FloggerFlogger,
How many time I have to say that the helmet-mounted sight for the MLD in the 1990s is a myth.
The radar:
As a rule, while operating in look-down/shoot-down mode over mountainous terrain, the early Spafir-23’s performance in the look-down/shoot down mode is notably degraded, but the MLD’s Sapfir-23MLA-2 radar (N008 or N008E forexportcustomers) has a newly added, highly useful Pulse-Doppler mode (Non-Coherent) with somewhat improved ultra-low level target detection (highly useful for operations over rough terrain) requiring a minimum target altitude of 160ft (50m). Whichever the case, the MiG-23MLD’s look-down/shoot down operations at ulrta-lowalititude targets would require heavily GCI-support, and attacks against fighter-size targets in such conditions are advised to be mounted in tail-on aspect as the radar maximum detection range is advertised to be up to 13nm (25km) and tracking range is up to 9nm (16km). In such situations MiG-29s N019 is much better due to its PD principle. At medim altitude, both radars have approx the same range.
I just gave you another link where is reported HMS, i know you have good sources but also i have read other sources that denied yours, there is nothing bad in quote other links, i am not sure that the MiG-23 has or has not HMS so i will quote more opinions, so i can have a wider range of information.
FloggerYeah I forgot the engines was replaced too. There is very little left of the J-8I in the J-8II. Even the tail is changed. And Rick, a statement like “70 percent modifications over” is fundamentally, an oxymoron. That’s more changes from a Hornet to a Super Hornet, an F-16 to the Japanese F-2.
Flogger, the Chinese never used the YE-152 as a guideline. Even a guideline would have significantly impacted the measurements of the design. Russians don’t share blueprints of their experimental aircraft with anybody not even with their closest allies. (Neither does the US).
Dimensions do not tell the whole history the Su-27 is considerably smaller than the huge Su-34, and many modifications will alter the size and dimenssions of any aircraft, also you have the same engines so the aircraft will have similar aft fuselage cross section, the cone inlet is smaller due to the J-8 has a smaller SR-4 radar and as the F-18E they could well have added a fuselage plug for new systems or fuel
FloggerWhat is known about the N003z radar in a MiG-23ML?
Rgd,
Jeroen
to my knowledge the MiG-23 uses the Saphire-23ML overscan has a quit good link forthe MiG-23 avionics here is the link Russian avionics look for Saphir-23ML Alsoreports Helmet Mounted Sight (HMS) on MiG-23MLDs along side the Use of R-73/AA-11
FloggerNice theory, but we’ve got two pics of J-8 prototypes in this thread proving you wrong: the shabby looking 052 in the shack, and 053 (which i’ve checked myself as being a prototype) which is preserved in the Beijing Military Museum. These prototypes are, at least structurally, identical with production J-8 and apart from the canopy framing also to the later series of J-8I (which you can see up close at the Changping museum north of Beijing, in case you’re interested). There is no ‘final configuration’ for the sucknose-Finbacks: they always had the slender fuselage and all the other properties identifying them as Finbacks rather than Ye-152As.
if it is like you said, maybe the the picture looked distorted, any way i would keep my opinioin that the the Chinese used the Ye-152 as guideline and for the moment and that the Ye-152 blueprints were used with MiG-21 inputs and that is the reason it looks different besides the radar question that in the Ye-152 would be a BVR radar
and i recommmned to have an open attitude as sino defense regarding the Ye-152 blueprints deal which is open enough to admite the likeliness of the deal but with this i am not saying that the J-8 account to be followed is the J-8 being designed upon only the MiG-21, becasue the Chinese admitted other aircraft technologies and to me those might include the Ye-152 blue prints, and personally i feel they do
About the J-8II i agree with crobato it should be called J-9 in fact i think that at the same time Chengdu was working with it`s J-9, Shengyang used the J-8 and J-8II commonality to be chosen as the winning plane selling it as a derivative of a Cheaper already known fighter rather than the more sophisticated and untried Chengdu J-9 project
FloggerLet’s leave it at that, Flogger. I’m glad you recognise the similarities are conceptual rather than technical, although i personally doubt you need blueprints just to come up with a similar concept :rolleyes:
Sens,
The Ching-Kuo wasn’t based that much on an existing design, but you can rest assured the engineers of General Dynamics who designed it took a lot of their experience with the F-16 with them. It’s an original design for sure, but that doesn’t mean it’s a Taiwanese design.
I agree with Sens and you, as a summary i would take the http://www.sinodefence.com position, that there are unconfirmed reports saying that the J-8 was based on the Ye-152 and i would not give as Sens said credibility to the Chinese claims of the J-8 of being a domestic design neither to the idea that the J-8 is a straight clon of the Ye-152, the reality to my Personal opinion, the Ye-152 was used as a guideline, and the MiG-21 filled the gaps thoughtout the use of it`s tooling or as Sens said as a final fighter concept since the Chinese saw in the MiG-21 an operational design contrary to the Ye-152. a fighter that never entered service , but i do not denied that the J-8 perhaps has some domestic solutions applied to it. and as Sens said the original prototype J-8 shows many similarities to the Ye-152 at first glance and to me that is only explainable if we consider that the firsts J-8 followed more the original Ye-152 concept even if the Chinese modified the aerodynamic data and aerodynamic concept of the Ye-152 much later in the design once the J-8 final configuration was frozen
FloggerBut in that case, the whole need for the original drawings no longer was necessary. And you don’t need to have the Ye-152s drawings only to make a conceptually similar aircraft.
The wings and tailplane are different, btw. The fin on the Ye-152A is tapered a lot more than the one on the J-8, different dimensions, different flap/aileron configurations on the wings… again, they are similar in concept, but not in design.
I agree with you, i consider until there is an official statement or webpage confirming the J-8 domestic design by both Russian and Chinese, that the J-8 borrowed the concept, that the Ye-152 was used as a guide line, many aspects were filled by MiG-21 features and basicly the Chinese were forced to modify the Ye-152 blueprints as Sens said but i do not see many MiG-21 features in the J-8 to consider it a direct descendant, to the contrary i feel the Chinese used lots of MiG-21 tooling blending the Ye-152 with some domestic solutions but the Blueprints must had had been essential to have achieved the whole program.
FloggerSo you say yourself that the J-8’s design is obviously different from the Ye-152A: different fuselage, different tailplane, different wings… if you acknowledge that,why do you keep insisting it is NOT a different design?
you got me wrong it has similar tailplane, wings but even if it does differe it would not mean it is completly different, the Chinese could well have modify the Ye-152 to fit their needs, the same as they did to the J-8 later to design the J-8II
FloggerFlogger,
there are plenty of technical issues you can adress, perhaps if you try convincing me that way?
i will give you another link to that says there have been unconfirmed reports of the J-8 borrowing from the Ye-152uncornfirmed reports of the Ye-152 data tranfered to China to build J-8 technically speaking the main difference between the J-8 and the Ye-152 is the radar, the Chinese development in radars were much more primitive than that time with the Russian developments but aerodynamicly both jets do not differ so much, they have the same engines, almost identical tailplane, similar dorsal fin. About the lenght i do not have a reason to say why they differed but i believe the J-8 mixes Ye-152 traits with MiG-21`s and the cross section (this is expeculative of my part) could be explained perhaps by the radar to be fitted in this case the Urugan.if the link does not work check the http://www.sinodefence.com page related to the J-8 they also are open to consider the reports as plausible
FloggerFlogger,
Googling for “J-8 + Ye-152” doesn’t automatically make the articles reliable. Neither the authorative works on China’s aviation industry until the mid-1980s (China Today: Aviation Industry, as referred to by Rick) nor the authorative MiG book (50 years of secret aircraft design, as i referred to earlier considering the MiG-21 data) mention anything about a transfer of Ye-152A data to the PRC. Especially if you think that the whole Ye-152A design was totally preliminary and by no means an end-product: the Ye-152A (together with the Ye-150) evolved into the SINGLE engined Ye-152M/Ye-166 via the Ye-152/1, Ye-152/2 and Ye-152P (which also all were single-engined).Besides, while the J-8 is quite obviously based on the J-7/MiG-21F, the Ye-152A is NOT an adaptation of the MiG-21, but on the Ye-150 (which in itself was nothing more but an R15 testbed). The wide forward fuselage of the Ye-152A has nothing in common with the fuselage of the MiG-21, it has got that size because:
a – It was to provide enough air to feed the massive R15 engine in the original Ye-150.
b – In the Ye-152A, the nosecone was to provide space for a big Uragan radar + dish.
If the Soviets simply wanted a two-engined long-range MiG-21 (like the Chinese originally wanted with the J-8/J-8I), the forward fuselage would never have been as fat as the Ye-152A’s. Just look at the pic of the single engined Ye-152P you posted, and compare the whole fuselage, tailplane and wings (yes! That’s wingtip pylons carrying those R-4s!) with those of the J-8. Conceptually similar? Well, if you’d take a two-engined Ye-152 they would be. Close enough to match original drawings? No way. As Crobato already said, not even the dimensions match. And acquiring drawings only in order to redesign those drawings COMPLETELY to end up with a similar looking aircraft is absolute nonsense.Two totally different development stories (and you can add a third similar-result-but-different-development with the Su-15 if you like), yet as happened quite a lot throughout the short history of aviation: a similar requirement leads to a similar design. Or do you also think the Su-24 is based on the F-111? The F-15 is based on the MiG-25? The Mirage III based on the F-102? The MiG-21I based on the XF-92?
Forming an opinion, oblivious to facts is the basics(sic) of stupidity.
Read before you write. Rick’s quote says …and on the investigation of foreign aircraft technologies.
And could you please stop posting pics ad nauseum? If you want to illustrate something you’re trying to say, please add some explanation. Know what? Take this Ye-152A drawing, and mark out the design details you think have been literally taken over in the J-8.
Good luck.
I gave you links, usually i do not say this is authoritative because few links would be authoritative, i gave you the links to show that the idea that the Ye-152 and J-8 are related is shared by many people who think are related due to historical reports and similarity, i know that for many these are non authoritative according to their own beliefs, but like i said, diversity of sources is the way to create an opinion, you believe your sources, you consider them reliable, i do not think they are, you can say mine are reliable because i believe in them, well i do not, what is fact to you has is opposition in many other links if i gave you links is to create a richer and more diverse pool of information and reports because the so called authoritative opinions are challenged by other report and opinions and a Picture says more than 1000 words
I have given you links and the only thing you have said to me is not reliable honestly i have seen many links that are contradictory and in History it happens a lot, i prefer to digg out all links and create my own opinion rather than being said what i shall believe because all links have the same authority until we have a concensus or the persons involve say their part in the events.
Few links have the authority to say we have original documents the vast majority just repeat what it has been said before and some times many reports were expeculationes that later become facts in few words Myths, if poeple have claimed that the documentation was sold to China unless we get from MAPO or Shengyang all the files of their programs we hardly will find out the true and those i call authoritative links but even many nations keep many things hidden, the statement made by Gregory Zhukhman has to me as much validity as a Chinese link that says the oposite..
Many books also due to the timing of their publication also miss information and many times books had not the whole of the program documents, i have found also books that contradic each other due to the timing when first published.
J-8II cockpit
FloggerHave you forgotten the MiG-25 already? That thing was so over-hyped in both the media and the DoD until Belenko arrived at Hakodate.
Yes it is indeed it was over-hyped but for the F/A-18s in the gulf war it was`nt and Irak did not fight as Russia would.
Is like Russia and Allies had a fight only with a third world nation using MiG-31
FloggerFactoids on J-8 development from “China Today: Aviation Industry”
May 1964 first meeting on J-8 project.
Oct 64 ‘work on the conceptual definition” started
Project approval May 17, 1965
December 1965 wooden mockup reviewed
Complete set of drawings released end of 1966
Production documents early 1967
First 2 J-8s were completed July 1968
First flight: July 5, 1969 ((a year later……))
“The J-8 design was based on the three years study of the Mig-21 design and on the investigation of foreign aircraft technologies. The selected design configuration for the J-8 was not only advanced but also similar to the previous Mig aircraft which had been put into production in China.”
From 1969 to 1979: 1025 takeoff and landings and 663 flying hours. (average flight 38 minutes).
Formally certified on March 2, 1980There were three flameouts in the J-8 before 1976 adn three more in October 1976. The hydrolic pump was a problem in the J-8I and the first plane burned on the ground during ground run-up tests on June 25, 1980.
In the bablfish translation provided, notice it said the design was changed into a day fighter because the radar was not available.
Design of the J-8I started Feb 1978 with first prototype done in May 1980.
J-8I certified July 27, 1985.
Sorry if some of this is redundant to all that has been said.
Which aircraft were investigated? the Ye-152?
A link for the J-8/Ye-152 copyAccording to Gregori Zhukman all the data of the Ye-152 transfered to China
FloggerAnother person that knows crap about Chinese fighters, much like you.
Well anybody is entitle to his own opinion that is the basics of democracy 😀
FloggerAnd you think people are impressed with your links? Don’t use links to substitute what your brain facilities lack.
another linkJ-8 copy of the Ye-152
FloggerFlogger, do not behave as a teenager,
Take a look at the acig.org and try to particiapte in their forum – ypou would became more critic on several things.
After the Korean wa the Russian becam too stagnant in the air combat theories, and most importnat – practice – see War ot Attrition and the indisputable defeat of the Russian pilots against Israelis. Their real steps forward were taken in the mid-late 1980s, as they were shocked by the Bekaa Valley results and started to be more critic.
I dont say Israelis or US are telling always the truth, but you are supporting the position, widely promoted in Russian-language magazines by the ill-famed ‘journalist’ and pseudo-resercher Vladimir Ilin, but in most cases it is seen as a poor propaganda.
A link to Vladimir Ilin article in a Russian magazineThe US won the Propaganda war in 1982
FloggerSens, the MiG-21MFs did definately see action between 1973 (the US withdrawal) and the fall of Saigon in 1975, but i’m not really sure (nor have i come across anything like that) they have flown against US planes.
Flogger, stop flogging a dead horse. The J-8 is NOT based on the Ye-152, no matter how strongly you want to believe that.
A link for the J-8/J-8II influenced by the MiG-23/YeJ-8/J-8II influenced by the MiG-23/Ye-152 -152
Ye-152 revided as the J-8 linkYe-152 borns again in the J-8
Sign In
