FloggerI think he means Belenko’s machine. Hakodate, Kadena, it’s all Japan…
Kadena is not in Hokkaido, Hakodate is a small city in the northest island of Japan and Belenko landed in that city airport, Kadena is a US base if i am not wrong in Okinawa island south of Japan
FloggerFlogger,
Please do not be a kid, and hear what the people with more info say. I am already tired to discuss with you by anyway: The only produced MLD for the VVS was the 23-18, conversion of 23-12s. The other MLDs for the VVS with internal jammers, etc remained only test articles, and 23-98 is a dummy airframe with some weapons for external appearance and no more. They can write that they can arm it with the R-33 and some other stuff, and you will gonna to believe. In this case, your posts could be suitable for another thread for speculations and what could have been…
Airsande_plus let`s do this, i quoted Russian Books, i gave you links you disrigard anything that is not in agreement with you, i will read more and we will bring the topic again later, for the moment i consider that i need more reading to check the sources you mention and i will give 50% of certainty, with this i mean you might be right up to a 50% and if i find you are correct i will write a post admiting you are correct in your points but for the moment i have found the information you have given me in contradiction with some links and some Books specially OKB Mikoyana by Polygon and Gregory Illyn but fortunely Russian Military Aircraft by Military Parade is explicit in the fact that the MiG-23-98 is 100% capable of using a Helmet Mounted Sight designator. Any way i am glad of Chatting with you i find you that you really know about the Flogger despite is some aspects i might not agree with you.
FloggerPure bullcrap. The YE-152 jet was being developed into an operational fighter. Just because it didn’t reach operational service does not make it so. If the Chinese got the blueprints they would have made use of the investment by copying it directly and speed up the development process. Why learn from the blueprint then went ahead and go make a different design when someone has totally well worked out tedious calculations which are staring at you right in the face? Can you explain to me that? You don’t have any rational explanations at all, just cobbling fragile and nonsensible arguments here and there.
There is nothing in the J-8I that I do not find that is operationally better in combat or design compared to the YE-152 that would make the Chinese deliberately change the design of the YE-152. And if they did, there is no sensible reason behind that. Both planes are just two different and parallel approaches to the same problem.
What can the Chinese learn from the YE-152 blueprint that they have not learned from the MiG-21? Huh? Basic lessons of aerodynamics?
Let me tell you again since you don’t have a brain cell—the LINK IS WRONG. Just like your fervent imagination claiming MiG-23s have HMS and multiple targeting. You are just making myths here.
Crobato the Ye-152 was designed with Russian specifications, the J-8 with Chinese defense specifications, was the F-2 designed with American specifications? or the Kfir with French ones? is the Atlas Cheetah designed with Israeli specifications or the Chilean Pantera with South African ones? even the Q-5 Fantan was designed with Chinese specifications since the Chinese need it something different than the original MiG-19, that is a very easy and logical answer.
Why the Chinese would not modified the design? are you saying they are not capable of improving the design or adapt it to their own needs?
Your reasoning is that the Chinese were so uncapable to do any further work also by 1969 the Ye-152 was not exactly being updated into an operational fighter and it only flew until 1966 before crashing and destroying the only prototype. A link for the J-8 designed with limited data from the Ye-152 program J-8 designed with limited data form the Ye-152 🙂 😀 😎
FloggerFor the MiG-23-98 – yes, it shall have HMS.
But I am afraid, that what was dosplayed in 1999 as the MiG-23-98 was a ground demonstrator only, with some weapons carried, with no cockpit pictures and any internal upgrades- since thre were no customers. This also could indicate that no customer was keen/or is keen – to prolong the life of the MiG-23 and upgrade it as it could not be regarded as a valuable long-term solution (the Indians invested a lot of money in the short-legged MiG-2bis which is cheap to operate and have a sound airframe).
Currently, only the Syrians are known as having been working to life-extend their MiG-23ML (MLDs) but with no significant technology insertions into them. The R-24R/T armed MLD today can still be regarded a good inteceptor when operating in home (or to some extent disupted) aerospace with good GCI support but cannot be regarded as a serious air superiority fighter. So, for the Syrian conditions, the MiG-23MLD with its better or equal than the MiG-29 reliability, can be a valuable homeland defence option, but not alone as it requires a sofisticated command-and-control system with a well developed ground element.
In some cases, R-73-armed MiG-21bis, possesing betteer agility (because of the roll rate), could be better chaos fighters, used for dogfights (with expectation to bear serious attrition) in large numbers and in cooperation with MiG-23s, MiG-25Ps and MiG-29s operating as BVR platforms.
According to Russian Military Aircraft by Military Parade the MiG-23-98 can be additionally equipped with Helmet Mounted Sight, technically is not a problem, the MiG-23-98 is a upgrade proposal to MiG-23s in operational service, so it means they can upgrade even the MiG-23MF/MS/ML/ fighter variants with HMS and AA-11 capability since 1998 at least with additional upgrades to the radar set so why the MiG-23MLD never had HMS?
Airsande_plus since technically is`nt a problem, and according to OKB Mikoyana not all the MiG-23MLD blocks had R-73 capability.
Bulgaria`s and Syria`s MiG-23MLDs can not fire AA-11 Archer, the MiG-23MLD Block 23-18 or 23-16 also can not fire the AA-11 according to the Book OKB Mikoyana by Polygon so if only the latest Block and the previous to the MiG-23-98, the MiG-23MLDG block 23-57 had such capability why we can say that the reports of MiG-23 with HMS are wrong?
You adduced that the MiG-23MLDG was a prototype but in the OKB Mikoyana Book by Polygon if i am not wrong it was produced in larger numbers than just prototype test beds since it was the quoted with AA-11 Archer capability and you also have said that the MiG-23MLD in Bielorrussian service were MiG-23s that had no visual evidence of HMS but if they were standard MiG-23MLD block 23-18 they would not have shown any evidence at all.
FloggerBullsh*t. Have you ever seen any kind of blue prints? They are detailed in the measurements, numbers and specs of any part given. And that goes back for ages. Even when people design sailing ships in the age of sail, they are quite detailed on sizes and measurements.
That’s crap. That’s not how engineers work. You cannot adapt someone else’s calculations to reform it into your own basis. Especially considering the vast differences of the two aircraft’s structural lengths, design and diameter of frontal fuselage, internal fuel locations, and structural spine.
Bullcrap. It would have been a hinderance than a help because you would have to redraw everything. That would be double the work instead of reducing it.
If the Chinese had the YE-152, it would have been a straight copy, or it invalidates the very intention of trying to make a copy itself which is to skip all the reengineering and headwork.
It would be a striaght copy if the jet had been developed into an operational fighter and the Chinese would had the complete tooling to build it , but that jet never became operational, the Ye-152 flew 10 years earlier and the jet started to be obsolete, also by 1965 the Chinese had already flown the Q-5/MiG-19 modifications, it means the Chinese started to have enough capability to modify jets.
blueprints are not only instructions for engineers, they are also data, and Data implies knowledge and explanations, of course the chinese learnt many aspects of aircraft design by just studing the blueprints, they are smart and they can learn the rasons and whys you are saying that the Chinese engineers work without reasons just like labours following orders that is the reason they study other aircraft Technologies as the Rick`s quotations said, the Ye-152 would be of great utility, since they are smart enough to modify it, specially if they were learning unknown aspects and technologies that later they could apply also if you read again the link it says -“the documentation on Ye-152 was transfered to China”- and that means lots of hours of research data and information related so that would be of capital importance in the J-8 program another link for the J-8/Ye-152 J-8 designed with limited data from the Ye-152 program a scale up J-7 .
Floggerthat’s complete and utter nonsense. Why use a guideline when you choose to differ from it? It defeats that purpose. When did you ever hear of a plane being designed with a “guideline”? Statements like this show you don’t know anything about “design” or about aircraft. People don’t design aircraft according to “templates”. You really have no idea about at least some little basics about structural engineering that these kinds of changes are quite significant for monoques and semi-monoques. You also forgot that the YE-152 has a more dominant structural spine that holds fuel while the J-8 lacks that.
And you’re wrong—the J-8 fuselage has a more slender design especially in front of the engine. You are contradicting yourself again, the larger diameter of the YE-152 comes from its radar.
The Ching Kuo fighter is NOT a derivative of a previous design. Only that it is designed with American help.
You also keep forgeting that the Q-5 has a radome, and the structural part of the aircraft stops where the radome begins.
Again and again, your links are nonsense, you are not interested in the truth,
The data indeed is very helpful it saves you hours of reseach and development, the blueprints save you hours of wind tunnel specially in 1962 when the computing power was very limited compared to 2004, the blue prints are not maps neither simple drafts but also documentation of wind tunnel design and development of structural airframe design and in fact they would be helpful to China as a starting point, remeber that the Ye-152A was a research aircraft, a testbed that never was used in Russia as an operational fighter but helped Mikoyan with the MiG-25 design program.
in fact what do you think would had been more helpful to Shengyang it`s wind model that they never used or the Ye-152? Simply look at the first J-8 model configuration the Jet looks quit modern even similar to the FC-1 but the J-8 resembles more the YE-152 than those ambitious first design specifications
FloggerThe true and mass standard for the Sov AF was the 23-18 version.
23-19B was the Syrian AF export standard while the 23-22A was the MiG-23MLD for the BuAF.
All the other – MLDG (with Gardenia jammer), etc, were built for test/evaluation only and not entered mass production.
but the Mig-23MLDG is the quoted in that book as the one having R-73 capability but that could be possible if you consider that in that book the MiG-23MLA is the other one using R-73 but that is not a MiG-23MLD subvariant also if my russian is not wrong that version is considered to have some MiG-29 features.
FloggerFor the MiG-23-98 – yes, it shall have HMS.
But I am afraid, that what was dosplayed in 1999 as the MiG-23-98 was a ground demonstrator only, with some weapons carried, with no cockpit pictures and any internal upgrades- since thre were no customers. This also could indicate that no customer was keen/or is keen – to prolong the life of the MiG-23 and upgrade it as it could not be regarded as a valuable long-term solution (the Indians invested a lot of money in the short-legged MiG-2bis which is cheap to operate and have a sound airframe).
Currently, only the Syrians are known as having been working to life-extend their MiG-23ML (MLDs) but with no significant technology insertions into them. The R-24R/T armed MLD today can still be regarded a good inteceptor when operating in home (or to some extent disupted) aerospace with good GCI support but cannot be regarded as a serious air superiority fighter. So, for the Syrian conditions, the MiG-23MLD with its better or equal than the MiG-29 reliability, can be a valuable homeland defence option, but not alone as it requires a sofisticated command-and-control system with a well developed ground element.
In some cases, R-73-armed MiG-21bis, possesing betteer agility (because of the roll rate), could be better chaos fighters, used for dogfights (with expectation to bear serious attrition) in large numbers and in cooperation with MiG-23s, MiG-25Ps and MiG-29s operating as BVR platforms.
Also in the Book of OKB MIKOYANA by Polygon the number several Subvariants of the MiG-23MLD such as: MiG-23MLD (23-18) MiG-23MLD (23-19) MiG-23MLDF(23-35) MiG-23MLG(23-37) MiG-23MLS(23-47) MiG-23MLDG(23-5) and they say that the MiG-23MLD is the only capable of firing the AA-11/R-73 so it is not possible that the bielarrussian air force`s are not MiG-23MLDG (23-57) therefore they do not have AA-11 capability and how can you explained that?
FloggerFor the MiG-23-98 – yes, it shall have HMS.
But I am afraid, that what was dosplayed in 1999 as the MiG-23-98 was a ground demonstrator only, with some weapons carried, with no cockpit pictures and any internal upgrades- since thre were no customers. This also could indicate that no customer was keen/or is keen – to prolong the life of the MiG-23 and upgrade it as it could not be regarded as a valuable long-term solution (the Indians invested a lot of money in the short-legged MiG-2bis which is cheap to operate and have a sound airframe).
Currently, only the Syrians are known as having been working to life-extend their MiG-23ML (MLDs) but with no significant technology insertions into them. The R-24R/T armed MLD today can still be regarded a good inteceptor when operating in home (or to some extent disupted) aerospace with good GCI support but cannot be regarded as a serious air superiority fighter. So, for the Syrian conditions, the MiG-23MLD with its better or equal than the MiG-29 reliability, can be a valuable homeland defence option, but not alone as it requires a sofisticated command-and-control system with a well developed ground element.
In some cases, R-73-armed MiG-21bis, possesing betteer agility (because of the roll rate), could be better chaos fighters, used for dogfights (with expectation to bear serious attrition) in large numbers and in cooperation with MiG-23s, MiG-25Ps and MiG-29s operating as BVR platforms.
Last question if the MiG-23MLD has no HMS the R-73 must be degraded is not it?
FloggerFlogger, you are a very hard teenager and believer… but only to polute the forum with idelology and propaganda like this of Ilin. But we are here to clarify the truth, not to create new myths.
Ilin’s article in Aviatsia v Vremya on the MiG-23 in 2000 is full of mistikes (he, in the equipment description of the MiG-23ML gives the DISS Doppler, present only on the fighter-bomber variants, for example), and the combat employmment info is totally biased.
MiG book by Plogon is alos not the best sources – when I saw it, I went through MiG-23 contents and then deciced not to waste money with this thing where no new or reliable info is present.
What I can recommend – it is the ‘MiG-23 – Fighter versions’ by Sergey Burdin (2002), where a lot of MiG-23MLD details can be found, but nothing on the HMS (the book is based on real MiG-23MLD info, which has been taken directly from the Belorussain MiG-23 opeations and respective manuals). There are no any visual evidences that HMS was integrated (vsiual – head movement tracking devices placed into the cockpit -like those flanking the MiG-29’s HUD panel).
Ovescan’s work and avionics description collection is very good indeed (with some pieces of avionics with expellent description, let’s thank him for it), but for some little-known systems, a lot more could be desired.
i will buy the book but still i will try to find why they said it has HMS because technically must not be a problem, a question what about the MiG-23-98 does it have HMS
FloggerMarcus wasn’t the only one who had access to Soviet airbases in Europe, you know. Here’s me at Gross Dölln.
That is great i have been with some russians girls but i sadly i only have been to Japanese and Canadian air bases but Russian Girls are the best as their aircraft
FloggerIt’s Marcus Fulber, and his Red Stars over Europe is a nice pictorial reference for modelers – hardly a technical piece of reference, and hardly anything more than you can find in the slideboxes of many dozens of planespotters. And while i think Overscan/Aerospacetech’s work is extremely valuable, i tend to give a whole lot more credibilty to Airsande when it comes to the MiG-23.
I would love to see a pilot’s eye view of watching with his HMS helmet through the radarscope-image projected on the HUD…
Well Marcus fulber had access to Soviet Airbases in Europe. it does not make it a liar if it has lots of pictures or even it had modeller`s advertisment, in fact he has a picture seated on a MiG-23 cockpit and he also wrote one of the first well pictured books Soviets Wings.
And as you believe Air sande i believe Overscan i feel he wrote a good work i feel he is trustworthy and SOC gave you a good expanation why not everything that is written must be 100% accurate
FloggerArtur,
I think we can ignorte the Flogger, as he behaves as a teenager (or maybe is a teenager – only web-based info, which is mostly crap; not mentioning ANY book or even a rrespected sourse or author) and I suggest to continue discussing seriously the pecularities of the MiG-23/25 fighters – technology and compat employment, using serious sources.
i gave you a link to vladimir ilin article in an Ukranian Magazine and also i quoted OKB MIKOYANA by Polygon 🙂 🙂 😀
FloggerFlogger,
are you always this thick?From the Belyakov-book, the MiG-29 entry, pp431:
Nothing as such about the MiG-23MLD, because the MiG-23MLD does not have a HMS. Period. If you prefer to form an opinion on false information, go ahead but don’t bother us with such nonsense.
It is curious you are authorities who can say what it is right, if overscan says it has HMS or Marcus Furber in his book RED STARs OVER EUROPE, or any other link well they are not authoritative but only we are 😀 😀 😀 is this a DOGMA to challenge your opinions :rolleyes: come on
Arthur the MiG-29 was flown in 1977 and the MIG-23MLD in 1984 there is nothing contradictory which what you quoted in that book
I will continue providing links even if they do not go with your beliefs to me is more important see the whole scope than follow you only because you say this authority said or this was quoted by.
FloggerYes but Sukhoi also built both aircraft. So it is obvious that the Su-34 would use a lot of experience from the Su-27 because you have common designers. But one cannot say the Su-34 “copied” from the Su-27 because you have the same set of engineers, and all the calculations and measurements have all been internalized in those designers’ heads. This is not true of the YE-152 and J-8.
Dimension changes in the Su-34 has a reason. It is primarily a strke jet not a fighter. Some of the length changes from the radome and the structural part of the aircraft leaves off right when the radome starts. Take the noses off and you see more commonality in sizes. And even if the plane B is derived from plane A, it does not become more slender in the process either. The changes ADD to the existing airframe, not DELETE from it. Even when the MiG-21 evolved from its original version, the fuselage diameters remain basically the same. Same goes with the Hornet->Super Hornet, F-16->F-2.
If you look at the body of the J-8, it’s a lot more slender than the YE-152, which is stouter. The length of the J-8 itself is very long, 2.5 meters longer even without the inlet sticking out on the J-8, while the YE-152 has a big inlet sticking out. At the same time the aft section is not the same.
In the J-8I, they did not design the plane FOR the radar—they designed the radar AFTER the plane. Given that the J-8I can use the same radar as the J-7C/D as the J-8E, you are talking about a radar still as big as the RP-21/Saphir-21/Fast Spin.
You’re getting to be alone here with your opinions. Given your behavior in the other thread and in the CDF, which has eroded your reputation, stating your opinions again and again will not grant them more weight.
Crobato
I have never said the Jets are a virtual clone of each other, but i said it was used as a guideline, many data can be modify, the whole Flanker Family has many examples where dimensions have changed, the same with the Mirage III family and it`s descendant such as the Kfir and Cheetah also i have never said that my opinion is the one to be taken as authoritative, you have your opinions it is okay with me, to me the aft section in fact it is the most common part that both designs share due to the same engines, the J-8 is little bit bigger in General dimensions same engines mean same cross section
I have provided you with links that said the Ye-152 were related, if you look many aircraft when modified have changed dimensions and shapes, i do not think it is impossible to modified the Ye-152 forward fuselage to make it look different neither increase it`s size is also impossible look at the first Mirage IIIs and the Atlas Cheetah, no i do not think it is impossible, the Lavi, F-2, Ching kuo all are designs that have been derivatives of a previous fighter. you are saying me that 2.52 meters are too much to be the same aircraft but the J-8 is a derivative. Size does not prove if they are or are not related the Q-5 Fantan is also 2.77mts longer than the MiG-19 specially the SM-9 prototype,
Sign In
