You seem to be somewhat over emotional.

That ‘observation’ seem like it has more projected emotion then actually observed.

The Chinese shoot down a broken sat and everyone and their mum jumps in to bash the act. When the US plans to do something similar, not so much as a fart from the international community and some even think its something to be proud of. :rolleyes:

Quite frankly elements that are common to the J-8 and ye-152 are not found in either the MiG-21 or the J-7 yet you are so blindly convinced that the Chinese came up with the common solutions due to serendipity. Its a pity really. But since you know it all we’ll have to leave it at that; there is absolutely no convincing you otherwise.

Do you know anything about design at all?

You cannot just make everything 10,20,30% bigger/smaller without needing to make adjustments to the design itself. Fighters jets are so optimised that even changing to a different engine type could easily need massive structual and even areodynamic chances. Those changes are also supremely optimised and follow fixed and highly specific physical laws. Air has the same properties no matter of nationality.

The soviets and Chinese also shared the same theoretical foundation, so in effect, they are trying to solve the same problem with the same equations and many of the same technologies. What you are suggesting is akin to arguing that a class of students all copied off each other because they came up with broadly similar results when ask to solve the same question after being taught by the same teacher and using the same list of equations. Its hardly rocket science to see how similarities in design could easily result without design transfer.

And its laughable that you could have the nerve to accuse others of being blind when you have absolutely zero evidence of any tech transfers and what you are suggesting flies in the face of the well establish timeline. You have presented nothing other then off hand superfical observations that basically only boils down to, ‘well they look similar’, and thats hardly even worth considering other then to dissmiss. Come back with something akin to evidence and then we will talk. Till then all you got are hot air.

PRH implies passive homing…the PL-11 is a semi-active AAM, not a passive homer like the R-27P.

Oppst, my bad. 😮

Heres another J-8II carrying the PL-12 (behind the helo), is this the picture you wanted?

Cheers, never seen that one before, thanks for posting it. The one I was refering to is clearly of the same serise, only it has a closer view of the J8 and the unusually market PL12.

If two flankers went down at the same time, then its extremely likely they collided in mid-air during training.

I think you are simply overstimating the J-8II, the J-8II is a F-4E equivalent, not a MiG-31, it barely can fire modern weapons but it is not something that goes beyond the F-4F Luftwaffe variant.

And you seem to have a clear wish to underestimate it. The J8F can use both ARH and PRH BVRAAMs and has a pretty modern and decent radar. They also come with high off-broadside WVR AAMs and HMS and have new built airframes to boot (the airframe itself has also been refined recently). That is hardly ‘barely’ able to fire modern weapons, and when was the last time the F4F was upgraded?

Besides, as usual you have completely missed the point. Go back and read what I wrote instead of what you thought I wrote. I never said the J8II was on par with the Mig31, in fact I specifically pointed out that the J8 was much less capable.

About the YE-152/YE-150 and J-8I relations a lot has been written about it some Russian sources say part of the documentation was given to China, others simply say the aircraft has no relation, however it has the same engines and almost the same aerodynamic configuration.
Сборка первых двух опытных самолетов завершилась в июле 1968 г., первый полет самолета состоялся 5 июля 1969 г. (летчик Юн Юхуан). При создании самолета был широко использован опыт, полученный в процессе изучения и освоения производства в Китае самолета МиГ-21 (J-7). Конструктивно самолет J-8 близок к советскому опытному истребителю-перехватчику Е-152А, созданному в 1959г

The construction of the first two experimental aircraft ended in July 1968, the first flight of the aircraft took place on July 5, 1969 (Yuen Yuhuan was the test pilot). During the development of the J-8 it was extensively used the experience gained in China of the manufacture and study of the MiG-21 (J-7). Structurally J-8 aircraft follows closely the Soviet fighter aircraft-E-152A, created in the year 1959.

Сборка первых двух опытных самолетов (1- для статиспытаний) завершилась в июле 1968 г., первый полет самолета состоялся 5 июля 1969 г. (летчик Юн Юхуан). При создании самолета был широко использован опыт, полученный в процессе изучения и освоения производства в Китае самолета МиГ-21 (J-7). Конструктивно самолет J-8 близок к советскому опытному истребителю-перехватчику Е-152А, созданному в 1959г. Документация по Е-152А, не пошедшему в СССР в серию, была ранее передана Китаю (без двигателей, ракет и РЛС).

The construction of the first two experimental aircraft ended in July 1968, the first flight of the aircraft took place on July 5, 1969 (Yuen Yuhuan was the test pilot). During the development of the J-8 it was extensively used the experience gained in China of the manufacture and study of the MiG-21 (J-7). Structurally J-8 aircraft follows closely the Soviet fighter aircraft-E-152A, created in the year 1959.
Documentation for E-152A (which never entered mass production in the USSR ), was transferred to China (without engines, missiles and radar).
http://www.sergib.agava.ru/china/shenyan/j/8/j8.htm
http://www.airwar.ru/enc/fighter/j8.html
The aircraft is a third generation fighter and it can dogfight with fighters of its own age such as the Mirage F1, MiG-23M or F-4E however it should not dogfight with fourth generation aircraft unless it carries Python V or AIM-9X type weapons

Which is just a collection of speculation that struggles to present any evidence whatsoever of tech transfer.

If you have a sourse with any evidence of tech transfer, please post it, otherwise stop spamming the thread with 50 different dubius sources that all fail to present anything more then baseless speculation.

J-8 was a clone of the Russian twin-engine MiG-21 program and never has a future; it was the best China could do at the time. Perhaps you are wondering if the J-8-II has a future?

Funny how you can clone something if you never seen it before.

Sino-russian relations had broken down even before transfer of Mig21 tech was complete, and China had to effectively reverse engineer the Mig21 itself. The twin engine Mig21 came much later, and at that point, the USSR was as hostile to China as it was to the USA, so tech transfer was just plainly not going to happen.

But back on subject.

The J8II is not only fast, but also has a suprisingly high service ceiling, which together makes it a uncharateristically good BVR fighter.

It is like the Chinese equivilant to the Mig31 in Russian service, only much less capable. But it should still be able to give even modern western and Russian types a good run for their money at BVR and might make an interesting penetration attacker to hit high value assets deep inside enemy territory (like AWACS and tanker etc).

The Chinese will keep producing it for a number of reasons, including retaining skilled workers but also because its just too good a deal to pass up as it is so damn cheap for what it does. AT BVR, there is really little difference between a J8II and a J10/J11B (the J8F is superior to the Su27Sk and early J11s on account of its more modern/capable radar as well as active BVR missiles).

You can send a wave of J8s up with your other BVR plateforms (J10, J11, JF17 if the PLA ever take it, and even the JH7A) to boost numbers that will help you to win there. Or you can send them first to wear down the opposition and allow your more capable but expansive modern fleet to move in for the killer blow etc. Just so long as you don’t let J8s get into dogfights, they will do fine, which is hardly a big risk for the PLA as they have swams of dogfighting specialists from the J7 right through to the J11B who would take over from there with relish.

Even after the likes of the J10 and J11 become more common within the PLA, I think there will still be a place for the J8II. The plane is capable and brings useful capabilities to the table. It is cheap both to produce and also to maintain since the PLA no doubt has a vast spares inventory and readily trained crews for them. Production will eventually stop, and probably soon, as Shenyang shifts more focus onto the J11 and their XXJ proposal, but the PLA would likely maintain the fleet at least until spares start to run out and the type may then eventually be phased out.

That is, of course assuming that nothing happens with Taiwan. We can all work out what would happen if war breaks out, but if the island suddenly reunites with China or make it clear they have no intention of breaking away, then the PLA would no longer be on a war footing. In which case you can expect them to start cutting quantity in favour of quality in a far larger and comprehansive scale, and one of the first to go would likely be the J8II as it does nothing that cannot be done by another type.

If you are a fighter aircraft on an air-to-air sortie, supercruise is most certainly an operational benefit. Supercruise lets you go faster without expending a lot of fuel in the process. Going faster is an advantage in BVR combat. The faster you fly, the more kinetic energy you impart onto your AAM at launch, thereby increasing the range at which you can fire.

You don’t have to be able to fly about in supercruise mode for the duration of your sortie for it to be effective either. It almost functions as a force multiplier, allowing the jet to accelerate for a better BVR shot without burning excess fuel, which allows it to remain on station that much longer to prosecute more targets.

My main question about an Indian F-16 would be if LockMart would go so far as to develop a retractable IFR probe compatible with the IAF’s Il-78MK fleet? Give that capability to an AESA-equipped, supercruising F-16 fitted with four AIM-120Cs and two AIM-9Xs and you’ve got the makings of a very useful and capable fighter jet for the IAF, one that would still be very potent in the A/G role. Dunno if it’d necessarily be the best option, but in this light it certainly doesn’t look like the worst, either, and were they to go this route I’d think they’d be satisfied with the result.

The prospects of an IAF Predator variant or something similar possibly being a result of this would seem to be a nice addition to the deal as well, giving them something armed and with long endurance capability to more effectively monitor areas of Kashmir and the border with Pakistan.

I fully agree, however, if you read my post more carefully, you will see that I was making the exact same point, but from a different angle – hence my cavnet with internal bays and/or recessed hardpoints.

If a fighter is only able to attain supercruise with a clean layout or only 2 wingtip AAMs, then its effectiveness as an AA platform is going to be majorly impared, never mind its AG capabilities.

I would say that something like the Eagle or Typhoon with 4 recessed hardpoints would be the minimum requirement for supercruise to be an effective operational option, as sending such fighters out with less then 4 AAMs is just silly.

While I have no doubt you can make the basic F16 go supercruise by sheer force, its going to take a lot more thrust to allow it to do the same with any meaningful weapons load unless radical strutural change is done to the basic airframe.

If anything, it would be harder for the F16 to supercruise these days as all subsequent models have added weight and subtracted from the agility of the A model. Just because a modified A model was able to attain supercruise is no garentee that a much beefed up c/d+ is going to be able to manage supercruise with a meaningful payload even with a substantually more powerful engine.