Let me tell you again, and save you the saliva. There is no YE-152 input. There are notable differences in the in both aircraft—J-8I has a thinner wing cord, has wing fences, little or no spine, smaller inlet, wings that are more sharply angled, and a body that is considerably slender. It defeats the purpose of copying if you are going to make significant changes in the airframe and the plane’s aerodynamic quailties. Even the inlet changes means significant differences on how the airflow into the engines can be calculated, whch also affects the way the “tunnels” inside the jet is designed. The J-8I prototypes, if you looked at photos in one of the Chinese links I gave above, was virtually identical to the serial production.

You seem to think that aircraft production and design can be plug and play. TOTALLY WRONG. An airframe is not like that. They are totally designed like they are, as a whole from nose to tail. Even seemingly small changes can mean total changes in the way stress lines are run throughout the length of an entire aircraft. An airframe is very inflexible—you either copy it exactly, or you have to work the entire thing from scratch.

(For that matter, the only thing the J-8II shares with the J-8I is the designation and the engines—the airframe is totally new).

The J-8I program was already being developed when the CR happened. So again, your theory flopped on this point.

How did the Chinese knew about secret Russian prototypes—they DIDN’T.

And Strevitel, anyone can make a freakin web page and put their opinions on it BUT THAT DOES NOT MAKE IT AUTHORITATIVE.

Other than the inlets and the ventral fin, it is quite foolish and stupid for you to associate the MiG-23 to the J-8II when both have completely different aerodynamic configurations, different engines, different flight regimes, and very DIFFERENT dimensions.

Crobato i like to exchange ideas with you, you are right about the webpage but we should consudere any webpage with the same amount of credebility until we find the most reliable source but i we say this webpage is rubish because it does not say what i want to hear that is not history but rather propaganda, and that happens to everyone so we need to relax and be objective and try to balance the contradictory reports you find on the internet.

Crobato, that was pointed out to Strevitel at the very beginning of these posts 😀

I could say if the Jane`s report was edit well it could be they made a mistake and did not know the PL-11 range i feel i will take another Chinese press release to clarify the whole issue, since Jane`s did not mention range well we are still in the air so i will look forward for another report to see the range and as Jane`s i will refrain to say the range because there are many ranges quoted and many are guessing or assumptions so to me it is still unclear but if you have a good Chinese link from CCTV, China National Import & Export Corporation or Xinhua news i will be open to believe the range but by no means i give a range of 75km as niether i will to a 25km or 150km because i have not access to Jane`s and becasue if Jane`s indeed made a mistake they refrained to say any number for the range becasue they do not beleive either the 75km assuption made only time will tell and i prefer to wait a couple of months or perhaps years to know the true than assume any number siince there are a pletora of ranges for the PL-11 and to me all reflect the lack of knowledge about the PL-11 but if they did not mention the range for any other reason than a mistake or lack of knowledge such as involuntary omission i feel Jane`s report is the most believable from the whole pletora i have read

To Flogger,

I think your assumption of J-8I is based on E152 is simply based on the fact that they look similar. if you look at Sino-Soviet relationship closely, you will understand that their relationship was never an easy alliance. Ever since 1949, China and SU already had some border disagreement, both sides restrained themselvs for a “greater cause”. Even during Stalin era, soviets disagreed on China having a strategic capability eg: having a submarine force, have a long range bomber force (small number of TU-4 were delivered to China as a token of good will on Mao’s birthday), have nuclear weapons. The soviets actually started reduce their tech assistance after 1957, and pull out their tech advisors completely in 1961. So you see, there is no way that SU would provide blue prints of a experimental aircraft to China, (E152 was still top secret before 1961). Mig-21-F13 was completely delivered in 1961, because the agreement was made before 1959, and the negotiations started as early as manufacturing of the first Chinese Mig-17 took place, and thats 1956. You simply cant say that an a/c is a copy of another because they look similar, in that case, we can claim F-15 is a copy of Mig-25.

Zheng 1980 😀 greetings

I am not so naive to say because they look alike they are related but if you have followed the thread and read the post i gave to all of you for a Russian link in which the Author claimed the Russians delivered the Ye-152 Blue prints to China in fact this link was the reason of the Whole debate.

Many said you links is wrong, others gave a link in which the MiG-21 is quoted as the ancestor of the J-8,

Sens supported the idea and the link i gave in some way.
I personally do not consider my self an expert in the J-8 but i said i feel there is some true in such statement.
About the MiG-23MS delivered to China by Egypt; also some have admitted that there is definitively a reversed engineered inlet and ventral fins in the J-8II, others do not think so i feel there is undoubtedly a relation between the MiG-23MS and the J-8II.
there are reasons why many opposed the idea of that the Russians have influenced the J-8/J-8II and have denied or at least said that there is limited Russian involvement in the J-8/J-8II program and it is because of the Chinese prefer thier local designation instead of the Russian original, me my self i think the Chinese avaition History has a tremendous Russian input that is denied by many by just either quoting the Chinese local designations and forgeting the original Russian designation.
The probelm in the J-8/ J-8II is the same many deny any Russian input and glorify a supposed domestic program that all throught out it`s development has Russian inputs due to the lack of maturity of many Chinese technologies.

In the Picture the J-8II from the Front and the MiG-23 from the front see if the inlets are not identical, are they or are not ?l

There never was a VG/MiG-23 style configuration concept for J-9. Around mid 70s, all the other configuration were dropped in favor of the canard configuration. And I don’t know why you would want to refer to MiG-23PD. Did the Chinese obtained a MiG-23PD to help with their J-9?

I never said a VG version buit the direct lift MiG-23PD aircraft, the MiG-23PD looks quit simialr to one of the configurations the one of the picture of my previous post that looks like a MiG-23/Mirage III but has a rear MiG-21PD fuselage, i do not think so but one of the configurations was similar to the MiG-23PD to solve the lack of space for a Radar in the MiG-21/J-7 and J-8 programs

J-9 is a canard fighter, Q-6 is a VG striker, do you suggest they get MiG-23 to help with the J-9 project instead of Q-6? Or are you still suggesting the Q-6 is a non-existent project, simply an excuse made up by the Chinese? BTW, both J-9 and Q-6 projects were canned.

that is only one of the configurations there were others like a MiG-21/MiG-23 hybrid or a single engine J-8II in fact very similar to the MiG-23PD

Listen to me. The Saphire 23 does not have multiple targeting capability. Who do you think dictates the multiple targeting—it is the radar that tracks and locks the target and guides the missiles. It is the Apaulet who has that, not the Saphir 23. The Apaulet is more than just an antenna, it is a seperate fire control system. Without the Apaulet, the MiG-23 cannot do it. And remember, the Apaulet never went into service.

You are right i never said the Saphire will do it by it self i said the appaulet allows multitarget engagement capability to the Saphire-23 weapons system

Why don’t you read your own text carefully. The Apaulet does the tracking, illumination and guidance of the missiles. So what does the Saphir 23 is left to do—just search.

Now you’re contradicting your own sources. Bleh.

I amnot contradicting my self even if the Saphire does the search and the Appaulete does the tracking that is a weapons system allowing the Saphire-23 weapons system multitarget engagement capability thanks to the additional Apaullete antenna 😀

Which I honestly don’t believe. For the R-77 you need a bit more than that. If you honestly think it’s that simply, why are they proposing the entire Moskit 23 radar change or the Apaulet? If it was that simple why didn’t they actually do it?

An assistant?

First of all, I don’t remember nowhere in the text mentioned that the Apaulet gives the Saphir 23 multiple targeting capability.

Second, the Saphir 23 is only repositioned as a search radar only. Read the text carefully. The Saphir 23 only does searches, but the tracking, locking and guidance of the AA-10 and AA-12 is done by the Apaulet. So practically, much of the Saphir 23’s functionality is subverted, turning it into nothing but a glorified search radar.

Third, the Bulgarians do not have R-77 capable MiG-23s so mind me I don’t consider the opinions of some Bulgarian fan sites to be authoritative if they said the MiG-23MLD has multiple targeting capability.

Well if you do not believe the webpage that is your personal decision is up to you but it does not change the facts.
The Appaulete and the Moskit 21K will do the main work of course, but if you read the appaulette is an adjuntant Radar and is so small that works as an additional radar antenna, the Moskit 21K is bigger but any way it proves they will work in conjuction with the Saphire if not they just would have replaced the Saphire and save weight, what ever the task the Saphire is playing is still in the MiG-23MLD in fact the Appaulete and the Saphire are a weapons system aided by the IRST so the MiG-23MLD capability is plausible and the Bulagarians they never said their MiG-23MLD but only the Russians ones