Floggeri support that position for one reason, the Flogger has been reasssesed by western pilots, the MiG-23 in central Europe were retired earlier under NATO presure why to sell F-16s and Gripens, the German kept the F-4 Phantom but not the MiG-23MLD updated to MiG-23-98 that was by far superior in dogfights becasue the Russian were rejected under econimic grounds and political favor the MiG-21 were kept since were less complex and offered a similar capability in a less complex air frame only Bulgaria tried to reactivate them due to economic reasons because you could not got western fighters due to lack of funds why only because they were more capable than the MiG-21 and also NATO-AEDS-BOEING are trying to destroy MAPO`s market of MiG-29, MiG-23 MiG-21s and other russian jets upgrades
FloggerWhat the Syrians claimed for 1982 could be easily regarded as BS. Nobody of the serious reserchers can rely on it, and there was a serious and a long discussion on this issue was held on the acig forum some time ago. Israeli data also are to be treated carefully…
You, Flogger, seems to be a believer of so many myths… I was such some time ago…
Anyway, I see the real a/c, not the legend and myth behind it.
The MiG-23 can be, as Artur said above, a fast fighter, for slash-and-dash attacks, for the first attack only – all maneuverability-enhancing features added-onto an airframe, designed from the scratch for fast non-turning interceptor with poor eronomic features were only interim measures, not a definite solution.The MiG-23MLD vs MiG-29 engadements at Mary training center were won by the MiG-23MLD drivers of the Mari training center thanks to their better tactics, scoring in the first attck, and not engaging in protracted turning, preffering BVR engagements.
In the WVR, the MLD has increased chances thanks to the R-73 but the pilots has to be profficent enough to achieve an earlier weapons employment solution.
The MLD could be better in accelration to the F-16, and it would help, combined with a proper tactcs, for group or slash-and-dash attacks with GCI assisstance – just as the MLD scored against the MiG-29 in Mary.
but why we will believe Israel and a Pakistan scores and not Syria and the Soviet Union, the total MiG-23 all variants score claimed by the Israelies
is around 37 but you never heard about the F-4 Phantom or the A-4 shot down neither the F-16s by MiG-23 Floggers, if they can shot down Mig-29 why not F-16s, the western accounts are completly different to the Russian ones, if the Russian said the MiG-23 has better sustained turn at 5000mts why always we need to believe the complete superiority of one jet over other.
Also the US always claim SAM not fighters have been the cause of the US fighter kills, to be honest the Russians are always regarded as liers and the westeners as accurate reporters i feel that is false the reason why they said that is to sell F-16s and F-15 you need to say they are the best MiG killers and that never have lost a fight also Russia always has been the bIg commercial competition to the US in the fighter market
FloggerWrong again. The auxiliary air inlets on the J-8I are much closer to the wing root than the YE-152. The YE-152 also has two aux air inlets instead of one.
The J-8I has two fences on the wing, the YE-152 only has one.
And that is not an air brake on the J-8I but the opening used to service the gun—same position as the J-6.
Another argument shot down. You’re getting worst scores than the Arabs had against the Israelis.
indeed you are right but have you seen the same features in the MiG-21? no these are Ye-152 features, one or two does not mean the jet had not the blueprints because the Mig-23 has also two and the J-8II one the J-8 has an airbrake in the same place as the Ye-152 aerodynamicaly both jets are very similar
FloggerAbility to turn can be assessed by the main factors – t/w ratio and wing loading. According to the Russian AF docvument:
For MiG-23MLD – t/w is 0.88 (normal trake-off weight with tuned engine)
For F-15 – t/w is 1.1 – 1.2Wing loading – 430 kg/sqm vs 335 kg/sqm
Climb rate – 225 m/s vs 280 m/s
Time from 600 to 1,100 km/h – 19.8 s vs 14.0 s.
So, Arthur was right to mention that max G cannot be alone used as an indicator for fighter’s maneuverability.
One of the main drawbacks which not helped the MiG-23’s agility was its slugish roll rate due to the specifuc contriol system (spilers + diferential tail) it was notably inferior to the roll rate of the MiG-21, for example – as may pilots noted.
South African pilots who flew the MiG-23ML in Angola (sourse – World Air Power Joirnal, 1996) noted that they would preffer to dogfight in the Mirage 3 against MiG-23 instead vice versa due to the better veiew from the cockpit and the better turning/rolling ablity.
you are comparing the MiG-23 versus the F-15 but against the F-16 is where both russian and americans said the MiG-23MLD has some advantages.
Also the G capability is important but more important is the corner velocity.
The Russian and Syrian claimed around 10 F-16s at least in the Pakistani case the Mig-23MLD was already operational.
FloggerThe F-18C and the F-18E/F still has a lot of direct fuselage commonality just as the F-16 and the Japanese F-2 does.
But in the case of the J-8I and the YE-152, there is no direct fuselage commonality at all.
you are wrong the auxiliary air inlets, the airbrakes are located in the same places as the Ye-152 not like a MiG-21 as many have quoted saying that the MiG-21 is the direct ancestor but in the Mig-21 you do not find the same auxiliary air inlets in the same place but only in the Ye-152 even you won`t se them in the SukhoiT-5 Nothe the auxiliary air inlet and air brake only seen in the Ye-152 not in the MiG-21 too much coincidence to be just similar aerodynamics
FloggerChina and the Soviet Union were already in deteriorating relations even before 1961. The SU had pulled out all its advisors in China by 1960.
Now tell me if China had the blueprints, why does the J-8I about 2.5 meters longer than the YE-152 and has a longer wing span by nearly a meter? What benefit is there from these changes?
so why they got the MiG-21 in 1962?
the F-18C and the f-18E/F are different in dimenssions but still are related but i am not saying the Chinese made a Ye-152 but they used as a base to create the J-8 along side the Mig-21 as the official account in many pages says but why it is longer i do not know
FloggerAnd that means the Chinese got the blueprints out from thin air, right?
same link you dislikeYe-152A plans transfered to China
FloggerWhat? When did your common sense evaporate? Does the US inform every foreign student inside the US about US weapons developments?
Ye -152 was publicly dsiplayed in Tushino it was not top secret, normal people could see it in fact i am wrong it was in the Tushino air parade in July 9 1961 even before the MiG-21/J-7 deal so we can not say China and russia were in bad relations at the time 😀
FloggerBullcrap. The changes in the J-8I are not due to the tooling but because the design was a clean room.
Don’t let your illusions bite you.
The Chinese never even heard of the YE-152.
I don’t see how the Chinese would have changed the YE-152 as some of the changes do not necessarily mean they’re for the better. Just plain different. There was no other purpose in these changes—the inlet, the more slender body, the different wing chords—other than the simple fact there was simply no connection at all.
you are guessing that they never knew but in Tushino Public flypass the Russians diplayed the Ye-152 in 1963 and many Chinese as Sens also said studied in china how can you say they did not knew?
FloggerI tell you once again idiot, China does not have the blueprints. Tooling does not cut it. The stress, airflow and aerodynamic calculations, if availed to the Chinese, would somehow still influence the design profoundly regardless of the tooling used. The J-8I remains quite different in these areas.
the Toolling is quit important because without it you can not build the aircraft, but the Chinese got the MiG-21 tooling so the based their J-8 mostly in it, you said that the calculations are different but also the MiG-31 is different from the MiG-25 but it does not mean it was not based the Foxbat.
The webpage you dislike from Test pilots Russia said the chinese only got the Blueprints but the J-8I got the R-11 from the MiG-21 and not from the Ye-152 so the Chinese were forced to change many aspects of the Ye-152 and also improved it and all this make the J-8 different from the Ye-152. It`s as the Lavi rumors in the J-10 development but this happened 44 yeasr ago so information on it is scarse also the Chinese designation erased many russian origins in their weapons
FloggerLet me tell you again idiot, China does not have the blueprints for the YE-152.
The fact that the stress, airflow and aerodynamic calculations would be quite different shows you China had no access to the YE-152 at all, that the J-8I was developed with “clean room” engineering.
Crobato without tooling is impossible to built an airplane even with blueprints it is impossible, the J-1o show clearly that the Chinese wanted to built a J-8II based on the MiG-23 with VG wing, so as you can see the J-10 from shengyang is in fact a twin engine MiG-23
FloggerWrong again.
Let me say this to you. That statement in the end of the webpage is RUBBISH. There is nothing objective in that statement. It lacks proper footnote, it is not provable by historic means, and it is not provable by logical and technological reasons. It is disputed by detailed Chinese references and it is disputed even by large publications like AFM.
You just want to hear and believe your own propaganda. There is nothing objective about you and that statement, and the way you childishly cling to that statement when objective sources like AFM has already stated otherwise. Even objective technological study of the aircraft WOULD NOT support that same conclusion.
So there is nothing objective about your position. If anything, your attempt to cling to it is highly nonobjective. You cannot even argue both historical and technological reasons why it is not possible.
So many seemingly little details add up to a significant ripple effect on the design. The more slender fuselage of the J-8I would already suggest the fuel tank locations of the J-8I are already quite different, and probably not in the fuselage but in the wings. It also shows that all the calculations for stress are quite different. It also shows that the computations for the airflow leading to the engine from the inlet would be very different, which is supported by the very different design of the inlet.
The different wing chord of the J-8I also means an entirely different set of calculating the stress, as well as the design and layout of the spars, etc,. It also means so will all the calculations of the airflow around and under the wing. That and you consider the more slender fuselage, the fact that the YE-152 has no fences while the J-8I has, means there is quite significant aerodynamic differences that are not apparent with a simple eye.
You can see how the YE-152 is stressed out so differently. It got a supporting spine structure, while the J-8I lacks it.
It does not prove anything, first the fact that the J-8 is different in some aspects to the Ye-152 sens already said that to build the jet without tooling would make it different, also the Chinese based the J-8 on the MiG-21 because they got the Jet while the Ye-152 they only got the blueprints and if you want to see how similar are the MiG-23
and the J-8II look at their in lets and at the J-10 Vg varaint proposed by Shengyang as the J-10 now that is the reason they got the MiG-23MS from Egypt
FloggerAgent Smith, on the topic of the Q-6, here’s a CGI of the Q-6 from one of those Chinese language boards. Seems to look more like a Mig-23 whilst your pic (scale model at Beijing University of Aeronautics and Astronautics Museum) seems to look more like a Sukhoi Su-22 Fitter.Any more pics or scale drawings of this exciting project?
On the topic of the J-8II, the last 2 pictures are the prototype for the proposed ‘Peace Pearl’ modifications which were returned to the manufacturer Shenyang Aircraft by Grumman after the cancellation of the project.
And lastly for Deino, a scale model of the proposed J-9 project.
Shengyang J-10 VG wing MiG-23/J-8 with VG
Like i said before the J-8 only took the inlets due to the VG complexity and the WP-13 low thrust so the J-8 infact would look more like a Su-15 rather than a MiG-23
FloggerI will make it EASIER for you okay? Janes retracted that range figure which means it’s highly unlikely the first figure they quoted was right. You don’t seem to get it to your stupid head, do you? First article, it was there. Second version of the same article two days later—FIGURE REMOVED.
Okay? You see a missile that is virtually a Sparrow copy, ADMITTEDLY a Sparrow copy. directly TRACEABLE to being a Sparrow/Aspide copy. Same aerodynamics and even the same dimensions. God, even the PL-11 is said to be using an inverse monopulse seeker—the same type used on AIM-7M/P.
If you can easily figure out what the performance region of the Sparrow and the Aspide, you can pretty much figure out how the PL-11 should perform.
It`s okay with me if you believe those reports, i do not believe any that does not come from an oficcial Chinese source such as CCTV or Xinhua News or one from China National Machinery Import & Export Corporation
FloggerI came to that conclusion, when in the 80s the J-8II came into the USA for modernisation. APG-66 radar (which have to be better, to be a real successor of
the 204) A FBW-system to overcome the bad handling behaviors. I assumed, that the J-8II was better in this than the J-8I.
The Chinese aviation students and technicans, studied and worked in the same institutions, factories as their Russian counterparts. To certificate an aircraft-part took several years. So the Russians kept most of the older usefull as long as people.
In a MiG-29 you can still find items designed in the 50s. In other aereas, demanded by the technical evolution, the high-tech parts. The same story in the MiG-15,17,19,21…
or away from the production names the I/E models. The evolution cycle in the 50s was counted in year/s in some areas. Several designs showed-up in the same year. The development of new aero-engines, was the main limiting factor. That was the situation
in Russia with a big industrial and technical base from WWII. In the 50s China just started something of a modern aviation industry, based on the Russian technic.
First producing spare parts with Russian help, than assemble aircraft from knock-down parts, with steady growing contend of home made parts. The parts from Chinese production ned time for certification too, or you have to take some risk and lower standards for that. At the end of the 50s China had just managed the MiG-15/17, the MiG-19 was around the corner and the MiG-21 to come. So all the numerous Russian prototypes were no secret to the Chinese. To see an aircraft and its parts, is worlds away from doing so and the Russian teachers were well aware about the capabilties of their pupils and what was at hand in China. Most tools came from Russia.
In 1958 the Chinese/Russian technicans/students/teacher/instructor had no real idea what will be in 1961. No cristal view into the future for all. The ZK in Moscow and Bejing may have had a further view. The documents/testimonies from that time gives away, the main rift was the demand of Mao, who claimed the atomic-weapons for China as an equal communist brother state with the most numerous population. Negotations about that goes on about that and the friendly relation-ships cooled down.
Russia refused. (Tibet, India showed, that China is willing to claim its rights with force)
In the 60s the “culture-revolution”. Just at the moment, all Russian educated/influenced aviation people forget their roots and started something total new, based on? Why not the E-152/1, it was never intended for series production.
Just to test the coming Uragan 5 automatic interception system. The E-150/151/152/2
were testbeds for the coming R-15 engine. The E-152/2(E-166) flew some records, but the enduser of the R-15 was the E-266. Out of question is, that nearly all parts of
the J-8 prototypes had some relationship to Russian technic. If those are based totally on the E-152/1, I see myself with a question-mark. The overall design (blueprints at hand) could not have been built 1 to 1, to all parts available from Chinese production.
The same problems with J-7 and J-12.
For decades ago, I was not interested in Chinese built fighters, so I may have missed some rare moments, when pics and data of the J-8 prototypes were published. The GDR FR wrote in communist time, the E-152/1 blueprints were sold to China. Does someone still have pics/data, at least from China. I never heard about the loss of both prototypes and the overall data/pics are not a military secret?!What has changed in the PLAAF doctrine during the mid 80s?
Sens have yuo ever read a German book or webpage in which the Ye-152/J-8 deal was report besides the Russian page of Test pilots
Sign In
