crobatoChinese officials are often told to deny even if they are forced to lie through their teeth. That’s what you call being paranoid and they themselves are fearful of any repurcussion if they revealed something classified. Even when the environment allows them to speak freely, old habits still die hard. The way he denied it sounds like he does not want you to be around.
167 and 112 is now said to be sporting some kind of new datalink, as well as 541. It may be reasonable to say that 167, 112 and the 053H3s may be YJ-83 compatible now, as well as 053H2G with both types reported to be upgraded with a new datalink.
Ironically, it seems that it is the C-802 “YJ-82” that may be the one that hardly ever made it in service since it was superceded so quickly.
crobatoYes, and it was Richard Fisher who was the ‘first’ to be told it wasn’t.
crobatocrobato, since J-10 is coming into service, it will phase out all the J-6s, will it phase out all the J-7s or are they going to keep only the latest ones that entered service and also will they replace the earlier J-8s?
The J-6s and the J-7s are being turned into combat trainer jets where pilots add a lot more flight hours. The Sues have a quota of around 200 flight hours a year, though it may have been raised recently as high as 300 flgiht hours (Sukhoi does not like you pushing the plane past 300 hours).
So to increase the flight hours of the pilots, they’re using the J-6s and J-7s for exercises and training to “simulate” the more advanced planes. Training time using the J-6s and J-7s are virtually unlimited. Recently there are complaints that some pilots are being pushed to the brink of exhaustion, with over 300 flight hours. There has been a steep rise in the intensity and hours of training in the last two years.
This is one reason why the J-7 will still be around. If anything, the further development of the J-7G as well as the JL-9 shows the popularity of the airframe. You can see how the JL-9 fits into recent pattern of PLAAF training.
The pattern of the upgrades has been that when a reg is upgraded with J-11s for example, their J-7s are passed on to another group.
All the double delta J-7s they will keep awhile—the type is extremely popular with the PLAAF pilots, and some of them will ever swear it over the Sue. The most notable J-7E group in the PLAAF is the one at the FTTC where it acts as a Blue Flag aggressor unit—the exact opposite of the USAF Aggressors. These guys can burn the Sues in training. There has been some pressure to get these guys to upgrade, but so far they have resisted. Maybe the J-10 will change their minds.
The earlier J-7B has been mostly been upgraded to the J-7H configuration, which basically adds the Type 226 radar that supports the PL-8. As the J-7s have been MLU’ed, just as the J-8I was to the J-8E, I expect them to be around for some years to come until they are replaced by another fighter.
crobatoThere is little sense to replace an obsolete fighter one to one by another fighter obsolete too in the meanwhile. The Pakistani and many other users rated their F-7s a better fighter than their F-6s. As long as the PAF operated their F-6s, you could not exspect really, that they have had rated that inferior against IAF MiG-21s.
I’m not sure what you’re digging at. The J-6s were popular with the PAF right down to the very end. The F-7s the PAF had were those based on the J-7B and the J-7E. None of them were based on the J-7C/D that were based on the MF. In fact the PAF never retired their F-6s until the F-7PG finally came along, and that is based on the J-7 with the double delta. It was only this type that was able to match the turn performance of the J-6.
FACT: China only built 20-30 J-7C/Ds, but went and built over a combined 300 J-7E/F-7PG after that which is based on the -F airframe. The PLAAF pilots never liked the handling of the MF based MiG-21 airframe despite that China was able to reverse engineer them quite nicely, as they certainly got the engines not just right but even improved them a bit.
crobatoI would agree with Vympel. Hong Kong rags tend to be full of crap.
crobatoWhen the F-6 was the better “dogfighter”, why replaced by F-7? In the 70s China kept MiG-21MF on its way to North-Vietnam. This and the end of struggle in China
allowed a rebirth of the MiG-21/F-7. The few faulty early copies of MiG-21/F-7 from the 60s had their weak R-11 copies and were indeed not better than the MiG-19/F-6
produced with full Russian help from the 50s. Some people have their own history. When it comes to technical performances, the water in the East flows uphill.
No. The J-7 never fully replaced the J-6. The J-6s ran like in a few thousand. The J-7 never amounted to over a thousand in its lifetime despite popular conception. The J-7C/D, which was based on the MiG-21MF, never amounted to more than 20-30 copies. It wasn’t any better than the J-6 in a dogfight, and no match even to the J-8I in the speed regime (which China built over 130 copies before shifting to the J-8II.)
If anything, the J-7C/D was less popular than the J-7 before it (-A and -B versions based on the MiG-21F). That is why the J-7E used the J-7B as a basis and not the J-7C/D. The J-7E reignited interest on the J-7 for the PLAAF due to its improved performance (they stuffed the R-13-300 engine on an Fishbed F airframe) and the new wing design, double delta with front slats and an increased wing area.
crobatoSome corrections.
J-8F has IFR and quite possibly J-8H might have IFR probes too. There was some roaring noise problem with the tubes. That and the J-8II a little iffy on low speeds does not make the plane very desirable for doing midflight refueling. So a lot of the planes may had the tubes temporarily removed. The so called J-8II Block 02 may simply be J-8Ds with the probes removed in the field.
So there is no complete way to distinguish the post J-8D variants on the field. So its not completely certain that a regiment with J-8D fighters might actually be J-8H or J-8F. We have seen pics of J-8IIs with a thick framed HUD that does not match some cockpit pictures.
There maybe two J-8D regiments in the PLANAF rather than one.
crobatoPerhaps by “Top Soviet Union dogfighter”, you mean the best overall Russian fighter of the period, and that could probably be said to be true because while the MiG-25 is a great interceptor, it cannot dogfight at all, while the MiG-21 doesn’t have the BVR interception capability of the MiG-23.
Definitely the MiG-23 is the better all around plane of the three. This is not mention its versatility that includes ground missions.
It would be much more accurate to say the MiG-23 was the best Soviet fighter of the time period, not the top dogfighter. The MiG-21 is still a better dogfighter than the MiG-23, though a competent MiG-23 pilot will be able to beat a MiG-21 in a close-in fight (just as the larger, heavier F-4 Phantom was able to). (I consider the F-4 to be the closest U.S. warplane to the Russian MiG-23…..on that note I consider the J-8II and the F-4 very similar in performance as well.)
J-8II should be more comparable to the earlier F-4B. J-8II’s wings are really steep, good for speed, bad for low speed turning maneuvers. They’re quite large too, so its performance regime is better from mid to high altitudes. F-4B has a higher aspect on the wing, so maneuverability might be better, though the J-8II has lower wing loading and weight, which makes it pretty nimble for its size.
F-4E has slats on the wing edge the J-8II does not. Those slats will give it a maneuverability advantage, though I think the J-8II might roll better with those huge ailerons. The MiG-23’s VG and dogteeth makes the plane a very good low altitude performer—the opposite of the J-8II. But as you go higher, the larger wings of the Finback would give it the advantage. That’s why the Flogger and the Finback isn’t comparable.
The probable way to fight in a Finback is much like a Starfighter. You got to keep your speed up, and the air rushing past your wings, as the plane probalby won’t handle well when the speed is low. Instead of slow tight turns, you’re probably into wide, fast turns. You would have to hunt the enemy down rather than fight him, using slash and burn attacks. If the enemy eludes you, you might have to do a quick roll or steep climb rather than try to turn with him. Use vertical tactics than horizontal ones.
crobatoNo, you’re wrong again. The Su-15 in the texts I’ve seen lists the empty weight at 12,200kg. With 4,000kg of fuel plus some AAMs, the operational weight is 16200 to 17200kg. So it’s basically correct.
But the J-8II is often listed with an operational weight of jsut over 14,000kg, like 14,300kg or 14,500kg, which is consistent to its under 10,000kg empty weight.
So no, the two planes don’t weigh the same.
crobatoWell Crobato, at least we agree about this.
I was surprised to see your post because that’s just the opposite of what you said earlier (-:
I thought it would be a structural spine. The addition of a second seat would affect the original stress lines drawn for the aircraft and the spine added for stiffness. But structural spines are much better if they have a tubular construction. If the plane is fitted with additional avionics, its clear they may intend the plane to be more than just a trainer.
The J-10 single seater has a tiny spine running across the length of its back, as I recall, that is meant like an antenna. It barely appears in all but the sharpest pictures.
crobatoAGAT denies any knowledge of China utilizing their seeker. From tomorrow’s edition of Jane’s Missiles and Rockets.
“Recent press reports on China’s new SD-10 radar-guided air-to-air missile have commented on the similarity between the front section of the Chinese missile and that of the Vympel R-77/RVV-AE (AA-12 ‘Adder’). This has led to suspicions that the seeker of the Chinese missile is based on the Russian weapon’s AGAT 9B-1348 active-radar seeker, or is a customised 9B-1348 variant developed for China by AGAT.
Export contracts have conditions of confidentiality and information can only be released by the agreement of both sides, commented Akopyan. However, the Institute is not working with the Chinese, he said, dismissing the concept that the SD-10 has an AGAT seeker as “hot air” and “a fantasy of reporters”.
————————————————————————–
No surprise here.
Good thing for AGAT to come out and clear the air out.
crobatocrobato hello 😀
Crobato the R-25 has a max trust of 7,100Kgs however the R-25F-300 has a max thrust of 7600kgs so in fact is as powerful as the J-8II`s Kunlun.
I don’t believe the R-27F-300 ever came into service by the way.
the Su-15 and J-8II have very similar weights if you compare the Su-15 Flagon A with the J-8II Finback A they weight almost the same and their dimensions are almost the same, if you compare the Su-15MT and the J-8IIM which are heavier than the former also they weight very similar you are comparing a J-8II Finback A with a Su-15MT of course the Su-15MT is heavier but basicly the J-8II H with Kunlun is a Su-15 MT Bis
Quite wrong. Every text on the Su-15 puts the empty weight at 12,200kg. The J-8I is at 9,200kg while the F-8IIM, the heaviest version of them all, at 10,000kg.
if you look PL-11 ranges in the internet you will find that they differ a lot from 25km to 150km and according to China National Precision Machinery Export & Import coorporation statements in 2004 the PL-11`s range is just a mere a 25 km range missile also it was tested relatively recently 2000 and the PL-12 was just tested in 2004 on board the J-8II with production expected by the end of 2004.
No. It was the LY-60, the SAM version of the PL-11 that is quoted at 25km. The reason for this is that the missile has to climb up as well. SAMs do not have the same range as AAMs of equivalent size as a rule, and not without a second stage booster.
you are also giving me the reason, why China has MiG-23s. if China is not an operator of the type and the MiG-23s were adquiered in a critical time of the J-8II development 1978 and when the Soviet-Chinese relations were not very friendly? simply to copy the then SOVIET TOP DOGFIGHTER, the MiG-23;
The MiG-23 is not the Soviet’s top dogfighter, but a true multirole jet—interceptor, fighter, attack—in one package. The MiG-21 remains the top Soviet dogfighter until the MiG-29.
Even then, the Chinese did not find the basic MiG-19S design to be better than the MiG-21 in a dogfight—the MiG-19S actually has better thrust to weight ratio and holds more energy in turns. Hence why they continued to make the J-6 (MiG-19S) in large numbers, and why the J-7 never truly replaced the J-6.
the limitations you mentions are the reasons why the J-8II only included the inlets, ventral fin and gun since the J-8 had only the R-11/WP-7 engine available so those were the only features adopted from the Mig-23MS and endowed to the J-8 design in order to make the J-8II.
I don’t see how an entire plane is a copy of the MiG-23 when basically all it copied was the inlets.
Also you are saying the Ye-152 has nothing in common with the J-8 but What about the engines? they are the same the difference is that the J-8 was designed with a short range radar but the Ye-152 was designed with long range radar i can not affirm that the jets are related but i can say they share the Soviet thinking Philosophy adquired by the Chinese when they were trained by the Soviet Union aerodynamists
you are right the AA-12 is a different design in Body but not in Brain and that is a derivative but extricly not the same or a variant
Only the engines are in common, but the airframe has no relation with each other. I think the design is more of a coincidence. China was cut off from Soviet aid since 1962.
Basically you’re trying to make the most powerful jet from the only available tools you have. You have the MiG-21 design, you have the engines, and you inherited the basic Soviet design philosophy. You will arrive to the same solution that Sukhoi did.
crobatoYes, could be an avionics spine like the Block 52 plus. The two seater may be more convenient for strikes, thanks to workload distribution. WSO also has potential to be its own traffic controller.
Or it could be simply be a structural spine with the antenna relocated backward. There might be a small loss of structural integrity when adding the second seat and you might need the spine to regain it. But then again, it’s too small to be a structural spine.
crobatoWhere did you get this from? It’s total rubbish that any went to Iraq.
I got that from sinodefence.com. I’ve heard the same story from other sources.
crobatoWhat surprise me is the lack of clarity about the J-8 and J-8II program, while many consider prototypes as operational standard fighters, even the missiles sometimes are quoted with completly contradictory data.
My personal opinion is that the J-8II program owes a lot to the MiG-23 and basicly is a Chinese Su-15 Flagon.
That is vastly imcomplete. The J-8II had the MiG-23’s intakes and the foldable ventral fin but that is all.
Some advanced versions of the J-8II have tested the PL-12 or PL-11 however many consider this jet as already armed with those weapons in large scale when in fact the J-8II still relies operationally in short range Missiles and it will not be a BVR fighter until perhaps 2005 or even later.
Not completely true. We are beginning to see more and more pictures of the PL-11 with J-8IIs. This is starting to suggest that the PLA has been withholding pictures of the missile so long rather than not deploying them. It only means that the PL-8 is considered “approved” for publicity pictures while the PL-11 is not. You don’t see a lot of pics of MKKs with a lot of R-77s and Kh-29s either but we know they’re there.
Does the fact that you don’t pics of AIM-7s with Japanese F-15s mean that that the Japanese F-15s don’t use them?
When the J-10 came out with pictures of the PL-11 under the wings, why bother integrating the missile at an early stage if the PL-11 is not operational.
So this is a fallacy that you should be careful not to thread. There is a suggestive picture as well that PLANAF J-8IIs might be able to carry C-801 antiship missiles.
The engines are basicly the R-11-300/WP-7 and the R-13-300/WP-13 and the new Kunlun is in the same league as the R-25 fitted to the Su-15MT Flagon
The Kunlun 1 is generating 7500kg of thrust—more than the R-25. The Kunlun 2 is about 7600-7800kg. And these engines have an MTBO of 1500 hours.
Bis and these will very likely keep the J-8II performance as that of the Su-15MT and won`t make it a fourth generation fighter but will keep it`s performance in the realm of an advanced Su-15 variant making it a Chinese Flagon in the 21st century armed with derivative of the AA-12 Adder.
Somewhat, but the Su-15 is much heavier than a J-8II. The J-8I is only 9,200kg empty while the J-8II is about 10,000kg—the Su-15 is about 12,200kg empty. And yet, the engine output is similar. I would put the J-8II to have much better kinetic performance than any Flagon. Two tons of weight difference is nothing to sniff about.
As the SD-10 it is not a derivative of the AA-12 Adder—the dimensions do not match and neither will the seeker. I have not found any conclusive evidence—or motive—that AGAT sold seekers to China. The Chinese may have studied the R-77 seeker yes, absorbed its lessons and design, yes, then went out to design a better seeker with electronic components that are available with them. (The Russian Ministry appears to insist using only Russian components—processors and all—-on their military electronics of their own use, although military products for export can use foreign sourced components.)
However it has to be said that the Chinese has displayed the AMR-1 active seeker (1998) long before they ever acquired an R-77 (2001). The AMR-1 is supposed to be used on the PL-11 as a convenient ARH missile stopgap to the PL-12.
The SD-10 does not share anything aerodynamic with the R-77 with its thin fuselage wings and lattice fins. Instead, its dogtooth rear fins are rather unique, since no missile uses them in the rear, and the only other two missiles that use them, use them in the front and are IR AAMs—the Japanese AAM-3 and the American AIM-9X. The SD-10 is also described as having a dual burn motor (something the Israelis taught them) with a lofted flight profile (something the Italians taught them from the Aspide), both of them the current R-77 lacks. The R-77 is said to have a maximum G turn of 30G; the SD-10 is advertized as 40G. (The missile the PAF is trying to get from the South Africans—the R-Darter—is said to go as far as 55G).
The J-8 is basicly a Ye-152 and even has the same engines and the J-8II also share engines with the Su-15MT, the J-8II has almost identical inlets and ventral fin to the MiG-23, these were reversed engineered from the 4 MiG-23MS delivered by Egypt to China a fact neither denied by China or affirmed but that has been reported as had had happened and if we compare the MiG-23 program to the J-8 we will see that basicly are very similar.
The Gsh-23 twin barrel cannon is used by the MiG-23 and the J-8II.
But after all i like the J-8II a lot and is my favorite Chinese jet
The MiG-23PD is basicly where the J-8II and MiG-23 Program share a same philosophy
The Ye-152 was developed during the Sino-Soviet split and having border clashes all over the Amur. It maybe a Ye-152 in concept, but the implementation shares nothing in common.
Inlets, guns and the foldable ventral fin do not make a MiG-23 out of a J-8II. I would consider them very minor features. The J-8II does not have the MiG-23’s low level performance, I’m sure of that.
Attempts by China to reverse engineer the R-27 engine of the Flogger ended up in failure—China didn’t have the metallurgy technology for the blades.
The variable wing concept was discarded as being expensive and complex. China instead went on to another approach, developing FBW and terrain avoidance for developing a low level strike jet, which ended up as the JH-7.
The Chinese do have MiG-23s, and you can still see them around. If you are wondering what happened to the former Egyptian MiG-23s, its kind of interesting that the deck of the Minsk theme park has MiG-23s.
Sign In
