It’s in their web browser’s cache but it is no longer in the linked post. Would be nice to see what they saw.

Jon James:…
3. Had the Iraqi’s had “Kontakt-5” ERA’s without the help of L.G.B.’s being dropped fron F-16/18’s and Hellfire missiles from the “Apachies” the M1 would have been stopped right there in the desert.
…

Let’s see, the ERA is good for deflecting one shot. So what? The M-1 gunner could just as likely put two shots in the same hole for all it matters. The T-72’s of Iraq still couldn’t effectively engage U.S. M-1’s even when they were within their suspected lethal firing range. U.S. M-1’s couldn’t even effectively destroy their own tanks when they tried to do so. Regardless if their T-72s carried the Russian 125mm gun or monkey model, the Iraqis still would of lost the tank war.

You are contradicting yourself. The Ye-152A wasn’t simple or proven by any means in the early sixties.

The J-8 was originally canceled in 1960 or ’61 yet when Chinese aerospace engineers caught up to the technology they had in their mitts they suddenly gave it a rebirth towards the end of the decade. Obviously something changed their minds about the project. The J-8I got its life back the same time as the Q-5 program. The timing would lead me to suspect they suddenly had new information to forward both programs.

The Chinese didn’t even get plans for T-62 which was already in the boards in the late fifties, so what makes you think they can even get their hands on an experimental STRATEGIC project.

What does a T-62 have to do with China? If I remember the time-line right then their tank industry at the time was stuck with T-54/55 knockoffs called maybe Type 62. I’m not a tank buff so I don’t know. The Soviets always kept China dumbed down so T-54 is probably the right one.

Since the Chinese aviation industry was as lame as their tank builders then it was either built off Soviet assistance or it never happened. The Chinese leaders of that period didn’t take such risks. They wanted something simple and proven – nobody in the Chinese hierarchy would of stuck their neck out on a unique creation.

crobato,

Funny that you would make that argument when that should be MiG-23MLD’s line to you. The details of the design are unoriginal and follow closely to what the Russians did in their progression. Yet since there is no internet proof that it did happen other than hearsay you say it did not happen. However, MiG-23MLD’s argument is more closer to probable simply because the circumstantial evidence leans his way and not your own. You chose the weak side of the argument here and should just drop it altogether.

Try Firefox and the Video DownloadHelper add on.

Look genius. it does not take much to see that putting two engines in one plane is an obvious idea. Look at Sukhoi’s efforts in the same area.

Sukhoi never explored the Fishbed design with two AL-7’s. Could you explain this claim in more detail?

In the sixties and seventies, China did not have VG technology and even if they copied it, it would have been deemed to complex and expensive, since they prefer cheaper, more straightforward, easier to maintain designs. In the sixties, everyone was going for delta wings, and for delta wing its more convenient to put middle to low of the aircraft. How many delta winged aircraft around the world at that time had a low or mid wing position? Just about everyone from Dassault to the Delta Dagger/Dart. The loose logic being practiced here might make it appear that the Mirage III is derived from the Delta Dagger or vice versa.

Actually the newer Russian models required metallurgy technology the Chinese did not have so its a moot point whether they preferred simple or high performance. The Chinese stuck with what they could do.

The Ye-150 has only one engine to boot. Now when you compare the J-8I with the twin engine Ye-152, somethings become apparent. The Ye-152 appears much thicker, and it has a large top spine which the J-8I doesn’t. On the J-8I side, it had two ventral fins on the bottom which the Ye-152 doesn’t. The intake cone for the Ye-152 extends much further out than the J-8I, giving the Ye-152 a more pointed look, while the J-8I has more of an open mouth look. that difference alone makes a big deal on the aerodynamics of feeding the engine. In the concept drawings that led to the J-8 and J-9, none of them had an extended inlet cone like the Ye-152.

The intake of the J-8 is more optimal than the Ye-150 or Ye-152, it merely looks less so because the latter had a huge external shock cone while it is hidden internally on the former. You don’t give the early J-8 design much credit.

Furthermore, in the history of the J-8I, China never had a major supersonic high flying interceptor requirement until around 1966-68 when that requirement was formed. Why would China acquire blueprints of the Ye-152 when they had no requirement for such, and second, why would Russia give it to them when the distrust between Russia and China was peaking. As a matter of fact out of that supersonic interceptor requirement, there were two proposals, one led to the J-8, and other led to the J-9.

The same reason that the U.S. intentionally leaked bad designs to Russian moles. They wanted the information to permeate the enemy’s time and efforts. Any time wasted on dead end research was a job well done.

The ye-152M has the large spine. All of the earlier models have the same thinner spine of the J-8. The wing, the landing gear, the ventral fins, cockpit layout, the access plates, the glass, they all point to Russian influence. You simply are ignoring the obvious.