Ha.
Let's keep the counterfeit "ooh, I can rip off the F-16 and the IAI Lavi too!" crap out of the thread, plox. There are so many things I can rip into in that video, it's not even funny.
(If you haven't guessed already, I have a real chip on my shoulder about these things.)
Have you considered that with same information available, similar solutions - both functionally and visually - simply emerge from independent developement?
Besides, Dilmah, I would have thought you knew better than to judge an aircraft from its looks. It most likely has a lot of differences from the planes you mentioned.
One could, with good reason, also claim that the whole history of aviation developement is "ripping off" other good designs at the time.
Don't have enough tech to make a single wing strong and large enough to provide lift for the aircraft? Use two wings tied together so they structurally enforce each other. (examples: Almmost all WWI biplanes and consequent developement up to Hawker Hurricane pretty much)
Need more lift? Add a third wing. (Sopwith Triplane - Fokker Dr.I)
Parasol wing? Nice, we now have enogh engine power and structural strength that we can go fast enough to provide enough lift with a single wing, so let's just remove the lower wing. (P.11, others)
High/Low/Middle cantilever wing monoplane? A wing that joins directly to fuselage and there's no external struts? Cool, we can get rid of all that drag from the cables and stuff. (Junkers F.13, Ford Tri-Motor, Hawker Hurricane etc.)
All-metal stressed-skin monocoque fuselage? Wow that's cool let's use it everywhere now that we have enough technology and alloys to make it light enough. (Heinkel He-70, Douglas DC-2, Messerschmitt Bf-109, Supermarine Spitfire, North American Aviation P-51 Mustang, pretty much anything...)
Jet engine? MOAR SPEED
Swept wing? Nice, now our jets can fly faster. (Messerschmitt Me-262 to some extent, Focke-Wulf Ta-183, MiG-15, MiG-17, North American F-86/100 Sabre and Super Sabre...)
Oh, we need more wing area? Let's make it a delta wing.
Even more lift? Hmm... Leading edge extensions, lightened structure, advanced composite materials, blended-wing fuselage...
So, where am I going with this? I'm trying to point out that most contemporary aircraft have a LOT in common with regards to their general design. It doesn't automatically mean "ripping off" from existing airplanes.
This affects commercial airplanes even more, to the extent that pretty much all airplanes since Boeing 707 look essentially the same to casual observer. There are minor changes like engine positions, elevator mounting, size, length, hull width etc, but all the planes have swept wing for trans-sonic flight, tube-shaped pressurized hull, cockpit windows that look almost the same, and so forth. Even the more unique Boeing 747 and Airbus A-380 are more or less just supersized versions of the "basic design".
But if you look beneath the surface, these planes usually have high degree of individual features and solutions. That's why type training is required when transitioning to other airplane type - you can't just barge into cockpit and expect to know everything you should about the plane's behaviour and systems.
Ergo, calling J-10 a "rip-off" of F-16 and Lavi just based on their looks is not something I can endorse.
