Join this channel to support it: th-cam.com/channels/VDkfkGRzo0qcZ8AkB4TMuw.htmljoin Support me on Patreon www.patreon.com/Millennium7 One off donation with PayPal www.paypal.com/paypalme/Millennium7star Join the Discord server discord.gg/6CuWEWuhsk ---------------------------- Ask me anything! Take part to the community Q&A clicking the link below! forms.office.com/r/LNPQtf3Tc0 -------------------- Visit the subreddit! www.reddit.com/r/Millennium7Lounge/ ---------------------
Well said M7, honestly this whole "Chinese can't invent anything" is just a form of racism that never gets called out because it hides behind the smokescreen of general criticism of the CCP. The truth is it's just garden variety racism.
Nice video. Strongly recommend you to do some search on Chengdu J-9. The J9 project was cancelled, but three later jets were benifited: J9-IV → FC1/JF17 J9-VI → J10 J9-VI-II → J20
People WAYYY underestimate the complexity when it comes to designing an aircraft, especially a modern jet fighter. Which is why when 2 planes that look remotely similar, they immediately jump to their conclusions
@@paulsteaven J-11 and SU-27 don't look similar, they are the same J-11 is just made of Chinese components The point I was making is that, due to the complexity in aerodynamic designs, any small changes would mean the designers would have to redesign the details again So when 2 planes look similar, it might say they are inspired, but you cannot say it's "stolen" or copy, since you either copy the entire thing exactly the same, or not
@@paulsteaven J-11A is the licensed production variant of the Su-27SK that was exported by Russia to China. The initial batches were made in Russia and delivered to China (Su-27SK). Subsequent batches were produced in China but outfitted with Russian systems and engines (J-11A). After a while, China was dissatisfied with the level of technology of the J-11A and they decided to put their own radars instead of the obsolete Russian radars creating the J-11B. This move angered Russia as now they can't sell their radars and systems to China. Was it a dick move? Maybe. Was it a copy of Russia's original Su-27SK? No, because it has deviated away from the original. But if you're talking about the J-15, then perhaps it might be a copy of the Su-33.
@@obsidianstatue meh, then why make it identical in the first place. just make it different in overall design, not only " let's just add wings so it would be different ". And i know there's a thing called reverse engineering, which basically says "i steal this and learn it and copied it and produce it". If you told me, Due to complexity so it's fine to make it identical with a slight just a slight different. Then fuck you
The rear underwings are signatures of almost all Chinese supersonic fighters, including the J20. They originate from the Chinese solution to supersonic barrier in maneuverbility (i.e. the control surfaces losing effectiveness as the plane goes supersonic and aerodynamic changes dramatically) It was a solution first proposed by Prof. Qian Xueseng and it is so effective that it continued to be used today.
@@Millennium7HistoryTech You want him to tell you more? You know how many social points he lost via this comment? Even his unborn grandchildren can forget about train tickets... 🙃
“There is no divine right to technological superiority.” Is a line I intend to remember, and one I believe that leaders of all countries ought to remember too
@@markdsm-5157 When western colonialists do it, it's called "Adopting" When other races do it, it's called "Stealing" Gunpowder was invented in China but the Chinese used it for fireworks, the West "adopted/copied/stole" the recipe and created firearms. History teaches us that Technology has been "stolen, adopted, copied, passed down" across different nations. It's a simple matter of fact.
Wow. I've never seen someone more rational, informed and unbiased about this particular subject on TH-cam. Earned my sub on the very first video. Keep up the good work sir.
In engineering we call this a convergence of design. Given a set of physical laws to solve an engineering problem designs converge to similar designs. For example in the past all countries, east or west , uses bows and arrows. There might be some modifications such as longer or shorter bows etc but basically they are the same. Does it mean China steal European technology? In those days of no internet to hack or hardly any communications why designs are similar is simply convergence of design. So are planes.
This plane is a 1 to 1 copy of a Lavi wich was Israels attampt the modife the F-16, look at all the Chinkoid planes befor this, they had the technological stand of 1960-70 in the late 80s the J-7 was a MiG-21 and the J-8 was a double engine MiG-21 and then they just made that over night? if you honestly belive that they came up with this on thier own... you'd just raised your Social credit score by 15 points and lowerd your IQ by 30.
Yes - Technology transfer. If you want to copy whole aircraft, you need at the very least full working original aircraft to base your work on. Or whole set of schematics. When Poland wanted to start building Lim-2 (MiG-15bis) they received both. And they differed. Solving this took about 6 months and this is just licensing problems. Copying it would be much, much harder.
The technology transfer China received from Israel that aided the J10 design wasn't actually the fighter design, but the CAD systems. J10 was the first plane designed in China that is purely done on a computer.
Anybody who works in technology development should know that "copying" is not as simple as it sounds and is often more complex than doing your own development. The only real reason to resort to it is because you lack the expertise to do the full development yourself.
@@joshsecor9337 you clearly don’t have eyes. If you think that the J10 is a copy of the F16, then the Eurofighter Typhoon might as well as be a copy of the F16
@@jjiang7488 it is a copy of the F-16 to be precise the IAI Lavi wich was Israels attampt to modify it, and yes that was more then 10 years befor the J-10 ever flew. and guess what Israel likes? M O N E Y so they just sold the BPs to China as they had to get the money from the project back that they scraped.
Anyone who jumps to the conclusion that they "Copied" should just google J9 which was designed in 1964 with delta canards (similar to J10), which is much earlier than any other fighter as far as I know.
china is known for their industrial espionage capability, which for china is good but for the countries it spy on it isn't, i am pretty sure china some how acquired the spec and reverse engineered it
The Saab 37 Viggen, which started development in 1952, used delta canards. But looking at development start is misleading, as they didn't decide on a canard design until 1963. But the same applies to the J-9 timelines. Development started in 1964, but the canard variant came only in the J-9B-VI which came after 1970. By then the Viggen already had its first flight which occurred in 1967 and was posted on Flight International Magazine's February 16, 1967 issue with pictures and describing the canard design in detail.
@@terry1708 yeah they probably did? silk production was pretty secretive in china and they didn't expect westerns to have the ability to learn and produce it them selves. industrial espionage is wrong but like i said people only care if they are being wronged, all countries do it.
Thanks for this video, finally a series about the J-10 coming that won't be some person saying "Hurr durr, Chinese planes suck they're just stolen designs from other countries"
53k subscribers! So awesome my friend. I remember when this channel first began. So awesome! I've got an idea for ya, I'd love to see one like your old vids on how missiles work, but related to BVR combat tactics. Cheers my friend!
Bravo, another great description of a numerous but not well known aircraft, nice mentioning Ferri and DSI intakes, I like that you are dealing with these aspects and the fact that the Chinese are developing development capabilities as they go along.
Always appreaciate your very objective, balance reviews. This is what separates your channel from the other ones that have a nationalistic bent or bias angle. And yes, an someone in the field of aviation it is literally impossible to copy a fighter jet. You can make one that is the same if you have the blueprint however you can't 'copy' and have a jet that kinda sorta looks the other.
I remember when I first saw the B-45 Tornado I wondered how much influence it might have had on the slightly later IL-28, which looked quite similar to it in overall layout. Both designs were solving for the same aerodynamic and mission requirements. While B-45 used four engines and IL-28 only two, the general resemblance was striking. Did the Soviets have access to the B-45's design? Who knows? It is almost certain they had some intelligence about it, and that intel was very likely considered during the design of the IL-28. Was it a direct copy? No, not even close. The Chinese did have (lawful) access to information about the Lavi project. It is not inconceivable that Lavi's design had some influence on the design path of the J-10, but that doesn't mean its a direct copy. Again, both aircraft solve for the same aerodynamics and mission profiles. Copying did and still does occur where it is the easiest way forward to a solution. It just doesn't happen as often as we might think.
Had me at 'male performance enhancement' then talked for another 12 minutes about aircraft...what the hell!? ..oh and by the way... another great video about an aircraft we know very little about
A pretty fitting time to be talking about the J-10 to be honest, just two days ago, at least an squadron of J-10CPs have been transferred to the PAK airforce along with highly advanced weapons accommodations like the PL-10E and PL-15E. The J-10 still has a long way to go in order prove itself in the delta canard family of fighters, possibly through direct air confrontations like it's "predecessor" the JF-17 had 2 years ago in Kashmir, this time against India’s new "fancy" Rafale “C”s.
please be careful talking about Indians. they are a population of over a billion people and a large land mass but are extremely insecure and defensive lot ever known on the real and internet world. they will resort to all sorts of insults and threats and troll you at an industrial scale. people like Millennium 7 and others have been the victims of Indian trolls as well which affects their channel standing. but if you are like me and don't give a toss about Indian insecurities and obscenities then speak your heart.
@@Mirpurmad Ehm, and the Chinese are different? They even have government funded trolls For the Olympics alone, Twitter has taken down hundreds of thousands of accounts connected to the CCP.
@@benghazi4216 you responded with your "whataboutism" on Chinese posters which is irrelevant to my post. At no point I am comparing world troll league vs Indians the original comment mentioned Indians & their Rafales which their PM grieved about not having resulting in a humiliation at the hands of PAF on 27 February 19.
Vigorous dragon is a 2 character word in chinese, which is like a cool sounding name in chinese, but the english translation lost all of that purpose lol
Thank you for your clear and precise explanation which totally resonates for engineers / engineering-inclined types. 👍🏻👍🏻👍🏻 There are those who spill excreta through their own biases or constipation of the brain (if they have any). 🤮🤮🤮
There are always many people who think that making an aircraft is like assembling Lego, and some similar parts can be easily combined. The most typical example is j20, which people think is a children's toy composed of MiG 1.44 and f35.
With the sale of this aircraft to Pakistan to counter India's Rafale buy, it should make for an interesting time in South Asia. Should combat occur, both sides will learn a lot about each others aircraft.
@@Shubham-1999 already did that with Indian Airforce on 27th feb! Wreckage was in air everyone witnessed parachute of abhinandan and those slaps were not on pilot's face but on every indian's ass
@@ZamanMangi Well said, these chest thumping chimps are back to make joke of themselves. Also same ass whooping will be delivered to rafales in near future. Their pilots are shit and they would even crash F35 that's why US rejected their request to acquire them
I'm honestly surprised by your attitude, and I want to tell you this You are right about the ability of intelligence and creativity in all the people of the world who just need a proper management and planning to flourish. I have a bad feeling that I expected you to repeat what the Western media says. We generally have a mental background on various topics that acts as a barrier to knowing and learning about them.👏🥴😏
Thanks for making this video, been waiting for this topic for a while! Tbh I am not a fan of judging something on whether it's a copy or not, because we can argue if a specific details is carbon-copied, bought or developed, but at the end of the day they have little meaning in determining the whole system's actual capabilities. The AK47 may share similar form factor and roles as the Stg44, but that does not discredit the very different mechanisms underneath that makes it sucessful.
Ngl, "The Deltas" would have been a great family show in the 80s, with far-fetched jokes, run-of-the-mill puns and laughing tracks. We need more 🤣😎. Amazing video as usual, you're treating us good!
Hello. Big fan from Bangladesh. You are responsible for my now, unquenchable thirst in military aviation and technology. Can you please make an indepth video on various MiG-21/F-7 series of fighter, their attempt in modernisation and their feasibility in modern air battles.
There are a limited number of solutions to the aerodynamically issues that all combat aircraft designers face. It's no wonder that there are similarities between various aircraft designs.
Similarities are only skin deep. A good example is the Mig-29/su-27. They look like western 4th gen fighter but they use a unique central lifting body that's unique to Russian aircraft. Then there is the F-117 which looks like it was built by space alien on drugs.
@@yonghominale8884 most aerodynamic solutions are skin deep, dome depend on structural requirements as well. The F-14's body provides significant lift, so the MiG-29 and Su-27 are not that unique. There were many different designs for the F-14 that didn't have this feature. Likewise there were versions of the MiG-29's design that were closer in configuration to the F-15.
@@neiloflongbeck5705 Many versions of the su 27 were also significantly different despite having similar looks, the only thing in common in a lot of the versions are only that they share a similar aerodynamic form. A lay person cannot appreciate those important changes and usually they base their judgement only on the looks.
@@tonglianheng total irrelevancy. As a holder of a B.ENG in Aeronautical engineering I know what I talking about. There are a limited number of shapes that allow an aircraft design to meet its design criteria.
@@tonglianheng total irrelevancy. As a holder of a B.ENG in Aeronautical engineering I know what I talking about. There are a limited number of shapes that allow an aircraft design to meet its design criteria.
Well said my friend! The world us full if intelligent people capable of creating things by themselves. It is all too common in the west to think other nations are "inferior" and need to copy western technology.
It's not that Chinese engineers can't create unique aircraft. It's just that their leaders don't trust them enough to let them work on their own designs.
It is most likely be inspiration. It canards are little close to canopy rather to wings like that of Lavi. Lavi's wings are backward swept. But J-10 has straight end wings. Air intake is also different. And overall size is also slightly bigger. So changing in airframe make totally different & affects aerodynamics, stability, power to weight ratio, Landing gears repositioning, agility & flight controls. Totally changed. From scratch to ..
The world need this kind of objective and intelligent reporting/ analysis. It's really difficult to find unbised reporting especially not from mainstream western media. People are moving away from mainstream media to this independent channel as credibility on mainstream media are collapsing.
7: 20 could this unusual anhedral adopted to correct some undesired flight characteristics? A negative dihedral was given to the He162 wings ends to improve stability, for example.
The point is the change of angle, not the presence of anhedral. The latter depends from the desired roll characteristics and... it is what is needed, usually.
Pakistan received its first F-16s in 1981. IAI Lavi program ended in 1987. J-10 development started in 1988. J-17 started official development in 1995.
If you want to build a 4th generation aircraft, you first need to have a set of aviation industry. This involves many industries and is a complex project. If you don't have such ability, you can't make a plane even if you have complete drawings. In addition, the similarity of the aerodynamic layout does not mean that it is a copy. Are the aerodynamic layouts of the mig25 and F15 very similar? B1B and TU160 look very similar, but the details are many different, can it be said to be a copy? It is more to inspire the designers of both sides. Similarly, LAVI and J-10C look similar, but they also have many different details, different weights, different positions of canards, different airfoils of aircraft wings, different air intakes, etc. These differences are from The design has been determined at the beginning, and any changes in the aerodynamic layout need to be verified in the wind tunnel. Shouldn't the copy be copied as it is? What do these changes mean? Because the initial design indicators were different, yes, we chose the same canard layout, but the indicators we pursued were different. LAVI is closer to the multi-function performance of the F16, and the J-10 focuses more on air control and emphasizes interception capability, which is directly related to the air defense pressure that China faced with the Soviet Union at that time, but Israel did not face such a lot of pressure on the surrounding area. Air-to-ground multipurpose aircraft, which is the original design difference between the two. I think it's like different solutions to a math problem, if one of the two people solves a problem first and announces the answer without giving the process of solving the problem, the other person sees the answer and is inspired to use another way in his own way To get the same answer, it must be done by someone with the same ability. If a person has a poor learning foundation, even if you copy the whole process for him, he still does not understand how the answer is made, he can only write it mechanically. He came down but didn't understand the principle, and he still won't when he encounters a problem next time.
We get it. You're mad that you copied someone elses plane and the world roasts you for it. Go send some spies to another country to work for another aviation company and steal some more plans. You can then get mad because once again you're told you copied someone else. I get that airplane designs can be similar and different but let's be real the Chinese military approach has always been espionage of a more advanced countries programs and copy as much as you can and then give it some very chinese sounding name like lotus venom or vigorous dragon and say you didn't copy it. I mean really if it wasn't for the rest of the world giving you technology to produce stuff cheaper for them you guys would still be trying to figure out how to build propeller planes and cars from the 50s.
@@mattadams7922 If only things were as simple as you imagined. It is kind of funny what I see here in the US regarding China. On the one hand people are worried/threated by the China rise, but on the other hand, the same people dismiss them as incapable for various reasons like copying. Logically, if you feel the Chinese/government are not capable, then they shouldn't present a threat to US economic/military dominance, and therefore why worry about them?
@@mattadams7922 I know people are free to believe whatever they want, but of all places on TH-cam you choose this specific channel to post this specific BS?
I really hope one day we may see some combined joint military exercise and simulated air combat between NATO and China. Too bad politics gets in the way.
Good analysis of the aerodynamics but I wonder where the host got the info that the initial models had a Russian radar? This is the first time I have heard of it. All other sources I trust stated a Chinese mechanical scan radar was used on the A model. A PESA was installed in the B and a AESA is in the C model.
Read in a Chinese magazine article (around 2000) that the US brokered the transfer of Lavi tech to China as a compensation for them forcing Israel to abandon the project. For 10 years in the 80s, China was a partner in Asia with US to contain USSR. The China Vietnam war was effectively a proxy war between US and USSR. To the extent that US almost let China license produce Blackhawks. Obviously the collaboration on the J10 project is something all parties now have an incentives denying (and the China m-US honeymoon ended when USSR fell). Still, interesting how geopolitics produces strange bed fellows.
@@Millennium7HistoryTech Great video's!! I am a "Old" US Army veteran, served 78-91, I was a Helicopter Crew-Chief, I am a very big military aviation buff. Keep the video's coming!!
Why some people envy if some inventions are copied? Don't they know that almost all technologies of today are the results of copying from the past. From stone throwing, bow and arrow to gun and machine gun, grenade throwing, grenade launcher, cannon, rocket, missile; from cart to bicycle , car, truck, bus, tank; from kite to propeller plane, jet engine plane, rocket engine space ship; from log used as boat to raft, wooden boat, metal boat, warships, submarines. Like the Chinese invented papers and the world using it. As far as we knew, almost all things that we saw in this world are copies from the past.
"There's no divine right to technical superiority". Thank you, thank you, thank you! I have been trying to get many of my fellow Americans to believe this for years. They insist that China in particular, and Russia in general, are no match for US technical superiority. Maybe not this very instant they aren't, but they're damn well close enough and catching up fast. In missile R&D alone China is showing alarming prowess. Russia has us beat hands down in diverse SAM capability and inventory. Every single day the US carrier group power projection strategy comes closer to technical obsolescence because of the steady evolution of ballistic long range anti-ship technology. Is the US military still a formidable power? Without a doubt it is- but our technical lead, our superiority, is being diminished steadily with each passing year.
People have been underestimating the PLAAF for a long time now because of their perceived copying of existing aircraft. The J10, 20, 35 are all examples that their aviation industry is clearly humming along at full throttle along side anyone else.
Thanks for the content. Seems like their aircraft industry will reach parity with the US at the same time China becomes the largest economy in the world.
Just Slightly better than JF-17 regarding radar and sensors. But when it comes to payload capacity, range, flexibility (upgrades/modifications) of a bigger airframe and thrust it could generate, way better than the smaller JF-17. That's why PAF got J-10CP too. 1st batch of six J-10CP (101 to 106) have landed at PAC Kamra, Pakistan today at March 04,2020 evening. More would keep coming from CAC China. 👇 th-cam.com/video/1PAd2mZ7cSc/w-d-xo.html
The inner wing anhedral is mostly for additional lift at low speed high aoa with low aoa on canards i.e. take off Concorde has a similar design Lower wings are for High-speed and high aoa lateral stability mostly. Partially due to al31f is longer than the original preferred ws10 and the fuselage was elongated
I like your brain Millennium 7. "There is no divine right to technological superiority" Some in the west think that it is only them that are capable of producing technological products. Whenever they see any new products from Russia and China, they start insulting the product as if it is a copy or inferior to the western counterpart. The most interesting thing about these kind of individuals is that, most of them aren't experts in the technological fields that they are commenting.
from areo dynamic aspect, j10 jas39 and British typhoon are identical, and Israel kfir and France rafale are of another kind, and to be honest, J20 is the only of the third kind the 2 main feature of canard, is how much higher do canard away from main wing, and how far do canard away from main wing, jas39 typhoon and j10 has a canard a lot higher than main wing, and j10 has a middle distance from main wing, like rafare, typhoon are far more distant, and kfir are more closer the most complex use of canard is a lot higher and middle distance and moveable canard, the j10 and the rafare are two of the most complex use and the J20, mostly now people know maneuverablity of J20 however few know how the canard works, but from the concept of American 6th gen fighter, i think American now know how it works and choose the design
@Aryan what makes you think they reverse engineered it and not part of the sales that there is tec transfer? You do know that a lot of arms deals comes with condition of tec transfer right? but then again you like to believe whatever you like to believe.
China wasn't America's enemy at the time. It was its stalwart Cold War co-belligerent against the USSR. It was only after the Tienanmen Square Massacre and the parallel thawing of US-Soviet relations that the US started realizing that it should seriously limit military technology transfer to China.
@@Hypernefelos any fool could see that china was going to be a problem for the US in future,they had the world largest population and a strong history of power thats why the japanese then soveits wanted them as a puppet
I believe it is just the combination of the cockpit placed in a high position and a bit of area ruling at the centre of the fuselage. I thought they designed a tail cone like the Gripen, but on second thought it doesn't seem likely to me.
Curious failed to mention the huge espionage effort China has under taken in Military and industrial tech across the West and how China leap frogged many development stages that otherwise would have required decades of their own development. Much quicker and cheaper to steal to get ahead. Not a Chinese thing alone but the scale has been stunning.
Join this channel to support it:
th-cam.com/channels/VDkfkGRzo0qcZ8AkB4TMuw.htmljoin
Support me on Patreon www.patreon.com/Millennium7
One off donation with PayPal www.paypal.com/paypalme/Millennium7star
Join the Discord server discord.gg/6CuWEWuhsk
----------------------------
Ask me anything!
Take part to the community Q&A clicking the link below!
forms.office.com/r/LNPQtf3Tc0
--------------------
Visit the subreddit!
www.reddit.com/r/Millennium7Lounge/
---------------------
Well said M7, honestly this whole "Chinese can't invent anything" is just a form of racism that never gets called out because it hides behind the smokescreen of general criticism of the CCP. The truth is it's just garden variety racism.
it seem strange for you to imply J10 was meant to be comparable to Eurofighter, I would assume their goal would be closer to F16. heh.
Nice video.
Strongly recommend you to do some search on Chengdu J-9.
The J9 project was cancelled, but three later jets were benifited:
J9-IV → FC1/JF17
J9-VI → J10
J9-VI-II → J20
People WAYYY underestimate the complexity when it comes to designing an aircraft, especially a modern jet fighter.
Which is why when 2 planes that look remotely similar, they immediately jump to their conclusions
the amount of industrial espionnage is still no joke, not talking about the J10 speficically.
But most of the time when they look very similar, it's copied. Like the Su27 and J-11 and their respective variants.
@@paulsteaven J-11 and SU-27 don't look similar, they are the same
J-11 is just made of Chinese components
The point I was making is that, due to the complexity in aerodynamic designs, any small changes would mean the designers would have to redesign the details again
So when 2 planes look similar, it might say they are inspired, but you cannot say it's "stolen" or copy, since you either copy the entire thing exactly the same, or not
@@paulsteaven J-11A is the licensed production variant of the Su-27SK that was exported by Russia to China. The initial batches were made in Russia and delivered to China (Su-27SK). Subsequent batches were produced in China but outfitted with Russian systems and engines (J-11A). After a while, China was dissatisfied with the level of technology of the J-11A and they decided to put their own radars instead of the obsolete Russian radars creating the J-11B. This move angered Russia as now they can't sell their radars and systems to China. Was it a dick move? Maybe. Was it a copy of Russia's original Su-27SK? No, because it has deviated away from the original.
But if you're talking about the J-15, then perhaps it might be a copy of the Su-33.
@@obsidianstatue meh, then why make it identical in the first place. just make it different in overall design, not only " let's just add wings so it would be different ". And i know there's a thing called reverse engineering, which basically says "i steal this and learn it and copied it and produce it".
If you told me, Due to complexity so it's fine to make it identical with a slight just a slight different. Then fuck you
I really like your videos, as they cover non-western air assets with unbiased, technical facts.
Pro tip: If content seems unbiased to you, it is probably biased toward your own personal world-view.
Me too, although the RAF Typhoon is way out of this Chinese aircraft, the J-10.
@@petermallia558 Yea.......................sure. Maybe in reliability.
@@Mishn0 in this case i dont think it is biased though.
@@Mishn0 not if opinion is not mentioned and just stove cold facts
1+1 = 2 is not biased cuz it’s a fact
The rear underwings are signatures of almost all Chinese supersonic fighters, including the J20. They originate from the Chinese solution to supersonic barrier in maneuverbility (i.e. the control surfaces losing effectiveness as the plane goes supersonic and aerodynamic changes dramatically) It was a solution first proposed by Prof. Qian Xueseng and it is so effective that it continued to be used today.
Thanks, that might make sense. Do you have a reference?
@@Millennium7HistoryTech You want him to tell you more? You know how many social points he lost via this comment? Even his unborn grandchildren can forget about train tickets... 🙃
@@Bialy_1 On the contrary, showing off Chinese engineering and development in a good light as the above comment did, would do the opposite, no?
th-cam.com/video/UGXPLg-tT-g/w-d-xo.html
@@Bialy_1 Tell us more of Indian aerospace development ? Buybuybuy
One of the best expositions I have viewed on how "copying" is not all that it's believed to be, good insights for the pensive viewers!
“There is no divine right to technological superiority.” Is a line I intend to remember, and one I believe that leaders of all countries ought to remember too
sounds like mental gymnastics, justifying stealing everyone else's stuff.
@@markdsm-5157 all's fair in love and war, every military will do it given the chance. Massive RnD cost savings
@@rdablock that's not the point. Trying to claim it's righteous or something is the mental gymnastics.
@@markdsm-5157 war is never righteous
@@markdsm-5157 When western colonialists do it, it's called "Adopting"
When other races do it, it's called "Stealing"
Gunpowder was invented in China but the Chinese used it for fireworks, the West "adopted/copied/stole" the recipe and created firearms.
History teaches us that Technology has been "stolen, adopted, copied, passed down" across different nations. It's a simple matter of fact.
Wow. I've never seen someone more rational, informed and unbiased about this particular subject on TH-cam. Earned my sub on the very first video. Keep up the good work sir.
Congrats to Pakistan on purchasing these fighters. Love from Bangladesh.
Your explanation and analysis of ‘copying’ an aircraft was fascinating. I had never thought of the pitfalls. Such a terrific channel!
In engineering we call this a convergence of design. Given a set of physical laws to solve an engineering problem designs converge to similar designs. For example in the past all countries, east or west , uses bows and arrows. There might be some modifications such as longer or shorter bows etc but basically they are the same. Does it mean China steal European technology? In those days of no internet to hack or hardly any communications why designs are similar is simply convergence of design. So are planes.
Agree yet, if the West doesn't like you, anything that's with wheels could be filed as infringement.
Bows and arrows probabaly have been invented only once before Homo Sapiens walk out of africa.
This plane is a 1 to 1 copy of a Lavi wich was Israels attampt the modife the F-16, look at all the Chinkoid planes befor this, they had the technological stand of 1960-70 in the late 80s the J-7 was a MiG-21 and the J-8 was a double engine MiG-21 and then they just made that over night? if you honestly belive that they came up with this on thier own... you'd just raised your Social credit score by 15 points and lowerd your IQ by 30.
@@Adlumairsoft The J-10 is a large engineering project that started in the 1980s.
@@Adlumairsoft By parroting the social credit score in this way, you don't even have 30 IQ to lower.
Yes - Technology transfer. If you want to copy whole aircraft, you need at the very least full working original aircraft to base your work on. Or whole set of schematics.
When Poland wanted to start building Lim-2 (MiG-15bis) they received both. And they differed. Solving this took about 6 months and this is just licensing problems. Copying it would be much, much harder.
Tu-4
The technology transfer China received from Israel that aided the J10 design wasn't actually the fighter design, but the CAD systems. J10 was the first plane designed in China that is purely done on a computer.
They wanted to build.. two of me? Dude, I would have given good money to have that Polish plane built!
@@jonseilim4321 Some are still flying
@@jannegrey Holy shit, there's even more Lim planes! I love Poland now
Anybody who works in technology development should know that "copying" is not as simple as it sounds and is often more complex than doing your own development. The only real reason to resort to it is because you lack the expertise to do the full development yourself.
Lol no it’s not
Then why not just build your own
Looks just like an f16
@@joshsecor9337 you clearly don’t have eyes. If you think that the J10 is a copy of the F16, then the Eurofighter Typhoon might as well as be a copy of the F16
@@jjiang7488 it is a copy of the F-16 to be precise the IAI Lavi wich was Israels attampt to modify it, and yes that was more then 10 years befor the J-10 ever flew.
and guess what Israel likes? M O N E Y so they just sold the BPs to China as they had to get the money from the project back that they scraped.
Anyone who jumps to the conclusion that they "Copied" should just google J9 which was designed in 1964 with delta canards (similar to J10), which is much earlier than any other fighter as far as I know.
china is known for their industrial espionage capability, which for china is good but for the countries it spy on it isn't, i am pretty sure china some how acquired the spec and reverse engineered it
In 1964? Sure, China can steal from the future, what hope do you have?
The Saab 37 Viggen, which started development in 1952, used delta canards. But looking at development start is misleading, as they didn't decide on a canard design until 1963.
But the same applies to the J-9 timelines. Development started in 1964, but the canard variant came only in the J-9B-VI which came after 1970. By then the Viggen already had its first flight which occurred in 1967 and was posted on Flight International Magazine's February 16, 1967 issue with pictures and describing the canard design in detail.
@@terry1708 yeah they probably did? silk production was pretty secretive in china and they didn't expect westerns to have the ability to learn and produce it them selves. industrial espionage is wrong but like i said people only care if they are being wronged, all countries do it.
@Jordan Mason
Many technologies can't be copied even though you have the physical masterpiece in front of you, like car engine.
Thanks for this video, finally a series about the J-10 coming that won't be some person saying "Hurr durr, Chinese planes suck they're just stolen designs from other countries"
Chinese planes suck
Yes, they suck the hearts of enemies...
會進水是事實。
@@zzzwohoya 我觉得你脑子会进水，真有缝隙高速运动早就解体了
@@星夜无眠 你家不能看央視？央視介紹殲10清潔方式揭露｢不能拿水直接沖｣ 網民：下雨天不能飛？
53k subscribers! So awesome my friend. I remember when this channel first began. So awesome!
I've got an idea for ya, I'd love to see one like your old vids on how missiles work, but related to BVR combat tactics. Cheers my friend!
Thank you! I really appreciate your long standing support!
Bravo, another great description of a numerous but not well known aircraft, nice mentioning Ferri and DSI intakes, I like that you are dealing with these aspects and the fact that the Chinese are developing development capabilities as they go along.
Awesome as always, much love from Serbia!
Jf 17 is the first mass production fighter with dsi intake. It's much earlier than f35 was in service.
Lol the west was experimenting with dsi in the 50s, and refined in the 80s. China imitate they do not inovate
@Griffin Taurus 👹🎭 they were just prototypes jf17 was the first aircraft which was operational in service with dsi intake
Informative as always, looking forward to the next instalment.
Always appreaciate your very objective, balance reviews.
This is what separates your channel from the other ones that have a nationalistic bent or bias angle.
And yes, an someone in the field of aviation it is literally impossible to copy a fighter jet. You can make one that is the same if you have the blueprint however you can't 'copy' and have a jet that kinda sorta looks the other.
I remember when I first saw the B-45 Tornado I wondered how much influence it might have had on the slightly later IL-28, which looked quite similar to it in overall layout. Both designs were solving for the same aerodynamic and mission requirements. While B-45 used four engines and IL-28 only two, the general resemblance was striking. Did the Soviets have access to the B-45's design? Who knows? It is almost certain they had some intelligence about it, and that intel was very likely considered during the design of the IL-28. Was it a direct copy? No, not even close.
The Chinese did have (lawful) access to information about the Lavi project. It is not inconceivable that Lavi's design had some influence on the design path of the J-10, but that doesn't mean its a direct copy. Again, both aircraft solve for the same aerodynamics and mission profiles.
Copying did and still does occur where it is the easiest way forward to a solution. It just doesn't happen as often as we might think.
As always great video! On point, objective, and explaining tech data so average Joe can get it! 👏👏👏
Had me at 'male performance enhancement' then talked for another 12 minutes about aircraft...what the hell!? ..oh and by the way... another great video about an aircraft we know very little about
Glad you liked it! 😀
this is the type of stuff we subscribe to you for, thank you for the amazing research and also for removing Otis
A pretty fitting time to be talking about the J-10 to be honest, just two days ago, at least an squadron of J-10CPs have been transferred to the PAK airforce along with highly advanced weapons accommodations like the PL-10E and PL-15E. The J-10 still has a long way to go in order prove itself in the delta canard family of fighters, possibly through direct air confrontations like it's "predecessor" the JF-17 had 2 years ago in Kashmir, this time against India’s new "fancy" Rafale “C”s.
India doesn't operate Rafale-M s. The "M" is the marine aka aircraft carrier variant
please be careful talking about Indians. they are a population of over a billion people and a large land mass but are extremely insecure and defensive lot ever known on the real and internet world.
they will resort to all sorts of insults and threats and troll you at an industrial scale. people like Millennium 7 and others have been the victims of Indian trolls as well which affects their channel standing.
but if you are like me and don't give a toss about Indian insecurities and obscenities then speak your heart.
India uses rafale f3r which is very different from French rafales.
@@Mirpurmad Ehm, and the Chinese are different? They even have government funded trolls
For the Olympics alone, Twitter has taken down hundreds of thousands of accounts connected to the CCP.
@@benghazi4216 you responded with your "whataboutism" on Chinese posters which is irrelevant to my post. At no point I am comparing world troll league vs Indians
the original comment mentioned Indians & their Rafales which their PM grieved about not having resulting in a humiliation at the hands of PAF on 27 February 19.
So much thanks. We want to know more about J-10C. Pakistan has also bought it. Share more videos about Chinese warplanes.
Finally! Somebody said it what everyone thinks of the term vigorous dragon
Vigorous dragon is a 2 character word in chinese, which is like a cool sounding name in chinese, but the english translation lost all of that purpose lol
Thank you for your clear and precise explanation which totally resonates for engineers / engineering-inclined types. 👍🏻👍🏻👍🏻
There are those who spill excreta through their own biases or constipation of the brain (if they have any). 🤮🤮🤮
There are always many people who think that making an aircraft is like assembling Lego, and some similar parts can be easily combined. The most typical example is j20, which people think is a children's toy composed of MiG 1.44 and f35.
With the sale of this aircraft to Pakistan to counter India's Rafale buy, it should make for an interesting time in South Asia. Should combat occur, both sides will learn a lot about each others aircraft.
Yes rafale will dominate these easily.. that is to say a meteor missile will..
J10CE is no match for Rafale F3R. Rafales main role will be to counter J-20s until IAF can field AMCAs in 2030s.
The top tier Rafelle will spank the cheeks off this Chinese wanna be ero delta.
@@Shubham-1999 already did that with Indian Airforce on 27th feb! Wreckage was in air everyone witnessed parachute of abhinandan and those slaps were not on pilot's face but on every indian's ass
@@ZamanMangi Well said, these chest thumping chimps are back to make joke of themselves. Also same ass whooping will be delivered to rafales in near future. Their pilots are shit and they would even crash F35 that's why US rejected their request to acquire them
I'm honestly surprised by your attitude, and I want to tell you this
You are right about the ability of intelligence and creativity in all the people of the world who just need a proper management and planning to flourish.
I have a bad feeling that I expected you to repeat what the Western media says.
We generally have a mental background on various topics that acts as a barrier to knowing and learning about them.👏🥴😏
Thanks for making this video, been waiting for this topic for a while!
Tbh I am not a fan of judging something on whether it's a copy or not, because we can argue if a specific details is carbon-copied, bought or developed, but at the end of the day they have little meaning in determining the whole system's actual capabilities. The AK47 may share similar form factor and roles as the Stg44, but that does not discredit the very different mechanisms underneath that makes it sucessful.
Great content, as always. J-10C also has reduced RCS.
You are maybe the only one who explained the "copy" answer used by most western analysts when they talk about Chinese industry in general
Ngl, "The Deltas" would have been a great family show in the 80s, with far-fetched jokes, run-of-the-mill puns and laughing tracks. We need more 🤣😎. Amazing video as usual, you're treating us good!
Hello. Big fan from Bangladesh. You are responsible for my now, unquenchable thirst in military aviation and technology. Can you please make an indepth video on various MiG-21/F-7 series of fighter, their attempt in modernisation and their feasibility in modern air battles.
Garbage only servicing in Bangladesh & Myanmar air force.
Mig21-93 was cool.
thank u was waiting for your analysis on j10c
Junk 10 green chutney 😂 😂 😂
Was waiting for this video for awhile. Worth it😊
You should do a video about the time period that Italy ruled the aviation world - the racing float planes before variable pitch props.
"The youger is copy of the older"...
You mean like that the Zero was a copy of every western air aircraft? -- It had a motor in the nose!
IT HAD WINGS!
Love your technically analysis... The J10c is beautiful air craft
Great analysis, thank you for the video!
Sees thumbnail
*heavy Chinese breathing*
Edit: watched intro, breathing intisifies
+1
There are a limited number of solutions to the aerodynamically issues that all combat aircraft designers face. It's no wonder that there are similarities between various aircraft designs.
Similarities are only skin deep. A good example is the Mig-29/su-27. They look like western 4th gen fighter but they use a unique central lifting body that's unique to Russian aircraft. Then there is the F-117 which looks like it was built by space alien on drugs.
@@yonghominale8884 most aerodynamic solutions are skin deep, dome depend on structural requirements as well. The F-14's body provides significant lift, so the MiG-29 and Su-27 are not that unique. There were many different designs for the F-14 that didn't have this feature. Likewise there were versions of the MiG-29's design that were closer in configuration to the F-15.
@@neiloflongbeck5705 Many versions of the su 27 were also significantly different despite having similar looks, the only thing in common in a lot of the versions are only that they share a similar aerodynamic form. A lay person cannot appreciate those important changes and usually they base their judgement only on the looks.
@@tonglianheng total irrelevancy. As a holder of a B.ENG in Aeronautical engineering I know what I talking about. There are a limited number of shapes that allow an aircraft design to meet its design criteria.
@@tonglianheng total irrelevancy. As a holder of a B.ENG in Aeronautical engineering I know what I talking about. There are a limited number of shapes that allow an aircraft design to meet its design criteria.
Well said my friend! The world us full if intelligent people capable of creating things by themselves. It is all too common in the west to think other nations are "inferior" and need to copy western technology.
It's not that Chinese engineers can't create unique aircraft. It's just that their leaders don't trust them enough to let them work on their own designs.
@@zinjanthropus322 This has all changed.
@@thelovertunisia Not really. The money is still following whatever the west does.
@@zinjanthropus322 Insist on the word "still" because this may not last very long.
@@zinjanthropus322 lol… and you know this how? Because you had an afternoon tea with Chinese leaders and they told you?
fantastic unbiased work... you just got yourself a subscriber, no joke, respect is earned and god damn you earned it.
Awesome video, as always!
I could see the j-10 borrowing ideas from the Lavi, but I don't see it as a copy. They have similarities but also differences.
Giving rice to the algorithm. Thanks for the video!
It is most likely be inspiration. It canards are little close to canopy rather to wings like that of Lavi. Lavi's wings are backward swept. But J-10 has straight end wings. Air intake is also different. And overall size is also slightly bigger. So changing in airframe make totally different & affects aerodynamics, stability, power to weight ratio, Landing gears repositioning, agility & flight controls. Totally changed. From scratch to ..
The world need this kind of objective and intelligent reporting/ analysis. It's really difficult to find unbised reporting especially not from mainstream western media. People are moving away from mainstream media to this independent channel as credibility on mainstream media are collapsing.
Your stuff is always interesting and informative
Interesting timing of the video's upload, just as when Pakistan is getting a couple of these brand new right now.
Thank You for Video. Great thinking.
The lineage is J10 was design by the group of people designed J-9 way back. If you look the j-9, you would understand.
really exc. analysis., top notch as always. nothing out there in terms of the quality analysis at least in english langage. much appreciated.
Speaking like a true aeronautical engineer! Can’t agree more.
Great video as always! Regards!
I have seen new HUD and some additional sensor on the top of the tale of batch 4 and onward J10C..Look like chinese are constantly upgrading J10..
7: 20 could this unusual anhedral adopted to correct some undesired flight characteristics? A negative dihedral was given to the He162 wings ends to improve stability, for example.
The point is the change of angle, not the presence of anhedral. The latter depends from the desired roll characteristics and... it is what is needed, usually.
6:50 "There are many like it, but this is mine," cried everyone.
great video... would love a complete video on just the j10C and its systems.
Pakistan received its first F-16s in 1981. IAI Lavi program ended in 1987. J-10 development started in 1988. J-17 started official development in 1995.
Beautiful as usual
If you want to build a 4th generation aircraft, you first need to have a set of aviation industry. This involves many industries and is a complex project. If you don't have such ability, you can't make a plane even if you have complete drawings. In addition, the similarity of the aerodynamic layout does not mean that it is a copy. Are the aerodynamic layouts of the mig25 and F15 very similar? B1B and TU160 look very similar, but the details are many different, can it be said to be a copy? It is more to inspire the designers of both sides. Similarly, LAVI and J-10C look similar, but they also have many different details, different weights, different positions of canards, different airfoils of aircraft wings, different air intakes, etc. These differences are from The design has been determined at the beginning, and any changes in the aerodynamic layout need to be verified in the wind tunnel. Shouldn't the copy be copied as it is? What do these changes mean? Because the initial design indicators were different, yes, we chose the same canard layout, but the indicators we pursued were different. LAVI is closer to the multi-function performance of the F16, and the J-10 focuses more on air control and emphasizes interception capability, which is directly related to the air defense pressure that China faced with the Soviet Union at that time, but Israel did not face such a lot of pressure on the surrounding area. Air-to-ground multipurpose aircraft, which is the original design difference between the two.
I think it's like different solutions to a math problem, if one of the two people solves a problem first and announces the answer without giving the process of solving the problem, the other person sees the answer and is inspired to use another way in his own way To get the same answer, it must be done by someone with the same ability. If a person has a poor learning foundation, even if you copy the whole process for him, he still does not understand how the answer is made, he can only write it mechanically. He came down but didn't understand the principle, and he still won't when he encounters a problem next time.
We get it. You're mad that you copied someone elses plane and the world roasts you for it. Go send some spies to another country to work for another aviation company and steal some more plans. You can then get mad because once again you're told you copied someone else. I get that airplane designs can be similar and different but let's be real the Chinese military approach has always been espionage of a more advanced countries programs and copy as much as you can and then give it some very chinese sounding name like lotus venom or vigorous dragon and say you didn't copy it. I mean really if it wasn't for the rest of the world giving you technology to produce stuff cheaper for them you guys would still be trying to figure out how to build propeller planes and cars from the 50s.
@@mattadams7922 If only things were as simple as you imagined. It is kind of funny what I see here in the US regarding China. On the one hand people are worried/threated by the China rise, but on the other hand, the same people dismiss them as incapable for various reasons like copying. Logically, if you feel the Chinese/government are not capable, then they shouldn't present a threat to US economic/military dominance, and therefore why worry about them?
@@d1492ay skippy re read what I wrote. If ignorance was bliss bud you would be orgasmic
@@mattadams7922 I know people are free to believe whatever they want, but of all places on TH-cam you choose this specific channel to post this specific BS?
@@mattadams7922 ok keyboard warrior
Good Contents make your channel great.
Also did you notice how Lavi looks like F-16 - COPY!
That was sarcasm BTW.
Brilliant video as usual! Thank you for that! On the topic of copying aircraft, Tu-4 says hi...
looks like a blend of F-16 & Rafale. i like the look.
I really hope one day we may see some combined joint military exercise and simulated air combat between NATO and China. Too bad politics gets in the way.
Good analysis of the aerodynamics but I wonder where the host got the info that the initial models had a Russian radar? This is the first time I have heard of it. All other sources I trust stated a Chinese mechanical scan radar was used on the A model. A PESA was installed in the B and a AESA is in the C model.
www.amazon.co.uk/Chinese-Air-Power-Organisation-Aircraft/dp/1910809462/ref=sr_1_1?crid=PZDBG8QXTSX5&keywords=chinese+air+power&qid=1645413511&sprefix=chinese+airpower%2Caps%2C63&sr=8-1
Read in a Chinese magazine article (around 2000) that the US brokered the transfer of Lavi tech to China as a compensation for them forcing Israel to abandon the project.
For 10 years in the 80s, China was a partner in Asia with US to contain USSR. The China Vietnam war was effectively a proxy war between US and USSR. To the extent that US almost let China license produce Blackhawks.
Obviously the collaboration on the J10 project is something all parties now have an incentives denying (and the China m-US honeymoon ended when USSR fell). Still, interesting how geopolitics produces strange bed fellows.
"The Deltas" haha, good one!
Thanks!
Thank you so much for your contribution!
@@Millennium7HistoryTech Great video's!! I am a "Old" US Army veteran, served 78-91, I was a Helicopter Crew-Chief, I am a very big military aviation buff. Keep the video's coming!!
Thank you Giovanni,this is good
Thank you for spelling this out to the half-wits. Unfortunately we both know you won't convince many of them because... CHINA!
Excellent video, Thank you for sharing, I really enjoy your channel 👍
I would say that similar platforms are solving similar issues.
Indians will not like this video, indians are like chinese air force is copycat, still buys new equipments and fighters to counter china.
Why some people envy if some inventions are copied? Don't they know that almost all technologies of today are the results of copying from the past.
From stone throwing, bow and arrow to gun and machine gun, grenade throwing, grenade launcher, cannon, rocket, missile; from cart to bicycle , car, truck, bus, tank; from kite to propeller plane, jet engine plane, rocket engine space ship; from log used as boat to raft, wooden boat, metal boat, warships, submarines.
Like the Chinese invented papers and the world using it.
As far as we knew, almost all things that we saw in this world are copies from the past.
"There's no divine right to technical superiority".
Thank you, thank you, thank you!
I have been trying to get many of my fellow Americans to believe this for years. They insist that China in particular, and Russia in general, are no match for US technical superiority. Maybe not this very instant they aren't, but they're damn well close enough and catching up fast.
In missile R&D alone China is showing alarming prowess. Russia has us beat hands down in diverse SAM capability and inventory.
Every single day the US carrier group power projection strategy comes closer to technical obsolescence because of the steady evolution of ballistic long range anti-ship technology.
Is the US military still a formidable power? Without a doubt it is- but our technical lead, our superiority, is being diminished steadily with each passing year.
Unfortunately American exceptionalism mindset is still strong
Thank you.
Hi, very nice and informative video. Please also make a video an honest comparison of J10CP purchased by Pakistan with Rafale Jet purchased by India.
People have been underestimating the PLAAF for a long time now because of their perceived copying of existing aircraft. The J10, 20, 35 are all examples that their aviation industry is clearly humming along at full throttle along side anyone else.
"There are clever people all around the world and there is no divine right to tecnological superiority". Round the applause, everybody!
Thanks for the content. Seems like their aircraft industry will reach parity with the US at the same time China becomes the largest economy in the world.
Hopefully we see how reliable it is, if its better than the JF17.
Just Slightly better than JF-17 regarding radar and sensors. But when it comes to payload capacity, range, flexibility (upgrades/modifications) of a bigger airframe and thrust it could generate, way better than the smaller JF-17. That's why PAF got J-10CP too.
1st batch of six J-10CP (101 to 106) have landed at PAC Kamra, Pakistan today at March 04,2020 evening. More would keep coming from CAC China. 👇
th-cam.com/video/1PAd2mZ7cSc/w-d-xo.html
As reliable as the made in China phone with an apple logo on it you are using. 😜
The inner wing anhedral is mostly for additional lift at low speed high aoa with low aoa on canards
i.e. take off
Concorde has a similar design
Lower wings are for High-speed and high aoa lateral stability mostly. Partially due to al31f is longer than the original preferred ws10 and the fuselage was elongated
Take all the good bits and put it together. A smart engineer doesn't reinvent when they need to. They use existing resources to make things work
I like your brain Millennium 7. "There is no divine right to technological superiority" Some in the west think that it is only them that are capable of producing technological products. Whenever they see any new products from Russia and China, they start insulting the product as if it is a copy or inferior to the western counterpart. The most interesting thing about these kind of individuals is that, most of them aren't experts in the technological fields that they are commenting.
from areo dynamic aspect, j10 jas39 and British typhoon are identical, and Israel kfir and France rafale are of another kind, and to be honest, J20 is the only of the third kind
the 2 main feature of canard, is how much higher do canard away from main wing, and how far do canard away from main wing, jas39 typhoon and j10 has a canard a lot higher than main wing, and j10 has a middle distance from main wing, like rafare, typhoon are far more distant, and kfir are more closer
the most complex use of canard is a lot higher and middle distance and moveable canard, the j10 and the rafare are two of the most complex use
and the J20, mostly now people know maneuverablity of J20 however few know how the canard works, but from the concept of American 6th gen fighter, i think American now know how it works and choose the design
Isreal worked with an american enemy to help them develop a weapon whilst still getting american defence aid package,thats crazy
Well this is tip of Iceberg.
@Aryan do not forget the F404 engine which went "missing".
@Aryan what makes you think they reverse engineered it and not part of the sales that there is tec transfer? You do know that a lot of arms deals comes with condition of tec transfer right? but then again you like to believe whatever you like to believe.
China wasn't America's enemy at the time. It was its stalwart Cold War co-belligerent against the USSR. It was only after the Tienanmen Square Massacre and the parallel thawing of US-Soviet relations that the US started realizing that it should seriously limit military technology transfer to China.
@@Hypernefelos any fool could see that china was going to be a problem for the US in future,they had the world largest population and a strong history of power thats why the japanese then soveits wanted them as a puppet
It looks like a copy cause it is. Doesnt matter though if it was copied as long as its improved and fits your tactic/doctrine .
👍😊 Thanks !
Here comes the algorithm-
kicker!🙃
Great vid
If the F-16 and Rafale ever had a lovechild.
Thank you sir for give a shut up call to all indian low life defense TH-camr who think they were present and sign all the papers of j -10 specs
I have given nothing to anyone.
why is there a deep slope on the fuselage at the tail end? is it because of the aerodynamics or engine?
I believe it is just the combination of the cockpit placed in a high position and a bit of area ruling at the centre of the fuselage. I thought they designed a tail cone like the Gripen, but on second thought it doesn't seem likely to me.
Curious failed to mention the huge espionage effort China has under taken in Military and industrial tech across the West and how China leap frogged many development stages that otherwise would have required decades of their own development. Much quicker and cheaper to steal to get ahead.
Not a Chinese thing alone but the scale has been stunning.
Please mention a few of the development stages that China has leapfrogged thanks to espionage (not technology transfer, espionage...)
Italy is pretty underrated.