Talk:Chengdu J-10

General
I have heard some reports that the J-10 entered service in late 2004. Can anyone confirm this?--Todd Kloos 23:33, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

As of today, I believe that 3 regiments of J-10 are in service in the Nanjing Military Region.

The article leads the reader to believe that Israel give china the technology for the Chengdu, this is pure speculation and should not be presented as solid fact. I have deleted the passages which do this.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg 01:11, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree that the article should not state that as a fact, however, the J-10 is strikingly similar to the Israeli Lavi, and the J-10 is also radically different than all other Chinese designs so it seems probable that there was some foreign influence. I think the article should at least mention that there is some belief that the J-10 may have been built with some Israeli assistance. Edrigu 14:21, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I have to say, for those who envy the J-10 should be consider as normal, because they can't develop such a jet with so much good function,and lower price than F-16 but better function than F-16
 * why envy? F-16 developed decades ago. and J-10 is just recent.  Why don't you compare it with Raptor(f-22)?   —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.214.9.174 (talk) 19:36, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The statement "J-10 is also radically different than all other Chinese designs" is not true. J-10 is quite similar to the canceled J-9 which was also developed by Chengdu Lizhuoru 16:51, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * No, it's really not very similar to the J-9. The only similarity is that they both have delta wings and canards. The J-9 was an interceptor designed to fly fast in a straight line and shoot down enemy bombers, and to do nothing else. The J-10 is an agile multirole fighter, just like the Lavi. 207.98.198.84 (talk) 01:19, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm changing a few words in this paragraph to make it more NPOV. However, I think we should leave it in, since it's valid speculation. --205.250.250.154 19:37, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

The similarity is completley superficial, one might as well state that the Israelis gave the technology to the Swedes when they developed the Saab Gripen as it looks just as similar. The reason that all these aircraft look similar has to do with similar roles and aerodynamics.


 * Note: Gripen did recieve technologicial assisantance from BAE Systems which designs Eurofighter Typhoon. En51cm 06:53, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

^Ludicrous. It's widely believed (and JANEs even mentions this) that it was based on the Israeli Lavi. It's worth mentioning in the article, and moreover, the Gripen has twin side intakes, while the Lavi and J-10 have one at the bottom. Sorrowek 10:33, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

I have added the role that the J-10 plays in C & C Zero Hour reborn as I have used this plane in multiplayer games (trust me, it rules the skies ;). I cannot, however, find any external links: perhaps someone else can.) --The1exile 21:13, 22 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Someone else has added references to the model of the MiG being the Mig 1.44 or MFI. I cannot find any references to either of these models on wikipedia or on any other source. can someone please explain what these models are, or I will revert. At least clear up the redlink. --The1exile 21:04, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

On a different note, what is all the chinese text at the top of this talk page? I cannot see all the characters for the first and last phrases but the second one says, if my chinese is not completely wrong, "The secret is not easy to reveal". --The1exile 21:10, 28 December 2005 (UTC)


 * It says "We have something even more exciting! It's not easy to reveal the secret! Come to China and see!" Typical childish stuff, please disregard that.  --Ledrug 04:12, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

This article has too much speculations. Some of it look like very good educated guesses based on original research, but it should be made clear to readers that these are not commonly accepted hard facts.

Btw, who wrote the J-10 engine is built by Pakistan, its ridiculous. The engine originated from Russia and the Russian would never license a copy of their engine to Pakistan.

By the way, I removed the fifth-generation link, because in the news article, it is unclear whether the Pakistani Official is referring to the fifth generation for PAF, or fifth generation in general. The so-called "generation" classification often carries different definitions and unnecessary controversy. With the exception of the few, generally people do not regard J-10 to be in the same class as F-22 (which is usually what the "fifth generation" refers to). Ch2000 02:00, 2 April 2007 (UTC)


 * AFAIK, J-10 is officially only a GEN 4++ fighter. Russia has also since approved the sale of engines much to the displeasure of it's ally India. don't believe JANES on this, they were speculating. Akinkhoo 04:09, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Anonymous here: I don't know really how to edit Wikipedia articles, but would like someone who can, change the "No incidents reported" as "One incident reported" based on this story from 2009 in Chinadaily. http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2009-03/23/content_7605299.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.25.103.137 (talk) 05:58, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Section header suggestions
As BillCJ said, it's better to come up with a new or different section header to the section "Israeli participation", rather than use "Israeli participation", "Possible Israeli participation" or "Possible Israeli participation?". Here are mine:


 * Israeli influence in the J-10's design
 * Israel's contribution to the the J-10's design

What would you suggest? (If we can't find any good one, "Israeli participation" will be the default header.) --  Henrickson  User talk 23:33, 13 December 2007 (UTC)


 * i would actually suggest Israeli technology transfer. because participation sound like the israeli actually work on the plane, where by they might just be providing whatever they HAD, eg. fly-by-wire, radar, missile.. etc to the chinese. which really sound more of a transfer than participation unless is israeli actually develop anything they didn't already have for the chinese, which would be very questionable! Akinkhoo (talk) 09:46, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Please change the profile picture of the J-10. I have seen better quality pictures and some with beautifully painted body. please consider. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raveport (talk • contribs) 10:01, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

The part is biased and against common sense
"A simple comparison of known IAI Lavi prototype photographs and J-10 photographs (now officially released) confirms J-10 being further development of IAI Lavi."

From a logical point of view, you cannot derive the relation of two aircrafts from photos. Can I say that "Tu-160 is a further development of USA B-1"? Words like "a simple comparison" should be removed.

Since you have included the photos for J-10 and Lavi, in order to make it NPOV, you should include the photos of J-9(which shows the relation of J-10 with J-9). To me, there are clearly a few differences between J-10 and Lavi, the canards, the delta wing and the air intake are quite different. The canards and delta wing of J-10 is more similar to J-9, though the air intake is completely different. The J-9 photo is here http://www.china-defense.com/aviation/chinese_fighter_development/2b.jpg

Lizhuoru (talk) 08:23, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah! Why nobody mention J9? Is that copied from Lavi also? I am not saying that there is no Israel tech transferred to China, but saying that J-10 is designed in Israel is ridiculous. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.116.76.165 (talk) 15:03, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Developed from
The article sais it is developed from the J-9, but I have always heared it has been developed from the Israeli IAI Lavi. The Honorable Kermanshahi (talk) 17:04, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * because they are misleaded, the J-9 exist before the Lavi but few know or seen the J-9 design. and since most western analyst only know of the Lavi, they draw the line incorrectly because the Lavi was the most similar design they know of. it is basically 1 big rumour because china kept the program secret until quite recently. but large amount of misinform material were already written about it. Akinkhoo (talk) 07:18, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

J-10 Operational Range
A maximum range of 3000 km without refueling for a lightweight fighter? Isn't this grossly unrealistic for a lightweight fighter? (Psychoneko (talk) 13:10, 13 February 2008 (UTC))


 * It is. According to Jane's All The World's Aircraft, the maximum ferry range with max fuel in internal and external tanks is 1850km. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rpine75 (talk • contribs) 00:43, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I went ahead and updated the ferry range as well as the combat radius which was also grossly overstated. The odd thing is that even the source that had been cited didn't list such a huge combat radius, but rather one of 550km, which is within the range predicted by Jane's.Rpine75 (talk) 00:57, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, Rpine75. (Psychoneko (talk) 15:14, 7 August 2008 (UTC))

Someone changed the Operational Range back to 3000 km and quoted Sinodefence on it. I still think that 3000 km range without refueling is BS. (Psychoneko (talk) 19:44, 29 November 2008 (UTC))

Thrust vectoring
This part is mostly irrevelent to the main topic. Also it is short of citation. I think it should be combined with the former part "engine", or be deleted at all.(Dale_Zhong) —Preceding comment was added at 13:01, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

MiG MFI
Seriously guys? Am I the only one who thinks that this plane is IDENTICAL to MiG MFI? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.118.191.48 (talk) 05:19, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * J-10 program started in 1986 when USSR was still China's no.1 enemy, and its aerodynamic design hasn't changed much since the beginning. So it is very unlikely J-10 somehow copied MiG MFI.Mxiong (talk) 08:48, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
 * It's funny, you say Mig MFI.. I think eurofighter typhoon, gripen, rafale would have a been a better "identical match" to the J-10. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.57.50.156 (talk) 01:36, 13 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't think it looks like the MiG MFI at all, just the wing configuration. It seems to me to have more in common with the Eurofighter Typhoon or especially the IAI Lavi. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.73.136.240 (talk) 05:30, 15 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Plus the MiG MFI is a twin engine, twin tail rudder aircraft, whereas the J-10 is a single engine, single tail-rudder aircraft. Vicarious Tendril (talk) 09:01, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Super-10
Is this variant real or just another rumor floating around. It would make perfect sense for the Chinese to proceed to the next phase with the design(not unlike the evolution of the Hornet into the Super Hornet). Without a reference, though, this entire description is just speculation and should be removed.216.181.47.130 (talk) 13:12, 6 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The problem is that most of the other military databases available to the public (including Jane's Defense) list the Super-10 as a possibility. I would not be surprised if the Super-10 amounted to nothing much in the same way as the Commanche project for the US Army.  (Psychoneko (talk) 15:11, 7 August 2008 (UTC))

Lightweight Fighter?
I just realized something. I mentioned that the J-10 was a lightweight fighter without having put much thought into it. I know that the J-11 (variant of the Su-27 series) counts as a heavyweight fighter in the same class as the F-15 due to its size and weight, but the J-10 is of similar size and weight to the J-11. Could someone enlighten me on whether the J-10 counts as a lightweight or as a heavyweight? Because I still see it as a lightweight, but its full payload weight and whatnot is pushing it somewhat towards the heavyweight class. (Psychoneko (talk) 20:29, 7 August 2008 (UTC))

Linking words
So, I noticed in this article the words "the first photographs" with the word "photographs" linked to the wiki article on photographs and it led me to some curiosity about the policy of Wikipedia article linking. In this case, it really doesn't seem to add anything to the article, in fact, were this standard of usefulness to be adhered to for linking throughout the article, most nouns and several verbs would be linked. Is this really the policy? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.200.165.83 (talk) 19:28, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Comparable aircraft
Instead of editing back and forth forever, maybe everyone can sit down and discuss this? Lets try to open a dialogue on this since its still a bit of a thorny topic. I think a consensus can be worked out Semi-Lobster (talk) 07:34, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, a good idea. First, I would like to ask whoever is taking out all the comparable aircraft, why he/she is doing so. I have added comparable aircraft before, which are 4.5 gen with similar design and capabilities. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.57.121.3 (talk) 06:59, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I have removed the comparable aircraft section a number of times to protect the article from constant editing as each editor has a different view of what is comparable which indicates no consensus. So until consensus is agreed here it has been removed. MilborneOne (talk) 10:55, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Well then, lets get started discussing then. First we have to understand the profile of the J010. It is a single-engine, single-seat, delta-winged aircraft with delta-canards. The J-10 currently does not have thrust-vectoring capabilities and uses a slotted planar array radar and can carry a payload of 4,500kg. The J-10 has a 'glass cockpit' with multiple MFDs, FBW, HOTAS, HMS etc. Vladimir Karnozov, an aviation journalist who has been published several times wrote about the J-10 after seeing it perform at the 2008 Zhuhai Air Show. http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/2008/11/dispatch-from-zhuhai-chinas-j1.html While some of what is written seems more opinion that anything else, we cannot entirely dissmiss what he says and should be taken with a grain of salt. Semi-Lobster (talk) 16:32, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok, so we know that the J-10 is a pretty impressive fighter (based on that article, though as you say, it may be just opinion) with good manouverability and a modest payload. Of course there are lots of stats the the chinese government hasn't released, rather none have been released. What's to stop the addition of a list of comparable aircraft? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blitzoace (talk • contribs) 08:24, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Errr... yes they have (sort of), all you have to do is google 歼10 and 性能参数 and look for a government website. Like this one at random, http://www.cic.gov.cn/n16/n352050/353611.html?lk='/n16/n352050/n353611.files/n353610.JPG' which is the site for the 'Commission of Science Technology and Industry for National Defense message center' Semi-Lobster (talk) 14:49, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Based on the avionics, airframe, thrust, and armaments, i'd say this is equivilent or slightly better than a F-16 Block 40/42 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.147.21.176 (talk) 10:27, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't see why we just don't put 'F-16' for related aircraft. Its such a vague designation with so many variants with different performances and capabilities that it should be suitably vague enough to please everybody. Additionaly the Mitsubishi F-2 is based on the F-16 Agile Falcon concept which later was incorporated into the Block 40/42, so pehaps we can add that as well? Semi-Lobster (talk) 14:33, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
 * According to me, J-10 is a pretty impressive fighter but it's avionics, radar, weaponry and design makes it comparable to Saab Gripen, HAL Tejas, MiG-35 and F-16 Block-40 . It is not comparable to Euro-fighter Typhoon except for the design. We do not decide similar aircraft by comparing the speed or design. We look for advanced avionics and other similar capabilities. --Johnxxx9 (talk) 09:24, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Well we need to state the reasons why something is like something else and why things aren't like something else. The J-10 is a lightweight, multi-role fighter with emhpasis on air superiorority. The MiG-35 is very large (19m long) and has thrust vectoring, something that at the current time the J-10 does not have. The Tejas is... controversial, everytime it or the JF-17 is mentioned, controversy always follows on Wikipedia so lets avoid using it if necessary IMO. I personally think the Gripen is pretty comparable considering what is known and what has been seen of the J-10. Semi-Lobster (talk) 15:24, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok, so the Gripen is comparable, what of the Rafale? The Eurofighter Typhoon may be a bit of a stretch perhaps, but the wouldn't the J-10 be roughly the same as the Rafale? The article for the J-10 says "Mr. Sang Jianhua (桑建华) of Chengdu Aircraft Design Institute was responsible for the stealth feature designs." and "The intakes on both the Lavi and F-16 are round and fixed, and neither aircraft was developed with an eye towards reduced radar cross-section.", which hints that the J-10 has at least some stealthi-ness. But because there are no concrete specifications for the performance of the J-10, wouldn't it be prudent to put the aircraft which share a similar design and size/mass with the J-10? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blitzoace (talk • contribs) 02:12, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The Rafale and Typhoon are twin engine aircraft, which cause a lot of fundamental differnces between them and Rafale and Typhoon. Although on the other hand they are both have canards and delta-wings which are both fundamental aspects of the J-10 design aswell. The 'Comparable Aircraft' section is a supplementary and is not a cornerstone of the article. Trying to become too ambitious to detailing it could lead to it becoming completely removed like what happened with the Eurofighter Typhoon's 'Comparable aircraft' section. I would rather have a short, concise list of comparable aircraft that everyone can agree on rather than having it completely removed due to a never ending edit war. As for additional aircraft, The F-16XL is another example of a comparable aircraft as it is a single engine fighter using the delta-wing configuration. Semi-Lobster (talk) 03:59, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, when put that way I suppose the J-10 should remain comparalbe aircraft-less. We still don't know the full specifications (once again I say), and therefore we can't do an educated guess with other aircraft, never mind a guess.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blitzoace (talk • contribs) 04:41, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Well we now its dimensions, its engine it uses, its design philosophy and we hae a rough but decent understandign of it radar and weapons layout. We may not know what 'stealth features' are actually involved or its exact EW and avionics used. I'm not saying that a list is impossible but we should take caution and if necessary only have two or three aircraft listed. We may not know 100% exactly what sort of bird the J-10 is but I'm sure by now we've all seen the Zhuhai 2008 footage of its performance. Keeping some vague links to other single engine, light fighter aircraft would be ideal. Like I said earlier, I think the F-16 is a shoe in link because all blocks and variants are listed so simplying putting 'F-16' in a link will give enough room to wiggle in. The same I think for the Gripen as well as the difference between the Gripen A, C and NG share a lot in common with the H-10, especially in its delta-wing, canard design, while still, being a large enough range to not particularly offend anybody. The Gripen's 'Comparable aircraft' section has the J-10 listed anyway so I don't think its really a problem.Semi-Lobster (talk) 05:52, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
 * But dimensions, payload and weapons aren't even half of an aircraft. The Gripen and F-16 would be comparable, though it would still be wise I think to put aircraft which are simply similar to the J-10, which once again I say are the two stated before, though including the Rafale and Typhoon due to designs and roles (all being canard/delta and multirole, save for the F-16 which is not canard/delta). The comparable aircraft section of aircraft articles do not have to list aircraft with exactly the same specs, so I don't see why the list I have given is invalid. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blitzoace (talk • contribs) 04:39, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh don't get me wrong about your list. Its good, I just want to be cautious on this. As I stated already even though engine similarities are important, other aircrafts 'comparable aircraft' section has precedent for single engine fighters to be listed as double and vice versa. I just want to make sure the list made is right from the first tim and won't be tinkered and tampered sometime down the line. Semi-Lobster (talk) 04:50, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Right, I can understand your caution. But, say once this talk page has decided upon a list, if anyone decided to tamper with it, we will be able to re adjust it, while directing them to this discussion as our verdict. Won't that be a deterrent for people not to edit the list enough? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.57.121.3 (talk) 21:18, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Which is why we need a good list, to act as a detterent.So far everybody here seems to agree that the F-16, Gripen, Rafale and Eurofighter are comparable. The Tejas can also be added to but the whole 'generation' debate over the Tejas is still going on and the J-10's comparable aircraft section could be dragged in to that aswell. Maybe when that is resolved or more information on the Tejas Mk. 2 is released we can finally we can choose to add it or not. Semi-Lobster (talk) 21:29, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok, fantastic. It seems we've all agreed to the aircraft (save for the Tejas). So who's going to add the list back on? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blitzoace (talk • contribs) 09:29, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
 * In the radar section J-10's radar, whatever it maybe, will have to be comparable to EL/M-2052 or Grifo 2000/16. And the engine which is a Saturn-Lyulka AL-31FN is close to FE-414 in technology. The avionics suite seems to be comparable as that on HAL Tejas, Saab Gripen and Su-MKK. The airframe is similar to Saab Gripen, Tejas, Rafale in that all of these have delta wings. And payload faring is also similar to HAL Tejas. These are the things we take into perspective while deciding similar aircraft. --Johnxxx9 (talk) 19:16, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The EL/M-2052 is an AESA radar so thats not really comparable at all, the J-10As current radar from what is known is a planar array radar that is not the Grifo 2000/16. The avionics and engines from the information available seem comparable. The delta-wing/canard configuration is a key to the J-10 design, and given precedent, twin engine aircraft can be compared to single engine and vice-versa so a plane like the Rafale could be compared to it. The Tejas Mk.1, has not entered service and will not for several more years and only in very limited numbers so I would be cautious to compare anything to it but why not add it I guess but like I said I would prefer a shorter list than anything, we shouldn't add an aircraft just for the sake of adding things for no reason. For example the F/A-18 only has 4 aircraft listed. Semi-Lobster (talk) 00:19, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I dont have a view on what should be on the list but just to remind that comparable aircraft is not a deep scientic study on what is the same it just for the reader to find similar aircraft like size or role and age things like the radar are not really important in finding similar aircraft. Does it look the same, does it do the same job is it from the same era nothing more complicated. MilborneOne (talk) 11:26, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Indeed, but for some reason the J-10 seems to be somewhat of a magnet of 'controversy' for some reason, I want to make sure we can finally put an end to the small edit wars that keep happening.Semi-Lobster (talk) 13:54, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

OK my understanding is that you have agreed on a list, do I understand it correctly it is F-16, Gripen, Rafale and Eurofighter. To re-enforce the consensus it might be worth having a vote and allowing a reasonable time (week) for anybody to object. This will help if we get further disagreement. MilborneOne (talk) 10:41, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but Eurofighter isn't comparable. I'd go with Gripen, Rafale and HAL Tejas --Johnxxx9 (talk) 11:50, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Both are multi-role Delta wing aircraft with canards, although the Eurofighter is a bit larger. There are on the otherhand, a lot of features onthe Typhoon not present currently on the J-10 and the Typhoon is certainly in a 'special' league of very, very advanced 4+ generation of aircraft. I think the main difference is role. Chengdu has stated on several occasions that work has already begun on a navalised variant while the Typhoon, has never been navalised. This automatically IMO makes it closer to the Rafale than the Eurofighter Typhoon. If anybody else has an opinion please add your opinions as well, Wikipedia is a community project after all. As for the Tejas, I'm hesistant to add it as it has not entered service yet and with IAF announcing that they might not order any additional Tejas' beyond the twenty or so pre-production aircraft until the Mk. 2 is developed has led to some wild and unpredictable speculation on new requirements and new specifications but the IN order is still going through. Also this list isn't exactly scientific, the comparable aircraft section does not really have a set criteria for what 'comparable' means. Semi-Lobster (talk) 15:17, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Does any one disagree with adding the Gripen and Rafale to the comparable aircraft list? MilborneOne (talk) 15:26, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
 * So far it seems nobody is against the Gripen or Rafale or F-16. Semi-Lobster (talk) 16:10, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I thought Europe was working on a naval version of EF. Isn't that the reason why there were reports that U.K. would dis-continue the F-35 program with US, instead work on a naval EF. But I do believe J-10 will have a CAS role. And the Mk-2 version of Tejas will just a more powerful engine and some changed features. So, I think it should be included due to the additional reason that they will most probably face-off against each other. Let's go with this:


 * Rafale(similar role, technology, design and avionics)
 * Tejas (similar role, technology,wings and avionics)
 * Gripen(similar role, technology and design)
 * F-16 Block 40 (similar role, technology, intakes and avionics)
 * F/A-18(similar technology and avionics) --Johnxxx9 (talk) 08:08, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The F/A-18 is a lot larger than the J-10, and 4000kg heavier than the J-10. I don't think the two aircraft very comparable. There were some preliminary designs for a navalised Eurofighter in the design phase but that was cancelled very, very early in production and nothing exists beyond paper. Currently there is no plan to navalise Typhoon and the F-35 is still scheduled to be used by the Royal Navy. There is no doubt that the J-10 will have CAS since Chengdu has officially announced that it will. The Mk.2 is still in development, nothing is really known what features, other than the engine and intake the difference, will be. Well if you insist on the Tejas thats fine, as long as we have an agreed list controversy can be kept to a minimum. For some reason the Tejas is linked to an unusally large number of aircraft and things seem to be fine with that so it seems the Tejas be a useful comparison. Semi-Lobster (talk) 16:53, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Its quite a tough job comparing eastern aircraft to the western ones! So, the list should be---


 * Dassault Rafale
 * Saab Gripen
 * HAL Tejas
 * F-16 Block-40 (Optional) --Johnxxx9 (talk) 20:49, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Well I don't think the Tejas should be included at least, the Tejas is a light combat aircraft, and the J-10 is in a completely different weight category. And Semi Lobster has also stated the Eurofighter Typhoon should be included on the list. So I think:

If anyone would like to dispute the Tejas, I have a source that says the Jf-17 is a peer to the LCA, F-CK 1 IDF of Taiwan, and the Golden Eagle LIFT trainer of korea. Of course, that works the other way round too, meaning the LCA is comparable to the JF-17, F-CK 1 and Golden Eagle. http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/stuck-in-sichuan-pakistani-jf17-program-grounded-02984/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blitzoace (talk • contribs) 20:31, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Dassault Rafale
 * Saab Gripen
 * F-16 Fighting Falcon (optional)
 * Eurofighter Typhoon
 * Also, the max take off weight of the J-10 is closer to the Rafale and Typhoon than the Tejas. The F-16's max take off is pretty much the same as the J-10. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blitzoace (talk • contribs) 20:46, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I am really sorry but J-10 is not in the same weight category as EF. The weaponload capabilty of J-0 is around 5 tons comparable to that of Saab Gripen and HAL Tejas. --Johnxxx9 (talk) 21:04, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Indeed. 5.5 tons, compared to the >4000 tons of the LCA. But of course, as many people say, we must not only take in numbers. There fore.. : http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-Sinocanard.html Here's another source I've found. This time it says the J-10 is comparable to the Eurocanards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blitzoace (talk • contribs) 21:39, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Please, that 5.5 ton figure has already been tagged. The above section mentions it as 4.5 tons. --Johnxxx9 (talk) 21:53, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Sure, let's say it is 4.5 tons ok? We still have to realise that no specs like that is given officially. So really they're estimates at best, therefore unreliable to compare with other aircraft. That is where the references I've posted comes in. And one says the LCA is comparable to JF-17, IDF. The other says the J-10 is comparable to the Eurocanards and uses some of the best Eurocanard ideas. I haven't read one single article that relates the J-10 to the Tejas. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blitzoace (talk • contribs) 22:12, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * That is because we are as unaware of the exact spec of Tejas as in the case of J-10. Closer examination of what we do know about them will give you some answers. You must be aware of the India-Pakistan thing so these blogs you are talking about are influenced by hatred. We are completely unaware of many spec of Tejas like turn rate, rate of climb etc. --Johnxxx9 (talk) 22:28, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Well for the J-10 I'm talking about simple things like weight and max speed. If you don't even have that, then things like turn rate and climbing rate is irrelevant. And by articles, I don't mean blogs. I mean magazine articles, or professional sites on the military. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blitzoace (talk • contribs) 22:38, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * This is being debated, quite. So I'm saying that for the J-10, we just don't add any comparable aircraft. The JF-17 and J-10 articles are clearly linked that nobody can agree on what comparable planes should be on the list... Blitzoace (talk) 04:22, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Then why list coparable aircraft for any design? Just remove that section from every article and make a list by weight category for all in-service jet fighters and tag each model with its weight category list. Hcobb (talk) 21:44, 22 July 2009 (UTC)


 * The complete removal of the section on all aircraft articles was suggested at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Aircraft/Archive_23 but that discussion was no concluded although nobody objected to it. Perhaps it is time to look at it again. MilborneOne (talk) 11:18, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Category of aircraft?
I don't mean to nit-pick, but the article for air superiority fighters says that the J-10 is China's primary air superiority fighter. However, this article says that it's a multi-role fighter. Does anyone know for sure which class of plane it actually is? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cheese1125 (talk • contribs) 22:39, 4 January 2009 (UTC)


 * It's primary role is not as air superiority fighter. It's primary role is Close Air Support. --Johnxxx9 (talk) 14:30, 7 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Close air support signifies a low level surface attack role. CAS is used to describe aircraft like the A-10 or Su-25. CAS aircraft are never classified as even fighters. Semi-Lobster (talk) 18:53, 7 January 2009 (UTC)


 * i looked it up and the chinese have designed it to be a multirole fighter-bomber   Cheese1125 (talk) 01:56, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

J-10B
I recently modified the Variant section for the J-10B to be

"The J-10B is the two-seat fighter-trainer variant of the J-10 multirole fighter aircraft. The forward fuselage of the aircraft was stretched to accommodate an additional pilot seat. Two pilots sit in tandem in the two-seat cockpit with one single large bubble canopy. The aircraft also has an enlarged dorsal spine to accommodate additional avionic equipment or fuel. As well as serving as training aircraft, the J-10B may also be used for the ground attack role where the rear seat pilot acts as the weapon operator" http://www.electronicaviation.com/aircraft/Chengdu_J-10/1018

Other sources such as http://www.stormpages.com/jetfight/J-10_J-11_FC-1.htm has stated that "10 might have been delivered to the PLAAF Flight Test & Training Center for evaluation in summer 2002. The latest news suggested that a tandem seat trainer/attack version (J-10B?) has already been under development" supports the above quote.

But on NO account has there been any source claiming otherwise. and yet, for the second time, the J-10B has been edited to be:

"A Major upgrade of the J-10 which first flew in December 2008 features 3-d thrust vectoring and much more."

Which is Unbacked by evidence/source, and have a very Sales like Pitch to it.

Meanwhile, has deliberately changed the J-10B to J-10S: "J-10S : The J-10S is the two-seat fighter-trainer variant of the J-10 multirole fighter aircraft. The forward fuselage of the aircraft was stretched to accommodate an additional pilot seat. Two pilots sit in tandem in the two-seat cockpit with one single large bubble canopy. The aircraft also has an enlarged dorsal spine to accommodate additional avionic equipment or fuel. As well as serving as training aircraft, the J-10S may also be used for the ground attack role where the rear seat pilot acts as the weapon operator. [25] "

Which does not fit the referenced source.

Any thoughts?

The latest modification done by someone:

"J-10B : A major upgrade of the J-10 which first flew in December 2008 featuring 3-D thrust vectoring, DSI, AESA radar, IRST, internal weapons bay, RAM coating, and much more. 36 ordered by Pakistan under the designation FC-20."

Internal weapons bay? RAM coating? Much more? Is this guy joking? With no sources, and having completely implausible claims, what the hell?

whatever... i'll edit it, the way it should be. if you have any problems, put it here.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.147.21.176 (talk) 03:10, 27 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Hui Tong has a good site but its all really based on speculative internet rumours. Its a good source for existing aircraft but he relies far too heavily on Chinese BBS, forums and blogs to be considered a proper source. I think the entire section should be removed. We haven't even seen one picture of the J-10B yet. I personally believe the aircraft is in development and it may have flown sometime last year but until we have something more concrete we can seriously consider keeping this. The entire section is highly speculative and, as we have seen in the past few weeks. A source of constant editting and re-editting. Semi-Lobster (talk) 21:48, 2 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Wow, I am so confused now. What exactly is the aircraft ordered by Pakistan? I thought it was the J-10B, designated FC-20, I even read some news stories about that. But now I'm hearing that it's actually the J-10A that's designated FC-20. And there's also the claim the FC-20 is actually FC-10, and could be either J-10A or J-10B. Could someone clarify? Cheese1125 (talk) 00:28, 3 February 2009 (UTC)


 * All the mainstream sources are saying that the FC-10 is the J-10A. Most talk about the FC-20 are from... less reliable sources and are usually about speculated additional J-10s recieved AFTER the current order of 36 is filled. Semi-Lobster (talk) 04:10, 3 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Ohhh...I get it. Thanks for the info. There used to be something on the confirmed operators section about Pakistan having an option for 100 more; it might be that. Then again, it was an uncited statement which was probably why it was removed. Cheese1125 (talk) 17:45, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I Don't know why it says PESA, it should say PESA or AESA at least. It is well known that China has not taken the PESA route but moved on to AESA. The images show lines similar to an AESA on the side (See Deino's comparison). To be objective and to reach a compromise, we need to say PESA or AESA rather than just PESA or AESA plamkii —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.174.171.67 (talk) 17:31, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

User hj108 failed to respond instead "resolved" it himself unsatisfactorily by placing a reference that only shows the possibility of an PESA and NOT an AESA. Will restore original link if user fails to respond in 2 days. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Plamkii (talk • contribs) 22:43, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Constant vandalism, edits without sources
Can some moderator please protect the article? People keep making edits to the operator section, changing the variant ordered by Pakistan. I have removed any numbers and variants info from the section since they are the cause of an edit war.Hj108 (talk) 18:45, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I have noticed the changes as well. In recent days however, some pictures has come to hand about the FC-20/J-10B.

Most BBS and Bloggers are saying it has AESA/PESA (line on nose), ECM (bulge in tail), DSI (well you can just see it...), IRST (on nose). But I think we should just wait it out and see which variant Pakistan ordered. Blitzoace (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:53, 21 March 2009 (UTC).

User Hj108 Hj108 must realize that others have as much right to contribute as him. Granted, he has been a the most extensive editor in more recent times, but others have as much of a right to contribute and not see their edits pulled out without ceremony by Hj108 Hj108 Plamkii (talk) 23:34, 2 May 2009 (UTC)


 * You have made a good point nobody owns this article but HJ108 is just trying to defend the article from constant revisions from what is sometimes unreliable (or not acceptable to Wikipedia) sources. If you think he/she is wrong then like any challenged edit it can be disucussed on this page. MilborneOne (talk) 12:04, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

J-10B-update
There have been numerous sites and pictures which are showing pictures of the J-10B. They're all showing DSI, IRST, ECM in tail. Some blogs are claiming the line on the B variant's nose is a vent for an AESA/PESA. Either way I think the J-10B part on the J-10 article should be changed. Thoughts?Blitzoace (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 09:01, 21 March 2009 (UTC).


 * So what should it be changed to? Hj108 (talk) 12:33, 21 March 2009 (UTC)


 * J-10B : An upgraded variant of J-10, existence is unconfirmed. Rumoured to incorporate more advanced features such as 3D thrust vector control (TVC), phased array radar and a further reduced radar cross-section. Likely to be another designation for Super-10.
 * Should be changed to;
 * J-10B : An upgraded variant of J-10, existence is speculated from pictures released.From what can be seen, it is likely to incorporate new features including: DSI intake, incorporation of more RAM, built in ECM, nose mounted IRST, and possibly AESA/PESA radar (vent on nose similar to vents on F-16E, F-18E/F). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blitzoace (talk • contribs) 22:03, 21 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Made some changes, thoughts? Hj108 (talk) 19:17, 26 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Hmm mostly good, however the designation of it being likely to be the same as the Super 10 should be removed I think. Creates more confusion. And also phased array to ESA. Or is phased array and ESA the same? I don't actually know.Blitzoace (talk) 03:42, 27 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Pretty sure ESA is the same as phased array. ESA means electronically scanning array. Phased array means... radar scans electronically. Hj108 (talk) 17:20, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

"J-10B" NOT "Super-10"
J-10B is the proper name for the improved version of the aircraft. I tried updating the page, but someone removed my edit. I follow Chinese aircraft very closely, there is nothing called the "Super-10", but rather it is J-10B. Would someone please stop adding "Super-10" back, the plane does not exist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RiseOfTheRev01ution (talk • contribs) 04:17, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Indeed, but the isn't the Super-10 the designation of a twin engined J-10 variant?122.57.119.98 (talk) 05:57, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * You just can't 'add another engine' to an aircraft. They would would have to completely change the aircraft to accomodate the other engine and completely change everything because the aerodynamics of the aircraft would be completely different. It would be a new plane if you added another engine. It would be impossible to create a twin engine J-10B, it would just be another aircraft. Semi-Lobster (talk) 11:21, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah I understand the basics. On blogs and such from people who follow these things closely say there is a 5th gen twin engined "j-10". I'm not sure what they mean by that, but I think in english at any rate, it should get the designation of the Super-10.Blitzoace (talk) 06:03, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * There is a Jane's Defence article talking about a new J-10 model called "Super-10" (a Russian source told them about it) that has a phased array radar, stronger airframe and thrust vector control, that is why it is called Super-10 in the article. Unless you can prove the article to be wrong, why change it? It also says in the article that existence is unconfirmed by Chinese sources, which is also true. Hj108 (talk) 19:17, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Jane's Defense while reliable, doesn't always address the truth. I mean this because even they may get their facts wrong, espicially when talking about the Chinese military. For the "Super 10" it really depends on what you're reffering to; the J-10 upgrade said by Janes, or the one which is speculated to be a 5th gen variant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blitzoace (talk • contribs) 03:55, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Moved it under J-10B section, does it look better? Hj108 (talk) 17:17, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I have not read any proper source talking about Super-10 being a "5th generation twin-engined J-10", only unreliable blogs and so on. The Janes Defence article on Super-10 is reliable information. All the photos of J-10B prototype (assuming photos are not fake) confirm everything in the Janes Defence article (except thrust vectoring) - the stronger airframe (the new hardpoint under each wing) and phased array radar (the new radome with tilting bulkhead) are talked about in the Janes Defence Super-10 article. Whether it is Russian or Chinese, the TVC engine could also be added in future. The whole Super-10 part is only a couple of lines, it has a fairly reliable source and it agrees with the J-10B prototype photos, why remove it? Hj108 (talk) 20:48, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * True. You have a good few reasons there. The reason I am skeptical of the Janes article is that it misses out the big thing of DSI. I'm not sure if it matters or not but I think that it is best to leave some thoughts of the Super-10 as imagination. But really I don't mind now what it is.... And we all know what the chinese are like, sometimes we can only rely on blogs for info. A couple of these blogs know what they're talking about. But on wiki we can't put blogs as sources anyway. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blitzoace (talk • contribs) 21:52, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Think of it this way: the Janes article mentioned "stronger airframe" and the DSI bump should make the airframe stronger in terms of low RCS, low weight and improved aerodynamics.Hj108 (talk) 11:07, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Well I am content with leaving it as "could" instead of "probably". Hints and the idea and also leaves room for doubt. Just my 2 cents.Blitzoace (talk) 07:40, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

J-10 engines
I'm just starting this because of the various reports of Chinese buying Al-31FN engines. I would like to make out that these russian engines are rumoured to have an MTBO as low as 800 hours. I haven't read any reports yet, but it depends from which author you get it from. Many pro Russians say it's just that China can't produce a suitable engine and such, while Chinese bloggers are saying they're used to replace engines on J-11's and earlier J-10's. At any rate I think the engine category on the J-10 page shouldn't say the programme's lagging. Creates a mood that it's behind scheduale. Either change it to something more moderate, or state the opposite view that no one really knows what's going on about the J-10, and they may be using WS-10A or Al-31F. Just to moderate it a bit. Not asking too much I hope.Blitzoace (talk) 04:06, 27 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Engine schedule should not be on this article anyway, this article is about J-10 not WS-10. Go ahead and make the edit, there aren't any reliable sources for either argument and that should be reflected in the article.Hj108 (talk) 13:17, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

GrandeStrategy.com "think tank" external link
Can this blog be added to the external links section under "general information"? Link to website: http://www.grandestrategy.com/

Link to article on the website, in question due to being a re-hash of information and pictures from other sources with a dose of speculation from the author: http://www.grandestrategy.com/2009/04/559695923848203-dragons-new-claws-j-10b.html

plamkii (talk), I hope you will follow your own warning/advice and discuss the matter here rather than undoing my edit. Of course if you don't you will be doing the very thing you warned me against on my talk page, causing an edit war.

Hj108 (talk) 15:28, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

I certainly think it is more than a rehash of material. Please stop edit warring and arbitrarily reverting. First you claimed that it was a blog, then you claimed that think tanks are not a good enough source, and now you're claiming the article is a re-hash based on your opinion. Would it not have been better for you to discuss it here before randomly taking action based on your prejudices? plamkii (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:39, 2 May 2009 (UTC).


 * Stop throwing accusations around. I do not want an edit war. I already told you on your talk page that if you added the link again I would not remove it. I have not done so thus far. It is not my opinion, it is a fact. If I was prejudiced, why would I add the original sources of the GrandeStrategy article? Sinodefence, Jane's, cnair, they all have their own articles on the topic, I have not removed them. This is supposed to be a place for storing facts, not opinions. Have you even read the article? Some extracts:
 * "The ECM housing is similar to the housing on the JF-17"
 * The ECM housing looks nothing like the one on JF-17. The JF-17's housing is a completely different shape. The only similarity is position of the housing.
 * "the ventral fins appear to be a result of the DSI intakes which create greater lateral forces on the aircraft"
 * How can the author know this? Was he involved in the project? Is he an aerodynamics expert who can tell us the forces acting on the aircraft just by looking at it? I thought you needed wind tunnel modelling for such information.
 * "The wide angle HUD featured on the J-11Bs seem to have also appeared on the J-10B. While it cannot be confirmed, it appears that the cockpit itself has been redesigned extensively."
 * So now the author can see into the cockpit from the pictures provided?
 * "The 5th Generation Chinese stealth plane is what would eventually close down J-10 production."
 * The author can also see the future plans of the Chinese military?


 * Now the killer. plamkii, YOU are the author of this blog, are you not?
 * http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/showthread.php?t=83594&page=18
 * A link to a message board discussion (post number 516) where a fellow with the username "PLA-MKII" admits to being the author of this blog. Is it a coincidence? I'd like some input on this from other editors. Hj108 (talk) 12:05, 3 May 2009 (UTC)


 * It appears to be a conflict of interest as the author of blog also wrote the grandestrategy article being used. But we should assume good faith and let plamkii explain if they have a connection or not. We also have the question that grandstrategy may not be a reliable source if it relies on users contributions. MilborneOne (talk) 13:08, 3 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree. I would not have a problem with this blog/think-tank being used as a source, but this particular article contains so much conjecture, opinions, rumours from "inside sources", etc. Not only that, but a lot of the information presented can be found in more professional sources such as the articles by Jane's Information and SinoDefence. Hj108 (talk) 11:23, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd just like to point out that User:plamkii has added the following text to the variants section under J-10B:
 * "However, China is known to have skipped the PESA route and invested directly into AESA radar technology. Given that the J-10s to date have used domestic radars as well as certain discernable markings on the J-10B forward fuselage, there is a strong argument that the J-10B has a domestic AESA radar.<:ref>GrandeStrategy Institute - The Dragon's New Claws: The J-10B Emerging "
 * Using the above mentioned "think-tank" as a source. The article itself mentions no source for this. It may well be true, but don't we need a proper source? Milborne I strongly object to this. The above user is using conjecture from his own website to source an article. Hj108 (talk) 11:37, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Agree the use of known to have and strong argument also sounds like original research. It should be removed unless a reliable source can be found. MilborneOne (talk) 11:43, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Here are my thoughts on the discussion here:

1. We should avoid getting personal and turning this into a mud slinging contest 2. Both parties appear to be edit warring 3. There are very few articles on the J-10B. Reading the article, I thought it was good enough and informative to be on wiki 4. Jane's and others included, are using internet sources for much of their work on chinese military issues. There are very few facts. 5. Concerning dsi's aerodynamics, from the little i studied in college, it seems intuitive. Second guessing the article seems dubious. 6. "looks" is not a term the author used. 7. Both parties should cool their heels and let others decide on the issues at hand. Voluntarily. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.246.207.82 (talk) 14:39, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Wow. Thats a lot of water under the bridge since i last signed in. Okay, I'll voluntarily stay out, but I think its that it may be a little unfair that I cannot reply to personal attacks but okay fine whatever. Plamkii (talk) 21:56, 4 May 2009 (UTC)


 * What personal attacks? Plamkii you're the one who personally wrote that article, added a link to it on Wikipedia and then refused to let me remove it until the issue is sorted. You even had the nerve to tell me to discuss before editing on my talk page, something which you did not do yourself.


 * I've removed that stuff you added about China skipping PESA (I know what Tphuang says about it on his blog). Everything in the Variants section is sourced, except what you added. If you can provide a source, please go ahead and undo my edit. Hj108 (talk) 07:23, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I'd like some more opinions on whether the external link to the Grande Strategy article on J-10B should stay. I don't think it should because it is full of pure speculation and all the facts contained in it are in sources that are already added to the article. It is also my belief that the editor above (plamkii) is the owner of the website and writer of the article - I believe he is pushing a link to his article/website onto Wikipedia purely to promote his website. This is because if he was interested in making the Wikipedia article more accurate, he would have made his own article accurate rather than filling it with so much pure speculation and info from "inside sources". If the consensus is that the link should stay, I have no problem with that and will happily drop the issue. Hj108 (talk) 17:43, 9 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Dont think it is reliable and looks like a WP:COI, may be worth raising it Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Although if the consensus is that it is reliable it still cant be added by anybody who is connected to it! MilborneOne (talk) 17:54, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

J-10 Generation and radar

 * Proelitez, we've already determined that the J-10 was 4.5 like... ages ago I think. Please don't start the edit war again. As for the radar of the J-10B... I am pretty sure it's an ESA, and we don't know whether it is PESA or AESA. There have been conflicting reports from people who say China's not advanced enough to develop it to people who read chinese BBS's and claim China is skipping PESA to AESA. Either way I think we should keep both there to keep the possibility of both types being possible.Blitzoace (talk) 05:33, 12 May 2009 (UTC)


 * No discussion on generation on this talk page that I can see - really needs a reliable reference or it should be removed as not particularly notable. The radar bit (in fact all of the J-10B section) is pure speculation and should really be pruned to remove opinion and speculation. It is all guess work and has no place in an encyclopedia. MilborneOne (talk) 12:12, 12 May 2009 (UTC)


 * True, I meant we as in... like the world. But now that I think of it, there have actually been no real sources to differentiate it between 4 and 4.5 that I have found.. I go with stick to the status quo on this one. Well, I am seriously not sure how to talk about speculation. Because in what you're saying, the whole of the article "future chinese aircraft carrier" should be removed too it's only speculation. I suppose putting "it is speculated" in front of a statement which is questionable does not justify the statement being on wikipedia? No hostility meant btw. Blitzoace (talk) 01:28, 13 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Latest press release I have seen describes the aircraft as third generation! Not sure how far you can go with speculation in a factual encyclopedia, if it is reworded to say that the source speculates rather than us doing original research, just need to get the wording right. MilborneOne (talk) 08:00, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Is the press release Chinese? Cause in China 3rd gen=4th gen. From what I have read they also don't differentiate between 4(3) and 4+(3+), or else the Su-30MKK and MK2 would be under "3.5". Blitzoace (talk) 04:10, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry this was the source for third generation comment http://www.upi.com/Security_Industry/2009/05/12/China-sells-J-10A-to-developing-nations-for-oil/UPI-64981242155123/ MilborneOne (talk) 11:33, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * No need to apologise lol. Hmm first the title, of the article is... questionable. I personally don't trust anything on UPI on most Chinese development stuff. Also, be wary of any aritlces by Andrei Chang. Most are extremely anti China (and pro russian) and lack any convincing facts. Like, I have not heard from anywhere about China willing to sell it's J-10 apart from to Pakistan at the moment. (Andrei Chang is Chinese btw, but he's a self hater so I would just be a bit wary of his articles related to China. Also is there a way of determining whether a reference deserves to be put on wikipedia or not? or is it just talk page concensus?)Blitzoace (talk) 04:10, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Noted doesnt sound particularly reliable - normally talk page consensus would do but you can ask at Reliable sources/Noticeboard for other opinions. MilborneOne (talk) 11:05, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Another source which classifies J-10 as a 4th generation aircraft and J-10B as 4.5 gen. . Well, the generation is pretty confusing. --Johnxxx9 (talk) 11:45, 18 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Just a quick statement, there is nothing wrong with a self hater, or haters of any kind. A fact is a fact, no matter in whose mouth it came from. Now, if he provides no evidence, then you may disregard it. But do not provide special treatment just because he has an agenda. China does indeed differentiate 3+ with 3rd generation, by saying it is close to 4th generation. In China, 1st Generation = 1st + 2nd Generation, 2nd Generation = 3rd Generation, 3rd Generation = 4th Generation, 4th Generation = 5th Generation. Of course this isn't concrete. It is just a rough equivalence. To them, 1st Generation = <Mach1, or Near Mach1 (mig-15). 2nd Generation is Mach2-Mach3 (mig-21, Mig-23, F-4), 3rd Generation is a jet without a highspeed requirements, and focuses more on A2A combat(F-16, Mig-29, Mirage-2000, Su-27), 4th Generation contains Stealth (F-22). Essentially, J-10 falls within 3rd Generation, a 4th Generation equivalence. Source: CCTV Documentary (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b4JYQTep3q8) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.147.21.176 (talk) 05:24, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Active Service?
Has the J-10 entered active service with the Pakistani Air Force yet? I mean, they should have a few planes by now for operational testing but it's as if there's a drought of information regarding what the Pakistanis are doing with their J-10s. (Psychoneko (talk) 12:12, 24 May 2009 (UTC))

You must be confusing J-10 with the JF-17. PAF has 8 JF-17 already (some people say they have 16), they are "small batch production" aircraft (not production aircraft but not prototypes). They've been doing flight testing since 2007 and weapons integration since 2008, first squadron due to enter service later this year. Hj108 (talk) 13:03, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Cleaning up the article
I messed around with the layout, does it look any better? I want to clean up the engine section first, it is full of stuff that can be deleted or moved to the WS-10 article. Hj108 (talk) 12:47, 31 May 2009 (UTC)


 * OK so far, perhaps the speculative radar section could do with a cull after the engine section! MilborneOne (talk) 13:08, 31 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Done. Moved all the rubbish in the Engine section to the WS-10 article, so I'll have to clean up that too. Need sources for it though. Deleted all the random radar stuff in Radar section. How does it look? Hj108 (talk) 15:24, 9 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Looks a lot better, thanks for the hard work - want to try and have a go at some of the rubbish in Electro-optical systems! MilborneOne (talk) 17:43, 9 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Done. Also sorted out the ECM and Airframe sections. Hj108 (talk) 15:17, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Re-written the HUD and flight instrumentation sections. There's just the development section left... Hj108 (talk) 11:13, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

NATO Reporting Name?
There is no mention of it in the article. Does it not have one? It would be unusual, since NATO assigns names to pretty much all Russian and Chinese aircraft, even if they have an official name of their own (for example, Russia's Su-47 "Berkut" is still given the name "Firkin", and the Ka-50/52 "Black Shark"/"Alligator" is still called "Hokum A/B"). So doesn't the J-10 have one, and if not, is there a reason for that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.73.136.240 (talk) 03:57, 14 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Nobody knows, but there has been some discussion on the internet about it. Some believe NATO names are no longer being given. Others say that just hasn't been released by insiders yet.
 * Hj108 (talk) 13:37, 15 June 2009 (UTC)


 * ASIC (not NATO!) reporting names are still being given out, it just seems they're a lower priority than they were in the [insert qualifier here] old days. For instance the Yakovlev Yak-130 has been assigned the reporting name Mitten. So, perhaps the J-10 will get a name one of these days. (A lot of would-be pundits in threads on defense forums I've seen are, tongue-in-cheek, suggesting that Fanboy might be appropriate.)- The Bushranger (talk) 13:35, 29 April 2010 (UTC)


 * That would be hilarious. But my understanding of the purpose of assigning code names is that they were given because the Soviets/Chinese usually did not assign names of their own. The Yak-130 has no name other than its designation number, but the J-10 has "Vigerous Dragon" and "Vanguard", making a code name unnecessary. That is not a guarantee that no code name will be given though, since some aricraft have been given code names in adittion to their official ones (e.g. Su-47 Berkut was given "Firkin" and the Ka-50 Black Shark was given "Hokum"). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.195.124.109 (talk) 03:48, 4 September 2010 (UTC)


 * The system was nothing to do with not having names - during the cold war the official designations were not even known by the west hence the need for a code name. MilborneOne (talk) 18:04, 4 September 2010 (UTC)


 * And all so very much time later...it appears that the name NATO reporting name "Firebird" may be associated with this aircraft, although tracking down a reliable source using it is just a smidge difficult. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:07, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Source on J-10 exports
China intends to export the J-10 after developing an upgraded version: http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2009/09/30/332905/chinas-avic-steps-up-sales-push-for-fc-1-j-10-fighters.html --Hj108 (talk) 11:52, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Underpowered?
The thrust to weight calculation seems to be a bit off.

Loaded weight: 40,785 lb Thrust with afterburner: 29,101 lbf thrust/weight: 0.71, not 0.98

Hcobb (talk) 18:40, 18 November 2009 (UTC)


 * No reliable weight figures have been released, sources differ. Where figures are stated, the aircraft's configuration to achieve that weight (amount of fuel, weapons, etc.) is not known. Until a reliable number for empty weight + full internal fuel weight is found, it is pointless to try calculating a reasonably accurate thrust/weight ratio.
 * --Hj108 (talk) 20:21, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

CCTV comparison of J-10 and F-16C/D
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2XSq8wBmw_g

Summary:
 * J-10 and F-16C/D are on par with Avionics (generation, with J-10 leading slightly), and cost of purchase and maintanance (although F-16 is stated to be slightly Cheaper)
 * F-16C/D is superior to J-10 in BvR engagements * J-10's radar is less advanced as the F-16C/D, and lacks the range and simultaneous target tracking
 * J-10 is Superior to F-16C/D in terms of Maneuverability
 * F-16 is Superior to J-10 in terms of mission capability and readiness(i.e. extreme environments)

"Important note here is that J-10 apparently cannot operate under extremely hot temperatures, and cannot operate in extremely cold, and or snow/icy environments that F-16C/D can. This is by the state media, so it should count as some weight. I am not sure about the exact data as my Chinese isn't that good. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.147.21.176 (talk) 01:55, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Crash rumours?
Part of the text says, "the rumoured crash has been denied...", but there's nothing to indicate what crash or rumours of crashes is being referred to. - The Bushranger (talk) 02:30, 1 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Whats this then? http://china-defense.blogspot.com/2010/03/j-10-down.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.147.21.176 (talk) 05:14, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Export version designation
Hoping to head off a possible edit/revert war at the pass, I did a bit of googling, and found some interesting results. It seems there's a Yaesu antenna tuner(!) named "FC-20", and "FC-10" includes a Chinese fluorochemical alcohol company(!!), so I refined things a bit...


 * FC-20 228,000 hits, "FC-20" China 16,200 hits; "FC-20" China aircraft 7,000 hits
 * FC-10 338,000 hits; "FC-10" China 22,200 hits; "FC-10" China aircraft 1,630 hits
 * FC-10A 4,290 hits; "FC-10A" China 563 hits; "FC-10A" China aircraft 28 hits

...however confusing things is the claim I saw on a Pakistani defense forum, that "FC-10/10A" refers to the export J-10A, and "FC-20" to the export J-10B...

It seems that, until the Chinese actually start telling people what they call the export version of their fighter (which might help their sales!) "FC-20" is most likely to be the correct designation. - The Bushranger (talk) 13:35, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Protection
I have protected the article due to the edit waring over numbers in infobox, can editors please discuss and gain consensus on this talk page, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 06:55, 11 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Protection removed following talk page consensus below. MilborneOne (talk) 11:05, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Sinodefence.com
I've raised the issue of whether or not Sinodefence.com meets WP:RS at WP:RSN. Once the community has decided whether or not that source can be used there should be no reason for edit warring over its use here amd hopefully protection can be removed. Mjroots2 (talk) 05:59, 12 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Sinodefense.com was being used as to reference the number built as 168 to 196 at http://www.sinodefence.com/airforce/fighter/j10.asp :
 * The J-10 was first flown on 22 March 1998, with six prototypes produced for flight tests. 
 * The initial batch of 100 examples in both single-seat and two-seater variants were delivered to the PLAAF between 2004 and 2006

So if it is a reliable source (although I doubt it as it is a WP:SPS) it can only support a build number of 106 I cant find any mention of 168 or 196 in the article. MilborneOne (talk) 10:15, 12 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I reverted NoBiasPlease's edits primarily for this reason. He mentioned there were 6 regiments in service although the supporting reference only mentions three regiments so there is no way, 168-196 examples could be in service (going by the article and nothing else). Although, it's pretty apparent that said user's account is a conduit for PRC-fanboyism and when said user doesn't get his way, he resorts to personal attacks and edit-warring. Vedant (talk) 16:18, 13 June 2010 (UTC)


 * So this is what caused all the fuss at RSN? I believe when citing Chinese air force equipments, there are better sources than Sinodefence. Seriously did anyone even bothered to consult Janes and DOD intelligence reports before dwelling whether Sinodefence is reliable and open another can of worm on how to conduct PLA research as a whole? J-10 facts changes all the time because it is at best an educated guess, and you can find a million contradicting facts from a million different RS. It would take ages and lots of PLA expert opinions to actually form a guideline on how and where Sinodefence should be cited, isn't it better to try a better source?
 * The bottom line is that Sinodefence is very notable, but not always infallible/authoritative when you're researching Chinese air, naval, and missile power. Normally people use Sinodefence to cite ground force equipments because there are no better sources. But in the context of J-10, you can actually find better sources than Sinodefence. Jim101 (talk) 19:45, 14 June 2010 (UTC)


 * You know that the reason this article was protected was because someone (presumably a PRC-fanboy judging by his edits) took great objection to the fact that I provided a citation that gave a number he didn't like seeing. It's only after that he removed the AWST citation and replaced it with one from Sinodefence. I'm not disagreeing that Sinodefence.com is notable and I see that it is referenced in certain congressional reports. I'm just arguing that it shouldn't be used when a more reliable source is available. It's for the same reason that I don't reference other military enthusiast websites with the exception of this one edit. Vedant (talk) 20:03, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Next time, please provide context and the usage of source before bring in a discussion at RSN. I defended Sinodefence on RSN because it has been noted to be a very important source when conducting research on PLA, specifically the ground forces, thus declaring it as not reliable for all cases is completely wrong. But in this case, given J-10 is covered by better source than Sinodefence, Sinodefence in this situation is not reliable. Jim101 (talk) 20:18, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Next time, please review who actually brought the issue up on WP:RSN because it wasn't me. As you can probably tell by my contribution log, I do not edit many ground forces related articles and as such am not in a position to comment whether Sinodefence is or is not a reliable source for those matters. Regardless, your argument is logical and I would be inclined to agree with it, though I'm not sure why you're directing it at me. Vedant (talk) 21:01, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Not directing at you, but directing at the entire party involved in the dispute. RSN discussion on Sinodefence needs input and context from the dispute here to actually make some logical sense. Jim101 (talk) 21:12, 14 June 2010 (UTC)


 * So add it. Carping about it here really isn't helpful, and doesn't come across very well either. - BilCat (talk) 21:25, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I did, now just waiting for response from the dispute here. Jim101 (talk) 21:38, 14 June 2010 (UTC)


 * OK, good, and thanks. - BilCat (talk) 21:44, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Remember reading from several sources that the first 50 J-10 fighters was in service years ago, so the number 55 seems far to low to me. Walle83 (talk) 21:53, 14 June 2010 (UTC)


 * That's probably true given that its active duty status was disclosed about 4 years ago. Even if they manufactured 20 aircraft a year (which in itself is a low estimate), they would have around 100 aircraft by now. However, given that this is WP:OR and/or speculation, I don't think it's correct to include it. Vedant (talk) 23:08, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

This paper, which cites a Jane's estimate published in 2008, gives a number of 80. I think this number is as reliable as it can get. Jim101 (talk) 19:49, 15 June 2010 (UTC)


 * That's fine, I've no problem with this source. I think it should also be used on the JH-7, J-11, Su-30 and PLAAF articles as well as it seems to be a more recent number. Vedant (talk) 22:31, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I took the liberty to be bold, and changed the number on J-8, Su-30/Su-30MKK, KJ-2000, and J-11 according to the Jane's estimate. Correct me if I'm wrong. Jim101 (talk) 23:26, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Removal of non-neutral references

 * http://www.strategypage.com/dls/articles2006/20061015201536.asp
 * http://www.defpro.com/news/details/15125/

The first reference above, titled "J-10C Ground Attack Aircraft", claims "It appears that the J10 does not perform as well as the Su-27 for air combat, so the Chinese are reconfiguring the aircraft as a fighter-bomber." I don't see how this article can be accurate when it includes such speculation in its conclusion, how can the author know how the J-10 performs if the aeroplane has only been seen flying in Chinese news agency videos, a flying display at the Zhuhai Air Show and in photographs by Chinese enthusiasts?

The second reference, "China tries to hide J-10 fighter crashes", states that "the pitfalls of reverse engineering without paying royalty and truly understanding the technology are high accident rates, a fact that China has hushed up with its lack of media freedom." Firstly, nobody except the manufacturers and the Chinese military know how much of the aircraft is reverse-engineered and how much is Chinese-designed and the article does not elaborate on this. Secondly, claims that the aircraft's development was assisted by Israel (cite: Richard Fisher's article stating the FBW system was developed by Israel) indicate that the Chinese must have paid the Israelis for their assistance, not simply reverse-engineered foreign systems "without paying royalty" as the article states. Thirdly, the article cites "StrategyPage.com" as a source and my above comments indicate this also is not a reliable reference. Fourthly, the article cites the website "FighterPlanes.com" as a source, which appears to be an amateur website claiming in its J-10 article that "Some US military analysts believe that J-10 could pose a serious challenge to the F/A-18E in terms of maneuverability" but the defpro.com article doesn't mention this, rather it claims that the aircraft is badly designed.

I believe the above two references should be removed and more respectable references found. --Hj108 (talk) 17:09, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Well it seems that the 'experts' all have contradictory view on this plane. We have to face the fact that there is very little data out there on this aircraft because the Chinese are not giving any. Just try to find a updated photo of the cockpit on the internet. The data in this article are mostly outdated and speculative we don't know what improvments there has being made over the year's on the plane just like in the west each bagde of production is an improvment on the previous. The data in this article are 5 to 6 year's old and may not reflect on current versions of the J-10. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.21.214.42 (talk) 10:12, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Specifications Change
I'm changing the specifications to those in this picture: http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?172920-J-10-fighter-enters-international-market-at-40-million/page4 Most of these pictures have been corroborated by other news reports, and I'm fairly sure that these details are correct. Instr (talk) 12:06, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_generic.jsp?channel=defense&id=news/dti/2010/01/01/DT_01_01_2010_p65-188015.xml&headline=Chinese%20Chengdu%20J-10%20Emerges

This article by Richard Fisher corroborates the length, width, and combat radius figures. They're not as extreme as the China Defense Mashup ones, but consequently they're more reasonable, as well as being superior to the very low 550 km figures some Western sources provide.

As of now, I'm going to try to revise the thrust-to-weight ratio. Instr (talk) 12:41, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

http://china-pla.blogspot.com/2009/11/j-10-and-4th-generation-news.html

Includes "normal take off weight", which I assume is loaded weight. Matched by pictures. Instr (talk) 13:09, 1 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately forums and blogs are not reliable sources of information. If you can find this information elsewhere from more reputable sources then it would be more appropriate. -Nem1yan (talk) 13:21, 1 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Let's please discuss this here before an edit war breaks out. The length, width, and combat radius information are provided by Richard Fisher, the defense analyst. As far as the other material goes; the forum is a direct link to a picture of a placade at a Chinese aviation museum outside Beijing. The third picture is from Chinese government information provided with their August 1st airshow team. If you want me to hunt down the primary material instead, I can go to that. 24.90.32.167 (talk) 16:03, 1 March 2011 (UTC)


 * The information from aviation week is fine, but the blog source cant be used. Also if you could find a better image of that poster (one that showed the entire poster instead of just one section) it could be added to the page. -Nem1yan (talk) 03:40, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Fake footage
The section about the faked footage isn't directly about the J-10 aircraft. It may warrant inclusion in the air force article - if it was their fakery - and / or the television channel which aired it. I have removed it. ( Hohum  @ ) 21:54, 10 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Originally I was more for keeping it, but you have a point. It isnt really all that notable either way. -Nem1yan (talk) 21:59, 10 March 2011 (UTC)


 * How about some advice on where to put the material before deleting it. The 2011 in the People's Republic of China timeline is linked to here currently. Benjwong (talk) 03:51, 17 March 2011 (UTC)


 * As ( Hohum  @ ) suggested it should either be included in the air force article or the television channel that faked it.  There is fake media of Su-37s and Su-47s taking down Raptors but that certainly isnt worth noting in the F-22 article.  Also every scrap of media isnt exactly notable.  The video clip in question wasnt even of high quality, practically anyone could scrap together that film.  Unless there is information showing that Chengdu was involved in creation or distribution of the clip then there is no reason to include it here. -Nem1yan (talk) 03:37, 18 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Leave the BS out of PLAAF and stick it to CCTV. Please note the chinese proverb: "黑狗偷吃，白狗当灾". A civilian might have produced that crappy/fake video clip but was there any direct involvement from PLAAF? And until a reliable source is produced, please keep it on article page of CCTV instead. BTW, this is the not the first time that CCTV is involved in these kind of "masquerading" videos, we know them all too well. Thank you, best and out to all. -- Dave  ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 16:51, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Besides, I quote a line from the article page of CCTV: "it reports directly to high-level officials in the Propaganda Department of the Communist Party of China", making it very clear who pulls the string here. Let me again paraphrase a line from somewhere in the movie world: "Let's dispense with the bull, shall we?" -- Dave  ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 17:14, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Conformal fuel tanks
There are ongoing tests for conformal ful tanks for the J-10.

http://asian-defence.blogspot.com/2011/02/chinese-j-10-fighter-with-conformal.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.21.212.187 (talk) 12:52, 27 March 2011 (UTC)


 * How is a blog run by "YASIR007.IN@GMAIL.COM" a WP:RELIABLE source? ( Hohum  @ ) 13:25, 27 March 2011 (UTC)


 * This photo is available in enough places to suggest that they are indeed testing it. I dont know whether or not it should be added without a better source however. -Nem1yan (talk) 14:29, 27 March 2011 (UTC)


 * All information needs to be reliably sourced. ( Hohum  @ ) 15:13, 27 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Technically isnt the image by itself somewhat reliable? As long as the wording is clear ("images have surfaced of a J-10 wind-tunnel model with conformal fuel tanks") for example.  While I agree that sources need to be reliable and of decent quality an "all or nothing" stance with Chinese articles would leave a lot of blank pages, especially since their airforce seems to be explicitly against any sort of formal statements about their business and technology. -Nem1yan (talk) 00:58, 28 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Conformal fuel tanks - how do we know, the problem with using images as a source is we dont actually now what the model represents or what any non-standard feature is and we are assuming that the image is a J-10. All original research. MilborneOne (talk) 17:05, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

The J in J-5/6/7/8/10/20

 * For the laymen out there, please note that:
 * 1) Fighter aircraft = zh:战斗机 is the term used by the Chinese speaking world-at-large while zh:歼击机 is the term used mainly in mainland China and is often transliterated as "Annihilator" instead of "Fighter".
 * 2) Interceptor aircraft = zh:拦截机 is the term used by the Chinese speaking world-at-large while zh:截击机 is the term used mainly in mainland China

Another good example to illustrate this type of subtle difference is:
 * 1) Aircraft = zh:航空器
 * 2) Airplane = zh:飞机

Since this article is about a China-made aircraft, it naturally has to follow their naming method. -- Dave  ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 02:20, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Chinese characters
Normal to show in the lead the names of aircraft in the original language but I dont know why all the other names in the article are also in chinese as well, I will go through and remove them soon but thought I would mention it first in case I missed why this article is an exception? MilborneOne (talk) 19:30, 15 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Hold on MB1, think it might be prudent to leave them be. FWIW, I had a tough time reading the pinyin version until I saw them Chinese text, should be useful for some of us here. Just my 2 cents. -- Dave  ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 19:35, 15 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Well, I guess it's a wee bit too late now, eh? -- Dave  ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 19:50, 15 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Sorry Dave but I couldnt see much point - but then I have been known to be wrong. Finished a tidy up but it could do with somebody else checking that it still makes sense, removed a lot of guff and tried to make it read better but some bits still need descent references. MilborneOne (talk) 20:24, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

J-10B
This is not the Super J-10.

Never trust Chinese forum speculation.

The Super J-10 is a twin-engine, 2-tailfin variant of the J-10.

Dark Liberty (talk)

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page
Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request its removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:


 * http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/j-10/
 * Triggered by  on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.— cyberbot II Notify Online 12:04, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree with the statament.--Bolzanobozen (talk) 14:09, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

4 Sept 2015
Concerning the use of these sources:


 * 1) http://www.popsci.com/blog-network/eastern-arsenal/j-10b-%E2%80%9Cvigorous-dragon%E2%80%9D-fighter-jets-are-full-set-soon-be-regiment
 * 2) http://chinese-military-aviation.blogspot.ca/p/fighters-ii.html
 * 3) http://www.grandestrategy.com/2009/04/559695923848203-dragons-new-claws-j-10b.html

Typical of articles in the Eastern Arsenal series, (1) makes many claims and fails to say where these are from ; my guess is these are likely drawing from enthusiast sources (i.e. non-expert, and haven't been vetted by experts.) This is a problem since Popular Science isn't a publication which can be regarded as an professional/expert in the topic area. Of the two authors, only Singer seems to have notable publication history, although it doesn't seem to indicate any particular expertise in the Chinese military hardware developments. Lin is complete no-name. PopSci should be used as a jump off point to locate reliable expert sources, not used itself; in other words, if there's something to what it says, an expert publication should have it. - RovingPersonalityConstruct (talk, contribs) 02:34, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

(2) is a self-published source by a non-expert, and is obviously no a reliable source.

(3) lists its sources at the bottom of the article; they are all enthusiast discussion forums (non-expert, self-published etc.). The whole site just looks like a general topic blog with a grandiose "About Us" mission statement. On the front page there is a section at the top labelled "Evaluation Criteria" with a mark breakdown. On the side, "Recent" articles are listed as:


 * Could Gog & Magog be Underground?
 * Raza Nadim and Asghar Bukhari Lay it on About Chapel Hill Sh...
 * Response to Mazin Abdul-Adhim on Nouman Ali Khan's Khutba
 * GMO Failures & Man's Attempt to Play God

"Popular" articles are:


 * Analysis of the PAF vs. IAF - Air Combat Over the Subcontinent
 * Legal Justice Failing in America: The Case of Nu Science & the Henkel Family
 * Tafseer Explanation of Surah At-Takathur in English
 * Prophecy of the Euphrates Drying Coming True
 * Limited & Superficial Comparison of Air Assets of the PAF & IAF
 * Black Banners From Khurasan
 * The Bible, The Qur'an and Science Maurice Bucaille

grandestrategy.com has no indications of being an expert on Chinese military developments. It's hard to see it as being a reliable source for anything, actually. - RovingPersonalityConstruct (talk, contribs) 02:34, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 one external links on Chengdu J-10. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070329052709/http://www.sinodefence.com:80/airforce/fighter/j10.asp to http://www.sinodefence.com/airforce/fighter/j10.asp
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100301235212/http://www.sinodefence.com:80/airforce/fighter/j10.asp to http://www.sinodefence.com/airforce/fighter/j10.asp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 21:29, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 one external links on Chengdu J-10. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080705221513/http://aviationearth.com/Theory/deltawing.html to http://aviationearth.com/Theory/deltawing.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130308080234/http://www.cannews.com.cn:80/2009/0322/5774.html to http://www.cannews.com.cn/2009/0322/5774.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070329052709/http://www.sinodefence.com:80/airforce/fighter/j10.asp to http://www.sinodefence.com/airforce/fighter/j10.asp
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060413201915/http://www.stormpages.com:80/jetfight/J-10_J-11_FC-1.htm to http://www.stormpages.com/jetfight/J-10_J-11_FC-1.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 06:30, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Chengdu J-10. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2006%2F02%2F23%2Fstory_23-2-2006_pg7_50
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130824235929/http://www.greaterkashmir.com/news/2011/Jul/31/china-to-give-squadron-of-j10-b-fighters-to-pakistan-39.asp to http://www.greaterkashmir.com/news/2011/jul/31/china-to-give-squadron-of-j10-b-fighters-to-pakistan-39.asp
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150206045148/http://www.fxingw.com/wwjx/2012-05-14/22032.html to http://www.fxingw.com/wwjx/2012-05-14/22032.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121230142953/http://www.strategycenter.net/research/pubID.265/pub_detail.asp to http://www.strategycenter.net/research/pubid.265/pub_detail.asp
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.sinodefence.com/airforce/fighter/j10.asp
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.stormpages.com/jetfight/J-10_J-11_FC-1.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 04:48, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Chengdu J-10. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131031194002/http://www.hindustantimes.com/world-news/Pakistan/China-to-give-squadron-of-J10-B-fighters-to-Pakistan/Article1-727421.aspx to http://www.hindustantimes.com/world-news/Pakistan/China-to-give-squadron-of-J10-B-fighters-to-Pakistan/Article1-727421.aspx
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150206054535/http://www.liangjian.com/news/201112/6344_5.html to http://www.liangjian.com/news/201112/6344_5.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130921063158/http://www.sinodefence.com/airforce/fighter/j10b.asp to http://www.sinodefence.com/airforce/fighter/j10b.asp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 09:42, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion: You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 03:22, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * J-10a zhas.png

February 2022
Concerning this edit/readdition by Special:Contributions/119.74.167.46:

1. The additional link to the J-9 article is unncessary per MOS:REPEATLINK; there already exists a link in the body text to the J-9 article a few paragraphs above.

2a. The addition that reads "the idea for this configuration came from the Saab Viggen" is associated with this source. From what I can tell that source says that China developed the dual-canard layout independently, being one of many countries looking at that configuration at the time. Presumably this is why the SITC article Research, Development, and Acquisition in China’s Aviation Industry says the J-10's layout is "Viggen-like", and not something like "Viggen inspired". So the addition seems to be original research (No original research.)

2b. The addition was apparently pulled from the J-9 article, per the edit summary of a prior edit. There are two problems with this. First, it assumes that Wikipedia is a reliable source which, per WP:CIRCULAR in Verifiability, it is not. Second, the claim cannot be verified as the J-9 article is completely unreferenced (which is a problem unto itself, a problem that is best not allowed to leak into the J-10 article.)

3. I would also opine that the connection text "But this was clarified by members of the J-10's design team" doesn't work, since what follows is not solely from the design team. The SITC article does not attribute its claims to the design team in its historical overview. With what follows the SITC-sourced part, the connection text is inappropriate where it is, and unnecessary afterward. Perhaps just replacing it with "However" would make it clear that what follows the first sentence is the response.

Given the above, a revert seems to be in order. - RovingPersonalityConstruct (talk, contribs) 06:45, 6 February 2022 (UTC)