassault-Breguet was involved in the LCA project during the early stages of development. The French assisted and a few years later the Americans did too.....they tested the flight control laws on the F-16 VISTA.

 

[Trango Towers]

No one in India denies that LCA was designed without basing it on existing airframes. The people who designed the LCA had no prior experience. They designed a lot of different airframes and zeroed-in on the Mirage inspired design because it fit requirements.

Check this one out. This is also LCA.

In fact this aircraft was designed before the J-10 program itself started formally. So does that mean the Chinese copied our LCA design?

Nobody helped us when we designed the LCA. And we didn't have prior experience like the Chinese did with the Mig-21. Had we also created an indigenous Mig-21 design and then progressed to LCA, our LCA would have also been a Mig-21 inspired design. No one is stupid enough to make a revolutionary design when the objective is to make a cheap aircraft.

For India, both LCA and AMCA are revolutionary designs. For the Chinese, JF-17 and J-10 are evolutionary designs from the Mig-21.

Why don't you go around telling your Chinese members here the JF-17 is a Russian design, let's see what they have to say.

Oh dear

 

[araz]

You are really really a MORON. I was there at Atlas when we were testing wind tunnels models and my IAI/altas colleagues were part of the J-10 Lavi exchange. You are talking of a period that the best Chinese could do was a J8. Here you are putting forth chinese propaganda rubbish. Just take a chinese battery and put it to specs; you will find everything written in false - if you understand my analogy. They are as pompous and ignorant as you are.

You flipping take garbage from internet and spew it all over place. Get a handle on the key board and go and put yourself though university. Looks like you have plenty of time to waste why not use it productively. No joke but serious advice.

you're really a retard man @randomradio then show us the prove that SAC J-8 designers were transferred to CAC you're claiming without reading history of J-10, and if they were transferred to CAC that didn't mean it is J-7/J-8 version but a whole new design to intercept emerging threats from the west/Soviet, F-16/F-15, Su-27/Mig-29, and your above pic is for artist pics of J-9 not a J-10 you retard @randomradio

Can both of you please stop feeding this troll. Put him on your ignore list and let him rant whatever the hell he wants to rant. The good thing about ignoring is you dont see their posts. So problem solved.
A

 

[ziaulislam]

Man, you need to get your facts right on J-10. It is from Lavi NOT Mig-21.

Problem here is that people think that every plane is derived from previous plan..

so f16 comes from saber,jf-17 has to come from mig21 and j10 from mig21/j8 the su30mki has to come from su27 (although nothing is common in design between above mentioned)

 

[randomradio]

You are really really a MORON. I was there at Atlas when we were testing wind tunnels models and my IAI/altas colleagues were part of the J-10 Lavi exchange. You are talking of a period that the best Chinese could do was a J8. Here you are putting forth chinese propaganda rubbish. Just take a chinese battery and put it to specs; you will find everything written in false - if you understand my analogy. They are as pompous and ignorant as you are.

You flipping take garbage from internet and spew it all over place. Get a handle on the key board and go and put yourself though university. Looks like you have plenty of time to waste why not use it productively. No joke but serious advice.

So what if the Chinese were there as part of the Lavi exchange. That doesn't mean jack squat. You speak as though the Israelis were selling everything they can to the Chinese. I don't deny the Chinese involvement in Lavi, but you must be joking about the Chinese simply copying the Lavi when they already made the J-9 design before the Lavi even hit the drawing board.

What do you mean the best they could do was the J-8? Of course that was the best they could do, that's why J-9 failed and they took it back to the drawing board. It's obvious you missed the part where I said Grumman got involved in J-9 and subsequent projects after, including the Super 7. They developed the JF-17 and J-10 right after.

It's really funny. People make fun of other countries when things are going bad. But the minute they succeed, "Oh, yeah, Americans helped them". "No, French helped them". "No, Israelis helped them". News flash, moron, nobody "helps" anybody. Whatever you see is the hard work of the people involved. I doubt you even know how consultancy works.

Dassault-Breguet was involved in the LCA project during the early stages of development. The French assisted and a few years later the Americans did too.....they tested the flight control laws on the F-16 VISTA.

Dassault were consultants and they backed out the minute they realised India wasn't going for the 110 M-2000s we promised to order. And they didn't help design the aircraft, we designed the aircraft and they only provided basic consultancy. Even when we asked for a digital FBW for testing the TDs, they offered only analog FBW, which we declined.

As for the Americans, they neither provided design assistance nor consultancy. They allowed us to use their facilities for designs and tests, including the F-16. In fact, we faced so many problems that their assistance would have been useful, but we had to solve them all on our own. They did get involved during the integration and flying tests of the FBW into the F-16. But of course, we had to make a proper FBW first before they could integrate it. And the tests were extremely basic, enough to get an LCA TD flying.

The LCA's basic design has so many problems that it's impossible for experienced designers to have made such mistakes. The internal estate has already been changed once before IOC was accorded. And has now changed again in the Mk1A program. Even the basic positioning of LRUs were so bad that only someone with zero experience could have designed that. That's why it took days to get a prototype flying after a sortie.